IP Cases — 2023
1,252 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 7 of 42 · 1,252 total
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.
M/s.Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd v.BHCosmetics LLC
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd, granting a petition for rectification of the Trade Marks Register. The court found that the first respondent's subsequent trade mark registration was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior and established use of 'Blue Heaven.' Given that both marks are used in relation to cosmetics and related products, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel and remove the impugned registration (No. 4200085) from the register.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HELIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
Unified Patent Court decision.
Perfetti Van Melle S.P.A v.M.G Products / M.G Food Product
Perfetti Van Melle S.P.A filed a cancellation petition seeking rectification of a specific copyright registration (A-79261/2007) held by M.G. Products. The court examined the matter in light of a prior civil suit that had been decreed based on a settlement agreement dated October 31, 2012. This settlement explicitly included the Respondent's agreement to cancel the impugned copyright registration. Consequently, the Delhi High Court directed the cancellation and expungement of the registration from the Register of Copyrights.
Nripendra Kashyap, Constituted Attorney Of Blackberry Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents
The appellant, Blackberry Limited, challenged the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 8984/CHENP/2012 by the Assistant Controller. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and anticipation by prior art documents D1-D4. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Assistant Controller failed to address key submissions made by the appellant regarding the technical differences between the invention and the cited prior art.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application (1519/DELNP/2005) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The appeal was ultimately disposed of by the Delhi High Court because the life term of the patent application had expired during the pendency of the appeal.
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.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HELIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
Unified Patent Court decision.
M/S Shree Rathnam Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Vrindavan Foods And Anr
M/S Shree Rathnam Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. filed a contempt petition against M/S Vrindavan Foods And Anr alleging violation of a prior court order dated March 6, 2023. The original order had restrained the respondents from operating under the 'SHREE RATHNAM' brand or utilizing the petitioner's trade secrets and confidential data. After hearing the arguments, the Delhi High Court disposed of the contempt petition, accepting the defense that the respondents had complied with the judgment in letter, spirit, and intent.
Biotron Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents & Designs & Anr
Biotron Limited appealed a rejection of its patent application concerning novel antiviral compounds. The initial rejection was based on lack of inventive steps, insufficient disclosure, and non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Mhg Ip Holding (Singapore) Pte. Ltd v.Anantara Greens & Ors
This Delhi High Court order marks the initial procedural steps in a trademark infringement suit filed by MHG IP Holding against Anantara Greens. The court registered the plaint and set out the schedule for pleadings, while simultaneously addressing several interlocutory applications. Key decisions included condoning the plaintiff's delay in refiling the suit and granting exemptions necessary to proceed with the claim of continuing trademark infringement.
Lupin Limited v.Tablets (India) Limited
The Madras High Court set aside an earlier rejection order in favor of Lupin Limited, allowing its appeal against the registration of the mark 'CEFTRIL'. The court found that the Registrar's conclusion—that Lupin did not use its prior mark 'CEFF'—was erroneous and contradicted the evidence presented. Furthermore, given the 1st respondent's willingness to seek cancellation, the High Court directed the removal of the disputed trade mark from the register.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag filed an appeal challenging an order passed by The Controller of Patents and Designs regarding Patent No. 208718. However, the petitioner subsequently informed the court that the patent had expired on October 1, 2019.
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.
Laurus Labs Pvt Ltd v.H.Lundbeck A/S
Laurus Labs Pvt Ltd filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian patent No. 229919 held by H. Lundbeck A/S under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court observed that the term of the said patent had already expired on July 12, 2021.
Sucampo Pharma Llc v.M/s.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sucampo Pharma LLC filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal sought to set aside the 2016 order and allow the patent application to proceed for grant.
M/s.Biodelivery Sciences International, Inc. v.M/s.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office
M/s.Biodelivery Sciences International, Inc. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order from the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.