Executive Summary
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Vee Excel Drugs challenging the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to cancel two pharmaceutical trademarks: 'VEGA ASIA' and 'VEGAH TABLETS'. The core issue revolved around determining prior use, particularly when one mark was registered on a 'proposed to be used basis.' The Court upheld the IPAB's finding that the subsequent user had the better right, emphasizing that the High Court should not re-appreciate evidence while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd vs Hab Pharmaceuticals And Research Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Pfizer Inc.vsEverest Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Pfizer Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for infringement of Indian Patents Nos. 241773 and 218212, which cover Tofacitinib (XELJANZ(R)). The plaintiffs alleged that defendants were illegally manufacturing and selling generic versions under the brand 'TOFAXEN'.
Kamat Hotels (India) LimitedvsRoyal Orchid Hotels Limited
Kamat Hotels challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to dismiss its rectification application, arguing that the rival mark 'Royal Orchid' infringed upon its well-known trademark 'The Orchid'. The Madras High Court upheld the IPAB's finding, concluding that the respondent had established prior use of their mark. The court emphasized that proceedings before a higher court are liable to be stayed during pending appellate proceedings under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act.
Gopal Krishan S/O. Sh. Mangat RaivsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks (Govt. Of India)
This writ petition was filed by Gopal Krishan seeking a direction from the High Court to expedite the registration of his trademark 'PANTHER' in Class 5. The petitioner highlighted that the application had been pending for an extended period since 2015. The court issued notices to the respondents, setting a timeline of six weeks for the matter to be returned, thereby moving the case forward.
Communication Components Antenna Inc.vsMobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The appeal challenges a single judge's decision that invalidated the Appellant's patent (IN240893). The Appellant argues that the ground of Section 64(1)(h) was not pleaded or evidenced, while the Respondent seeks to uphold the revocation based on various sections of the Patents Act.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & AnrvsActis Generics Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiffs, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., filed a suit seeking an injunction against Actis Generics Pvt Ltd for infringing Patent No. IN'816, which covers the compound Sitagliptin. The court examined the prima facie case and found that the Defendant was distributing and selling infringing Sitagliptin API without authorization.
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.
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.