Medical_Devices — India Trademark Cases
10 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 10 total
Healthium Medtech Limited (earlier Healthium Medtech Private Limited) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai
Healthium Medtech Limited filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to expeditiously dispose of Opposition No. 1027536 filed by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals against Healthium's trademark application No. 4270882 for the 'Healthium' device mark in Classes 05 and 10. The petitioner complained that despite evidence having been adduced, the opposition proceedings remained pending without a final hearing. The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Registrar to hear both parties and dispose of the opposition on merits within four weeks.
Rio Children's Hospital Pvt Ltd (represented by its Managing Director Dr. M. Saravanan) v.Rajesh Jayaraj trading as Rio Scans and Labs
The petitioner, Rio Children's Hospital Pvt Ltd, sought transfer of a pending infringement and passing off suit (O.S. No. 302 of 2022) from the Principal District Court, Madurai to the Intellectual Property Division of the Madras High Court for consolidation with its rectification petition (O.P.(TM) No.64 of 2025) concerning the rival marks 'RIO' and 'RIO SCANS AND LABS'. The court held that consolidation and transfer under Rule 14 of the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 read with Section 24 CPC are discretionary and not automatic merely because a rectification proceeding is pending. The application was dismissed, with the court observing that the rectification petition could proceed independently and its effect could be worked out in the civil suit in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
M/s. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co appealed against demands for service tax on royalty charges collected by group companies for using their logo "TTK". The Department argued that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service tax. The Appellant contended that the logo was registered as an artistic work under Copyright Act and thus exempt from service tax.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The Appellant challenged demands raised by the Department regarding non-payment of service tax on royalty charges collected from group companies for using the "TTK" logo. The Department argued that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service Tax. The Appellant contended that the logo was registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act and thus exempt.
M/s.Allied Business Solutions Private Limited v.M/s.Avan-Tec Medical Systems (P) Ltd
M/s. Allied Business Solutions Private Limited filed a suit against M/s. Avan-Tec Medical Systems (P) Ltd, alleging infringement of its copyrighted computer software 'MEDIVEIW' and associated trademarks. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing materials. However, the plaintiff subsequently informed the court that the defendants were no longer using the program and requested to withdraw the suit.
Ms. Sakshi Mathur v.Dr. Nand Kumar & Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare (AIIMS)
Ms. Sakshi Mathur filed an appeal seeking certified copies of question booklets, OMR answer sheets, answer keys, and marks/rank from the AIIMS-MBBS Entrance Examination, 2011. The respondents claimed these materials were intellectual property exempt under Section 8(1)(d) and that a fiduciary relationship existed under Section 9 of the RTI Act. The Commission rejected these claims, ruling that the information was not exempted and directing the PIO to provide the requested copies.
Hydroclave System Corporation And Ors. v.Jain Hydraulic Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
The appeal challenged the lower court's decision to vacate a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from passing off their goods as those of the appellants. The appellants argued that 'HYDROCLAVE' was their brand name for a machine used in sterilizing bio-medical waste, and the respondents were using a deceptively similar mark ('HYDRAULIC HYDROCLAVE') to cash on the goodwill.
Eco Products India (P) Ltd. v.Commissioner Of C. Ex.
The dispute concerned whether Eco Products India (P) Ltd. was using a third party's brand name ('Aquarious-II') on water filters, making them ineligible for tax exemption. The department argued that Singer India Ltd. owned the brand based on a distributorship agreement. However, the Tribunal found that the contract terms indicated the petitioner owned the trademark and had the right to use it.
Pradip Traders v.Collector Of Customs
Pradip Traders challenged the non-release of 'Angel' brand catheters by Customs Authorities, arguing they were duty-free and life-saving devices. The dispute also involved a prior trade mark infringement suit where Pradip Traders was restrained from marketing the released goods.
London Rubber Co. Ltd. v.Durex Products
London Rubber Co. Ltd. opposed the registration of the mark 'Durex' by Durex Products, claiming prior use since 1932. The dispute centered on whether the identical marks should be refused due to potential deception under Section 8(a), or if special circumstances under Section 10(2) justified the registration.
Facing a trademark dispute?
Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.