The Capital Group Companies, Inc v. Ashok Kumar & Ors

Nippon Steel CorporationvsUnion Of India

Nippon Steel Corporation challenged the refusal by the Controller of Patents to allow an amendment to its patent application's priority date. The Petitioner, which holds world-class technology in medium-high grade steel, had missed the deadline for filing a Request for Examination (RFE) due to a docketing error at its attorney's office. The Petitioner subsequently sought to amend the priority date to extend the RFE window. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that once an application is deemed withdrawn under Section 11-B(4), the Controller cannot entertain any amendment, regardless of the reason for missing the deadline.

Prabhu Soap WorksvsThe Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Prabhu Soap Works challenged the department's demand for service tax levied on notional interest, arguing that permitting its wife's concern to use its registered brand names did not constitute a taxable Intellectual Property Service. The Tribunal found that since no consideration was charged for the alleged IPR service, the departmental assessment based on notional interest and cost-based valuation was unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.

Dunar Foods LimitedvsAnkit Vats Trading As Avjk Foods Llp & Anr.

Dunar Foods Limited initiated proceedings seeking the cancellation of the registered trademark 'Nawazish' through a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court issued notice to all parties and set forth detailed timelines for filing replies and written synopses. This order marks a procedural step in the ongoing litigation aimed at challenging the validity of the registered mark.

P V Anand KishorevsM/S Bhatt Electronics (P) Ltd.

This appeal before the Karnataka High Court challenged an order that held M/S Bhatt Electronics liable to pay Rs. 3,00,000 in damages for infringing registered designs and trademarks related to emergency lights. The original suit was filed under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Designs Act. While the appellant argued that the plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence of manufacturing or sales linking them to the infringement, the High Court upheld the trial court's finding. The court concluded that since there was no denial by the defendant regarding the sale of the product, the liability for damages could be inferred from the facts and circumstances.

Bayona SpavsVarun Exports & Ors.

The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition concerning a trademark dispute between Bayona Spa and Varun Exports & Ors. The court noted that the respondents had filed an application to withdraw the impugned mark before the Trademarks Registry. Consequently, the petitioner's relief was deemed infructuous, leading the court to issue directions for the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the registration No. 4188398 in class 25.