OTHER_IP — India Patent Cases
82 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 3 · 82 total
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Ms. Sunita Devi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a suit and a rectification petition following a successful mediation process between the parties. The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr., successfully secured a decree against Ms. Sunita Devi & Anr. based on a settlement agreement dated May 22, 2024. Crucially, the respondent was directed to withdraw their trademark 'RAKARNI GYPSUM' (Registration No. 3618245) and undertake not to commit any acts of infringement or passing off related to similar marks in Class 19.
Mrs. Shubhangi S. Jachak v.Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order modifying a prior decision in the trademark dispute between Mrs. Shubhangi S. Jachak and Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr. The modification allows Respondent No. 1 to bring on record several crucial additional documents related to ownership changes, examination objections, and responses filed with the Trademark Registry. This procedural step is significant as it introduces detailed evidence regarding trademark assignment timelines and prior rejection grounds into the ongoing litigation.
Raj Kumar Jain / Puja Agarwal / Pravesh Narula Trading as M/s. Capital Enterprises v.Registrar of Trademark & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders across connected trademark litigation matters. Notably, the court condoned a significant delay (82 days) in filing a Written Statement to an amended plaint, allowing the case to proceed despite procedural lapses. Furthermore, directions were given for forensic examination of specific sale invoices, indicating that evidence authenticity remains a critical point of contention in this dispute.
Mr.A.Salaudeen v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Mr. A. Salaudeen approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention against the prolonged delay by the Registrar of Trade Marks in processing his post-registration changes for three trademarks ('Globe', 'Cock', and 'Anil'). The petitioner argued that this seven-year pendency was causing undue hardship and eroding his goodwill due to unauthorized third-party use. Recognizing the administrative lapse, the Court issued a directive compelling the Registrar to dispose of the pending application within eight weeks.
Raj Kumar Jain / Puja Agarwal / Pravesh Narula Trading as M/s. Capital Enterprises v.Registrar of Trademark & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders across connected trademark litigation matters. Notably, the court condoned a significant delay (82 days) in filing a Written Statement to an amended plaint, allowing the case to proceed despite procedural lapses. Furthermore, directions were given for forensic examination of specific sale invoices, indicating that evidence authenticity remains a critical point of contention in this dispute.
Naveel Danish v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
In this Madras High Court judgment, the court addressed a writ petition seeking direction for the re-examination of Trademark Application No. 55070330. The petitioner sought intervention to compel the Registrar to act on previous representations requesting fresh examination and criminal proceedings. While the initial prayer was broad, the court ultimately directed the Registrar to proceed with fresh orders in accordance with law, ensuring all parties are given a fair opportunity during the process.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Ms. Sunita Devi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a suit and a rectification petition following a successful mediation process between the parties. The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr., successfully secured a decree against Ms. Sunita Devi & Anr. based on a settlement agreement dated May 22, 2024. Crucially, the respondent was directed to withdraw their trademark 'RAKARNI GYPSUM' (Registration No. 3618245) and undertake not to commit any acts of infringement or passing off related to similar marks in Class 19.
Kamlesh Kumar Mehta v.Union Of India; Gini Silk Mills Limited
The Rajasthan High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Kamlesh Kumar Mehta seeking the expeditious disposal of his long-pending trademark registration application for 'GILI' in Class 24. After considering the petitioner's request, the court issued an order directing the Registrar of Trade Marks (Respondent No. 1) to decide Application No. 1779181 within a strict period of eight weeks from receiving the certified copy of the judgment.
The Board Of Directors Of The Woodstock School Nand Teachers Training College v.Rajneesh Arora And Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a joint application regarding the settlement between The Board Of Directors Of The Woodstock School and Rajneesh Arora. As part of the agreement, Respondent No. 1 agreed to withdraw their impugned trademark (No. 1519967) registered in Class 41. Furthermore, Respondent No. 1 also withdrew oppositions filed against the Petitioner's trademark applications (Nos. 2825545 and 2825546). The Court directed the Trademark Office to process these withdrawals expeditiously, confirming that both parties remain bound by the settlement terms.
