Short Summary
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Ganesh Grains Ltd., leading to the removal of the 'GANESH HARA MATAR' trademark registered by Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s long-standing and well-established 'GANESH' brand, which has been in use since 1936. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to provide evidence of actual user of the mark, leading the Court to cancel the registration under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
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. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ganesh Grains Ltd. vs Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Glaxo Group LimitedvsVisuteq Lifesciences Private Limited and Anr.
Glaxo Group Limited, the proprietor of the trademark ZENTEL, sued Visuteq Lifesciences Private Limited and another party for trademark infringement and passing off arising from the Defendant's use of the mark ZENTEQ GEL. During the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and recorded settlement terms before the Delhi High Court. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff against Defendant No. 1 in terms of the settlement, with the Plaintiff foregoing its claims for damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, and legal costs.
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd.vsDeputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Panasonic Intellectual Property appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its patent application for a 'Washing Machine' due to lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked detailed reasoning and cited foreign grants. The High Court found that the impugned order merely extracted prior art without engaging with the appellant's submissions, thus lacking reasons.
Winthrop Products Inc.vsEupharma Laboratories Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought an injunction against defendants for infringing their registered trade mark, PANADOL, and passing off. The court found that the plaintiffs were the rightful proprietors of the trade mark and that the defendants lacked any vested right to use the name. Consequently, the defendants were prevented from using or passing off the trade mark.
Master Arnesh ShawvsUnion Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring rare disease medicines on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications filed in India concerning DMD patients.
Neeraj JainvsController General Of Patents, Designs and Trademark & Anr.
Neeraj Jain challenged the rejection of his design application (No. 393302-001), which was deemed abandoned due to a delay in filing the Power of Attorney (POA) and subsequent reply to the FER. The Controller had rejected the application because the response was filed beyond the stipulated six-month period. The Delhi High Court, recognizing a bona fide mistake by the petitioner's agent, intervened.
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.