IP Cases — 2023
1,151 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 14 of 39 · 1,151 total
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design's order dated February 27, 2020, which refused to register Indian Patent Application No. 9486/DELNP/2007 for a system and method related to wearable electronic devices.
Business Objects Software Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Business Objects Software Limited filed an appeal challenging the refusal of its patent application (No. 7583/CHENP/2011). The Appellant subsequently sought permission to withdraw this appeal to file it before the High Court of Madras. The court dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn.
S3G Technology Llc v.Sourcetrace Systems India Private
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 328489. The parties later entered into a settlement agreement, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Corza International And Ors v.Future Bath Products Pvt Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring the plaintiff in a trademark dispute concerning the marks 'CORZA' and 'CORSA'. Despite arguments from the appellants regarding geographical limitations and product differences, the court found prima facie phonetic, structural, and visual similarity between the two marks. The judgment reinforces that registered proprietors can sue other registered proprietors for deceptive similarity, even if they are both registered owners.
Sivaji Hi-Tek Foods Private Limited v.V.K.R.Venkatesan
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Sivaji Hi-Tek Foods Private Limited seeking rectification and cancellation of a trade mark entry. The court noted that despite attempts to serve notice, the petitioner's address was insufficient, and their counsel confirmed they had no instructions to prosecute the matter. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Binyarco Llc v.The Controller Patents And Designs And Ors.
The matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Oneempower Pte Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Oneempower Pte Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Transaction Reward System' (TRS), arguing that it possessed a technical effect and was not merely a business method. The Controller rejected the application, holding that TRS was fundamentally an administrative or organizational business solution implemented using standard technology.
Uab Research Foundation And Anr v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The Uab Research Foundation appealed against an order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The impugned order refused to grant a patent application titled 'Purine Nucleoside Phosphorylase as Enzymatic Activator of Nucleoside Prodrugs' because the claims were deemed to fall within the scope of Section 3(i) of the Act.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha M/S Toyota Motor Corporation v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petitions filed by Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha against Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd regarding the trademark 'ALPHARD'. Toyota sought to remove registrations held by the respondent in Classes 9, 12, and 27. The court found that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or reputation for 'ALPHARD' within India, particularly in the specific classes of goods where the respondent was registered. Consequently, the petitions seeking cancellation were dismissed.
Enconcore N.V. v.Anjani Technoplast Ltd. & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Enconcore N.V., a Belgium-based company, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing its patented technology related to folded honeycomb sandwich panels (Therm-Hex technology). The court held an interim hearing, modifying existing injunctions and imposing conditions on the defendants regarding sales reporting and security deposit.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Rajendra Singh
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark 'Levi's', copyright, and passing off against the defendants who were manufacturing and selling counterfeit apparel. The court found that defendant no.1 was engaged in the business of selling and manufacturing counterfeit products, leading to a decree for damages.
Devanand Nagpal Prop. Nagpal Foods And Caterers v.Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Devanand Nagpal seeking the issuance of his Trade Mark registration certificate for 'NAGPAL'S SPECIAL CHOLE BHATURE'. Although the opposition against his mark was dismissed in July 2023, the certificate had not been issued. The Court ordered the immediate issuance of the certificate within 10 working days, but crucially stipulated that this registration would remain subject to the final outcome of a parallel appeal filed by the opposing party. This decision balances administrative delay with ongoing legal disputes.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
JFE Steel Corporation filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents' decision to refuse its patent application. The refusal was based on the grounds that the claims did not fulfill the criteria of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
A Dot Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by A Dot Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the trademark 'WHAT DO YOU SEE?'. The court held that a combination of dictionary words forming a tagline can function as a source identifier, provided it does not describe the features or quality of the goods/services. Recognizing the mark's use as an expressive prompt rather than a descriptive feature, the High Court set aside the refusal and directed the Registry to process the application, while ensuring the rights are limited strictly to the phrase 'WHAT DO YOU SEE?'
Cryomass Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Cryomass LLC filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application, '201917048279,' titled "Cryogenic Separation of Plant Material." The initial rejection by the Assistant Controller was based on a lack of inventive steps and falling under Section 3(f) of the Patents Act. Cryomass argued that their non-aqueous cryogenic system offered novel advantages not disclosed in prior art. The Delhi High Court, while setting aside procedural objections regarding delay subject to costs, directed further pleadings before listing the case for final hearing.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 205706. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the term of the patent had already expired on June 4, 2021.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Mr. Surender Talwar
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Mr. Surender Talwar for infringement of its trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo') and copyrights, alleging that the defendant was selling counterfeit goods bearing deceptively similar marks. The court found the defendant guilty of passing off and trademark infringement.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 3211/CHENP/2010) for 'Software Defined Radio Architecture'. The appellant argued that the rejection order lacked sufficient reasoning and failed to consider their submissions in response to the First Examination Report, despite prior art documents being cited.
