IP Cases — 2023
1,151 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 30 of 39 · 1,151 total
Modi Naturals Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Modi Naturals Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their device mark, 'OLEEV ACTIVE'. The court found that the coined word 'OLEEV', combined with 'ACTIVE' and a slogan, was distinctive and not merely descriptive. Furthermore, it determined that the subject mark was not deceptively similar to any earlier marks cited in the examination report. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and directed the Trademark Registry to proceed with the registration process.
Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its Indian Patent Application No. 1435/DELNP/2012. The application, which relates to a co-crystal formulation of Tramadol and Celecoxib, was rejected for lacking novelty and inventive step under Section 3(d) and (e).
H.S. Sahni, Sole Proprietor M/S M. K. Auto Sales Corporation v.Saic Motor Corporation Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff, H.S. Sahni, seeking a stay under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court issued notice to the defendants and set the matter for return on July 4, 2023. This order indicates that the dispute regarding trademark rights is actively progressing through litigation.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft appealed the refusal of its divisional patent application, which was rejected on grounds including lack of distinct invention (Section 16) and non-patentability as a computer program per se (Section 3(k)). The court set aside the impugned order regarding Section 16 but remanded the matter to the Respondent for fresh examination specifically concerning the objections under Section 3(k).
Vega Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Vinod Sagar Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Vega Industries challenging the registration of the trademark 'VIGA' by Vinod Sagar Jain. While noting that the correct remedy for the appellant might be rectification, the court preliminarily found no cause for grievance if certain listed products were excluded from the scope of goods. The stay application filed by Vega was ultimately rejected, and the matter was scheduled for final hearing.
Old Madras Baking Company Pvt Ltd v.M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises
The Madras High Court decreed a civil suit filed by Old Madras Baking Company Pvt Ltd against M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises concerning trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The dispute involved the use of the 'OLD MADRAS BAKING COMPANY' mark across various classes and digital platforms. Crucially, the court accepted a Memo of Compromise and Trademark Assignment Deed signed by both parties, leading to the suit being settled and decreed without costs.
Bigtec Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Bigtec Private Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order declining the grant of patent for Indian Patent Application No. 314/CHE/2009, concluding that the claims lacked inventive step. The court set aside the impugned order due to non-consideration of appellant's contentions regarding prior art and remanded the matter for re-consideration by a different officer.
V Guard Industries Ltd v.Ms Mahavir Home Appliances And Anr. & Anr.
The dispute concerning the registered design for ceiling fans was amicably resolved by both parties. The Defendants recognized the Plaintiff's exclusive rights and agreed to cease production/distribution of similar designs, while also undertaking to withdraw pending cancellation petitions against the design. However, the court noted a separate legal issue regarding the refund of court fees in private settlements.
Ttk Prestige Ltd v.Kcm Appliances Private Limited
Ttk Prestige Ltd filed a suit alleging piracy of its registered design for a pressure cooker. The core dispute centered on whether the unique, anti-spillage lid design was protectable and if Kcm Appliances Private Limited had copied this feature. The court found that the challenge to the registration's validity lacked substance and concluded that the defendant's product prima facie infringed the plaintiff's registered design.
Jawed Habib Hair And Beauty Limited v.Madhuri Singh
The Bombay High Court addressed an application seeking an interim injunction against the use of the 'Jawed Habib' trademark and associated copyright in hair salon services. The court denied the plaintiff's request for immediate relief, primarily because the defendant asserted that she had ceased using the marks as of September 17, 2022, and there was no prima facie evidence to the contrary. Crucially, the court allowed the defendant to file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, effectively directing the dispute towards arbitration.
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.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Marico Limited against MW & Sons was settled between the parties. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, which included a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and mutual undertakings regarding the destruction of seized goods.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Sai Mirra Innopharm Private Limited; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Centaur Pharmaceuticals seeking the rectification or removal of Trade Mark No. 1409666 from the register. The court found that the trade mark's last valid registration expired long ago, specifically on December 28, 2015. Since the renewal period had lapsed and the petition was based on rectifying an active registration, the court held the case to be infructuous.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Toshiba appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its process patent application (No. 5817/DELNP/2013). The High Court found the original rejection order completely unreasoned and unsustainable in law. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for a fresh decision.
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.
M/s.White House (Partnership Firm) v.White House Apparels Private Limited & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed multiple petitions filed by M/s. White House seeking the removal of several registered trademarks belonging to its competitor, White House Apparels Private Limited. The petitioner argued they were a prior user of the 'WHITE HOUSE' mark since 1963, relying heavily on historical turnover and export documents. However, the Court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating continuous use or application of the mark to goods until much later (around 2015), concluding that the respondent's prior registration rights were valid.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application (1519/DELNP/2005) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The appeal was ultimately disposed of by the Delhi High Court because the life term of the patent application had expired during the pendency of the appeal.
Medtronic Xomed, Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
The Calcutta High Court addressed an opposition matter (OA/4/2018/PT/KOL) involving Medtronic Xomed, Inc. The court noted that no counsel appeared for the appellant on the hearing date. Consequently, the matter was adjourned to March 30, 2023, with specific directions issued to the respondent authorities to serve a copy of the application on the appellant and file an Affidavit of Service.
Sanjay Mehra v.Sharad Mehra & Ors.
This suit was filed by Sanjay Mehra seeking permanent injunction against Sharad Mehra & Ors. for alleged infringement and passing off related to the 'SUPERON' trademark and associated intellectual property rights. The core dispute revolved around the division of business assets, including IP, between two groups (SM Group and SDM Group) as per a Memorandum of Family Settlement (MOFS). Although the Plaintiff argued jurisdiction over the matter, the Court ultimately found that arbitration was the intended forum for resolving disputes arising from the MOFS and Sale Deed.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis, the patent holder of IN 276026 covering novel pyrimidine compounds including Ceritinib, alleged that Natco Pharma Limited was infringing the patent by manufacturing and selling Ceritinib under its brand NOXALK. The court found that Natco had infringed the valid suit patent.
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.
Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Hab Pharmaceuticals And Research Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Vee Excel Drugs challenging the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to cancel two pharmaceutical trademarks: 'VEGA ASIA' and 'VEGAH TABLETS'. The core issue revolved around determining prior use, particularly when one mark was registered on a 'proposed to be used basis.' The Court upheld the IPAB's finding that the subsequent user had the better right, emphasizing that the High Court should not re-appreciate evidence while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226.
M/S. Liladhar Indarji And Co. v.Union Of India
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by M/S. Liladhar Indarji And Co. challenging the rejection of its trademark renewal applications (No. 1502218 and 1502220). Instead of ruling on the merits of the initial rejection, the court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application for renewal. The respondent authority agreed that if the petitioner submits a new request with all prescribed fees, it will be considered within four weeks.
Promoshirt Sm Sa. v.Armasuisse And Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed by Promoshirt SM SA. challenging decisions related to its trademark registration applications, specifically against an opposition raised by Armasuisse. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the LPAs under Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that no further appeal should lie from a Single Judge's appellate order. The High Court ultimately negated this preliminary objection, holding that since the Trade Marks Act did not mandate adherence to the restrictive provisions of the CPC, the LPA remedy remained applicable.
United Biotech Private Limited v.Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court allowed United Biotech Private Limited's petition seeking the removal of the trade mark 'ONCONASE' (No. 447044) registered in favour of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited. The court found that the mark had not been used since its registration, thereby satisfying the grounds for cancellation under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to remove the entry from the Register within four weeks.
Sintex Industries Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr
Sintex Industries Limited appealed against an order revoking Indian Patent No. 197086 on the ground of insufficiency of disclosure. The court noted that the subject patent had already been revoked by the Controller, satisfying the main prayer of the appellant for revocation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Rallifan Ltd. v.Registrar of Trademarks
Rallifan Ltd. filed a petition seeking the removal or rectification of a trademark registration (No. 1213190) from the register. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the petitioner filed a memo stating that the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
P.Ponnuchamy v.M/s.UTV Motion Pictures
This appeal challenged an order that disallowed the plaintiff from amending his plaint to include claims for royalty and account of profits related to the movie 'Thandavam'. The court dismissed the appeal, finding merit in the respondent's argument regarding the significant delay (nine years) in seeking these amendments. The judgment emphasized that courts must consider all facts and circumstances when exercising discretion on amendment applications.
G4S Limited & Anr. v.Groupon 3 Security Services India Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of G4S Limited against Groupon 3 Security Services India Private Limited. The court found that the defendants were adopting marks ('G3S', etc.) that were structurally, phonetically, and visually similar to G4S's registered trademarks. Given the identical nature of the security services offered, the court held that a prima facie case was made out for infringement, granting immediate relief to prevent irreparable harm.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Ayur Gen Herbals
The parties, Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Ayur Gen Herbals, settled their disputes in the Bombay High Court. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order and disposed of the suit, decreeing it in terms of the original plaint's prayers.
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.