Industry Sector

Other — India Patent Cases

438 decisions indexed

Page 14 of 15 · 438 total

patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 23, 2010

The Commissioner Of Income Tax Mysore v.M/S Mangalore Ganesha Beedi Works

Karnataka High Court · ITA No. 69/2001

This appeal before the Karnataka High Court addressed disputes arising from the dissolution and subsequent winding up of M/S Mangalore Ganesha Beedi Works. The core issue revolved around how the value of goodwill, trade marks, copyright, and technical know-how acquired during the sale should be treated for tax purposes. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had previously directed that these intangible assets be capitalized and depreciated as plant and machinery. However, the High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Revenue, setting aside this direction.

patent defendant favorable · Jul 15, 2010

Dr. (Miss) Snehlata C. Gupte v.Union Of India

Delhi High Court · W.P. (C) No. 3516 of 2007

The petitions challenged the dismissal of pre-grant oppositions by the Controller of Patents on the ground that they were time-barred. The court examined whether the mere rejection of an opposition coupled with a statement 'I hereby order to grant patent...' constituted the actual date of patent grant.

patent remanded · Feb 26, 2010

Camino De Vera S/N v.Union Of India Through The Secretary

Bombay High Court · WRIT PETITION NO. 1435 OF 2007

The petitioner challenged the order by the Patent Office (Respondent No.3) that deemed its patent application abandoned and subsequently rejected a review petition. The petitioner argued that the Controller failed to provide adequate opportunities for being heard, especially when exercising quasi-judicial powers. The Bombay High Court found both orders without jurisdiction.

patent pending · Feb 9, 2010

Meso Private Limited v.Hasanali Kamruddin

Bombay High Court · SUIT NO.2415 OF 2007 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3277 OF 2007

The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and sought revocation of the leave granted under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent. The defendant argued that his export business in Pune did not warrant litigation in Mumbai. The court held that due to provisions in the Copyright Act, 1957 (Section 62(2)) and Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Section 134), coupled with the fact that leave was granted after hearing the defendant, the Court had jurisdiction.

patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 7, 2009

Tega Industries Ltd v.Kaveri Polymers (P) Ltd

Calcutta High Court · C.S.No.120 of 2009 / G.A.No.1163 of 2009

Tega Industries Ltd filed a petition against Kaveri Polymers (P) Ltd regarding infringement of its patent, No. 231453. Since the defendant failed to appear despite repeated opportunities, the court confirmed the earlier interim order restraining infringement and granted relief in terms of the plaintiff's prayer.

patent mixed · Aug 25, 2009

G.M.Pens International Limited v.Ramesh Kumar Jain

Madras High Court · C.R.P.(PD)Nos.3722 & 3723 of 2008

G.M.Pens International Limited filed a suit seeking injunction against respondents for committing piracy of their registered design (No. 186574) concerning their '045 SMARTGRIP' pens, which were allegedly imitated by the defendants' 'BITCO FINGER' pens. The case reached the Madras High Court via Civil Revision Petitions challenging an order that allowed discovery and interrogatories to the petitioner. The High Court ultimately set aside this order, emphasizing that the trial judge must judiciously assess whether such tools are necessary and not merely a shortcut to prove the case.

patent interim order · Jun 24, 2009

Anglo Properties & Traders Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.

Calcutta High Court · A.P.No. 328 of 2009

This order from the Calcutta High Court addresses a petition filed by Anglo Properties & Traders Pvt. Ltd. against The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks. The court directed the petitioner to file an affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks and subsequently file any reply thereto within one week. Furthermore, the matter was scheduled for further hearing to consider the petitioner's request for interim relief.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 17, 2009

Mathew V. Mathew v.Ajith Kumar

Kerala High Court · OS.No. 2 of 2000(A)

The plaintiff, holding Patent No. 181142 for a specific kerosene stove design ('Stoman'), sued the defendant for infringement after noticing that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing a similar stove under the name 'Techman'. The court found that the defendant's product was a colourable imitation of the patented invention.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 8, 2009

