Cosmetics — India Patent Cases
15 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 15 total
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies filed an application seeking to amend and file an auxiliary claim set in their patent appeal. The core legal question was whether such amendments were permissible at the appellate stage and if they complied with Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court analyzed precedents regarding amendment powers and found that the proposed changes narrowed the scope of the original claims by adding specific agents. Consequently, the court allowed the amendments and took the auxiliary claims on record.
Goodai Global Inc v.Shahnawaz Siddiqu & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Goodai Global Inc against Shahnawaz Siddiqu & Anr., directing the removal of an identical device mark registration (No. 5635163) in Class 3. The court found that the respondent obtained the mark dishonestly and in bad faith, attempting to trade upon the petitioner's established goodwill associated with its 'Beauty of Joseon' brand. Given the clear intent to appropriate the petitioner's reputation, the registration was deemed liable for cancellation under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
Spv Laboratories Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the refusal by the Assistant Controller to restore Patent No. 403793, which had lapsed due to non-payment of the renewal fee. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by a family exigency involving its attorney and that the restoration application was filed within the prescribed period. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
Spv Laboratories Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Spv Laboratories Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the order dated June 14, 2024, issued by the Assistant Controller. The refusal was based on non-compliance with requirements under Section 60(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, due to failure to pay the renewal fee within the statutory period.
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents that refused to grant a patent for 'Leave-on Compositions Containing Cellulose Materials' due to lack of inventive step. The core dispute revolved around the prior art cited against the application, particularly documents in Japanese. The court condoned procedural delays and directed remedial steps to ensure translated copies of the foreign language prior art were made available before listing the case for final hearing.
L'Oreal S.A. v.Tarun Sankhla trading as M/s LEORA COSMETICS
L'Oreal S.A. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Tarun Sankhla (trading as M/s LEORA COSMETICS) for infringing its trademarks, passing off, and diluting its brand reputation in the cosmetics market. The court found that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks and tradenames, leading to the decreeing of the plaintiff's suit.
M/s. L'Oreal S.A. v.M/s. J.R. Cosmetic Shop
The plaintiff, L'Oreal S.A., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, J.R. Cosmetic Shop, was manufacturing and selling goods using trademarks deceptively similar to its well-known brands like L'OREAL and MAYBELLINE in Hyderabad. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
L'OREAL v.Haridas Pa
The plaintiff, L'Oreal, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its trademarks ('L'OREAL', 'L'OREAL PROFESSIONNEL', 'L'OREAL PARIS') and passing off. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks (LOERA, LORA) in relation to beauty care products and services, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
M/s.Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd. v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The suit was filed by M/s.Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd. seeking a declaration that its cosmetic composition did not infringe Patent No.169917 and requesting a permanent injunction against Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The court found that the subject patent had already expired in 2009, rendering the claims of infringement and the request for an injunction moot.
Amit Jain v.Ayurveda Herbal & Ors
Amit Jain filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ayurveda Herbal and others for infringing his registered designs used on plastic bottles and tubes for cosmetic products. The plaintiff claimed ownership through assignment of several design registrations. However, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the designs were not novel or protectable under Section 30 of the Act. Furthermore, the plaintiff was penalized for failing to disclose details of a prior withdrawn suit.
M/s.Aravind Laboratories v.Modicare
The plaintiff, M/s.Aravind Laboratories, filed applications seeking an interim injunction against Modicare for infringement and passing off related to their cosmetics trade marks, specifically 'EYETEX DAZLLER'. The defendant argued that 'Daily Dazzler' was a bona fide descriptive mark under Section 35 of the Act. The court ultimately upheld the defense, finding no infringement or passing off.
Hindustan Lever Limited v.Cavin Kare Limited And Ors.
The petitioner (Hindustan Lever Limited) filed contempt applications alleging that the respondents (Cavin Kare Limited and Ors.) willfully breached an undertaking recorded during a prior compromise regarding Patent No. 169917. The undertaking prohibited the manufacture and marketing of fairness cream using Silicone compound in combination with specific ingredients covered by the patent. After considering conflicting reports, the Court found the breach deliberate and wilful.
Aravind Laboratories v.Arihant Cosmetics
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Aravind Laboratories, holding that Arihant Cosmetics was guilty of trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that Arihant's use of the deceptively similar mark 'EYE-TOP,' coupled with an identical get-up, color scheme, and packaging design for their kajal product, constituted a clear violation of Aravind's established goodwill associated with its registered trademark 'EYETEX.' Consequently, the court made the interim injunction absolute, preventing Arihant from continuing to market the infringing goods.
M.A. Rahim v.M/S Arvind Laboratories
M.A. Rahim (plaintiff-respondent) claimed that M/S Arvind Laboratories (defendant-appellant) infringed their registered trade mark 'Eyetex' by using the similar mark 'Eyeris' for cosmetic preparations. The court examined the phonetic, visual, and structural similarity between the two marks.
Aravind Laboratories v.V.A. Samy Chemical Works
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Aravind Laboratories, finding that V.A. Samy Chemical Works infringed upon its registered trade mark 'Eyetex' and committed passing off by using the deceptively similar mark 'Rani Eyevix'. Despite minor changes in packaging, the court held that the similarity created consumer confusion. The defendant was permanently enjoined from using the infringing mark and ordered to surrender all related materials.
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.