IP Cases — 2023
1,151 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 22 of 39 · 1,151 total
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 The appellant argued that the rejection relied on outdated guidelines (CRI Guidelines, 2016), while the newer 2017 guidelines were already in effect and did not mandate novel hardware for Section 3(k) applicability.
Alpa Laboratories Limited v.Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Anr.
The court heard arguments regarding the maintainability of a revocation petition filed by Alpa Laboratories Limited, which was based on the apprehension that Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd would institute an infringement suit. The court directed parties to seek instructions and re-notify the matter.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft challenged the Assistant Controller's decision rejecting its patent application for a network authentication system under Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, arguing that the invention provided a genuine technical solution to security problems. The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection based on the flawed interpretation of 'computer program per se,' emphasizing that an algorithm should not be automatically excluded if it offers a tangible technical contribution. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Controller for re-examination regarding novelty and inventive step.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed the rejection of its patent application (IN 4863), which was refused by the Assistant Controller. The core dispute centered on whether the claimed in vitro method, used to measure sequence imbalance in biological samples from pregnant women, qualified as a non-patentable diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act.
M/S Laxmi Agro Impex India v.M/S Ladli India Commodities
In a dispute concerning the trade mark 'LADLI/SABKI LADLI', the Delhi High Court addressed parallel proceedings related to trademark rectification. Recognizing that simultaneous litigation could lead to multiplicity of suits, the court permitted both parties to withdraw their respective pending rectification petitions. This decision aims to consolidate the issues and streamline the legal process for a comprehensive trial.
Lotte India Corporation Ltd. v.Phan Nguyen Confectionery Corporation; Ajanthaa K.T.K Products
The Madras High Court addressed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Lotte India Corporation against Phan Nguyen Confectionery Corporation and Ajanthaa K.T.K Products regarding the 'CHOCO PIE' mark. Despite the plaintiff alleging identical use of the mark, the court found that the plaintiff failed to adequately prove the infringement by the defendants. Consequently, the suit was largely dismissed on the core claims of trademark violation and damages.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Nuberg Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Sun Pharma and Nuberg Pharmaceuticals reached a full settlement in their commercial IP dispute before the Delhi High Court. The court formally decreed the suit based on the agreed-upon terms, which included significant concessions from both parties. Furthermore, the judgment mandated that Respondent No. 2 remove a specific trademark entry (No. 3797651) from the Register of Trademarks within six weeks.
Sugen, Inc. v.Mr. K Vijaya Prakash
Sugen, Inc. filed applications alleging that Mr. K Vijaya Prakash and associated defendants willfully violated an injunction order passed by the Delhi High Court in 2016. The original suit concerned the infringement of three patents covering the drug Crizotinib (marketed as Xalkori®). Plaintiffs presented evidence, including photographs and investigator reports, suggesting the manufacturing and sale of the generic product 'CRIZO SPL™' after the injunction was issued. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had control over the infringing entities, leading to a finding of wilful contempt against him.
RSPL LIMITED v.AGARWAL HOME PRODUCTS & ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark dispute where RSPL LIMITED alleges that Respondent No. 1's registration of the word mark 'AGRAGHADIYAL' is deceptively similar to its well-known trademarks, 'GHARI' and 'GHADI'. The petitioner has filed an opposition against related marks and sought injunctive relief. The court acknowledged the core issue—the similarity between the marks—and granted the petitioner time to present relevant case law before scheduling a re-notification.
Toyo Aluminium Kabushiki Kaisha v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting their patent application ('MULTILAYER BODY AND CONTAINER') due to non-compliance with requirements for inventive step under the Patent Act, 1970. The court allowed a procedural exemption and directed the respondent counsel to file written submissions before listing the matter further.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Br Retail India Private Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Inter Ikea Systems Bv, finding that the defendants were likely infringing on IKEA's registered trademarks. The court ordered the defendant to immediately cease using the deceptively similar 'TIKEA/' mark across all goods and services. Furthermore, the judgment mandated the removal of any infringing material from the website www.tikea.in and directed the defendants to take steps to get such content taken down from third-party websites.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 205706 held by Mylan Laboratories Limited and the Controller of Patents. However, the court noted that the term of Patent No. 205706 had already expired on June 4, 2021.
Cde Asia Limited v.Propel Industries Private Limited
The court heard an application by Cde Asia Limited seeking to place additional documents related to a post-grant opposition concerning a subject patent. The court allowed these documents and also registered a counterclaim filed by Propel Industries Private Limited under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Usg Interiors Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court noted that no counsel appeared and directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices before setting a returnable date.
