Patent Cases

patent LITIGATION · Oct 8, 2026

Archian Foods Private Limited, which manufactures and markets traditional Indian flavoured non-alcoholic beverages under the 'LAHORI' family of marks (such as LAHORI ZEERA, LAHORI NIMBOO, LAHORI KACHA AAM, LAHORI SHIKANJI, and LAHORI IMLI BANTA), filed a commercial suit against Goldenstuff And Beverages Private Limited and others for infringement of its registered trademarks, copyrights, and designs, along with passing off. The plaintiff sought an ex parte ad interim injunction, alleging that the defendants, who commenced business only in January 2026, had adopted an identical or deceptively similar logo, trade dress, colour scheme, and bottle shape. The Delhi High Court granted the ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using any marks, logos, labels, trade dress, packaging, taglines, slogans, or domain names identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's LAHORI formative trademarks.

Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV v.In(k)control BV

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-COA-0000073/2026

This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request to change the language of proceedings from Dutch to English. The appellants (Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV) appealed the decision of the President of the Local Division Brussels, who had rejected their request to change the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the President had correctly exercised her discretion in maintaining Dutch as the language of proceedings, given that both parties are established in the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium and the respondent is a small enterprise.

patent dismissed · Oct 7, 2026

M/s. Simpleenergy Private Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office, Chennai

Madras High Court · CMP No. 23555 of 2026 in CMA(PT) No. 32 of 2026

Simpleenergy Private Limited, an electric vehicle company, filed a stay petition (CMP No. 23555 of 2026) in its appeal (CMA(PT) No. 32 of 2026) against the Controller of Patents' order dated 01.04.2026 rejecting Patent Application No. 202341071388. The petitioner's counsel fairly conceded that the patent application itself had been dismissed, rendering nothing for further consideration. The Madras High Court dismissed the stay petition as infructuous.

Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr v.Neeraj Bagh House

The plaintiffs, Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr., filed a suit against Neeraj Bagh House seeking a decree of permanent injunction, trademark and copyright infringement, delivery up, and damages. During the pendency of the suit, the parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, where they arrived at a settlement agreement dated 28.07.2026. The court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and directed refund of full court fees to the plaintiffs.

Prg Pharma Private Limited v.Cure And Care Drugs Private Limited

The plaintiff, PRG Pharma Private Limited, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Cure and Care Drugs Private Limited, was using the trademark 'PRQ PHARMA,' which was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'PRG PHARMA.' The defendant's counsel indicated willingness to resolve the dispute through mediation and offered to change the packaging, trade dress, and mark if the seized consignment of cough syrup was returned. With the plaintiff's counsel also consenting, the court referred the matter to mediation.

Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr v.Ashok Kumar Unknown

The plaintiffs, Hero Investcorp Private Limited and another, filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts, and damages on the John Doe principle. During the pendency of the suit, the parties were referred to mediation and arrived at a settlement agreement dated 03.09.2026. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and directed refund of full court fees to the plaintiffs.

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. 3799287) in Class 11, owned by the respondent. The petitioner claimed prior adoption and extensive use of the mark 'V-GUARD' since 1977, alleging that the respondent's adoption of the similar mark 'G-GUARD' was 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 hearing on 30.11.2026.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Rajesh Kumar & Others v.Jwala Devi

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by Rajesh Kumar and others challenging the order dated 9.1.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, which allowed the plaintiff's appeal and granted an interim mandatory injunction in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The trial court had originally dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the appellate court's order, and restored the trial court's order, holding that the appellate court acted as a trial court without recording perversity in the trial court's findings.

Reliance Industries Limited v.Rahul Meena & Ors

Reliance Industries Limited filed a commercial suit seeking interim injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing its well-known registered trademark 'JIO' by using identical or deceptively similar marks in numerous domain names and websites related to lottery, gaming, and payment services. The Delhi High Court disposed of several interlocutory applications, granting exemption from pre-institution mediation, permission to file additional documents, exemption from service, and dispensing with notice to defendant no. 1 for the purpose of considering the urgent interim relief application.

Geetanjali Salon Pvt. Ltd v.Nitin Ajitkumar Kotwani & Anr

This is a trademark cancellation petition before the Delhi High Court filed by Geetanjali Salon Pvt. Ltd. against Nitin Ajitkumar Kotwani and another. The dispute arose when an email from a purported trademark attorney of the respondent indicated no objection to the cancellation of the impugned registration, but the court found no material on record to establish the attorney's authority. The court directed fresh notice to be issued to respondent no. 1 by all permissible modes.

