Patent Cases

10,620 decisions across US PTAB · India · European UPC

US PTAB 2,587 India 6,441 European UPC 1,592

Page 343 of 354

patent mixed · Dec 3, 2007

R.K. Saraf v.The Assistant Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court · 2008(36)PTC520(DEL)

The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge against the removal of the trade mark 'ROCHAK' from the register due to non-payment of renewal fees. While acknowledging arguments for liberal interpretation regarding lapsed trademarks, the court determined that crucial factual questions—such as the validity of the assignment and whether mandatory notice was issued—required detailed examination. Consequently, the High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, directing the petitioner to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy before the Appellate Board.
patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 30, 2007

Vikram Stores And Anr. v.S.N. Perfumery Works And Anr.

Gujarat High Court · Civil Suit No. 2175 of 2007 (Appeal from Order)

The Gujarat High Court allowed an appeal filed by Vikram Stores against a lower court's rejection of its notice of motion regarding trademark infringement. The core issue was whether 'RANGILI,' used by the defendant, was deceptively similar to the petitioner's registered trademark 'RANGOLI.' The court found that both marks were structurally and phonetically similar, concluding that an average consumer would be deceived. Consequently, the trial court's order was quashed, and the respondents were restrained from using the infringing mark for a period of eight weeks.
patent mixed · Nov 30, 2007

Yash Arora v.Tushar Enterprises And Ors.

Delhi High Court · 2008(36)PTC523(DEL)

The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal challenging the vacation of an interim injunction granted in a trademark infringement suit. The plaintiff, claiming prior use of 'KEYMAN' since 1985, faced challenges regarding documentary evidence and alleged negligence in not knowing about the defendant's earlier registered mark, 'KEY MANN'. However, the appellate court found that the single judge's dismissal of the prior user claim was unsatisfactory. Consequently, the appeal succeeded, setting aside the vacation order and remitting the matter back for a fresh determination on the prima facie case.
patent defendant favorable · Nov 28, 2007

Super Seals India Limited v.Sos Automotive Components Private Limited

Delhi High Court · CS (OS) No. 750/2004

The Delhi High Court dismissed Super Seals India Limited's application for a permanent injunction, finding that the plaintiff had no valid intellectual property rights over its part numbers and 'SS logo.' The court heavily relied on a prior family settlement agreement which divested the plaintiff of most of its business and trademark rights. Since the limited period granted to the plaintiff had expired, the court ruled that the defendant had acquired legitimate rights as an assignee from the original controlling group (Anil Group), thus favoring the defendant.
patent mixed · Nov 24, 2007

M/s.Agi Music Sdn Bhd v.Ilaiyaraja

Madras High Court · C.S.No.308 of 2013 and C.S.No.625 of 2014

This common judgment addresses intertwined disputes concerning the ownership and commercial exploitation of musical works. M/s. Agi Music Sdn Bhd filed a suit seeking injunctions against alleged infringement of its copyright and violation of prior agreements. Conversely, Ilaiyaraja initiated a separate suit asserting his rights over the compositions. The court examined complex issues surrounding who holds the exclusive right to deal in the sound recordings.
patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 12, 2007

Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Dr. Reddy'S Laboratories Ltd.

Delhi High Court · MIPR2007(3)389

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal, upholding the injunction granted against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. The case centered on whether the defendant was passing off its products by using a deceptively similar name and logo ('Reddy') that accrued goodwill to the plaintiff's established trademark 'Dr. Reddy'. The court affirmed that while the defendant had initially been an agent, its subsequent entry into manufacturing finished dosage forms under the disputed brand constituted infringement. The judgment emphasized that even if alternative views were possible on the facts, appellate courts should not interfere with a trial court's properly exercised discretion. This ruling reinforces the importance of protecting established trade names and goodwill in the pharmaceutical sector.
patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 9, 2007

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v.Pe-Mm Sp. Zo.O And Anr.

