Short Summary
Alkem Laboratories Ltd filed a petition alleging that Ch V Pulla Rao was willfully disobeying a settlement agreement by using the deceptively similar trademark "A VITA Z" against Alkem's mark, "A to Z". The petitioner presented photographic evidence of the alleged infringement. The respondent denied the allegations and stated they were not using the infringing mark. The court noted that the respondent's counter affidavit was missing and listed the matter for further hearing.
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 trademark matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Alkem Laboratories Ltd vs Ch V Pulla Rao is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
M/S Alkem Laboratories Ltd.vsMega International (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/S Alkem Laboratories Ltd.'s appeal against a judgment that rejected its claim of passing off regarding the trademark 'GEMCAL'. The court found insufficient evidence to establish Alkem as the proprietor or prior user, noting that both parties were concurrent users. Furthermore, the court observed no instances of consumer confusion and noted significant differences in sales figures, concluding that Alkem's claims were unsubstantiated.
M/S.Avon Emery IndustriesvsSabko Industries
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S. Avon Emery Industries against an earlier ruling that rejected its application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court affirmed the trial court's decision after considering arguments from both sides regarding whether the original suit included claims for trademark infringement or only passing off. Given the respondent's clarification that the suit was solely for passing off, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's order.
Mather And Co Pvt LtdvsUnion Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors.
Mather And Co Pvt Ltd filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking to enforce its registered trademark 'Mather' against entities registering deceptively similar corporate names. The petitioner argued that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) was failing in its duty to prevent serial infringement of their well-known brand name, which has been used since 1944. While the respondents initially raised a challenge regarding territorial jurisdiction, the court ordered notice to all parties and scheduled further hearings to examine the maintainability and merits of the trademark enforcement claim.
L&T Valves LimitedvsM/S Isteel
In a suit concerning trademark infringement, L&T Valves Limited successfully secured several interim reliefs from the Delhi High Court. The court granted exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advance service, allowing the plaintiff to proceed urgently. Crucially, the court passed an order for ex-parte ad-interim injunction, directing the appointment of a Local Commissioner to seize infringing material and inspect relevant documents, thereby providing immediate protection against alleged trademark misuse.
M/S Jagran Prakashan LtdvsJagran Entertainment Media Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking to bring new parties into the ongoing trademark dispute concerning 'Dainik Jagran'. The court dismissed two separate applications for impleadment, finding that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Crucially, the court clarified that this dismissal does not prejudice the rights of these applicants in the trademark, which will be determined in related proceedings. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte.
Facing a trademark dispute?
Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.
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.