Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 1–100 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd. v.Om Prakash Nebhwani (Trading as: Mahesh Matar Namkeen)
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd., a Lucknow-based company engaged in manufacturing namkeens and snacks since 1983 under the trademark 'MAHESH' (with parrot device), sued Om Prakash Nebhwani for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant, who is the nephew of the plaintiff's director and had prior knowledge of the mark, adopted the identical 'MAHESH' mark with parrot/peacock device for his own namkeen business in Jaipur. The defendant's defense was struck off for non-filing of written statement. The court found the plaintiff's mark to be distinctive, well-established, and a well-known trademark, and held that the defendant's use constituted slavish copying amounting to infringement and passing off.
The North Face Apparel Corp v.Controller of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Ms Pas Agro v.M/S Krbl Limited & Anr
Ms Pas Agro has filed a petition under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trademarks Act challenging the Commercial Court's order dismissing its application to frame a preliminary issue on the invalidity of KRBL's registered trademark 'INDIA GATE' (application no. 599833). The underlying suit CS (COMM) 78/2025 was filed by KRBL against Pas Agro. The Delhi High Court issued notice, permitted deletion of respondent no.2, and granted time for filing reply and rejoinder. The substantive question of whether a preliminary issue on trademark invalidity should be framed remains pending.
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v.Inox India Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court disposed of a miscellaneous application seeking extension of time for the trial court to decide Trademark Suit No. 3 of 2019 between Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and Inox India Limited. As a last opportunity, the Court granted an additional six months to the concerned court to decide the suit, while expressly warning that no further extension would be entertained. The underlying dispute concerns trademark rights in the cryogenic/industrial gas equipment sector.
Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited v.Alaina Healthcare Private Limited & A. Menarini India Private Limited
Mankind Consumer Products, the registered proprietor of the trademark ACNESTAR (Reg. No. 1352577 in Class 5) since 2005, sued Alaina Healthcare and A. Menarini India for using the marks ACNE SCAR/ACNE+SCAR/ACNESCAR on their acne scar serum product HEXILAK. The court found a prima facie case of deceptive similarity, noting that the dominant feature 'ACNE' was common and the suffix 'STAR' vs 'SCAR' was insufficient to distinguish the marks, especially given the identical trade channels and consumer class. The court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff while allowing defendant no. 2 a two-month period to recall existing stock from the trade.
Healthium Medtech Limited (earlier Healthium Medtech Private Limited) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai
Healthium Medtech Limited filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to expeditiously dispose of Opposition No. 1027536 filed by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals against Healthium's trademark application No. 4270882 for the 'Healthium' device mark in Classes 05 and 10. The petitioner complained that despite evidence having been adduced, the opposition proceedings remained pending without a final hearing. The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Registrar to hear both parties and dispose of the opposition on merits within four weeks.
CavinKare Private Limited v.Maha Aqua, Trading As Mahalakshmi Aqua
CavinKare Private Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Maha Aqua (trading as Mahalakshmi Aqua) seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using the mark 'MAA' or any deceptively similar mark in respect of goods in Class 32. The plaintiff relies on its registered trademarks 'MAA' under Nos. 1109946 and 6453733. The Court, after issues were framed and affidavits of admission/denial filed, approved a Joint Case Management Schedule suggested by both parties and set timelines for completion of evidence and oral arguments.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Anupam Srivastava & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited filed a rectification petition seeking removal of the trademark 'VNYABAIE' (application no. 5055762 in Class 3), primarily objecting to the letter 'V' being displayed in a different colour from the rest of the mark. During proceedings, the petitioner clarified that it had no objection if the respondent used the letter 'V' in the same colour as the remaining alphabets, even in a different font. Respondent No. 1, appearing in person, agreed to change the colour of 'V' to match the rest of the mark, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Exponent Energy Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry, Chennai
Exponent Energy Private Limited appealed against the refusal of its trademark application No. 5432621 for the word mark 'EXPONENT' in Class 42, covering scientific and technological services related to electric vehicle battery packs and charging equipment. The Registrar had refused registration under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, citing phonetic similarity with two earlier marks: 'EXPONENT' (Application No. 3595698) and 'EXPONENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES GROUP' (Application No. 5382808). The Madras High Court held that the impugned order was a non-speaking order that failed to record adequate reasons as required under Section 18(5) and did not consider the appellant's statutory requests under Sections 12, 18(4), and the proviso to Section 20. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with directions to deal with each cited mark separately and pass a reasoned order within three months.
GlaxoSmithkline Biologicals SA v.Human Biolife India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
GlaxoSmithkline Biologicals SA sued Human Biolife India Pvt. Ltd. for trademark infringement concerning its well-known vaccine brands including ENGERIX, HAVRIX, INFANRIX, ROTARIX, CERVARIX, and SYNFLORIX. The defendant had adopted confusingly similar marks such as RUTORIX, DROTARIX, AMIRIX, CEFTARIX, and MIRIX for pharmaceutical products. The parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 24.04.2026, and the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, directing the defendant to cease all infringing use, recall products, cancel its trademark applications, and take down online listings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd v.Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Sercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
M/S Dindayal Industries Ltd v.M/S Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged the framing of issues in a commercial suit concerning the trademark 'Dindayal' used by both parties for Ayurvedic products. The court deleted Issue No. 10, holding that opposition to a trademark application (No. 2885787 in Class 05) cannot be adjudicated in a civil suit as it is pending before the Trade Marks Registry. The court further modified Issue No. 12 to expand the scope of the passing off inquiry beyond narrow ocular similarity of packaging, citing the Supreme Court's rulings in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Parle Products v. J.P. and Co.
Radico Khaitan Limited v.Picadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.) v.Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited v.Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Cobble Stone Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Cobble Stone Private Limited appealed against the order dated 06.08.2025 of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing its trade mark application no. 4009557 in Class 19 for the mark 'COBBLE STONE' under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The appellant contended that it had been using the mark since 2011 and was an honest concurrent user under Section 12 of the Act, and that the Registrar failed to consider its adjournment request. The respondent had no objection to a remand for de novo consideration, and the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to be completed within 60 days.
M/S Arpan Biri Factory v.M/S Momin Biri Factory
The petitioner, M/s Arpan Biri Factory, filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.09.2026 passed by the Commercial Appellate Court (District Judge, South Salmara), which dismissed Misc.(J) Case No. 10/2026 without issuing notice, on the ground that the relief sought was redundant since the connected appeal itself prayed for temporary injunction. The Gauhati High Court agreed with the petitioner that under Section 107 of the CPC, appellate courts possess the same powers as courts of original jurisdiction, and the petitioner had a right to seek temporary injunction during the pendency of the appeal.
Ashok Jain v.State NCT Of Delhi And Anr
The petitioner, Ashok Jain (Accused No. 2), sought quashing of FIR No. 15/2012 registered at P.S. EOW, Delhi, alleging offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, relating to counterfeiting of car speakers bearing the registered trademark 'PIONEER' belonging to Respondent No. 2. The parties had amicably settled the dispute through a Memorandum of Understanding executed in March 2025, with the petitioner agreeing to pay Rs. 1 lakh as full and final settlement. The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner, while directing the police to destroy the seized counterfeit goods.
Colgate-Palmolive Company & Anr. v.Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited
This Chamber Summons was filed by Colgate-Palmolive Company and Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited in their 1996 trademark infringement and passing off suit against Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited, seeking to bring on record six renewed Legal Proceedings Certificates (LPCs) evidencing renewal of their trade mark registrations. The Bombay High Court allowed the application, directing the LPCs to be marked into evidence as Exhibits P-50 to P-55, along with two additional LPCs as P-56 and P-57, while reserving Anchor's liberty to challenge the evidentiary weight and probative value of these documents.
Asian Beverage Private Limited v.Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited
Asian Beverage Private Limited filed a commercial suit against Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited (Amul Dairy) seeking permanent injunction for alleged trademark infringement and passing off, claiming that the defendant's mark 'Amul TRU' was deceptively similar to its registered trademark 'TRUE VALLEY' (No. 2276842 in Class 32). The defendant filed an application under Order XIII-A of the CPC, 1908 to dispose of the suit without oral examination of witnesses, which was allowed by the court, resulting in the dismissal of the suit with no costs.
Asian Beverage Private Limited v.Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited
Asian Beverage Private Limited (plaintiff) filed a commercial suit against Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited (Amul Dairy) seeking permanent injunction for trademark infringement and passing off regarding its registered trademark 'TRUE VALLEY' (No.2276842 in Class 32) and the defendant's alleged use of the mark 'Amul TRU'. The court allowed an application filed under Order XIII-A of the CPC, 1908, to dispose of the suit without oral examination of witnesses, and consequently dismissed the suit with no costs.
Shazia Kidwai And Anr. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Trademark Division, Intellectual Property Bhavan And Anr.
This is a brief procedural order from the Bombay High Court in an interim application arising from a first appeal concerning trade mark matters. The appellant's counsel sought time due to difficulty in presenting arguments, and the court granted a stand-over, adjourning the matter to 23 December 2026.
L'Oreal S.A. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
L'Oreal S.A. filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trademarks to renew its trademark 'ELSEVE' bearing registration no. 471634 in class 03, or alternatively to dispose of the interlocutory petition for renewal after granting an opportunity of hearing. The Court allowed the exemption application, issued notice to the Respondent who accepted notice, and directed the Respondent to file its reply within four weeks, with the matter re-notified for hearing on 08.12.2026.
Tregum Remedies Private Limited v.The Senior Examiner Of Trademarks
Tregum Remedies Private Limited challenged the refusal of its trademark application No. 5728063 for the mark 'THE SKIN COMPANY' in Class 3 by the Senior Examiner of Trademarks. The Madras High Court set aside the refusal order, holding that the impugned order was a generic, pre-conceived decision that failed to address the appellant's response and applied inconsistent reasoning. The Court directed the respondent to advertise the application in the Trademarks Journal under Section 20(1) read with Rule 39 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.
Annapurna Swadisht Limited v.Gef Foods India Private Limited
The Madras High Court dealt with a trademark dispute between GEF Foods India Private Limited, the proprietor of the registered mark ANNAPOORNA used for blended spices since around 1980, and Annapurna Swadisht Limited, which used the mark ANNAPURNA for snacks and namkeens. The plaintiff sought interim injunctions for trademark infringement and passing off, which were initially granted ex parte on 05.08.2026. The defendant filed applications to vacate the injunction, which the court dismissed, making the ad interim injunction absolute pending disposal of the suit, though confined to the goods and uses where prima facie confusion was established.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST sought to revive its appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 evidence-production applications, which had been filed late. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited (the decisions not being titled 'order', the R. 190-Applications not appearing in the requests section, and incomplete appeal information) did not constitute exceptional circumstances excusing the missed 15-day appeal deadline under R. 224.1(b) RoP.
Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
BIOGARAN v.H. Lundbeck A/S
BIOGARAN, a French generic medicines company, filed a revocation action before the UPC Central Division (Milan) seeking to invalidate European Patent No. 4223296 owned by H. Lundbeck A/S, which relates to the use of nalmefene for treating alcohol dependence. BIOGARAN challenged the patent on grounds of added matter, insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court dismissed the revocation action, finding the patent valid in its amended form, and ordered BIOGARAN to bear the costs of the proceedings and pay an interim award of EUR 100,000.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its appeals against the rejection of its R. 190-Applications (production of evidence) contained in the Munich Local Division's decisions of 11 March 2026, which it had filed late. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that it had taken all due care as required by R. 320 RoP, distinguishing the present case from the AIM v Supponor precedent and finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the late filing.
Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
S.Balakrishnan Unni v.M/s. Vasudeva Vilasam Herbal Remedies (P) Ltd. & Anr.
This is a writ petition filed before the Madras High Court by S. Balakrishnan Unni, trading as Vasudeva Vilasam A.M. Pharmacy, seeking to quash the order dated 12.12.2008 in O.R.A. No. 92/2006/TM/CH passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and to allow his rectification application against the first respondent. The court issued only a procedural order directing impleadment of the Registrar of Trademarks as a third respondent and issuance of fresh notice, posting the matter for further hearing.
Raj Kumar Jain v.Pravesh Narula & Anr
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a consolidated set of matters involving Raj Kumar Jain and Pravesh Narula. The petitioner's counsel submitted that evidence was still ongoing and prayed for adjournment of the hearing. The court acceded to the request and adjourned the hearing to 22.03.2027, directing that any interim order shall continue.
Raj Kumar Jain v.Pravesh Narula & Anr
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court consolidating multiple connected cases between Raj Kumar Jain and Pravesh Narula, along with related matters. The petitioner's counsel requested adjournment on the ground that evidence was still being recorded. The court acceded to the request and adjourned the hearing to March 22, 2027, directing that any existing interim orders would continue.
The Procter and Gamble Company v.Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals
The Procter and Gamble Company filed two Commercial Miscellaneous Petitions (Nos. 37 and 42 of 2026) seeking rectification of a trademark registered in the name of Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals. Respondent No. 1, the Registrant, failed to appear, and while physical service had returned undelivered, e-mail service was effected. The court granted the Petitioner liberty to effect private service within two weeks and listed the matter for directions on October 23, 2026.
The Procter and Gamble Company v.Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals
The Procter and Gamble Company filed two Commercial Miscellaneous Petitions (Nos. 37 and 42 of 2026) before the Bombay High Court seeking rectification of a trademark registered in the name of Respondent No. 1, Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals. The Respondent did not appear despite service attempts, with physical service having returned undelivered though email service was effected. The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to effect private service on the Registrant within two weeks and adjourned the matter to October 23, 2026 for directions.
Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan And Anr v.Bollywood Time & Ors
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a set of connected commercial suits involving Bollywood celebrities seeking protection of their personality and publicity rights. The order records that the amicus curiae in CS(COMM) 868/2026 (Janhvi Kapoor vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.) has concluded submissions, while the amicus curiae in CS(COMM) 105/2026 (Vivek Anand Oberoi vs Collector Bazar & Ors.) has handed up extracts from McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. The matter was re-notified for further hearing on 9th October 2026.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. v.Sanskar Singhaniya & Ors.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Sanskar Singhaniya and others for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendants' use of 'THE BHARAT EXPRESS' mark and the domain 'thebharatexpress.com', along with a similar 'flame-of-hope' logo, infringed the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The defendants, despite being served, failed to appear and through a communication dated 11 September 2026, informed the plaintiff that they did not intend to contest the matter and had adopted a new name and logo. The Bombay High Court decreed the suit in terms of the relevant prayer clauses, granting permanent injunctive relief against the defendants.
M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. v.Anugya Gupta and another
The petitioner challenged an order of the Commercial Court, Varanasi directing that the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC (return/rejection of plaint) be decided before the plaintiff's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC (amendment of plaint). The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that where subject-matter jurisdiction is challenged, it must be adjudicated first before any amendment application, as a court lacking inherent jurisdiction cannot grant amendment and any such order would be a nullity.
Kei Industries Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark matter filed by Kei Industries Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks and another party. The court addressed an interlocutory application (I.A. 27177/2026) filed under Section 151 of the CPC by Respondent No. 1 and directed the matter to be listed on 30.10.2026.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Goldenstuff And Beverages Private Limited & Ors.
