M/S Shree Seco Pvt Ltd v. Union of India And Anr

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 18103 / 2016

The Rajasthan High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S Shree Seco Pvt Ltd seeking mandamus for the renewal of its Trade Mark Registration No. 721240. The court did not grant the renewal directly but issued a specific direction to the Registrar of Trademark (Respondent No. 2). This order mandates that the Registrar must decide on the pending renewal application within three months, providing a clear timeline and procedural path for the petitioner.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Case Number
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 18103 / 2016
Judge(s)
M.N. Bhandari

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/S Shree Seco Pvt Ltd vs Union of India And Anr is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS (COMM) 416/2022

Tube Investments Of India LimitedvsM/S Jagdamba Enterprises & Ors.

Tube Investments Of India Limited successfully moved the Delhi High Court to protect its 'DIAMOND' trademark against widespread counterfeiting in the automotive parts market. The court recognized the extensive goodwill associated with the mark and the clear evidence of infringement presented by the plaintiff, including discrepancies found via QR codes and packaging differences. Consequently, the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction and appointed Local Commissioners to conduct seizures and verification across various premises.

patent(T)OP(TM).No.486 of 2023

M/s.Swagath Motels Private LimitedvsM/s.Hotel Swagath; Registrar of Trademarks

M/s.Swagath Motels Private Limited filed an Original Petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'Hotel Swagath' registered in M/s.Hotel Swagath, citing concerns over register purity. However, on August 8, 2023, the Madras High Court noted that the dispute between the contesting private parties had been resolved amicably. Consequently, the court closed (T)OP(TM) No.486 of 2023 without passing any formal order regarding costs.

patent(T)CMP(PT)/3/2023; (T)CMA(PT)/SR.162/2023; (OA/SR.34/2021/PT/CHN

M/s. Mukesh Kumar VidyarthivsM/s.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs

M/s. Mukesh Kumar Vidyarthi filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition and an Appeal before the Madras High Court challenging orders related to patent matters. The petitioner sought condonation of delay and relief regarding the impugned order dated December 12, 2019. The court dismissed the TCMP(PT)/3/2023, consequently dismissing the appeal at the SR stage.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 16/2024, I.A. 2798/2024, I.A. 2799/2024

Pernod Ricard India Private LimitedvsAdvent Brand House Private Limited & Ors.

The Delhi High Court issued an order in the ongoing trademark dispute between Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and Advent Brand House Private Limited. Noting that certain respondents were unserved despite previous attempts, the court directed the issuance of fresh notices to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner was also instructed to serve the Trade Mark Attorney who represented Respondent No. 1 in the registration process. This procedural step ensures all parties are properly notified before further proceedings continue.

patentCS(COMM) 246/2024, I.A. 6537/2024, I.A. 6538/2024, I.A. 6539/2024 & I.A. 6540/2024

Mankind Pharma LimitedvsPassiflora Pharmaceuticals

Mankind Pharma Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Passiflora Pharmaceuticals, alleging trademark infringement of its registered mark 'FLORA' in the pharmaceutical sector. The court addressed several interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and setting timelines for filing replies to the injunction application (Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC). The proceedings are moving forward with standard civil procedure steps, indicating an active dispute over brand reputation and market goodwill.

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