IP Cases — 2024
1,861 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 62 of 63 · 1,861 total
Rhodia Operations v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed the rejection of its patent application for an esteramide compound by the Deputy Controller of Patents. The respondent rejected the claim as lacking inventive steps. The High Court found that the rejection was based on general observations and failed to address specific arguments made by the appellant regarding prior art, leading to the appeal being allowed.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.Mr Ashish Singh And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Khadi And Village Industries Commission against Mr. Ashish Singh and others. The Plaintiff, a statutory body protecting the 'KHADI' mark, alleged that Defendants were deceptively using similar marks like 'KHADI ORGANIC' on various products and websites to exploit public goodwill, particularly around religious events. The Court found a prima facie case for infringement and passed orders restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under infringing marks and mandating the suspension of the associated domain name.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In a procedural ruling, the Mannheim Local Division addressed the complex interplay between infringement and invalidity claims in UPC case UPC_CFI_216/2023. The court decided to consolidate the proceedings, meaning that Panasonic's infringement claim will be heard alongside OROPE and OPPO's counterclaim for patent invalidity and FRAND licensing. This consolidation aims to ensure a unified legal interpretation across all issues, streamlining the litigation process.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
In a procedural ruling concerning infringement proceedings, the UPC CFI partially granted Winnow Solutions Limited's request to compel Orbisk B.V. to produce evidence regarding its food waste monitoring system (Orbi). The court recognized that while the initial requests were broad, specific technical documentation detailing how the Orbi System categorizes and corrects erroneous weights was necessary for a proper evaluation of infringement. This decision underscores the UPC's willingness to manage discovery in complex cases, balancing the claimant's need for evidence against the respondent's concerns over confidentiality.
Tirupati Foam Limited v.Shri Vignesware Fibres Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark rectification petition filed by Tirupati Foam Limited against the entry 'SLEEP LIKE A DREAM' (No.2064365) in Class 20. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Original Petition for default. This highlights the importance of diligent representation in trademark litigation.
Saregama India Limited v.Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited
Saregama India Limited filed a declaratory suit under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, seeking protection against threats made by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited regarding copyright infringement. The core dispute involved Saregama claiming ownership over numerous sound recordings and literary works. However, when Zee subsequently initiated its own suit for copyright infringement against Saregama, the Delhi High Court held that this action brought the matter within the scope of the proviso to Section 60. Consequently, the initial declaratory suit filed by Saregama was rendered infructuous.
ITC Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
ITC Limited filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs' order dated April 8, 2024. The original order rejected a post-grant opposition filed by ITC against Patent No. 377333 and denied relief for patent revocation.
Dyson Technology Ltd. v.SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Ltd. sought interim injunctions against SharkNinja for alleged infringement of EP 2 043 492, a patent covering hand-held vacuum cleaners. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the claims of both parties, meaning no provisional injunction was granted. Beyond the specific outcome, the decision provided important procedural guidance on timing and scope when applying for interim measures in UPC proceedings. This ruling reinforces the need for careful case preparation while acknowledging the practical constraints of summary relief.
Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh Subsidiary Of Accell Group v.Reliance Brands Limited (Rbl)
The Delhi High Court addressed preliminary objections and the merits of a trademark infringement suit filed by Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh against Reliance Brands Limited. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's use of 'RALLEYZ' is confusingly similar to its registered mark 'RALEIGH' on identical goods (bicycles). While dismissing initial procedural challenges, the court directed both parties to file detailed affidavits and pleadings regarding the core issues of similarity and prior usage, setting the stage for further substantive hearings.
Ynsect v.The Controller Of Patents
Ynsect appealed the Controller of Patents' rejection of its patent application concerning a method for treating insects. The High Court found that the Controller failed to adequately analyze the differences between the subject invention and the cited prior art, particularly regarding higher protein content and lower fat content. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited, the registered proprietor of Indian Patent IN 228720 for 'Phthalazinone derivative' (Olaparib), filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement due to Natco manufacturing and selling its generic version under the brand name BRACANAT. Kudos sought a permanent injunction, and subsequently an interlocutory injunction.
Hmd Global Oy v.The Registrar of Trade Marks, Office of the Trademark Registry
Hmd Global Oy successfully challenged the Trademark Registry's refusal to register its word mark 'PureDisplay' in the Madras High Court. The core issue was the Registry's finding that the mark lacked distinctiveness, despite the appellant providing evidence of global use and registration. The court found that the Registrar violated principles of natural justice by passing an order under a different section (9(1)(b)) without giving the appellant a hearing on that specific ground. Consequently, the rejection was set aside, and the application was remanded for final consideration.
Lifestyles Healthcare Pte Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks Delhi
Lifestyles Healthcare Pte Ltd challenged the Registrar of Trademarks Delhi's refusal to register the trademark 'SKYN' in Class 5. The Delhi High Court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed submissions on the matter. This marks an active legal challenge regarding the registrability of the mark.
Havells India Ltd & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in the suit filed by Havells India Ltd against Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors. The core dispute involves alleged fraudulent investment schemes operating under the 'HAVELLS' brand name. Crucially, the court issued significant interim directions, ordering defendants to block access to infringing websites and provide complete disclosure/block of KYC details associated with accounts used for these illegal activities. Furthermore, procedural matters were settled, including granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowing the filing of electronic evidence.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this procedural matter, Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought permission to call its expert witness as a formal witness during the oral hearing concerning a FRAND counterclaim. The Mannheim Local Division denied the request, emphasizing that once the interim proceedings are formally concluded, further substantive requests are highly restricted under UPC rules. The court also clarified that an expert's role is to present specialized opinions, which differs fundamentally from providing testimony on disputed facts.