Archian Foods Private Limited, which manufactures and markets traditional Indian flavoured non-alcoholic beverages under the 'LAHORI' family of marks (such as LAHORI ZEERA, LAHORI NIMBOO, LAHORI KACHA AAM, LAHORI SHIKANJI, and LAHORI IMLI BANTA), filed a commercial suit against Goldenstuff And Beverages Private Limited and others for infringement of its registered trademarks, copyrights, and designs, along with passing off. The plaintiff sought an ex parte ad interim injunction, alleging that the defendants, who commenced business only in January 2026, had adopted an identical or deceptively similar logo, trade dress, colour scheme, and bottle shape. The Delhi High Court granted the ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using any marks, logos, labels, trade dress, packaging, taglines, slogans, or domain names identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's LAHORI formative trademarks.
Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV v.In(k)control BV
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request to change the language of proceedings from Dutch to English. The appellants (Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV) appealed the decision of the President of the Local Division Brussels, who had rejected their request to change the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the President had correctly exercised her discretion in maintaining Dutch as the language of proceedings, given that both parties are established in the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium and the respondent is a small enterprise.
M/s. Simpleenergy Private Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office, Chennai
Simpleenergy Private Limited, an electric vehicle company, filed a stay petition (CMP No. 23555 of 2026) in its appeal (CMA(PT) No. 32 of 2026) against the Controller of Patents' order dated 01.04.2026 rejecting Patent Application No. 202341071388. The petitioner's counsel fairly conceded that the patent application itself had been dismissed, rendering nothing for further consideration. The Madras High Court dismissed the stay petition as infructuous.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr v.Neeraj Bagh House
The plaintiffs, Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr., filed a suit against Neeraj Bagh House seeking a decree of permanent injunction, trademark and copyright infringement, delivery up, and damages. During the pendency of the suit, the parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, where they arrived at a settlement agreement dated 28.07.2026. The court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and directed refund of full court fees to the plaintiffs.
Prg Pharma Private Limited v.Cure And Care Drugs Private Limited
The plaintiff, PRG Pharma Private Limited, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Cure and Care Drugs Private Limited, was using the trademark 'PRQ PHARMA,' which was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'PRG PHARMA.' The defendant's counsel indicated willingness to resolve the dispute through mediation and offered to change the packaging, trade dress, and mark if the seized consignment of cough syrup was returned. With the plaintiff's counsel also consenting, the court referred the matter to mediation.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr v.Ashok Kumar Unknown
The plaintiffs, Hero Investcorp Private Limited and another, filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts, and damages on the John Doe principle. During the pendency of the suit, the parties were referred to mediation and arrived at a settlement agreement dated 03.09.2026. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and directed refund of full court fees to the plaintiffs.
V-Guard Industries Limited v.Sh. Teja Ram K Chaudhary Proprietor of M/s G. Gaurd Cable Industries and Anr
V-Guard Industries Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the registered trade mark 'G-GUARD' (Registration No. 3799287) in Class 11, owned by the respondent. The petitioner claimed prior adoption and extensive use of the mark 'V-GUARD' since 1977, alleging that the respondent's adoption of the similar mark 'G-GUARD' was not bonafide. The Court permitted the petitioner to file additional documents, issued notice to the respondents, and directed the filing of reply and rejoinder, with the matter re-notified for hearing on 30.11.2026.
Rajesh Kumar & Others v.Jwala Devi
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by Rajesh Kumar and others challenging the order dated 9.1.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, which allowed the plaintiff's appeal and granted an interim mandatory injunction in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The trial court had originally dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the appellate court's order, and restored the trial court's order, holding that the appellate court acted as a trial court without recording perversity in the trial court's findings.
Reliance Industries Limited v.Rahul Meena & Ors
Reliance Industries Limited filed a commercial suit seeking interim injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing its well-known registered trademark 'JIO' by using identical or deceptively similar marks in numerous domain names and websites related to lottery, gaming, and payment services. The Delhi High Court disposed of several interlocutory applications, granting exemption from pre-institution mediation, permission to file additional documents, exemption from service, and dispensing with notice to defendant no. 1 for the purpose of considering the urgent interim relief application.
Geetanjali Salon Pvt. Ltd v.Nitin Ajitkumar Kotwani & Anr
This is a trademark cancellation petition before the Delhi High Court filed by Geetanjali Salon Pvt. Ltd. against Nitin Ajitkumar Kotwani and another. The dispute arose when an email from a purported trademark attorney of the respondent indicated no objection to the cancellation of the impugned registration, but the court found no material on record to establish the attorney's authority. The court directed fresh notice to be issued to respondent no. 1 by all permissible modes.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Rakesh Kumar & Anr.
