Electronics — India Patent Cases
240 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 8 · 240 total
Havells India Limited v.Ratheesh Govindan & Ors. (including proposed defendant nos. 5-8: Mohit Talwar and associated entities)
This is an order passed by the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 283/2020) filed by Havells India Limited against Ratheesh Govindan and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff sought impleadment of proposed defendants 5 to 8, who were identified as the manufacturers and controlling entities behind the infringing products. The Court allowed the impleadment application, noting that the proposed defendants were not innocent or bona fide users, and bound them to the existing interim injunction order dated 30.07.2020.
Panasonic Life Solution India Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Dinesh Kumar (Defendant No. 1) and Mr. Vijay (Defendant No. 4)
This commercial suit was filed by Panasonic Life Solution India Pvt. Ltd., the licensee of the 'ANCHOR' trademark originally owned by Panasonic Corporation, against Mr. Dinesh Kumar and others for trademark/copyright infringement and passing off under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court found that defendants no. 1 and 4 had infringed the plaintiff's copyright in the ANCHOR trademark/label and granted a decree of permanent injunction along with damages of Rs. 3,10,000/- and simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of e-filing of the suit.
Surya Roshni Limited v.Maddi Ramiah Kutati (Trading as Safety Power Wires & Cables)
Surya Roshni Limited, a leading manufacturer of steel, lighting, and electrical goods marketed under the well-known trademark 'SURYA', filed a commercial suit against Maddi Ramiah Kutati (trading as Safety Power Wires & Cables) for using the deceptively similar mark 'SURYA CAB' for electrical wires and cables. The court found that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark and copyright, engaged in passing off, and was not an innocent user. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff with a permanent injunction, damages of Rs. 15,00,000/- with 9% per annum interest, delivery-up of infringing goods and materials, and costs of the suit.
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Saurabh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Shyam Singh)
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit against Saurabh Kumar Agarwal and Shyam Singh seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing or passing off its registered 'GOLDMEDAL' trademarks and copyrights. The plaintiff applied for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court allowed the application, granted a decree of permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1, awarded damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- and legal fees of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and dismissed the suit against Defendant No. 2 as not pressed.
Siddharth Vij v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Ors
These Letters Patent Appeals challenged an order dated 05.06.2026 by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, which disposed of petitions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal/cancellation of the word mark 'PONTA' and a device mark registered in Class-9 in the name of the appellant, Siddharth Vij. The parties arrived at mutual consent terms, with the appellant undertaking to cease manufacturing, exhaust existing stock by 31st March 2027, and refrain from any further use, promotion, or advertising of the marks thereafter. The Court disposed of the appeals in terms of the affidavits, binding the parties to their undertakings, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to comply with paragraph 34 of the impugned order within four weeks.
V-Guard Industries Limited v.M/s. Kangaro Industries & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This Letters Patent Appeal challenged a single Judge's order that had set aside the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of Kangaro Industries' request for extension of time to file evidence in opposition proceedings. V-Guard Industries had applied for registration of the mark 'KANGARO' in Class 16, which Kangaro Industries opposed. The Division Bench held that Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is mandatory, that no extension of time is provided under the 2017 Rules unlike the 2002 Rules, and consequently the opposition stood deemed abandoned. The appeal was allowed and the single Judge's order was set aside.
Mex Switchgears Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The applicant, Mex Switchgears Private Limited, filed an application to condone a delay of 122 days in filing an appeal against the order dated 21.10.2025 passed by the Registrar of Trademarks in Opposition No.801379 to Trademark Application No.1763867 in Class 09. The respondent opposed the application. The Madras High Court, after considering the averments in the affidavit and being satisfied with the reasons stated, allowed the application and condoned the delay.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Havells India Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademarks 'HAVAI' and its device marks, which were found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' well-known 'HAVELLS' trademarks. The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the defendants had dishonestly adopted a mark by altering the letter 'I' to be read as 'L' to create confusion among consumers. The court found all three ingredients of passing off—goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage—were prima facie satisfied, and that balance of convenience and irreparable harm favoured the plaintiffs.
Largan Precision Co. Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors
This is an order by the Delhi High Court framing issues in a patent infringement suit filed by Largan Precision Co. Ltd against Motorola Mobility India Limited and others concerning Indian Patent No. IN 395095. The defendants have filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent on multiple grounds under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court framed eight issues covering infringement, revocation grounds, non-working of the patent, and reliefs, and appointed a Local Commissioner to record evidence with a timeline for completion of trial within one year.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr v.Siddharth Vij & Anr
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark 'PONTA' in favor of Siddharth Vij, as it was found to be deceptively similar to the prior registered trademark 'PENTA' of Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court held that the registration of 'PONTA' was without sufficient cause and would create confusion and deception in the mind of the general public. The Registrar of Trade Marks has been directed to remove the registered mark 'PONTA' from the Register of Trade Marks.
