M/s.STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITED v. WHEELS INDIA LIMITED

OP(PT) No.60 of 2023 (ORA/2/2021/PT/CH)

The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 269220, granted to Wheels India Limited for 'Vehicle Wheels Having Non-Constant Thickness Rims'. The petitioner raised grounds including lack of novelty and inventive step. The court examined these grounds and partially revoked the patent while maintaining certain claims subject to amendment.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
OP(PT) No.60 of 2023 (ORA/2/2021/PT/CH)
Judge(s)
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/s.STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITED vs WHEELS INDIA LIMITED is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 119/2020

Ht Media Limited & Anr.vsBrainlink International, Inc. & Anr.

In a dispute concerning the domain name www.hindustan.com, the Delhi High Court facilitated a settlement between Ht Media Limited and Brainlink International. The court suggested that if the defendants agree to pay an agreed lump sum in costs, they will withdraw all oppositions filed against the plaintiff's trademarks and also drop their suit in the USA. This arrangement aims to bring a definitive end to the ongoing disputes between both parties.

patentCS(COMM) 246/2024, I.A. 6537/2024, I.A. 6538/2024, I.A. 6539/2024 & I.A. 6540/2024

Mankind Pharma LimitedvsPassiflora Pharmaceuticals

Mankind Pharma Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Passiflora Pharmaceuticals, alleging trademark infringement of its registered mark 'FLORA' in the pharmaceutical sector. The court addressed several interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and setting timelines for filing replies to the injunction application (Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC). The proceedings are moving forward with standard civil procedure steps, indicating an active dispute over brand reputation and market goodwill.

patentCS(COMM) 836/2024

The Hershey CompanyvsAshok Kumar & Ors.

The Hershey Company successfully sought the expansion of its existing interim injunction against new parties found to be engaging in trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to implead several new defendants and extended the protective order, specifically restraining them from using or reproducing the company's name and marks on domains like THEHERSHEYCOMPANY.IN. This ruling reinforces the court's willingness to expand injunctive relief when evidence reveals additional infringing parties.

patentCS(COMM) 692/2021 & CS(COMM) 707/2021

Interdigital Technology CorporationvsGuangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.

The suit involved Interdigital Technology Corporation alleging infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by Guangdong Oppo Mobile. The parties filed interlocutory applications regarding document discovery and the constitution of a confidentiality club. The court ruled that defendants must disclose their agreements with Qualcomm, while rejecting plaintiffs' request for Ericsson and Orange S.A. agreements.

patentC.S. (Comm. Div) No.308 of 2023

M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd.vsM/s.Ganesh Oil Mills

M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd filed a suit against M/s. Ganesh Oil Mills alleging infringement of its registered Trade Mark 'Gold Winner' and copyright violation related to the packaging of edible oil. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, directions for destruction of infringing materials, and an accounting of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a mutual agreement and settled the dispute through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise (JMC).

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