Short Summary
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Orient Electric Limited seeking the removal/cancellation of a specific trademark registration held by R. R. Kabel Limited in Class 11. The court initiated the formal proceedings, issuing notices to the respondents and setting detailed timelines for both parties to file their respective replies and conjoint written synopsis. This order moves the case forward into the substantive phase of challenging the existing trademark registration.
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 Orient Electric Limited vs R. R. Kabel Limited & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
M/S Natures Magic WorldvsThe Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
M/S Natures Magic World filed a writ petition seeking the Trademark Registry's direction to formally record an Assignment Deed dated February 17, 2016. The petitioner sought to establish ownership of the mark 'COLORESSENCE' (TM No. 1541613) following its assignment from M/s Nature Essence Pvt. Ltd. Despite the existence of the valid assignment deed, the recordal had not been given effect due to administrative confusion stemming from a subsequent name change of the original owner. The Court directed further hearings to resolve these procedural issues and ensure the assignment is duly recorded.
Sharp Kabushiki KaishavsAssistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the Patent Controller's rejection of its application for a communication system. The appellant argued that the grounds of rejection were not properly disclosed or overlooked by the Controller. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Manish VanigotavsCommissioner of Customs Nagpur
The appeal challenged the absolute confiscation of goods and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur. The case involved various consignments containing prohibited items, including those infringing intellectual property rights, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical products. The Tribunal set aside several penalties, finding that the adjudicating authority failed to elaborate on the specific prescriptions violated.
Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd.vsKarthikeyan Manishekar
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trademark 'HANS VENBA' (No. 3917470) following a settlement reached between the petitioner, Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., and the first respondent, Karthikeyan Manishekar. The court confirmed that the registration would be cancelled as per the terms of the memorandum of settlement executed on August 7, 2024. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to remove the entry from the register within four weeks.
Astrazeneca AbvsMsn Laboratories Limited
This order was passed in an interim application filed by the Plaintiffs (Astrazeneca Ab). The Defendant (MSN Laboratories Limited), through its counsel, requested a restraint on commercial launch while challenging the patent's validity and rights under Section 107(A) of the Patents Act, 1970.
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.