Other — India Patent Cases
466 decisions indexed
Page 6 of 16 · 466 total
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company v.S.Kumaradhas Snuff Company
This case involved Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company suing S.Kumaradhas Snuff Company for trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off, concerning their snuff products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of similar marks and designs, as well as recovery of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement agreement on August 7, 2023, which was subsequently formalized by the Madras High Court.
Raytheon Company v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Raytheon Company appealed the rejection of its patent application by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection relied on outdated guidelines (CRI Guidelines, 2016), while the newer 2017 guidelines were already in effect and did not mandate novel hardware for Section 3(k) applicability.
Wisig Networks Pvt Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents
Wisig Networks Pvt Ltd. challenged the Controller of Patents regarding systemic issues in the e-filing system, which prevented the submission of a divisional patent application following a remand by the IPAB. The petitioner's original parent application had been refused but was subsequently remanded for re-consideration. Since the online portal reflected the 'refused' status, the divisional application could not be filed digitally. The Madras High Court acknowledged this systemic glitch and issued several directions to facilitate the filing process.
Quikr India Private Limited v.Sellquikr Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the writ petition based on a joint compromise memo between Quikr India Private Limited and Sellquikr Private Limited. The core agreement stipulated that Sellquikr acknowledged having no rights over Quikr's registered trademarks and copyrighted material. Furthermore, Sellquikr committed to immediately changing its corporate name by removing 'QUIKR,' taking down all associated websites and applications, transferring the domain name sellquikr.in/ to Quikr, and ceasing any use of Quikr's intellectual property.
BIGTEC PRIVATE LIMITED v.The ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & DESIGNS
Bigtec Private Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order declining the grant of a patent for application No. 421/CHE/2009, citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The court set aside the impugned order due to non-consideration of the appellant's contentions regarding prior art and Section 3(e), and remanded the matter for re-consideration by a different officer.
Adhya Kumar v.Mulligan Concept Teachers Association
The petitioner, Adhya Kumar, filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier order and restore opposition proceedings related to Trademark Application No. 3010257 in Classes 16 and 41. The appeal was ultimately closed after the court noted the prior decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888 before the Madras High Court. The petition was filed under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. However, during the proceedings, it was noted that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888, which claimed a priority date of January 31, 2003. The petitioner sought this action before the Madras High Court. However, during the proceedings, it was noted that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888. The petition, which sought to challenge the patent's validity, was contingent on its active status. However, upon submission of a document from the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, it was revealed that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Axiom Propack Pvt. Ltd. v.Guala Closures Patents B.V.
Axiom Propack Pvt. Ltd. filed an Original Petition before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 207928 against Guala Closures Patents B.V. The petition, which was filed under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, aimed to challenge the validity of the patent. However, during the proceedings, it was noted that the term of Patent No. 207928 had already expired on June 2, 2018.
Enercon (India) Limited v.Aloys Wobben
Enercon (India) Limited filed multiple Transfer Original Petitions before the Madras High Court seeking to revoke several Indian Patents granted to Aloys Wobben. The court noted that the patents had expired but a counter claim was lodged by the petitioner in proceedings before the Delhi High Court.
India Nippon Electricals Limited v.M/s. Denso Corporation
India Nippon Electricals Limited filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent 240996 granted by the Controller of Patents. However, the petitioner's counsel subsequently instructed to withdraw the petition.
Indian Institute of Technology Madras v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
The Indian Institute of Technology Madras filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order passed by The Controller of Patents and Designs regarding the renewal application for its Patent No. 2007637. However, the appellant subsequently instructed counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Jeetu Shivlani
The Commercial IPR Suit between Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Jeetu Shivlani was settled out of court. The parties executed Consent Terms on the date of judgment, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Jeetu Shivlani
The Commercial IPR Suit between Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Jeetu Shivlani was settled on July 12, 2023. The parties executed Consent Terms, leading to the suit being disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff.
M/S Biofi Medical Health Care India Private Limited v.M/S Excel Tech A Partnership Firm
M/S Biofi Medical Health Care filed a Writ Petition to challenge an ex parte temporary injunction order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal. The trial court had restrained the petitioners from manufacturing/marketing products using the respondents' intellectual property rights (patents, designs, trademarks). The High Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of all pending interlocutory applications expeditiously while allowing the interim order to continue until disposal.
