Short Summary
Kapil Goyal appealed the refusal by The Registrar of Trade Marks to register the mark 'DOUBLE-CHOICE' under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The initial rejection was based on the mark being non-distinctive and descriptive. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the reasoning for deeming the mark descriptive was unfounded, especially since the application was filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis.
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. Understanding the court's reasoning in Kapil Goyal vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Udaykumar Chabidas PatelvsController of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Raghuvar (India) LimitedvsThe Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Raghuvar (India) Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks' decision regarding its opposition to the 'JAI HANUMAN' trademark. Although the appellant argued that their predecessor had prior, pan-India use and that a crucial assignment deed was ignored, the court ultimately found no infirmity in the original order. The rejection hinged on the lack of evidence demonstrating the appellant's actual use of the mark within South India, thereby upholding the Registrar's decision to restrict the scope of the new registration.
Manash Lifestyle Private LimitedvsWella International Operations Switzerland SARL & Anr.
The petitioner, Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of the trademark ULTIME REPAIR registered in favour of Respondent No. 1 in Class 03 under registration No. 5918380. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 17.07.2026, and the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC to take the settlement on record and direct removal of the trademark entry. The Delhi High Court allowed the application, took the settlement on record, and directed Respondent No. 2 to remove the trademark from the Register of Trade Marks within four weeks.
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt Ltd.vsThe Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt Ltd., setting aside an order that had deemed its opposition to a trademark application abandoned. The core issue revolved around whether a communication sent to the Mumbai office, despite being addressed to the Chennai Registry, constituted substantial compliance with the Trade Marks Rules. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that there was sufficient compliance and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
Gsp Crop Science LimitedvsFmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors
Gsp Crop Science Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation and removal of Indian Patent No. 298645 from the Register of Patents. The court heard initial arguments but adjourned the matter to allow counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 time to obtain instructions, noting that the patent is nearing its expiry date.
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.