Mathew V. Mathew v.Premier Enterprises

Kerala High Court · OS.No. 1 of 2000(A)

The plaintiff, holding a patent for a specific gravity-fed kerosene stove design (Patent No. 181142), sued the defendants for infringing these rights by manufacturing and marketing a similar product under the name 'Mr. Cook Kero Gas Stove'. The court found that the defendants' actions constituted infringement and dismissed their counter-claim seeking patent revocation.

patent mixed · Feb 26, 2009

Atlas Metal Processors Pvt., Ltd. v.H.K.International

Madras High Court · C.S.No.546 of 2009

Atlas Metal Processors Pvt., Ltd. filed a suit against H.K.International alleging infringement of its patented stainless steel vacuum bottle design and associated registered designs. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions, damages, and destruction of infringing goods. After considering the arguments from both sides, the court ultimately decreed the suit concerning the patent and design infringements (Prayers A and B), while dismissing the claims related to passing off, damages, and accounts (Prayers C, D, E, and F).

patent defendant favorable · Nov 19, 2008

The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Sanjay Dalia & Anr.

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS) 359/2007

This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over the proper forum for filing a copyright infringement suit. The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. challenged the court's order directing them to refile their plaint in Maharashtra, arguing that its presence in Delhi granted it sufficient territorial sway under Section 62 of the Copyright Act. However, the court ultimately held that while Section 62 provides an additional forum, a pragmatic interpretation requires the suit to be filed where the cause of action actually arose.

patent defendant favorable · Sep 25, 2008

Bell Products Private Limited v.M.K. Gupta, Proprietor (Sri Balaji Industries)

Madras High Court · Contempt Appeal Nos.1 to 3 of 2008

Bell Products Private Limited filed contempt appeals alleging that M.K. Gupta violated an interim injunction related to their 'bell' trademark and copyright. The core legal dispute revolved around whether an appeal was maintainable against the dismissal of a contempt petition. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant had willfully suppressed facts and acted in mala fide conduct, thereby justifying the imposition of costs.

patent interim order · Sep 19, 2008

Magma Fincorp Limited v.Babu Murty Filley & Another

Calcutta High Court · AP No. 478 of 2008

Magma Fincorp Limited filed a petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking various reliefs. The court granted an interim order restraining the respondents from dealing with or changing the identity of the specified equipment for three months, while allowing them to use it in their usual course of business.

patent interim order · Aug 11, 2008

The International Association of Lions Clubs v.The Association of Lions India

Bombay High Court · Suit No.1213 of 2007 (Notice of Motion No.1599 of 2007)

The International Association of Lions Clubs filed a suit against The Association of Lions India, alleging multiple infringements. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were wrongfully adopting their registered trademarks, specifically 'LION', and engaging in acts of passing off by using similar names. Furthermore, they alleged copyright infringement through the adoption of insignia and substantial copying of the Plaintiffs' Constitution and By-Laws. The suit also included claims regarding defamation due to negative reports published by the defendants.

patent mixed · Nov 24, 2007

M/s.Agi Music Sdn Bhd v.Ilaiyaraja

Madras High Court · C.S.No.308 of 2013 and C.S.No.625 of 2014

This common judgment addresses intertwined disputes concerning the ownership and commercial exploitation of musical works. M/s. Agi Music Sdn Bhd filed a suit seeking injunctions against alleged infringement of its copyright and violation of prior agreements. Conversely, Ilaiyaraja initiated a separate suit asserting his rights over the compositions. The court examined complex issues surrounding who holds the exclusive right to deal in the sound recordings.

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 12, 2007

Speaking Roses International Inc. v.Controller-General Of Patents And Anr.

