Short Summary
The Delhi High Court modified a previous order that had dismissed the petitioner's applications for filing additional documents. After arguments, both parties reached a consent agreement allowing M/S Vibhava Marketing Corporation to amend its Written Statement to include details of two preceding trademark registrations ('MONKEY 555 WONDER WASH' and 'MONKEY 555 THUNDER WASH'). This amendment allows the petitioner to argue that their prior rights should dismiss the plaintiff's infringement claim, subject to payment of costs.
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 Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/S Vibhava Marketing Corporation vs Goramal Hari Ram Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Kitec Industries (India) Ltd.vsUnicor Gmbh Rahn Plastmaschinen & Anr.
Kitec Industries filed a suit seeking mandatory and prohibitory injunctions against Unicor Group, alleging breach of an agreement (Hamburg Agreement) regarding the use of Kitec's patent rights for manufacturing Multi-layered Composite Pipes (MLCP). The court dismissed the suit, holding that the Hamburg Agreement barred civil suits in Indian courts due to its arbitration clause.
Dabur India LimitedvsPatanjali Ayurved Limited And Anr.
Dabur India Limited filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, alleging that Patanjali Ayurved Limited disparaged Dabur Chyawanprash and the entire market class through its advertisements (TVC and Print Advertisements) for 'Patanjali Special Chyawanprash'. The court heard interim applications regarding these ads.
Ramji Lal AgarwalvsSourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute over the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' could be heard in a regular civil court or required a Commercial Court. The core issue revolved around classifying the conflict, which arose from a family arrangement concerning business goodwill, as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court ultimately held that since the reliefs sought involved perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, the matter squarely fell within the purview of intellectual property rights and thus constituted a Commercial Suit.
Grey Swift Private Limited Through Mr. Shivam SinglavsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks
Grey Swift Private Limited has appealed a rejection order from the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks regarding its wordmark 'BharatStamp' in Class 9. The examiner rejected the mark, citing lack of distinctive character under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. The Delhi High Court accepted the appeal and issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, setting a date for arguments on August 28, 2024.
Hero Motocorp LimitedvsShree Amba Industries
Hero Motocorp Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Shree Amba Industries, alleging that the latter was infringing Hero's registered design (No. 271199) of a motorcycle front fender used on the HERO HF DELUXE model. The plaintiff claimed the defendant's product was a copy and constituted piracy. However, while examining the prima facie case for an interim injunction, the court found that the balance of convenience favored the defendant, noting that consumers could make informed choices between OEM and third-party parts. Consequently, the application for interim injunction was dismissed.
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.