Delhi High Court · MIPR2007(3)453

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. in its suit against Pe-Mm Sp. Zo.O regarding trademark infringement via domain name squatting. The court found that the defendant's registration of 'www.ranbaxy.eu' was unauthorized and deceptively similar to Ranbaxy's registered global trademark, 'RANBAXY'. Citing established principles, the judgment affirmed that a proprietor has a legitimate interest in protecting its brand identity across digital domains.
patent defendant favorable · Sep 20, 2007

Dhanpat Seth And Ors. v.Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd.

Himachal Pradesh High Court · OMP No. 530 of 2005 in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2005

The plaintiffs appealed against the rejection of their interim relief application seeking to restrain the defendant from infringing Patent No. 195917, which covered a plastic Kilta device for hauling agricultural produce. The defendant argued that the patent was fraudulently obtained and that the invention was merely an old traditional product (Kilta).
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 17, 2007

The Federal Bank Ltd. v.Matt Hiller And Anr.

Delhi High Court · MIPR2007(3)380

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of The Federal Bank Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its brand identity. The bank successfully argued that the defendants' use of the deceptively similar domain name 'www.federalbank.co.in' was an attempt to capitalize on the bank's long-standing goodwill and reputation. The court affirmed that such actions constitute unfair competition, causing irreparable dilution and damage to the plaintiff's brand.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 21, 2007

Hind Mosaic And Cement Works v.Shree Sahjanand Trading Corporation

Gujarat High Court · CS/1/2007 (Original Suit No. 1432/07)

Plaintiffs filed a civil suit alleging that defendants were infringing their patent (No. 203004) related to pipes and fittings, seeking an interim injunction. The defendant counter-claimed for the revocation of the same patent. After examining the prima facie case, the court found no basis for sustaining the patent and a strong case for its revocation, leading to the vacation of the temporary injunction.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 20, 2007

Yonex Kabushiki Kaisha v.Phillips International And Anr.

Delhi High Court · CS (OS) No. 983/2004

Yonex Kabushiki Kaisha sought an ad-interim injunction to prevent Phillips International from using a deceptively similar mark, YONEKA, for shuttlecocks. While Yonex established its strong reputation and ownership of trademarks and copyrights related to its packaging, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the interim injunction application. The court emphasized that granting such relief requires a holistic view of the entire case, not just the strength of the claim, allowing the matter to proceed to trial.
patent mixed · Aug 10, 2007

Hindustan Lever Limited v.Mr. Lalit Wadhwa And Anr.

Delhi High Court

Hindustan Lever Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its valid patent (No. 198316) concerning a gravity fed water purification system by defendants, including those marketing 'Forbes Aquasure'. The court addressed preliminary objections raised by the defendants seeking rejection of the plaint and deletion of certain parties. While rejecting the plea that the plaint lacked a cause of action, the court allowed the request to delete one defendant, finding him neither necessary nor proper for the civil suit.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 6, 2007

G.Krishnan v.Director (Mis) and State Public Information Officer, Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala High Court · W.A.No. 2195 of 2007 & W.P.(C).26561/2007

G. Krishnan challenged the Kerala State Electricity Board's refusal to disclose detailed information regarding the Athirappilly Hydro Electric Project, which was initially denied citing strategic interest and 'Intellectual Property' status. The Information Commission ordered disclosure, but the High Court set aside this order, finding that the Commission failed to properly examine the arguments concerning copyright protection of the project reports.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 6, 2007

Novartis AG v.Union of India

Madras High Court · W.P. Nos.24759 and 24760 of 2006

Novartis AG challenged the constitutional validity and TRIPS compliance of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended in 2005), arguing it was vague and arbitrary. The petitioner sought a declaration that the section was unconstitutional and requested permission to allow a specific patent application.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 6, 2007

Novartis Ag v.Union Of India (Uoi)

Madras High Court

Novartis challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing it violated both Article 14 and international obligations under TRIPS. The court examined the amended section which restricts patentability for new forms of known substances unless they enhance efficacy. Ultimately, the court held that the amended section was not violative of Article 14.
patent pending · Jul 31, 2007