Bombay High Court · null

The Petitioners applied for a patent for a method of providing an image on organic products (flowers). The Controller-General rejected the application, citing Section 3(j) exclusion and lack of inventive step. The Bombay High Court overturned this rejection, finding that the mechanical process was outside the scope of biological exclusions and demonstrated sufficient novelty compared to prior art.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jan 15, 2007

Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Debashis Patnaik And Ors.

Delhi High Court · MIPR2007(1)323

The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (IPRS), acting as the sole national copyright society, filed a suit alleging that the defendants operated a hotel premises where they were illegally communicating literary and musical works to the public without obtaining necessary licenses or paying royalties. The court found clear infringement of IPRS's performing rights. Consequently, the court decreed the claim in favor of IPRS, granting compensatory damages, punitive damages, and passing a permanent injunction against further unauthorized use of copyrighted music.

patent mixed · Dec 20, 2006

Aia Engineering Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Anr.

Delhi High Court · MIPR2007(1)257

Aia Engineering Ltd. challenged Patent No. 197257, arguing that substantive changes were made to its claims through amendments disguised as clerical errors. The initial review application was rejected by the Assistant Controller citing procedural flaws and lack of locus standi. However, the High Court intervened, finding fatal errors in the dismissal order due to violation of natural justice principles. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh adjudication on merits.

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 29, 2006

The Heels v.Mr. V.K. Abrol And Anr.

Delhi High Court

The plaintiff, a partnership firm dealing in leather goods under the brand 'THE HEELS', filed a suit against the defendants for copyright infringement, trademark violation, and passing off. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated that the defendants were using a similar name ('HEELS') and identical logo to deceive the public and capitalize on the plaintiff's goodwill. Given the defendant's failure to appear in court despite being served, the court granted permanent injunctions and awarded damages to the plaintiff.

patent defendant favorable · Mar 1, 2006

Saranya Zaveri And Anr. v.Kamadon Academy P. Ltd.

Kerala High Court · O.S. No. 23 of 2005

The writ petition challenged the lower court's refusal to accept objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Kamadon Academy P. Ltd., sought a declaration of exclusive ownership over the 'Melchizedek method of meditation technique.' The High Court found that since the company was incorporated and conducted business outside Ernakulam, the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jan 25, 2006

International Association Of Lions v.National Association Of Indian Lions

Bombay High Court · 2006(2)BOMCR18

The International Association Of Lions filed a suit against the National Association Of Indian Lions seeking injunctions based on trademark, passing off, and copyright infringement related to the use of 'LION' or 'LEOS'. The primary dispute centered on whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction over the defendant, whose activities were primarily restricted to Rajasthan. The court ultimately held that it possessed jurisdiction to hear the suit.

patent mixed · Sep 13, 2005

Metco Polymers Pvt. Limited v.Madhu Inflatables Pvt. Limited

Madras High Court · O.S.A.NO.145 OF 2005

This appeal before the Madras High Court addressed a dispute over registered designs for inflatable products like Air Water Beds. The plaintiffs sought permanent and interim injunctions against the respondents, alleging infringement of their design rights. However, the respondents argued that they had been manufacturing similar products prior to the registration date, invoking defenses related to prior publication under the Designs Act. The court clarified the scope of Section 22(3), holding that cancellation grounds are available at the interim stage, but ultimately directed the respondents to maintain accounts for potential future damages.

patent defendant favorable · Sep 28, 2004

Majid A. Oomerbhoy v.Rashi S. Oomerbhoy And Ors.

Bombay High Court · Contempt Petition No. 107 of 2003 (Original)

This contempt petition was filed by Majid A. Oomerbhoy against Rashi S. Oomerbhoy and others, alleging that they violated a prior court order dated July 30, 2001, which prohibited partners of M/s Ahmed Omerbhoy from using the firm's trade marks (MASTAAN and POSTMAN). The petitioner claimed the respondents continued manufacturing and distributing products under similar names. However, the Court ultimately found that there was insufficient certainty to prove willful contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the infringement suit itself was still pending.

patent interim order · Sep 1, 2004

Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate v.Meher Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay High Court · Appeal from Order No. 196 of 2003

