IP Cases — 2011
106 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 1 of 4 · 106 total
Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd v.Uoi And Aors
The petitioner challenged an order directing the Registry to furnish certified copies of its plant variety registration applications to a competitor (Respondent No. 3) upon request under Form PV-33. The petitioner argued that the application contained confidential information and disclosure would harm its competitive position. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the provisions of the Act mandate public disclosure of such documents.
M/S Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged a tender requirement stipulating that all participants must obtain Transfer of Technology (TOT) from DRDO to supply DEPA 20% Spray and DEPA 50% lotion. The Division Bench upheld this condition, finding that the petitioner's formulation was distinct from the DRDO technology. The review petition sought to overturn this decision.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. challenged the order dated 30th June, 2010, which cancelled their registered design citing prior publication. The court found prima facie grounds to warrant a stay of this cancellation order.
Syndicate Of The Press Of The Universtiy of Cambridge / Chancellor Masters And Scholars of the University of Oxford v.B.D. Bhandari & Anr. / Narendra Publishing House and Ors.
This case involved appeals filed by Cambridge University Press and Oxford University against a single judge who had dismissed their suit. The universities alleged that local publishers were illegally reproducing verbatim literary content from their prescribed grammar textbooks in guidebooks. The core legal dispute centered on whether the reproduction constituted copyright infringement or if it was permissible under the doctrine of fair dealing, particularly given the educational context.
Ten Xc Wireless Inc v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen)
Ten Xc Wireless Inc filed two suits seeking permanent injunctions and damages against various defendants, alleging infringement of its registered patent (IN 240893) related to 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency' used in Bi-Sector Array Antennas. The core dispute revolves around the use of asymmetric beam patterns in wireless communication systems. Although the plaintiffs sought interim injunctions, the court deferred a decision on costs because the defendants had raised credible challenges regarding the patent's validity, which must be examined during the trial.
M/S Metal Impacts Pvt Ltd v.M/S Impact Metals Pvt Ltd
The dispute involved a registered design for easy open end lids used in aluminum containers. The defendant challenged the registration, arguing that the design was not new or original, had been publicly disclosed globally long before the filing date, and was based on an invention by Mr. Ermal Fraze. The court found that the plaintiff suppressed material facts regarding the global prior art and lack of novelty/originality.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.Union Of India
Nippon Steel Corporation challenged the refusal by the Controller of Patents to allow an amendment to its patent application's priority date. The Petitioner, which holds world-class technology in medium-high grade steel, had missed the deadline for filing a Request for Examination (RFE) due to a docketing error at its attorney's office. The Petitioner subsequently sought to amend the priority date to extend the RFE window. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that once an application is deemed withdrawn under Section 11-B(4), the Controller cannot entertain any amendment, regardless of the reason for missing the deadline.
The Indian Express Limited v.Express Publications Madurai Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by The Indian Express Limited against Express Publications Madurai Limited. While the plaintiff alleged that the defendants' use of 'The New Indian Express Group' constituted illegal infringement and passing off, the court found no valid ground to grant an injunction. However, to prevent consumer confusion, the court imposed a condition requiring the defendants to append 'Madurai' and their place of publication when using the expression outside the territories permitted by prior agreements.
Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v.Bharat Bhogilal Patel & Others
LG Electronics filed a suit challenging actions taken by Customs officials (Defendants No. 2 and 3) who were restricting the clearance of its goods based on a patent infringement complaint filed by Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff argued that the impugned patent lacked novelty and inventive step, and that Customs action was contrary to government circulars regarding border measures for patents.
K. C. Das Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.K. C. Dass
The Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal filed by K. C. Das Pvt. Ltd., finding that the respondent, K. C. Dass, was engaging in passing off due to the use of a deceptively similar stylized mark. Although the defendant's business (readymade garments) was different from the plaintiff's (sweetmeats), the court held that adopting the same unique artistic style and font created sufficient confusion in the market. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court's order and granted an injunction preventing the respondent from using the plaintiff's distinctive stylistic presentation of its trade name.
Unknown v.S.K.Maingi
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendant for infringing Indian Patent No.196774, which covers Erlotinib Hydrochloride. The core legal issue before the Madras High Court was whether it had the necessary territorial jurisdiction to try the infringement case, given that the plaintiff was not a resident of Delhi and the alleged sales were isolated.
M/S. Sunbeam Exports v.Commissioner Of Customs (Export) Nhava Sheva
M/S. Sunbeam Exports appealed an order where the Commissioner confiscated and imposed penalties on goods (printed books) destined for Nigeria. The seizure was based on the violation of the Copyright Act, 1957, because some books were marked 'For sale in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka only'.
Madhu Product v.Sundaram Files
Madhu Product, a manufacturer and seller of stationery goods since 1978, holds a registered trademark 'NANDI'. The petitioner filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents for infringement of this trade mark. The writ petitions were filed challenging the trial court's refusal to grant an ex parte ad interim order.
Davinder Kumar Jain & Ors. v.Sanjeev Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who owned the 'LUXOR' trademark, finding that defendants were infringing upon their rights by using the mark on electric bulbs. The court established both trademark infringement and passing off, noting that allowing continued use would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and punitive damages.
The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Cri Events Private Limited & Ors / Synergy Media
IPRS, a non-profit cooperative body representing authors and composers, filed suits alleging copyright infringement against various defendants (including Cri Events/Synergy Media) regarding the public performance of literary and musical works. The court addressed whether licenses from IPRS and PPRS were required for performances in public events.
