Other — India Patent Cases
466 decisions indexed
Page 12 of 16 · 466 total
M/S.Spc Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd v.M/S.Ameya Laboratories Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of Patent No.265920 in the Commercial Court. Due to the defendant filing a counter-claim for revocation, the suit was transferred to the High Court. The core issue before the court was whether this transferred patent dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Division or the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.
Philco Industries & Ors. v.The Dy. Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Philco Industries challenged the registration of a bowl design (No. 205014), arguing that it lacked novelty as it was common in trade and had been previously sold by them. The Deputy Controller rejected this cancellation petition, finding no cogent evidence of prior publication or use. The Calcutta High Court upheld the Controller's decision, agreeing that Philco failed to discharge its onus of proving prior art, thereby affirming the design registration.
J & J Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
J & J Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. appealed against an order that proceeded with the cancellation of registered designs based on prior publication, despite a previous settlement between the parties. The court held that as between the settled parties, one is bound by their acknowledgement of ownership and validity.
J & J Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
J & J Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. appealed an order concerning the cancellation of registered designs. The core issue was whether a party could challenge the design's validity when there was a prior settlement agreement acknowledging the rights of the petitioner. The court held that between the parties, the settlement bound them, setting aside the impugned order.
Anuradha Doval v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court challenged the cancellation of a registered design for a 'Bottle Cap' (Design No. 222799). The private respondent argued that the shape and configuration were not new or original, citing prior published art documents, including magazine issues from 2009. The court ultimately upheld the Controller's decision, finding that the impugned design was substantially identical to existing publications and lacked novelty.
M/S. M. B. Exports Limited v.The Controller Of The Patents And Designs & Ors.
The petitioner, M/S. M. B. Exports Limited, approached the Calcutta High Court regarding an application for cancellation of Design No. 244214. The court directed the respondent (Controller) to produce all related proceedings within two weeks and adjourned the matter.
M/S. M. B. Exports Limited v.The Controller Of The Patents And Designs & Ors.
The petitioner, M/S. M. B. Exports Limited, filed a matter before the Calcutta High Court concerning an application for cancellation of Registered Design No. 244439. The court directed the respondent to produce the relevant proceedings and adjourned the matter.
M/S. M. B. Exports Limited v.The Controller Of The Patents And Designs & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an application concerning the cancellation of Registered Design No. 244215, which was filed by Jagdhir Sing, Proprietor of M/s. M.B. Machinery Corporation. The court directed the respondent to produce the relevant records within two weeks and adjourned the matter.
Som Distilleries And Breweries Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The Controller of Patents and Designs produced records regarding the application for cancellation of Design No. 223479 filed by Som Distilleries & Breweries Ltd. The court allowed both parties liberty to inspect the original records.
Itc Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
ITC Limited challenged the registration of a cigarette pack design (No. 196859) by appealing to the Calcutta High Court, arguing that the design lacked novelty and was not registrable under the Designs Act, 2000. The petitioner contended that prior published designs rendered the registered design non-original. However, the court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no fundamental error in the Controller's assessment of the design's originality and noting significant delays by the appellant.
Krishna Plastic Industries v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Krishna Plastic Industries appealed against an order allowing the cancellation of its registered design for a 'plastic seal'. The High Court found that the Deputy Controller failed to properly examine and reason regarding the distinctive surface pattern, which was claimed as the source of novelty. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Atul Narsibhai Patel v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The petitioner appealed against the cancellation of Design No. 211639 (a seal for packaging). The Assistant Controller cancelled the registration finding that the design was not new or original because its features were strikingly similar to prior published and registered designs, specifically nos. 179570 and 205871.
Intouch Leather House India Pvt. Ltd v.Ishaan Overseas
The Plaintiff, Intouch Leather House India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Ishaan Overseas for using the mark 'EDMODA' on leather goods. The Plaintiff claimed its mark 'ESBEDA' was deceptively similar. However, the court found that the marks were sufficiently distinct visually and phonetically, leading to the dismissal of the motion.
Flamagas, Sa v.Sunder & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Flamagas, Sa, finding that the defendants were infringing upon its trademarks and designs related to 'Clipper' lighters. The court noted that the defendants failed to participate in the proceedings despite being served, leading to them being proceeded ex parte. Consequently, the suit was decreed for permanent injunction and punitive damages, emphasizing that non-participation by infringers should not allow them to escape liability.
Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The appeal challenged the Controller's order dated March 28, 2008, which cancelled three design registrations (184135, 184136, and 184137) belonging to Reckitt Benckiser. The appellant argued that the cancellation proceedings were flawed due to denial of cross-examination. However, the High Court dismissed the appeals, finding no violation of natural justice and upholding the Controller's decision.
Yash Plastomet Pvt. Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Yash Plastomet Pvt. Ltd. appealed the dismissal of its application to cancel Design No. 187706 (a 'Container'). The appellant argued that the design was not new because it had been previously published in October 1997 and registered earlier. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Controller's order, finding no sufficient evidence of prior publication or novelty.
Yash Plastomet Pvt. Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
The appellant challenged the registration of Design No. 180660 ('Container Lid'), arguing that it was neither new nor original, having been previously registered (Design Nos. 177677 and 177678) and prior published in 1997. The respondent argued that Design No. 180660 possessed distinct features making it novel compared to the earlier designs. The High Court upheld the lower authority's finding, concluding that Design 180660 was new and original.