Levi Strauss & Co., the globally renowned manufacturer of jeans and apparel, filed a suit for permanent injunction, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, and rendition of accounts against defendants Rakesh Kumar and Shankar Maity, who were allegedly manufacturing and selling counterfeit garments bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks including LEVI'S, the Two Horse logo, and the Arcuate Stitching Design. The suit was initially filed under the John Doe principle as the defendants' identities were unknown, and a Court Commissioner was appointed to identify them and seize infringing goods. Since the defendants failed to appear despite service, the court proceeded ex parte and granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
ASICS Corporation v.Sachin Sheokand & Another
ASICS Corporation, a Japanese company and registered proprietor of the well-known 'ASICS' trademark in India since 1982, filed a suit under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit sports shoes bearing the ASICS mark. The plaintiff sought summary judgment against defendant no. 2, Mr. Shamsher Gahlawat, who failed to appear or file a written statement. The court allowed the application, granted a decree of permanent injunction, awarded nominal damages of Rs. 2,00,000, and quantified litigation costs at Rs. 1,50,000.
M Mathew v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The petitioner, M Mathew, filed a civil miscellaneous appeal before the Madras High Court seeking to set aside the order dated 25.06.2026 passed by the Registrar of Trademarks, which deemed his Opposition No.1238680 against Trade Mark Application No.5084713 for the mark 'MUTHOOTTU' in Class 36 (filed by Muthoottu Mini Nidhi Limited) as abandoned. The petitioner sought a direction to the Registrar to decide the opposition on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing. The court issued notice to the respondents and granted an interim stay of the processing of the trademark application pending further hearing.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.M/S Havells PVC Pipes Industry
Havells India Limited and another plaintiff filed a trademark infringement suit against M/S Havells PVC Pipes Industry for using the identical mark 'HAVELLS' and the domain name https://havellspvc.com/. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was proceeded against ex parte. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the defendant's use of the mark was phonetically, visually, and structurally identical to the plaintiffs' well-known registered trademark, and awarded damages of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Alucopanel Industries v.Imperia Decor Industries & Anr
Alucopanel Industries, a registered partnership firm manufacturing Aluminium Composite Panels and building materials under Classes 6 and 19, filed a suit against Imperia Decor Industries & Anr. seeking an ex parte injunction to restrain the defendants from using the trademark 'ALUMAC', which was alleged to be phonetically and visually identical to the plaintiff's prior registered trademark 'ALOMAX'. The Delhi High Court, after examining the plaint and comparing the competing marks, found that the plaintiff was the prior adopter and registered proprietor of 'ALOMAX' and that the defendants' adoption of 'ALUMAC' was not bona fide, given that one of the directors of defendant no. 2 was previously associated with the plaintiff firm. The Court granted an ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark till the next date of hearing.
TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court in an appeal concerning European Patent EP 3 296 274. The judge-rapporteur declined TCL's request to hold an interim conference, finding no reason to deviate from the standard Rules of Procedure. The appeal was deemed ready for oral hearing, which was scheduled for 28 January 2027 in Luxembourg.
Amnex Infotechnologies Private Limited v.Google LLC & Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal was filed by Amnex Infotechnologies Private Limited against Google LLC and the Registrar of Trademarks, challenging an ex-parte order dated 07.04.2026 passed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) No.57/2026. The appellant contended that the Single Judge passed the order without affording an opportunity of hearing, thereby preventing them from placing their objections on record. The appeal was disposed of by remanding the matter to the Single Judge for a fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the parties, without the Division Court entering into the merits of the case.
Pennar Industries Limited v.R.Raghavendran
This case arose from an application filed by the 2nd respondent seeking dismissal of the main Original Petition (OP(TM) No. 59 of 2025) on the ground that it was filed in violation of Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The 1st respondent's counsel submitted that necessary leave had been obtained from the NCLT in December 2025, which the applicant's counsel conceded. The court dismissed the application as infructuous and directed the main OP to be listed on 16.10.2026.
Shri Narinder Kumar Trading As M/S Kundan Trading Company v.M/S Kyoto Tools Company Ltd & Anr
The petitioner, Shri Narinder Kumar trading as M/S Kundan Trading Company, filed a petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking rectification of the register and cancellation of the respondent's registered trademark (application no. 5930389 in class 7). The petitioner claimed prior registration of the mark 'KTC' in class 8 (since 16.04.2009) and class 9 (since 02.03.2012), whereas the respondent's mark was applied only on 19.01.2017 and registered in May 2026. The respondent countered that the petitioner's KTC registration was predicated on a forged invoice dated 10.11.1993. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file replies within six weeks, with the next date of hearing fixed for 15.01.2027.
The Coca-Cola Company v.M/S Chhabee Nutricos Industries LLP
The Coca-Cola Company filed an application alleging wilful disobedience by M/S Chhabee Nutricos Industries LLP of an earlier interim order dated 24.01.2025, which had restrained the defendant from using marks and bottle shapes similar to Coca-Cola's 'PULPY ORANGE' mark and distinctive bottle device. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had slightly altered the bottle shape to circumvent the earlier injunction, but the overall appearance remained deceptively similar. The Delhi High Court, finding prima facie that the new bottle was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered bottle device, restrained the defendant from using the impugned new shape bottle and granted three weeks to file a reply.
