Short Summary
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd, granting a petition for rectification of the Trade Marks Register. The court found that the first respondent's subsequent trade mark registration was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior and established use of 'Blue Heaven.' Given that both marks are used in relation to cosmetics and related products, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel and remove the impugned registration (No. 4200085) from the register.
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.Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd vs BHCosmetics LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rajnikant Devidas ShroffvsPharma Chem
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the defendants regarding the patent rights related to the manufacturing process of Phosphorous Pentachloride. The court framed several issues, including infringement, entitlement to injunction and damages, and the validity/revocation of Patent No. 172459.
M/s.STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITEDvsWHEELS INDIA LIMITED
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 269220, granted to Wheels India Limited for 'Vehicle Wheels Having Non-Constant Thickness Rims'. The petitioner raised grounds including lack of novelty and inventive step. The court examined these grounds and partially revoked the patent while maintaining certain claims subject to amendment.
Miss Kiara Rawat Through Mrs. Lovely GusainvsUnion Of India & Ors.
The petitioner sought directions from the Delhi High Court regarding the high cost of the drug Zolgensma. The petitioner requested that the Union of India facilitate the issuance of compulsory licenses under the Patents Act, 1970, and also asked for the formation of a committee to raise funds for her treatment.
R.Dilip KumarvsThe Registrar of Trademarks, M/s. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by R.Dilip Kumar against the Registrar of Trademarks, quashing an order that deemed his trademark application 'PIRALEX' abandoned. The court emphasized that the statutory right of the applicant is at stake and ruled that service of opposition via email alone, without proof of receipt, does not satisfy the legal requirement for initiating the response period. Consequently, both the trademark application and the opposition were restored to the file, allowing the petitioner a fresh opportunity to respond on merits.
Magneti Marelli S.P.A.vsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Magneti Marelli appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting its patent application (No. 420/CHE/2009) on grounds of lack of inventive step based on prior art citations. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to discuss their submissions distinguishing the invention from the cited prior arts. The High Court found that the respondent's order was unsupported by reasons and set it aside, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
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.