IP Cases — 2025
1,915 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 30 of 64 · 1,915 total
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr 6/2020/PT/KOL) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks And Anr
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company challenged the refusal of its patent application for a tobacco flavorant method, which was rejected solely on the grounds that all forms of tobacco are injurious to human health (Section 3(b) of the Patents Act). The petitioner argued that the rejection lacked any scientific basis or reasoning, being based merely on a preconceived notion. The Calcutta High Court agreed, finding the Assistant Controller's order unsubstantiated and arbitrary. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
M/s Media Monks Multimedia Holding B.V. v.M/s Pachala Murali Krishna
This Madras High Court case involves multiple rectification petitions filed by M/s Media Monks Multimedia Holding B.V. against the registration of several 'MEDIA MONK' trademarks held by M/s Pachala Murali Krishna. The petitioner seeks to remove these marks, asserting its global reputation and prior use since 2001. Conversely, the respondent claims he coined and used the mark honestly in January 2009, preceding the petitioner's Indian application. The court has framed several key issues, including deceptive similarity, bad faith, and priority of adoption.
Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction request concerning alleged trademark infringement. Gensol Electric Vehicles sought to restrain Mahindra Last Mile Mobility from using 'eZEO,' claiming prior rights over 'EZIO.' However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for confusion, noting that the defendant had already launched its product while the plaintiff was yet to market theirs. The judgment emphasizes the importance of actual market presence and use when assessing likelihood of confusion.
Upl Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark
Upl Ltd challenged the rejection of its patent application concerning a novel agrochemical fungicide combination. The core dispute centered on whether adding a multi-site fungicide to existing SDHI combinations provided a synergistic and unexpected technical advantage, or if it was merely an obvious aggregation of known substances. The Calcutta High Court found that the original order lacked proper analysis of the experimental data supporting synergy and noted procedural lapses by the Controller in failing to issue a Second Examination Report (SER). Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
M/S. Aquapump Industries & Anr. v.Ravi Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification regarding a specific trademark registration. Following submissions from both parties, the court directed the cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 6100995 for the mark in Class 11. This order mandates the trademark registry to rectify its records accordingly within four weeks, effectively clearing the title and resolving the dispute between M/S. Aquapump Industries and Ravi Yadav.
Marico Limited v.Minolta Natural Care
The Bombay High Court addressed an interim application in a commercial IP suit filed by Marico Limited against Minolta Natural Care. The court noted that the plaintiff had presented a strong prima facie case for infringement covering trademark, copyright, design, and artistic work based on rival products. While the defendant sought time to explore an amicable settlement, the court granted a short adjournment but made it clear that if no resolution is reached by the next date, the interim application will proceed to final hearing.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In the case of Valeo Electrification v. Magna PT entities, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Local Division formally closed proceedings after both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims. The Claimant withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants subsequently withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This decision highlights the importance of party autonomy in UPC litigation, allowing cases to be terminated amicably even when complex patent disputes are involved.
Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v.Deepak Kumar Barnwal
This case involves Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited, which sought summary judgment against Deepak Kumar Barnwal for alleged infringement of its 'Swastik Brand' trademark used on rice. The petitioner claimed exclusivity over the mark despite having applied for registration. However, the court noted that the petitioner failed to disclose a material disclaimer in its registration certificate, which limited exclusive use of the device 'Swastik'. Consequently, the application was dismissed as an abuse of process.
Sanofi Mature IP / Sanofi SA v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order addresses a corporate restructuring within the Sanofi group, specifically concerning the patent ownership of EP 2 493 466. The UPC Court accepted the request to substitute the original claimant, Sanofi Mature IP, with its successor entity, Sanofi SA. This decision ensures that the ongoing infringement actions and related counterclaims continue seamlessly under the new legal proprietor. For practitioners, this highlights the UPC's flexibility in accommodating complex corporate changes without disrupting active litigation.
Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v.Uber India Systems Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction, which sought to stop defendants from broadcasting an advertisement allegedly infringing or disparaging the 'Royal Challengers Bengaluru' trademark. The court found that there was no prima facie case of trademark infringement or disparagement, nor did the plaintiff demonstrate irreparable harm. Furthermore, balancing the convenience between free commercial speech and the plaintiff's claims, the court allowed the advertisement to continue.
Rashi Santoshi Soni & Anr. v.Prince Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Mr. Niraj Nirottamsingh Chavhan
In a trademark infringement dispute, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order allowing the defendant (Prince Enterprises) to de-seal the premises and access materials. The court permitted the removal of non-infringing goods while mandating that infringing products bearing the 'SURYA/SURYA GOLD PLUS' mark be kept separate under the supervision of the plaintiffs' representative. Furthermore, the court set a date for the vacation of an earlier ex-parte injunction order, indicating the matter will proceed to further hearings.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. The core issue was whether this Original Side Appeal (OSA) was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, given that the underlying matter involved a decision made under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that since the Commercial Courts Act is a special enactment and provides specific appeal mechanisms, the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH; Hisense Europe Holding GmbH; TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG.; TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH; TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o; TCL Belgium, SA; LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH; LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V; LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning the separation of infringement proceedings based on concerns over confidential supply chain information. The defendants (Hisense, TCL, LG) argued that sharing sensitive data among competing entities would violate EU competition law and impair their right to be heard. However, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that procedural economy outweighs the need for separation. It clarified that confidentiality can be protected through existing rules of procedure (R. 262A RoP) and internal party arrangements.
Vinaitheerthagounder Jaundice Treatment Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Vinaitheerthagounder Jaundice Treatment Pvt. Ltd., seeking a Mandamus order to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to issue their trademark. The petitioner's application was pending due to an opposition filed by a third party. The court ultimately disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner instead to file an expedite application directly with the Registrar, who must then process it as quickly as possible.
Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks
The writ petition was filed seeking direction to accept and process an Indian Patent Application (IN202447028876) after the statutory deadline for filing a request for examination lapsed. The lapse occurred due to an inadvertent calculation error by the petitioner's Indian patent agent, who mistakenly used the second priority date instead of the first.
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Llc And Anr v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Amylin Pharmaceuticals appealed the Assistant Controller's rejection of its patent application for 'RELEASE FORMULATIONS USING NON-AQUEOUS CARRIERS'. The appeal challenged the finding that the invention lacked inventive step and fell under Section 3(d).
Rajani Products v.Madhukar Varandani, Proprietor Of M/S Naturalindia Oils And Proteins & Anr.
Rajani Products filed a petition seeking the removal of a specific Copyright registration (A-128046/2019) held by Madhukar Varandani. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing edible oils, claimed that their own artistic works and labels, featuring the SWASTIK device, were prior and original. They argued that the impugned work was a substantial reproduction of their protected designs. After comparing the two artistic works, the court found that the Impugned Artistic Work lacked originality and substantially imitated the Petitioner's registered works.
M/S. Dunlop India Limited (In Liqn.) v.Dunlop Aircraft Tyres Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted leave to M/S. Dunlop India Limited to continue its trademark rectification and cancellation proceedings against a company now in liquidation. The dispute centered on preventing the use of the 'DUNLOP' mark, including various prefixes and suffixes, for aircraft tyres by the liquidating entity. This decision allows the established market leader to pursue legal remedies to protect its brand integrity within the specialized aviation sector.
Parul Ruparelia And Anr v.Camme Wang And Anr
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petitioners' interim relief application in a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'PL SUPREME'. The court found that the respondents, who are Chinese manufacturers, had prior use of the mark since 2014. Furthermore, the court heavily scrutinized the petitioners' conduct, finding prima facie evidence of underinvoicing and financial irregularities, which led to the dismissal of their claims based on principles of 'clean hands.'
