Year

IP Cases — 1934

6 decisions across all jurisdictions

By jurisdiction: India 6 European UPC 0 US PTAB 0
By type: patent 4 design 2

Page 1 of 1 · 6 total

design defendant favorable · Feb 7, 1934

Mohammad Abdul Karim v.Mahammad Yasin

Allahabad High Court · AIR1934ALL798

The plaintiff sued for injunction and damages, claiming exclusive rights over a registered brass tray design (Design No. 43516). The defendants claimed that the design lacked novelty and that the plaintiff was not the true proprietor or author of the design, having learned it from others.

design defendant favorable · Feb 7, 1934

Mohammad Abdul Karim v.Mohammad Yasin And Anr.

Allahabad High Court · AIR 1934 ALLAHABAD 798

The plaintiff sued for injunction and damages against the defendants, claiming exclusive rights over a registered brass tray design (No. 43516). The defense argued that the design was common knowledge and the plaintiff was not the true author or proprietor. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove proprietary rights.

patent defendant favorable · Jan 23, 1934

National Carbon Co., Incorporated v.Bright Star Battery Company

Calcutta High Court · AIR1934CAL725

The National Carbon Company held Patent No. 17148 of 1930 for dry cell batteries. After initial litigation, they sought to amend their patent specification under Section 17 of the Act. The Bright Star Battery Company opposed this application, arguing that a suit for infringement was pending and an appeal had been lodged against the dismissal of the original suit. The Court ultimately dismissed the amendment application.

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 20, 1934

Lallubhai Chakubhai Jarivala v.Shamaldas Sankalchand Shah

Bombay High Court · AIR 1934 BOMBAY 407

The case involved an appeal regarding a patent application for a process to whiten almond shells. The court examined whether the combination of bleaching powder and sulphur dioxide under pressure constituted an invention, and if the plaintiff was the true inventor. The court ultimately found in favor of the plaintiff.

patent defendant favorable · Dec 19, 1934

Dorman Long And Co. Ltd. v.Jagadish Chandra Mahindra And Anr.

Calcutta High Court · 163IND. CAS.997

The appeal challenged an order by the Controller of Patents refusing subpoenas for expert witnesses. The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari or mandatory injunction, arguing they still had the right to present evidence. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the Controller's decision was within his discretion and that the petitioners lacked adequate legal remedies.

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 20, 1934

Lallubhai Chakubhai Jarivala v.Shamaldas Sankalchand Shah

Bombay High Court · null

The appeal concerned a patent action regarding a novel chemical process for whitening almonds. The High Court examined whether the process constituted an invention, if the plaintiff was the original inventor, and addressed prior use defenses raised by the defendant's associates. The court ultimately allowed the appeal in favor of the plaintiff.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a similar IP matter?

Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.

Consult our team →