IP Cases — 2023
1,360 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 1 of 46 · 1,360 total
M/s.Aquasub Engineering v.M.Mandal Trading as Aqua Tech Enterprises
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by M/s.Aquasub Engineering seeking to rectify or cancel the registration of the trademark AQUATECH (No. 1925332). The court found that the trade mark had lapsed because its last valid registration expired on February 22, 2020, and was not renewed within the statutory period. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry from the register.
Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant sought a patent for 'Hygiene Wash,' a skin care preparation using wood vinegar derived from the Rhizophora apiculata tree. The Controller rejected the application, but the High Court found that the invention possessed an inventive step by identifying guaiacol-free wood vinegar and determining the optimal concentration (18-22%) to selectively target harmful bacteria while preserving beneficial lactic acid bacteria.
Under Armour Inc. v.Ashwani & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark litigation, the Delhi High Court issued procedural orders to advance the case. The court directed that notice be served on all parties and set a returnable date for July 2023. Crucially, the court allowed an application seeking access to the official records of Trademark Registration No. 5372621 in Class 25, ensuring these documents would be placed before the court for consideration.
Varun Chopra & Jagdaman Kumar Chopra v.Shyam Sunder Chopra And Sons, Sampan Chopra, Vaibhav Chopra, Samvitee Foods Pvt Ltd
The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning a lower court's decision to reject their trademark infringement suit. The core issue was whether Section 20 of the CPC (territorial jurisdiction) was applicable despite provisions of the Trade Marks Act. The Court held that the special provisions of the Trademark Act do not oust the general principles of territorial jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, especially when the cause of action arises within the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for a fresh consideration of the plaint rejection application.
Beiersdorf Ag v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Beiersdorf Ag successfully challenged an administrative order issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding its international registration. The Bombay High Court found that the original order was arbitrary, lacking independent reasons or consideration of the petitioner's submissions. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar, mandating a reasoned decision within eight weeks.
Organo Gold Holdings, Limited v.Origano Gold Private Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit filed by Organo Gold Holdings against Origano Gold Private Limited. The parties reached a settlement agreement, which the court subsequently decreed. Under the terms, the defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's rights in the 'ORIGANO GOLD' mark and committed to immediately cease using similar marks or logos. Furthermore, Defendant No. 2 agreed to withdraw specific registered trademarks and pending trademark applications.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed the defendant's application to reject the plaintiff's patent infringement suit. The court rejected arguments regarding lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, clarifying that specific allegations of ongoing sales negate the 'mere apprehension' standard used in previous cases. Furthermore, the court dismissed the contention based on the Aloys Wobben controversy, holding that pending post-grant opposition proceedings do not automatically preclude the institution of an infringement suit.
M/s.Mysore Silk Udyog v.M/s.Mysore Saree Udyog LLP
The Madras High Court dismissed two Original Petitions filed by M/s. Mysore Silk Udyog seeking to expunge or limit the scope of registered trade marks belonging to M/s. Mysore Saree Udyog LLP. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the trademark dispute, but rather because the petitioner failed to appear and could not be served notice at the address provided in the petition. This highlights the critical importance for IP litigants to maintain accurate contact information throughout legal proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
NEC Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's rejection of its Patent Application No.7830/CHENP/2014, which was based on the alleged violation of Section 7(2) of the Patents Act due to the date of declaration by an inventor. The court held that there is a distinction between the date of assignment and the date of declaration, finding the impugned order unsustainable.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application for a filtering user interface. The Controller rejected the application under Section 3(k) as being a 'computer program per se'. The High Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that software can be patentable if it demonstrates a technical contribution and applying the updated CRI 2017 Guidelines.
M/s Rockmed Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Nukind Healthcare & Anr.
The suit was filed under Section 27 of the Trade Mark Act against M/s Nukind Healthcare and others, alleging that they were passing off pharmaceutical products under the identical trademark 'KETOGOLD'. The plaintiff established extensive use, goodwill, and reputation of the mark. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Vifor International Ltd. v.Biological E Limited
Vifor International Ltd., the patentee, filed a suit against Biological E Limited regarding alleged infringement of its patent (IN 221536) covering water-soluble iron carbohydrate complexes. The dispute centers on the use and manufacture of FCM for intravenous iron deficiency therapy. Given the impending expiry of the patent tenure in October 2023, the court issued interim directions. These directions mandate that the defendants maintain detailed accounts of their manufacturing and sales of FCM until the patent expires, while simultaneously prohibiting them from using the specific process claimed by Vifor.
Japan Tobacco Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office
Japan Tobacco Inc. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier decision made by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application. The appellant subsequently submitted a memo requesting the withdrawal of the appeal.
Hartek India Pvt Ltd v.Hartek Design And Software Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed an interim injunction in favor of Hartek India Pvt Ltd, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off against Hartek Design And Software Solutions Private Limited. The court noted that the defendant's use of 'HARTEKDSS,' despite the added suffix, was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'HARTEK.' This order serves as a crucial early victory for the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using the confusingly similar name while the full suit proceeds.
Matrix Labs. Limited v.Astellas Pharma Europe Bv
Matrix Labs. Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 234753. However, the court noted that the term of the subject patent had already expired on June 25, 2017.
CRYTEK GmbH v.Hameed Firnas
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by CRYTEK GmbH, a German company specializing in computer games, seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register. The court found that the impugned mark registered to Hameed Firnas was deceptively similar to CRYTEK's earlier trademark and was likely to cause public confusion. Crucially, the respondent failed to provide any evidence of use for their mark despite being given an opportunity, leading the court to direct its cancellation.
Manipal Holdings Private Limited v.Manipal Academy Of Higher Education Deemed University, Registrar of Trade Marks, MEMG International India Private Limited, Manipal Global Education Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a series of Trade Mark Rectification petitions filed by Manipal Holdings Private Limited against various entities. The court noted that the contesting parties had reached an amicable settlement and executed a compromise decree on November 4, 2023. Consequently, the petitioner requested that all rectification petitions be closed as withdrawn in line with the terms of the settlement.
Wrangler Apparel Corporation v.H.S. Kishori Lal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a request to stay a trademark infringement suit while separate rectification petitions questioning the validity of the trademarks were pending. Citing recent legal precedents, particularly following the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the court ruled that there is no need to stay the civil suit. Instead, it ordered the consolidation of the main suit and all related rectification petitions to be tried together before the High Court.
Pfizer Inc v.West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited for infringing four patents covering Palbociclib and Crizotinib. The dispute centered on the Defendant's listing of these products for manufacture and sale, despite the existence of valid patents held by the Plaintiffs.
Winzo Games Private Limited v.Google Llc
The Delhi High Court framed several key issues in the dispute between Winzo Games Private Limited and Google LLC regarding a warning displayed on Chrome Mobile Browser. The core questions revolve around whether this warning constitutes disparagement of WinZO's trademarks, amounts to trademark use under the Trade Marks Act, or violates contractual obligations. Both parties have been directed to file a joint schedule for recording evidence, signaling that the matter is moving into the substantive trial phase.
Adama India Private Limited v.Fmc Corporation & Anr.
Adama India Private Limited filed a suit seeking a declaration that its process for manufacturing Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR) does not infringe Patent No. IN 298645 held by FMC Corporation. The court, while addressing an interim application, granted a temporary restraint on the defendants from contacting distributors or regulatory authorities to prevent business hindrance.
Alternative Gene Expression S L v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application, which held that the method of producing recombinant proteins by destruction of pupa was non-patentable under Section 3(b). The High Court found the rejection order to be cryptic and lacking reasoned justification despite detailed submissions from the appellant.
House Of Diagnostics Llp & Ors. v.House Of Pathology Labs Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction favoring the plaintiffs, House Of Diagnostics LLP, against House Of Pathology Labs Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case of idea infringement, noting that both parties operate in the highly similar field of diagnostic services and their marks are glaringly similar. The defendant was restrained from using 'House of Pathology' in connection with its diagnostic activities, pending further consideration of the main suit.
ITC Limited v.VST Industries Limited
The Madras High Court allowed ITC Limited's petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration. The court directed the removal of Trademark No. 509304 from Class 34 on the Register of Trademarks. This decision was made after VST Industries Limited filed a memo indicating no objection to the petitioner's request, effectively clearing the path for the cancellation.
Jay Switches India Pvt Ltd v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd & Ors
The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants for the infringement of Patent No. 427110 and registered Design No. 275676, along with passing off and rendition of accounts.
E. I. Dupont De Nemours And Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
E. I. Dupont De Nemours And Company filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated December 16, 2019, which refused to grant Indian patent application no. 1845/DELNP/2011. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and objections under Sections 3(e) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
K.P.D.Rajendran v.Mr.G.Sundarapandian
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petitions filed by K.P.D.Rajendran seeking the removal of trademarks 'SOLO' and 'BOVONTO.' The court noted that the impugned trademark registrations (Nos. 929435, 929437, and 929438) had not been renewed by the mark owner. Consequently, the petitions were deemed infructuous.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter And Gamble Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5444/DELNP/2007). The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, citing prior art that showed individual ingredients. P&G argued that the cited art did not disclose the invention as a composition thereof.
Almac Discovery Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Almac Discovery Limited filed an appeal challenging the Impugned Order dated July 19, 2017, passed by The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding Indian Patent Application No.82/CHENP/2009. However, the petitioner subsequently instructed counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Winzo Games Private Limited v.Google Llc
The Delhi High Court framed several key issues in the dispute between Winzo Games Private Limited and Google LLC regarding a warning displayed on Chrome Mobile Browser. The core questions revolve around whether this warning constitutes disparagement of WinZO's trademarks, amounts to trademark use under the Trade Marks Act, or violates contractual obligations. Both parties have been directed to file a joint schedule for recording evidence, signaling that the matter is moving into the substantive trial phase.
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.