Ayur United Care LLP v. Union Of India & Anr.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals IncorporatedvsController General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals challenged notices and orders issued by the Controller General regarding its patent application for a cystic fibrosis treatment compound. The core legal question was whether a pre-grant opposition could be entertained after the patent had already been granted by the Controller. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Vertex, holding that once the Controller grants the patent, they become functus officio and cannot legally entertain subsequent oppositions.

Regenesance B.V.vsUnion of India

Regenesance B.V. challenged the Patent Office's order that deemed its patent application abandoned because it failed to reply to the First Examination Report (FER) within the stipulated time. The petitioner argued that the timeline should not be treated as inflexible, especially when procedural delays are common in the patent office process. The Madras High Court agreed, emphasizing that statutory interpretation must promote and preserve scientific temper, allowing for a reasonable view of the matter.

ArcelormittalvsThe Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr

Arcelormittal appealed an order dated 07.05.2024 which held that its patent application regarding a method for producing tin containing nongrain-oriented silicon steel sheet was neither inventive nor sufficiently disclosed. The court accepted the exemption and issued directions for further proceedings, including filing written synopses by both parties.

Puneet Chhabra Proprietor Of Rama Wire IndustriesvsKewal Krishan Bansal Proprietor Of M/S Vee Pee Bansal And Company

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Rama Wire Industries (the appellant) seeking interim protection against a suit brought by Vee Pee Bansal and Company (the respondent). The core dispute involved allegations of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement. The court found that the appellant's claim to hold a copyright in its mark was dishonest, noting the striking similarity between the marks. Consequently, the court declined to grant any interim order in favor of the appellant.

Rahul Mishra & Anr.vsJohn Doe & Anr.

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of fashion designer Rahul Mishra, restraining defendants from using or dealing in goods deceptively similar to his registered trademarks and trade names. The court also directed the defendant operating the website www.rahudress.com to immediately suspend the domain name and disclose complete details of the primary infringing entity (Defendant No. 1). This order protects both trademark rights and copyright/design rights related to Mishra's luxury apparel.