Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 8401–8500 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Ashim Gujral v.Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Private Limited & Anr.
Ashim Gujral has initiated legal action against Moti Mahal Delux Management Services regarding the registration of the trademark 'MOTI MAHAL GROUP'. The petitioner asserts co-ownership of the 'MOTI MAHAL' mark and claims that Respondent No. 1 obtained the impugned registration by making false statements, relying on the petitioner's rights without consent. The court has issued notice to both parties, setting the stage for formal opposition proceedings.
Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited v.Mr. Nipun Gupta & Anr.
Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited filed a petition seeking the removal of an allegedly infringing trademark, 'RAPIDO' (No. 4459206), registered in Class 39. The Delhi High Court proceeded with issuing notice to all permissible parties, setting the matter for return on September 24, 2024. While procedural applications regarding document filing were addressed, the core dispute over trademark cancellation is now moving forward.
GTZ India Pvt. Ltd. v.Artek Surfins Chemicals Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by GTZ India Pvt. Ltd. against a commercial court order that granted an injunction to Artek Surfins Chemicals Ltd. The dispute centered on the use of specific alphanumeric codes (e.g., '786', '2048M') in chemical products. The court found prima facie evidence that GTZ copied these unique alpha numerals, which are used by Artek as source identifiers for their goods, thereby establishing a case of both trademark infringement and passing off.
Ranjit Prasad Mathuri v.Gopal Choudhary & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Ranjit Prasad Mathuri, against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for trademark infringement concerning his 'GS GULAB BIDI 755' mark. This immediate relief restrains the defendants from manufacturing or dealing in bidis using marks identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark, pending further proceedings.
Malhotra Surgical Industries v.Dharam Pal Singh Bhatia & Anr.
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court issued interim directions concerning the online sale of 'MICROTONE' products. While the defendant undertook not to sell or distribute the impugned goods, the plaintiff noted that the products remained available on various e-commerce platforms. Consequently, the court directed both parties to file detailed affidavits—the plaintiff detailing current infringing listings and the defendants naming all distributors—to allow for further appropriate judicial action.
Jrpl Riceland Llp v.Crop India Agro Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction favoring Jrpl Riceland LLP against Crop India Agro Pvt Ltd. The court found that the Defendant's subsequent adoption of a deceptively similar trademark ('2') for rice constituted passing off, given the Plaintiff's established goodwill and senior user status with their mark ('9090'). This interim relief prevents the defendant from using the infringing mark while the main suit proceeds.
Radico Khaitan Ltd v.Superior Industries Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Radico Khaitan Ltd against Superior Industries Ltd. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'GREAT GRAND MASTI' for alcoholic beverages was highly likely to cause confusion and constitute trademark infringement or passing off against the Plaintiff's established mark, 'MASTIH'. This interim order immediately restricts the defendant from manufacturing or selling products bearing the impugned marks until the final hearing.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking interim relief against Eris Lifesciences Limited. The dispute centers on the alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 268846 by the defendant's manufacturing and sale of generic versions of Empagliflozin and related formulations, including products sold under the trade mark 'Linares-E'.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Eris Lifesciences Limited. The suit concerns alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 268846 related to the medicinal product Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and granted the requested restraint.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, represented by Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and its Indian subsidiary, sought an interim injunction against Eris Lifesciences Limited for allegedly infringing their Indian Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and balance of convenience, leading to the grant of temporary relief.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division DÜSSELDORF pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 30/05/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Samsung Electronics GmbH Am Kronberger Hang 6,
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00990, finding Halliburton’s claims 11,12 and 14‑20 unpatentable and also striking substitute claims 29‑37, while upholding claims 1‑10 and 21‑23. Halliburton has appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
Weatherford files an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny Halliburton’s Director Review Request, asserting the Board’s findings on claims 14, 29‑31, and 33 are well‑founded and that the patent owner’s arguments misinterpret the claim language and prior art.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
Halliburton seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found several gravel‑packing screen claims unpatentable, arguing the Board misread claim language, offered no motivation for its combination, and abused its discretion.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco seeks Director Review of a PTAB denial that found its VPLS failover claims un‑obvious over the Mitchell reference. The petition alleges the Board improperly added claim limitations, applied the wrong obviousness standard, and ignored the modified prior‑art embodiment.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Weatherford's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00990 concerning Halliburton's oilfield patent 11,333,007 B2.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Iarnach Technologies seeks denial of an IPR filed by Nokia and AT&T over U.S. Patent 9,806,892 covering direct power‑state transitions in passive optical networks. The owner argues the cited references do not disclose such transitions and invokes Fintiv discretionary denial factors due to parallel district‑court cases.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
