IP Cases — 2023
1,151 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 32 of 39 · 1,151 total
Agfa Nv v.The Assistant Controller of Patents, The Patent Office, Delhi, India
Agfa Nv filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Madras High Court seeking to set aside an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant subsequently filed a memo instructing the withdrawal of the appeal.
M/S.D.R.Raanka Bros. v.Mr.Om Prakash
The Madras High Court dismissed the trademark infringement suit filed by M/S.D.R.Raanka Bros against Mr. Om Prakash. The court found that despite both parties operating in the silver jewelry trade, the defendant's use of 'D.R.R.' alongside descriptive words ('Shri Mahalakshmi Velli Maligai') did not constitute infringement or passing off of the plaintiff's registered marks like 'D.R.RAANKA'. The judgment emphasized that a marked difference in trading style prevents consumer confusion.
LOS ANGELES BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE v.THE ASSISTANT 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 directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter for March 2023.
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.
Dabur India Limited v.Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited
Dabur India Limited successfully secured a decree against Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited regarding the infringement and passing off of its trademark 'HONITUS.' The dispute was amicably resolved through mediation, leading to a Settlement Agreement. Under this agreement, the Defendant acknowledged Dabur's rights, agreed to cease using the infringing packaging/label/trade dress, modified their product presentation, and paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Plaintiff.
SSG Pharma (P) Ltd v.Paras Pan Products Pvt Ltd
SSG Pharma (P) Ltd filed a petition seeking rectification of the copyright held by Paras Pan Products Pvt Ltd concerning the artistic work 'NAGRAJ HARFANMOLA'. The Petitioner argued that its own artistic work, 'SATMOLA', was the prior adopter and user. The court found that the Respondent's artistic work bore a striking resemblance to the Petitioner's, noting that the pouches were copied in terms of color scheme and images of children. Consequently, the court directed the rectification/expungement of the impugned copyright registration.
Institute Of Directors v.Worlddevcorp Technology And Business Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, ruling against the use of 'Directors' Institute' by the defendants. The court held that because the plaintiff previously represented to the Trademark Registry that its device mark contained common English words and was descriptive, it could not claim exclusivity over those words. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff failed in its duty of fair disclosure by suppressing this prior representation, thereby disentitling it from equitable relief.
CCL Product (India) Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to register CCL Product's device mark 'CONTINENTAL WITH TWO COFFEE BEANS AT THE TOP.' The court found that the initial rejection failed to adequately consider the appellant's prior registrations and use, particularly across both Class 30 (beverages) and Class 11 (appliances). While allowing registration to proceed, the Court imposed a limitation on its use in Class 11, restricting it specifically to beverage vending and dispensing machines.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs concerning Patent No. 207232. The appellant subsequently instructed counsel to withdraw the appeal due to the expiry of the patent term.
Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Whirlpool Properties, Inc. against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of its device mark application. The court found that the coined word 'AFFRESH' was inherently distinctive and not descriptive, thus overcoming objections under Section 9(1)(a). Furthermore, after reviewing cited marks, the court determined that the subject mark was prima facie dissimilar to existing registrations, allowing the registration process to continue.
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit alleging infringement based on their patent. The court addressed several interlocutory applications, granting exemptions for mediation and allowing parties time to file necessary pleadings and documents.
Arvind Medicare Pvt Ltd. v.Registrar Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Arvind Medicare Pvt Ltd. against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of its device mark registration for medical services (Class 44). The court found that despite objections based on similarity to an earlier mark, the appellant had established significant goodwill and continuous use since 2012. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to advertisement, allowing the matter to be decided on its merits against any potential opposition.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Shilpa Medicare Limited & Anr.
This judgment addresses a batch of six infringement suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC and its affiliates against various pharmaceutical companies, including Shilpa Medicare Limited. The core dispute revolves around the alleged unauthorized manufacturing and marketing of Ibrutinib, a drug protected by Indian Patent 262968 (IN'968). The court granted interim restraint orders preventing the defendants from further manufacturing or marketing the drug pending the final disposal of the suits.
Holyland Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Vijay Pal Vineet Kumar And Co. And Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, striking down a competitor's registration. The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent's mark and trade dress were deceptively similar to its own, despite minor differences in the names ('Golden Crown' vs 'Golden Queen'). Furthermore, the court noted that the respondent's application was ineligible for registration under Section 11(1)(b) due to the petitioner's prior priority of user and registration. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to established trade dress and marks against confusingly similar imitations.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patent Act, 1970, challenging the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs' order dated April 12, 2023, which rejected its application for patent registration.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma sought permanent injunctions against various Indian pharmaceutical companies, alleging infringement of Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin tablets. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across multiple connected suits. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, noting concerns about potential patent vulnerability due to prior claiming and attempts at evergreening. Consequently, all interim injunction applications were dismissed, allowing defendants to continue manufacturing and selling the products.
