Trademark Court January 2006 Judgments

Gujarat Medicraft Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cipla Ltd.

Court: Trademark

Reported in: (2006)(32)PTC510Reg

1. This will dispose of an Interlocutory Petition dtd. 21.6.2004 filed by the petitioner/opponent alongwith evidence in support of opposition inter alia praying for taking the said evidence on record under Rule 50(1) of the Trade Mark Rules, 2002. On filing of the counter-statement by the applicant, a copy of the same was served on the opponent vide official letter dated 13.2.2003 inviting their attention to the erstwhile Rule 53(1) to file evidence in support of opposition within the prescribed period of two months from the date of service on them, but, the opponent neither filed evidence, nor relied on the facts stated in the Notice of Opposition as required under the erstwhile Rule 53(1). After more than 6 and half months from the date of receipt of the counter-statement by them, the opponent abruptly, filed a request on Form TM-56 on 5.9.2003 for extension of time for an accumulated period of six months under the erstwhile rules, which was allowed and the extension of time granted...

Novartis Ag Vs. Natco Pharma Ltd.

Court: Trademark

1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyt-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Natco Pharma Ltd., India, on May 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Manley of Switzerland on July 25, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They filed another affidavit affirmed by Giorgio Pietro...

Novartis Ag Vs. Cipla Ltd.

Court: Trademark

1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Gopakumar Nair Associates, Mumbai on behalf of M/s. CIPLA Ltd., Mumbai on July 5, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Manley of Switzerland on August 5, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They file...

Novartis Ag Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.

Court: Trademark

1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyt-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, New Delhi on behalf of M/s.Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., India on May 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Mainley of Switzerland on July 27, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents ...

Novartis Ag Vs. Hetero Drugs Limited

Court: Trademark

1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition tinder Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Hetero Drugs Ltd., India, on August 22, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Manley of Switzerland November 14, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They filed another affidavit affirmed by Giorgio P...

Novartis Ag Vs. Cancer Patients Aid Association

Court: Trademark

1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of My 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Cancer Patients Aid Association., India, on September 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Manley of Switzerland October 31, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They filed another affidavit affirme...