Weatherford U.S., L.P. has initiated an IPR challenge against Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.'s patent covering gravel packing systems for oil and gas applications. The petitioner asserts that the claimed technology is obvious over prior art developed by ExxonMobil/Mobil research groups dating back to the 1990s. This action targets multiple claims related to differential pressure shunt tubes and screen geometry.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. has filed a Petition challenging the '882 Patent owned by Resonant Systems, Inc., asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (§103). The challenge focuses on combining various prior art references—including Alexander and Cosper—to demonstrate that the patented vibration control technology is predictable.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging CLO Virtual Fashion's patent (11222448) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, related to real-time measurement guides in CAD software, are predictable combinations of existing technologies like Grinspun and Graphicxtras.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,733,773 owned by CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious based on combinations of existing CAD software and prior art publications. This challenge focuses on whether combining known techniques with EZBRUSH software yields predictable improvements in garment patterning.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. challenged CLO Virtual Fashion's patent on digital design methods, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references related to CAD systems renders the claimed apparatus and method predictable.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Portsmouth Network Corporation's '637 Patent claims related to fast link failover systems for network communication failures. The petitioner asserts that the invention is obvious over various combinations of prior art references, primarily Mitchell.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia filed a petition challenging claims in the '892 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenge focuses on combining prior art standards (ITU-T) and publications to demonstrate that claimed power management features are predictable.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Petitioners challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,806,892 in a PTAB petition, arguing that several claims related to power management in optical networks are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The arguments rely on combining industry standards (G.987.3, G.988) with technical disclosures from prior art references like Röger and Ghazisaidi.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
Weatherford U.S., L.P. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Halliburton Energy Services' patent (11333007) regarding wellbore gravel packing technology. The Board granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (§ 103).
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Resonant Systems, Inc. was instituted after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The grounds for institution were multiple obviousness rejections (103) over various prior art combinations in electromechanical devices. This decision moves the dispute into trial phase proceedings.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenging CLO Virtual Fashion's digital clothing patent (10,733,773) after finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments based on impermissible hindsight and unsupported expert testimony.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB denied institution for Cisco Systems' IPR against Portsmouth Network Corporation regarding network failover methods. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over the prior art, specifically Mitchell.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems' attempt to overturn the denial of IPR institution against Portsmouth Network Corporation was rejected by the Delegated Review Panel. The DRP upheld the Board's implicit claim construction, finding that the claims covered all network nodes, not just downstream ones.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia of America Corporation et al.'s IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies Limited was denied by the PTAB, preventing trial on claims 1-11. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (G.984.3 and Khermosh) did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed method for managing upstream burst overhead parameters in PON systems.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103). Specifically, claims 11, 12, and 14–20 were found obvious over combinations of prior art references. The Board also denied the Patent Owner's motion to amend regarding substitute claims 29-37, rejecting some for lack of enablement/utility.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB found the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically regarding vibration-generating devices. The Board concluded that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine prior art references like Alexander and Cosper to achieve the claimed results.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art standards (G.987.3, G.988) and publications (Röger). The Board specifically determined that Claim 1 was obvious because the combination suggested direct transitions between low-power states for increased energy efficiency.
Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt Ltd v.Gm Sales
Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging that Gm Sales was engaging in passing off, unfair competition, and copyright infringement by slavishly copying its salon furniture designs and using its product images. The plaintiff claimed market dominance and distinctiveness in their products. The court reviewed the application to vacate the interim injunction granted earlier.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking interim relief against Eris Lifesciences Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 268846. The patent covers pharmaceutical products like Empagliflozin and related formulations. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, leading to the grant of an injunction.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lotus Labs Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The court granted an exemption from advance service based on the apprehension that Defendants might flood the market with infringing products before formal service could occur.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
Incyte Holdings Corporation filed a quia timet action against Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited alleging impending infringement of its patent (IN2698411) covering the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The parties reached an agreement where the defendant undertook not to commercially manufacture or deal in products containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity, and the suit was disposed of on these consent terms.
