Manohar Singh v. Shyam Singh

C.S.No.399 of 2007

Manohar Singh filed a civil suit against Shyam Singh and others, alleging infringement of his registered trade marks ('Singh') and associated copyrights in connection with mehandi products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'Raju Singh' and 'Ram Singh'. However, due to the plaintiff's lack of cooperation in recording oral evidence over the years, the court ultimately dismissed the suit for non-prosecution.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
C.S.No.399 of 2007
Judge(s)
Abdul Quddhose

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Manohar Singh vs Shyam Singh is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentN/A (Referenced T.M.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1989)

Hardie Trading Limited And Anr.vsAddisons Paints And Chemicals Ltd. And ...

This complex dispute centered on the rights to use the 'SPARTAN' trade mark and an associated warrior device in the paints industry. The case involved multiple stages, including initial opposition proceedings, subsequent litigation before the Calcutta High Court regarding usage rights, and finally, appeals concerning trademark registration status. The court ultimately addressed procedural issues, emphasizing that the Registrar's discretion to refuse a stay was valid given the history of obstructive tactics by the appellants.

patentCS(COMM) 604/2025

Malti GuptavsSunil Kumar Seth & Anr.

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Malti Gupta against Sunil Kumar Seth & Anr. The court found a prima facie case existed regarding the infringement of the registered wordmark 'ROJGAR RESULT' and associated device mark. The defendants were immediately restrained from using the plaintiff's trademark on their competing websites, www.sarkariexam.com and www.sarkariresult.com, and were ordered to delete all infringing content.

patentCS (COMM) 470/2021

Ramada International, IncvsLa-Ramada World Private Limited & Anr

The Delhi High Court reinforced the existing ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ramada International, Inc against La-Ramada World Private Limited. Finding that the defendants continued unauthorized use of the 'RAMADA' mark across various digital platforms and domains despite prior court orders, the court made the injunction absolute during the pendency of the suit. Furthermore, to ensure compliance, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner with extensive powers to seize evidence, including pamphlets and server data, and mandate the shutdown of infringing social media accounts.

patent(T)OP(TM)/228/2023

India International Technical InstitutevsTerala Educational Society

The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by India International Technical Institute seeking the cancellation of a registered trademark, 'SANSKRITI,' held by Terala Educational Society. The court noted that the mark's last registration was valid only up to March 23, 2020, and its renewal had long expired. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the certificate and remove the entry from the Register within one month.

patent(T)CMA(PT)/104/2023 (OA/15/2018/PT/CHN)

Monsanto Technology, LLCvsAssistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office

Monsanto Technology appealed the order of the Assistant Controller which refused to patent two independent claims related to transgenic soybean plants. The appellant argued that if objections were raised, at least the remaining eleven claims should have been patented. The High Court found the respondent had not applied its mind wholly to all claims.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call