Short Summary
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit filed by Kamla Kant & Company LLP against Sanjay Gupta & Anr. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of similar marks ('RAJ', 'KG') for tobacco and allied products, infringing upon the Plaintiff's established trademarks 'RAJSHREE' and 'KP'. Through a settlement agreement, the court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from using confusingly similar marks while allowing them to use 'KANTHA RAJA' under strict conditions. The parties also agreed on financial compensation and the destruction of infringing materials.
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 Kamla Kant And Company Llp vs Sanjay Gupta & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Nripendra KashyapvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Nripendra Kashyap filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order by The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. However, the appellant subsequently instructed his counsel to withdraw the appeal.
M/S. Mankind Pharma Ltd.vsM/S. Mascot Drugs Pvt. Ltd.
Mankind Pharma Ltd. filed a suit against Mascot Drugs Pvt. Ltd. alleging infringement and passing off concerning their registered trademarks OMIDON and EMEDOM in pharmaceutical preparations. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'OMEDO' to confuse consumers and erode goodwill. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting an injunction and damages.
Rusan Pharma LtdvsAumgen Pharma Llp & Ors
The case involved a settlement agreement between RUSAN PHARMA LTD and AUMGEN PHARMA LLP regarding patent infringement. The defendants agreed not to engage in activities infringing the plaintiff's patent.
M/s.Proklean Technologies P. Ltd.vsM/s.Godrej Consumer Products Ltd
The Madras High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions against trademark infringement and passing off concerning the mark 'ProKlean' versus 'ProClean'. While acknowledging the applicant's registered marks, the court found that the balance of convenience tilted against granting an immediate injunction due to the respondent's significant turnover. Consequently, the applications were disposed of without granting the requested restraint, but the respondent was mandated to submit quarterly accounts of sales and profits related to the disputed mark.
M/S Tej Ram Dharam Paul & Anr.vsM/S Om Shiva Products Inc & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants regarding trademark and copyright infringement. The court found that the Defendants' marks, 'ICE FEEL' and 'LIPLOCK', were deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' registered trade dress and word marks, 'COOL LIP'. Despite jurisdictional challenges raised by the Defendants, the Court held that the Plaintiffs had established a strong prima facie case based on prior use and substantial similarity. The injunction restricts the Defendants from manufacturing or selling products under these impugned marks.
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.