Short Summary
The plaintiff, Rc Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by the defendant, Pankaj Kumar Patel, who used the similar label 'Shri Plosto' on allied goods like water tanks and pipes. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages due to lack of evidence regarding the quantum of loss, while granting an injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark.
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 District Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Rc Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd. vs Pankaj Kumar Patel is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
M.G.M. Entertainments Pvt. Ltd.vsCommissioner Of Customs
The Tribunal upheld the Customs department's decision that various payments made by the franchisee (M.G.M. Entertainments) to the foreign franchisor were part of the transaction value of the imported goods. These fees, including franchise fee, license fee for technical know-how, and royalty, were deemed necessary conditions for the sale and use of the licensed products.
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.
Bluechip Amusements (India) Pvt. Ltd.vsCrazy Concepts And Mazes Pvt.Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petitions filed by Bluechip Amusements against Crazy Concepts and Mazes. The dismissal was due to non-prosecution, as the petitioner informed the court that they no longer operated their outlet under the name 'HORROR HOUSE.' This outcome highlights the importance of active litigation management in trademark disputes.
Naman Agarwal (Proprietor of MS Radhe Radhe)vsM/S Ferns N Petals Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Petitioner, a franchisee of Respondent No. 1 since 2022, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes arising out of four composite agreements dated 20.08.2025 relating to a franchise outlet at Bhubaneshwar, Odisha. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondents supplied defective equipment, restricted sales, suspended the outlet from its e-commerce platform, and failed to ensure adequate supply of requisite material. The Court issued notice to the Respondents and listed the matter for further proceedings on 30.09.2026.
M/s. Wockhardt LimitedvsApex Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging a trademark registration refusal. The appellant argued that the lower court's review was improperly exercised as an appeal, citing strict limitations on review jurisdiction. However, the Court found that the original decision failed to address key submissions made by the respondent regarding prior use and lack of evidence from the appellant. Consequently, the Court held that these omissions constituted 'errors apparent on the face of the record,' allowing the review order to stand.
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.