Promoshirt Sm. S.A. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. S.A., directing The Registrar of Trade Marks to renew and restore a trademark application (No. 1355453). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the registration certificate, which occurred two years after the validity expired, prevented timely renewal. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry, mandating the issuance of the renewal certificate and necessary database corrections.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a purely procedural matter concerning the admissibility of an appeal against a first-instance order. The appellant, Photon Wave Co., Ltd., challenged the lack of explicit authorization to appeal. The court ruled that under Rule 220.2 RdP, such authorization must be expressly granted by the Tribunal; general references are not enough.
Amir Biri Factory And Ors. v.Sk Faruk
The Calcutta High Court disposed of a trademark infringement suit between Amir Biri Factory And Ors. and Sk Faruk after both parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. The core of the settlement involves Sk Faruk agreeing to cease using certain disputed marks (like 'JULFIKAR TARE A-1 KHAINI') in connection with goods outside Chewing Tobacco/Khaini, while also accepting modifications to their mark usage. Furthermore, Sk Faruk committed to exhausting existing stock within one month and agreed not to raise further legal claims related to the dispute.
M/S Shree Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mill) v.Registrar Of Copyrights And Anr
M/S Shree Hari Industries filed proceedings against the Registrar of Copyrights, alleging that certain copyright grants were improperly issued. The petitioner contended that these grants failed to properly consider their pre-existing registered trademarks. During the hearing on May 29, 2024, the court accepted trademark search certificates and noted the petitioner's request for a stay on the use of the disputed marks. The matter was listed for further consideration.
Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Bombay High Court set aside the provisional refusal orders issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks against Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd.'s trademark application 'PHYTOCUTICLE'. The court found that the original orders were cryptic, lacked reasoning, and failed to consider the petitioner's arguments regarding the mark's distinctiveness. Furthermore, the court ruled that mere uploading of decisions on the website does not constitute proper communication under the Trademarks Rules, 2017, thus validating the timely filing of the petition. The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration by a new officer.
KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH v.BALLINNO B.V.
This UPC Central Division decision addressed a procedural application seeking to stay revocation proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal against a denial of provisional measures. The Court firmly rejected Ballinno B.V.'s request, emphasizing that allowing such indefinite delays would violate the fundamental right to effective legal protection and contradict the UPCA's goal of ensuring final hearings occur within one year. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining procedural efficiency and timely justice in revocation actions.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Sanshiv Health Tech Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the pharmaceutical infringement suit filed by Mankind Pharma Limited. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed an application seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointed Local Commissioners to conduct search and seizure at the defendants' premises. This order provides a robust mechanism for the plaintiff to secure evidence related to alleged infringement.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Verizon Trademark Services LLC against Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr., finding a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like 'VERIEZON' across their hospital, pharmacy, and domain name. This crucial interim order protects Verizon's brand while allowing the parties time to contest the claims.
Wipro Chandrika Private Limited v.Soji Thomas
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Wipro Chandrika Private Limited seeking rectification of the trademark register against Soji Thomas. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove and cancel the trade mark 'CHANDRA' (Trade Mark No. 4628777) from Class 3, based on a prior settlement agreement between the parties. This decision effectively cleared the path for the petitioner by removing the conflicting registration.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The suit involved Interdigital Technology Corporation alleging infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by Guangdong Oppo Mobile. The parties filed interlocutory applications regarding document discovery and the constitution of a confidentiality club. The court ruled that defendants must disclose their agreements with Qualcomm, while rejecting plaintiffs' request for Ericsson and Orange S.A. agreements.
Scrum Alliance, Inc. v.M/S Henry Harvin India Education Inc. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Scrum Alliance, Inc. against M/S Henry Harvin India Education Inc. and others. The court found a prima facie case that the defendants were deceptively adopting trademarks like 'CSM' and 'Certified Scrum Master' for education services, misleading the public into believing they were affiliated with the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using these confusingly similar marks until the final hearing.
Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. v.Jagpin Breweries Limited
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Jagpin Breweries Limited for infringing registered trademarks 'HAYWARDS 5000' and 'FIVE THOUSAND'. The court found that the Defendant's use of the mark 'COX 5001' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off in relation to beer. Furthermore, due to the Defendant's persistent non-appearance during the proceedings, the Plaintiff was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs.
Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
This appeal was filed by Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co Ltd against an order dated March 14, 2024, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The original application for patent (No. 202117022431) was rejected based on objections under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request to suspend infringement proceedings due to the insolvency filing (Chapter 11) of one of the defendants. The court rejected the suspension request, establishing a key principle that procedural efficiency and fairness outweigh automatic suspension when the bankruptcy occurs after the oral hearing and the case is ready for judgment. This ruling provides clarity on how UPC procedures interact with foreign insolvency laws.
Aachi Spices and Condiments Private Limited (and others) v.Aachiamman Chit Funds Private Limited
This appeal before the Madras High Court Commercial Appellate Division challenged a summary judgment that dismissed a suit for trademark infringement. The plaintiffs, owners of registered trademarks related to 'AACHI', argued that the judgment was flawed because it was rendered without hearing their arguments. The court found that the impugned judgment proceeded solely on perusal of the plaint and failed to consider the plaintiffs' submissions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the summary judgment and remanded the matter back to the Commercial Division for a fresh legal drill.
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.