IP Cases — 2023
1,252 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 15 of 42 · 1,252 total
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947028978). The Controller rejected the application citing lack of clarity in method claims and unnecessary amendments. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the grounds for rejection were not based on merits, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its PCT National Phase application (No. 201947028978). The rejection was based on various objections, including lack of novelty and clarity in claims. The High Court found that the rejection was not dealt with on merits and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947017802) by the Controller of Patents. The Controller rejected the application citing failure to submit proper method claims and procedural lapses regarding Form-3 filing delay. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the grounds for rejection were untenable and remanding the matter.
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.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947029757) by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the objections raised in the Second Examination Report were effectively addressed through amendments, and the rejection was based on procedural grounds rather than merits. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947028978) by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on procedural failures and misinterpretations, despite having addressed substantive objections raised in the Second Examination Report. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947017802). The rejection was based on alleged failures regarding proper method claim submission and procedural delays concerning Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the grounds were untenable and remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Titan Company Ltd. v.Titan Plast Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Titan Company Ltd. against Titan Plast Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the trade mark in question, No. 925369 (Class 20), had not been renewed since May 17, 2010. Since the long stop date for renewal had expired, the appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed without further order.
Laticrete International, Inc. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Laticrete International's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark application. The court found the original refusal order was unreasoned, essentially a 'copy and paste job,' and failed to consider the appellant's arguments regarding the cited marks. Crucially, the court noted that two of the five cited conflicting marks had been abandoned, while the remaining three were still in an 'opposed' status, making the application eligible for advertisement.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The court addressed several interim applications filed by Vifor (International) Ltd. in various suits, including CS(COMM) 505/2022. Following a prior judgment by a Coordinate Bench dismissing the plaintiffs' interim injunction applications, the status quo orders were vacated, subject to conditions preventing defendants from following the patented process IN 221536.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
This order addresses various applications seeking interim directions in suits related to the patent IN 221536. The court vacated previous status quo orders following a Coordinate Bench's dismissal of injunction applications, but imposed conditions that defendants must not follow the patented process and must maintain complete sales accounts.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs sought interim directions based on a prior Division Bench order. The court noted that a Coordinate Bench had dismissed the plaintiffs' interim injunction applications concerning patent IN 221536. Consequently, the status quo orders previously passed were vacated, subject to conditions preventing defendants from following the patented process.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The court addressed several interim applications filed by Vifor (International) Ltd. in various suits, primarily concerning the patent IN 221536 related to Water Soluble Iron Carbohydrate Complex. Following a prior judgment by a Coordinate Bench dismissing plaintiffs' interim injunction applications, the status quo orders were vacated, subject to conditions preventing defendants from following the patented process.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
This order addresses various applications seeking interim directions in multiple commercial suits related to Patent IN 221536. The court noted that a Coordinate Bench had dismissed the plaintiffs' interim injunction applications, leading to the vacation of previous status quo orders. The court declined to grant an immediate direction for deposit of entire sales amount but directed defendants to maintain and file complete accounts of sales.
Honasa Consumer Ltd v.Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd
Honasa Consumer Ltd filed a petition seeking cancellation of the trademark 'D-TAN' registered by Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd. The dispute arose after Honasa received a cease and desist notice from Visage claiming rights over the mark, which overlaps with Honasa's use of 'DETAN' in conjunction with its brand 'AQUALOGICA'. The Delhi High Court allowed procedural applications regarding document filing and issued notice to the Respondent for the stay application, setting future dates for hearing.
Lottoland Holdings Private Limited v.Kuldeep Sharma
Lottoland Holdings Private Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Kuldeep Sharma for using the 'LOTTOLAND' trademark and associated device. The Plaintiff, a global leader in online lottery and betting services, alleged that the Defendant's application was a dishonest attempt to appropriate its globally recognized mark. The Delhi High Court granted an interim status quo order, preventing the Defendant from launching any business under the disputed mark until further proceedings.
Raytheon Company v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Raytheon Company appealed the refusal of its patent application, 'Scheduling in a High-Performance Computing System,' which was rejected by the Controller under Section 15 for lack of inventive step and non-patentability (Section 3(k)). The core argument centered on the Controller incorrectly applying outdated Computer Related Invention Guidelines. Raytheon contended that their invention provided a technical solution to HPC scalability issues, specifically reducing job scheduling time. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal order and directing a fresh examination without mandating novel hardware.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc v.Sanjeev Gupta & Ors
The commercial suit for patent infringement (CS(COMM) 823/2018) between Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc and Sanjeev Gupta & Ors was settled. The parties agreed that the suit would be decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs, acknowledging the validity of Patent IN'816 and the Defendants' infringing activities.
Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad v.The Registrar of Trademark
The Madras High Court set aside the Trademark Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'GRAMA BAZAAR' (Application No. 3589530). The appellant successfully argued that because the mark is a device mark applied to services (operating as a marketplace), it should not be subject to the same conflicts as existing word marks registered for goods in different classes. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement, while imposing a limitation preventing the appellant from claiming exclusive rights over the words 'GRAMA' or 'BAZAAR'.
M/S.Chu Chu Tv Studios Llp v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S. Chu Chu Tv Studios LLP against the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of its device mark registration (CHU CHU TV). The court overturned the refusal, finding that the grounds cited by the Registrar—including lack of turnover disclosure and failure to provide a Section 65B certificate for online content—were untenable. Crucially, the High Court held that when evidence is sourced from third-party online articles, the applicant cannot be required to produce a Section 65B certificate, thereby paving the way for the mark's acceptance.
Future Gaming And Hotel Services Pvt. Ltd. v.India G6 Hospitality Ip Llc
The Madras High Court set aside an adverse order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) that had removed a trademark belonging to Future Gaming And Hotel Services Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner successfully argued that the IPAB's decision was ex parte, having been passed without affording them a proper hearing due to their inability to engage counsel during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the matter be presented before an appropriate bench for fresh consideration.
M/s.White House (Partnership Firm) v.White House Apparels Private Limited & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed multiple petitions filed by M/s. White House seeking the removal of several registered trademarks belonging to its competitor, White House Apparels Private Limited. The petitioner argued they were a prior user of the 'WHITE HOUSE' mark since 1963, relying heavily on historical turnover and export documents. However, the Court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating continuous use or application of the mark to goods until much later (around 2015), concluding that the respondent's prior registration rights were valid.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Sumit Kumar
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and selling goods bearing falsified "Levi's" marks. The court found that the defendants were engaged in infringing activities and remained absent from court proceedings. Consequently, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff.
M/S Vajiram & Ravi Ias Study Centre Llp v.M/S Vajirao & Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction against passing off. The dispute involved two coaching institutes, 'Vajiram & Ravi' and 'Vajirao & Reddy,' both using names rooted in proper nouns. Despite the plaintiff claiming prior use and phonetic similarity between 'VAJIRAM' and 'VAJIRAO', the court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a strong likelihood of confusion at this preliminary stage. The balance of convenience tilted in favor of the defendant, allowing them to continue operating under their mark pending final trial.
Indoco Remedies Limited v.M/S.Micro Labs Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of a dispute between Indoco Remedies Limited and M/S.Micro Labs Ltd regarding the trade mark 'CITALIFT'. The parties reached an agreement, leading the court to mandate the cancellation of the disputed registration (No. 1005556). Micro Labs agreed to change its mark to 'MICROLIFT' while being granted a six-month grace period to liquidate existing inventory bearing the old mark.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA COFFEE SYSTEMS GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.
Raytheon Company v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Raytheon Company appealed the rejection of its patent application by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection relied on outdated guidelines (CRI Guidelines, 2016), while the newer 2017 guidelines were already in effect and did not mandate novel hardware for Section 3(k) applicability.
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents that refused to grant a patent for 'Leave-on Compositions Containing Cellulose Materials' due to lack of inventive step. The core dispute revolved around the prior art cited against the application, particularly documents in Japanese. The court condoned procedural delays and directed remedial steps to ensure translated copies of the foreign language prior art were made available before listing the case for final hearing.
Microsoft Corporation v.Pcpatchers Technology Private Limited
In a significant ruling concerning brand protection, the Delhi High Court directed various international Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to comply with an existing injunction. Microsoft Corporation sought permanent relief against entities allegedly violating its trademarks and copyrights through fraudulent activities using 'MICROSOFT' in domain names. The court granted a final opportunity for DNRs to provide necessary WHOIS details and suspend the infringing domains, warning that failure to comply within one week would lead to legal action by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
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.