DESIGN — India Patent Cases
8 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 8 total
Neeraj Jain v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademark & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the writ petition filed by Neeraj Jain against the Controller General of Patents. Crucially, the court condoned a 36-day delay in filing the petition itself. The core matter involves challenging an order that declared the petitioner's design application abandoned due to a belatedly filed Power of Attorney. Notice has been issued, setting the stage for further arguments on the merits of the abandonment claim.
Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Om Shiv Footwear Through Its Owner Partner Proprietor Mr. Sushil Bansal
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Relaxo Footwears Limited against Om Shiv Footwear. The suit alleged infringement of a registered design (Design No. 365606-001) for its 'BAHAMAS' footwear, along with passing off and imitation of the unique trade dress and packaging. The court found that a prima facie case was made out, noting striking similarities in both the product design and the distinctive packaging between the parties. This interim order immediately restrained the defendant from further dealing in the infringing products.
Jhs Svengard Laboratories Limited v.Ranir Llc & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the unique ornamental design of toothbrushes, where JHS Svengard Laboratories claimed exclusive rights over its 'CURVY' design. The court noted that the Plaintiff sought an injunction against Defendants selling similar products and had previously initiated a trademark cancellation action against one of the defendants. Recognizing the interconnected nature of the claims, the Court ordered the transfer of the pending trademark cancellation petition to be heard alongside the current infringement suit.
BDA Ltd. v.National Industrial Corporation Ltd.
The appellant filed an application before the Controller of Patents and Designs for cancellation of Registered Design No.182771 under Section 19 of the Act. The Registrar had previously rejected this application, and since more than ten years had passed, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous.
Vishnuprasad Mohanlal Panchal (Alias Ashok Panchal) v.Hitesh Vishnuprasad Panchal
The appeal was filed under Section 19(2) of the Designs Act, 2000 against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that there was an inordinate delay (more than two years) between the conclusion of the hearing and the delivery of the final order regarding registered design no. 222514.
Mr. Gigaram M.Patel v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Mr. Gigaram M.Patel appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding the cancellation of a registered design (No. 225589). The High Court set aside the original order, finding that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to produce the complete set of Yellow Pages necessary to establish the date of publication.
Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v.Lokenath Chemical Works
Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. filed a suit seeking an injunction against Lokenath Chemical Works for infringing its registered bottle/container design (No. 94985). After negotiations, the parties reached a settlement agreement which was accepted by the plaintiff in toto. The court held that this acceptance created a binding contract.
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.