Short Summary
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Triology Solutions Private Limited against various online sellers (Defendants 12-23) for trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized the distinctiveness of the 'Muuchstac' brand, which is used for cosmetic products, and restrained the defendants from using its registered device mark and trade dress/packaging. Furthermore, the court directed the major e-commerce platforms (Defendants 1-11) to ensure takedown actions are taken against counterfeit listings and mandated disclosure of sales revenue by the infringing sellers.
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. Understanding the court's reasoning in Triology Solutions Private Limited vs Flipkart Internet Private L Imited & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Hytrans Beheer B.V.vsRegistrar of Trade Marks and Anr.
The Bombay High Court set aside an earlier refusal order issued by the Trade Marks Examiner regarding the 'HYTRANS' trademark application. The court found that the original decision was cryptic, citing only sections of the Act without providing sufficient reasons or considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter has been remanded to the Registrar for a fresh, reasoned hearing by a different officer.
Eli Lilly And CompanyvsHetero Labs Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have infringed their patent for Baricitinib by manufacturing and selling it without a license. The case involves a request for an injunction to prevent the defendants from continuing this activity.
The Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Anr.vsSushilaben Pranlal Pandya & Anr.
The Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation challenged the Single Judge's order in a Letters Patent Appeal, which had directed the Corporation to incorporate yearly increments earned during the probation period and re-fix the pension of respondent Sushilaben Pranlal Pandya, a former Staff Nurse promoted to Assistant Nursing Tutor. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the pay-protection granted under Condition No.6 of the appointment order covered both salary and benefits, and the Corporation could not subsequently modify these terms to the detriment of the employee at the time of confirmation.
STP LimitedvsRegistrar Of Trade Marks, New Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed STP Limited's appeal against the refusal of its trademark application 'SHALIMARK'. The initial rejection was based on similarity to earlier marks. However, the court permitted the application to proceed by restricting the scope of goods, specifically removing 'building material (non-metallic)' from the list. This decision allows the mark to be advertised in the trade mark journal for further opposition proceedings.
Mae Maschinen-und Apparatebau G?tzen GmbHvsThe Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mae Maschinen-und Apparatebau G?tzen GmbH appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201748028185) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the rejection disregarded a precedent set by the Delhi High Court regarding divisional applications. The Madras High Court agreed, finding the rejection contrary to established law.
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.