Supreme Court - Daily Orders
16 cases · page 1 of 1
Satpaul Mittal v.State of Punjab & Anr.
This is a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.20974/2025 arising from the High Court of Punjab & Haryana's final judgment dated 17-11-2025 in CRM-M No.43177/2020. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner would file an affidavit undertaking not to use the trademark allegedly similar to that of respondent no.2 before the next date of listing. The Court listed the matter for further hearing on 18.09.2026.
Fifth Generation Inc. v.Tito's Resorts and Hospitalities Private Limited & Anr.
The Supreme Court of India disposed of two transfer petitions filed by Fifth Generation Inc. (makers of Tito's Handmade Vodka) against Tito's Resorts and Hospitalities Private Limited after the parties reached a mediated settlement. The dispute concerned the use of the 'TITO'S' trademark in India across liquor and hospitality businesses. The Court recorded the settlement agreement dated 04.08.2026, which established terms for coexistence, restricted use of the mark in specific business segments, and mandated withdrawal of all pending opposition, cancellation, criminal, excise, and civil proceedings between the parties.
Lin-O-Matic Graphic Industries v.Trulines Technologies
Lin-O-Matic Graphic Industries filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement of its drawing of a book binding machine. The appeal challenged the High Court's order which, while not setting aside the initial expert report, directed the Investigating Officer to obtain an additional expert opinion. The Supreme Court set aside this direction, finding it would cause confusion and prejudice.
Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd v.Galactica Processing Technologies Llp
Sonani Industries challenged an impugned High Court order regarding its patent rights concerning Diamond Holding Devices. The Supreme Court conditionally dismissed the Special Leave Petition, finding that the petitioner's interests were protected while directing parties to resolve the underlying suit and post-grant objections within specified timelines.
Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd v.Relaxo Footwears Limited
Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd appealed against the registration granted to Relaxo Footwears Limited for a slipper design. The Supreme Court accepted a new design from Aqualite and ordered that the pending appeals and related applications be disposed of, subject to the parties being bound by their statements.
Narendra Hirawat And Co. v.Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
This case concerns a dispute over film licensing rights for 'Sholay' and related titles between Narendra Hirawat And Co. (NHC) and Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (SME). The core issue revolved around alleged non-compliance with a Deed of Settlement, which included payment obligations and an extension of the license period. The Supreme Court granted leave and allowed the appeals, effectively restoring the interim injunction in favor of NHC.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited & Ors.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited for infringement of its trademarks ('TOYOTA', 'TOYOTA INNOVA', 'TOYOTA DEVICE') and passing off using the mark 'Prius'. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order, finding that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or market reputation for 'Prius' in India.
M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation v.M/S Euro Apex B.V.
This appeal concerned the enforcement of a PFA from an arbitration award, which mandated the respondent to unconditionally and irrevocably transfer all rights and interests in specific Indian Patents (Nos. 2143/MUM/2008 and 2144/MUM/2008) to the appellant. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had duly executed and forwarded the required deed of transfer, thereby fulfilling its obligation under the PFA.
Research Foundation, Sci., Tech. & Eco. & Anr. v.Union of India & Ors.
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Union of India to challenge patents related to wheat in international forums, citing concerns over biodiversity protection and biopiracy. The court noted that the specific patent challenged had since been revoked by the European Patent Office.
Cipla Limited v.F. Hoffman La Roche Limited
Cipla Limited appealed against a final judgment passed by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court heard the matter and directed that the case be fixed for final disposal on March 16, 2016. The court also clarified that while existing interim proceedings would continue, no final orders could be passed without its leave.
Jagatjit Industries Limited v.The Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors.
The dispute involved a conflict over the trademark 'BLENDERS PRIDE'. The appellant (Jagatjit Industries Limited) sought to register an identical mark, leading to opposition by respondent No. 4 (a subsidiary of Pernod Ricard S.A.). The case progressed through various legal challenges regarding the validity and rectification of the registration certificate.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. filed a suit for injunction alleging that Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was infringing its patent. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter, noting that while the Single Judge found infringement, the Division Bench had stayed the order due to pending objections under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by directing parties to continue being governed by an earlier court order.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v.Sanjay Dalia & Anr.
The dispute concerned the proper territorial jurisdiction for filing a suit related to copyright infringement. The appellant (IPRS Ltd.) argued that Section 62 of the Copyright Act conferred a right to file a suit where it carries on business, regardless of the cause of action's location. The Supreme Court ultimately held that while a plaintiff can sue where they carry on business, if the cause of action also arises there, they must file in that place, dismissing the appeals.
M/S. K.R.C.D. (I) Pvt. Ltd. v.Commnr. Of Central Excise, Mumbai
The dispute concerned whether the royalty paid for music embedded in master CDs should be included in the assessable value when M/S. K.R.C.D. (I) Pvt. Ltd. manufactured duplicate CDs on a job work basis. The appellant argued that since they only copied the content and did not exploit the intellectual property, no royalty could be charged. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant.
Dr. Aloys Wobben and another v.Yogesh Mehra and others
Dr. Aloys Wobben (Appellant) filed multiple patent infringement suits against Yogesh Mehra and others (Respondents), who were also filing revocation petitions before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Supreme Court examined whether these two actions could proceed concurrently.
Enercon (India) Ltd. v.Enercon Gmbh
This appeal concerned a joint venture between Enercon (India) Ltd. and Enercon Gmbh, which involved the manufacture and sale of Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs). The dispute centered on whether various agreements, particularly the Intellectual Property License Agreement (IPLA), constituted legally binding contracts despite discrepancies.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.