Short Summary
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in a trademark infringement suit filed by Fitflop Limited against Urban Shore Wholesale India Private Limited. While directing the Defendant to immediately cease all use of the 'FITFLOP' mark, the court allowed the continued existence of current stock. A Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect and segregate the existing inventory at the Goa warehouse to determine which products are genuine and which may be unauthorized, paving the way for future valuation and dispute resolution.
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 Fitflop Limited vs Urban Shore Wholesale India Private Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Colgate-Palmolive CompanyvsAssistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Colgate-Palmolive Company appealed the refusal of its national phase patent application (4411/DELNP/2007) for 'An Oral Composition'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). However, due to the Appellant's failure to appear despite repeated notices, the court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries LimitedvsGlenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Bombay High Court framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' bearing registration No.2473300 in class 5, in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The court ordered the tagging of Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 797 of 2022 with the Suit and listed it for directions. The case is related to a pharmaceutical product and involves a dispute over trademark validity.
Srinivas S. DevathivsUnion of India
Srinivas S. Devathi challenged the Union of India's refusal to provide a consent letter required under Section 86 of the CPC to initiate legal action against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The petitioner alleged that USPTO committed fraud by issuing a fabricated International Search Report (ISR) for his PCT application, thereby jeopardizing his global patent rights. The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the non-speaking order of the Ministry of External Affairs and directing the Union of India to reconsider the matter and issue a reasoned decision within six months.
Bic Cello India Private LimitedvsRamanlal Rughnathmalji Jain
Bic Cello India Private Limited initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking the invalidation of a trademark registration held by Ramanlal Rughnathmalji Jain, specifically concerning the mark 'TRIMORE'. The court accepted the plaintiff's application and issued notice to the defendant. This marks the initial procedural step in challenging the validity of the registered trademark.
Ashok Leyland LimitedvsThe Controller of Patents & Designs
Ashok Leyland Limited challenged the recommendations of the Patent Opposition Board (OBR) regarding its patent IN387429, alleging that the OBR failed to consider the expert evidence submitted by both parties. The petitioner sought quashing of the OBR and reconstitution of a fresh Opposition Board. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the OBR is merely recommendatory and the Controller retains the duty to make an independent decision.
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.