Short Summary
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a patent appeal. The matter was adjourned and re-notified for 20th January 2027 at the request of the respondent's counsel, who was stated to be unavailable on the date of hearing, with no objection from the appellants' side.
Detailed Summary
This case, bearing C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 13/2026 and CNR No. DLHC010133422026, was heard before the Delhi High Court presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. J. Bhambhani. The appellants are Ever Resource Ltd & Anr., represented by Mr. Sanuj Das, Advocate. The respondent is The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks, represented by Mr. Sumit Nagpal (SPC) along with Mr. Tanmay Saini, Advocate, who appeared via video-conferencing.
The judgment text does not contain any substantive legal arguments or discussion of the underlying dispute between the parties. No merits of the patent appeal were addressed in this order.
The court issued a purely procedural order dated 02.09.2026. At the request of learned counsel for the respondent, who was stated to be unavailable on the date of hearing, and with no opposition from the appellants' counsel, the court directed that the matter be re-notified for hearing on 20th January 2027. The order was digitally signed by Justice A. J. Bhambhani and downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ever Resource Ltd & Anr vs The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sarin Technologies LtdvsSanjay Raghav Golakiya & 3
Sarin Technologies Ltd filed a suit against Sanjay Raghav Golakiya & others alleging patent infringement. The court framed multiple issues, including those related to the validity (novelty, inventive step) and infringement of the suit patents. Both parties agreed to appoint a Court Commissioner to record oral evidence.
Dasaprakash Restaurant And Ice Cream Parlour Pvt.Ltd.vsThe Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt.Ltd., which sought to record its rights as a subsequent proprietor of the 'Dasaprakash' trademark. The court upheld the Trademark Registry's rejection, ruling that the transfer agreement was void ab initio because it was executed while the original proprietor, Balakrishna Rao, was legally incompetent due to insolvency proceedings. Furthermore, the court emphasized that since the mark was a family mark jointly owned by legal heirs, no single proprietor could unilaterally transfer rights.
Shri Kirit BhadiadravsWings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent) to introduce a recent trademark registration certificate for 'MEDILICE' into the ongoing litigation. Although the original suit concerned infringement and passing off, the court recognized that the new Class 5 registration could bear on the disputes between the parties. This order allows the introduction of evidence relating to the mark's expanded scope, while preserving the rights of the appellant.
Pataka Industries Private LimitedvsVerinder Cigrate Store And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pataka Industries against Verinder Cigrate Store. The court granted exemptions from advance service, filing certified copies, and mandatory pre-institution mediation, allowing the case to proceed swiftly. Crucially, the court permitted a Local Commissioner to execute a commission to seize stock bearing similar marks ('S02 PATAKHA') to the Plaintiff's registered trademark '502 PATAKA', signaling strong judicial support for immediate injunctive relief.
Roxtec Ab & AnrvsSukant Chakravarty & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Roxtec Ab & Anr seeking permission to file rectification petitions against registered trademarks, which the defendants argued were monopolizing common industry terms. The court examined the claims related to a 'Bulls Eye' device mark and the slogan 'We Seal Your World'. While addressing the scope of trademark rights, the Court ultimately disposed of the application but framed an issue regarding whether Roxtec India Private Limited (Plaintiff No. 2) was a necessary party in the ongoing suit.
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.