IP Cases — 2023
1,199 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 6 of 40 · 1,199 total
GOTO Technologies USA, Inc. v.Sanikommu Venkata Ramalinga Reddy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of GOTO Technologies USA, Inc., allowing petitions to cancel several trademark registrations held by Sanikommu Venkata Ramalinga Reddy. The court found that the respondent had adopted the prominent 'GOTO' part of the petitioner’s established mark without justification. By demonstrating its long history and market presence, the petitioner successfully countered arguments regarding delay or lack of prior registration.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action against ten Xiaomi-related defendants concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163. The present order addressed Panasonic's application for document production against itself, accompanied by a request for confidentiality protection. The court issued a final consolidated confidentiality order, accepting most of the defendants' requested modifications to the provisional order, including clarifying the scope of legal representatives, expanding access to three named reliable persons, removing the return/destruction obligation, and setting a penalty of up to 100,000 EUR per culpable violation.
M/s. A. Murugan v.M/s. Union of India
M/s. A. Murugan filed an Appeal (Patents) challenging the order that granted Patent No. 267238, which was based on Application Number 126/CHENP/2008. The appeal sought to revoke the patent and dismiss the application. However, the court noted that the patent had not been renewed after July 7, 2021, rendering it non-forceful.
Black Berry Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Black Berry Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding Application No.6579/CHENP/2011. However, the appellant subsequently instructed its counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Global Medikit Limited v.B.Braun Melsungen Ag
Global Medikit Limited filed a Transfer Original Petition (Patents) before the Madras High Court, seeking to rectify or revoke Indian Patent No. 210062. The court noted that the patent's term had already expired on August 18, 2018.
Jaisica International v.The Registrar of Trade Marks; Crystal Cook-N-Serve Products Pvt. Ltd.
Jaisica International filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' order of abandonment concerning its device mark 'KRYSTAL'. However, before the High Court could rule on the merits of the case, the appellant voluntarily chose to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the matter as withdrawn without passing any substantive orders regarding costs.
Ved Prakash Malhotra (M/s. S.P. Products) v.M/s.Abhinav Export Corporation
This Madras High Court judgment addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of an opposition against a trademark application ('BLACK GOLD'). The court analyzed claims of similarity and prior use between 'BLACK N GOLD' (appellant) and 'BLACK GOLD' (respondent). While acknowledging the marks are nearly identical, the court found that the respondent successfully established honest concurrent use dating back to 1992. Consequently, the respondent was granted the benefit of Section 12, but their rights were narrowly restricted solely to henna hair dye products.
Nripendra Kashyap Esco Corporation v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nripendra Kashyap Esco Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its divisional patent application (737/DELNP/2009) for a wear assembly. The rejection was based on lack of distinct invention and inventive step. The High Court quashed the rejection, holding that objections must be restricted to those provided in writing, and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Saint-Gobain Abrasives appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents and Designs concerning Patent Application No. 201941052276 for a NONWOVEN ARTICLE. The appellants argued that the rejection based on lack of disclosure, definitiveness, and obviousness was unsustainable. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for re-consideration.
Insecticides (India) Limited v.Anu Products Limited
Insecticides (India) Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of its patent (IN 316801), which covers an insecticidal composition. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement via mediation, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms.
Lacoste S.A. v.Sheetal Fabrics
Lacoste S.A. filed a suit against Sheetal Fabrics alleging infringement of its trademark LACOSTE, passing off, and violation of copyrights in relation to garments and accessories. The court found that the defendant adopted and used trademarks deceptively similar to Lacoste's, causing loss to the plaintiff's reputation.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Prk Productions Llp
Himalaya Wellness Company filed a suit alleging trademark infringement against Prk Productions LLP over the use of 'VIMALAYA' in their film 'Aachar & Co.' The Plaintiffs argued that this usage distorted their established brands like 'HIMALAYA', 'Liv.52', etc., causing consumer confusion. Despite initial denials by the Defendant, the Court found strong evidence supporting the similarity and registered trademarks of the Plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was formally registered, and summons were issued to compel the Defendant to appear and defend the allegations.
Anjay Bansal v.Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned the rejection of a device mark registration applied for by Anjay Bansal. The initial refusal was based on the mark being non-distinctive or merely descriptive. However, the court found that the appellant successfully demonstrated long-standing use since 2005 through submitted invoices and annual reports. Citing the proviso to Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act, the High Court ruled that the mark had acquired distinctiveness through use, allowing it to proceed to advertisement.
Tibra Collection v.Fashnear Technologies Private Limited & Ors.
Tibra Collection filed suit against several unauthorized sellers operating on the Meesho platform (run by Fashnear Technologies Private Limited) for copyright infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were selling counterfeit garments that copied their designs and misusing their copyrighted photographs. After initial interim injunctions, the parties reached a settlement agreement. The court subsequently decreed the suit against the infringing sellers (Defendants 2-6), formalizing the undertaking which included a payment of Rs. 10 lakh to Tibra Collection and permanent cessation of all infringing activities.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Bristol Myers Squibb Company And Anr
The matter involved Natco Pharma Limited and Bristol Myers Squibb Company regarding Indian Patent No. IN 247381, which covers Factor Xa Inhibitors used in the pharmaceutical preparation APIXABAN. The parties amicably settled their disputes via an agreement dated August 8, 2023.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Hetero Healthcare Limited And Anr
In a complex trademark dispute, Sun Pharma sought permanent injunction against Hetero Healthcare regarding the alleged infringement of its mark 'LETROZ' by 'LETERO'. The court allowed the Defendants to challenge the validity of Sun Pharma's marks through a rectification petition under Section 57. Crucially, the court clarified that while invalidity can be challenged, the primary suit for passing off will proceed independently, leading to framing of multiple issues covering both infringement and validity.
myStromer AG v.Revolt Zycling AG, George Merachtsakis
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-11-22) under reference UPC-001676, myStromer AG appeared in dispute with Revolt Zycling AG, George Merachtsakis concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
M/S Malhotra Book Depot v.M/S Mbd Industries And Anr.
