Short Summary
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in a suit concerning design infringement. The plaintiff, Pramit Sanghavi (representing market leaders in packaged natural mineral water), alleged that the defendant was imitating their registered bottle designs (Nos. 281573 and 311139) for their product "NU". After considering the prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, the Court granted an interim injunction to protect the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.
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 Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Pramit Sanghavi vs Energy Beverages Private Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Brakes InternationalvsTilak Raj Bagga And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging an order by the Trade Marks Registry that had removed a trade mark registration. The core issue revolved around whether the Registrar violated principles of natural justice by proceeding with the assignment without providing notice to the opposing party. The court strongly affirmed the necessity of 'audi alteram partem' (the right to be heard) in quasi-judicial proceedings, holding that the initial order was void for procedural irregularity. However, instead of remitting the matter back to the Registrar, the Court directed the parties to appear before the Registry to determine the next course of action, acknowledging the pending civil suit.
Sachdeva And Sons Industries Private LimitedvsDeputy Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court dismissed two appeals filed by Sachdeva And Sons Industries Private Limited challenging the Deputy Registrar's decision to allow TM-16 applications. These applications permitted the substitution of the trademark applicant's name in pending opposition proceedings, citing that allowing the change would not prejudice the opponents' rights. The court noted the Appellant's lack of appearance and concluded that since the impugned order only related to the name change and did not affect the merits of the final opposition, the appeals were dismissed.
Mahesh GuptavsAssistant 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.
Nandi Infratech P. Ltd.vsHimanshu 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'.
Astrazeneca AbvsUSV Private Limited
AstraZeneca filed a suit for infringement against USV Private Limited regarding the pharmaceutical preparations covered by three patents, including those for 'TICAGRELOR'. The parties subsequently resolved their disputes amicably and filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC to record the settlement.
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.