The appellant challenged a trial court judgment that granted permanent injunctions in favor of the respondents regarding the alleged infringement of their copyrighted artistic label, 'PRINCE SANTRA', by using similar labels like 'No. 1 TANGO SANTRA'. The Bombay High Court heard an application for interim stay of the decree.

patent defendant favorable · Aug 18, 2004

Maya Appliances Private Limited v.Pigeon Appliances Private Limited

Madras High Court · 2004(4)CTC334

Maya Appliances Private Limited filed a suit against Pigeon Appliances Private Limited seeking declarations of ownership for its trademarks (CHEFPRO, CHEFPRO PLUS) and copyright over the unique design and layout of its mixer grinders. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was passing off goods using deceptively similar marks and designs (CHEFMATE/CHEFMATEPLUS). However, the court ultimately vacated the interim injunctions due to procedural lapses by the plaintiff, such as failure to obtain leave to sue.

patent defendant favorable · Apr 1, 2004

S.P.S. Jayam And Co. v.The Registrar, Tamilnadu Taxation

Madras High Court · T.C.(A) No.3709 of 1997 (Original appeal)

This case addressed whether payments received by S.P.S. Jayam And Co. for allowing Tvl.Muthu Agencies to use their trademarks constituted royalty or sale consideration under the Sales Tax Act. The petitioner argued it was merely a temporary right to enjoy the mark, exempting the payment from tax. However, the Madras High Court held that since the permission granted was unrestricted for a period, it amounted to a transfer of an intangible property right—the trademark—which falls within the wide definition of 'goods' and is therefore taxable.

patent mixed · Jan 1, 2003

Icc Development (International) Ltd. v.Ever Green Service Station And Anr.

Delhi High Court · 2003(1)RAJ426

ICC Development (International) Ltd. filed a suit seeking an injunction against Ever Green Service Station and others, alleging that they were misappropriating the commercial identity and intellectual property of the 'ICC Cricket World Cup South Africa 2003'. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over the event's trade name, logo, and associated publicity value. However, the court found that the defendants had paid for travel packages through authorized agents, leading to a mixed outcome where the initial injunction was modified to restrict only the use of the specific Zebra-striped logo.

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 13, 2002

Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v.Magicook Appliances Co.

Delhi High Court · 100(2002)DLT698

Hawkins Cookers Ltd. filed a suit against Magicook Appliances Co., alleging multiple infringements related to its pressure cooker business. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant used a deceptively similar label, which was protected under copyright registration No. A-27389/80. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant's cook book verbatim reproduced substantial passages from the plaintiff's copyrighted instructional material. The Delhi High Court found in favor of Hawkins Cookers Ltd., granting permanent injunction and directing rendition of accounts.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 3, 2002

Smithkline Beecham Consumer v.Hindustan Lever Limited And Anr.

Bombay High Court · Suit No. 6556 of 1999 (Appeal)

This appeal concerned a copyright infringement suit filed by Smithkline Beecham Consumer against Hindustan Lever Limited regarding toothbrushes. The plaintiffs claimed copyright over mould drawings and pilot moulds used in manufacturing the PEPSODENT POPULAR toothbrush. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the CPC and constituted an abuse of process of law. The Bombay High Court overturned this decision, finding that the present suit involved a distinct cause of action—the importation of moulds in 1999—and thus did not amount to an abuse of process.

patent defendant favorable · Mar 18, 2002

Prestige Housewares (India) Limited v.Prestige Estates And Properties And ...

Karnataka High Court · 2002(6)KARLJ232

This appeal challenged the revocation of a copyright registration held by Prestige Estates And Properties. The petitioners argued that the respondent infringed their artistic work and trademark 'Prestige,' causing confusion in the market. However, the court found that the parties operated in completely different fields—kitchenware versus real estate—and the adoption was not deceptively similar for the purpose of passing off. Consequently, the appeal seeking revocation was dismissed.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →