Short Summary
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited through a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court mandated that the defendants clear all existing stock of the disputed drugs within 90 days, ensuring no further sales under the impugned mark. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 committed to withdrawing several trademark applications and initiating the cancellation of the core registration (No. 5054226) within four weeks.
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 Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Mr. Ravi Raj Khanna And Anr.vsMr. Lalit Gupta And Anr.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction for passing off and infringement of their designer furniture. The defendants challenged the interim orders by arguing that the plaintiff's designs were already in public domain prior to registration, thus defeating protection under the Designs Act, 2000.
Raghuvar (India) LimitedvsThe Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Raghuvar (India) Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks' decision regarding its opposition to the 'JAI HANUMAN' trademark. Although the appellant argued that their predecessor had prior, pan-India use and that a crucial assignment deed was ignored, the court ultimately found no infirmity in the original order. The rejection hinged on the lack of evidence demonstrating the appellant's actual use of the mark within South India, thereby upholding the Registrar's decision to restrict the scope of the new registration.
Marelli Europe S.P.A.vsThe Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Marelli Europe S.P.A. filed an appeal challenging the Deputy Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 495/DEL/2013). The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patents Act, 1999. The court issued directions for notice and filing of replies.
M/s.Hi Tech Chemicals LimitedvsDeputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Intellectual Property Office
Hi Tech Chemicals Limited challenged the Deputy Controller's rejection of its post-grant opposition against Patent No. 311984, which covered an anti-stick coating. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order because it failed to provide reasons for rejecting material grounds of opposition. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by a different officer.
Tintometer India Pvt.LtdvsM/s Wensar Weighing Scales Limited
The Madras High Court partially decreed the suit filed by Tintometer India Pvt.Ltd against M/s Wensar Weighing Scales Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using or passing off the identical mark 'TINTOMETER' in relation to colorimeter products, and ordered the surrender of infringing materials for destruction. While rejecting the claim for specific damages, the court passed a preliminary decree compelling the defendants to render true accounts of profits made through the use of the disputed trademark.
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.