Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.34 seconds)Article 27 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage and Advertisement) Act, 2019
Article 53 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr ... vs The Controller General Of Patents ... on 11 April, 2023
12. The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture,
Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage, and Advertisement)
Act, 2019, as a possible ground in rejecting the application for patent has
not been considered in the impugned order. This Act deals with the sale,
manufacture, import export and not with the grant or non-grant of patent
for an invention (Unreported decision in IPDPTA No.121 of 2023 ITC Ltd.
vs. The Controller of Patents, Designs & Trademark dated 30 April, 2025
High Court at Calcutta). Despite the above, the respondent had advanced
submissions on this aspect of the matter notwithstanding the fact that this
ground has neither been taken in the pleadings nor mentioned in the
impugned order. In such circumstances, any submissions in respect of the
above ground stands rejected. It is impermissible to support the impugned
order on additional grounds which are not reflected in the impugned
order.
The Patents Act, 1970
The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940
Article 10 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Agriboard International Llc vs Deputy Controller Of Patents And ... on 6 January, 2022
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 20:42:14
into smoking articles, such as cigarettes which are well-documented to pose
serious risks to human health, as can be seen from the impugned order.
There is no discussion on how the invention improves the filling power of
cut-filler cigarettes albeit Respondent acknowledges that the primary and
intended use of the invention is not to cause serious prejudice. Respondent
has erroneously relied on WHO and ICMR reports, both of which relate to
Electronic Nicotine Delivery System, which is not the technical field of the
claimed invention. For the first time, reliance is placed in the impugned
order on several statutes including ENDS Act, The Cigarettes and Other
Tobacco Products Act, 2003 ('COTPA') to refuse the application, but none
of these objections were raised in the FER or the hearing notice and on this
ground alone, the order deserves to be set aside in light of the judgment of
this Court in Agriboard International (supra). Learned counsel reiterates
the arguments on scope of Section 3(b) of the 1970 Act vis-à-vis the ENDS
Act, which are not being repeated herein and most significantly, strenuously
urges that the invention has no connect with e-cigarettes and therefore, the
very reliance on ENDS Act in the impugned order to refuse the application
under Section 3(b) is misconceived and enough to vitiate the order.
Itc Limited vs Best Partners Worldwide Limited And The ... on 22 August, 2022
A similar view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in ITC Limited
v. The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark, MANU/WB/1167/
2025, wherein it was observed that in passing of the impugned order,
reliance of the three additional documents cited in the impugned order sans
providing an opportunity to the applicant to deal with the same neither in the
FER nor the hearing notices is both a serious procedural infirmity in the
impugned order as also a violation of principles of natural justice.