Levi Strauss & Co. v.Rakesh Kumar & Anr.

Levi Strauss & Co., the globally renowned manufacturer of jeans and apparel, filed a suit for permanent injunction, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, and rendition of accounts against defendants Rakesh Kumar and Shankar Maity, who were allegedly manufacturing and selling counterfeit garments bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks including LEVI'S, the Two Horse logo, and the Arcuate Stitching Design. The suit was initially filed under the John Doe principle as the defendants' identities were unknown, and a Court Commissioner was appointed to identify them and seize infringing goods. Since the defendants failed to appear despite service, the court proceeded ex parte and granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff.

ASICS Corporation v.Sachin Sheokand & Another

ASICS Corporation, a Japanese company and registered proprietor of the well-known 'ASICS' trademark in India since 1982, filed a suit under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit sports shoes bearing the ASICS mark. The plaintiff sought summary judgment against defendant no. 2, Mr. Shamsher Gahlawat, who failed to appear or file a written statement. The court allowed the application, granted a decree of permanent injunction, awarded nominal damages of Rs. 2,00,000, and quantified litigation costs at Rs. 1,50,000.

Havells India Limited & Anr. v.M/S Havells PVC Pipes Industry

Delhi High Court

Havells India Limited and another plaintiff filed a trademark infringement suit against M/S Havells PVC Pipes Industry for using the identical mark 'HAVELLS' and the domain name https://havellspvc.com/. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was proceeded against ex parte. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the defendant's use of the mark was phonetically, visually, and structurally identical to the plaintiffs' well-known registered trademark, and awarded damages of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

Alucopanel Industries v.Imperia Decor Industries & Anr

patent LITIGATION · Oct 7, 2026

Alucopanel Industries, a registered partnership firm manufacturing Aluminium Composite Panels and building materials under Classes 6 and 19, filed a suit against Imperia Decor Industries & Anr. seeking an ex parte injunction to restrain the defendants from using the trademark 'ALUMAC', which was alleged to be phonetically and visually identical to the plaintiff's prior registered trademark 'ALOMAX'. The Delhi High Court, after examining the plaint and comparing the competing marks, found that the plaintiff was the prior adopter and registered proprietor of 'ALOMAX' and that the defendants' adoption of 'ALUMAC' was not bona fide, given that one of the directors of defendant no. 2 was previously associated with the plaintiff firm. The Court granted an ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark till the next date of hearing.

TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-COA-0000038/2026

This is a procedural order issued by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court in an appeal concerning European Patent EP 3 296 274. The judge-rapporteur declined TCL's request to hold an interim conference, finding no reason to deviate from the standard Rules of Procedure. The appeal was deemed ready for oral hearing, which was scheduled for 28 January 2027 in Luxembourg.

Amnex Infotechnologies Private Limited v.Google LLC & Anr.

This Letters Patent Appeal was filed by Amnex Infotechnologies Private Limited against Google LLC and the Registrar of Trademarks, challenging an ex-parte order dated 07.04.2026 passed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) No.57/2026. The appellant contended that the Single Judge passed the order without affording an opportunity of hearing, thereby preventing them from placing their objections on record. The appeal was disposed of by remanding the matter to the Single Judge for a fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the parties, without the Division Court entering into the merits of the case.

Pennar Industries Limited v.R.Raghavendran

Madras High Court

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

patent LITIGATION · Oct 6, 2026

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.

Inficon GmbH v.Elitech Technology, Inc. and Elitech UK Ltd.

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_4F637EF7F6

Inficon GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 567 356 B1 relating to a sniffing leak detector, brought an infringement action against Elitech Technology, Inc. and Elitech UK Ltd. concerning their 'METRUM' product, while the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant's measurements regarding the buffer chamber feature were unconvincing and inconclusive, and that the patent as granted was valid.

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.

patent LITIGATION · Oct 5, 2026

Dr Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr v.Medicine Me & Ors

Delhi High Court

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.

SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH

Paris Local Division · UPC_89194E720B

SharkNinja Operating LLC appealed an order of the Paris Local Division dismissing its application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 689 198 and paid court fees of EUR 90,300 based on the case value set by the Local Division. The Court of Appeal subsequently determined the value of the appeal proceedings at EUR 3,750,000, half of the original value, resulting in a correct fee of EUR 52,400. SharkNinja applied for reimbursement of the EUR 37,900 overpayment, which the Court of Appeal granted.

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

Madras High Court

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.