Candico (I) Limited v. T.R. Kohli, Trading As T.R. Kohli And Sons

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 107/2022

The Delhi High Court set aside a previous order that had refused the registration of the mark 'JUMBO GUMBO' due to an opposition. The court found that the objection raised by the opponent did not survive because their prior trademark application for 'JUMBO' had been treated as abandoned years earlier. Given the changed circumstances and the opponent's failure to contest the appeal, the High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to proceed with the registration of 'JUMBO GUMBO'.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 107/2022
Judge(s)
Amit Bansal

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Candico (I) Limited vs T.R. Kohli, Trading As T.R. Kohli And Sons is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 202/2022

Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (Uab) Baltijos Mineraliniu Vandenu KompanijavsMr. Sahil Tandon Trading As A And Z Exports International & Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (UAB) against Mr. Sahil Tandon, leading to the cancellation of a registered trademark for 'TICHE' in Class 32. The court found that UAB was the prior and legitimate adopter of the mark since 1998, citing extensive international use and evidence of trans-border reputation spilling over into India. The judgment underscores the importance of proving prior usage and bona fide adoption when challenging a trademark registration.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 6/2024

Philip Morris Products S AvsDeputy Controller Of Patents And Design

Philip Morris Products S A appealed the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of patent application No. 201617029499. The appellant argued that the refusal violated natural justice principles and that the invention, which aids in smoking reduction, should not be barred under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act.

patentIP-COM/6/2024

Amir Biri Factory And Ors.vsSk Faruk

The Calcutta High Court disposed of a trademark infringement suit between Amir Biri Factory And Ors. and Sk Faruk after both parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. The core of the settlement involves Sk Faruk agreeing to cease using certain disputed marks (like 'JULFIKAR TARE A-1 KHAINI') in connection with goods outside Chewing Tobacco/Khaini, while also accepting modifications to their mark usage. Furthermore, Sk Faruk committed to exhausting existing stock within one month and agreed not to raise further legal claims related to the dispute.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 140/2023

Bayona SpavsVarun Exports & Ors.

The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition concerning a trademark dispute between Bayona Spa and Varun Exports & Ors. The court noted that the respondents had filed an application to withdraw the impugned mark before the Trademarks Registry. Consequently, the petitioner's relief was deemed infructuous, leading the court to issue directions for the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the registration No. 4188398 in class 25.

patentCS(COMM) 1199/2024

Allied Blenders And Distillers LimitedvsTilaknagar Industries Limited & Ors

In a suit concerning alleged trademark, copyright, and passing off infringement, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders. Crucially, regarding the interim injunction application, the court accepted the defendants' commitment to immediately stop using the disputed label on new products as of December 26, 2024. This temporary relief is subject to the defendants exhausting their existing stock bearing the impugned label, which they must detail in an affidavit.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call