Short Summary
M/S Applesoft filed a Regular First Appeal challenging a trial court judgment that dismissed its suit seeking permanent injunction and damages. The plaintiff claimed breach of an implied contract by Defendant No. 1 (C-DAC) related to free distribution of Tamil language software. The High Court upheld the dismissal, primarily finding that the Bengaluru Civil Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over the dispute.
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 Karnataka High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/S Applesoft vs The Director General, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing & The Director, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing & The Secretary to Government, Department of Information Technology is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd.vsShri Ajanta Fabrics And 9 Others
The petitioner filed an IP suit against the respondents alleging infringement and passing off related to their registered trademarks ('Meena Prints' and 'Cotton Design') and associated copyrights used in textile goods. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using similar marks and ordered them to pay damages.
Huawei Technologies Co., LtdvsThe Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947029757) by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the objections raised in the Second Examination Report were effectively addressed through amendments, and the rejection was based on procedural grounds rather than merits. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Dabur India LimitedvsMs Usha Proprietor Of Rs Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Dabur India Limited's cancellation petition against a similar mark registered by Ms. Usha Proprietor Of Rs Industries. The court found that the impugned mark was confusingly and deceptively similar to Dabur's well-known trademark 'DABUR,' particularly given that both parties operate in the identical Class 3 goods (detergents, soaps, etc.). Citing prior use and established goodwill, the High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the infringing registration.
Mold Tek Packaging LimitedvsPronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.
Mold Tek Packaging Limited challenged a Commercial Court order that had vacated an ad-interim injunction restraining Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. from manufacturing and selling products infringing Mold Tek's patents (IN 4014173 and IN 2987244). The suit patents relate to tamper-evident lid closure systems used for food containers. The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Commercial Court had erred in its application of legal principles regarding infringement. Consequently, the original injunction was restored to remain in operation pending a fresh consideration by the lower court.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd.vsM/S Martin And Brown Biosciences & Ors.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. filed a Rectification Petition against M/S Martin And Brown Biosciences & Ors., seeking the removal or cancellation of the trademark registration 'SOMI-MB' (No. 5982177) in Class 5, arguing that it is confusingly similar to their existing mark 'SUMO'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents and set timelines for filing written synopses and replies, indicating that the matter will proceed through formal litigation.
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.