IP Cases — 2023
1,252 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 40 of 42 · 1,252 total
Mohan Breweries And Distilleries Limited v.M.P.Beer Products Private Limited
Mohan Breweries And Distilleries Limited filed a civil suit against M.P.Beer Products Private Limited, seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits for infringement of its registered trademarks, designs, and copyright related to beer bottles. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was passing off their products as those of Mohan Breweries. However, due to the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case effectively before the court, the Madras High Court dismissed the suit.
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.
Consitex S.A. v.Sharad Rampal Jain And Sudeep Gautamchand Dhing Trading As Siesta Pharmaceuticals & 1 other(s)
The Gujarat High Court disposed of the Rectification Application (C/RA/50/2022) filed by Consitex S.A. The application sought action regarding a trademark, but the petitioner subsequently informed the court that the trademark in question had already been removed by the Registry. Consequently, the court allowed the withdrawal of the application.
Mr. Peter Fanning, Chief Executive, The Chartered Institute Of Taxation v.M/s Institute Of Charted Tax Advisers Of India Limited
The Rajasthan High Court addressed two interconnected writ petitions concerning a trademark dispute over 'Chartered Tax Adviser (CTA)'. The core issue was whether the plaintiff's attempt to invalidate the registered trademark, via an application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, should be decided on its merits. The court set aside previous technical orders that dismissed the application and directed the Commercial Court to frame a specific issue regarding the pending cancellation proceedings (Section 57) before the High Court of Gujarat, ensuring the Section 124 application is now heard afresh on its substantive grounds.
M/S Luxottica Group S.P.A & Anr v.M/S Deals Cracker & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex-parte injunction granted against the defendants in a trademark infringement suit brought by Luxottica Group S.P.A regarding its 'RAY-BAN' brand. The court proceeded to frame several key issues, including whether the defendant website (Shopclues) has infringed or committed passing off, and specifically addressed the defense of being merely an intermediary under the IT Act. This marks a significant step toward the trial phase of the dispute.
Gopal Krishan S/O. Sh. Mangat Rai v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks (Govt. Of India)
This writ petition was filed by Gopal Krishan seeking a direction from the High Court to expedite the registration of his trademark 'PANTHER' in Class 5. The petitioner highlighted that the application had been pending for an extended period since 2015. The court issued notices to the respondents, setting a timeline of six weeks for the matter to be returned, thereby moving the case forward.
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.
Allergan Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Allergan Inc appealed an order by the Controller of Patents that rejected its claims for 'INTRACAMERAL SUSTAINED RELEASE THERAPEUTIC AGENT IMPLANTS' based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court held that since the amendment was sought at a pre-grant stage and merely related to the same implants, the Controller ought to have allowed the amendments and examined them on merits.
Corona Remedies Private Limited v.Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The Bombay High Court quashed an interim injunction that prevented Corona Remedies from using its trademark 'STIMULET' in pharmaceutical products. Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals had alleged trade mark infringement and passing off based on their registered mark 'STIMULIV'. The court found that despite the similarity, Corona was a registered proprietor of its own mark, and crucially, the two marks were used for distinct product types (allopathic vs. ayurvedic) and different medical conditions, thus failing to establish likelihood of confusion or passing off.
ITC Limited v.Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed two separate applications in the dispute between ITC Limited and Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors. Regarding a request to use a new label, the court found that the proposed packaging did not appear deceptively similar to ITC's marks, thereby lifting the existing ad-interim injunction for this specific design. Separately, the Court initiated proceedings against Mr. Prem Chand Mittal for alleged assault and deliberate disobedience of previous orders.
Surya Food & Agro Ltd v.Om Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Surya Food & Agro Ltd against a single judge's dismissal of its infringement suit. The court overturned the previous ruling, finding that the lower court had erred in basing its decision on recollections of facts not present in the record. This sets the case back for trial, allowing the appellant to prove claims related to copyright and passing off concerning their 'Butter Delite' packaging versus the respondent's 'Butter Crunch'.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited & Anr.
