Year

IP Cases — 2015

129 decisions across all jurisdictions

By jurisdiction: India 129 European UPC 0 US PTAB 0
By type: patent 61 trademark 50 design 9 copyright 9

Page 5 of 5 · 129 total

trademark settled · Jan 21, 2015

Babu Ram Om Prakash v.Pradhan Herbal Company

Delhi High Court · 31532423

This case involved a dispute between Babu Ram Om Prakash and Pradhan Herbal Company concerning the use of the trademark 'Diamond/Black Diamond' in relation to Henna Power (Mehandi). Following mandatory mediation, the parties reached a comprehensive Settlement Agreement. The court accepted this agreement, decreeing the suit based on its terms, which prohibited the defendant from using the plaintiff's mark or similar labels.

patent interim order · Jan 19, 2015

Symed Labs Ltd. v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 67167483

Symed Labs Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. was manufacturing and selling Linezolid using processes that infringed upon Symed's registered patents (IN '062 and IN '063). The Plaintiff argued that its patented methods were more economical, safer, and commercially viable than the prior art processes. The court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing the infringing activities.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jan 15, 2015

Sun Pharmadeuticals Industries Ltd. v.Stadmed Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Calcutta High Court · 173830462

The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for amendment of the cause title, recognizing that the rights in the trademark 'ZOLAM' had been transferred from Sun Pharmadeuticals Industries Ltd. to Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited via a sanctioned scheme of arrangement. The court found the plaintiff's case unimpeachable and ruled that the successor company was entitled to continue the legal proceedings without delay.

patent defendant favorable · Jan 9, 2015

Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr

Delhi High Court · 152641384

The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar of PPVFR Authority which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether these parent lines retained novelty despite the commercial use and sale of resulting hybrid seeds.

patent defendant favorable · Jan 9, 2015

Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr

Delhi High Court · 114868467

The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPV&FR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether the development and sale of hybrid seeds from these parent lines invalidated the novelty claim for the original parental lines.

patent defendant favorable · Jan 9, 2015

Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India

Delhi High Court · 129731017

The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.

patent mixed · Jan 9, 2015

Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd

Delhi High Court · 68879740

Novartis AG filed a suit against Cipla Ltd alleging infringement of its patented drug, INDACATEROL Maleate, used for treating COPD. Novartis sought a permanent injunction to restrain the use and sale of the infringing product. The Delhi High Court addressed the interim application, noting that while the defendant had not applied for compulsory licensing, the grounds under the Patents Act were relevant. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining Cipla from manufacturing or selling INDACATEROL Maleate until the final outcome of the suit.

patent defendant favorable · Jan 9, 2015

Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr

Delhi High Court · 83237727

The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PVPFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.

patent defendant favorable · Jan 9, 2015

Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr

Delhi High Court · 113473316

The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether these parent lines retained novelty despite the commercial use and sale of resulting hybrid seeds.

1 •••345
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 →