Sweeton Foods Pvt Ltd v. M/S Grv Conferectionery And Foods

116883993

Sweeton Foods Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking the cancellation of a copyright held by M/S Grv Conferectionery And Foods for the label 'KARTIER GOLD 24 CARAT SWISS MILK CHOCO'. This action stemmed from an earlier civil suit regarding trademark infringement. The court found that since the respondent had undertaken in a settlement decree to withdraw and cancel the registration, the petition was allowed.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
116883993
Judge(s)
Sanjeev Narula

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 Sweeton Foods Pvt Ltd vs M/S Grv Conferectionery And Foods is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patent95808630

Transformative Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd.vsPawajot Kaur Baweja & Ors.

The plaintiffs, who sell Ayurveda products, sued former employees (Defendants 1 and 2) for using confidential data, customer databases, marketing material, and copyrighted content to run a competing business under the brand 'Adya Ayurveda'. The core legal issue was whether the suit was maintainable given previous judicial precedents. The Court found that the plaint disclosed sufficient cause of action and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

patent173095877

M/S Vibhava Marketing CorporationvsGoramal Hari Ram Limited

The Delhi High Court modified a previous order that had dismissed the petitioner's applications for filing additional documents. After arguments, both parties reached a consent agreement allowing M/S Vibhava Marketing Corporation to amend its Written Statement to include details of two preceding trademark registrations ('MONKEY 555 WONDER WASH' and 'MONKEY 555 THUNDER WASH'). This amendment allows the petitioner to argue that their prior rights should dismiss the plaintiff's infringement claim, subject to payment of costs.

patent164748862

Mr Amit Arora Sole Proprietor M/S Hydro ValvesvsThe Controller General Of Patents Design and Trade Marks & Ors.

The petitioner filed Rectification Petitions seeking cancellation of three 'MILTON' trademarks registered in Class 21. Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the pendency of earlier related rectification petitions before the Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai. The court satisfied this objection after the petitioner undertook to withdraw the relevant pending petitions.

patent90350517

Renee Cosmetics Private LimitedvsMs. Rupali Sharma & Anr

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Renee Cosmetics Private Limited and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the registration of the mark 'GLASS SKIN' granted in favour of Ms. Rupali Sharma. The court held that the term 'GLASS SKIN' is generic and descriptive of the goods, and therefore, cannot be monopolized by any party. The respondent had filed a trademark application for the mark 'GLASS SKIN' in Class-03 on a 'proposed to be used basis' and was granted a registration certificate, which was challenged by the petitioner.

patent47388396

Jntl Consumer Health I (Switzerland) GmbhvsThe Controller Of Patents

The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of a seven-day delay in filing an appeal. The court allowed this application. Subsequently, the main appeal was listed to challenge the Controller's decision refusing the appellant's patent application.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call