technology — India Patent Cases
99 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 4 · 99 total
Sri Veerendra Patil Kumbri v.Sri Madiwalayya G Math
The petitioners filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Share Purchase Agreement dated 23.01.2023. The dispute concerned Clause 7.1 of the agreement, under which the petitioners had agreed to withdraw the trade name 'SOUTHERN' from the companies, believing the respondents had registered it as a trademark, which later turned out to be untrue. The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition and appointed a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator.
M/s Harisons (India) Products Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Harilal and Sons and Another
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged an order dated 18.08.2026 passed by the Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar, which rejected the petitioner's application seeking expeditious disposal of its pending interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, on the ground that the injunction application could not be adjudicated while the respondents' Order VII Rule 11 application remained pending. The Allahabad High Court held that the Commercial Court had misread the High Court's earlier interim order dated 06.04.2026, which stayed only the amendment order and not the entire suit proceedings, and that the pendency of an Order VII Rule 11 application does not oust the trial court's jurisdiction to decide an interim injunction application on its merits.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.M/S Pooja Lubricant
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Aktiebolaget Volvo and its related entities restraining M/S Pooja Lubricant from using the marks 'MAX VOLVO', 'MAX VOLWO', 'VOLWO GOLD', and other marks deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trade mark 'VOLVO' in relation to lubricants and allied goods. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of trade mark infringement, passing off, and dilution, and that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury warranted urgent relief without prior notice to the defendant.
Ankit Kumar Singla v.The State NCT of Delhi Through SHO Police Station Nangloi & Anr.
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 478/2021 registered at Police Station Nangloi for offences under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, on the ground that the complainant (respondent no. 2) had compromised the dispute. Upon the court observing that in trademark infringement or passing off cases the general public is the victim and not merely the complainant, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition to face trial. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a procedural directions order in a commercial appeal concerning patents before the Delhi High Court. The appellant's counsel submitted that the matter had already been heard at length by the predecessor bench of Justice Jyoti Singh and that he was concluding his rejoinder arguments before that bench. The court directed the matter to be relisted before Justice Jyoti Singh's bench on 29th September 2026.
Tirupati Vancom Private Limited & Anr v.The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing and exporting fly ash and fly ash bricks, challenged the rectification order dated 20.05.2022 which upheld the rejection of their refund claim of Rs. 49,60,054/- for accumulated/unutilized Input Tax Credit on exports made under Letter of Undertaking for the period December 2019 to March 2020. The Calcutta High Court found that the Appellate Authority had expanded the scope of the Show Cause Notice by introducing grounds relating to Rule 96A, Rule 96B, and Rule 89(4)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which were never part of the original notice, thereby denying the petitioners an opportunity to rebut those allegations. The Court set aside the orders of the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter after affording a fresh opportunity of hearing.
State v.Chandan Kumar Tiwari and Anr.
This case involved charges under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act against two accused persons for allegedly dealing in counterfeit products bearing the trademarks of M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. The prosecution's case collapsed because the complainant and the Director of Speed Search Pvt. Ltd. (the authorized investigator) remained untraceable for nearly seven years. The Court acquitted both accused, holding that without the complainant's testimony, the prosecution could not establish the essential ingredients of the offences, and mere recovery of allegedly infringing articles was insufficient for conviction.
State v.Arun Jaiswal and Anr.
This criminal case involved charges under Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arising from an alleged raid on counterfeit products bearing the trademarks of M/s Titan Fastrack Sonata. The prosecution's case collapsed when the complainant turned hostile and failed to support the material allegations. The court acquitted both accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Puneet Batra v.Union Of India & Ors
The Petitioner, an Advocate, challenged the search conducted on 25.07.2025 at the premises of M/s Bass Legal LLP, including his cabin, and the seizure of his CPU and documents, along with the panchnama and summons issued on the same date, alleging violation of advocate-client privilege. The Respondents contended that the search was duly authorized under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act and that prima facie material indicated the Petitioner was personally involved in the affairs of M/s Matkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (MTPL) beyond acting as a legal adviser. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the search was validly authorized and that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigation into the Advocate's own conduct, while directing safeguards for the protection of privileged and third-party client data.