Pfizer Products Inc. v.R. Hanumantha Rao
Pfizer Products Inc. successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to expunge the registration of the trademark VECOREX (No. 980006) from the register. The court noted that the mark had not been renewed since December 29, 2020. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the entry within four weeks, effectively clearing the mark for potential use by the petitioner.
Anubhav Jain v.Satish Kumar Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking cancellation of the 'Jain Shikanji' trademark registration. While dismissing the petitioner's initial arguments regarding lack of distinctiveness under Section 9, the court found technical deficiencies in the grant. Consequently, it directed the Registrar to re-examine two critical issues: the objections raised in the First Examination Report (FER) concerning prior marks (Section 11), and the validity of the claimed date of user. This interim order allows the respondent to continue using the mark while a de novo review is conducted.
Leeford Healthcare Limited v.Vobb Healthcare & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Leeford Healthcare Limited against Vobb Healthcare & Ors. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, specifically concerning the medicinal cream brand 'DERMIFORD.' Given that the goods are pharmaceutical and the defendants had recently entered the market, the court held that Leeford would suffer grave injury without immediate protection. This order temporarily halts the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like 'NEO DERMIFORD' until further orders.
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v.Shree Sakshat Money Lenders And Exchange Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed petitions filed by Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. seeking cancellation of 'TIGER' device logos registered by Shree Sakshat Money Lenders. The court noted the near identity between the marks and directed that status quo be maintained concerning the registrations. This interim order prevents any transfer, license, or assignment of the disputed trademarks while the matter proceeds.
M/s Izuk Impex v.Kidar Kutubuddin Momin & Anr.
M/s Izuk Impex filed a suit for passing off and trademark infringement against Kidar Kutubuddin Momin and M/s Star Mehandi Cone regarding the use of similar trademarks. The plaintiff, owner of 'MOON & STAR' and related copyrights, successfully argued that the defendants were gaining unfair advantage by using deceptively similar marks in the mehandi business.
M/S.Silver Oak (India) Limited v.Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S. Silver Oak (India) Limited against Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. The core issue involved an opposition concerning Trade Mark No. 1116900 in Class 33. However, upon inquiry, the court found that the relevant trade mark had already been removed from the Register of Trade Marks. Consequently, the appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed without further order.
Ischemix Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Ischemix LLC appealed a refusal of its patent application, which covered an isomer used to treat ischemia. The refusal was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, requiring demonstration of 'enhanced therapeutic efficacy.' The court acknowledged the strict interpretation required by law but noted that the Patent Office had failed to consider various supporting data provided by the applicant. Consequently, the High Court directed the record back to the Patent Office for re-examination and final adjudication within a stipulated timeframe.
Dow Agrosciences Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Dow Agrosciences LLC challenged the refusal of its patent application, 'Stabilized Agricultural Oil Dispersions,' citing errors and inaccuracies in the Controller's objections. The appellant argued that key prior art documents were wrongly cited or misinterpreted, particularly regarding thermal stability claims. Recognizing significant procedural flaws and incorrect references in the impugned order, the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh examination.
Astellas Deutschland GmbH v.The Controller of Patents and Desingns
Astellas Deutschland GmbH filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order issued by The Controller of Patents and Desingns. However, the appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Suresh Steel Tubes Pvt Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Suresh Steel Tubes Pvt Ltd. filed a petition seeking the removal of Trademark Registration No. 1973721, arguing that its validity had lapsed. The Madras High Court reviewed the status provided by the Trademarks Registry and found that the long stop date for renewal and restoration had expired. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous, effectively upholding the existing registration.
L'Oreal S.A. v.Tarun Sankhla trading as M/s LEORA COSMETICS
L'Oreal S.A. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Tarun Sankhla (trading as M/s LEORA COSMETICS) for infringing its trademarks, passing off, and diluting its brand reputation in the cosmetics market. The court found that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks and tradenames, leading to the decreeing of the plaintiff's suit.
Lipotec, S.A. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Lipotec appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 7314/CHENP/2009) for 'Regulatory Compounds For Pigmentation'. The rejection was based on Section 3(d) and lack of inventive step, citing prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Controller disregarded experimental data and detailed submissions.
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.