Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd v. Carl Freudenberg Kg & Anr.

C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2026, I.A. 3579/2026, I.A. 3580/2026, I.A. 3581/2026, I.A. 3582/2026 & I.A. 3583/2026

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking the revocation and removal of Indian Patent no. IN541962 from the Register of Patents. The court noted that a related suit was pending before another judge and directed the matter to be listed before that same bench.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2026, I.A. 3579/2026, I.A. 3580/2026, I.A. 3581/2026, I.A. 3582/2026 & I.A. 3583/2026
Judge(s)
Tushar Rao Gedela

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 Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd vs Carl Freudenberg Kg & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 19/2025

Grasim Industries Limited & Anr.vsMridula Kumari Trading As M/S Superior Birla Rock And Co.

Grasim Industries Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Mridula Kumari Trading As M/S Superior Birla Rock And Co. The parties reached an amicable agreement where the defendant formally recognized the plaintiffs' exclusive proprietary rights in trademarks like BIRLA and BIRLA WHITE, trade dress, and packaging. Crucially, the settlement mandates that the defendant cease using any confusingly similar marks or trade names, change her business name, and refrain from online misuse of the protected brands. The court decreed the suit based on these comprehensive settlement terms.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 202/2022

Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (Uab) Baltijos Mineraliniu Vandenu KompanijavsMr. Sahil Tandon Trading As A And Z Exports International & Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (UAB) against Mr. Sahil Tandon, leading to the cancellation of a registered trademark for 'TICHE' in Class 32. The court found that UAB was the prior and legitimate adopter of the mark since 1998, citing extensive international use and evidence of trans-border reputation spilling over into India. The judgment underscores the importance of proving prior usage and bona fide adoption when challenging a trademark registration.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 268/2023 & 269/2023

Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.vsMr. Vijay Keshav Wagh And Anr.

In a dispute over trademark rights, Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. sought to cancel registrations held by Mr. Vijay Keshav Wagh concerning the 'TIGER' device logo. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the near identity between the marks used by both parties and issued an interim order. The court directed that status quo be maintained regarding the registration, preventing any transfer or assignment of the disputed trademarks until further hearing.

patentCS(COMM) 692/2021; CS(COMM) 707/2021; I.A. 21997/2022; I.A. 41356/2024; I.A. 41357/2024; I.A. 41358/2024; I.A. 41359/2024

Interdigital Technology CorporationvsGuangdong Oppo Mobile

The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 158/2024, I.A. 36142/2024-Stay, I.A. 36143/2024-Summon the complete record of impugned registered trademark.

Dunar Foods LimitedvsAnkit Vats Trading As Avjk Foods Llp & Anr.

Dunar Foods Limited initiated proceedings seeking the cancellation of the registered trademark 'Nawazish' through a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court issued notice to all parties and set forth detailed timelines for filing replies and written synopses. This order marks a procedural step in the ongoing litigation aimed at challenging the validity of the registered mark.

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