Voiceage Evs Llc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobie Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff, Voiceage Evs Llc, filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon four specific Indian patents related to EVS Standards in their mobile handsets. The court registered the plaint and issued summons, while also addressing several interlocutory applications concerning document filing and seeking temporary injunctions.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.Win Health Pharma Through: Its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd., finding that the Defendant's use of the mark 'CARDIOCONTIN' constituted a prima facie infringement on the Plaintiffs' established 'CONTIN' series trademarks and trade dress. The court noted the extensive goodwill, high sales figures (over Rs. 2000 crores), and the likelihood of confusion caused by the identical product type and near-identical packaging. While the injunction was granted against 'CARDIOCONTIN', the issue regarding the use of the mark 'WIN' was reserved for a later hearing after notice to the Defendants.
The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P. v.Home Needs
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on an adverse commercial court order in favor of The Polo/Lauren Company L.P., which was seeking to protect its trademarks against 'POLOLIFETIME'. The court noted that the appellant holds registrations for 'POLO' and 'RALPH LAUREN', and referenced prior findings recognizing these marks as 'well-known'. Finding merit in the challenge, the High Court stayed the lower court's order until further hearing.
Premier Airways Limited v.Easy Group Ltd
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Premier Airways Limited seeking the removal of a trademark belonging to Easy Group Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner company had been struck off the Register of Companies, meaning it no longer existed as a juristic entity. Consequently, the court found the petition infructuous and dismissed it without making any order regarding costs.
Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd v.Rakesh P.Jain
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trademarks) filed by Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd against Rakesh P.Jain and the Trade Marks Registry. The petition sought the rectification and cancellation of the trade mark 'BLUEDIO' registered under No.2245731 in Class 09. However, the petitioner subsequently filed a memo instructing the court to withdraw the entire petition, leading to its dismissal without any order as to costs.
Spalon India Pvt. Ltd. v.Roopa Lakshmi Bhat; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Spalon India Pvt. Ltd.'s application for rectification against Trademark No. 2280919. The court noted that the last registration of the mark had expired on February 10, 2022, making its continued presence in the Register invalid. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to remove the entry from Classes 3, 41, and 44 within four weeks.
Zydus Healthcare Ltd. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Zydus Healthcare Ltd. challenged the grant of Patent IN 426553 by alleging that the claims were broadened beyond the original filing scope, violating Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued an interim order addressing procedural matters (CM 61/2023) and directed notice to all parties for further consideration of the main petition.
JK Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Union of India
This common order addressed multiple writ petitions challenging rejection orders passed by Senior Examiners concerning various Trade Mark applications. The court observed that while the Act allows for appointment of officers, there is a widespread practice of issuing unreasoned or 'copy and paste' decisions. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to take immediate remedial measures to ensure compliance with statutory requirements for providing reasoned orders.
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.
Amit Jain v.Vikas Gupta
The Delhi High Court rejected the defendant's application seeking dismissal of the trademark infringement suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The court held that since the plaintiff explicitly pleaded in the plaint that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to his own, a clear cause of action existed. The judgment affirmed the principle that an application for rejection must be decided solely on the averments made in the plaint, treating them as correct.
M/s.Carborundum Universal Limited v.Selvam Hardwares
In a dispute over the use of the trademark 'SPEED,' M/s. Carborundum Universal Limited sought injunctions and damages against Selvam Hardwares for alleged infringement and passing off. While the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding the commercial aspects of the suit (injunctions, damages, accounts), the Madras High Court proceeded to adjudicate the plaintiff's request for a declaration that 'SPEED' is a well-known trademark. The court granted this specific declaratory relief, recognizing the mark's status in relation to diamond cutting and polishing tools.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents that refused its Indian Patent Application (No. 5429/DELNP/2007) under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the cited prior art did not disclose the claimed invention.
Communication Components Antena Inc. v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. Kg & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a patent infringement action against the defendants regarding patent IN240893, which relates to asymmetrical beams for spectrum efficiency. The defendants counter-claimed seeking revocation of the patent under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970. Given that the remaining term of the patent was less than five years, the court directed summary adjudication.
Mohd Shah Fahad Trading as Shah Enterprises v.Raghav Nathani
Mohd. Shah Fahad filed a suit against Raghav Nathani and others, alleging that Defendant No. 1 was infringing his registered trademark 'Classio' by using 'Classio Fashion' on e-commerce platforms, causing monetary loss and damage to goodwill. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's suit due to repeated willful and deliberate non-compliance with court orders and failure to prove a prima facie case.
Array Biopharma Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Array Biopharma Inc filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No.450/DELNP/2015) by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs on June 30, 2023. The court issued notice and directed written submissions from the Respondent.
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha (Sharp Corporation) v.Sharp Tools; The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha against a trademark registration order. The core issue was whether to set aside the Deputy Registrar's decision that rejected Sharp's opposition to the mark 'SHARP.' However, the court found the appeal moot because the challenged trademark (No. 1185252) had lapsed and not been renewed since March 2013. Consequently, the legal challenge became infructuous.
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.