The Principal Commissioner v.M/S Dhariwal Industries Pvt Limited
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner challenging the CESTAT order that allowed M/s Dhariwal Industries Pvt Ltd's appeal seeking remission of excise duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The respondent had huge stocks of pan masala and gutkha bearing the brand name 'Manikchand' which became unsellable due to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge, Mandleshwar restraining use of that trademark. The Court held that the goods were beyond the respondent's control to market and squarely covered under Rule 21, and consequently quashed the consequential show cause notice in the connected writ petition.
Pangode Co-Operative Society Ltd. v.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd
This transfer petition arose from cross-appeals filed by both parties against a common order dated 5.7.2024 passed by the Commercial Court-III, Ernakulam, in proceedings challenging an arbitral award. The petitioners sought transfer of C.M.A.(Arb) Nos. 27 and 28 of 2024, pending before the Principal District Court, Ernakulam, to the Kerala High Court. The court allowed the petition, holding that under the amended Government Order designating Commercial Courts, appeals from arbitration-related commercial disputes must be filed before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.
Man Mohan Narang v.Union Of India & Anr
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to process and allow Form TM-12 filed on 21.02.2012 for Trademark Registration No. 1081552, and to waive a surcharge of Rs. 5,000/-. The Registrar agreed to process the renewal application in accordance with law upon payment of prescribed fee, restoration charges, and the surcharge. The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition granting the petitioner liberty to file the renewal application within one month, with no expression on merits.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Curewell Drugs And Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
This order of the Delhi High Court dealt with multiple interlocutory applications in a trademark dispute between Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Curewell Drugs and Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. concerning the marks REVITAL and BEVITAL. The court allowed Sun Pharma to place additional documents on record to substantiate its claim of prior use of the trademark REVITAL since 1988, noting that no new case was being set up. The application for appointment of Local Commissioners was not pressed, and the matter was listed for further proceedings.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors
This appeal challenged the trial court's rejection of a temporary injunction application filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to purchase land for an industrial park. The plaintiff had entered into reciprocal land exchange arrangements with defendant No.1 Debasish Pal but sought injunction after the defendant delayed transferring 151.46 decimals of land. The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and granting the injunction, finding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case based on the conduct of the parties and the deeds of conveyance already executed.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors
This appeal arose from the rejection of a temporary injunction application by the trial court in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to transfer land for an industrial park project. The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial court had erred in rejecting the injunction, and granted relief restraining the respondents from altering the suit property, obstructing common passage access, or creating third-party interests.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited against the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Howrah, which had rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to transfer land for an industrial park project. The Division Bench held that the trial court erred in finding no prima facie case, as the oral agreement was evident from the conduct of the parties and the deeds of conveyance executed between them. The court set aside the trial court's order and granted injunctive relief restraining the defendants from altering the suit property, obstructing the common passage, or creating third-party interests.
Ever Resource Ltd & Anr v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a patent appeal. The matter was adjourned and re-notified for 20th January 2027 at the request of the respondent's counsel, who was stated to be unavailable on the date of hearing, with no objection from the appellants' side.
Ashok Kumar Bansal Sole Proprietor of M/s Hindson Industries v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks & Ors.
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a matter filed by Ashok Kumar Bansal, Sole Proprietor of M/s Hindson Industries, against the Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks and others. An adjournment slip was circulated on behalf of the Petitioner with no objection from the Respondents. The Court granted the adjournment and listed the matter for 04.02.2027.
Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a patent appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 8/2026) filed by Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company against the Controller General of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications and others. The court, presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh, listed the matter for further hearing on 03.09.2026.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Vadodara v.M/s Sun Pharma Sikkim
The Revenue filed tax appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the common order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D-Bench Ahmedabad, for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2012-2013. The Revenue raised multiple substantial questions of law regarding the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IE, including issues relating to the authenticity of documents for purchase of plant and machinery, splitting/reconstruction of existing business, rejection of books of accounts, and apportionment of various expenses. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the tax appeals, relying on its earlier decision of even date in Tax Appeal Nos. 183 and 184 of 2020 for the same assessee covering Assessment Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, where identical issues had been dismissed.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-2 v.M/s Sun Pharma Sikkim
The Revenue filed tax appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's common order dated 16.05.2019 that allowed M/s Sun Pharma Sikkim's claim for deduction under Section 80IE for Assessment Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The Gujarat High Court examined multiple substantial questions of law concerning the genuineness of plant and machinery purchases, whether the assessee firm was constituted by reconstruction of an existing business, and the apportionment of selling, distribution, and R&D expenses. The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal and dismissed both appeals.
Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v.Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves a trademark dispute between Bhavesh Suresh Kataria, proprietor of 'Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy', and Kataria Insurance Brokers Private Limited, both operating in the insurance sector. The Plaintiff had obtained an expansive interim injunction from a Single Judge restraining the Defendant from using the mark 'KATARIA' in any form. After the Defendant's appeal to the Division Bench set aside this order, the Supreme Court remanded the matter directing the Defendant to seek vacation before the Single Bench. The Bombay High Court varied the interim order, allowing the Defendant to retain its corporate name but prohibiting it from acting as a market intermediary in gems and jewellery insurance, and imposing conditions on its domain name and website usage.
Krbl Limited v.P.K. Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
KRBL Limited filed two petitions under CM(M)-IPD 41/2026 and CM(M)-IPD 42/2026 challenging the Trial Court's order dated 01.08.2026, which had dismissed the parties' joint applications seeking a six-month extension to conclude evidence in two trademark suits filed in 2010. The Delhi High Court set aside the Trial Court's orders, granting a final six-month extension to conclude evidence, with the caveat that no further extensions would be granted.
B. Ramu v.Dr. A.S. Jagana Madura
The petitioner, B. Ramu, filed an Original Petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act seeking permanent custody of his two minor sons. The respondent, Dr. A.S. Jagana Madura, did not appear before the court. During hearing, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition and made an endorsement to that effect, prompting the court to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
City and Industrial Development Corporation v.Union of India & Ors.
The City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Court relied on its earlier judgment holding that CIDCO is covered by the exclusionary clauses of Section 16 of the EPF Act, and accordingly allowed the petitions by setting aside the impugned orders.
City and Industrial Development Corporation v.Union of India & Ors.
City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Vashi, under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act). The petitioner contended that CIDCO is an excluded establishment under Section 16 of the EPF Act. The Bombay High Court, relying on its earlier judgment and the Supreme Court's ruling in Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders dated 26 February 2019 and 17 October 2018.
M/S SDB Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v.SMC Pneumatics (I) Pvt. Ltd.
The Petitioner, M/S SDB Consultants Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an Arbitral Award dated 27.09.2025 that granted it Rs. 4,48,316/- along with 18% per annum interest from 20.07.2014. The dispute arose from an Architectural, Engineering, Project Management and Consultancy Agreement dated 23.08.2012 for the construction of the Respondent's factory and office in Noida. The Delhi High Court found no patent illegality on the face of the Impugned Award and dismissed the petition, holding that the Sole Arbitrator had conducted a reasoned and structured adjudication within the confines of the contractual terms.
M/S Hero Moto Corp Ltd v.Sandeep Kumar And Others
M/S Hero Motorcorp Limited filed a civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Labour Court, Gurugram, which declined to reject a second affidavit by way of examination-in-chief tendered by the workman-respondent in an industrial dispute regarding his termination. The petitioner contended that the affidavit contained averments beyond the pleadings and legal submissions, and that the Labour Court had committed a jurisdictional error by permitting it on record after rejecting an earlier affidavit on similar grounds. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned order was purely interlocutory and did not warrant interference in supervisory jurisdiction, as no patent perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest failure of justice was demonstrated.
M/s Triveni Adhesive and Tapes and 2 others v.The New India Assurance Company Limited
This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged a Commercial Court's order setting aside an arbitral award in an insurance dispute. The appellants, a partnership firm manufacturing adhesive tapes, suffered total destruction of their manufacturing unit due to a fire on 02.09.2018 and claimed Rs. 3,76,00,000/- under two insurance policies with the respondent. The Arbitrator awarded an additional Rs. 1,56,68,498/- with interest, but the Commercial Court set aside the award for patent illegality and being against public policy. The Allahabad High Court dismissed both the appeal and the appellants' application under Section 34(4) seeking remand, holding that the award lacked findings on contentious issues rather than merely lacking reasons, and therefore the discretionary power under Section 34(4) could not be exercised.
Ratna Bose Represented by Her Husband and Power of Attorney Holder, Priya Sankar Bose v.The Sole Arbitrator, Dilip Kumar Das & Anr.
This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged an order dismissing the appellant's Section 34 petition against an arbitral award arising from disputes over National Stock Exchange transactions. The appellant contended that the arbitral tribunal's constitution was vitiated and that she was denied representation by an advocate. The Calcutta High Court found no evidence of bias, noted that the governing rules did not permit advocate representation, and found no patent illegality in the award, dismissing the appeal.
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.