IP Cases — 2023
1,360 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 40 of 46 · 1,360 total
Kentucky Fried Chicken International Holdings LLC v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Kentucky Fried Chicken's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'CHICKEN ZINGER'. The court found that while the word 'CHICKEN' itself is generic, the combination with 'ZINGER' was suggestive rather than purely descriptive. Crucially, the court clarified that KFC would not acquire exclusive rights in the common term 'CHICKEN', ensuring a disclaimer would be reflected upon registration.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Km Swarnalatha & Ors
The plaintiffs, Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland, sought an interim injunction regarding their patented anti-cancer molecule 'dasatinib' (SPRYCEL). The court disposed of the application for interim injunction as the patent term had expired. However, the court allowed amendments to the plaint to include new manufacturers and directed further proceedings.
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.
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.
Mhg Ip Holdings (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Mhg Ip Holdings challenging the refusal of registration for its mark 'TIVOLI'. The Appellant argued that it had used the mark globally since 1933, establishing significant prior adoption. Recognizing this extensive global usage, the court invoked Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing for honest concurrent use. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar, directing a fresh review considering the Appellant's long-standing reputation.
Spalon India Pvt. Ltd. v.Roopa Lakshmi Bhat; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Spalon India Pvt. Ltd.'s application for rectification against Trademark No. 2280919. The court noted that the last registration of the mark had expired on February 10, 2022, making its continued presence in the Register invalid. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to remove the entry from Classes 3, 41, and 44 within four weeks.
Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd v.Xpert Tricks Softwares & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an ongoing suit filed by Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd against various defendants for copyright infringement and trademark passing off related to its 'BUSY Software.' The court noted that previous interim injunctions were in place, and several pro-forma defendants had been discharged after providing undertakings. On December 8, 2023, the court directed the Plaintiff to file an updated memo of parties within one week before listing the matter again.
Purushottam Singhal Proprietor Ms. Prime Cable Industries v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the proper service of an objection notice related to a trademark application. The core issue was whether the appellant (Purushottam Singhal Proprietor Ms. Prime Cable Industries) actually received the notice sent by the Registrar of Trade Marks, who claimed it was delivered to their agent. Given the conflicting claims regarding service, the Court decided not to rule immediately.
Ralson India Limited v.Sham Lal M/S Ramesh Lal And Sons And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ralson India Limited against the Trade Marks Registry's decision that had allowed the registration of 'R RALSON'. The core issue revolved around whether service of documents via email, facilitated through an agent's filing (Form TM-M), constituted valid service under the Trade Marks Act. The Court held that while general court practice allows for email service, in this specific trade mark opposition context, the validity of service depended on clear provisions within the application or notice itself; however, it granted Ralson liberty to pursue a cancellation petition based on the mark's registered status.
Flipkart Internet Private Ltd v.The Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
Flipkart Internet Private Ltd filed an appeal challenging the order of the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs which dismissed a Post-grant Opposition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 312437. The opposition contended that the patent lacked novelty, inventive step, or was not patentable under various sections of the Patents Act. The High Court examined the technical aspects and found no infirmity in the impugned order.
Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited v.E1 Entertainment Television , Llc Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the respondent's applications seeking to introduce a specific YouTube video into the rectification proceedings. The respondent argued that this video was crucial evidence supporting their claim of continuous use of the mark since the early 1990s, which directly counters the petitioner's request for trademark cancellation/rectification. The court ruled that since the link had been previously cited in the written statement, the video clip was not an 'additional document,' thereby allowing its admission to ensure a fair trial.
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v.Mr. Vijay Keshav Wagh And Anr.
In a dispute over trademark rights, Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. sought to cancel registrations held by Mr. Vijay Keshav Wagh concerning the 'TIGER' device logo. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the near identity between the marks used by both parties and issued an interim order. The court directed that status quo be maintained regarding the registration, preventing any transfer or assignment of the disputed trademarks until further hearing.
Wellpet LLC v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Wellpet LLC filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'WELLNESS' in Class 31. The appeal sought to set aside the initial refusal order from August 2018 and allow the trademark application to proceed. However, before the court could rule on the merits, Wellpet LLC filed a memo instructing its counsel to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
M/S Loreal S.A. v.Ravi Gandhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Loreal S.A., setting aside a lower court order that had permitted respondents to use the trademark 'MABELLE' as part of their corporate name and business communications. The Court clarified that while Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, addresses trade names, the unauthorized use of a registered mark in this manner still constitutes infringement under other sections, specifically Section 29(6)(d). This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to registered trademarks against deceptive similarity and commercial exploitation.
Emerson Process Management Power And Water Solutions Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emerson Process Management appealed the rejection of its patent applications (Nos. 1253/DEL/2006 and 4197/DEL/2015) for computer software patents. The court noted that the main ground for rejection—the novelty and inventiveness of associated hardware—no longer applied under current Patent Office guidelines.
