technology — India Patent Cases
99 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 4 · 99 total
Pennar Industries Limited v.R.Raghavendran
This case arose from an application filed by the 2nd respondent seeking dismissal of the main Original Petition (OP(TM) No. 59 of 2025) on the ground that it was filed in violation of Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The 1st respondent's counsel submitted that necessary leave had been obtained from the NCLT in December 2025, which the applicant's counsel conceded. The court dismissed the application as infructuous and directed the main OP to be listed on 16.10.2026.
Shri Narinder Kumar Trading As M/S Kundan Trading Company v.M/S Kyoto Tools Company Ltd & Anr
The petitioner, Shri Narinder Kumar trading as M/S Kundan Trading Company, filed a petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking rectification of the register and cancellation of the respondent's registered trademark (application no. 5930389 in class 7). The petitioner claimed prior registration of the mark 'KTC' in class 8 (since 16.04.2009) and class 9 (since 02.03.2012), whereas the respondent's mark was applied only on 19.01.2017 and registered in May 2026. The respondent countered that the petitioner's KTC registration was predicated on a forged invoice dated 10.11.1993. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file replies within six weeks, with the next date of hearing fixed for 15.01.2027.
The Coca-Cola Company v.M/S Chhabee Nutricos Industries LLP
The Coca-Cola Company filed an application alleging wilful disobedience by M/S Chhabee Nutricos Industries LLP of an earlier interim order dated 24.01.2025, which had restrained the defendant from using marks and bottle shapes similar to Coca-Cola's 'PULPY ORANGE' mark and distinctive bottle device. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had slightly altered the bottle shape to circumvent the earlier injunction, but the overall appearance remained deceptively similar. The Delhi High Court, finding prima facie that the new bottle was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered bottle device, restrained the defendant from using the impugned new shape bottle and granted three weeks to file a reply.
State v.Akash
The case involved prosecution of Akash for alleged sale of counterfeit HP-branded toner and ink cartridges under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arising from FIR No. 213/2019 at PS Daryaganj. The complainant, Khushmeet Singh Bhati from Ikon Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd., failed to identify the accused, the location of the raid, or the seized products during his testimony as PW-1. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish essential ingredients of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Abbvie Inc. v.Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks and Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a procedural order in a patent appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 37/2026) filed by Abbvie Inc. before the Delhi High Court against the Controller General of Patents and others. The court addressed issues of service upon respondents and granted time for filing replies and rejoinders, while also directing requisitioning of the Controller General of Patents' records.
Gufic Biosciences Limited & Anr v.Niraj S Sahuji & Anr
This is a rectification petition filed by Gufic Biosciences Limited and another petitioner before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the trademark 'SHREE SAMPANNA SHALLAKI' (Registration No. 4739384) registered under Class 5 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court allowed the petitioners' applications for exemption, condonation of 109 days' delay in re-filing the petition, and leave to file additional documents. Notice was issued to the respondents, with directions to file replies within six weeks and rejoinders within four weeks thereafter.
Levi Strauss And Co. v.Mr. Promod Yadav & Ors.
Levi Strauss And Co., the globally renowned owner of the LEVI'S trademark and associated logos including the Two Horse design, BATWING designs, and Arcuate Stitching Design, filed a commercial suit seeking summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC against three defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing, selling, and marketing counterfeit garments bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court, finding irrefutable and unrebutted evidence of infringement and likelihood of consumer confusion, allowed the application and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and damages.
Dr Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr v.Medicine Me & Ors
The plaintiffs, Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty (a renowned cardiac surgeon) and Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain infringement of their personality rights and registered trademarks, along with other ancillary reliefs against various Facebook pages, YouTube channels, and social media platforms. None of the defendants contested the suit, and the court made the interim order dated 28.11.2024 absolute, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The court granted the plaintiffs liberty to approach Meta Platforms Inc. and Google LLC regarding any subsequently discovered infringing URLs or content, while reserving the question of declaring the marks as well-known trademarks.
V-Guard Industries Limited v.Sh. Teja Ram K Chaudhary Proprietor of M/s G. Gaurd Cable Industries and Anr
V-Guard Industries Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the registered trade mark 'G-GUARD' (Registration No. 3799286) in Class 35, held in the name of respondent Teja Ram K. Chaudhary. The petitioner claimed prior adoption and extensive use of the mark 'V-GUARD' since 1977, and alleged that the respondent's adoption of the similar mark 'G-GUARD' was deliberate and not bonafide. The Court permitted the petitioner to file additional documents, issued notice to the respondents, and directed the filing of reply and rejoinder, with the matter re-notified for 30 November 2026.
Good Drop Wine Cellars Private Limited v.Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Others
The petitioner, Good Drop Wine Cellars Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Trade Marks Registry to expeditiously dispose of its pending rectification petition (No. 269295) filed against the trademark registration (No. 1334766 in class 33) held by the third respondent, Vina Santa Carolina S.A. The petitioner's own trademark application had been refused due to the third respondent's prior registration, and the rectification petition had been pending since September 2020 with the third respondent failing to appear. The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of the rectification petition within eight weeks.
