Short Summary
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Loreal India Pvt Ltd seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'CLARIWASH' registered in favor of Rajesh Kumar Taneja. Loreal argued that its predecessor used formative marks like 'CLARI-FI' and 'CLARIMOIST' prior to the registration, claiming deceptive similarity and prior use. However, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the original judgment, noting that the application was filed over 14 years ago and procedural errors alone were insufficient basis for cancellation.
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 Loreal India Pvt Ltd vs Rajesh Kumar Taneja Trading As Innovative Derma Care and Anr is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Mr.P.RadhakrishnanvsT.V.S.Motor Company Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging that the defendant was infringing his Patent No.182682, which covered a specific four-stroke internal combustion engine technology used in vehicles like the TVS Flame -125cc. The plaintiff subsequently moved to withdraw the suit due to his severe health conditions.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)vsGionee Communication Equipment Co Ltd & Anr
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) filed a patent infringement suit against Gionee Communication Equipment Co Ltd and another seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, importing, selling, or advertising mobile devices incorporating AMR, 3G, and EDGE technologies covered by Ericsson's suit patents. During the pendency of the suit, Ericsson and Defendant No. 2 amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement dated 01.12.2025. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, allowed withdrawal of a connected commercial complaint, and granted the plaintiff a refund of court fees under the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Neeraj GuptavsThe Controller Of Patents And Designs
Neeraj Gupta appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected his patent application for an 'Intravenous Catheter Device.' The rejection was based on objections regarding lack of novelty and inventive step, citing specific prior art. The Appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider detailed submissions and oral arguments, thereby violating natural justice. The Delhi High Court found merit in the appeal, setting aside both the initial rejection order and the subsequent dismissal of the review petition.
Neeraj JainvsController General Of Patents, Designs and Trademark & Anr.
Neeraj Jain challenged the rejection of his design application (No. 393302-001), which was deemed abandoned due to a delay in filing the Power of Attorney (POA) and subsequent reply to the FER. The Controller had rejected the application because the response was filed beyond the stipulated six-month period. The Delhi High Court, recognizing a bona fide mistake by the petitioner's agent, intervened.
Phoola RanivsAnita Kharbanda & Anr.
Phoola Rani filed a petition seeking the cancellation of Respondent No. 1's registered trademark 'PREM DI HATTI' (No. 2543229) in Class 43, arguing that she has been using the mark extensively since 1969 for similar food and restaurant services. The court found that the Petitioner prima facie is an aggrieved party due to the similarity of the marks and business purposes. Consequently, notice was issued to the respondents, and the matter was scheduled for further proceedings.
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.