IP Cases — 2023
1,252 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 35 of 42 · 1,252 total
Ust Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Ust Global appealed the rejection of its application for registering a design titled "Touch Screen," which was a Graphical User Interface (GUI). The Controller rejected it, arguing that GUI is incapable of design registration because it is software-based and only visible when the product is operating. The High Court set aside this order, finding that GUI qualifies as an industrial process applied to an article and is registrable.
M/S Goodwill Polypast & Anr v.The Supreme Industries Ltd
This Delhi High Court order addresses a revision petition filed by M/S Goodwill Polypast & Anr against The Supreme Industries Ltd. The underlying suit concerns permanent injunctions related to trademark infringement and passing off. While an exemption application was allowed, the main stay application concerning the striking off of the defendant's defence has been listed for further consideration on March 24, 2023.
Fdc India (Franchise Development Consulting India) v.FDC Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order that allowed the amendment of a plaint. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff was correcting a mere factual error—mistakenly stating pending trademarks as registered—or making a substantive change. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court upheld the legality of allowing the amendment but simultaneously balanced the equities by directing that the specific details provided in the amended plaint regarding the nature and status of the marks must be considered when deciding related applications like perjury pleas or stay vacation.
Bundl Technologies Private Limited v.Pankaj Garg & Anr.
Bundl Technologies Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the well-known trademark 'SWIGGY', initiated proceedings against Pankaj Garg & Anr. alleging dishonest adoption of the mark. The Delhi High Court issued directions to both parties regarding the procedural aspects of the case, including filing replies and rejoinders within specified timelines. The court also set dates for the completion of pleadings before the Joint Registrar and subsequent hearing before the Court.
Alpha Corp Development Private Limited v.Alpha Integrated Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Alpha Corp Development Private Limited against a deceptively similar trademark registered by its former employees' company, Alpha Integrated Management Services Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the impugned mark was identical and confusingly similar to the petitioner's established 'ALPHA' brand in real estate services. Given the respondent's dishonest adoption of the mark to ride on the petitioner's goodwill, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the infringing trademark registration.
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.
Sun Hydraulics Llc v.Sun Hydraulics Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff to introduce a rectified Legal Proceedings Certificate (LPC) late in the proceedings. Although the Defendant argued that the document was already in the Plaintiff's possession and control, the Court found that the newly issued LPC was not available at the time of filing the suit. However, due to the significant delay, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Plaintiff.
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.
Satbir Singh v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Satbir Singh appealed the rejection of his patent application for a 'Pellet Feed Manufacturing Plant'. The Assistant Controller rejected the application citing lack of inventive steps and that it was merely an arrangement or re-arrangement. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the objection under Section 3(f) was not afforded to the Appellant during the examination process.
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.
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
Plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of his process patent related to extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The dispute centered on whether the Defendants' product was made using the patented process, and how to balance the need for evidence with the protection of Defendants' trade secrets.
Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks, The Trademarks Registry; M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises
The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd. against the Registrar of Trademarks and M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises. The petitioner had sought to quash the registration of the trademark 'OMBC' under application no.5054052, which was held by Respondent No. 2. However, the court noted that the prayer in the petition had become infructuous, leading to its dismissal.
Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd v.The Registrar of Trademarks; M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises
The Madras High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd against The Registrar of Trademarks and M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises. The petitioner had sought to quash a registered trademark 'OMBC' held by Respondent No. 2, arguing infringement or improper registration. However, the court noted that the prayer in the petition had become infructuous, leading to its dismissal.
Mr.C.S.Padam Chand v.K.Shibu Proprietor Thameem Films and M/s H.R.Pictures
The appeal concerned the appellant's attempt to restrain the release of the movie 'Thugs' due to alleged non-fulfillment of obligations under prior copyright agreements with K.Shibu. The court found that although H.R.Pictures was not a party to the original agreement, an interim injunction could be maintained against its further exploitation (OTT rights) provided K.Shibu furnished adequate security.
