U. Varadaraya Nayak v. S.K. Anand & Ors.

S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt LtdvsH.R.Marketing

S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd successfully secured a judgment against H.R.Marketing in the Madras High Court regarding alleged infringement and passing off related to their product label and trade dress. Although the suit involved claims under both Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act, the parties reached a memorandum of compromise. The court decreed the suit based on this settlement, granting permanent injunctions and ordering the destruction of all infringing materials.

Nokia Technologies OyvsGuangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.

Nokia appealed a single judge's order that dismissed its application for a pro-tem security deposit. Nokia claimed infringement based on its extensive portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) used by Oppo in smartphones. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, finding that a prima facie case of infringement was made out and directing Oppo to deposit the last paid amount attributable to India.

Syngenta Crop Protection AgvsAssistant Controller Of Patents

Syngenta Crop Protection Ag challenged the refusal of its patent application, which covered methods for controlling rice plant infestations using a specific compound. The initial rejection was based on the argument that these methods constituted 'methods of agriculture' and were thus unpatentable under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court overturned this decision, holding that a method of treating plants is distinct from fundamental agricultural practices. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Controller for fresh examination.

Diageo Brands B.V.vsAlcobrew Distilleries India Pvt Ltd

Diageo Brands B.V. filed an application seeking injunction against Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt Ltd, alleging piracy of their registered Design No. 306577. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's product design was a fraudulent imitation of Diageo's protected design. The court examined complex issues regarding the scope of novelty analysis versus infringement analysis and the appropriate 'eye' (instructed vs. ordinary purchaser) for comparison. Ultimately, the court found that the distinguishing features used to establish the suit design's originality also differentiated it from the defendant's impugned design, leading to the dismissal of the injunction application.

Ibrum TechnologiesvsThe Controller of Patents

Ibrum Technologies appealed the dismissal of its patent application for an Intelligent Indoor Air Quality Monitoring System. The rejection was based on non-compliance with various sections of the Patents Act, but the appellant argued that the Controller's proceedings were flawed because their oral submissions were interrupted mid-argument. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller.