Unilever Plc v. Preeti Ice Creams

Devi Cropscience Pvt LtdvsSDS Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited

Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd filed suit against SDS Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited alleging infringement of its process and product patents related to a flowering stimulant containing Nitrobenzene. The court granted permanent injunctions in favor of the plaintiff, provided that the defendant was not manufacturing the product 'Dynamic Super' from November 2015 onwards.

Milliken And CompanyvsController Of Patents And Designs & Anr.

Milliken And Company appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant an Indian patent application. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider a crucial expert statement by Dr. Nathan A Mehl. The High Court found merit in the appeal, holding that foreign decisions are not binding and directing the matter back for fresh consideration.

Black Diamond Motors Pvt LtdvsRegistrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Black Diamond Track Parts Pvt. Ltd.

This statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 challenged an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, which allowed the rectification applicant to file an evidence affidavit under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 despite a delay of over three years. The core legal issue was whether the deadline stipulated in Rule 45 for filing an evidence affidavit is mandatory or directory. The Bombay High Court held that the deadline is directory and not mandatory, disagreeing with the Delhi High Court's decisions in Sun Pharma and Mahesh Gupta, and instead endorsing the view expressed by the IPAB in Sahil Kohli. The petition was dismissed and the Impugned Order was upheld, with no costs awarded.

3M Innovative Properties CompanyvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 20174704977) by the Controller, which cited Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that the invention was a computer program/implementable method. The High Court found that the Controller failed to narrow down the reasoning and deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to respond to the specific objection (computer program vs. mathematical/statistical), leading to the matter being remanded for fresh consideration.

Punam FlutesvsMahesh Chand Gupta And Anr

The Delhi High Court allowed Punam Flutes' petition seeking the cancellation of a conflicting trademark registration ('PUNAM'). The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner's prior and well-established mark, 'PUNAM FLUTES,' used for musical instruments. Given the strong potential for consumer confusion and the Petitioner's established market reputation, the Court ruled that the Respondent's registration could not sustain under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act.