Malhotra Book Depot filed a suit against Mbd Industries, alleging trademark infringement and passing off due to the Defendant's use of the deceptively similar mark 'MBD' for non-metallic building materials. The Plaintiff held multiple registrations for 'MBD' across various classes related to publishing. During mediation, the parties agreed that the Defendants would change their mark to 'JMVD'. Consequently, the court disposed of all pending interim injunction applications, allowing the Defendants to continue operating under the new mark.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed a refusal order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application 'Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices'. The refusal was based on lack of novelty and inventive step citing prior art. The court directed that an IPO official must be present for further hearings to address these technical objections.
Janssen Schiences Ireland Uc v.Controller Of Patents
Janssen Schiences Ireland Uc appealed the refusal of a patent application for 'Prevention of HIV- Infection with TMC278' by the Deputy Controller of Patents. The appeal challenged the grounds of lack of inventive step and non-patentability due to mere admixture. However, the appellant subsequently decided to withdraw the present appeal.
Ischemix Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Ischemix LLC appealed a refusal of its patent application, which covered an isomer used to treat ischemia. The refusal was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, requiring demonstration of 'enhanced therapeutic efficacy.' The court acknowledged the strict interpretation required by law but noted that the Patent Office had failed to consider various supporting data provided by the applicant. Consequently, the High Court directed the record back to the Patent Office for re-examination and final adjudication within a stipulated timeframe.
Retail Royalty Company & Anr. v.Garvit Khandelwal, Trading As Ektarfa Garments & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, Retail Royalty Company & Anr., against Garvit Khandelwal (Ektarfa) for trademark infringement involving 'American Eagle' apparel. Despite the defendant claiming lack of knowledge and offering a settlement, the court found him liable due to his previous conduct as an infringer. The suit was decreed with a permanent injunction and an award of Rs. 3,00,000/- in damages.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Naresh Kumar Goyal, Trading As Maiden Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex interplay between an infringement suit and concurrent rectification petitions concerning pharmaceutical trademarks. The court clarified that while the statute requires rectification to be decided first, the simultaneous filing by the plaintiff preempted the need for a mandatory adjournment. Consequently, the court framed multiple issues covering trademark validity, infringement, passing-off, and defenses like adoption from APIs, setting the case for trial.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.Sauss Home Products Private Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses a complex trademark dispute between Reckitt Benckiser and Sauss Home Products concerning the 'Robin Bird' device mark. The core issue revolves around establishing who is the prior adopter or owner of the distinctive mark and artistic work used on their respective products. The court has directed both parties to file comprehensive evidence, including marketing materials and advertisements, to substantiate their claims of priority. Furthermore, several applications regarding territorial jurisdiction, stays, and cancellation petitions are pending, indicating a multi-faceted legal battle.
Legrand France and Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd v.Praveen Kumar Jain (Trading as Biocon Tapes India) and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the trade mark register, successfully canceling an identical registration of 'LEGRAND' held by Praveen Kumar Jain. The court found that the petitioner, Legrand France, had prior and extensive use of the arbitrary mark since 1970 in India, while the respondent's goods (adhesive tapes) were complementary to the petitioner's electrical products (switches). Given the identical nature of the marks and the likelihood of public confusion due to overlapping distribution channels, the court ruled that the later registration was made without sufficient cause.
M/S.Silver Oak (India) Limited v.Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S. Silver Oak (India) Limited against Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. The core issue involved an opposition concerning Trade Mark No. 1116900 in Class 33. However, upon inquiry, the court found that the relevant trade mark had already been removed from the Register of Trade Marks. Consequently, the appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed without further order.
Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Brawn and Burk Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a civil suit against Brawn and Burk Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., seeking permanent injunctions for infringing the 'MALOXINE' trademark and copyrighted carton design, as well as damages for passing off. The original prayer sought to restrain the defendant from using similar marks or designs on pharmaceutical products. However, given that the plaintiff company had been wound up and remained inactive in prosecuting this very old suit since 1998, the Madras High Court dismissed the case for non-prosecution.
M/S TAG HEUER S.A. v.SH. AJIT SINGH
The plaintiff, M/s Tag Heuer S.A., a luxury watchmaker, filed a suit alleging that unknown persons were using its trademark on inferior quality counterfeit products. A Local Commissioner was appointed to search the premises of the defendant, where 137 watches and other materials bearing the plaintiff's trademark were recovered. The court found the material unrebutted and granted relief in favor of the plaintiff.
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v.Sharp Industries & The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha challenging an earlier order that allowed a competitor, Sharp Industries, to register the mark 'SHARP' for pumps. Despite presenting extensive evidence regarding its global reputation and prior use of the trademark, the court upheld the original decision. The core reasons for upholding the registration were that the goods in question (pumps) were deemed dissimilar from the appellant's primary products, and crucially, the appellant failed to definitively establish that 'SHARP' was a well-known mark within India as required by the Trade Marks Act.
M/s.K.P. Namboodiri'S Ayurvedics v.Dr. S. Sajikumar
The Madras High Court disposed of the petition filed by M/s.K.P. Namboodiri'S Ayurvedics against Dr. S. Sajikumar regarding the cancellation of a registered trademark (No. 1914715). The court noted that the contesting parties had entered into a Memorandum of Compromise dated October 31, 2023. Under this settlement, both parties agreed to permit each other's trademarks to coexist in the market and subsequently withdrew all related proceedings.
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.