Short Summary
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Raghu Ram Guda against Kithuru Mohideen and the Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner sought to cancel Trademark No. 3952456 in Class 2. However, the court noted that the petitioner had subsequently been brought on record as the proprietor of the trademark, rendering the original petition unnecessary and moot.
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 Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Raghu Ram Guda vs Kithuru Mohideen is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Novo Nordisk AsvsDr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN'697) covering Semaglutide, a GLP-1 analogue used for diabetes and obesity. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from importing or dealing in the compound. The Court ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of relief.
Royal Coffee WorksvsThe Registrar Of Trademarks; Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Limited
Royal Coffee Works challenged the delay in processing its trademark application before the Registrar of Trademarks, which was opposed by Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Limited regarding the use of 'tea' in the product description. The Kerala High Court addressed the petitioner's grievance concerning procedural delays. The court directed the Registrar to expedite the matter and pass appropriate orders on both the original trademark application and the opposition within a three-month timeframe.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd.vsAkums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited through a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court mandated that the defendants clear all existing stock of the disputed drugs within 90 days, ensuring no further sales under the impugned mark. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 committed to withdrawing several trademark applications and initiating the cancellation of the core registration (No. 5054226) within four weeks.
Saint Gobain Abrasives IncvsController Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting their patent application, which cited three pieces of prior art (D1, D2, D3) as making the invention obvious. The court found that the impugned order failed to provide a useful analysis of how the combination of prior arts led to the conclusion of obviousness. Furthermore, the court noted the rejection of amendments lacked proper discussion.
Panoptis Patent Management LlcvsGuangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panoptis Patent Management LLC filed a suit against Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., asserting infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including those seeking leave to amend claims and file documents, while directing the parties to proceed with pleadings and listing for injunction hearing.
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.