Japan Tobacco Inc And Anr v.The Central Wearhouse And Anr
This petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 was filed by Japan Tobacco Inc. and its affiliate Worldwide Brands Inc. seeking rectification of the Register of Copyrights by expunging Copyright Registration No. A-54242/97 dated 22.10.1997 for an artistic work depicting a camel, registered in the name of respondent Mrs. Veena R. Hinduja. The petitioners claimed to be the first owners of the original 'CAMEL' artistic work, asserting prior and continuous use of the mark since 1913 for tobacco and since the late 1970s for non-tobacco goods. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to establish themselves as the 'First Owner' of the original artistic work under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, which was the essential substratum for seeking rectification.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd v.John Doe And Ors
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd, which operates the digital streaming platform 'FanCode', sought a 'dynamic+' injunction to notify defendants of further infringing websites streaming its licensed sporting events without filing fresh applications each time. The Delhi High Court, after balancing the need to combat online piracy of live sporting events against the caution expressed in Home Box Office Inc. v. Streamzy.to regarding not conferring adjudicatory powers on intermediaries, allowed the application and granted a tailored mechanism permitting the plaintiff to notify domain registrars, ISPs, and authorities by email, with corresponding obligations to suspend or block access within specified timeframes.
Glisten LLC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Glisten LLC appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 202017005875 titled 'Gemstone Coating and Methods of Making and Using the Same.' The appellant contended that the Assistant Controller violated principles of natural justice by refusing the application on the ground that claims 1 to 17 lacked inventive step, when the hearing notice had confined the inventive step objection solely to claim 18. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the application for fresh consideration, holding that the respondent could not raise a fresh or revived objection without putting the appellant on notice and affording it an opportunity to respond.
Kaira District Co-Operative v.Asian Beverage Private Limited.
Court decision.
Hotel Millennium Continental Pvt. Ltd. v.Millennium And Copthorne International Ltd. & Anr.
This case arose from a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Millennium & Copthorne International Ltd. against Hotel Millennium Continental Pvt. Ltd. before the Delhi High Court under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, concerning the mark 'Millennium' and its logo. The defendant had challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed, leading to an SLP before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred the matter to mediation by former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, and the parties ultimately settled their disputes through a Settlement Agreement dated 22 September 2026, with the Court disposing of the appeal and the pending suit in terms of the settlement.
Triveni Household Items Manufacturer Private Limited v.Mr. Virendra Kumar Yadav Trading As Yadav Steel Furniture Works
Triveni Household Items Manufacturer Private Limited filed a contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Section 151 CPC against Mr. Virendra Kumar Yadav for alleged willful disobedience of a court order dated 08.07.2026, in which the respondent had undertaken not to use the disputed words and to withdraw Trade Mark Application No. 6702854 for the mark 'TRIVENI Y' in Class 20. The petitioner contended that the respondent continued to use the trademark in defiance of the undertaking given to the court. The Delhi High Court directed issuance of notice to the respondent and listed the matter for hearing on 11.03.2027.
KSB SE & Co. KGaA & Anr. v.M/s. UK Fire System
The plaintiffs, KSB SE & Co. KGaA, proprietors of the trademark 'KSB' in Classes 7, 9, 11 and 35, filed a commercial intellectual property rights suit against M/s. UK Fire System for trademark infringement. The defendant, through its sole proprietor Mr. Shah Shariq Ahmed, filed an affidavit-in-reply giving undertakings acknowledging the plaintiffs' trademark rights and agreeing not to use the 'KSB' mark or any deceptively similar mark, and not to deal in counterfeit products. The court accepted the undertakings and decreed the suit on admission, while disposing of the connected interim application.
KSB SE & Co. KGaA & Anr. v.M/s. UK Fire System
This was a commercial intellectual property rights suit filed by KSB SE & Co. KGaA and another against M/s. UK Fire System for alleged infringement of the trademark 'KSB' registered in Classes 7, 9, 11, and 35. The defendant, through its sole proprietor Mr. Shah Shariq Ahmed, filed an affidavit-in-reply giving undertakings acknowledging the plaintiffs' proprietorship of the 'KSB' trademark and agreeing not to use the mark or any deceptively similar mark, not to deal in counterfeit products, and to surrender any infringing material. The court accepted the undertakings and decreed the suit on admission, while disposing of the connected interim application.
Simrat Randhawa & Others v.Poonam Dhawan & Others
This Civil Revision petition challenged the judgment of the District Judge, Solan, dated 31.07.2025, which had set aside the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli dismissing the plaintiff's application for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The plaintiff, Poonam Dhawan, claimed co-ownership of joint property through a registered Will dated 06.06.2014 executed by Smt. Surinder Kaur, while the defendants contended she was a non-agriculturist barred from inheriting under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The High Court allowed the revision, quashed the appellate court's order, and rejected the plaintiff's injunction application, holding that the appellate court had improperly substituted its discretion for that of the trial court.
