IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 158 of 159 · 4,764 total
Castrol Limited v.Ibrahim Adamali Sanchawala, Trading As EA & Sons and T-Max Lubricants Andr.
Castrol Limited filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Ibrahim Adamali Sanchawala regarding the use of deceptively similar packaging for engine oils. The Delhi High Court granted several critical interim reliefs to Castrol, including an exemption from pre-litigation mediation and advance notice to the defendants. Crucially, the court allowed for the ex-parte appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation on the defendant's premises to prevent further infringement.
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.
Smt. Harbans Kaur / Gurmarg Appliances Pvt Ltd v.Ascent Electronics / Gurmarg Appliances Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court ruled decisively in favor of the original proprietor regarding the trademark 'TANASHI'. The court found that the plaintiff had established prior rights through long-standing use dating back to 1993, despite subsequent registrations by the defendant. Crucially, the court held that a distributor is merely a permissive user and cannot claim proprietary rights over a mark belonging to the original owner. Consequently, the suit for infringement was decreed, and the defendant's conflicting trademark registration was cancelled.
Sml Ltd. v.M/S Happy Agro Chemicals & Ors.
SML Ltd. filed a commercial civil suit seeking protection against infringement of its patent (IN282092) by M/S Happy Agro Chemicals & Ors., who market the product 'ZINKING'. The court, after considering submissions and expert reports, found that a prima facie case was made out.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp.
The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendants for infringement of their patent along with claims for injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts of profits.
Sml Ltd. v.M/S Happy Agro Chemicals & Ors.
SML Ltd. filed a commercial suit seeking protection against the infringement of its patent (IN 282092) by M/S Happy Agro Chemicals & Ors., specifically concerning their product 'SELZIC'. The court, after considering arguments and expert testimony, found that a prima facie case was made out.
Pratibha Proprietor Of Lamed India v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Pratibha Proprietor Of Lamed India against a registered trademark 'LAMED'. The court cancelled the registration (No. 1576720) after noting that one of the respondents, who held the mark, no longer intended to use it. This decision effectively cleared the path for the petitioner to utilize the brand name.
Ms Veerji Restaurant Private Limited v.Jashpal Singh Trading As Veerj Ji Malai Chaap Wale & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark and copyright infringement case filed by Ms Veerji Restaurant Private Limited against Jashpal Singh Trading As Veerj Ji Malai Chaap Wale. The court formally registered the plaint as a commercial suit, setting timelines for written statements and replication. Crucially, it issued notice regarding the plaintiff's application seeking permanent injunction to restrain trademark and copyright infringement and passing off of the 'VEERJI MALAI CHAAP WALE' brand.
Netgear Inc., Germany GmbH, International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This case concerns a request for discretionary review before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the admissibility of an appeal against an order by a judge rapporteur. The judge rapporteur had refused to refer his earlier decision (that the Applicants' preliminary objection would be dealt with in the main proceedings) to the panel for review under Rule 333.1 RoP. The standing judge allowed the discretionary review request, permitting the applicants to appeal the 11 December 2023 order, and referred the case to the President of the Court of Appeal for assignment to a panel.
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.Maa Bara Devi Namkeen Bhandar And Anr
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd filed petitions seeking the removal and cancellation of specific copyright registrations held by Maa Bara Devi Namkeen Bhandar. The court noted that a prior civil suit between the parties had been decreed on consent terms, wherein the Respondent agreed not to use any deceptively similar labels or trademarks. Since the respondent subsequently undertook to withdraw relevant trademark applications and cancel certain copyrights, the High Court allowed the petitions.
H. Lundbeck A/S Through its Authorized Representative v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the Deputy Controller's order holding that their invention lacked inventive step. The core contention was that the Controller improperly relied on certain prior art documents that had been given up or never properly contested during the examination process. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions.
Epitech S.P.A. v.The Controller Of Patents
Epitech S.P.A. appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents, which had denied the grant of its PCT national phase application (No. 6850/DELNP/2014). The Controller's initial decision was based on the finding that the data provided by the Appellant related to an irrelevant compound (PEA-OXA) instead of the claimed subject matter (PEA-OXLE). However, the Delhi High Court found this reasoning insufficient and factually incorrect, noting that the data did indeed include examples pertaining to PEA-OXLE. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the Impugned Order and directing the Controller to decide the application afresh.
Monsanto Technology, LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Monsanto Technology appealed the order of the Assistant Controller which refused to patent two independent claims related to transgenic soybean plants. The appellant argued that if objections were raised, at least the remaining eleven claims should have been patented. The High Court found the respondent had not applied its mind wholly to all claims.
Nike Innovate C.V. v.Tracking Shoes Company
Nike Innovate C.V. filed a suit against Tracking Shoes Company alleging that the latter was counterfeiting and infringing upon Nike's trademarks (NIKE, Swoosh Device) in relation to footwear and apparel. The court found that the defendant had adopted identical marks and was causing deception in the market.
