IP Cases — 2023
1,199 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 27 of 40 · 1,199 total
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.Vensat Bio & Ors.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed an application to set aside an ex parte judgment against Defendant No. 3 (Vensat Bio & Ors.) due to sufficient cause of absence. Simultaneously, the court recognized the strong prima facie case presented by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like ORISON/SPORTEK in relation to pharmaceutical products. This dual outcome highlights the procedural complexities alongside the substantive strength of trademark infringement claims.
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.
Jayshree & Company v.The State Of West Bengal & Ors
Jayshree & Company challenged a notice issued by respondents restricting the registration of their echo friendly e-rickshaws. The restriction was based on an order in a Title Suit where a fuel cell battery manufacturer alleged patent infringement. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing authorities to grant registration provided the vehicles are distinct from those in the ongoing suit.
Decco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings B.V v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellants appealed against the Assistant Controller's rejection of their patent application for a fungicidal treatment using Ortho-phenyphenol (OPP) to treat black sigatoka in banana plants. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of novelty, inventive steps, and non-patentability under Section 3(h).
Ms Lightbook & Anr. v.Mr Pravin Shriram Kadam & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for interim injunctive relief, despite arguments regarding priority of registration and deceptive similarity. The court found that the plaintiffs were disentitled to immediate relief due to their failure to disclose a material fact—a previous admission made by them in response to a Section 57 rectification application filed by the defendants. This omission was deemed a clear case of misrepresentation and concealment, preventing the court from granting an injunction at this preliminary stage.
Jockey International Inc. v.M/S Khalsa Accessories & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by Jockey International Inc. against M/S Khalsa Accessories & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that 'JOCKEY' is a well-known trade mark, supported by extensive sales figures and promotional expenditure. While granting procedural exemptions to the plaintiff, the court proceeded with the suit, allowing for further pleadings and setting up the framework for interim injunctive relief.
Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v.Phonepe Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed multiple petitions filed by Resilient Innovations seeking the removal/rectification of several PhonePe trademarks. The court held that because the petitioner had previously raised objections regarding the descriptive nature and invalidity of the marks in a separate civil suit (CS(COMM) 292/2019), they were bound by Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. This section mandates that challenges to trademark validity must be addressed within the original civil proceeding before the court can allow rectification proceedings.
Fybros Electric Pvt Ltd v.Mukesh Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Fybros Electric Pvt Ltd's petition seeking rectification of the trademark register. The court found that the respondent's registered mark was deceptively and phonetically similar to the petitioner's earlier mark, despite both being registered for identical goods in Class 11. Crucially, the judgment established that a challenge under Section 57 does not require the petitioner to prove actual damage, only that the mark is improperly maintained on the register.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Angle Bio Pharma & Ors.
The dispute involved allegations of patent infringement concerning the drug 'Apixaban' (Patent IN 247381). The parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement with all defendants. The court accepted the terms, decreeing the suit subject to the agreed-upon conditions.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Cipla Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Cipla Limited regarding the commercialization of Apixaban was amicably settled. The defendant confirmed that it did not commercialize the drug under the brand name APIGY until after the expiry of the suit patent.
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.
Synthes Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
Synthes Gmbh challenged an earlier decision by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks before the Delhi High Court. The appellant raised objections concerning the drafting and procedural lapses in the impugned order, specifically noting abrupt conclusions regarding non-compliance with Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act. The court issued this order to clarify these points, treating it as a corrigendum to the original judgment.
The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. v.Abhinav Mehta And Anr.
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed procedural matters concerning an undertaking filed by the respondent. Since the crucial undertaking was not placed on record and the petitioner had not received a copy, the judge directed the parties to coordinate documentation. Consequently, the hearing was re-notified for June 1, 2023, allowing both sides time to ensure all necessary documents are properly presented.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed the defendant's application to reject the plaintiff's patent infringement suit. The court rejected arguments regarding lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, clarifying that specific allegations of ongoing sales negate the 'mere apprehension' standard used in previous cases. Furthermore, the court dismissed the contention based on the Aloys Wobben controversy, holding that pending post-grant opposition proceedings do not automatically preclude the institution of an infringement suit.
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.
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.
Hamdard National Foundation India v.Government Of Nct Delhi
Hamdard National Foundation India challenged the unrestricted use of 'Rogan Badam Shirin' by Ayurvedic manufacturers for almond oil, arguing it was reserved for Unani medicine. The petition sought directions to prevent unauthorized usage of this terminology. The court noted that the Ministry of Ayush had communicated to State licensing authorities that Raughan-E-Badam Shireen requires a Unani Drug License, thereby satisfying the petitioner's primary relief.
