IP Cases — 2023
1,151 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 21 of 39 · 1,151 total
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The Chinese University of Hong Kong filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently moved for withdrawal of the appeal.
M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited v.M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court approved an amicable settlement between the Plaintiff, M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited, and Defendant No. 1, M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited. Under the settlement, Defendant No. 1 acknowledged the exclusive rights to the 'SALLAKI' trademark and agreed to permanently cease using any similar marks or packaging. Furthermore, the court granted the Plaintiff permission to delete Defendants 2 and 3 from the suit, allowing them to pursue separate legal actions against those parties.
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.
Vifor (International) Ltd & Anr. v.Cipla Limited
Vifor filed suits seeking permanent injunction against Cipla and J.B. Chemicals for allegedly infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers the water-soluble iron carbohydrate complex (FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE). The dispute arose after plaintiffs discovered marketing material for generic versions of their patented drug. The court considered arguments regarding the patent's nature and previous injunction orders before deciding on the continuation of status quo.
Sk Geo Centric Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Sk Geo Centric Co Ltd appealed a refusal order passed by the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application. The appellant argued that the refusal order, which cited prior art D4, was bereft of any reasoning to support the conclusion of lacking inventive step. The High Court found the impugned order invalid due to lack of justification and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Upl Limited v.Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association and Anr.
Upl Limited filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court challenging an earlier order issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademark. The court admitted the appeal, noting that no interim relief was warranted at this stage. The judgment sets out a clear procedural roadmap, directing the appellants to prepare and file comprehensive informal paper books within specified timelines for the matter to be heard on its merits.
Himalayan Heli Services Private Limited v.Himachal Helicopter Skiing Pty Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex dispute involving the cancellation of a trademark registration (No. 1523434) held by Himachal Helicopter Skiing Pty Ltd, which was sought by Himalayan Heli Services Private Limited. Given the extensive overlap between the ongoing cancellation petition and an older passing-off suit, the court directed that both cases be consolidated for trial. This strategic move aims to streamline the litigation process, ensuring a unified determination of who holds the rightful rights in the 'Himalayan Heli Services' mark.
Sintex Industries Ltd. v.Acme Tale Power Ltd And Anr (now Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited)
Sintex Industries Ltd filed a rectification petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 2137154, titled "Phase Change Material," which was granted to Acme Tele Power Limited (now Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited). The court considered an affidavit from the respondent confirming that while they were previously in the telecom industry, their current focus is renewable energy and solar power projects. Crucially, the respondent stated they had no objection to the patent being revoked prospectively.
SELFDOT TECHNOLOGIES (OPC) PVT. LTD. v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
The appeal challenged an order rejecting a patent application (No. 201843023004) on the ground that the applicant contravened Section 39 of the Patents Act, leading to deemed abandonment under Section 40. The appellant argued that since the parent invention was first filed in India and the breach was technical, not substantive, the rejection should be overturned.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co Kg v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma challenged the rejection of its application seeking to quash a pre-grant opposition filed against its patent application. The petitioner argued that the opposition lacked reasonable justification, while the court addressed the issue of abuse of process under Section 25(1).
Janssen Schiences Ireland Uc v.Controller Of Patents
Janssen Schiences Ireland Uc appealed the refusal of a patent application for 'Prevention of HIV- Infection with TMC278' by the Deputy Controller of Patents. The appeal challenged the grounds of lack of inventive step and non-patentability due to mere admixture. However, the appellant subsequently decided to withdraw the present appeal.
M/S Biofi Medical Health Care India Private Limited v.M/S Excel Tech A Partnership Firm
M/S Biofi Medical Health Care filed a Writ Petition to challenge an ex parte temporary injunction order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal. The trial court had restrained the petitioners from manufacturing/marketing products using the respondents' intellectual property rights (patents, designs, trademarks). The High Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of all pending interlocutory applications expeditiously while allowing the interim order to continue until disposal.
M/S Loreal S.A. v.Ravi Gandhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Loreal S.A., setting aside a lower court order that had permitted respondents to use the trademark 'MABELLE' as part of their corporate name and business communications. The Court clarified that while Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, addresses trade names, the unauthorized use of a registered mark in this manner still constitutes infringement under other sections, specifically Section 29(6)(d). This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to registered trademarks against deceptive similarity and commercial exploitation.
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.
B.Kailasam Sole Proprietor of M/s.Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts v.S.A.Safiullah an Indian National, trading as Sole Proprietor in the name and style of S.A.SAFIULLAH & CO
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted to the first respondent. The court noted that the term of the said patent had expired.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Devashish Rattan And Ors
Inter Ikea Systems Bv successfully secured an ex parte ad interim injunction against Devashish Rattan and others in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were slavishly copying over 2300 product listings, including proprietary names, images, and descriptions from the IKEA website, falsely claiming association with the brand. The court found a prima facie case was made out, granting immediate relief to prevent irreparable harm to the internationally renowned 'IKEA' trademark and trade dress.
Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited v.Fashion One Television Llc and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited, quashing the trademark registrations held by Fashion One Television Llc. The court found that the respondent's mark infringed upon the petitioner's established 'NOW'-centric family of marks (such as TIMES NOW and ET NOW) because both operate within the same Class 38 for broadcasting services. The judgment emphasized that a viewer would likely associate the impugned mark with the petitioner’s repertoire, establishing a subsisting interest in the common element 'NOW'.
M/S Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers v.Bhagwan Das Khanna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Plaintiff sought to strike out two specific issues related to a partnership deed. The Plaintiff argued that since the Defendants had not raised any counterclaims or filed a declaration suit concerning the partnership structure, these issues were irrelevant to the core controversy of trademark infringement. The Court directed the Defendants to file a reply within four weeks and subsequently a rejoinder, keeping the litigation moving forward.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Hetero Labs Limited & Ors. / Natco Pharma Limited / Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd / Shilpa Medicare Limited & Anr. / Alkem Laboratories Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a batch of six suits alleging infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against defendants who were launching or had launched the generic version of the patented drug. While the court dismissed one related writ petition, it granted interim relief restraining all defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending the final disposal of the suits. Furthermore, the court allowed defendants to exhaust their existing stock, provided they file an affidavit detailing the batch numbers and expiry dates.
Rc Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v.Pankaj Kumar Patel
The plaintiff, Rc Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by the defendant, Pankaj Kumar Patel, who used the similar label 'Shri Plosto' on allied goods like water tanks and pipes. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages due to lack of evidence regarding the quantum of loss, while granting an injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark.
Ankit Aggarwal Proprietor Of M/S Vepson Engineers v.Gupta Casting Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed petitions filed by Ankit Aggarwal to cancel two trademark registrations held by Gupta Casting Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the respondent's marks were confusingly similar to the petitioner's prior and well-established mark, 'JAI KISAN,' used since 1985 in agricultural implements. Furthermore, the respondent failed to demonstrate genuine use of their registered marks for a continuous period of five years, leading the court to remove them from the Register under Section 47 of the Trade Mark Act.
Apex Europe B.V. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge raised by Apex Europe B.V. regarding the refusal of the Trademarks Registry to consider a prior Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order while processing its trademark application for 'GTT'. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to take the IPAB's order into account, provided that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking and indemnity against any liability arising from that order. This resolution allows the matter to proceed based on the historical decision.
New Horizon Educational & Cultural Trust v.New Horizon School
The plaintiff, New Horizon Educational & Cultural Trust, claimed that it was the registered owner of the trademark 'NEW HORIZON' for educational services. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, New Horizon School, was illegally using a similar name/logo, causing confusion and passing off. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
M/s.Aloha India (A Division of K K Academy (P) Ltd) v.J.V.Vasantha Laxmi and others
M/s. Aloha India filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against several defendants for infringing its registered trademark 'ALOHA' and copyrighted educational materials by using the similar mark 'ALAMA'. The suit also claimed damages for passing off related to mental arithmetic and abacus education programs. However, due to the plaintiff's failure to appear before the court despite repeated notices and previous dismissals for non-prosecution, the Madras High Court dismissed the case for default.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Om Shiv Footwear Through Its Owner Partner Proprietor Mr. Sushil Bansal
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Relaxo Footwears Limited against Om Shiv Footwear. The suit alleged infringement of a registered design (Design No. 365606-001) for its 'BAHAMAS' footwear, along with passing off and imitation of the unique trade dress and packaging. The court found that a prima facie case was made out, noting striking similarities in both the product design and the distinctive packaging between the parties. This interim order immediately restrained the defendant from further dealing in the infringing products.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Intex Technologies(India) Limited
The court heard an application filed by the defendant (Intex) seeking modification of existing interim royalty rates. The court dismissed this application, noting that the defendant was straining to avoid complying with prior directions for royalty payments. Separately, the court disposed of an application concerning the reconstitution of a confidentiality club.
Beiersdorf Ag v.Rsh Global Private Limited & Anr.
This order addressed an application by Beiersdorf Ag alleging that Rsh Global Private Limited was disobeying previous court injunctions regarding the use of deceptively similar cosmetic packaging. The plaintiff pointed out that the defendant's product remained available on various e-commerce websites despite the existing restraint orders. The defendants countered, stating they were actively contacting these third-party sites to have the products removed. Given the complexity of enforcement across multiple online platforms, the court granted a short adjournment to allow further submissions on this critical issue.
V-Guard Industries Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks and Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in V-Guard Industries Ltd. vs The Registrar of Trademarks and Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd., directing that the present appeal be listed along with another case for a final hearing on January 6, 2023. This interim order manages the procedural timeline of the ongoing trademark dispute between the parties.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Oppo Mobile appealed the rejection of its patent application for a novel charging system and power adapter. The appellant contended that the rejection lacked reasons, failed to appreciate the requirements for novelty/inventiveness, and violated procedural rules by not issuing a Second Examination Report after amendments. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Hemant Khanna Trading as M/s V2 Fashion Store
Levi Strauss & Co. filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing goods using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to its registered marks, LEVI'S, including the Two Horse Logo. The court found infringement of the registered trademarks and passing off by the defendants.
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.