Sudeep Gupta v.Registrar Of Trademarks Trademarks Registry New Delhi
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the cancellation of Sudeep Gupta's trademark registration (No. 4684988) during the pendency of his appeal. The Appellant challenged the cancellation, which was based on Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, arguing that his mark is a composite mark and therefore exempt from the 'exclusivity' requirement. The Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Appellant, citing precedent that limits the application of Section 9(1)(b) to non-composite marks.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order addressed a dispute over evidence disclosure in an ongoing patent infringement and FRAND assessment case concerning MPEG-4/AAC technology. The Defendant sought access to the Claimant's confidential licensing agreements with third parties to assess potential antitrust issues (FRAND compliance). The UPC Court partially granted the request, rejecting the production of external documents but compelling the Claimant to submit its own bilateral license agreement under stringent confidentiality protocols.
M/S Green Star Pharma Llp v.Ved Prakash Trading As Green Star Pharma
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by M/S Green Star Pharma Llp against the Commercial Court's dismissal of its interim injunction application. The core dispute revolves around the use of the 'GREEN STAR' trademark in the pharmaceutical sector. While the appellant relies on passing off, the court raises significant questions regarding the timing and scope of goodwill acquisition, especially given the respondent's earlier registered device mark.
T T Krishnamachari And Co. v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The appellant firm, dealing in consumer durables and healthcare products, was assessed service tax on royalty income received for allowing its group companies to use its 'TTK' logo. The appellant argued that since the logo is registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957, it qualifies for exemption. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the demand was unsustainable and citing relevant exemptions and prior judicial decisions.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This UPC decision in Mannheim concerns the procedural conclusion of a patent infringement and revocation case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation against various Xiaomi entities. The parties reached an agreement and subsequently withdrew both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for invalidity. Although the core dispute was settled, the court issued detailed rulings on the reimbursement of court fees based on the final determination of the dispute's value.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Wipro Enterprises Private Limited
Himalaya Wellness Company initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking to challenge the validity of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited's trademark registration 'EVECARE.' The court allowed the plaintiffs' application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Consequently, the court framed a specific issue questioning whether the defendant's mark is invalid and liable for removal/cancellation from the Register of Trademarks, setting the stage for further substantive litigation.
Milliken And Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Milliken And Company appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant an Indian patent application. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider a crucial expert statement by Dr. Nathan A Mehl. The High Court found merit in the appeal, holding that foreign decisions are not binding and directing the matter back for fresh consideration.
M.Ramesh v.V.Balu
The Madras High Court set aside an order from the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, which had rejected a trademark infringement suit based on the existence of an arbitration agreement. The court ruled that since the defendants were not parties to the partnership deed containing the arbitration clause, and the dispute concerned trademark rights against third-party entities, the commercial suit was maintainable in civil court. This decision allows the original trademark infringement case to proceed.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
In a significant revocation action, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH successfully challenged and obtained the revocation of European patent EP 1 944 067 B1 against Ballinno B.V. The court confirmed the patent's invalidity for Germany and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the decision provided important guidance on claim interpretation, emphasizing that general terms in a patent claim cannot be restricted by specific examples or embodiments found within the patent description.
Neon Laboratories Limited v.Vishal Subhash Versus Parekar Syndicate Pharma
The Bombay High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction regarding trademark 'NEON' infringement, finding that the rival mark was identical. Furthermore, the court granted interim relief concerning passing off, noting a strong prima facie case that the products were counterfeit and caused misrepresentation. The court also allowed the petitioner's leave petition to combine the causes of action for trademark infringement and passing off.
Provogue India Private Limited v.Harish Kumar Dhawan & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Provogue India Private Limited to proceed with its trademark infringement suit against Harish Kumar Dhawan & Ors., granting exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advance service. The court recognized the urgency of the matter, noting the risk that defendants might conceal or suppress their infringing operations. Furthermore, the court directed a local commission inspection to gather evidence regarding the alleged deceptive trade mark use in the manufacturing and sale of leather goods.
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.