Short Summary
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Impresario Entertainment, who holds a registered trademark for 'SOCIAL' used across various hospitality services. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in their favor, noting the defendant's prior withdrawal of its own application due to concerns over deceptive similarity. This interim order immediately restrains the defendant from using marks similar to 'SOCIAL', including variations like 'SOCIAL KITCHEN'.
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 - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Pvt Ltd vs M/S. Social Kitchen Through Its Proprietor is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd.vsSanjay Dalia & Anr.
This Supreme Court judgment addressed complex issues surrounding territorial jurisdiction in IP litigation, specifically interpreting Sections 62 of the Copyright Act and 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The core dispute centered on whether a plaintiff could file an infringement suit where they carried on business, even if the cause of action arose elsewhere. The Court ruled that while a plaintiff can sue where they operate, if the cause of action also arises at that location, they must file there.
Fibrocell Technologies Inc.vsController Of Patents
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. appealed an impugned order dated February 19, 2019, passed by the Controller of Patents which denied its application (No. 10246/DELNP/2012). The appellant argued that the denial was based on new grounds (lack of enablement) and non-speaking reasons, violating natural justice.
M/S. Tvs Motor Company LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for "Vehicle Frame Assembly" on grounds including lack of inventive step, exclusion under Section 3(f), and formal requirements. The appellant argued that the rejection failed to follow a proper five-step analysis when assessing obviousness against cited prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for reconsideration.
R.V.Vinoth KumarvsM/s.Kallal Hospitalities Private Limited; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court intervened in a trademark dispute concerning 'MANJAL RESTAURANT' by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to expedite proceedings. The petitioner, R.V.Vinoth Kumar, sought judicial intervention due to the prolonged delay in disposing of Opposition No.1350081 and Trade Mark Application No.5982440. The Court allowed the writ petition, mandating that the Registrar dispose of both matters within three months from the date of the order.
Kerry Ingredients India Pvt. Ltd.vsMr. Navanath Ambre
Kerry Ingredients India Pvt. Ltd. filed appeals challenging the trial court's refusal to grant various ex-parte reliefs, including an interim injunction, appointment of a receiver, and disclosure of sensitive information from former employees (the respondents). The plaintiff alleged that these defendants had divulged confidential company data, client lists, and manufacturing processes after resigning. However, the Gujarat High Court dismissed all appeals, holding that the trial court committed no procedural or jurisdictional error in denying these urgent ex-parte orders.
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.