Short Summary
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., ordering the cancellation and removal of the trademark 'HANS ZARDA' (No. 2660422). The court found that 'HANS ZARDA' was visually, structurally, and phonetically deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s established mark, 'HANS CHAAP'. Furthermore, the court noted a lack of credible evidence regarding the Respondent's continuous use of 'HANS ZARDA', leading it to conclude that the mark should be expunged from the register to prevent consumer confusion.
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 Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. vs Haresh Patel Trading As Hans Zarda And Registrar of Trademarks Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V.vsNew Parle Ice Cream
The suit was filed by Unilever IP Holdings B.V. against New Parle Ice Cream concerning an IP matter. The parties subsequently reached a settlement, which was formally recorded and accepted by the Bombay High Court on September 28, 2022.
Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd.vsNew Hope Food Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of multiple Original Petitions filed by Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd seeking cancellation of several trademarks. The court noted that both parties had reached a comprehensive Settlement Agreement dated March 26, 2018. This agreement defined specific usage rights for the 'MILKA' mark in Class 30, ensuring mutual non-infringement across various product categories. Consequently, the petitions were disposed of based on this existing compromise, avoiding a full judicial hearing.
M/s.Rallis India LimitedvsDeputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Rallis India Limited appealed an order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents challenging the rejection of its patent application for a stable herbicidal composition. The appellant argued that the prior art cited (IN 2243/MUM/2014, D1, and D2) did not adequately disclose or teach the claimed invention's specific formulation. The High Court found merit in these contentions.
Kurian John MelamparambilvsSulbha G. Shenoi; The Trademark Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Kurian John Melamparambil seeking rectification of Trademark No. 1301085. The dismissal was based on a submission from the first respondent, stating that the trademark had not been renewed since August 6, 2014. Consequently, the petition to remove or rectify the entry became infructuous.
Alimentary Health LimitedvsController Of Patents And Designs
Alimentary Health Limited appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 3989/DELNP/2012), which covered a formulation using the probiotic strain Bifidobacterium longum NCIMB 41676 (AH1714). The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under various sections of the Patent Act. The Delhi High Court set aside this refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The court provided detailed directions to the Controller, requiring a thorough reassessment focusing on novelty, specific dosage/methodology, and whether the claims relate to second medical use.
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.