IP Cases — 2023
1,199 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 25 of 40 · 1,199 total
Kanishk Sinha v.Dr Saumitra Mohan & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha filed a suit alleging patent infringement against Dr Saumitra Mohan & Ors. The plaintiff sought urgent interim relief but failed to satisfy the court regarding the necessity for dispensing with procedural formalities under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court granted one further opportunity to the plaintiff to address these formal requirements.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. v.Suresh K.K.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. filed an appeal challenging a lower court's judgment regarding trademark infringement and passing off related to its 'Super Wash – 555' washing soap. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were using identical wrappers to deceive the public. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal, primarily finding that the Plaintiff failed to prove prior use due to the inadmissibility of photocopied documents. Furthermore, the court held that the suit lacked territorial jurisdiction as the defendants' business was not within the court's limits.
ashok kumar sethi v.amazon technologies inc
Ashok Kumar Sethi and another sued Amazon Technologies Inc. for copyright infringement and passing off related to Henna Hair Colour products sold via Amazon's internet platform, alleging the use of identical labels 'Black Gold and Amin's'. The plaintiffs claimed significant advertising costs and a long-standing business presence under the trademark since 1993.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HEALIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat (decision issued on 2023-06-16) under reference UPC-001753, ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE appeared in dispute with HEALIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
A.Arjun v.Balaji B
A.Arjun filed an application seeking leave from the Madras High Court to sue Balaji B for copyright infringement and passing off related to artistic work used on garments. The respondent challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that both parties operate primarily in Madurai, despite alleged online sales in Chennai.
M.Raja Mohamed v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed a long-pending writ petition filed by M.Raja Mohamed seeking the restoration of his trademark, 'RAJA SUPARI.' The court did not delve into the merits of the case but issued a Mandamus directing the Registrar of Trademarks to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2017 and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks. This order effectively moves the matter forward for substantive consideration by the Trademark Registry.
Groupe Seb India Private Limited v.Sumit Bafna Trading As: B & J Marketing
Groupe Seb India Private Limited filed a petition seeking the removal or rectification of the trademark 'MAHARAJA WHITELINE' from the register, citing issues related to its validity. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition because the impugned trademark registration number 921351 had already expired on April 28, 2020. This ruling highlights the critical importance of monitoring the expiry dates of intellectual property rights.
M/s.Vicky Industries v.Sh.J.Pradeed; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/s. Vicky Industries seeking the removal or rectification of the trademark 'TULASI LABEL' (No. 1783253). The court noted that the term of the impugned trademark had expired on February 10, 2019. Consequently, the petition was deemed infructuous, though the petitioner was granted leave to re-apply should the mark be restored.
Hyundai Motor India Limited v.Varna Homes Pvt. Ltd.
In a case concerning trademark disputes, Hyundai Motor India Limited sought the removal and rectification of Varna Homes Pvt. Ltd.'s trademarks from the register. The Madras High Court noted that the parties had reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to implement specific amendments to the service descriptions in both trademarks within four weeks.
Vedant Fashions Private Limited v.Rajul Devi Trading As Manyavar
The Madras High Court addressed petitions filed by Vedant Fashions Private Limited seeking the rectification of registered trademarks held by Rajul Devi Trading As Manyavar. The court noted that the dispute between the parties had been resolved through an out-of-court settlement agreement dated April 1, 2019. Consequently, both petitions were closed without any formal order regarding costs.
OERLIKON TEXTILE G.M.B.H. & CO. K.G. v.BHAGAT GROUP
In this legal proceeding before Milan (IT) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-06-14) under reference UPC-001754, OERLIKON TEXTILE G.M.B.H. & CO. K.G. appeared in dispute with BHAGAT GROUP concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust v.M/s.Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp.
Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust filed two Original Petitions seeking the revocation and removal of Patents No. 207233 and 234103, both held by M/s. Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp., in the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought to transfer these matters for adjudication regarding patent invalidity. However, the court noted that both patents had already expired on March 24, 2019. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as infructuous.
I Am The Ocean, LLC v.Registrar of Trade Marks
In this Bombay High Court ruling, the petitioner successfully challenged an Examiner's refusal to register their trademark. The court found that the original rejection was not a 'reasoned order' because it failed to consider detailed arguments regarding the mark's distinctiveness and its unique visual structure. Consequently, the high court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter back to the Registrar for reconsideration, ensuring all petitioner submissions are properly addressed.