Dr. B. Sahu v.State Of U.P. & Ors.
The petitioner, an Executive Director, challenged a complaint case alleging that selected candidates had stolen secret formulas and information from the respondent company. The petitioner argued that any violation of contracts or IP rights was a civil matter, not criminal. The court agreed, holding that allegations of secrecy theft are subject to civil suit.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Banka v.The Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that revoked a patent granted to him. The sixth respondent sought revocation under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, alleging lack of novelty based on prior art. The High Court admitted the petition but declined to grant any interim stay.
Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente v.Union Of India And Ors
This petition challenged the Patent Office's refusal to accept Form 18, a request for examination under the Patents Act, citing that it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The core dispute revolved around an apparent conflict between Rule 24B of the Patents Rules and the guidelines set forth by WIPO/PCT regarding the commencement date for calculating the 48-month period. Given the ambiguity and potential impact on other applicants, the High Court found it expedient to remand the matter back to the Controller General of Patents for a reasoned consideration.
Michael Casey Enterprises Ltd. v.Asian Sky Shop & Anr
Michael Casey Enterprises Ltd. filed two suits against Asian Sky Shop & Anr alleging infringement of copyright and passing off related to their health equipment, 'AB KING PRO'. The plaintiffs claimed the product's engineering drawings were original artistic works protected by copyright, while the defendants argued that the design was merely ornamental and covered under the Designs Act, 2000. However, due to the plaintiffs failing to appear despite applications for counsel discharge, the court dismissed both suits in default.
M/s.Aravind Laboratories v.Modicare
The plaintiff, M/s.Aravind Laboratories, filed applications seeking an interim injunction against Modicare for infringement and passing off related to their cosmetics trade marks, specifically 'EYETEX DAZLLER'. The defendant argued that 'Daily Dazzler' was a bona fide descriptive mark under Section 35 of the Act. The court ultimately upheld the defense, finding no infringement or passing off.
Mr.S.Vijayaraghavan v.Mrs. Sellappappa Keeran
The applicants sought an interim injunction to prevent the respondent from copying, recording, or publishing works belonging to Late Pulavar Keeran, claiming they had purchased the exclusive rights. The respondent filed a suit asserting her title as owner of the copyright through inheritance. The court examined whether the oral agreement constituted a valid transfer of copyright.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that allowed a cancellation application under Section 19 of the 2000 Act. The appellant argued that the design was created while its director, Mr. Saraswat, was employed with them, making the subsequent use by his new company improper.
Surinder Prakash Gupta v.Union Of India & Ors.
This writ petition challenged an order by the Copyright Board that allowed objections filed late against the Petitioner’s application for copyright registration. The core issue revolved around whether a third party could file objections beyond the statutory thirty-day period prescribed under Rule 16(4) of the Copyright Rules, 1958. The Delhi High Court ruled decisively in favor of the Petitioner, holding that there was no provision allowing objections to be filed after the stipulated time limit, thereby setting aside the Board's order and restoring the Registrar’s original decision.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd challenged the order dated June 30, 2010, which sought to cancel a registered design due to alleged prior publication. The court found that the basis for this finding was questionable.
Pathiath Babu Rajendran Gowari Rajendran and Another v.Asst. Registrar of Trade Marks & 2
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petitioners' appeals challenging orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) regarding the rectification of trade mark 'PRIYA'. The court found that IPAB had properly appreciated the facts and evidence, noting that the petitioner waived their right to introduce belated documents due to laches. Consequently, the petitions seeking to quash the IPAB's orders were dismissed, and the interim stay granted in favor of the petitioners was vacated.
M/s.Cholayil Private Limited v.Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the plaintiff's applications seeking an ad-interim injunction against alleged infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'Herbal,' was not phonetically similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'Medimix.' Furthermore, despite the plaintiff claiming long usage, the court noted that the artistic work relied upon was only assigned in 2008, undermining the claim of continuous use since 1969. Ultimately, the court concluded there were more dissimilarities than similarities, finding no likelihood of deception among ordinary purchasers.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that allowed a cancellation application under Section 19 of the 2000 Act. The appellant argued that the design was created during the employment of Mr. Chandresh Santosh Kumar Saraswat, who later joined the respondent company. The High Court set aside the Controller's order, finding that the prior publication ground was not properly considered.
Puma Aktiengesellschaft Rudolf Dassler Sport v.Bhatia Time
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Puma Aktiengesellschaft Rudolf Dassler Sport against Bhatia Time, who was selling products bearing the disputed 'PUMA' trademark. The court found that a prima facie case for passing off and trademark infringement had been made out by the plaintiff. Consequently, the court issued an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark and appointed a Local Commissioner to seize all infringing goods, packaging materials, and relevant business records.
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Apex Formulations Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed an application seeking a stay in a trademark infringement suit. While the applicant argued for a stay pending opposition proceedings, the court determined that since the original suit was filed under the older Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the relevant provisions applied. The court framed an issue questioning the validity of the plaintiff's trade mark registration and adjourned the case to allow the defendant time to comply with statutory requirements regarding challenging the trademark's validity.
Emergent Genetics India Pvt. Ltd. v.Shailendra Shivam And Ors.
Emergent Genetics India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging infringement related to its seed varieties and associated data, claiming rights over databases and confidential information. The court examined whether the plaintiff could establish prima facie claims for copyright protection in these databases. Ultimately, the court held that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the claimed information was capable of protection or qualified as 'confidential information,' leading to the vacation of the ex-parte injunction.
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.