Short Summary
Rallifan Ltd. filed a petition seeking the removal or rectification of a trademark registration (No. 1213190) from the register. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the petitioner filed a memo stating that the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
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 Rallifan Ltd. vs Registrar of Trademarks is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Galatea LtdvsDiyora And Bhanderi Corporation
The Gujarat High Court rejected the application for stay of the suit (C/CS/2/2017) and proceeded to frame issues regarding alleged infringement of a suit patent. The court also issued directions to expedite the recording of evidence, directing the record to be transmitted to the District Court, Vadodara.
Natco Pharma LimitedvsAssistant Controller Of Patents & Designs Anr.
Natco Pharma challenged the Assistant Controller's order granting a patent to Novartis for pharmaceutical compositions, arguing that the order was passed with procedural irregularities and violated principles of natural justice. The court held that the writ petition was maintainable and quashed the impugned order, remanding the application back to the Controller for fresh consideration based on due process.
Ten Xc Wireless Inc & AnrvsMobi Antenna Technologies(Shenzhen) Co Ltd
The Delhi High Court passed an order addressing an interim relief application and framing an additional issue regarding the validity of a patent. The core dispute involves whether Patent Number IN 240893 is liable for revocation under specific sections of the Patents Act, 1970.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd.vsMahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The case involves a dispute over the enforcement of a Sub-Licence Agreement related to the use of transgenic cotton seeds with Bt. traits. The petitioner claims that the respondent has not fulfilled its obligations under the agreement and has charged excessive trait values. The petitioner and respondent entered into a Special License Agreement for the sale of Bt. cotton seeds. The respondent alleged patent infringement and sought recovery of trait fees, while the petitioner challenged the validity of the SLA under competition law. The petitioner entered into a Sub-Licence Agreement with the respondent for the use of technology and payment of trait fees. Disputes arose regarding the payment of these fees, leading to arbitration proceedings. The respondent claimed unpaid trait fees from the petitioner under a 2015 service level agreement. The arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, allowing the monetary claims.
Dfm Foods LimitedvsITC Limited
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in the trademark dispute between Dfm Foods Limited and ITC Limited. While the suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, the court immediately directed both parties toward mandatory mediation. This order sets the stage for amicable resolution while allowing procedural steps like filing additional documents and exemptions from pre-institution mediation.
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.