M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Pyromaitre INC. Thr Its Authorized Rep

Nokia Technologies OyvsGuangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd

Nokia appealed a single judge's order that dismissed its application for a pro-tem security deposit related to Nokia's Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). Nokia argued that infringement was prima facie established, and the balance of convenience favored granting interim relief. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.

Dayco Ip Holdings LlcvsMago Gurupriit S, Prop. Jay Kay International

The Bombay High Court addressed a Notice of Motion concerning the non-compliance by the defendant with specific terms outlined in prior Consent Terms. The court directed the defendant, Mago Gurupriit S., to adhere strictly to the agreed-upon obligations, which included destroying all infringing goods and packaging bearing the plaintiff's marks, as well as unconditionally canceling his relevant trademark registration (No. 3082945). This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to court-mandated settlement terms in IP disputes.

Novozymes A/SvsAssistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office

Novozymes A/S appealed against the rejection of its Patent Application No.650/CHENP/2009, which covered 'Enzyme Granules for Animal Feed'. The initial objections raised by the Assistant Controller included lack of inventive step and non-patent eligibility under Section 3(d).

Glaxo Group LimitedvsQpharm Health Care Limited And Anr

The Delhi High Court addressed multiple issues in the ongoing dispute between Glaxo Group Limited and Qpharm Health Care Limited. The court allowed a petition seeking the transfer and consolidation of trademark rectification proceedings against 'BETNOTREAT' into the main infringement suit, recognizing the interconnected nature of the disputes. Furthermore, after hearing arguments regarding trade dress similarity, the parties were referred to mediation, indicating a potential path toward settlement.

M/S Loreal S.A.vsRavi Gandhi & Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Loreal S.A., setting aside a lower court order that had permitted respondents to use the trademark 'MABELLE' as part of their corporate name and business communications. The Court clarified that while Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, addresses trade names, the unauthorized use of a registered mark in this manner still constitutes infringement under other sections, specifically Section 29(6)(d). This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to registered trademarks against deceptive similarity and commercial exploitation.