Meenu (Trading As M/S Albro Industries) v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 32/2023, I.A. 20328/2023, 20329/2023

The Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications filed by Meenu (M/S Albro Industries) in an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' order. The court condoned a 11-day delay in filing the Memorandum of Appeal and allowed the appellant exemption from submitting original documents. The core dispute, concerning whether a counter statement was properly served during opposition proceedings for the 'AIRODO' trademark, has been listed before the Joint Registrar to complete service, setting the stage for further litigation.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 32/2023, I.A. 20328/2023, 20329/2023
Judge(s)
Sanjeev Narula

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 Meenu (Trading As M/S Albro Industries) vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patent(T) CMA (PT) No.126 of 2023

Imclone LLCvsAssistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Imclone LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for an antibody targeting PDGFR alpha, which was rejected under Section 3(c) as being a naturally existing substance. The appellant argued that the antibody was generated through complex hybridoma and transgenic mouse technology, making it recombinant and non-naturally occurring. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the claimed invention was not excluded from patent protection.

patentCS(COMM) 119/2020

Ht Media Limited & Anr.vsBrainlink International, Inc. & Anr.

In a dispute concerning the domain name www.hindustan.com, the Delhi High Court facilitated a settlement between Ht Media Limited and Brainlink International. The court suggested that if the defendants agree to pay an agreed lump sum in costs, they will withdraw all oppositions filed against the plaintiff's trademarks and also drop their suit in the USA. This arrangement aims to bring a definitive end to the ongoing disputes between both parties.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 667/2022 and connected matters

M/S P.M. Diesels P. Ltd.vsM/S Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.

In a complex 40-year dispute over the 'FIELDMARSHAL' trademark, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd. The court set aside previous orders from the IPAB that had rejected P.M. Diesels' applications and cancelled a key registration held by Thukral Mechanical Works. This landmark decision allows P.M. Diesels to proceed with registering its mark, effectively resolving a long-standing conflict over brand ownership in the diesel engine sector.

patent2023:BHC-AS:33381 (WP No. 13127 of 2023)

Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd.vsSardesai Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd.

This case before the Bombay High Court addressed a challenge regarding the jurisdiction of a specific court after the transfer of civil suits. The petitioner argued that since the suit involved intellectual property (trademarks) and was valued at Rs. 10,00,000/-, it should fall under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, the Court ruled that because the valuation fell below the minimum threshold prescribed by the notification under the Act, the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act were inapplicable. Consequently, the jurisdiction rested with the District Judge-1 as per the Trademarks Act, 1958.

patentINTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 28667 OF 2025 / COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 28094 OF 2025

Marico LimitedvsMinolta Natural Care

The Bombay High Court addressed an interim application in a commercial IP suit filed by Marico Limited against Minolta Natural Care. The court noted that the plaintiff had presented a strong prima facie case for infringement covering trademark, copyright, design, and artistic work based on rival products. While the defendant sought time to explore an amicable settlement, the court granted a short adjournment but made it clear that if no resolution is reached by the next date, the interim application will proceed to final hearing.

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