State v.Akash
The case involved prosecution of Akash for alleged sale of counterfeit HP-branded toner and ink cartridges under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arising from FIR No. 213/2019 at PS Daryaganj. The complainant, Khushmeet Singh Bhati from Ikon Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd., failed to identify the accused, the location of the raid, or the seized products during his testimony as PW-1. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish essential ingredients of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Mahesh Gupta v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal filed by Mahesh Gupta against the Registrar of Trademarks. The appellant's counsel circulated an adjournment slip, to which the respondent's counsel raised no objection. The court, at the request of the appellant, re-notified the matter to 02.02.2027.
Dunlop Aircraft Tyres Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Another
This is a procedural order from the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division in a trademark matter. After hearing the parties, the court treated the matter as heard-in-part since substantial arguments had been advanced. The matter was adjourned and listed for further consideration on 26th November, 2026.
Vivek Verma & Ors v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a Delhi High Court order in a trademark matter involving two connected cases that were listed before Justice Vikas Mahajan. At the request of the learned counsels for the parties, the court re-notified the matters to 23 November 2026 without any substantive ruling on the merits.
Harale Seva Sangh v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The petitioner, Harale Seva Sangh, filed a Commercial Miscellaneous Petition before the Bombay High Court against the Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner's advocate sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file appropriate rectification proceedings in compliance with applicable process requirements. The court disposed of the petition as withdrawn, granting the liberty prayed for.
Vivek Verma & Ors v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark matter involving Vivek Verma & Ors as appellants and the Registrar of Trademarks as respondent. The order, passed by Justice Vikas Mahajan, was issued at the request of learned counsels for the parties. The matter was adjourned and listed for re-notification on 23 November 2026.
Inficon GmbH v.Elitech Technology, Inc. and Elitech UK Ltd.
Inficon GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 567 356 B1 relating to a sniffing leak detector, brought an infringement action against Elitech Technology, Inc. and Elitech UK Ltd. concerning their 'METRUM' product, while the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant's measurements regarding the buffer chamber feature were unconvincing and inconclusive, and that the patent as granted was valid.
Abbvie Inc. v.Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks and Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a procedural order in a patent appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 37/2026) filed by Abbvie Inc. before the Delhi High Court against the Controller General of Patents and others. The court addressed issues of service upon respondents and granted time for filing replies and rejoinders, while also directing requisitioning of the Controller General of Patents' records.
Gufic Biosciences Limited & Anr v.Niraj S Sahuji & Anr
This is a rectification petition filed by Gufic Biosciences Limited and another petitioner before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the trademark 'SHREE SAMPANNA SHALLAKI' (Registration No. 4739384) registered under Class 5 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court allowed the petitioners' applications for exemption, condonation of 109 days' delay in re-filing the petition, and leave to file additional documents. Notice was issued to the respondents, with directions to file replies within six weeks and rejoinders within four weeks thereafter.
Levi Strauss And Co. v.Mr. Promod Yadav & Ors.
Levi Strauss And Co., the globally renowned owner of the LEVI'S trademark and associated logos including the Two Horse design, BATWING designs, and Arcuate Stitching Design, filed a commercial suit seeking summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC against three defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing, selling, and marketing counterfeit garments bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court, finding irrefutable and unrebutted evidence of infringement and likelihood of consumer confusion, allowed the application and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and damages.
Dr Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr v.Medicine Me & Ors
The plaintiffs, Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty (a renowned cardiac surgeon) and Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain infringement of their personality rights and registered trademarks, along with other ancillary reliefs against various Facebook pages, YouTube channels, and social media platforms. None of the defendants contested the suit, and the court made the interim order dated 28.11.2024 absolute, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The court granted the plaintiffs liberty to approach Meta Platforms Inc. and Google LLC regarding any subsequently discovered infringing URLs or content, while reserving the question of declaring the marks as well-known trademarks.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
SharkNinja Operating LLC appealed an order of the Paris Local Division dismissing its application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 689 198 and paid court fees of EUR 90,300 based on the case value set by the Local Division. The Court of Appeal subsequently determined the value of the appeal proceedings at EUR 3,750,000, half of the original value, resulting in a correct fee of EUR 52,400. SharkNinja applied for reimbursement of the EUR 37,900 overpayment, which the Court of Appeal granted.
V-Guard Industries Limited v.Sh. Teja Ram K Chaudhary Proprietor of M/s G. Gaurd Cable Industries and Anr
V-Guard Industries Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the registered trade mark 'G-GUARD' (Registration No. 3799286) in Class 35, held in the name of respondent Teja Ram K. Chaudhary. The petitioner claimed prior adoption and extensive use of the mark 'V-GUARD' since 1977, and alleged that the respondent's adoption of the similar mark 'G-GUARD' was deliberate and not bonafide. The Court permitted the petitioner to file additional documents, issued notice to the respondents, and directed the filing of reply and rejoinder, with the matter re-notified for 30 November 2026.
Good Drop Wine Cellars Private Limited v.Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Others
The petitioner, Good Drop Wine Cellars Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Trade Marks Registry to expeditiously dispose of its pending rectification petition (No. 269295) filed against the trademark registration (No. 1334766 in class 33) held by the third respondent, Vina Santa Carolina S.A. The petitioner's own trademark application had been refused due to the third respondent's prior registration, and the rectification petition had been pending since September 2020 with the third respondent failing to appear. The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of the rectification petition within eight weeks.