Novartis Ag appealed against an order that set aside a patent grant (IN'414518) on the ground of procedural lapses. Novartis argued that the Single Judge misinterpreted Rule 55, which pertains only to pre-grant opposition procedures, not application examination under Sections 13, 14, and 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court found issues regarding the merging of proceedings and directed notice to be issued.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design's order dated February 27, 2020, which refused to register Indian Patent Application No. 9486/DELNP/2007 for a system and method related to wearable electronic devices.
Groz-Beckert Kg v.Union Of India & Ors.
Groz-Beckert Kg appealed an order from the Assistant Controller rejecting its patent application for a method and apparatus related to processing tape-shaped material. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art (D4).
Allergan Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Allergan Inc appealed an impugned order issued by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the order was unreasoned and challenged the decision regarding voluntary amendments made to the patent application. The court reserved the matter for further submissions.
M/S SUMOTEK INNOVATION PVT. LTD AND GIRISH MANOHARRAO BACHATE v.Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. A
The petitioners filed a writ petition alleging that the respondent (APDCL) was procuring smart electricity meters through tender, which might infringe on their patent rights for prepaid/postpaid Electricity Supply Machine. The court noted that while infringement was apprehended, alternative and efficacious remedies were available under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
M/S.Avon Emery Industries v.Sabko Industries
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S. Avon Emery Industries against an earlier ruling that rejected its application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court affirmed the trial court's decision after considering arguments from both sides regarding whether the original suit included claims for trademark infringement or only passing off. Given the respondent's clarification that the suit was solely for passing off, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's order.
Delhi Public School Society v.Delhi Public School Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi Public School Society filed petitions seeking the cancellation of a specific copyright registration held by its subsidiary, Delhi Public School Pvt Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether the impugned copyright was an exact replica of the Petitioner's original copyrights and if the Respondent had the right to hold such a registration. The Court found that the rival copyrights were nearly identical and that the Petitioner's rights predated the challenged registration. Furthermore, the court noted a prior decree restraining the Respondent from using similar marks.
Grunenthal Gmbh v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
This case involves Grunenthal Gmbh appealing before the Calcutta High Court following the transfer of its matter from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) due to the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices to both parties and file a report. Consequently, the case was scheduled for further hearing on March 6, 2023.
Glaxosmithkline Biologicals Sa v.Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks And Anr
This matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices to both parties and file a report before proceeding further. This procedural order sets the stage for the continuation of the patent dispute.
Tata Chemicals Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The case was received by the Calcutta High Court from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the matter for further hearing.
Viacyte Inc v.Controller Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark and Anr.
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 setting the next hearing date.
Mologen Ag v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The case was received by the Calcutta High Court Commercial Division upon transfer from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the matter for further hearing.
The Regents of the University of California and Anr v.Controller General of Patents and Designs and Anr
This Original Application (OA) 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 the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the matter for hearing.
Indena S.P.A. v.Controller General Pf Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
This case involves Indena S.P.A. appealing a matter previously handled by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021, the matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court's Commercial Division. The court directed that notices be issued to both parties and a report filed before the returnable date, setting the next hearing for March 6, 2023.
Wyeth Holdings Corporation v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
This matter 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 necessary notices to both parties and file a report before proceeding further. This procedural step sets the stage for the continuation of the patent dispute.
Wyeth v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
The matter 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 the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter on March 6, 2023.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patent Design and Trademarks And Anr
This case involves Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd appealing against a decision that was previously handled by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021, the matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Aroa Biosurgery Limited v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
Aroa Biosurgery Limited approached the Calcutta High Court regarding a matter transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court noted that no parties appeared on the date and directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices to both sides prior to the returnable date. This procedural order sets the stage for further hearing in the High Court.
Viacyte Inc. v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
This case involves Viacyte Inc. challenging a decision or proceeding before the Controller General of Patents. The matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court issued directions for the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report, setting the next hearing date.
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.