Short Summary
In a trademark infringement suit, Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a claim against Microcosm Pharma regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between its registered mark 'PEGMOVE' and the defendant's mark 'PEG-MU'. During court proceedings, the proprietor of Defendant No. 1 voluntarily offered to discontinue the use of the impugned mark and undertake not to adopt any similar marks. While the suit continues for formal registration and issue framing, this offer suggests a potential path toward an amicable resolution.
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 Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. vs Microcosm Pharma & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.vsM S Sunmarker Pharmaceuticals & Anr
In a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. successfully reached a comprehensive settlement with M S Sunmarker Pharmaceuticals & Anr before the Delhi High Court. The parties jointly filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, leading to a decree that formally acknowledged Sun Pharma's rights in 'SUN' and 'SUN PHARMA'. Under the terms of the agreement, the Defendants agreed to cease using the infringing mark, destroy related materials, and withdraw their trademark application.
Ricky Rubber IndustriesvsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Ricky Rubber Industries challenging the Trade Marks Registry's rejection of an application for rectification. The petitioner sought to correct a minor typographical error—a wrong registration number—in a recordal form (FORM TM-P). The court ruled that procedural rules should not be interpreted so rigidly as to dilute substantive rights, directing the Registrar to accept the rectification application and make the necessary amendments.
Jindal Industries Pvt LtdvsPrawesh Agencies Through Its Partners Vikash Singh Ravindra Kumar Singh
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit where the defendant claimed a co-branding arrangement with an affiliate of the plaintiff's group. The court found that the plaintiff failed to disclose this vital co-branding agreement in their plaint, despite being required to attest to full disclosure under the Commercial Courts Act. Consequently, the court noted the breach of procedural rules and directed the plaintiff to place the relevant agreement on record before further proceedings.
University of WashingtonvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The University of Washington appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for methods using cell-free DNA to identify diseases. The original rejection was based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, arguing that the method found application in diagnostics. The High Court set aside this order, clarifying that Section 3(i) applies only if the invention 'per se disclose pathology' to a person skilled in the art.
Fresenius Kabi Ipsum SrlvsThe Asst Controller Of Patent And Designs & Anr.
Fresenius Kabi Ipsum Srl filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated November 21, 2024, which refused Patent Application No. IN201611009993. The court issued notices and set dates for further submissions.
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.