Short Summary
The Commercial IPR Suit between Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Jeetu Shivlani was settled out of court. The parties executed Consent Terms on the date of judgment, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit.
Detailed Summary
This matter relates to a Patent dispute in Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Jeetu Shivlani (Case No: P150107081) before the Bombay High Court decided on 2023-07-12.
The Commercial IPR Suit between Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Jeetu Shivlani was settled out of court. The parties executed Consent Terms on the date of judgment, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit.
The court issued its ruling in accordance with statutory intellectual property guidelines and applicable legal principles, directing procedural or substantive relief based on the record presented.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs Jeetu Shivlani is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rayner Surgical Ireland Limited (formerly Omeros Corporation)vsThe Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant (Rayner Surgical Ireland Limited/Omeros Corporation) filed an appeal challenging the order dated January 31, 2020, which refused its patent application for 'STABLE PRESERVATIVE-FREE MYDRIATIC AND ANTI-INFLAMMATORY SOLUTIONS FOR INJECTION'. The court also addressed applications regarding exemption from fees and condonation of delay.
Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd.vsSachdeva And Sons Industres Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted rectification in favor of the petitioner, Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd., regarding the disputed trademark 'PRIME'. The court found that the respondent's registration for 'PRIME' should be limited to rice and allied goods, specifically deleting salt and spices from its scope. This decision was based on the petitioner's long-standing use of the mark in Class 30 (iodized salt) since 1995, establishing prior goodwill and preventing consumer confusion.
Sardar Jaswant SinghvsM/S. Daya Industries And Another
Sardar Jaswant Singh appealed against the dismissal of his application (IA 1188/91) filed to set aside an earlier order where the design registration was cancelled by M/s. Daya Industries. The cancellation petition argued that the design for heat convectors was not new or original and had prior publication. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for his prolonged absence.
Krbl LimitedvsShailendra Chaturvedi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal in Krbl Limited vs Shailendra Chaturvedi & Anr., resolving a dispute over the scope of the trademark 'DOON MEMORIES'. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to amend the registration (TM No. 421683) to restrict the goods exclusively to bakery products, based on an undertaking given by Respondent No. 1. This decision effectively narrowed the scope of the mark's use, provided the respondent adheres strictly to the agreed-upon limitations.
Nadeem Majid OomerbhoyvsSh. Gautam Tank And Ors.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against Defendants for infringing the registered Trade Mark 'POSTMAN', used for refined groundnut oil. The Plaintiffs contended that despite a temporary discontinuation, they had not abandoned the mark and it held substantial goodwill. While some issues were decided in favor of the Plaintiffs (including granting an injunction), the court recalled its previous pronouncement and directed the suit to remain pending for further determination on damages.
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.