Syrma Sgs Electronic Pvt Ltd v. The Controller Of Patents & Anr.

C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 5/2025

The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 483156, which relates to a backpack with an avalanche safety system. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications concerning the submission and exemption of documents. Notice was issued to all respondents for further proceedings.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 5/2025
Judge(s)
Amit Bansal

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 Syrma Sgs Electronic Pvt Ltd vs The Controller Of Patents & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(OS) 328/2006 & CS(OS) 1352/2006 (IA 1941/2006 & IA 7308/2006)

M/S Koxan India / Ramesh MardiavsRamesh Mardia / M/S Koxan India

The Delhi High Court dismissed two separate applications seeking ad interim injunctions regarding the use of the trademark 'MARDIA CABLES.' The core dispute centered on conflicting claims of exclusive rights over the mark, stemming from a chain of assignments and subsequent re-assignments. Given the complex factual matrix—including disputed assignment documents and competing registrations—the court found that neither party could establish a clear prima facie case for exclusivity at this preliminary stage.

patent(T)OP(TM)/412/2023

Wynk LimitedvsEc Media (International) Pvt. Ltd.

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed by Wynk Limited seeking the cancellation of an infringing mark registered under No.2020253. The court noted that the registration had lapsed and was not renewed after September 8, 2020. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the defunct trademark from the register within two weeks, effectively resolving the dispute in favor of Wynk Limited.

patentCS(COMM) 241/2017

Hindustan Pencils Ltd.vsPuma Stationery Ltd. and Anr.

Hindustan Pencils Ltd. successfully secured a decree in its trademark infringement suit against Puma Stationery Ltd. and A.W. Faber-Castell (India) Ltd. The judgment was based on an amicable settlement where the defendant, A.W. Faber-Castell, formally acknowledged Hindustan Pencils' ownership of the trademarks 'PLASTO' and 'NON-DUST'. Crucially, the defendant agreed to cease using these marks in stationery products and withdraw pending opposition and rectification proceedings against the plaintiff’s rights.

patentCS (COMM) 470/2021

Ramada International, IncvsLa-Ramada World Private Limited & Anr

The Delhi High Court reinforced the existing ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ramada International, Inc against La-Ramada World Private Limited. Finding that the defendants continued unauthorized use of the 'RAMADA' mark across various digital platforms and domains despite prior court orders, the court made the injunction absolute during the pendency of the suit. Furthermore, to ensure compliance, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner with extensive powers to seize evidence, including pamphlets and server data, and mandate the shutdown of infringing social media accounts.

patentCRA 470 of 2025

M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd.vsPyromaitre INC. Thr Its Authorized Rep

The applicant (M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd.) filed a revision application challenging an order that rejected its application for rejection of the plaint in a commercial suit. The dispute centered on allegations of infringement of the plaintiff's industrial oven design by the respondent. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision to reject the application, finding no grounds for rejection.

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