Other — India Patent Cases
466 decisions indexed
Page 13 of 16 · 466 total
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 revolved around whether a plaintiff could file an infringement suit where they carried on business, even if the cause of action arose elsewhere. The Court clarified that while a plaintiff can sue where they operate, if the cause of action also arises at their location, they must file there.
M/S.Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
The appellant challenged the refusal of design registration (Application No. 233798) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller overlooked previous judicial observations regarding consistent application of registration parameters and incorrectly assessed the originality of the bottle design.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt.Ltd v.M/s.Vignesh Refineries
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt.Ltd filed suit against M/s.Vignesh Refineries alleging infringement of its registered trademark (GOLD WINEER) and copyrighted pouch design. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of 'SKS GOLD' packaging, which was deemed infringing by the plaintiff. Both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise, amicably settling their differences.
Ashim Ghosh v.The Controller Of Patents
The petitioner challenged the Controller's action of treating his patent application (No. 1350/DEL/2007) as 'Deemed to be Withdrawn'. The withdrawal was based on the assumption that the request for examination was not made within the prescribed period, despite the petitioner having filed Form-18 correctly and within the time limit. The court found that the clerical error in the covering letter did not invalidate the timely filing of the substantive examination request.
M/S Bilcare Limited v.M/S Associated Capsules Private Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a trademark suit (TM-75/2011) against the defendant. The defendant subsequently filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking to recall previous orders, primarily to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. The court dismissed this application, finding it devoid of merits and intended for dilatory tactics.
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft appealed against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court found that the authority rendered the decision without granting the petitioner's representative a proper opportunity to clarify objections, despite the petitioner having requested accommodation for his absence. Consequently, the impugned decision was set aside and the matter was remanded for a de novo hearing.
Fdc Ltd. v.Union Of India
FDC Ltd. challenged an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had set aside the Assistant Controller's initial ruling against the petitioner regarding the revocation of Indian Patent No.197822. The core dispute centered on whether IPAB should have decided the merits or remanded the matter, and specifically, whether directing a fresh Opposition Board was legally sound.
V2 Corp & Anr. v.Innovative Techpack Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and delivery for infringement of their registered JAR designs. The defendant challenged an ex-parte interim order restraining it from manufacturing or selling products with identical or obvious imitations of the plaintiff's designs. The court modified the existing interim order to allow the defendant limited use of certain features while maintaining the rest of the injunction.
Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v.South Konkan Distilleries
The Plaintiff, holding a registered trademark 'TANGO PUNCH', filed suit alleging that the Defendant was manufacturing and selling country liquor in bottles embossed with the Plaintiff's trade mark. The Plaintiff claimed this constituted infringement and passing off. The Court found that the Defendant's use fell squarely within Section 29(3) of the Act, leading to the grant of injunctions.
Diageo Brands B. v.Sh. Sanjay Jain
The plaintiff, Diageo Brands B., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off and dilution of its famous trademark JOHNNIE WALKER. The defendants were manufacturing and selling clothing under the deceptively similar mark 'JOHNY WALKER'.
Pathiath Babu Rajendran Since Deceased v.Asst. Registrar Of Trade Marks & 2
The appeals challenged the orders of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which directed the removal of four registered trade marks belonging to the appellant. The appellant argued that it was denied a proper hearing and that the proceedings were improperly handled after transfer under Section 100 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the IPAB's finding that the appellant had waived its right due to deliberate inaction.
U. Varadaraya Nayak v.S.K. Anand & Ors.
The suit involved U. Varadaraya Nayak, an individual inventor, seeking a permanent injunction against several companies (the Defendants) for infringing his patented invention: a twin blade razor (Patent No. 184118). The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were manufacturing and selling razors using his technology despite having previously been approached by him regarding licensing opportunities in 2003. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application for interim relief, finding that the balance of convenience favored the Defendants.
M/S. Nico Quality Products v.M/S. N.C. Arya Snuff And Cigar Co.
The Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's applications for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The core issue revolved around an assignment deed transferring trademarks from the respondent firm to the petitioner. However, the court ruled that because this crucial assignment deed was insufficiently stamped under the Indian Stamp Act, it could not be admitted as evidence in the suit. Consequently, the injunctions were vacated, allowing the respondent to continue its operations.
Dr.Aloys Wobben v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Dr. Aloys Wobben challenged orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had cancelled his patents against him. The core issue before the Madras High Court was whether the IPAB possessed the jurisdiction under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, to examine the validity of a resolution used to authorize actions.
Sarin Technologies Ltd v.Sanjay Raghav Golakiya & 3
Sarin Technologies Ltd filed a suit against Sanjay Raghav Golakiya & others alleging patent infringement. The court framed multiple issues, including those related to the validity (novelty, inventive step) and infringement of the suit patents. Both parties agreed to appoint a Court Commissioner to record oral evidence.
N. V. Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) order which allowed the registration of the trade mark 'HERO' for cigarettes. The petitioner argued that the IPAB erred by interfering with the Registrar's discretionary decision and misinterpreting legal principles regarding trademark priority and special circumstances. The High Court ultimately set aside the IPAB's order, confirming the Registrar's refusal to register the mark.
