Dismissed

Prestige Buildwell Private Limited v. Prestige Estates Projects Ltd.

Madras HC12 Sept 2023(T)OP(TM)/68/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, as in the case of Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, dismissed the original petition filed under the Trademark Act for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's failure to appear despite notice, while the respondent's counsel was present.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

Prestige Buildwell Private Limited Vs Prestige Estates… — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

(T)OP(TM) No.68 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

(T) OP (TM) No.68 of 2023 (ORA/SR/13/2017/PT/CHN)

¶7

Professor. Jayashankar, Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 030, Telangana, India, represented by its Registrar. ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Monsanto Technology LLC, 800, North Lindbergh Boulevard St.Loius, Missouri 63167, USA.

¶10

2.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, G.S.T Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: The Original Petition filed under Section 47/57/125 of Trademark Act, 1999, praying that;

¶12

i.The impugned patent No.232681 granted in the name of Monsanto Technology, LLC, be revoked in toto under Section 64 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005;

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

(T)OP(TM) No.68 of 2023

¶16

ii.The petitioner may be allowed to make further submissions in case the Patentee amends the claims;

¶17

iii.Any other reliefs considering the facts and circumstances may be granted in favour of the applicant/petitioner in the interest of justice.

¶18

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶19

For Respondents

¶20

For R2 : Mr.J.Madhanagopal Rao Senior Panel Counsel

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 12.06.2024, there was no representation on the side of the petitioner and hence, the Registry was directed

¶23

to post the Original Petition today i.e., 13.06.2024, under the caption “For Dismissal”.

¶24

2.Since despite service of notice, none appears for the petitioner.

¶25

Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent alone is present.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 4

¶27

(T)OP(TM) No.68 of 2023

¶28

3.Even today, there is no representation on the side of the petitioner.

¶29

Hence, this Original Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

13.06.2024

¶31

ata Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 4

¶33

(T)OP(TM) No.68 of 2023

¶34

P.B.BALAJI, J.

¶35

ata

¶36

(T) OP (TM) No.68 of 2023 (ORA/SR/13/2017/PT/CHN)

¶37

13.06.2024

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 4

Prestige Buildwell Private Limited v. Prestige Estates Projects Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prestige Buildwell Private Limited v. Prestige Estates Projects Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd. Vs v.M.Joseph milka Junction

M/s. Til Healthcare Private Limited Vs The Registrar of Trade Marks

Board of Regents, The University of Texas System Vs The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks

Prestige Buildwell Private Limited Vs Prestige Estates Project Ltd.

Prestige Buildwell Private Limited Vs Prestige Estates Projects Ltd.

Lm Wind Power a/s Vs The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks