Universal City Studios Llc v. M/S Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 151/2021 (and connected matters)

In a series of related trademark appeals, the Delhi High Court allowed applications filed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC for substitution of the respondent's name. The court permitted the change of Respondent No. 1 from 'Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.' to its assignee, 'Select Citywalk Retail Pvt. Ltd.', following an Assignment Deed executed on August 17, 2022. This procedural order ensures that all ongoing litigation concerning the assigned trademarks is correctly addressed by the new legal entity.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 151/2021 (and connected matters)
Judge(s)
Jyoti Singh

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 Universal City Studios Llc vs M/S Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS (Comm.) No. 583/2020

Koninklijke Philips N.V.vsM/S Electrical Master

Philips filed a suit against Electrical Master for infringing its registered trademarks (PHILIPS), copyrights, and design rights concerning its Advanced Beard Trimmer Series 3000. The court found in favor of Philips, granting permanent injunctions, damages, and costs.

patent(2001)2CALLT58(HC)

T.I. Raleign Industries Limited And ...vsCycle Corporation Of India Ltd.

The Calcutta High Court granted leave to the respondents (T.I. Raleign Industries) to enter into an agreement allowing a third-party manufacturer (Avery Cycle Industries Ltd.) to use their registered trademarks. This decision was made despite previous judicial restrictions preventing such assignments or licenses, recognizing that the applicants sought statutory permission for user rights. The court imposed strict conditions, requiring the parties to substantiate bonafide intent and act within an eight-week timeframe, emphasizing that this order did not constitute a final judgment on the merits.

patentIPDPTA/10/2023

Indena S.P.A.vsController General Pf Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.

This case involves Indena S.P.A. appealing a matter previously handled by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021, the matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court's Commercial Division. The court directed that notices be issued to both parties and a report filed before the returnable date, setting the next hearing for March 6, 2023.

patentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18563/2022

Mr. Peter Fanning, Chief Executive, The Chartered Institute Of TaxationvsM/s Institute Of Charted Tax Advisers Of India Limited

The Rajasthan High Court addressed two interconnected writ petitions concerning a trademark dispute over 'Chartered Tax Adviser (CTA)'. The core issue was whether the plaintiff's attempt to invalidate the registered trademark, via an application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, should be decided on its merits. The court set aside previous technical orders that dismissed the application and directed the Commercial Court to frame a specific issue regarding the pending cancellation proceedings (Section 57) before the High Court of Gujarat, ensuring the Section 124 application is now heard afresh on its substantive grounds.

patentCS(COMM) 919/2022

Hermes International & Anr.vsCrimzon Fashion Accessories Private Limited

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Hermes International, declaring its 'H' trade mark as a well-known trademark. The court meticulously examined five factors outlined in Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, including global promotion, extensive use since 1997, international registrations across numerous countries, and successful enforcement actions abroad. This judgment solidifies the legal standing of globally recognized luxury brands within India.

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