Fintie Llc Through Mr.Nai Chu Cheng v.Vivekananda Chintapalli Of Flat 5 & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Fintie LLC's petition seeking the cancellation of a conflicting trademark registration. The court found that the respondent had registered the identical word mark 'FINTIE,' relying on the petitioner's established goodwill and prior use in other jurisdictions. Given the clear identity of the marks, the court ruled it inappropriate for the respondent's mark to remain on the register.
Quikr India Private Limited v.Sellquikr Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the writ petition based on a joint compromise memo between Quikr India Private Limited and Sellquikr Private Limited. The core agreement stipulated that Sellquikr acknowledged having no rights over Quikr's registered trademarks and copyrighted material. Furthermore, Sellquikr committed to immediately changing its corporate name by removing 'QUIKR,' taking down all associated websites and applications, transferring the domain name sellquikr.in/ to Quikr, and ceasing any use of Quikr's intellectual property.
Gautam Lal Tak v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Gautam Lal Tak filed a writ petition against The Registrar of Trade Marks, seeking expediting of his long-pending trademark registration for 'MAHALAXMI BRAND' in Class 29. After seven years of delay, the Rajasthan High Court disposed of the petition by issuing a directive to the Respondent. The court mandated that the Registrar must decide the pending application within six months from receiving the certified copy of the order.
Trademark Address v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed writ petitions challenging procedural delays in a trademark opposition case. While the petitioner initially sought to overturn an order rejecting an extension for evidence, the court noted that subsequent events had rendered the original petitions infructuous. Since the petitioner subsequently filed a rectification petition against the registered mark, the court disposed of the initial writs but directed the Registrar of Trademarks to expeditiously consider and decide the pending rectification application.
Goutam Lal Tak v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Goutam Lal Tak filed a writ petition seeking intervention from the High Court regarding the prolonged pendency of his trademark registration application for 'MAHALAXMI OIL'. The court acknowledged the delay and issued a specific direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks. This order mandates that the pending application must be decided within six months, providing a clear timeline for the resolution of the matter.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Verizon Trade Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order on April 12, 2023, in the matter of Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. versus Verizon Trade Services & Ors. The court directed that the case be re-notified for a hearing on April 13, 2023. This procedural step indicates ongoing litigation concerning trademark matters between the two related entities.
M/S Sureka International v.Government E Marketplace & Anr.
M/S Sureka International challenged the lack of verification mechanisms on the Government E Marketplace (GeM) portal, arguing that false complaints regarding its trademark usage were damaging its reputation. The court acknowledged the reputational harm but noted that the dispute was fundamentally about trademark registration scope (Class 35 vs goods). Instead of mandating a specific mechanism, the Delhi High Court directed GeM to consider and respond to the petitioner's representation within two weeks.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Verizon Trade Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order on April 12, 2023, in the matter of Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. versus Verizon Trade Services & Ors. The court directed that the case be re-notified for a hearing on April 13, 2023. This procedural step indicates ongoing litigation concerning trademark matters between the two related entities.
Vaibhav Chaurasia v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Vaibhav Chaurasia seeking directions against the Union of India regarding the status of Trade Mark No. 2650542. The petitioner had applied for the substitution of his name as the proprietor following an assignment from M/s Delicious Food Products Pvt Ltd. Recognizing the limited nature of the grievance, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process and decide the application within a period of six weeks.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Verizon Trade Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order on April 12, 2023, in the matter of Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. versus Verizon Trade Services & Ors. The court directed that the case be re-notified for a hearing on April 13, 2023. This procedural step indicates ongoing litigation concerning trademark matters between the two related entities.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Verizon Trade Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order on April 12, 2023, in the matter of Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. versus Verizon Trade Services & Ors. The court directed that the case be re-notified for a hearing on April 13, 2023. This procedural step indicates ongoing litigation concerning trademark matters between the two related entities.