R. Muralidharan v.The Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice; The Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry; The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs; The Controller General of Patent and Designs and Trademark
This writ petition challenged a public notice issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding PCT National Phase Applications in India. The petitioner argued that this notice restricted applicants from amending their specifications before entering the national phase, thereby denying rights granted under Sections 57 and 59 of the Patents Act. The core dispute centered on whether procedural restrictions related to filing fees should be subject to judicial review. The High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that the matter was a procedural issue best left to the experts and the Central Government's power regarding fee determination.
M/S Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd v.R.K. Distilleries Pvt Ltd
M/S Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd filed a suit against R.K. Distilleries Pvt Ltd seeking permanent injunction and damages for alleged infringement and passing off of its trademark 'Officer's Choice'. The plaintiff asserted extensive goodwill, registered trademarks across multiple classes, and proprietary rights in the associated trade dress. However, the court ultimately dismissed the application on jurisdictional grounds, noting that the cause of action arose primarily outside Delhi (e.g., Andhra Pradesh), despite the plaintiff having a branch office there.
M/S. Selvel Industries v.M/S. Om Plast (India)
The plaintiffs, M/S. Selvel Industries and M/S. Sears Industries, filed a Notice of Motion seeking interim relief in an infringement action against M/S. Om Plast (India). The dispute centered on whether the defendant's plastic container infringed upon the registered designs held by the plaintiffs. The court found that the defendant's product was deceptively similar to and infringed the plaintiffs' design.
M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation v.M/S Euro Apex B.V.
This appeal concerned the enforcement of a PFA from an arbitration award, which mandated the respondent to unconditionally and irrevocably transfer all rights and interests in specific Indian Patents (Nos. 2143/MUM/2008 and 2144/MUM/2008) to the appellant. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had duly executed and forwarded the required deed of transfer, thereby fulfilling its obligation under the PFA.
Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v.Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. sought an injunction against Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd. for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to hotel branding. The court, while acknowledging the Plaintiff's claim, balanced it against the Defendants' established business success and prior use of similar marks.
M/S Symphony Ltd v.M/S Summer Cool Home Appliances Pvt Ltd
M/S Symphony Ltd filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a dispute concerning air cooler designs against M/S Summer Cool Home Appliances Pvt Ltd. The plaintiff sought to clarify discrepancies regarding the dates of use and registration for various registered design models, such as 'Sumo' and 'Winter'. The court examined whether these amendments were necessary for proper adjudication or merely an attempt to resile from previous admissions. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, finding that it served only to clarify existing pleadings without fundamentally altering the nature of the suit.
Paulsons Beauty and Fashion Private Limited v.Sulthana Restaurant
The plaintiff, Paulsons Beauty and Fashion Private Limited, filed Original Applications seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondent, Sulthana Restaurant, from passing off or infringing its registered trade mark 'SULTHAN'S BIRIYANI'. The defendant argued that the names were not deceptively similar, that they cater to different customer classes, and that the name 'SULTANA' is a common universal term. The Court dismissed the applications, finding no deceptive similarity and ruling in favor of the respondent.
Cipla Limited v.F. Hoffman La Roche Limited
Cipla Limited appealed against a final judgment passed by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court heard the matter and directed that the case be fixed for final disposal on March 16, 2016. The court also clarified that while existing interim proceedings would continue, no final orders could be passed without its leave.
M/S. Bhatia Enterprises v.Sh. Subhash Arora
M/S. Bhatia Enterprises filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design for a water jug (No. 235010). The court considered an application for a preliminary injunction, noting that the defendant had previously failed in its attempt to cancel the registration based on prior publication. Given that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and irreparable loss would occur without protection, the court granted the interim injunction.
Jiva Institute Of Vedic Science & Culture v.The Indian Hotels Company Limited
This case involves a dispute over the trademark 'JIVA' between Jiva Institute Of Vedic Science & Culture and The Indian Hotels Company Limited. The plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction against infringement and passing off. In the present application, the plaintiffs sought to amend their plaint to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction for rendition of accounts/damages from Rs. 25 lac to Rs. 1 crore, based on re-assessed damages. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that commercial courts should adopt a flexible approach when correcting valuation errors.
Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. v.Ankit Gupta
The plaintiff, Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., filed a suit alleging that the defendant was operating a business using brand names ('Delhi Haat Mall' and 'New Delhi Haat') deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Dilli Haat'. The court found that the defendant's use constituted unfair competition and infringement, leading to the decree of permanent injunction and damages.
S.M.Anand Vel v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs which deemed his patent application abandoned because it was not put in order within the prescribed time. The petitioner argued that since multiple sets of fresh objections were raised during the examination process, the abandonment could not be applied. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v.Sanjay Dalia & Anr.
This Supreme Court judgment addressed complex issues surrounding territorial jurisdiction in IP litigation, specifically interpreting Sections 62 of the Copyright Act and 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The core dispute centered on whether a plaintiff could file an infringement suit where they carried on business, even if the cause of action arose elsewhere. The Court ruled that while a plaintiff can sue where they operate, if the cause of action also arises at that location, they must file there.
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.