M/s. Mukesh Kumar Vidyarthi v.M/s.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
M/s. Mukesh Kumar Vidyarthi filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition and an Appeal before the Madras High Court challenging orders related to patent matters. The petitioner sought condonation of delay and relief regarding the impugned order dated December 12, 2019. The court dismissed the TCMP(PT)/3/2023, consequently dismissing the appeal at the SR stage.
M/s Vets Farma Ltd. v.Vest Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the review application filed by M/s Vets Farma Ltd. The court clarified that while statutory provisions may restrict registration until a competent court determines rights, this does not bar the Civil Court from admitting assignment deeds into evidence to examine their validity and enforceability during litigation. The judgment underscores the plenary jurisdiction of civil courts in resolving complex trademark disputes involving assignments.
AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v.VICKY AGGARWAL & ORS.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute regarding the scope of an undertaking provided by defendants concerning the use of the trademark 'TOWER'. The court ruled that the undertaking could not be extended to specific goods (Monosodium Glutamate, Citric Acid, Tartaric Acid, Camphor, Hexamine tablets in Class 1, and green raisins in Class 29) because the plaintiff had explicitly acknowledged the defendants' right to use the mark for those categories in their plaint. Consequently, the court modified the undertaking, limiting its restriction only to other goods.
M/S. Tradall S.A. v.The Learned Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by M/S. Tradall S.A. against the Learned Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellant had sought to revoke a previous refusal order and allow the registration of the mark 'HALLMARK' in Class 33. However, due to repeated non-appearance of the appellant's counsel during scheduled hearings, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution.
M/s. TIL Healthcare Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by TIL Healthcare Private Limited, setting aside the Trade Mark Office's refusal to register the mark 'URELOG'. The court found that despite objections based on similarity to existing marks, the appellant successfully demonstrated the distinctiveness of the word mark. By considering the specific derivation of the elements ('URE' from urea/urine and 'LOG' from ketoanalogue) and noting that the mark was not a self-evident fusion, the High Court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement.
A.Arjun v.Balaji B
A.Arjun filed an application seeking leave from the Madras High Court to sue Balaji B for copyright infringement and passing off related to artistic work used on garments. The respondent challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that both parties operate primarily in Madurai, despite alleged online sales in Chennai.
M/S.Resq Technologies Private Limited v.Rajdeep Energies Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/S.Resq Technologies Private Limited against Rajdeep Energies Private Limited and the Registrar of Trademarks. The petition, which sought the removal or rectification of the trade mark 'RESQ' (Device Mark) registered under Trade Mark Registration No. 1779942 in Class 09, was withdrawn by the petitioner. This dismissal followed a settlement reached between the parties involved.
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries seeking permission to cancel the trademarks 'ZEST' and 'FERIZEST' registered by Dwd Pharmaceuticals Limited. The court dismissed the request concerning 'ZEST', citing principles of acquiescence, noting that the plaintiff had previously relied on similar marks containing 'ZEST'. However, the court issued notice for the cancellation petition regarding 'FERIZEST', allowing the litigation to proceed on that mark.
Martinswerk GmbH v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Martinswerk GmbH appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201748011754) by The Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the application qualified as a divisional application containing separate inventive concepts, while the respondent maintained it did not meet Section 16 requirements. The High Court set aside the impugned order due to lack of reasoning and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
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.
Nectar Biopharma Private Limited v.M/S. Kashmik Formulations Private Limited
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff's application seeking to implead Mr. Nilesh M. Patel, Director of Defendant No. 1. The court found that since Mr. Patel was the proprietor of M/s Nectar Lifecare and his marks were applied for registration, he was a necessary party due to the exclusive supply relationship between Defendant No. 1 and M/s Nectar Lifecare. This decision significantly expands the scope of the litigation by bringing in an individual directly connected to the disputed intellectual property rights.
Mineral Earth Sciences Llc v.X Development Llc
The Bombay High Court addressed the ongoing dispute between Mineral Earth Sciences Llc and X Development Llc concerning trademark matters. While no final decision was rendered on this date, the court maintained that any interim relief previously granted in the matter would continue to be effective until the next hearing date. The case is scheduled for further consideration on August 2nd, 2023.
M/s.Jupiter Drugs v.Mrs.M.Sarojini
The Madras High Court dismissed M/s. Jupiter Drugs' petition seeking to expunge or limit the trade mark 'ZIPROVIT.' The court noted that the last registration was valid only until December 14, 2017, suggesting the petitioner might no longer be an aggrieved party. Furthermore, due to the absence of a current address for service on the petitioner, the court found it impossible to proceed with the matter.
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.Twinkle Luminaires Pvt Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court issued orders in two connected trademark appeal matters, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 140/2021 and C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 92/2022. In both cases, the court addressed procedural issues regarding service of documents, specifically the counterstatement filed by the respondents. The appellant argued that they were never properly served with these crucial documents. Consequently, the Court granted time for both parties to place their respective evidence on record and scheduled further hearings in January 2024.
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.