IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 17 of 56 · 1,677 total
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In this procedural order within an infringement action, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy successfully argued for the protection of confidential business secrets contained in licensing agreements (Agreements A & B). The UPC Central Division ruled that these documents must be restricted from the respondent, Microsoft Corporation. This decision reinforces the importance of balancing commercial confidentiality with the right to a proper defense within the UPC framework.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Eris Lifesciences Limited. The suit concerns alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 268846 related to the medicinal product Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and granted the requested restraint.
Chattisgarh Distilleries Limited v.Great Galleon Ventures Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a procedural order in the dispute between Chattisgarh Distilleries Limited and Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. The court directed the impleadment of the Registrar of Trademarks and ordered various parties to file amended memos, additional affidavits, and formal responses regarding original registration documents presented by the petitioner. This indicates the case is progressing through a detailed evidentiary phase.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design which rejected its Patent Application No. 10885/DELNP/2015 for a product treating IBS. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court adjourned the matter.
Kathakaar Films Production House v.Shane Ali & Ors
This appeal concerns allegations that Kathakaar Films Production House infringed upon the registered trademarks and copyrights of Shane Ali & Ors. The dispute centers on the use of a logo/mark deceptively similar to the respondents' property in the film 'MAIN LADEGA'. While the appellant admitted using the similar mark, they contested both trademark infringement and copyright violation, arguing the usage was incidental under Section 52(1)(u)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The court listed the appeal for further consideration on merits.
Scrum Alliance, Inc. v.M/S Henry Harvin India Education Inc. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Scrum Alliance, Inc. against M/S Henry Harvin India Education Inc. and others. The court found a prima facie case that the defendants were deceptively adopting trademarks like 'CSM' and 'Certified Scrum Master' for education services, misleading the public into believing they were affiliated with the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using these confusingly similar marks until the final hearing.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought to expand its infringement lawsuit against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH to include OTECH Germany GmbH. The UPC Local Division of Munich rejected the request for party change, citing procedural issues and process economics. While the claimant argued lack of prior knowledge regarding OTECH's activities, the court maintained that the delay was not justifiable and suggested a new separate action could be filed if necessary.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act regarding amendments. The High Court found that the impugned order was unreasoned because the Controller failed to discuss the appellant's explanation despite it being provided. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Largan Precision Co Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd for infringing its Indian Patent No. 363203, which relates to light blocking sheets in camera systems. The court addressed applications related to interrogatories and the need for confidentiality, ultimately directing the formation of a confidential club.
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.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural matter following the initial invalidation of EP 1 838 002. The court allowed Avago Technologies to withdraw its cost determination application, effectively ending that specific proceeding. Crucially, the ruling established that in this context, each party must bear their own costs, providing clarity on cost allocation after a patent's revocation.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural point regarding the notification of default judgment risks. The court clarified that when ordering a party to provide security for costs, the warning about potential default proceedings (under R.355 RoP) does not need to be embedded in the main operative text of the order. Instead, it can be communicated through a separate judicial order. This ruling provides clarity on procedural requirements within UPC actions, particularly concerning cost security and its implications for case progression.
Green Gold Animation Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Green Gold Animation Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the abandonment of opposition proceedings related to the 'MIGHTY RAJU' device mark. The High Court was asked to restore the opposition and allow the applicant to file a counter statement. However, the appellant subsequently conveyed instructions that they did not wish to pursue the appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Mittal Electronic Industries v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mittal Electronic Industries filed a petition challenging the current registration status of the trademark 'MILTON' (No. 419520). The petitioner contends that despite their historical association with the mark, the proprietorship is now incorrectly listed under an unrelated entity, 'Indian Agencies.' The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, prompting a formal inquiry into the ownership and registration details of the trademark.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case. The appeal sought to change the language from German to English, based on the patent's grant language and the defendant's operational context. The court ultimately sided with the defendant (Google), establishing that while claimants have a right to choose the language, this right is balanced against the principle of fairness for the defendant. This ruling provides important guidance on how procedural rights interact with the need to ensure equitable litigation in the UPC.
Dunar Foods Limited v.Ankit Vats Trading As Avjk Foods Llp & Anr.
Dunar Foods Limited initiated proceedings seeking the cancellation of the registered trademark 'Nawazish' through a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court issued notice to all parties and set forth detailed timelines for filing replies and written synopses. This order marks a procedural step in the ongoing litigation aimed at challenging the validity of the registered mark.
Arcelormittal Investigacion Y Desarrollo SL v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arcelormittal Investigacion Y Desarrollo SL appealed against an impugned order dated February 20, 2024, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The original order refused to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 1908/DELNP/2015, citing lack of full disclosure and technical advancement. The High Court noted the submissions and directed parties to file replies.
Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. v.Abdul Rehman & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an injunction application in a trademark infringement suit brought by Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. The court accepted the Plaintiff's claim regarding the established goodwill associated with 'FAIRMONT' and 'THE FAIRMONT'. Crucially, Defendant No. 1 agreed to cease using the infringing device mark and domain name 'www.fairmontin.in', leading the Court to grant a temporary injunction and a four-week period for implementation of the changes. The court also extended these directions to Defendants No. 2 and 3.
M S Cothas Coffee Co. v.Ms Cotha Associates
The plaintiff, M S Cothas Coffee Co., filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants for infringing and passing off its registered trademarks 'COTHAS COFFEE' and 'COTHAS'. The dispute arose after former partners (Defendants No. 2 and 3) retired from the firm but subsequently established a new partnership firm, M/s. Cotha Associates, using the deceptively similar trademark 'COTHA' for coffee products.
Terex India Private Limited v.Cde Asia Ltd.
Terex India Private Limited appealed an order refusing its post-grant opposition against Indian Patent No. 307249, which was granted to CDE Asia Ltd. The appellant argued that the Deputy Controller's decision failed to provide independent reasoning or address key legal submissions regarding patentability and prior art. The Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order, quashing it and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Thukral Mechanical Works v.Pm Diesels Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court, in a series of connected appeals, addressed challenges to an earlier finding regarding trademark non-use. While some applications were disposed of with exemptions allowed, the court granted a stay on the main impugned judgment. This decision highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny over trademark cancellation proceedings, particularly when conflicting interpretations of Supreme Court precedents arise.
M/s. Vemula Buchamma And Sons v.Vemula Manikyam
The Madras High Court dismissed an Original Petition filed by M/s. Vemula Buchamma And Sons against Vemula Manikyam and the Registrar of Trade Marks. The petitioner sought the removal or cancellation of the trademark 'KISMAT BEEDI' from the register, citing concerns over maintaining the purity of the register. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear for hearing despite being duly served notice, the court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
Mayco Monsanto Biotech (India ) Ltd v.The Government of Andhra Pradesh
Mayco Monsanto Biotech filed a writ petition challenging an impugned G.O. issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh which fixed the reasonable trait value/royalty for cotton seeds for 2015-16. The court considered the arguments regarding potential prejudice to the petitioners if the order was suspended.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by Samsung Electronics to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The claimant, Headwater Research LLC, did not object to the change, and consequently, the President of the Court granted the application. This decision is significant as it establishes a clear path for aligning procedural language with the patent's grant language in UPC cases.
Tintometer India Pvt.Ltd v.M/s Wensar Weighing Scales Limited
The Madras High Court partially decreed the suit filed by Tintometer India Pvt.Ltd against M/s Wensar Weighing Scales Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using or passing off the identical mark 'TINTOMETER' in relation to colorimeter products, and ordered the surrender of infringing materials for destruction. While rejecting the claim for specific damages, the court passed a preliminary decree compelling the defendants to render true accounts of profits made through the use of the disputed trademark.
Akzo Nobel Coatings International B. v.Berger Paints India Limited and Anr.
The Calcutta High Court disposed of the appeal concerning the trademark 'POLYDUR'. The court noted that Respondent No. 1 had submitted a letter requesting the withdrawal of the trademark application (No. 1949642). Consequently, the High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks, Kolkata, to process and pass the appropriate orders for the complete withdrawal of the mark within three weeks.
Krbl Limited v.Rajesh Kejriwal Trading As Chemical Centre India And Anr.
In this ongoing trademark dispute, Krbl Limited sought permission to introduce several documents into the court record. The Delhi High Court allowed the admission of statutory and official records pertaining to the respondent, while rejecting other documents presented by the petitioner due to lack of relevance in the current proceedings. This order allows both parties time to prepare comprehensive written synopses detailing the chronological events and legal arguments for the final adjudication of the cancellation petition.
M/S Star Syringe Ltd v.M/S Tiger Surgical Disposable Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have infringed their patent and seek damages. The case is ongoing with preliminary objections raised by the defendants regarding maintainability due to insolvency proceedings.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Meril Italy srl to extend the written phase of a revocation action against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The claimant sought permission for further pleadings due to new arguments raised by the defendant in its rejoinder. However, the Court ruled that the existing rules governing the written procedure were sufficient and that the request lacked justification under principles of proportionality. This decision reinforces the strict adherence to procedural timelines within UPC revocation actions.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
This UPC decision addresses applications for provisional measures in a dispute involving sports technology patents. The Court upheld the defendants' right to request security for costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA, setting the required amount at €56,000. Crucially, the Panel dismissed the request for a technically qualified judge, asserting its own competence to handle the physics-related issues given the complexity and time sensitivity of the case.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.