Kenvue Brands Llc & Anr v. Rspl Limited

CS(COMM) 1363/2025, I.A. 31845/2025

The court addressed a counter claim filed by Rspl Limited seeking revocation of Indian Patent IN 339964, titled 'Absorbent Article Demonstrating Controlled Deformation And Longitudinal Fluid Distribution'. Additionally, an application was filed for staying the said patent.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 1363/2025, I.A. 31845/2025
Judge(s)
Tushar Rao Gedela

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 Kenvue Brands Llc & Anr vs Rspl Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS (COMM) 168/2020 & I.A. No. 4405/2020

Ds Confectionery Products LtdvsChetan Gupta

In a trademark infringement suit concerning confectionery products, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('PLUSS+') and trade dress for their fruit candies, causing consumer confusion with the registered 'PULSE' brand. Citing a prima facie case and balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendant from continuing the infringing activities until further hearing.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 480/2022

Sony Group CorporationvsAssistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Sony Group Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (4334/DELNP/2013) on the grounds that subsequent amendments were beyond the scope of as filed claims. The Controller rejected the application because the amended claims corresponded to an EP divisional application rather than the main European Patent application. The High Court set aside this rejection, finding that the amendments merely limited the scope and were supported by the specification.

patent(T)CMA(TM)/57/2023

Lupin LimitedvsTablets (India) Limited

The Madras High Court set aside an earlier rejection order in favor of Lupin Limited, allowing its appeal against the registration of the mark 'CEFTRIL'. The court found that the Registrar's conclusion—that Lupin did not use its prior mark 'CEFF'—was erroneous and contradicted the evidence presented. Furthermore, given the 1st respondent's willingness to seek cancellation, the High Court directed the removal of the disputed trade mark from the register.

patentC.S.No.39 of 2016

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd.vsM/S.Himachal Milk Food Products

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/S.Himachal Milk Food Products alleging infringement of its trademarks and copyrights, specifically concerning the use of similar containers and labels on dairy products like Ghee. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for passing off. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiff moved to withdraw the suit, which was subsequently granted by the Madras High Court.

patentCS(COMM) 126/2024

Oikos S.P.A.vsOikos India Pvt Ltd & Anr.

In a dispute over the use of the 'OIKOS' brand, Oikos S.P.A. filed suit against Oikos India Pvt Ltd alleging trademark infringement after its business relationship was terminated. The Defendants contested the claim, challenging the Plaintiff's ownership rights and citing an existing written agreement allowing stock sales. The Delhi High Court addressed the interim injunction application by appointing a Local Commissioner to conduct a thorough inspection of the Defendant's premises, specifically to determine if the infringing products were made from materials supplied by the Plaintiff.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call