Japan Tobacco Inc And Anr v.The Central Wearhouse And Anr
This petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 was filed by Japan Tobacco Inc. and its affiliate Worldwide Brands Inc. seeking rectification of the Register of Copyrights by expunging Copyright Registration No. A-54242/97 dated 22.10.1997 for an artistic work depicting a camel, registered in the name of respondent Mrs. Veena R. Hinduja. The petitioners claimed to be the first owners of the original 'CAMEL' artistic work, asserting prior and continuous use of the mark since 1913 for tobacco and since the late 1970s for non-tobacco goods. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to establish themselves as the 'First Owner' of the original artistic work under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, which was the essential substratum for seeking rectification.
Micron Technology, Inc. v.Ultron AG, Lexar Europe B.V., Apacer Technology B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the service of the Statement of Claim on Defendant 2, Lexar Europe B.V. The Court had attempted service by registered post in accordance with Rules 270-274 RoP and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, but the documents were not collected and were returned undelivered. The Claimant requested alternative service via a Dutch judicial officer (gerechtsdeurwaarder) under Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, and the Court granted the request.
Canfield Scientific GmbH et al. v.QUANTIFICARE S.A.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Canfield's application to stay the appeal proceedings pending a separate invalidity action filed by a third party, Manteana Holdings SAS, before the Central Chamber Paris. The court held that since the appeal also challenged the first-instance dismissal of Canfield's invalidity counterclaim, the appeal court would itself review the patent's validity, making a stay unjustified. The court further noted that the invalidity action before the Central Chamber was at an early stage while the appeal proceedings were already advanced.
Canfield Scientific GmbH & Others v.QUANTIFICARE S.A. (EP 3 156 843)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Canfield's application to stay the appeal proceedings pending a revocation action filed by a third party, Manteana Holdings SAS, before the Central Chamber Paris. The court held that no special circumstances justified a stay, particularly because the appeal court would itself review the validity of the patent in the context of Canfield's appeal against the dismissal of its revocation counterclaim, and because the third-party revocation action was at an early stage while the appeal proceedings were already advanced.
The Brand Brewery Private Limited & Anr. v.Arman Anand
This Interim Application arose from a commercial intellectual property rights suit concerning trademark infringement. The Defendant, through his counsel, gave an undertaking to the Bombay High Court to discontinue the use of the marks impugned at Exhibits 'D' and 'E' to the plaint and to transition to a new trademark depicted at Annexure-1 within six months. The Court accepted the statement as an undertaking given to the Court and disposed of the Interim Application in those terms.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd v.John Doe And Ors
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd, which operates the digital streaming platform 'FanCode', sought a 'dynamic+' injunction to notify defendants of further infringing websites streaming its licensed sporting events without filing fresh applications each time. The Delhi High Court, after balancing the need to combat online piracy of live sporting events against the caution expressed in Home Box Office Inc. v. Streamzy.to regarding not conferring adjudicatory powers on intermediaries, allowed the application and granted a tailored mechanism permitting the plaintiff to notify domain registrars, ISPs, and authorities by email, with corresponding obligations to suspend or block access within specified timeframes.
Glisten LLC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Glisten LLC appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 202017005875 titled 'Gemstone Coating and Methods of Making and Using the Same.' The appellant contended that the Assistant Controller violated principles of natural justice by refusing the application on the ground that claims 1 to 17 lacked inventive step, when the hearing notice had confined the inventive step objection solely to claim 18. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the application for fresh consideration, holding that the respondent could not raise a fresh or revived objection without putting the appellant on notice and affording it an opportunity to respond.
Kaira District Co-Operative v.Asian Beverage Private Limited.
Court decision.
Hotel Millennium Continental Pvt. Ltd. v.Millennium And Copthorne International Ltd. & Anr.
This case arose from a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Millennium & Copthorne International Ltd. against Hotel Millennium Continental Pvt. Ltd. before the Delhi High Court under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, concerning the mark 'Millennium' and its logo. The defendant had challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed, leading to an SLP before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred the matter to mediation by former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, and the parties ultimately settled their disputes through a Settlement Agreement dated 22 September 2026, with the Court disposing of the appeal and the pending suit in terms of the settlement.
Triveni Household Items Manufacturer Private Limited v.Mr. Virendra Kumar Yadav Trading As Yadav Steel Furniture Works
Triveni Household Items Manufacturer Private Limited filed a contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Section 151 CPC against Mr. Virendra Kumar Yadav for alleged willful disobedience of a court order dated 08.07.2026, in which the respondent had undertaken not to use the disputed words and to withdraw Trade Mark Application No. 6702854 for the mark 'TRIVENI Y' in Class 20. The petitioner contended that the respondent continued to use the trademark in defiance of the undertaking given to the court. The Delhi High Court directed issuance of notice to the respondent and listed the matter for hearing on 11.03.2027.
