Healthcare — India Patent Cases
10 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 10 total
Oncquest Laboratories Limited v.Manish Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Oncquest Laboratories Limited, successfully challenging the registration of the identical mark 'ONCQUEST' held by the respondent. The court found that the petitioner was the prior user and adopter of the trademark since 2007, while the respondent failed to provide evidence of use for their registered mark. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondent had adopted the mark dishonestly to trade upon the established goodwill of the petitioner, leading to the cancellation of the impugned registration.
Lifestyles Healthcare Pte Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks Delhi
Lifestyles Healthcare Pte Ltd challenged the Registrar of Trademarks Delhi's refusal to register the trademark 'SKYN' in Class 5. The Delhi High Court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed submissions on the matter. This marks an active legal challenge regarding the registrability of the mark.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register its trademark 'VAPOR PLUS'. The appeal sought to set aside the refusal order dated July 24, 2018. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the appellant voluntarily withdrew the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Trade Marks). Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
MGM Healthcare Private Limited v.Varamm Healthcare Private Limited
In a significant ruling concerning trademark disputes, the Madras High Court clarified the procedural requirements under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The court held that while a formal plea in the written statement is ideal, a specific plea of invalidity taken by the defendant in an interlocutory counter affidavit can suffice to raise the issue of validity. Given the prima facie case made out by the defendant regarding prior use and invalidity, the Court allowed the applications, framed the preliminary issue on trademark validity, and adjourned the suit for three months to allow the defendant to file a rectification application.
Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited v.Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a review petition filed by Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited against an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB had previously allowed a rectification petition, effectively invalidating the petitioner's registered trademark. The court found that the original order violated the principles of natural justice because service of notice was not properly effected on the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and directed that the rectification petition be heard afresh before the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) of the Court.
MGM Healthcare Private Limited v.Varamm Healthcare Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed appeals filed by MGM Healthcare, the registered trademark owner of 'VARAM', against an interlocutory injunction order. The court upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that the respondent, Varamm Healthcare, had presented prima facie evidence suggesting prior and continuous usage of its mark 'VARAMM'. While noting the burden of proof lies with the prior user, the appellate bench was reluctant to interfere with the lower court's discretionary findings on initial evidence, allowing the main suit to proceed based on full evidence.
Board of Regents, The University of Texas System v.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by The University of Texas System regarding the trademark 'cancer and Slash Design'. The court found that the Registrar's previous refusal was unreasoned, failing to consider evidence of use and international registrations. Consequently, the application was accepted for advertisement, provided the university does not claim exclusive rights over the word 'Cancer'.
M/S Arvind Medicare Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Arvind Medicare Pvt. Ltd. against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of their word mark 'MIRACLES' for medical services (Class 44). The court recognized that due to continuous use since 2012, the mark had acquired distinctiveness and goodwill in the market. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to the advertisement stage, allowing further scrutiny against existing marks.
Arvind Medicare Pvt Ltd. v.Registrar Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Arvind Medicare Pvt Ltd. against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of its device mark registration for medical services (Class 44). The court found that despite objections based on similarity to an earlier mark, the appellant had established significant goodwill and continuous use since 2012. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to advertisement, allowing the matter to be decided on its merits against any potential opposition.
Marie Stopes International (MSI) v.Parivar Seva Sanstha (PSS)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim temporary injunction in favor of Marie Stopes International (MSI) against Parivar Seva Sanstha (PSS). The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of the 'Marie Stopes' word mark and associated 'Door Device' logo by PSS, which had previously operated as a licensee. MSI successfully argued that after the termination of their license agreement in 2003, PSS continued to use the marks, leading to a strong likelihood of confusion among customers. The court found the resemblance between the two marks too striking and close, thus protecting MSI's goodwill.
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.