Ten Events And Entertainment v.Novex Communications Private Limited & Ors.
Ten Events And Entertainment filed a declaratory suit challenging the requirement to obtain licenses or NOCs from Defendants, who claimed copyright over songs played during wedding events. The plaintiff argued that such usage falls under 'fair dealing' as per Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act. However, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary material facts—such as the nature and bona fides of the ceremony—required by law to establish a cause of action for this specific declaration. Consequently, the court dismissed the interim application and directed the plaintiff to show cause why the entire suit should not be dismissed.
Synthes Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Synthes Gmbh challenged an impugned order from the Assistant Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, arguing that the rejection lacked due process. The court found that the original order was a 'total mockery' as it merely cut and pasted objections without providing any reasoned analysis or considering the appellant's replies. Recognizing the severe procedural lapses, the Delhi High Court quashed the decision and remanded the application for fresh consideration by a different officer.
Bundl Technologies Private Limited v.Pankaj Garg & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed the initial proceedings of a suit filed by Bundl Technologies against Pankaj Garg & Ors. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's registered trademark infringes upon and attempts to unfairly capitalize on the goodwill of the 'SWIGGY' mark, which is declared a well-known mark. While procedural steps were taken to register the suit and manage filings, the court specifically queried the counsel regarding the validity of using the 2022 'well-known' status as grounds for challenging the defendant's earlier registered trademark.
Rachna Sagar Pvt Ltd v.Sovereign Mercantile Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing interim injunction in favor of Rachna Sagar Pvt Ltd against Sovereign Mercantile Pvt Ltd and others. The court found that the Defendants' use of a deceptively similar mark, 'RACHNA SAGAR,' amounted to prima facie passing off. Given the Plaintiff's extensive market presence, prior usage since 1996, and substantial revenue in the publishing sector, the court ruled that allowing the defendants to continue using the mark would inevitably cause consumer confusion and loss to the Plaintiff.
Opentv Inc v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Opentv Inc appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs which refused grant for its patent application titled 'System and method to provide gift media'. The refusal was based on non-patentability under Section 3(k) (computer program/business method) and issues related to novelty and inventive step. Opentv argued that the invention provided a technical solution for selecting and distributing interactive media content.
Prof Manju Pathak v.M/S Shree Agro Foods
Prof Manju Pathak appealed a previous judgment where she had succeeded in an infringement suit under the Patents Act, 1970. Her grievance was that the original court did not award damages, costs, delivery-up, or rendition of accounts for the infringing products.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed a matter before the Delhi High Court concerning an objection related to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court heard arguments and directed the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to ensure the presence of a Controller for assistance on the next date.
Jay Switches (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd & Ors.
The Plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the Defendant's fuel tank cap infringes their patent (IN427110) and registered design (275676). The court passed several orders, including allowing an exemption from pre-litigation mediation and granting interim relief regarding the production of impugned products.
Goutam Lal Tak v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Goutam Lal Tak filed a writ petition seeking intervention from the High Court regarding the prolonged pendency of his trademark registration application for 'MAHALAXMI OIL'. The court acknowledged the delay and issued a specific direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks. This order mandates that the pending application must be decided within six months, providing a clear timeline for the resolution of the matter.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application for a filtering user interface. The Controller rejected the application under Section 3(k) as being a 'computer program per se'. The High Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that software can be patentable if it demonstrates a technical contribution and applying the updated CRI 2017 Guidelines.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors.
In this case concerning online trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court delivered a mixed judgment based on joint compromises and ex-parte proceedings. The court decreed the suit in favor of Sirona Hygiene Private Limited against Defendant No. 1 (Flipkart) based on agreed compromise terms. Furthermore, it mandated specific takedown procedures for Defendant No. 2 (Amazon) to address unauthorized use of Sirona's trademarks. Finally, an injunction was passed against other sellers (Defendants Nos. 3-13) who were found to be passing off counterfeit goods.
Wrangler Apparel Corporation v.H.S. Kishori Lal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a request to stay a trademark infringement suit while separate rectification petitions questioning the validity of the trademarks were pending. Citing recent legal precedents, particularly following the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the court ruled that there is no need to stay the civil suit. Instead, it ordered the consolidation of the main suit and all related rectification petitions to be tried together before the High Court.
Datt Mediproducts Pvt Ltd v.Siddharth Mandal And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Datt Mediproducts Pvt Ltd regarding a petition seeking cancellation of a trademark registration. The court observed that the subject mark's registration had expired on March 5, 2022, and the mandatory renewal period, including the grace period, had lapsed without action by the respondent. Consequently, the court directed the concerned party to remove the non-renewed mark from the Register of Trade Marks.
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.