Star Sintered Products Ltd. v.Karan Bhutani
The Delhi High Court addressed an application related to trademark rectification between Star Sintered Products Ltd. and Karan Bhutani. The court noted that the defendant had withdrawn earlier applications seeking objections or rectification against the plaintiffs' trademarks. Consequently, the status of the plaintiff's marks was updated in the Registrar's records, removing references to prior objections. As a result, one specific interlocutory application (I.A. 2301/2021) was disposed of, while the court scheduled further hearings to consider the plaintiffs' claim for damages and other pending matters.
Jagdamba Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks (Govt. Of India)
Jagdamba Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition seeking intervention regarding its long-pending trademark registration application for 'SUPER POSTMAN' in Class 29. The petitioner argued that the application had been awaiting decision by the Registrar of Trade Marks for over nineteen years. The Rajasthan High Court addressed this delay, issuing an order directing the Respondent to decide the pending application within a strict period of eight weeks.
Star Sintered Products Ltd. v.Karan Bhutani
The Delhi High Court addressed an application related to trademark rectification between Star Sintered Products Ltd. and Karan Bhutani. The court noted that the defendant had withdrawn earlier applications seeking objections or rectification against the plaintiffs' trademarks. Consequently, the status of the plaintiff's marks was updated in the Registrar's records, removing references to prior objections. As a result, one specific interlocutory application (I.A. 2301/2021) was disposed of, while the court scheduled further hearings to consider the plaintiffs' claim for damages and other pending matters.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Ms. Sunita Devi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a suit and a rectification petition following a successful mediation process between the parties. The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr., successfully secured a decree against Ms. Sunita Devi & Anr. based on a settlement agreement dated May 22, 2024. Crucially, the respondent was directed to withdraw their trademark 'RAKARNI GYPSUM' (Registration No. 3618245) and undertake not to commit any acts of infringement or passing off related to similar marks in Class 19.
Suresh Mishra Trading As Sanskriti Yuva Sansthan Society v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, Government Of India
Suresh Mishra filed a writ petition seeking an expedited disposal of his pending trademark application, 'Bharat Gaurav,' which had been awaiting consideration since October 2006. The Rajasthan High Court addressed the petitioner's limited prayer by issuing a directive to the Registrar of Trademarks. The court mandated that the Registrar must decide the long-pending application within a period of four months from the date of receiving the order, thereby providing relief against administrative delay.
Deepak Khanna M/S B.D. Khanna Jewellers Pvt Ltd. v.Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers
The Delhi High Court consolidated multiple trademark infringement and rectification petitions involving the 'BDK' mark. Following the abolition of the IPAB, the court revived the suit for infringement alongside the pending rectification matters. The court appointed a new Local Commissioner to proceed with recording evidence, setting a timeline for completion within three months.
Star Sintered Products Ltd. v.Karan Bhutani
The Delhi High Court addressed an application related to trademark rectification between Star Sintered Products Ltd. and Karan Bhutani. The court noted that the defendant had withdrawn earlier applications seeking objections or rectification against the plaintiffs' trademarks. Consequently, the status of the plaintiff's marks was updated in the Registrar's records, removing references to prior objections. As a result, one specific interlocutory application (I.A. 2301/2021) was disposed of, while the court scheduled further hearings to consider the plaintiffs' claim for damages and other pending matters.
Messrs Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd v.Mr Pushpinder Garg & Ors / Super Impex and Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple facets of the trademark dispute involving 'MONICA GOLD' and 'MONICA PRIME'. In the infringement suit, the court allowed an application to appoint a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises and inventory infringing goods. Separately, the court initiated proceedings for the rectification of the mark 'Monica Prime', issuing notices to the respondents. The overall matter remains active with interim orders in place.
Universal City Studios Llc v.M/S Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
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.
Universal City Studios Llc v.M/S Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
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.
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.