OERLIKON TEXTILE GMBH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/07/2024 Order no. ORD_40568/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG (Applicant) - Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid - DE Represent
OERLIKON TEXTILE G.M.B.H. & CO. K.G v.HIMSON ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/07/2024 Order no. ORD_40568/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG (Applicant) - Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid - DE Represent
Rajeev Hiremath v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Rajeev Hiremath filed an appeal challenging the Controller's refusal to register specific claims (1-12) under Application No. 201741023631. However, on the date of judgment, the appellant withdrew the appeal.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures' Association v.Nippon Soda Co. Ltd
The petitioner filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation/cancellation of Indian Patent No. 268448 related to a method of producing granular agrochemical composition. However, the petitioner subsequently informed the court that they intended to withdraw the petition without prejudice to their rights.
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.
Ajanta Pharma Limited v.Zodley Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Ajanta Pharma Limited against Zodley Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was settled out of court. The Bombay High Court passed an order accepting the Consent Minutes, disposing of the suit and interim applications accordingly.
Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.ICOS Corporation of Eli Lilly and Company; The Controller of Patents
Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 235242 before the Madras High Court. The court noted that the patent had already expired on April 26, 2016.
Henkel Ag And Co. Kgaa v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Henkel Ag And Co. Kgaa, setting aside an earlier refusal by the Registrar of Trademarks to register a subject mark. The court found that the Senior Examiner failed to properly consider crucial material on record, including evidence of opposition and abandonment status of cited marks, as well as a NoC obtained by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter was remanded back for the Respondent to conduct a fresh hearing based on all submitted facts.
Beiersdorf Ag v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Beiersdorf Ag successfully challenged an administrative order issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding its international registration. The Bombay High Court found that the original order was arbitrary, lacking independent reasons or consideration of the petitioner's submissions. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar, mandating a reasoned decision within eight weeks.
Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. v.Ramnagar Seeds Farm Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. appealed against a lower court's decision regarding an interim injunction concerning its registered plant variety PAN 804. The appeal focused on procedural fairness, arguing that the trial court violated principles of natural justice by relying solely on voluminous documents produced by the respondents without giving the appellant a chance to respond. The High Court allowed the appeal and granted an injunction.
Monsanto Technology Llc v.Union Of India
Monsanto Technology LLC challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 6560/CHENP/2008) by the Patent Office. The court found that the impugned order breached principles of natural justice because it referenced sections and paragraphs (like Section 10(4)(a), (b), (c) and paragraph 53) that were neither in the First Examination Report nor in the subsequent hearing notice.
Radhakrishna Adiga v.M/s.Vasudeva Adigas Fast Foods Pvt Ltd
The Madras High Court dismissed a series of petitions filed by Radhakrishna Adiga against M/s. Vasudeva Adigas Fast Foods Pvt Ltd and the Registrar of Trademarks. The original petitions sought the removal or rectification of several trademarks registered under the name 'Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food Pvt Ltd.' However, the court noted that the petitioner had been instructed to withdraw all cases due to a settlement reached between the contesting parties.
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited v.Indian Institute of Science
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation or rectification of Patent No. 229283, alleging it was invalid and obtained by misrepresentation. The court noted that the patent had not been renewed and its term had expired.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Shrinivas (Gujarat) Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Mankind Pharma Limited filed a suit against Shrinivas (Gujarat) Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., alleging that the latter was manufacturing and selling medicinal preparations under the deceptively similar trademark ZONFLOX, infringing on Mankind's registered trademark ZENFLOX. The court found the marks to be visually, phonetically, and structurally similar, leading to confusion among consumers.
Lakshmi Ring Travellers (Coimbatore) Limited v.Bracker Ag
Lakshmi Ring Travellers filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 212183 held by Bracker Ag. The court noted that the term of the impugned patent had already ended on March 26, 2015.
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited v.Indian Institute of Science
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 229283, alleging it was invalid and obtained through misrepresentation. The court noted that the document indicated the patent had not been renewed and its term had expired.
Unilever Plc. v.Anurag Tiwari
The Commercial IPR Suit No. 481 of 2022, filed by Unilever Plc. against Anurag Tiwari and others, was settled by both the Plaintiffs and Defendants. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, permitted amendments to the cause title, and disposed of the suit.
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.