Mohan Lal Proprietor Of Mourya Industries v.Sona Paint & Hardwares
This judgment addresses complex legal questions arising from two suits concerning intellectual property rights. Specifically, it examines whether a holder of a registered design can sue for infringement against another party who also holds a registered design. The court also deliberated on the interplay between statutory remedies under the Designs Act and common law actions like passing off, particularly when the design is used as a trademark.
M/S. Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v.Gautam Industries & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Hindustan Pencils Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Gautam Industries & Anr for infringing on their intellectual property rights. The court found that the defendant had dishonestly copied the distinctive color scheme, artistic design, and slogans used on the plaintiff's NATARAJ product packaging. This judgment affirms protection not only for registered trademarks but also for the original artistic work embodied in trade dress/packaging under copyright law, preventing passing off.
Shri Mohan Vidhani v.Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi
Mohan Vidhani filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission seeking details regarding the status of a registered Trademark (TM No. 455982) during its restoration/renewal process. The CPIO denied the request, stating the queries were beyond the scope of the RTI Act as they asked how decisions were reached. The CIC upheld this decision.
Sopariwala Exports & Anr v.Kuber Khaini Private Limited
The plaintiffs, manufacturers of tobacco under the trademark 'AFZAL', filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed their registered trademarks and copyrights by using a deceptively similar label. The court found that the defendant's label was a deceptive imitation of the plaintiff's established mark and granted interim injunctions.
M/S Invitation Banquet v.M/S Jolly Invitation Banquet
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Invitation Banquet, finding that the defendant was infringing upon its trademark and copyrights through passing off. The court recognized the plaintiff's extensive goodwill and prior adoption of the 'Invitation' mark for banquet services. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting the plaintiff an injunction and awarding damages.
Kiran Shoes Manufacturers v.Registrar Of Copyrights & Anr.
Kiran Shoes Manufacturers appealed an order by the Copyright Board that sought the expunction of its copyright registration for a side trim device used on 'GOLD STAR' sports shoes. The core dispute revolved around whether this artistic work, which was also registered as a design under the Designs Act, fell within the scope of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The Delhi High Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that since the device was capable of being registered under the Designs Act and had been used extensively, its copyright protection ceased.
M/S Shree Ganesha Enterprises v.Sandeep Gullah
M/S Shree Ganesha Enterprises filed suit against Sandeep Gullah alleging that after his retirement from their partnership, he began using an identical and deceptively similar trademark, 'CITY BANQUETS,' in a nearby location. The plaintiff claimed this constituted passing off and infringement of their established trade mark, 'CITY BANQUET.' The court confirmed the interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff had made out a strong case for proprietary rights and that allowing the defendant to continue using the name would cause irreparable loss.
Shrinivas Suggandhalaya v.P.S.Lakshmi Kalavathi And Anr
Shrinivas Suggandhalaya filed a suit against P.S.Lakshmi Kalavathi and others alleging infringement of its intellectual property rights related to scented agarbatti. The plaintiff claimed ownership over the distinctive packaging design, which was registered under the Copyright Act, 1957, as well as the trademark 'NAGCHAMPA'. The court found that the defendants were manufacturing and selling spurious goods by copying both the unique label/packaging and using the identical trademark. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of Shrinivas Suggandhalaya.
Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente v.Union Of India And Ors
This petition challenged the Patent Office's refusal to accept Form 18, a request for examination under the Patents Act, citing that it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The core dispute revolved around an apparent conflict between Rule 24B of the Patents Rules and the guidelines set forth by WIPO/PCT regarding the commencement date for calculating the 48-month period. Given the ambiguity and potential impact on other applicants, the High Court found it expedient to remand the matter back to the Controller General of Patents for a reasoned consideration.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its application seeking specific information from the Controller of Patents. The court admitted the petition after hearing counsel for both parties, noting that no interim order was sought at that stage.
Veeplast Houseware Private Ltd v.M/S Bonjour International & Anr
The plaintiff, Veeplast Houseware Private Ltd, claimed that the defendant was infringing its registered design (Design No. 194990) used on water jugs sold under 'Nayasa'. The plaintiff sought an injunction and damages against the defendant, M/S Bonjour International & Anr, who contested the novelty of the design. The court found prima facie evidence of infringement and restrained the defendant from using the impugned design.
Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Another
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the Controller's dismissal of its application to cancel several registered toothbrush designs. The appellant argued that these designs lacked novelty, were prior published, or were merely functional/trade variants. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that design 176343 was original and new based on its unique combination of shape, configuration, ribs, and etchings.
Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Another
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision to uphold the registration of several toothbrush designs, arguing they lacked novelty and were merely trade variants. The court found that certain registered designs were not original or new, particularly when compared to earlier published designs, leading to the setting aside of the Controller's order.
Mayil Traders v.Thiyagarajan
Mayil Traders, a long-established firm, filed an appeal against a judgment that favored its opponent, Thiyagarajan. The core issue revolved around whether the defendant's use of 'RAGAM' and similar packaging for cigars constituted trademark infringement against Mayil Traders' registered mark 'RATHAM'. The court found that the marks were visually and phonetically too close, leading to potential consumer confusion.
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.