IP Cases — 2023
1,252 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 21 of 42 · 1,252 total
Venator Materials Uk Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Venator Materials Uk Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order dated 14 December 2020 issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appeal sought to set aside that order and allow the patent application No.7188/CHENP/2012 to proceed to grant.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
The petitioner sought a stay of proceedings in the patent revocation petition (CO (Comm. IPD-PAT) 3/2021) under Section 10 of the CPC, citing a previously instituted suit filed by Respondent 2 (Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH) before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The court analyzed whether a revocation petition and an infringement suit have identical issues and causes of action.
M/S. Malar Publications Ltd. v.M/s.Malar Network Private Limited
The Madras High Court disposed of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal concerning Trademark No. 1066201. The court noted that the registration for this trademark had lapsed and was only renewed up to December 11, 2011. Furthermore, it was established that M/s. Malar Network Private Limited, one of the parties involved, had been struck off and dissolved from the corporate register. Consequently, the High Court directed the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the lapsed trademark entry from the register.
Marico Limited v.Mathewsons Exports And Imports Pvt.Ltd
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Marico Limited, directing the removal of the trademark 'KASTHOORI MANJAL' (Registration No. 1451234) from the register. The core issue was that the mark had not been renewed since April 26, 2016, and the statutory long stop date for renewal or restoration had expired. This decision underscores the critical importance of maintaining trademark registrations through timely renewals.
Allegro Pharmaceuticals Llc v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Allegro Pharmaceuticals LLC filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) seeking to set aside an earlier order and amend its claims to secure a patent. However, the appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
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.
Lakha Ram Sharma (Kundan Cable India) v.Balar Marketing (P) Limited and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed a petition seeking the cancellation of the 'KUNDAN CAB' trademark (No. 389177) due to pending opposition proceedings. Given that the petitioner had successfully appealed an earlier dismissal and the matter was remanded for re-consideration by the Registrar, the court ruled that the registration certificate was liable to be cancelled. The High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the entry within four weeks, while also setting a six-month deadline for the Registrar to pronounce the final decision.
Wellpet LLC v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Wellpet LLC filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'WELLNESS' in Class 31. The appeal sought to set aside the initial refusal order from August 2018 and allow the trademark application to proceed. However, before the court could rule on the merits, Wellpet LLC filed a memo instructing its counsel to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller General of Patents and Designs
Huawei Technologies Co. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an earlier order passed by Respondent No. 3. The Madras High Court noted that the matter had already been remanded for reconsideration by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in a previous order and closed the appeal without further adjudication.
M/s. Wockhardt Limited v.Apex Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging a trademark registration refusal. The appellant argued that the lower court's review was improperly exercised as an appeal, citing strict limitations on review jurisdiction. However, the Court found that the original decision failed to address key submissions made by the respondent regarding prior use and lack of evidence from the appellant. Consequently, the Court held that these omissions constituted 'errors apparent on the face of the record,' allowing the review order to stand.
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.
Wynk Limited v.Ec Media (International) Pvt. Ltd.
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed by Wynk Limited seeking the cancellation of an infringing mark registered under No.2020253. The court noted that the registration had lapsed and was not renewed after September 8, 2020. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the defunct trademark from the register within two weeks, effectively resolving the dispute in favor of Wynk Limited.
Kishorkumar Gokaldas v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed three Transfer Original Petitions filed by Kishorkumar Gokaldas against the Registrar of Trademarks. The petitions sought to remove or rectify specific trademark registrations (Nos. 2224503, 2224504, and 2224505). However, both parties agreed that these trademarks had not been renewed and were therefore no longer in force, rendering the legal challenges moot and infructuous.