Titan Paints And Chemicals Private Limited v.M/s.Titan Company Limited Integrity
In a trademark rectification case, Titan Paints And Chemicals Private Limited sought to register its mark against an existing registration held by M/s.Titan Company Limited Integrity. Initially, the respondent opposed the petition based on deceptive similarity and infringement concerns. However, during the proceedings, the first respondent withdrew its objection regarding the petitioner's use of the mark under clause 2. Consequently, the Madras High Court directed the Registrar to consider the petitioner's application anew (de novo), effectively clearing the path for registration.
Imagine Marketing Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Ors.
Imagine Marketing Limited (boAt) successfully secured an interim injunction against several defendants accused of trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court recognized that the defendants were using deceptively similar domain names and creating fake websites to sell counterfeit or fraudulent consumer electronics, causing irreparable harm to boAt's goodwill. The court restrained these parties from operating such domains and ordered registrars to suspend the infringing sites within ten days.
Castrol Limited v.Vivek Sen, Trading As Tridev Auto Parts & Anr.
In a suit concerning trademark and copyright infringement, Castrol Limited successfully secured several critical interim orders from the Delhi High Court. The court granted exemptions allowing the Plaintiff to proceed urgently without pre-litigation mediation or prior notice to the defendants. Crucially, the court authorized the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation against the Defendants for counterfeit products bearing deceptively similar marks and packaging.
Kalpaka Builders Private Limited v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Kalpaka Builders Private Limited challenging an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB had cancelled the petitioner's trademark registration because the mandatory publication only featured the word 'Kalpaka,' while the registered mark was a device mark. The court upheld the IPAB's decision, finding no fault with the order as it merely remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Trademark Registry.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore AS [et al.], Mathys & Squire LLP & Bristows (Ireland) LLP
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2024-01-10) under reference UPC-001641, Ocado Innovation Limited appeared in dispute with Autostore AS [et al.], Mathys & Squire LLP & Bristows (Ireland) LLP concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Onco Therapy Science, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Onco Therapy Science appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its application for a patent covering novel peptides used as vaccines against cancers. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider their written submissions and supporting materials when issuing the rejection order. The High Court allowed the appeal, remanding the matter back for fresh consideration.
Robert Bosch Limitada v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Robert Bosch Limitada appealed the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order rejecting its patent application. The rejection was allegedly based on insufficient description, which the appellant argued was not properly communicated during the examination process. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Huck International, Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Huck International appealed the rejection of its divisional patent application based on an objection under Section 16 of the Patents Act. The Appellant argued that they were denied a fair opportunity because the final decision was based on an objection not enumerated in the initial hearing notice. The Court agreed, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Respondent to issue a fresh notice.
3G Licensing S.A v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
The appeal was filed challenging the rejection of a patent application. The Appellant argued that prior art cited by the Indian Patent Office had also been considered and the patent granted in Europe. The Court issued an interim order allowing the Appellant time to submit the European patent record.
M/S Raj Steel Rolling Mills v.M/S Haryana Strips Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S Raj Steel Rolling Mills seeking cancellation of the trademark 'SHAILDU HEAVY'. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively and structurally similar to the Petitioner's prior registered mark, 'SALDU', which had been in continuous use since 1974. Given the identical nature of the goods (iron and steel shapes) and the clear evidence of prior usage by the petitioner, the registration of 'SHAILDU HEAVY' was deemed a contravention of the Trade Marks Act, leading to its cancellation.
M/S Star Syringe Ltd v.M/S Tiger Surgical Disposable Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have infringed their patent and seek damages. The case is ongoing with preliminary objections raised by the defendants regarding maintainability due to insolvency proceedings.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited & Anr.
Novartis appealed an order that allowed certain amendments in its Indian Patent Application (IN'518) based on a finding that pre-grant opponents should be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The core dispute centered on whether the examination process and opposition proceedings are independent or merged under the Patents Act, 1970.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Kavitha Kuruganti
This appeal challenged the revocation of a plant variety registration (FL 2027) granted to PepsiCo. The initial Single Judge affirmed the revocation primarily due to incorrect information regarding the date of first commercial sale and failure to submit requisite documentation. The High Court allowed PepsiCo's appeal, setting aside the revocation order while noting that the mistake in styling as 'new' was remediable.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Kavitha Kuruganti
PepsiCo appealed the revocation of registration for its plant variety FL 2027. The original revocation was based on PepsiCo furnishing incorrect information about the date of first commercial sale and alleged non-compliance with documentation requirements. The High Court allowed PepsiCo's appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment regarding the eligibility to apply for registration.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag challenged the refusal of its patent application by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, citing technical objections and procedural issues. The High Court found that the significant delay between the hearing and the issuance of the refusal order was arbitrary and lacked confidence.
Dabur India Limited v.Emami Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Dabur India Limited seeking the rectification and removal of a trademark registered in favor of Emami Limited. Despite arguments regarding prior injunctions related to passing off suits, the court ruled that since the rectification application had already been filed, there was no impediment to issuing notice. The court emphasized that rectification proceedings must be decided first before proceeding with the trial of the underlying suit.
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.