Lucky Chemical Industry & 3 v.Rajnikant Devidas Shroff & 2

Gujarat High Court · FA/3750/2007

Lucky Chemical Industry & 3 appealed a judgment passed by the Additional District Judge in Special Civil Suit No.1 of 2003. The original suit was filed by Rajnikant Devidas Shroff and United Phosphorus Limited, claiming infringement of Patent No. 172459 related to Phosphorus Pentachloride production. The trial court had partly allowed the suit, granting a perpetual injunction.
patent mixed · Jul 19, 2007

Fdc Limited (and others) v.Sanjeev Khandelwal Prem Niwas (and others)

Madras High Court · CRP(PD) Nos. 1188, 1189, 1190, 1226, 1227, 1454 and 1546 of 2007

This Civil Revision Petition challenged the grant of an ex parte ad-interim injunction by the trial court against several pharmaceutical companies. The petitioners argued that the injunction was arbitrary, as they were based outside the jurisdiction and no substantive evidence of infringement had been considered. The Madras High Court suspended the interim order, emphasizing that such a drastic relief requires elaborate oral and documentary evidence from both sides before judicial scrutiny.
patent mixed · Jul 10, 2007

Independent News Service Pvt Ltd (India Tv) v.India Broadcast Live Llc

Delhi High Court · CCPO 22/2007

This case involved a dispute where India Tv, a prominent Hindi news channel, alleged that defendants were infringing its well-known mark 'INDIA TV' by using it prominently on their website indiatvlive.com. The plaintiff claimed the domain name constituted unfair competition and dilution of its brand. After initial injunctions, the court modified the orders, allowing the defendant to continue using the domain name provided they displayed a prominent disclaimer clarifying no affiliation with India Tv.
patent mixed · Jul 9, 2007

Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal v.Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.

Delhi High Court · CM(M) 419/1994 (Remanded)

The Delhi High Court intervened in a trademark dispute concerning the registrability of the name 'AGGARWAL.' The petitioner challenged the IPAB's dismissal, which had upheld the registration rights of the respondent. The court found that the IPAB failed to address the core legal issue—whether the surname 'AGGARWAL' possessed sufficient distinctiveness under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Consequently, the High Court set aside the previous order and remanded the matter back to the IPAB to specifically examine the question of acquired distinctiveness.
patent defendant favorable · Jul 3, 2007

Rich Products Corporation And Anr. v.Indo Nippon Foods Limited

Delhi High Court · MIPR2007(2)316

The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction request filed by Rich Products Corporation against Indo Nippon Foods Limited, alleging trademark infringement and passing off regarding 'Whip Topping.' The court ultimately found that the defendant had not infringed the plaintiff's registered mark. Key factors included the descriptive nature of the term 'WHIP TOPPING,' the lack of similarity between the distinctive elements ('RICH'S' vs. 'BELLS'), and the failure of the plaintiffs to disclose a material disclaimer in their registration, leading to the dismissal of the injunction application.
patent defendant favorable · Jun 4, 2007

Dart Industries Inc. v.Techno Plast

Delhi High Court · 2007(35)PTC285(DEL)

Dart Industries Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Techno Plast for allegedly copying its proprietary designs used in Tupperware products. The plaintiffs claimed rights under the Designs Act, 2000, and the Copyright Act, 1957, asserting that their globally recognized designs were infringed by the defendants' food-grade plastic storage containers. However, the court examined the prima facie case, noting serious questions regarding the validity of the registered designs. Consequently, the ex-parte injunction granted to the plaintiffs was vacated, though certain conditions were imposed on the defendants.
patent plaintiff favorable · May 25, 2007

Cadbury India Limited And Ors. v.Neeraj Food Products

Delhi High Court · 142(2007)DLT724

The Delhi High Court granted an interlocutory injunction in favor of Cadbury India Limited against Neeraj Food Products, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and copyright violation. The court held that the defendant's use of 'JAMES BOND' was phonetically and visually confusingly similar to Cadbury's registered mark 'GEMS', leading to a high likelihood of deceiving unwary purchasers. Furthermore, the packaging adopted by the defendant was deemed a substantial imitation of Cadbury's distinctive pillow packs, constituting both copyright infringement and passing off.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 24, 2007

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. v.Income-tax, Range-10(2)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai · I.T.A. No. 4259/Mum/2007

The assessee, Godrej Consumer Products Ltd., appealed against the denial of depreciation on an acquired trade mark ('Snuggy') and associated goodwill. The Assessing Officer denied the claim based on lack of valuation reports and the inclusion of goodwill in the purchase price. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that both trade marks and associated goodwill are intangible assets eligible for depreciation.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 23, 2007

R.K. Patel And Co., Tobacco ... v.Shri Rajdhar Kalu Patil @ Patel And Ors.