Dolby International Ab v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dolby International Ab appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 6570/DELNP/2009) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was arbitrary, incomprehensible, and lacked any proper reasoning or due application of mind. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union of India & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha filed a review application challenging the order of a Single Judge regarding the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court dismissed the review application, holding that the petitioner had not adequately argued or pleaded the issue of constitutional validity in the original writ petition.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design, 'PEE BUDDY', by Defendant 7, which was manufacturing an identical device under the name 'NAMYAA'. The core dispute centered on whether the defendant's product constituted piracy of the plaintiff's certified design. While the court found the designs to be identical, subsequent proceedings led to a settlement with one key defendant (Defendant 2), resulting in a decree sheet being drawn up for that party.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter And Gamble Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5444/DELNP/2007). The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, citing prior art that showed individual ingredients. P&G argued that the cited art did not disclose the invention as a composition thereof.
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents Designs And Anr
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd. appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents and Designs which refused to grant a patent for its 'Air Decontamination Assembly.' The refusal was based on objections regarding lack of inventive step and non-patentable subject matter. Biomoneta argued that their device offered unique features not present in the prior art, supported by significant government funding and international recognition. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Mr. Surender Talwar
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Mr. Surender Talwar for infringement of its trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo') and copyrights, alleging that the defendant was selling counterfeit goods bearing deceptively similar marks. The court found the defendant guilty of passing off and trademark infringement.
Commissioner Of Service Tax, Kolkata v.M/s. McLeod Russel (India) Limited
The Revenue appealed an order dropping demands for Service Tax on royalties paid by M/s. McLeod Russel (India) Limited to a foreign company for using licensed trademarks and patents related to tea production. The Tribunal held that since the trade marks and patents were not registered in India, they did not qualify as Intellectual Property Rights under Indian law 'for the time being in force', thus making the royalty payment non-taxable.
Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd v.Relaxo Footwears Limited
Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd appealed against the registration granted to Relaxo Footwears Limited for a slipper design. The Supreme Court accepted a new design from Aqualite and ordered that the pending appeals and related applications be disposed of, subject to the parties being bound by their statements.
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd v.Controller General Of Patents, Design
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents which had refused to grant a patent for its 'Air Decontamination Assembly.' The refusal was based primarily on the grounds that the subject matter lacked inventive step over existing prior art. Biomoneta highlighted the innovative nature of its device, supported by significant government funding and international recognition. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.
Aviral Education Welfare and Cultural Society v.Delhi Public School Society
This case involved a dispute arising from the termination of a Joint Venture Agreement between Aviral Education Welfare and Cultural Society (AEWCS) and Delhi Public School Society (DPSS). Following the termination, AEWCS continued operating as 'Delhi Public School, Sahibabad,' leading to concurrent litigation regarding trademark and copyright infringement. The court addressed both the contractual dispute and the IP misuse, ultimately finding that while the termination clause was binding, the public needed clarity regarding the school's affiliation status.
Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society v.Delhi Public School Society
This case involved a dispute between Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society (AEWCS) and Delhi Public School Society (DPSS) following the termination of their Joint Venture Agreement (JVA). The core issues revolved around whether AEWCS could continue operating as 'Delhi Public School, Sahibabad' using DPSS's name and logos after the JVA ended. While AEWCS challenged the arbitrary nature of the termination, the court found the contractual clause binding. However, addressing public interest, the Court issued a directive requiring DPSS to issue public notices clarifying that students enrolled at DPS Sahibabad would be entitled to admissions in other regional schools.
Umaid Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as it related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial notice.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that since the registration was allegedly erroneous (Government property), the petitioners should have defended their case before the Competent Authorities rather than filing a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Tapas Chatterjee v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The appellant challenged the refusal of their Indian Patent Application No. 201911036748 by the Controller on grounds of non-patentability under Section 3(d) and lack of inventive step. The appeal argued that the invention was novel, inventive, and not subject to the bar of Section 3(d). However, the High Court upheld the Controller's refusal.
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. v.Controller Of Patents
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. appealed against an order by the Controller of Patents rejecting its Indian Patent Application No. 10246/DELNP/2012. The rejection was based on Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued directions for filing replies and further pleadings.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners, members of the Mohonot Family and M/s.Jay Group of Companies, challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the Government property should be preferred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits.
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.