Other — India Patent Cases
466 decisions indexed
Page 8 of 16 · 466 total
Samsung India Electronics Co Ltd v.The Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the department to correct its records and instructed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices before setting a returnable date.
Diageo Brands B.V. v.Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt Ltd
Diageo Brands B.V. filed an application seeking injunction against Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt Ltd, alleging piracy of their registered Design No. 306577. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's product design was a fraudulent imitation of Diageo's protected design. The court examined complex issues regarding the scope of novelty analysis versus infringement analysis and the appropriate 'eye' (instructed vs. ordinary purchaser) for comparison. Ultimately, the court found that the distinguishing features used to establish the suit design's originality also differentiated it from the defendant's impugned design, leading to the dismissal of the injunction application.
Comviva Technologies Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents & Design
Comviva Technologies Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201611000234) on grounds of ineligibility under Section 3(k). The appellant argued that the invention was a technical advancement with practical implementation and should be granted a patent.
Suresh Mishra Trading As Sanskriti Yuva Sansthan Society v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, Government Of India
Suresh Mishra filed a writ petition seeking an expedited disposal of his pending trademark application, 'Bharat Gaurav,' which had been awaiting consideration since October 2006. The Rajasthan High Court addressed the petitioner's limited prayer by issuing a directive to the Registrar of Trademarks. The court mandated that the Registrar must decide the long-pending application within a period of four months from the date of receiving the order, thereby providing relief against administrative delay.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company v.Murugavilas Tirupur Snuff Co.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company filed a civil suit against Murugavilas Tirupur Snuff Co., alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning their respective snuff products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing materials based on the similarity of marks and artistic designs used on packaging. Ultimately, both parties reached an out-of-court settlement.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company v.Murugavilas Tirupur Snuff Co.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company filed a civil suit against Murugavilas Tirupur Snuff Co., alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning their respective snuff products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing materials based on the similarity of marks and artistic designs. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable resolution and entered into a Memorandum of Compromise.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
This matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court Original Side from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court issued procedural directions to the Department regarding record correction and directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices to both parties before the returnable date. Consequently, the case was scheduled for listing in January 2023.
Multimodal Technologies, LLC v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the relevant department to correct its records and subsequently listed the matter for January 2023.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
The court heard an application filed by Defendant 7 seeking permission to place screenshots and a research paper on record to challenge the novelty of Design No. 263764 asserted by Sirona Hygiene Private Limited. The plaintiff opposed the application, citing delay. The Court allowed the documents but directed the plaintiff to file an affidavit of admission or denial.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Tomar Enterprises
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Tomar Enterprises and others for alleged infringement of his air cooler designs. The plaintiffs claimed their unique, registered designs were being copied by the defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, supported by evidence showing copies and prior rejection of cancellation applications. Consequently, the temporary injunction application was allowed, restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing design.
Morful Sheikh Trading as Azad Beedi Factory v.Rafeeq Beedi Factory
The plaintiff, Morful Sheikh Trading as Azad Beedi Factory, sued several defendants for infringing its proprietary trademarks, copyrights, and trade dresses related to its 'Bidis' business. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over marks like DEEWANA BIRI NO. 302, which was registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks (DEEBAN BIRI and numerical 305) in relation to the same goods.
Cavinkare Pvt. Limited-Trends Division v.P & P Associates
Cavinkare Pvt. Limited-Trends Division filed a civil suit against P & P Associates alleging multiple infringements, including unauthorized use of the registered trademark 'GREEN TRENDS' and copyright infringement related to product artistic works. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for passing off. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable settlement, which was formalized through a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC).
Phillips 66 Company v.Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited
This judgment addresses two key applications filed within a commercial suit concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The court first dismissed the defendant's application to reclassify the suit as an ordinary dispute, holding that since the cause of action stemmed from foreign infringement of IP rights, it qualified as a 'commercial dispute.' Subsequently, the court condoned the delay in filing the written statement by the defendant, permitting its admission subject to payment of costs.
Phillips 66 Company v.Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited
This case involves a suit filed by Phillips 66 Company seeking recovery of damages awarded by a US District Court for intellectual property infringement against Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited. The court first addressed an application to reclassify the suit, ultimately holding that since the cause of action was based on IP infringement in the USA, it qualified as a 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act. Subsequently, the court considered an application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement and allowed it, subject to the defendant paying costs.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India And Anr.
The appellant challenged the denial of his plea for extending the validity/tenure of his Patent due to seven-year delays by authorities. He also questioned the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Calcutta High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, stating that no provision allows for automatic extension as a penalty and noting that the issue of constitutional validity was not properly argued.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Anupam Singh & Ors.
Sterlite Technologies Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against former employees (Defendants No. 1 & 2) and their new employer, HFCL Ltd., alleging breach of confidence and misappropriation of trade secrets. The core dispute revolved around patent applications filed by HFCL that allegedly incorporated Sterlite's proprietary information. Although the original suit was not numbered as a commercial suit, the court observed that disputes involving trade secrets and confidential information related to patents fall under the broad definition of 'commercial dispute'.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Saurashtra Chemicals And 4 Others
The Bombay High Court disposed of a Commercial IPR Suit between Hindustan Unilever Limited and Saurashtra Chemicals & Ors. on August 26, 2022. The parties reached a settlement, which was formalized in Consent Minutes of Order.
3D Systems Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
3D Systems Incorporated filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 201717015945) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design on grounds of lack of inventive step. The High Court issued notice and directed the respondent to file written submissions.
New India Biri Factory v.Mohd Saleem & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in favor of the Plaintiff, New India Biri Factory, while addressing various procedural applications. The court dispensed with pre-institution mediation and granted leave to file additional documents, streamlining the litigation process. Crucially, the court also granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, allowing the Plaintiff to proceed with a search and seizure operation via Local Commissioners against the Defendants' premises to prevent further infringement of their registered trademarks and copyrighted artistic works.
Hanmi Pharm. Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The appellant, Hanmi Pharm. Co. Ltd., filed two interlocutory applications before the Delhi High Court. The court disposed of I.A. 12819/2022 as infructuous based on the counsel's submission. Furthermore, the application seeking leave to file additional documents (I.A. 12818/2022) was allowed.
Deepak Kumar Khemka v.Lakshmi Chand & Sons
The plaintiff, M/s Wizard Fragrances, sued the defendants alleging that they were infringing on the plaintiff's trademarks (SHUDH, SHUDH PLUS) by adopting and using 'SHUDH RATAN'. The plaintiff argued that this constituted passing off and dilution of goodwill. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
Star India Pvt Ltd v.Extramovies.Click & Ors.
Star India Pvt Ltd filed suit seeking permanent injunction against various rogue websites, ISPs, and government bodies for the unauthorized hosting and streaming of its film 'Tadap'. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over the cinematograph work. Throughout the proceedings, numerous additional infringing URLs were identified and blocking orders were issued by MEITY and DoT. Given that the film's theatrical run had concluded and no defense was raised by the rogue websites, the court confirmed the existing injunction and decreed the suit in favor of Star India.
Diageo Brands B.V. v.Great Galleon Ventures Limited
Diageo Brands B.V. filed suit against Great Galleon Ventures Limited alleging that the latter was fraudulently imitating its 'Hipster' bottle, which is protected by a Registered Design (No. 306577). The Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent further infringement and passing off of their distinctive trade dress. While the court found similarities in the overall get-up, it ultimately granted an interim injunction based solely on design infringement, but declined the claim related to passing off.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Tomar Enterprises
The plaintiffs initiated a suit for infringement and perpetual injunction under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000, concerning their registered air cooler design. The defendants subsequently filed an application challenging the suit's validity before the High Court. This court addressed the objections raised by the defendants regarding jurisdiction, parallel proceedings, and cause of action. Ultimately, the court dismissed the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, affirming the maintainability of the original infringement suit.
Delhi Public School Society v.Delhi Public International School
The Delhi Public School Society filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Delhi Public International School for alleged trademark infringement and passing off, claiming that the use of 'DPIS' was deceptively similar to their established brand 'DPS'. The court initially granted an interim injunction recognizing the plaintiff's prior rights. However, upon considering subsequent developments, particularly the change in name by the defendant school, the court concluded that the main cause of action no longer survived against all parties. Consequently, the suit was disposed of, allowing the plaintiff to pursue remedies regarding pending trademark applications.
Abhishek Gupta v.Vipin Jain
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Abhishek Gupta, who was seeking restraint against trademark and copyright infringement related to his 'BOL' sports publication. Despite initial resistance based on delayed approach, the court found a prima facie case for the appellant. The judgment specifically restrained Vipin Jain from passing off or associating their goods with the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and copyrights, recognizing the likelihood of consumer confusion due to similar get-up and use.
M/s Unik Industries v.M/s Amazon India Ltd.
M/s Unik Industries filed a contempt case against M/s Amazon India Ltd. alleging willful disobedience of an interim order regarding the removal of infringing design patent products (clothing hangers) from its online portal. The petitioner claimed continuous infringement despite compliance efforts. However, the court found that since Amazon acted as an intermediary and listings were made by third parties without their actual knowledge or human intervention, there was no wilful violation.
Applause Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Aryan Sharma & Anr.
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Applause Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. against Aryan Sharma & Anr. was settled between the parties via Consent Terms dated 02.05.2022. The court accepted these terms, permitted amendments to the case title, and subsequently disposed of the suit.
The European Union Represented By The European Commission v.Union Of India & Ors.
The European Union challenged the deemed abandonment of two patent applications (11123/DELNP/2012 and 3466/DELNP/2013) filed under Indian law. The Petitioner argued that despite procedural delays involving multiple patent agents, they had taken steps to respond to the First Examination Reports (FERs). Citing exceptional circumstances and observations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee regarding the inflexibility of abandonment rules, the Delhi High Court set aside the abandonment orders.
The European Union Represented By The European Commission v.Union Of India & Ors.
The European Union challenged the deeming abandonment of two patent applications (11123/DELNP/2012 and 3466/DELNP/2013) filed under the Indian Patents Act. The Petitioner argued that delays, stemming from changes in legal counsel and communication issues with the initial patent agent, led to the abandonment orders. Citing exceptional circumstances and observations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee regarding the inflexibility of the Patent Act, the Delhi High Court set aside the abandonment orders.
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.