Short Summary
The appeal challenged an order that treated a Geographical Indication (GI) rectification application as abandoned due to procedural delays. The appellant argued that he had taken steps within the permissible time limits, including obtaining extensions under the GI Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
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 Ramesh Chandra Sahoo vs West Bengal State Food Processing and Horticulture Development Corporation Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
AstraZeneca AB & Anr.vsAlkem Laboratories Limited
The plaintiffs, Astrazeneca AB & Anr., filed a suit (CS(COMM) 411/2020) before the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos. IN 205147 and IN 235625 against Alkem Laboratories Limited. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the Settlement Agreement to form part of the decree.
Incyte Holdings CorporationvsAlembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
Incyte Holdings Corporation filed a quia timet action against Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited alleging impending infringement of its patent (IN2698411) covering the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The parties reached an agreement where the defendant undertook not to commercially manufacture or deal in products containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity, and the suit was disposed of on these consent terms.
Dabur India LimitedvsMs Usha Proprietor Of Rs Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Dabur India Limited's cancellation petition against a similar mark registered by Ms. Usha Proprietor Of Rs Industries. The court found that the impugned mark was confusingly and deceptively similar to Dabur's well-known trademark 'DABUR,' particularly given that both parties operate in the identical Class 3 goods (detergents, soaps, etc.). Citing prior use and established goodwill, the High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the infringing registration.
Sapat International Pvt LtdvsNiravi Consumer Llp And Ors.
This interim application addressed allegations of contempt against the defendants for allegedly violating a prior court order. The plaintiff claimed that despite undertaking not to use the 'Sapat' mark in advertising packaged tea, the respondents continued to use 'Sapat Tea' on cash receipts and invoices. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting the violation, noting that the use of 'Sapat Tea' on sales documents amounted to advertisement. Consequently, the matter was listed for further consideration to determine compliance with the solemn undertaking.
Pfizer IncvsWest-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited for infringing four patents covering Palbociclib and Crizotinib. The dispute centered on the Defendant's listing of these products for manufacture and sale, despite the existence of valid patents held by the Plaintiffs.
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.