Shaperon Inc. v. The Controller General Of Patents And Designs, Mumbai and Anr.

Oa/6/2018/Pt/Kol (IPDPTA/68/2023)

Shaperon Inc. appealed an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, Kolkata, challenging its validity. The appellant contended that the Deputy Controller failed to consider crucial expert evidence provided by Dr. Seung-yong Seong regarding the invention's technical advancement and advantages. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to this procedural lapse.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Calcutta High Court
Case Number
Oa/6/2018/Pt/Kol (IPDPTA/68/2023)
Judge(s)
Ravi Krishan Kapur

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Calcutta High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Shaperon Inc. vs The Controller General Of Patents And Designs, Mumbai and Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentWP227 No. 581 of 2025

Chandan Sadija & Vikas NahlanivsNeeraj Jewellery & Nishant Gupta

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Commercial Court's jurisdiction in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The petitioners argued that the court lacked territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, as the original trademark originated outside Chhattisgarh. However, the High Court upheld the lower court's finding, noting that the defendants were operating within Chhattisgarh and that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded their cause of action and valued the suit above the required threshold for commercial court jurisdiction.

patentFAO-IPD 6/2022 & CM APPL. 3510/2022

The Chartered Institute Of TaxationvsInstitute Of Chatered Tax Advisers Of India Ltd

The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by The Chartered Institute Of Taxation against a lower court's dismissal of its interim injunction application regarding the trademark 'ADIT'. The Court found that the Respondent, Institute of Chartered Tax Advisers of India Ltd., was likely to cause enormous harm by using a similar name and mark. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the Defendant must refrain from launching any course under the name 'ADIT' while the main suit is pending.

patentCS(COMM) 171/2025, I.A. 5108/2025 to I.A. 5112/2025

Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company LimitedvsNicenic International Group Company Limited & Ors.

Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its registered trademarks, 'Niva' and 'Bupa,' through content creation and circulation. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the trademark infringement claims and noted that the matter required specialized handling. Consequently, the court ordered the papers to be placed before the IP Division of the Court for appropriate listing.

patentCS(COMM) 639/2024

INCYTE HOLDINGS CORPORATIONvsDR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing copyright. The defendant raised defenses regarding service of documents and asserted that its activities are limited to permissible uses under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.

patentIPDTMA/14-21/2024

Dunlop International Limited (and Dunlop Slazenger Group Ltd.)vsGlorious Investment Limited And Anr.

The Calcutta High Court set aside multiple appeals concerning the registration of the 'Dunlop' word mark. The core dispute revolved around the validity of assignments made by Dunlop India Ltd. during its liquidation period, which were used by Glorious Investment Limited to secure trademark rights in various classes. Given serious questions regarding fraud, natural justice violations, and the limited jurisdiction of the Registrar concerning assignment validity, the Court remanded all matters back for a fresh hearing after ensuring all parties are heard.

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