Tyron International Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Tyron International Limited appealed an order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. However, the appellant later submitted a memo stating its intention to withdraw the appeal. The High Court subsequently dismissed the case as withdrawn.
Jayson Industries And Anr. v.Crown Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Jayson Industries filed a suit alleging that Crown Craft was pirating their registered designs for household items like buckets, mugs, and tubs. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's products were fraudulent imitations of the plaintiffs' unique shapes and surface patterns. However, the court found credible prior art, including various published designs from 2019, which challenged the novelty and originality of the suit designs. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an interlocutory injunction, vacating the earlier restraining order.
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited v.Indian Institute of Science
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation or rectification of Patent No. 229283, alleging it was invalid and obtained by misrepresentation. The court noted that the patent had not been renewed and its term had expired.
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited v.Indian Institute of Science
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 229283, alleging it was invalid and obtained through misrepresentation. The court noted that the document indicated the patent had not been renewed and its term had expired.
Unilever Plc. v.Anurag Tiwari
The Commercial IPR Suit No. 481 of 2022, filed by Unilever Plc. against Anurag Tiwari and others, was settled by both the Plaintiffs and Defendants. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, permitted amendments to the cause title, and disposed of the suit.
Jawed Habib Hair And Beauty Limited v.Madhuri Singh
The Bombay High Court addressed an application seeking an interim injunction against the use of the 'Jawed Habib' trademark and associated copyright in hair salon services. The court denied the plaintiff's request for immediate relief, primarily because the defendant asserted that she had ceased using the marks as of September 17, 2022, and there was no prima facie evidence to the contrary. Crucially, the court allowed the defendant to file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, effectively directing the dispute towards arbitration.
Premier Airways Limited v.Easy Group Ltd
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Premier Airways Limited seeking the removal of a trademark belonging to Easy Group Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner company had been struck off the Register of Companies, meaning it no longer existed as a juristic entity. Consequently, the court found the petition infructuous and dismissed it without making any order regarding costs.
Nayan India Science And Technologies Private Limited v.Intents Mobi Private Limited & Anr
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of three Indian Patents (373372, 407425, and 317629) by the defendant. The court registered the plaint as a suit and directed parties to file pleadings while addressing applications for injunctions.
Arjan Impex Pvt Ltd v.Ashish Padia & Anr.
Arjan Impex Pvt Ltd filed a rectification petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 418294, titled "BONDED FUSION BOWL," registered in the name of Respondent No. 1. The court issued interim orders addressing procedural matters and restraining both parties from engaging in conduct that hinders each other's business during the pendency of the proceedings.
Synthes Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
Synthes Gmbh challenged an earlier decision by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks before the Delhi High Court. The appellant raised objections concerning the drafting and procedural lapses in the impugned order, specifically noting abrupt conclusions regarding non-compliance with Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act. The court issued this order to clarify these points, treating it as a corrigendum to the original judgment.
Mrs X v.Union Of India And Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a writ petition filed by 'Mrs. X' seeking the removal of her non-consensual intimate images (NCII) from various online platforms. The case details how Mrs. X was victimized after being coerced into paying money, leading to the leakage of explicit photos and videos on pornographic websites. Despite complaints to social media giants like Google and Microsoft, the content remained online. The Court emphasized the need for robust mechanisms to protect victims' privacy and dignity in a patriarchal society. While acknowledging existing legal frameworks under the IT Act, the judgment highlighted the reluctance of intermediaries in implementing these laws effectively. The court issued directions urging all concerned entities to comply with the stipulated provisions.
B.Kailasam Sole Proprietor of M/s.Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts v.S.A.Safiullah an Indian National, trading as Sole Proprietor in the name and style of S.A.SAFIULLAH & CO
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted to the first respondent. The court noted that the term of the said patent had expired.
Ifp Energies Nouvelles v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Ifp Energies Nouvelles appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 1373/CHE/2015) by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Chennai. The appellant argued that the rejection order was non-speaking and failed to consider their submissions or prior acceptance in the USA. The High Court agreed, finding that the material contentions were ignored.
M/S K.W Enterprises v.M/S Karam Industrial Works
M/S K.W Enterprises filed a petition seeking the cancellation of an artistic work registered in favor of M/S Karam Industrial Works under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner argued that the respondent had previously undertaken not to use 'K.I.W.' in relation to cycle parts, which is deceptively similar to K.W. The court observed that this matter was already being disputed in a separate civil suit (CS(COMM) 1035/2016).
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.