Surya Hotels And Properties v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Surya Hotels And Properties, engaged in the hospitality business and proprietor of the registered mark 'Misty Mountain Resort' (Application No.1969012 in Class 43), filed a writ petition seeking cancellation of the rival 'Misty Mountain' trade mark (Registration No.2441920 in Class 43) held by Misty Mountain Plantation Resort, along with transfer of its pending rectification proceeding (No.MAS-279782) from the Trade Marks Registry to the Madras High Court's Intellectual Property Division. The petitioner subsequently restricted its prayer to only the transfer of the rectification proceeding, to which the second respondent raised no objection. The court allowed the petition to that limited extent, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to transfer the rectification records to the Intellectual Property Division within four weeks.
R.Booma Rani v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The petitioner, a safety match manufacturer from Sattur, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to accept her renewal application for the trade mark 'THOTHA' (Hindi label with parrot) registered under No.1532336 in Class 34. The mark was registered on 07.02.2023, nearly sixteen years after her 2007 application, by which time the first ten-year term had already expired on 20.02.2017. The Madras High Court allowed the petition, holding that since the mark had not been formally removed from the register under Rule 58(3) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, no time bar operated against renewal, and directed the Registrar to accept the renewal application and renew the registration for the period 20.02.2017 to 20.02.2027.
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr v.M/S Ech Ess Builders
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another challenged the judgment dated 09.08.2024 of the District Judge, Kinnaur, which had dismissed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an arbitral award dated 05.12.2019 in a construction contract dispute with M/s Ech Ess Builders. The High Court held that since the dispute was a 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the District Judge was not designated as a commercial court at the time the objections were filed on 17.07.2020, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The appeal was disposed of by setting aside the District Judge's judgment and directing return of the objections for presentation before the appropriate forum.
KSB SE & Co. KGaA & Anr. v.M/s. UK Fire System
The plaintiffs, KSB SE & Co. KGaA, proprietors of the trademark 'KSB' in Classes 7, 9, 11 and 35, filed a commercial intellectual property rights suit against M/s. UK Fire System for trademark infringement. The defendant, through its sole proprietor Mr. Shah Shariq Ahmed, filed an affidavit-in-reply giving undertakings acknowledging the plaintiffs' trademark rights and agreeing not to use the 'KSB' mark or any deceptively similar mark, and not to deal in counterfeit products. The court accepted the undertakings and decreed the suit on admission, while disposing of the connected interim application.
KSB SE & Co. KGaA & Anr. v.M/s. UK Fire System
This was a commercial intellectual property rights suit filed by KSB SE & Co. KGaA and another against M/s. UK Fire System for alleged infringement of the trademark 'KSB' registered in Classes 7, 9, 11, and 35. The defendant, through its sole proprietor Mr. Shah Shariq Ahmed, filed an affidavit-in-reply giving undertakings acknowledging the plaintiffs' proprietorship of the 'KSB' trademark and agreeing not to use the mark or any deceptively similar mark, not to deal in counterfeit products, and to surrender any infringing material. The court accepted the undertakings and decreed the suit on admission, while disposing of the connected interim application.
Simrat Randhawa & Others v.Poonam Dhawan & Others
This Civil Revision petition challenged the judgment of the District Judge, Solan, dated 31.07.2025, which had set aside the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli dismissing the plaintiff's application for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The plaintiff, Poonam Dhawan, claimed co-ownership of joint property through a registered Will dated 06.06.2014 executed by Smt. Surinder Kaur, while the defendants contended she was a non-agriculturist barred from inheriting under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The High Court allowed the revision, quashed the appellate court's order, and rejected the plaintiff's injunction application, holding that the appellate court had improperly substituted its discretion for that of the trial court.
Petals IVF and Women Care Centre LLP v.RPCI Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
This case concerns a rectification petition filed by Petals IVF and Women Care Centre LLP against RPCI Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. regarding the trade mark/device mark 'MAAERI'. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking to restrain the petitioner from misrepresenting an earlier order dated 30.03.2026 to the Chief Medical Officer of Uttar Pradesh, implying that respondents had been restrained from using the 'MAAERI' mark. The court clarified that the earlier order only directed respondents not to create third-party proprietary rights in the mark, and did not restrain them from using it.
Naman Agarwal (Proprietor of MS Radhe Radhe) v.M/S Ferns N Petals Pvt Ltd & Anr
This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by Naman Agarwal, Proprietor of MS Radhe Radhe, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of four composite agreements dated 20.08.2025 with M/S Ferns N Petals Pvt Ltd & Anr. The respondents did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement. The Delhi High Court found no impediment in appointing a sole arbitrator and appointed Mr. Sagar Saxena, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator, with the arbitration to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
Modicare Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in two connected trademark matters filed by Modicare Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks and another party. The court, finding no time left to hear the matters on the scheduled date, adjourned both cases and directed them to be re-notified for hearing on 11th January 2027.
John Vadassery v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The petitioner, a trademark agent registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, filed a writ petition challenging the Trade Marks Registry's practice of insisting that authorisations filed by trademark agents under Section 145 of the Act be stamped as powers of attorney. The petitioner contended that the statutory framework only requires a simple authorisation, not a stamped power of attorney, while the respondents argued that the long-standing practice of accepting stamped powers of attorney was necessary. The Kerala High Court examined the provisions of Section 145 of the Act and Rule 19 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, and considered whether the Registrar of Trade Marks, being an officer of the Central Government and not a court or tribunal, could insist on stamp duty being paid on such authorisations.