Bombay High Court · Trade Mark Suit No. 1 of 1999 (Appeals)

The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs (R.K. Patel And Co., Tobacco) against the defendants, finding that the defendant's actions constituted trade mark infringement and passing off. The judgment affirmed that the plaintiffs were entitled to injunctive relief based on prima facie evidence. Furthermore, the Court directed the expeditious disposal of the underlying suit, recognizing its age.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 4, 2007

Ayurherbs Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Three-N-Products Private Limited

Delhi High Court · 141(2007)DLT609

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ayurherbs Pharmaceuticals, finding that Three-N-Products Private Limited was engaging in passing off by using the name 'Ayur' in its corporate identity. Despite arguments regarding product differences and derivation from Ayurveda, the court held that the use of the suffix 'Ayur Herbs Pharmaceuticals Private Limited' was likely to confuse the ordinary purchaser. This judgment reinforces the principle that trademark infringement can occur even if the goods are not identical, provided there is a likelihood of deception.
patent defendant favorable · Apr 2, 2007

Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research v.Goodman Drug House (P.) Ltd.

Allahabad High Court · Misc. Arbitration Case No. 46 of 2003

The dispute arose from an agreement between C.S.I.R./I.I.P. and Goodman Drug House for converting Menthone to Menthol using proprietary technology. When the project failed to yield results, Goodman sought damages through arbitration. The High Court upheld the District Judge's decision, dismissing the appeal against the arbitral award.
patent defendant favorable · Mar 20, 2007

Bilcare Limited v.Amartara Private Limited

Delhi High Court · MIPR2007(2)42

Bilcare Limited filed a patent infringement suit against Amartara Private Limited regarding a metallized packaging film protected by Indian Patent No. 197823. The plaintiff sought to continue an interim ex parte injunction, but the court found that the balance of convenience favored the defendant. Given that the patent was recently granted and faced pending post-grant opposition proceedings, the court vacated the initial injunction. Instead, it mandated the defendant to maintain sales accounts for the duration of the suit.
patent defendant favorable · Mar 20, 2007

Bilcare Limited v.The Supreme Industries Ltd.

Delhi High Court · CM Nos. 2534-35/2007 in FAO 70/2007; CM Nos. 2538-39/2007 in FAO 71/2007

Bilcare Limited filed suits against The Supreme Industries Ltd. alleging infringement of its patented metallized PVC film used in pharmaceutical packaging. Bilcare sought a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from manufacturing or selling the infringing product. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Bilcare, upholding the trial court's decision. The court found that the essential conditions for granting an injunction—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—leaned in favor of the respondents.
patent defendant favorable · Mar 1, 2007

National Research And Development v.Chrome International

Delhi High Court · IA No. 3629/1998 (Under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)

This case involved an appeal challenging an arbitration award concerning non-payment of royalties by Chrome International to National Research And Development Corporation. The core dispute centered on whether the claim for unpaid royalty was time-barred, given that payments were due twice yearly.
patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 22, 2007

Encore Electronics Ltd., A Limited v.Anchor Electronics And Electricals

Bombay High Court · 2007(5)BOMCR262

The Bombay High Court upheld an earlier injunction, ruling in favor of the plaintiff regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's mark 'Encore' was deceptively similar to the established plaintiff mark 'Anchor,' particularly when considered phonetically and visually in Indian languages like Gujarati and Devanagari scripts. Given the plaintiff's extensive reputation and investment, the court determined that an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
1 •••342343344•••354
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →