Pharma — India Patent Cases
971 decisions indexed
Page 33 of 33 · 971 total
Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Ortha Pharmaceuticals Corporation
Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. applied for registration of its trade mark 'Utogynol', which was opposed by Ortho Pharmaceuticals Corporation due to perceived similarity with their registered trade mark 'Ortho-Gynol'. The court examined the look and sound of both names, finding that despite sharing the common element 'Gynol', the initial syllables ('Uto' vs. 'Ortho') were strikingly dissimilar.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. v.Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner sought rectification of the trade mark register to remove the respondent's mark 'DROPOVIT', alleging it was deceptively similar to their registered mark 'PROTOVIT'. The case also involved determining if 'DROPOVIT' was a descriptive or invented word. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable probability of confusion and confirming that 'DROPOVIT' was an invented word.
Farbewerke Hoechst v.Unichem Laboratories And Ors.
Farbewerke Hoechst sued Unichem Laboratories for infringing Patent No. 58716, which covered the manufacture of sulphonyl-ureas like Tolbutamide (marketed as Rastinon). The defendants claimed non-infringement and challenged the validity of the patent. The court found that the plaintiffs' patent was valid and granted an injunction against the defendants.
Mac Laboratories Private Ltd. v.American Home Products Corporation And Registrar of Trade Marks
In this 1968 Calcutta High Court appeal, Mac Laboratories Private Ltd. successfully challenged the registration of the trademark 'Dristan' belonging to American Home Products Corporation. The court ruled that the original registration was contrary to law because there was no bona fide intention by the proprietor to use the mark in India. Furthermore, the appellant argued grounds including lack of distinctiveness and deceptive similarity to other marks, ultimately leading the court to allow the appeal and rectify the register.
Integrace Private Limited v.Mas Pharmachem And Anr
The Bombay High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Integrace Private Limited, restraining Mas Pharmachem from using the trademark 'BON K2 FORTE', which was found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BON - K2'. The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff. The defendant's failure to defend the suit and their dishonest conduct were key factors in the court's decision. The case highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry.
Symed Labs Limited v.Mr.Alla Venkata Reddy and Lee Pharma Limited
Symed Labs Limited filed a patent infringement suit against Mr.Alla Venkata Reddy and Lee Pharma Limited for manufacturing and selling Linezolid, allegedly infringing their patents IN 213062 and IN 213063. However, the plaintiff withdrew the suit, and the court dismissed it as withdrawn with no order as to costs. The case highlights the importance of patent protection in the pharmaceutical industry. The plaintiff's decision to withdraw the suit may indicate a settlement or a strategic decision to focus on other legal battles.
Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Controller of Patents to reject the patent application of Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. The application was rejected on the grounds of lack of novelty and non-patentability. The court held that the applicant failed to establish the novelty of the invention and that the invention did not meet the requirements of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The court also observed that the applicant had not provided sufficient data to support its claims of enhanced therapeutic efficacy.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And Anr.
The Bombay High Court framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' bearing registration No.2473300 in class 5, in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The court ordered the tagging of Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 797 of 2022 with the Suit and listed it for directions. The case is related to the pharmaceutical industry and involves a dispute over the validity of a trademark. The court's decision is an interim order and does not provide a final judgment on the matter.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Bombay High Court framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' bearing registration No.2473300 in class 5, in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The court ordered the tagging of Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 797 of 2022 with the Suit and listed it for directions. The case is related to a pharmaceutical product and involves a dispute over trademark validity.
M/S. Psychotropic India Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/S. Psychotropic India Limited, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to correct the class of goods in respect of Trademark Application No. 2038075 from Class 11 to Class 05. The petitioner had filed the application for the mark 'THIOPIL' in 2010, but due to an error, the application was processed under the wrong class. The court ordered the correction to be made within three weeks and the application to be processed expeditiously thereafter.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd filed an appeal against the refusal of interim injunction by the Single Judge in a trademark infringement case against Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Appellant claimed that the Respondent's mark 'PANTOPACID' is deceptively similar to their registered mark 'PANTOCID'. The Court allowed the appeal with directions, granting the Respondents liberty to dispose of their existing stock within a limited period.
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.