Short Summary
Punjab Fc Private Limited filed a petition seeking the removal (rectification) of the 'PFC' trademark registered under application no. 4611789 in Class 25, which was held by Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited. The petitioner highlighted a prior favorable judgment regarding an identical device mark. The Court accepted notice and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties, setting timelines for filing replies and rejoinders before listing the matter further.
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. Understanding the court's reasoning in Punjab Fc Private Limited vs Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.vsShree Sakshat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Heineken Asia Pacific filed cancellation petitions against trademarks registered by Shree Sakshat Infrastructure, alleging that the Respondent is a squatter who has registered an identical device mark. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the near identity between the marks in dispute. Consequently, the court directed that status quo be maintained concerning the registration and prohibited any transfer or assignment of the disputed trademark until further proceedings.
Hawkins Cookers Ltd.vsMagicook Appliances Co.
Hawkins Cookers Ltd. filed a suit against Magicook Appliances Co., alleging multiple infringements related to its pressure cooker business. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant used a deceptively similar label, which was protected under copyright registration No. A-27389/80. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant's cook book verbatim reproduced substantial passages from the plaintiff's copyrighted instructional material. The Delhi High Court found in favor of Hawkins Cookers Ltd., granting permanent injunction and directing rendition of accounts.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr.vsBasil Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The plaintiffs, Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr., filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 294424) related to the compound Alectinib. The court addressed several interlocutory applications and subsequently registered the plaint as a suit, while also granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products.
M/S A & J DesignersvsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks
M/S A & J Designers successfully challenged the non-renewal of their 'Paris' trademark registration in the Kerala High Court. The petitioner argued that they were never served with the renewal notice because the respondents had mistakenly sent it to the wrong address due to a typographical error. The court found merit in this claim, allowing the writ petition and directing the competent authority to issue fresh notice and renew the registration expeditiously.
Gilead Sciences Inc.vsUnion of India
Gilead Sciences Inc. challenged a hearing notice and subsequent opposition board recommendation related to Indian Patent No.319927, arguing that the process violated The Patents Act, 1970 by not allowing them to present evidence. The Court quashed the impugned notices and recommendations.
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.