Future Bath Products Private Limited v. Corza International & Ors.

CS(COMM) 461/2020 & I.A. 25635/2023

This Delhi High Court order addresses an application filed by Corza International challenging the validity of Future Bath Products' trademark 'CORSA'. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to use the mark for goods in Class 11, citing Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. The court issued notice and set timelines for both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders before proceeding with the matter.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 461/2020 & I.A. 25635/2023
Judge(s)
Sanjeev Narula

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 Future Bath Products Private Limited vs Corza International & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCivil Suit (Comm. Div.) No.130 of 2019

M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private LimitedvsM/s.ALAMELU MANGA OIL COMPANY

M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.ALAMELU MANGA OIL COMPANY alleging infringement of its registered copyright (A-68242/2005) and trademark ('Gold Winner'). The plaintiff claimed the defendant was using deceptively similar trade dress, color scheme, and get up with the mark 'SUN F GOLD' on packing material for refined sunflower oil. Although the suit sought permanent injunctions and accounts of profits, the parties ultimately entered into a compromise.

patent2023:MHC:3729 (T)CMA(TM)/11/2023

M/s.Digital Securities Pvt. Ltd.vsThe Registrar of Trademarks & M/s.Kwality Ice Creams

The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging an order that allowed the review of a trademark registration application previously treated as abandoned for want of prosecution. The court found that while the original abandonment was based on discretion, the subsequent procedural history and lack of substantive adjudication warranted intervention. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to proceed with the application after granting both the appellant and respondent a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

patentW.P.(CRL) 1505/2021 & CRL.M.As. 12645/2021 & 811/2022

Mrs XvsUnion Of India And Ors

This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a writ petition filed by 'Mrs. X' seeking the removal of her non-consensual intimate images (NCII) from various online platforms. The case details how Mrs. X was victimized after being coerced into paying money, leading to the leakage of explicit photos and videos on pornographic websites. Despite complaints to social media giants like Google and Microsoft, the content remained online. The Court emphasized the need for robust mechanisms to protect victims' privacy and dignity in a patriarchal society. While acknowledging existing legal frameworks under the IT Act, the judgment highlighted the reluctance of intermediaries in implementing these laws effectively. The court issued directions urging all concerned entities to comply with the stipulated provisions.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 59/2022 & CS(COMM) 1443/2016

M/S. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt Ltd.vsThe Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors.

The long-standing dispute between Goodricke Group Limited and M/S. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt Ltd. regarding the use of the 'SUPER CUP' mark was amicably resolved by both parties. After multiple rounds in the Delhi High Court, including appeals to the IPAB and Supreme Court, the parties entered into a Co-Existence Agreement. Under this settlement, Girnar agreed to use 'Girnar Super Cup' for tea and other allied products, while Goodricke withdrew its suit and opposition claims. The court formally dismissed both the appeal and the original suit as withdrawn.

patentCS(COMM) 539/2023, I.As. 14723/2023, 20813/2023, 20814/2023, 20815/2023 & 23192/2023

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private LimitedvsSauss Home Products Private Limited

This Delhi High Court order addresses a complex trademark dispute between Reckitt Benckiser and Sauss Home Products concerning the 'Robin Bird' device mark. The core issue revolves around establishing who is the prior adopter or owner of the distinctive mark and artistic work used on their respective products. The court has directed both parties to file comprehensive evidence, including marketing materials and advertisements, to substantiate their claims of priority. Furthermore, several applications regarding territorial jurisdiction, stays, and cancellation petitions are pending, indicating a multi-faceted legal battle.

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