Year

IP Cases — 1974

7 decisions across all jurisdictions

By jurisdiction: India 7 European UPC 0 US PTAB 0
By type: patent 4 trademark 3

Page 1 of 1 · 7 total

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 11, 1974

Lakshmi Narayan Karva And Ors. v.Satyanarayanan Khubchand Karva

Madras High Court

The appeal challenged the Assistant Registrar's order allowing rectification (expunging) of the appellant's trade mark. The respondents claimed the mark lacked distinctiveness and was obtained by false statements regarding use. The High Court held that the trade mark, considered as a whole, was distinctive and directed its transfer from Part A to Part B.

patent defendant favorable · Feb 8, 1974

Raytheon Company v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs

Calcutta High Court

Raytheon Company appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 133687) for an 'Imaging System'. The refusal was based on the opinion of the Central Government, which held that the invention related to atomic energy and thus could not be patented under Section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the direction of the Central Government is final and beyond challenge in an appeal under the Patents Act.

patent defendant favorable · May 28, 1974

Poysha Industries Co. Ltd. v.Dy. Controller Of Patents And Designs

Calcutta High Court

Poysha Industries Co. Ltd. appealed against a decision regarding a patent application filed by Metal Box Company of India Ltd. The appeal focused on whether the claimed pil-ferproof container closure had been publicly used or known in India before the filing date. The court found that the appellants failed to establish prior public use, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 21, 1974

Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Ortha Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Madras High Court · C.M.A. 278 of 1966 (Letters Patent Appeal)

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.

patent defendant favorable · May 27, 1974

Bawa Masala Company v.Gulzari Lal Lajpat Rai

Delhi High Court · 11(1975)DLT270

The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute over the alleged infringement of Bawa Masala Company's registered trademark for 'Meat Masala' and claims of passing off. The court examined the visual identity (get up) of both parties' packaging, finding that despite some similarities in script usage, the overall design, color scheme, and distinctive features were dissimilar. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, ruling that no consumer would be deceived into mistaking the respondent's product for the appellant's.

patent defendant favorable · May 3, 1974

Shining Industries And Anr. v.Shri Krishna Industries

Allahabad High Court · null

Shri Krishna Industries sued Shining Industries for infringing its patented lock design (Patent No. 99371). The appellants countered by challenging the validity of the patent, arguing that the respondent was not the true inventor and the mechanism was not novel. The court ultimately allowed the appeal, revoking the patent.

trademark remanded · May 24, 1974

V.K. Industries v.Shri V.H. Mehta, Asst. Registrar Of ...

Delhi High Court

The appellant challenged the refusal by the Assistant Registrar to register the trade mark 'PLATINUM' for yarns and threads. The refusal was based on the grounds that the word was descriptive of the goods (denoting platinum color) and lacked distinctiveness in the absence of evidence of use. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

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 →