Acko Technology And Services Pvt Ltd v.Bal Kishan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted relief to Acko Technology And Services Pvt Ltd, directing the cancellation of a conflicting trademark (No. 5320418) registered by Bal Kishan. The petitioner argued that its established mark 'ACKO' for insurance services was being infringed upon by the respondent's mark 'ACKOLITE' in Class 11 (household appliances). Given the likelihood of confusion and Acko's strong prior rights, the Court cancelled the impugned registration, reinforcing the principle against conflicting marks.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Ceat Limited v.Amjad Khan Trading As Bharat Traders
In a matter concerning the cancellation of the trademark 'CEART', the Madras High Court disposed of the petition based on a settlement reached in a connected civil suit. The court noted that the first respondent had agreed to take steps for the mark's removal. Consequently, the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to expunge Trademark No. 3871567 from the register within four weeks.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Neospark Drugs And Chemicals Private Limited; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited, directing the removal of the trademark MAXCAL GEL (No. 2102511) from the Trade Marks Register. The court found that the registration had lapsed and was not renewed within the statutory time limits. This decision underscores the strict adherence required to maintain trademark rights through timely renewal procedures.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.B.B. Mohan Kumar Trading As East West Pharma & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the rectification petition filed by Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd against Trademark No. 1764708. The court noted that the trademark in question had expired on December 17, 2018, and was not subsequently renewed. Consequently, the petitioner's request to remove the entry from the register became infructuous.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Ennar Enterprises
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against M/s.Ennar Enterprises alleging multiple infringements, including the unauthorized use of a deceptively similar trademark ('GOLD PRIME') and passing off their edible oil product. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions protecting their registered trade mark 'Gold Winner' and associated copyright in packaging design. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable resolution and settled the dispute.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.M. Senthilkumar
The applicant/plaintiff sought continuation of previously granted exparte ad-interim orders related to a passing off claim. Despite serving notice, the defendants remained absent. The court decided to continue the existing interim orders until further orders.
Oyster Point Pharma Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs Anr.
Oyster Point Pharma Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application by the Assistant Controller, which cited prior art under Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the mono-citrate salt demonstrated enhanced efficacy and stability, supported by experimental data filed during prosecution. The High Court found that the Controller failed to consider this crucial evidence regarding efficacy and stability.
Syngenta Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Syngenta Limited appealed an order rejecting its divisional patent application (No. 7059/DELNP/2011). The dispute centered on whether the parent application (No. 6114/DELNP/2005) truly disclosed multiple inventive concepts, which is a prerequisite for filing a valid divisional application under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Sushil Prajapati
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Sushil Prajapati regarding the use of impugned marks SUPER SURF and Splat device. The parties subsequently settled their disputes, leading to the court decreeing the suit in favour of the Plaintiff.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Neptune Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and distributing generic versions of Sitagliptin under the trade name 'HAPPY JAAN M', infringing Indian Patent No. 209816. Although the suit patent had expired, the court decreed the suit against Defendant 2 based on its failure to file a response, directing it to pay damages.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Others
Qualcomm appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents which rejected their patent application (No. 5159/DELNP/2007) primarily citing Section 3(k) and lack of definitiveness. The High Court found that the rejection order suffered from manifest non-application of mind as it failed to address the appellant's submissions, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Bharatiya Janata Party Kisan Morcha, Andhra Pradesh Unit v.Monsanto Technology, LLC
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 232681 held by Monsanto Technology. The first respondent submitted that the term of this patent had already expired on June 5, 2022.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Vikas Cosmetics
The parties to the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement on July 24, 2023. The suit was subsequently disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff based on the terms agreed upon in the Consent Minutes of Order.
Ttk Prestige Ltd. v.Gupta Light House
Ttk Prestige Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Gupta Light House infringed its registered cooker design (Registration No. 197906). The court found the plaintiff's design valid and maintainable, rejecting the defendant's claims regarding lack of novelty or prior publication. However, the court ruled against granting permanent injunction or delivery up of goods because the design had expired on September 13, 2019. Ultimately, the suit was decreed in favor of Ttk Prestige Ltd., directing the defendant to render accounts of earnings and awarding costs.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Vikas Cosmetics
The parties to the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement on July 24, 2023. The Defendant agreed to pay Rs. 75,000/- towards costs and full and final settlement, leading to the suit being disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff.
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.