Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v. Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd

CS(COMM) 940/2024

Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd for infringing Indian Patent No. 394568, which covers a specific suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. Although the defendant conceded to the grant of permanent injunction, the court also directed notice to an e-commerce website (AgriBegri) regarding the listing of the infringing product 'DYNA' to investigate commercial sales.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 940/2024
Judge(s)
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

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 Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd vs Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentWPA 18180 of 2024

Kanishk SinhavsThe Union Of India and Others

The writ petition challenged an administrative order denying the petitioner access to EV registration linkage data. The petitioner claimed this data was necessary to track sales and claim royalties under his patent related to electric car mechanisms. The court disposed of the petition, stating it had not expressed an opinion on the merits of the petitioner's rights and directing parties to pursue remedies in the appropriate forum.

patentFAO(OS)(COMM) 144/2021 & CM APPL. 40965/2021 (and related appeals)

Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd And AnrvsJumeirah Beach Resort Llc

The Delhi High Court disposed of cross-appeals between Designarch Consultants and Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The settlement mandates that Designarch must cease using certain 'BURJ' formative marks (other than BURJNOIDA) and refrain from designing buildings resembling Jumeirah’s pictorial references. In return, Jumeirah agrees to withdraw several cancellation petitions filed against Designarch's trademarks, while Designarch acknowledges Jumeirah's ownership of its key brands.

patentC.R.P.No.3534 of 2022

M/s. Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Private LimitedvsM/s. Narasu'S Saarathy Enterprises Private limited

This Civil Revision Petition challenged an order by the Commercial District Court, Salem, which allowed the respondent to file a written statement beyond the statutory limit. The petitioner argued that since the suit was filed under the Trademarks Act and designated as commercial, the limitation period should not apply. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding that because the specified value of the suit was less than Rs. 3 lakhs, the Commercial Courts Act did not grant jurisdiction to the court in the first place. Consequently, the Trial Court's decision to accept the written statement was upheld on the ground of lack of commercial jurisdiction.

patent(T)OP(TM)/89 to 94/2023 (ORA/135 to 137/2013/TM/CHN)

The Hyderabad Public SchoolvsHyderabad Public School Pvt. Ltd.

In a significant decision regarding trademark rights, the Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by The Hyderabad Public School. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the mark registered by Hyderabad Public School Pvt. Ltd., following the latter's statement that it had ceased using the mark in India. This ruling clarifies the implications of non-use and voluntary abandonment on trademark registration.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 90/2022

Usha International LimitedvsRegistrar Of Trademarks And Anr.

Usha International Limited filed a petition seeking the removal/cancellation of the mark 'WSHA' from the Trade Marks Register, arguing that it is deceptively similar to their long-standing mark 'USHA'. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and issued notice to the respondents. The matter was subsequently listed for further arguments on April 4, 2022.

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