M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd v.Lakha Ram Sharma
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd challenging an order of the Trial Court that refused to allow the examination of an additional witness. The case involves a trademark dispute over the mark 'KUNDAN' used for electric goods. The petitioner had filed multiple suits against the respondent, including one for trademark infringement and another for passing off. The court held that the petitioner's application to examine the additional witness was inconsequential and did not warrant interference.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The petitioners, Asustek Computer Inc, filed petitions seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the patent register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications concerning exemptions and procedural matters.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The Delhi High Court heard petitions filed by Asustek Computer Inc seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding document division and exemptions.
Nec Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nec Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application concerning a video coding device and method. The refusal was based on the lack of inventive step in light of existing prior art disclosures. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the invention was rendered obvious by D1 to D3.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs in electronic devices. The appellants argued that strict interpretations by the Controller regarding whether GUI qualifies as a registrable design were flawed. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply correct legal tests, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the cases for fresh consideration.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs in electronic devices. The appellants argued that the Controller adopted an unduly strict interpretation, failing to recognize GUIs as registrable designs. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply the correct legal tests regarding GUI registration.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs on display screens. The appellants argued that strict interpretations by the Controller regarding whether GUIs constitute an 'article' or possess permanence were flawed. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply the correct legal tests, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding all matters for fresh consideration.
Yangtze Memory Technologie Co Ltd v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner challenged the grant of its patent application, arguing that it was prevented from filing a necessary divisional application due to the timing of the grant. The petitioner claimed diligent efforts and intent to file the division before the grant. However, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the Petitioner attempted to file the divisional application after the grant date.
Wacom Company Limited v.Cirel Systems Private Limited
Wacom Company Limited filed this Civil Petition seeking the appointment of a local commissioner to collect documents and testimony from Cirel Systems Private Limited. This evidence is required for pending patent infringement proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention, 1970.
P V Anand Kishore v.M/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.
Largan Precision Co. Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors
Largan Precision Co. Ltd filed a suit seeking an interim injunction and disclosure of sales against Motorola Mobility India Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. TN 395095. The court allowed notice to the defendants and listed the matter for further consideration.
Maj (Retd.) Sukesh Behl Proprietor, M/S Pearl Engineering Company & Anr. v.Koninklijke Philips Nv
The appeals challenged the Single Judge's decree awarding substantial damages against the appellants (Maj Retd. Sukesh Behl & Anr.) for infringing Patent IN 2182555 held by Koninklijke Philips Nv. The court adjudicated applications seeking stay of execution of this judgment and decree.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr. v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in a suit concerning trademark and copyright infringement related to the 'DERMDOC' brand. While granting several procedural exemptions to the plaintiffs, the court also issued significant interim relief. Specifically, it directed Scribd Inc. (Defendant No. 17) to immediately remove all documents associated with the infringing trademarks from its platform. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was ordered to disclose details of commissions earned through the alleged infringement period.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.M/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.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
Asustek Computer Inc filed petitions seeking the revocation or removal of Indian Patents Nos. 356246 and 397206 from the Register of Patents. The court noted that these patents are part of Respondent No. 1's H.265/HEVC patent portfolio, and accordingly listed the petitions for further hearing.
Big Dipper Laser Science And Technology Co Ltd v.Big Deeper Industries Llp & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the ongoing IP infringement suit filed by Big Dipper Laser Science And Technology Co Ltd against Big Deeper Industries Llp & Anr. The court granted the plaintiff an exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation, citing the urgency of interim relief sought. Furthermore, the court set out a detailed schedule for the parties to file their written statements and replication, while also addressing procedural matters regarding document filing and translation.
Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v.LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Commercial Court's decision to deny an interim injunction against LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement or passing off, particularly lacking evidence of market use and sufficient goodwill prior to the respondent's usage. Furthermore, the High Court noted the appellant's deliberate concealment of facts, leading it to decline interference in the appeal.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.M. Bathla & Anr.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a suit alleging that M. Bathla & Anr. infringed its Indian Patent No. 175971, which covered a 'Digital Transmission System,' through the manufacturing and sale of VCD systems and media. The court examined whether the defendants' replication process utilized the patented technology. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court found that the suit patent did not cover the resultant VCD product or the specific replication process employed by the defendants. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish infringement and the suit was dismissed.
Dpac Ventures Llp v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court intervened in a trademark dispute between Dpac Ventures LLP and Exotic Mile Private Limited, modifying the Commercial Court's order that had granted an ex parte temporary injunction against 'GOBOULT'. Recognizing the defendant's significant business turnover (Rs. 188.94 Crores) and operational impact, the High Court allowed the plaintiff to dispense with pre-institution mediation while permitting the defendant to continue using its trademark subject to filing weekly accounts. This decision emphasizes balancing IP rights protection against commercial viability during litigation.
Interdigital Vc Holdings Inc & Anr. v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit asserting infringement of their portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to cellular standards (3G, 4G, 5G, HEVC) by the Defendants' mobile and smart devices. The court issued orders allowing various procedural applications, including granting liberty to amend claims for additional patents and devices, while setting timelines for pleadings and interim relief hearings.
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.