Ramada International, Inc v.La-Ramada World Private Limited & Anr
The Delhi High Court reinforced the existing ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ramada International, Inc against La-Ramada World Private Limited. Finding that the defendants continued unauthorized use of the 'RAMADA' mark across various digital platforms and domains despite prior court orders, the court made the injunction absolute during the pendency of the suit. Furthermore, to ensure compliance, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner with extensive powers to seize evidence, including pamphlets and server data, and mandate the shutdown of infringing social media accounts.
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.
Smt. Veena Kumaravel v.Acit, Central Circle - 2 (1)
Smt. Veena Kumaravel appealed an order confirming the levy of capital gains tax on Rs. 6.5 crores received from M/s Groom India Saloon & Spa Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated this amount as capital receipt upon transfer of trademark 'Naturals'. The assessee argued it was only a license deposit, not a sale or transfer.
Prakash Ferrous Industries Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the word mark 'TIRUMALA' (Application No. 2080181). The High Court set aside the impugned order primarily because it was cryptic and lacked sufficient reasons for its decision. However, since evidence of use was not placed before the authority, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for a reasoned decision after the appellant provides proof of use.
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.
Red Bull Ag v.Vandana Chetankumar Maraviya Trading As Vandana Beverages & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit, Red Bull Ag sought an interim injunction against Vandana Beverages for allegedly using similar marks and trade dresses. The Delhi High Court granted a temporary restraint order, compelling Defendants No. 1 and 3 to immediately cease the use of the disputed marks and remove online advertisements. Crucially, the court allowed them to continue selling existing stock already manufactured and distributed, balancing protection of IP rights with commercial realities.
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.
Joseph Vogele AG v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed Joseph Vogele AG's appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal of their 'AutoSet Plus' trademark. The court recognized the mark's international presence, including EU CTM registrations, and noted that the appellant had obtained no objection letters from relevant foreign proprietors. Consequently, the impugned refusal order was set aside, allowing the application to proceed for registration, provided specific disclaimers were included regarding the word 'Plus'.
Hindware Limited v.Anil Kumar & Ors.
In a significant development concerning trademark infringement, Hindware Limited successfully negotiated an amicable settlement with Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff agreed to drop its claim for damages provided that the defendant withdraws his pending trademark application and commits not to use the disputed mark 'HINDWARE' on his goods. This order marks a pragmatic resolution in the ongoing dispute.
Westcourt Real Estate Private Limited / Shri Man Mohan Singh & Anr. v.Shri Man Mohan Singh & Anr. / Westcourt Real Estate Private Limited
The Delhi High Court framed a comprehensive set of issues in the ongoing commercial suits between Westcourt Real Estate Private Limited and Shri Man Mohan Singh & Anr. The disputes cover various aspects including rent suspension during lockdown, claims for equipment costs, return of property, trademark infringement (specifically regarding 'Noci-In-Q' and 'Asaya'), and validity of lease termination. By framing these issues, the court set the stage for detailed evidence recording on July 21, 2023.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
The petitioner sought a stay of proceedings in the patent revocation petition (CO (Comm. IPD-PAT) 3/2021) under Section 10 of the CPC, citing a previously instituted suit filed by Respondent 2 (Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH) before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The court analyzed whether a revocation petition and an infringement suit have identical issues and causes of action.
Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trademark & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the case of Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd vs The Registrar Of Trademark & Anr. While granting exemption and condoning a delay of 21 days, the court proceeded with the main petition (W.P.(C)-IPD 25/2023). Notice was issued to all respondents, setting a timeline for them to file their counter-affidavit within four weeks, indicating that substantive litigation on the matter is moving forward.
M/S V-Guard Industries Ltd. v.M/S Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by V-Guard Industries against an order that deemed its trademark opposition abandoned. The court held that the strict interpretation of 'leave with the Registrar' in the Trade Marks Rules should not lead to the evisceration of a citizen's valuable commercial right to oppose registration. Despite the evidence being received three days late, the High Court set aside the abandonment order and directed the Deputy Registrar to proceed with considering V-Guard's opposition.
Nayan India Science And Technologies Private Limited v.Intents Mobi Private Limited & Anr
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of three Indian Patents (373372, 407425, and 317629) by the defendant. The court registered the plaint as a suit and directed parties to file pleadings while addressing applications for injunctions.
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.