Short Summary
ITC Ltd appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark regarding its patent application for an 'Electronic Aerosol Generating Device'. ITC contended that the rejection was based on technical materials not provided to them, violating principles of natural justice. Given this procedural lapse, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the original rejection and remanding the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.
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 Calcutta High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in ITC Ltd vs The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Docbel Industries & Anr.vsBraun Aktiengesellschaft
The Delhi High Court disposed of the dispute between Docbel Industries and Braun Aktiengesellschaft based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court accepted the compromise, which involved the formal assignment of Trademark registration no. 405367 (the mark BRAUN) from Appellant No. 2 to the Respondent. Furthermore, the parties agreed to the handover of all related documents and financial considerations, effectively resolving the underlying litigation.
M/S.D.R.Raanka Bros.vsMr.Om Prakash
The Madras High Court dismissed the trademark infringement suit filed by M/S.D.R.Raanka Bros against Mr. Om Prakash. The court found that despite both parties operating in the silver jewelry trade, the defendant's use of 'D.R.R.' alongside descriptive words ('Shri Mahalakshmi Velli Maligai') did not constitute infringement or passing off of the plaintiff's registered marks like 'D.R.RAANKA'. The judgment emphasized that a marked difference in trading style prevents consumer confusion.
Vifor (International) LtdvsHetero Healthcare Limited
Vifor (International) Ltd filed a suit against Hetero Healthcare Limited concerning an impugned product. The Defendants stated they would not launch the product until the expiry of the suit patent. Based on this statement, the court decreed the suit in favour of Vifor.
Smithkline Beecham LimitedvsGskfinancial.Com & Ors.
In this Delhi High Court order, Smithkline Beecham Limited sought relief against rogue websites operating under similar domains like gskfinancial.com. The plaintiff alleged that these sites were fraudulently collecting money from the public while incorporating its corporate identity and trademarks (GSK). The court issued extensive interim directions, including permanent injunctions against trademark infringement, restraints on domain name registration, and specific orders to block access to fraudulent websites and freeze associated bank accounts.
Astrazeneca AbvsP Kumar & Anr
Astrazeneca filed suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for marketing generic versions of TICAGRELOR, claiming infringement of three Indian Patents (IN 907, IN 984, IN 674). The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff could secure an interim injunction while the patents faced credible challenges to their validity. The court ultimately found that since the defendants raised strong questions rendering the patent vulnerable, the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction.
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.