M/S Nakoda Food Marketing & Ors. v.M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the respondent seeking interim relief in a trademark dispute. The court noted that while the respondent's mark is registered and well-known, the appellants' mark was unregistered and had previously been withdrawn from registration. Consequently, the court declined to grant any ad interim order at this stage but directed the appellants to file detailed documentation regarding their prior use and application history for future consideration.
Ds Agrifoods Private Limited v.M/S Singhal Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Ds Agrifoods Private Limited against M/S Singhal Enterprises & Ors. The court found that the Defendant's use of the mark 'DOODMALAI' and its associated trade dress was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established trademark 'DOONMALAI'. Given the phonetic, visual, and structural similarity, coupled with a prior business relationship suggesting bad faith, the court ruled that the Defendants were passing off their goods. This interim order protects the Plaintiff's market standing until the final hearing.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Property Services Llp
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Tata Sia Airlines Limited against Vistara Property Services Llp. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, specifically concerning the use of 'VISTARA GETAWAYS' and similar marks by the defendant across various online platforms. This immediate relief aims to prevent irreparable harm while the main suit proceeds.
Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft. & Anr. v.National Internet Exchange Of India (NIXI) & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief in favor of Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft., addressing the misuse of its 'HELL' trademark by imposters operating fraudulent websites. The court directed domain registrars to block infringing domains, mandated banks to freeze suspicious accounts, and ordered telecom providers and government agencies (MeitY/DoT) to take steps to disable mobile numbers and block website access. This decisive order aims to protect the plaintiff's brand reputation and prevent further financial fraud.
Abbott Products Operations Ag v.Mr. Muheen Khan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Abbott Products Operations Ag to cancel the trademark registration 'DUFAKWIK' (No. 4459400) in Class 05. The cancellation was achieved through a mutual agreement, as both parties agreed that the mark should be removed from the Register without any claim for damages. This order provides a clear example of how IP disputes can be resolved efficiently through negotiated settlements before the court.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia and Toyota challenge a patent owner's request to overturn a PTAB decision on a vehicle e‑key system, arguing the Board correctly applied the Kleve prior art. They seek denial of the Director Review.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Emerging Automotive LLC has filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s decision that its e‑key patent claims are anticipated by the Kleve reference. The patent owner argues the Board relied on undisclosed "rental start period" functionality, constituting an abuse of discretion and erroneous factual findings.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly filed a motion to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request cites statutory and regulatory authority and argues the agreement contains confidential dispute‑resolution terms.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The USPTO denied Kia and Toyota's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00981 concerning Emerging Automotive's vehicle‑control patent (US 9,365,188).
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑00972 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,640,733. The Board was asked to end the proceeding per 35 U.S.C. §317.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,640,733 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, and Microsoft petitioned an IPR on EyesMatch's facial‑recognition patent, but Samsung and EyesMatch have now settled and moved to terminate the proceeding.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, Microsoft and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00856 and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after reaching a settlement with EyesMatch. The Board granted the motion and sealed the settlement agreement, ending Samsung's participation in the proceeding.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google and Samsung challenged EyesMatch’s digital‑mirror patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR, and EyesMatch’s response argues that the cited references fail to meet the narrow claim construction obtained in district court, rendering all grounds unpatentable.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Court decision.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia Corporation et al. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,365,188 held by Emerging Automotive LLC. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that keyless entry systems for vehicle rentals are already disclosed or rendered obvious by combining existing prior art references. This action targets all 20 claims of the patent.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC and other petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,982,109 by asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on numerous grounds combining digital mirror systems with various prior art references related to image correction, efficiency, and distance calculation. This challenge targets core claims across the augmented reality/digital mirror technology space.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging claims 1-20 of patent 9365188, which relates to electronic key systems for vehicles. The Board found that the Petitioner provided adequate evidence regarding obviousness grounds based on prior art references like Kleve and Sekiyama.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.'s patent 9640733. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, including anticipation and obviousness based on prior art references like Kishikawa and Nakashima. This sets the stage for a full trial focusing on LED packaging technology.
Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.
Salvacion USA successfully achieved institution in the IPR against Trutek Corp.'s nasal application formulations, facing challenges of anticipation and obviousness over prior art including Chen. The Board found Petitioner's arguments persuasive on the record after detailed claim construction, setting the stage for a full trial.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 claims of the '188 patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that independent claim 1 and dependent claims were rendered obvious by combining Kleve with Sekiyama, while other claims were found obvious in view of various combinations including Kleve/Mottla and Zaid/Harris.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-18) because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board adopted a nuanced claim construction from District Court, requiring specific elements like reversed reflection and double distance for 'mirror mimicking.'
Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the challenged claims (1-3 and 8) were anticipated by multiple prior art references, including Chen. The Board found that the prior art disclosed all claim elements, leading to a final decision of unpatentability.
M/S Shree Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mill) v.Registrar Of Copyrights And Anr
M/S Shree Hari Industries filed proceedings against the Registrar of Copyrights, alleging that certain copyright grants were improperly issued. The petitioner contended that these grants failed to properly consider their pre-existing registered trademarks. During the hearing on May 29, 2024, the court accepted trademark search certificates and noted the petitioner's request for a stay on the use of the disputed marks. The matter was listed for further consideration.
Saregama India Limited v.Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited
Saregama India Limited filed a declaratory suit under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, seeking protection against threats made by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited regarding copyright infringement. The core dispute involved Saregama claiming ownership over numerous sound recordings and literary works. However, when Zee subsequently initiated its own suit for copyright infringement against Saregama, the Delhi High Court held that this action brought the matter within the scope of the proviso to Section 60. Consequently, the initial declaratory suit filed by Saregama was rendered infructuous.
Mahesh Gupta v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mahesh Gupta appealed the refusal of his patent application for a 'Portable Vehicle Management System' by the Assistant Controller. The refusal was based on the lack of inventive step, citing various prior art documents (D4 and D5). The High Court upheld the rejection, finding that the features were predictable applications of existing technology.
Phillip Morris Products S.A. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Products S.A. filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated January 24, 2024, which rejected their patent application (No. 201617026827) under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an exemption request while directing parties to file written submissions.
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 29, 2024, passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application (no. 202117021605). The High Court granted exemption in a related interlocutory application and directed parties to file written submissions.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Paghadar Riddhi Savanbhai & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Manash Lifestyle Private Limited against Paghadar Riddhi Savanbhai & Ors. The court formally registered the plaint as a commercial suit and set out procedural timelines for both parties to file their respective pleadings, including affidavits of admission/denial of documents. Additionally, several interlocutory applications seeking exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service were granted by the court.
Ambuja Cements Limited v.Sudheer Sharma And Ors
Ambuja Cements Limited filed a suit alleging that several defendants were fraudulently using its 'AMBUJA CEMENT' trademarks and associated domains to run phishing websites, deceiving consumers into making payments. The Delhi High Court granted interim relief, directing the maintenance of status quo on relevant domain names and ordering telecom/internet service providers (MEITY and DoT) to suspend access to these fraudulent sites. Furthermore, the court mandated that various defendants provide KYC documents and details of registered phone numbers to aid in identifying the perpetrators.
Singh And Singh Law Firm Llp v.Singh And Singh Attorneys
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs (Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP) against the Defendants (Singh And Singh Attorneys). The court found that the defendants were infringing upon the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and goodwill associated with the name 'Singh & Singh'. Despite modifications to the scope of relief sought, the court affirmed the right of the Plaintiffs to protect their brand identity, emphasizing the international reputation and established goodwill of the law firm.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Microcosm Pharma & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit, Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a claim against Microcosm Pharma regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between its registered mark 'PEGMOVE' and the defendant's mark 'PEG-MU'. During court proceedings, the proprietor of Defendant No. 1 voluntarily offered to discontinue the use of the impugned mark and undertake not to adopt any similar marks. While the suit continues for formal registration and issue framing, this offer suggests a potential path toward an amicable resolution.
Nandi Infratech P. Ltd. v.Himanshu Bhandari & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Nandi Infratech P. Ltd. against Himanshu Bhandari & Ors. The court allowed exemptions from pre-institution mediation and filing certain annexures, while also proceeding with the main injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from using the deceptively similar mark 'AMAATRA BANQUETS' against the registered trademark 'AMAATRA'.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
This Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 28 May 2024, addresses the principles governing stays of revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Court held that, as a general principle, the UPC will not stay revocation proceedings, and that the mere existence of parallel EPO opposition proceedings or even an EPO decision to accelerate those proceedings is insufficient to justify a stay. An exception may apply only when a rapid decision from the EPO may be expected, with the Court exercising discretionary power based on a balance of the parties' interests.
