Automotive — India Patent Cases
182 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 7 · 182 total
Aventose Energy Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
M/s. Simpleenergy Private Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office, Chennai
Simpleenergy Private Limited, an electric vehicle company, filed a stay petition (CMP No. 23555 of 2026) in its appeal (CMA(PT) No. 32 of 2026) against the Controller of Patents' order dated 01.04.2026 rejecting Patent Application No. 202341071388. The petitioner's counsel fairly conceded that the patent application itself had been dismissed, rendering nothing for further consideration. The Madras High Court dismissed the stay petition as infructuous.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.Hostinger Operations UAB & 4 Others (Fino Payments Bank Limited, Sachin Kumar, Rohit Kumar, John Doe operating ashokaleyland.com)
Ashok Leyland Limited filed three Original Applications seeking ad interim injunctions against the respondents for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off arising from the use of its registered marks 'LEYLAND' and 'ASHOK LEYLAND' and the impugned domain name 'ashokaleyland.com'. The respondents included a Lithuanian web hosting company, a payments bank, two John Doe individuals, and an unknown operator of the infringing website. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an order of interim injunction until the next hearing date.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB
Eicher Motors Limited, the proprietor of the Royal Enfield brand and the registered owner of the 'REOWN' trademark across multiple classes, filed an application for an ad-interim injunction against Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB, alleging infringement of its 'REOWN' trademark and its formatives by the defendants' use of the mark 'REOWN MOTO / RM REOWN MOTO'. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents and directed the matter to be listed on 18.09.2026. An order of interim stay was granted as prayed for, restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark in any manner until the next hearing date.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.GoDaddy.com LLC and Another (John Doe operating ashokleylandevdealer.com)
Ashok Leyland Limited filed an application seeking an ad-interim injunction against GoDaddy.com LLC and an unknown John Doe respondent operating the website 'ashokleylandevdealer.com', alleging infringement of its registered trademarks including LEYLAND, ASHOK LEYLAND, AVTR, VIKING, and LEYLAND DOST. The applicant sought to restrain the respondents from using marks identical or deceptively similar to its registered trademarks in classes 7 and 12. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted private notice and service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an order of interim stay until the next hearing date of 25 September 2026.
Simpleenergy Private Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office, Chennai
Simpleenergy Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the Controller of Patents, Chennai, in Patent Application No. 202341071388. The respondent did not appear or file any objections despite private notice being served. The Madras High Court allowed the condonation petition, granting the appellant relief with no costs.
M/s. MRF Limited v.Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries
M/s. MRF Limited filed four Original Applications (OA Nos. 713 to 716 of 2026) before the Madras High Court seeking ad interim injunctions against Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries, for allegedly using the marks 'MRF/MRF GENUINE/MRF BATTERIES' which are identical to MRF Limited's registered trademarks. The applications sought relief on grounds of trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement, and unfair competition/dilution of goodwill. The court, satisfied with the materials showing infringement of the registered trademark, granted an order of interim injunction as prayed for and issued notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks.
TVS Motor Company Limited v.Ram Chandra Maurya & Ors.
TVS Motor Company Limited, a leading manufacturer of two-wheelers and three-wheelers, filed a commercial suit seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction against Ram Chandra Maurya and others who had been issuing cease-and-desist notices alleging copyright infringement based on two copyright registrations for literary works titled 'Motion's Fourth and Fifth Law' and 'Motion's Sixth Law'. The Delhi High Court found that the Defendants had been unsuccessful in proving copyright violation before the Copyright Authority and up to the Supreme Court, and that patent applications for the same subject matter had been abandoned. The Court held that the impugned notice constituted groundless threats of legal proceedings under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from issuing such threats.
M/S. Motherson Through Its Partners V.C. Sehgal, Vidhi Sehgal and Laksh Vaaman Sehgal v.Motherson Industries Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S. Motherson, restraining Motherson Industries Private Limited from using the trademark 'MOTHERSON'. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's use of the mark would amount to infringement of their registered trademark. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and granted exemption from pre-institution mediation. The matter is listed for further hearing on October 29, 2026.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Toyota's appeal, directing the removal of Tech Square Engineering's registration for the mark ALPHARD. The court found that Toyota had established prior adoption and spill-over reputation of the mark in India. The respondent's adoption of the mark was found to lack bona fides. The court ordered the rectification of the Register of Trade Marks to reflect the removal of the impugned mark.
Global Car Group Pte. Limited v.Vienna IT Solutions Private Limited
Petitioners, owners of the trademark 'Cars24' and domain 'Cars24.com', challenged an arbitral award that dismissed their complaint seeking transfer of the disputed domain name 'cars24.in'. The petitioners argued that the respondent was engaging in domain squatting and lacked bona fide use. However, the Delhi District Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the original arbitral award.
Karan Rathore v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Karan Rathore appealed a decision by the Registrar of Trade Marks that dismissed his opposition against the registration of the mark 'JBR'. The dispute centered on whether 'JBR' was likely to cause confusion with Karan Rathore's pre-existing device mark used for motor parts and automotive accessories. The court allowed the appeal, finding that both marks were identical and the goods were similar enough to warrant refusal.
Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. v.Mr. Hari Kishan Pippal And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs in favor of Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. in its trademark infringement suit against Mr. Hari Kishan Pippal and others. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, recognizing the risk of defendants concealing infringing operations, the court allowed an exemption from advance service, permitting the immediate filing of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction application and the appointment of a Local Commissioner for inspection of goods.