Petals IVF and Women Care Centre LLP v.RPCI Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
This case concerns a rectification petition filed by Petals IVF and Women Care Centre LLP against RPCI Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. regarding the trade mark/device mark 'MAAERI'. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking to restrain the petitioner from misrepresenting an earlier order dated 30.03.2026 to the Chief Medical Officer of Uttar Pradesh, implying that respondents had been restrained from using the 'MAAERI' mark. The court clarified that the earlier order only directed respondents not to create third-party proprietary rights in the mark, and did not restrain them from using it.
Naman Agarwal (Proprietor of MS Radhe Radhe) v.M/S Ferns N Petals Pvt Ltd & Anr
This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by Naman Agarwal, Proprietor of MS Radhe Radhe, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of four composite agreements dated 20.08.2025 with M/S Ferns N Petals Pvt Ltd & Anr. The respondents did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement. The Delhi High Court found no impediment in appointing a sole arbitrator and appointed Mr. Sagar Saxena, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator, with the arbitration to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
Society For Human Resource Management (SHRM) v.Sphinx Worldbiz Ltd & Ors
The plaintiff, Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), a globally recognized HR organization with nearly 340,000 members across 180 countries, filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Sphinx Worldbiz Ltd and others for using the mark 'SHRM PRO' and related formative marks. The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining defendants from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered 'SHRM' trademarks, and directed the domain registrar and app store platforms to take down the infringing website and mobile applications.
Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a procedural order in a patent appeal before the Delhi High Court. The appeal was received from the Roster Bench as it had been substantially heard by the Court. The matter was listed for further hearing on 16 October 2026.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Reown Moto And Another
Eicher Motors Limited, the proprietor of the Royal Enfield brand and registered owner of the 'REOWN' trademark across multiple classes, sought an ad-interim injunction against Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB for allegedly infringing its registered marks by using 'REOWN MOTO / RM REOWN MOTO'. The plaintiff contended that the defendants' use of a deceptively similar mark amounted to trademark infringement. The Court extended the previously granted interim stay until the next date of hearing, noting that settlement discussions between the parties were underway.
Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v.Glorious Investments Limited And Anr.
This is a rectification application before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division concerning trademarks originally associated with Dunlop India Limited (DIL). The petitioner, Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited, argued that the chain of trademark assignments from DIL to the respondent Glorious Investments Limited is void because the assignments post-date the winding up petition against DIL, which was allowed on 31st January, 2013, with the winding up dating back to the date of filing. The petitioner further contended that DIL had admitted to being out of production at its Sahaganj and Ambattur Units, supporting non-use of the mark for over five years. The arguments could not be concluded and the matter was adjourned to 1st October, 2026.
M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., East Zone, Kolkata v.Union of India & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by IRCTC challenging orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority directing it to pay gratuity to a contract worker who had served through three different contractors from 2002 to 2020. The court held that the principal employer is liable to pay gratuity to contract labour under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, but modified the order to grant IRCTC liberty to recover the gratuity amount from the contractor.
Narender Kumar v.The State
This criminal revision petition was filed by Narender Kumar, proprietor of M/s Kundan Trading Company, challenging the trial court's order dated 04.06.2024 discharging the accused persons in FIR No. 03/2019 registered under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision, finding no infirmity or illegality in the discharge order, holding that the recovered goods bore the mark of KTC Japan (Kyoto Tools Company) and not the complainant's mark, and that the offence of falsification of trade mark was not made out against the accused.
State v.Yuvraj Singh And Ors.
The State prosecuted accused Ashok Kumar (along with Yuvraj Singh, whose proceedings were later abated) for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, alleging that counterfeit Maruti Suzuki products were recovered from his shop during a raid on 19.07.2018. The complainant, Sh. Surender Singh, an employee of EIPR India Pvt. Ltd. (authorized by M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.), turned hostile and failed to identify the accused or the seized goods, and the case property was destroyed in a fire. The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted Ashok Kumar, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Esme Consumer Pvt. Ltd v.Blueheavenin.Com & Ors
Esme Consumer Pvt. Ltd., the registered proprietor of the trademarks 'BLUE HEAVEN' and associated formative/device marks, filed a commercial suit against Blueheavenin.Com and others for online trademark infringement and cybersquatting. The plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1 was operating the domain blueheavenin.com, which incorporated its trademark in its entirety and presented itself as the official website, while Defendant No. 2 was hosting an infringing BLUE HEAVEN cosmetics page on an unrelated domain. The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from operating the impugned websites and directed the domain registrars/intermediaries to preserve records and transfer-lock the domain names.
Gola Sizzlers Private Limited v.M/S GM Foods & Anr
The plaintiff, Gola Sizzlers Private Limited, filed a commercial suit against M/S GM Foods & Anr. Defendant No. 1 sought to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on an arbitration clause in a Tripartite Lease Agreement dated 19.03.2024. The Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitration clause in the Lease Agreement did not bind the parties with respect to their separate inter se agreement governing their rights and obligations, and that an arbitration agreement cannot be inferred where none exists.
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.