Hershey India Private Limited v.Mohammed Arif Mohammed Hussain Akbani and Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of multiple trademark litigation cases involving Hershey India Private Limited and Mohammed Arif Mohammed Hussain Akbani after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The dispute, which involved various commercial IP matters including suit and rectification petitions, was resolved through mediation before the court. The court accepted the terms of the settlement agreement dated May 1, 2024, thereby disposing of the main suit while adjourning related rectification petitions subject to compliance with the agreed-upon clauses.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v.Jg Hosiery Pvt Ltd
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited (Amul) filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'AMUL BINDASS' registered in Class 25. The court accepted the arguments that Amul is the owner of the well-known mark 'AMUL' and has associated device marks, initiating formal proceedings. Notice was issued to Jg Hosiery Pvt Ltd, setting the stage for a detailed legal contest over trademark rights.
Network18 Media And Investments Limited v.Www.Brawlersfightclub.Com & Ors.
Network18 Media successfully secured interim relief in the Delhi High Court against various rogue websites operating under domains like brawlersfightclub.com. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the infringement of Network18's intellectual property, including copyright in an interview video and associated trademarks. Furthermore, the judgment issued critical directions to telecom and internet service providers to block the identified infringing URLs, providing immediate relief against online piracy.
Cipla Health Limited v.Aishwarya Healthcare & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Cipla Health Limited against Aishwarya Healthcare & Ors. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the Defendants' mark 'OMNICEL' is virtually identical to the Plaintiff's established mark 'OMNIGEL'. Furthermore, the court recognized the Plaintiff's copyright claim over the product packaging, leading to a comprehensive restraint order against the use of deceptively similar marks and trade dress.
Cipla Limited v.Bioxen Health Care & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Cipla Limited against Bioxen Health Care & Anr. regarding the use of deceptively similar trademarks for respiratory medicinal products. The court found that Cipla had established a prima facie case based on its registered marks ('BUDECORT' and 'RESPULES') and extensive market presence. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from manufacturing or selling goods under names like 'BUDECOT RESPULES,' while also being required to disclose their sales figures and current stock.
M/S Avon Cycles Limited v.M/S Avon Automotive & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Avon Cycles Limited against M/S Avon Automotive & Ors. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for trademark infringement concerning the 'AVON' mark across various vehicle and cycle components. This immediate relief restrains the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing with goods under identical or deceptively similar marks until further proceedings are concluded.
The Food Masters v.V G And Group & Ors.
In a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'THE FOOD MASTER', the Delhi High Court suspended an existing ex parte injunction. The suspension was granted to allow the court to comprehensively assess conflicting claims regarding prior use and senior adoption by both parties. The court directed both sides to place crucial documents, including evidence of user status from 2013 and details of a related suit filed in Faridabad, on record before proceeding.
cipla health limited v.syndicate pharma anr
Cipla Health Limited (formerly Cipla Limited) sued Syndicate Pharma and another for infringement of its trademark 'OMNIGEL' and trade dress, alleging the defendants were using a nearly identical mark 'ONMIGEL' on pain relief ointments. The plaintiff claimed extensive prior use since 2000 and significant sales revenue (INR 231 crores in FY 2023-24), arguing the defendant’s actions constituted passing off, dilution, copyright infringement, and misrepresentation.
Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr. v.M/S Domind Pizza & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Domino's IP Holder LLC against several competing pizza businesses. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar trademarks, such as 'DOMIN'D PIZZA,' which was causing confusion and damaging the reputation of the established 'DOMINO'S PIZZA' brand. Furthermore, the court ordered food delivery platforms like Zomato and Swiggy to immediately de-list the infringing listings.
NEC Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural deadlines for filing Statements of Defense in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant, NEC Corporation, sought to shorten the deadline for Defendants 3), 4), and 6) to May 23, 2024, arguing they belonged to the same group as Defendant 1) and shared a coordinated defense. The Defendants requested an extension to July 8, 2024, citing the Claimant's failure to upload the correct HEVC standard annexes with the Statement of Claim. The Court extended the deadline for Defendants 1), 3), 4), and 6) to July 8, 2024, rejecting the Claimant's requests.