Castrol Limited v.Vivek Pratap Singh
The Delhi High Court allowed Castrol Limited's appeal, recognizing that the respondent was engaged in blatant counterfeiting of its motor oil brand. The court emphasized the severe public safety risk associated with substandard counterfeit engine oils. Consequently, the court directed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inventory and take custody of the infringing products, granting immediate relief to protect the appellant's market and consumers.
XX v.Y
The Delhi High Court allowed the commercial suit filed by XX against Y, which alleges infringement of trademarks and designs related to 'HERO Genuine engine oil.' The court granted several procedural reliefs, including masking party identities and exempting the plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the relief sought. Crucially, the court permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises, seize infringing stock, and ascertain its value, paving the way for immediate interim protection.
M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a 'Vehicle Frame Assembly' due to lack of inventive step and other objections. The appellant argued that their design, which mounts a utility box on gusset plates instead of cross members, provides surprising technical effects like enhanced strength and optimized space utilization. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the application for reconsideration.
M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for "Vehicle Frame Assembly" on grounds including lack of inventive step, exclusion under Section 3(f), and formal requirements. The appellant argued that the rejection failed to follow a proper five-step analysis when assessing obviousness against cited prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for reconsideration.
Omnidya Tech Llp v.Jayant Ratti & Ors.
Omnidya Tech Llp filed petitions seeking revocation of two Indian patents (IN 317629 and IN 373372) before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the relevant respondents and directed them to file their replies within six weeks.
XX v.Y
The Delhi High Court granted several critical reliefs to the Plaintiffs in their trademark infringement suit against Y. The court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed without mandatory pre-institution mediation, masked the parties' identities during initial proceedings, and permitted an ex parte interim injunction supported by a Local Commissioner's commission. This decision allows the plaintiffs, who own the 'HERO' brand, to swiftly investigate and address the alleged sale of counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts.
M/s Prominal Electric Vehicle Private Limited v.The State of West Bengal
Petitioners, e-rickshaw manufacturers, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns about patent holder's exclusive rights. The Court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to a pending title suit.
M/S Sunhok Wheels Pvt. Ltd. v.The State Of West Bengal
Petitioners, manufacturers of e-rickshaws, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns raised by a private respondent claiming patent rights over the technology. The court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to pending title suits.
Hero Motocorp Limited v.Tarbolin Lubricants Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Motocorp Limited in its suit against Tarbolin Lubricants Private Limited. The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, leading to the appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with inspecting and ascertaining the value of infringing products bearing similar designs and trade-dress of Hero Engine Oil, allowing for their seizure on Superdari. This order reinforces the court's willingness to grant immediate protective measures against alleged design and trademark infringement.
Kanishk Sinha v.State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha, the patent holder of e-rickshaws/e-vehicles, appealed a judgment that had previously directed registration authorities to register these vehicles. The court held that questions regarding exclusive rights, compulsory licensing, and compensation are matters for pending civil suits or statutory fora under the Patents Act, not writ jurisdiction.
Kanishk Sinha v.State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha appealed against an order that disposed of a writ petition filed by e-rickshaw manufacturers seeking registration authority direction. The original dispute involved the patent holder (appellant) seeking damages and injunctions against infringers for manufacturing without a license. The court held that questions regarding exclusive rights, compulsory licensing, and compensation are matters for pending civil suits or statutory fora under the Patents Act, not writ jurisdiction.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Ranjan Kumar Yadav Owner Of Anavi Collection
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit against Ranjan Kumar Yadav for infringement of its well-known trademarks, including 'Levi's', in relation to clothing and accessories. The court proceeded ex parte against the defendant due to non-appearance and found that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks on inferior quality goods.
Ceat Limited v.Ramu Kushwha & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Ceat Limited, filed an interim application alleging infringement of its trade mark 'CEAT' and copyright in its artistic label by the Defendants using similar marks ('CREATA', 'CATE') and artwork. The court granted temporary injunctions restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods bearing these infringing marks/artworks.
Force Motors Limited v.Houstan Innovations Llp
The Delhi High Court addressed several interim applications in the dispute between Force Motors Limited and Houstan Innovations LLP. While allowing procedural requests like filing additional documents, the court focused heavily on the request for an ad-interim injunction against trademark infringement and passing off. Recognizing the Plaintiff's established goodwill with 'FORCE', the court granted a temporary restraint order, preventing the Defendant from using the similar mark 'GT FORCE' in relation to identical or similar products until the next hearing date.
Triumph Designs Limited v.Tube Investments Of India And Anr
The Calcutta High Court addressed an application filed under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of a mark based on non-use. While the core issue remains pending, the court granted a short adjournment to allow for the appearance of counsel from Chennai. The respondent was directed to pay costs before the next hearing date.
Ntn Corporation v.Assistant Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ntn Corporation against the Assistant Registrar's decision to allow the registration of the trade mark 'NTW'. The court held that despite arguments regarding phonetic and visual similarity between 'NTN' and 'NTW', the marks were not deceptively similar. Furthermore, the court rejected the appellant's claims of prior use, concluding that the difference in letters ('W' vs 'N') was sufficient to distinguish the two trademarks.
Proprietect L P v.The Controller Of Patents
Proprietect L P appealed a rejection order passed by the Controller of Patents concerning its application for a foam laminate product used in vehicle interiors. The appellant argued that the rejection was non-speaking, failed to consider their submissions, and introduced new grounds (Section 10(5)) at the final stage, violating natural justice. The High Court agreed, setting aside the order and remanding the matter.
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.