Short Summary
The Madras High Court disposed of a Trade Marks Appeal between Bharat Vastralaya and Karishma Silks & Sarees based on a settlement reached between the parties. The consent terms mandate that while the Respondent can continue using 'KARISHMA' for one specific outlet in Bangalore, they must withdraw their existing trademark registration (No. 572267) in Class 24. This resolution provides a clear path forward for both parties to manage their respective rights and prevent further litigation.
Detailed Summary
of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Bharat Vastralaya vs Karishma Silks & Sarees is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp.vsHonour Lab Limited
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. filed a suit alleging that Honour Lab Limited was infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers the molecule SITAGLIPTIN (an API for diabetes treatment). The plaintiffs sought interim relief against the defendant's alleged commercial supply of the patented API.
Quantum UniversityvsInternational Quantum University For Integrative Medicine Inc
This case involved a challenge by Quantum University against an arbitration award that directed the cancellation of its domain name (www.quantumuniversity.edu.in). The respondent, International Quantum University For Integrative Medicine Inc., had successfully argued that the petitioner's domain was confusingly similar to their prior formative domain names (e.g., quantumuniversity.com). The Delhi High Court examined this challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ultimately upholding the original award.
Raj Kumar Proprietor Of Ms Royal Pets CartvsPooja Ahirwar Proprietor Of Ms Aselfy Enterprises
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Raj Kumar Proprietor Of Ms Royal Pets Cart, against Pooja Ahirwar Proprietor Of Ms Aselfy Enterprises. The court found that the defendant's pending trademark application for 'ROYAL PETS CART/' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark and constituted a prima facie case of infringement. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the impugned mark in relation to identical goods until the final hearing.
Mr. M. Anees Ahmed (M/s Ambur Star Briyani)vsStar Ambur Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Mr. M. Anees Ahmed, granting a permanent injunction against the respondent for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'STAR AMBUR BRIYANI' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, 'AMBUR STAR BRIYANI,' which is associated with his restaurant business. While the claim for destruction of infringing stock was rejected due to lack of evidence, the suit was partly decreed.
Vijay Baweja Proprietor Of M/S Vijay Auto SalesvsAjay Baweja Trading As Ajay Auto Spares & Anr.
The Delhi High Court referred a trademark dispute between Vijay Baweja and Ajay Baweja to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The petitioner sought rectification of their 'AIRGOLD' trademark and cancellation of the respondent's similar mark, 'AIR GOLD (DEVICE)', both registered in Class 12. This move indicates the court is encouraging parties to resolve complex IP conflicts through alternative dispute resolution before proceeding with a full trial.
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.
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.