Short Summary
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by M/s. Hitesh Kumar Rastogi against M/s. Amit Agarwal, which sought to remove the 'ORBIT THE CABLE PEOPLE' trademark registration. The court held that since the pending civil suits between the parties have not yet framed an issue concerning the invalidity of the registered mark, the rectification petition was not maintainable. This ruling underscores the strict procedural requirement under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, mandating that validity issues must be addressed in the rectification proceeding before infringement actions can proceed.
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 M/s.Amit Agarwal Trading as M/s.Seetu Electicals vs M/s.Hitesh Kumar Rastogi (Trading as M/s.Avon Electrical Industries) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Balajee Wedding And Eventz Pvt. LtdvsSudershana Singh
Balajee Wedding And Eventz Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Sudershana Singh alleging trademark infringement concerning wedding planning services. The Plaintiff holds a registered trademark 'BALAJEE EVENTZ' (No. 4175314) and claims the Defendant is infringing by using similar names like 'BALAJI EVENTS'. The Delhi High Court allowed several procedural applications, including exemption from filing documents and instituting pre-litigation mediation, before formally registering the suit and directing the issuance of summons to the defendant.
Bhargava Phytolab Private LimitedvsLdd Bioscience Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interlocutory injunction in favor of Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited against Ldd Bioscience Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's use of 'TUMOTIN' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'TUMORIN,' leading to a prima facie case for infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. While the injunction restricts future use, the parties were also directed to mediation to amicably resolve the dispute.
Nokia Technologies OyvsVivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff, Nokia Technologies Oy, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants (Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd & Ors.) for infringement of Patent No. 259932 ("ARRANGING HANDOVER") by various mobile devices. The court addressed applications regarding adding new claims and devices during the pendency of the suit.
The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniavsUnion Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application for 'Enzalutamide', citing lack of inventive steps. The petitioner further argued that the rejection was vitiated because the Controller failed to address or refer to crucial expert affidavits and scientific documents presented during the proceedings.
M/s. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLPvsSangeetha Food Corner
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP against Sangeetha Food Corner for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'SANGEETHA FOOD CORNER' was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark 'SANGEETHA'. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against further misuse of the mark.
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.