Kathakaar Films Production House v.Shane Ali & Ors
This appeal concerns allegations that Kathakaar Films Production House infringed upon the registered trademarks and copyrights of Shane Ali & Ors. The dispute centers on the use of a logo/mark deceptively similar to the respondents' property in the film 'MAIN LADEGA'. While the appellant admitted using the similar mark, they contested both trademark infringement and copyright violation, arguing the usage was incidental under Section 52(1)(u)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The court listed the appeal for further consideration on merits.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited v.M/S R.M. Foods & Ors.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited filed a suit alleging that M/S R.M. Foods & Ors. adopted a deceptively similar trade dress for their products in the fitness and peanut butter industry. The Delhi High Court, while allowing the main suit to proceed, addressed several interlocutory applications regarding documentation and mediation. Crucially, the court noted the dispute over whether the Defendants' alleged infringing trade dress has been discontinued or if the current suit also covers a newer design adopted by the Respondents.
Rupa Gujral & Ors. v.Raghav Jaggi
Rupa Gujral and others filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, seeking removal of an impugned trademark (No. 3777931) related to 'Original Dal Makhani & Butter Chicken'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondent, Raghav Jaggi, requiring him to file a reply within six weeks. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on July 25, 2024.
Shivkumar Shankarrao Thakur & Ors. v.Shiv Biri Manufacturing Co P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Shivkumar Shankarrao Thakur & Ors. against a trademark registration granted to Shiv Biri Manufacturing Co P Ltd. The court found that the impugned trademark was not deceptively similar to the appellants' existing trademarks, thereby negating the core grounds of opposition and prior use claims. This ruling reinforces the principle that similarity between marks is paramount in determining infringement or opposition success.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB held that all 25 claims of Orca Security’s cloud‑security patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references Veselov, Hufsmith, and Hutchins. The decision follows a thorough obviousness analysis and affirms the petitioner’s position.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Orca Security filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found all claims of its cloud‑virtualization patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board improperly introduced new evidence—misinterpreting Veselov’s description of a file system—as teaching the claimed virtual‑disk location, violating procedural rules.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB issued an errata to correct a grammatical mistake in the Final Written Decision of IPR2024-00865 concerning patent 11,693,685. The correction clarifies the Board’s language about Hufsmith’s teaching on detecting sensitive data.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The USPTO denied WIZ, Inc.'s request for Director Review of the PTAB's final written decisions in IPR2024-00863 and a related IPR, upholding the decisions against Orca Security's patent.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Certificate of Service for the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00863 concerning patent 11,663,031.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.--
Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of Patent 7480637, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner contends that combining known SSL/TLS protocols with biometric authentication methods yields predictable results. The challenge centers on whether the combination of prior art elements—specifically Rescorla and Mathiassen's technologies—is inventive or merely an obvious modification for a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.--
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a Petition challenging Jabaa, L.L.C.'s patent claims related to biometric customer authentication apparatus. The core argument is that the challenged claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Mathiassen, Ryan, and Lim. The petitioner seeks to institute proceedings leading to the cancellation of all ten challenged claims.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging several of Orca Security Ltd.'s patents related to virtual machine and cloud asset protection. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over combinations of existing prior art references, including Veselov, Price, Hufsmith, and Huseinović.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.--
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Askeladden L.L.C. against Jabaa, L.L.C., challenging claims 7-20 of patent 7480637 related to secure transaction authentication. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail based on prior art combinations.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Orca Security Ltd., demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness claims (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board preliminarily agreed with Wiz's claim construction arguments regarding snapshot analysis and API usage based on prior art references.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
The appellant, Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor, appealed against an order by the Deputy Controller cancelling his registered design for an Air Cooler (No. 233559) based on alleged prior publication in China. The appeal contended that the cancellation relied only on insufficient evidence from the CNIPA website and ignored previous rejections of similar claims. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Jaipuria Edutech Foundation & Anr. v.Shyamlalbabu Educational Trust
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Jaipuria Edutech Foundation against Shyamlalbabu Educational Trust. The court found that the defendant continued to use deceptively similar trademarks despite a terminated franchise agreement and cease-and-desist notices. This preliminary order restrains the defendant from using 'Jaipuria International Schools' and 'Seth M.R. Jaipuria School' marks, though the injunction will not take effect until July 15, 2024, allowing time for compliance.
Red Bull Ag v.Rahul Ranjan Partner Of M/S Wings Energy & Ors.
The Delhi High Court finalized a trademark infringement suit between Red Bull Ag and Rahul Ranjan Partner of M/S Wings Energy after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The court decreed the suit in favor of Red Bull, granting permanent injunctions against Defendants No. 1 & 2 to prevent them from using confusingly similar marks like 'WINGS' or 'ENERGY'. This resolution allows both parties to conclude the litigation amicably.