IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 18 of 56 · 1,677 total
Hyundai Motor India Limited v.Aaa Teleshoping Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Hyundai Motor India Limited, leading to the cancellation of a similar trademark registration held by Aaa Teleshoping Pvt Ltd. The court found that the respondent's mark was identical and confusingly similar to Hyundai’s prior and extensively used 'ELANTRA' brand in the automotive sector. This ruling reinforces the principle that prior adoption and continuous use grant exclusive rights, even when goods are in different classes but related.
M/s.Aariza Electricals v.M/s.Vijay Pipes Industries
The Madras High Court overturned a lower court's decision that barred the defendant from filing their written statement in a trademark dispute. The court clarified that when a suit is converted into a 'transferred suit' under the Commercial Courts Act, the strict 120-day limit for filing a defense does not apply. By allowing the defendants to file their response, the High Court ensured justice and allowed the commercial suit to proceed.
Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd. v.Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.
Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd. filed a petition seeking the cancellation and removal of the trademark registration 'MAZELO' held by Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. The Bombay High Court, in its Commercial Division, permitted the petitioner to amend their petition to include the Registrar of Trademarks as Respondent No. 2. This procedural step moves the case forward toward challenging the validity of the existing trademark.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.NJOY Netherlands B.V and Juul Labs International Inc.
This order addressed a request for public access to documents under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, stemming from parallel EPO opposition proceedings concerning EP 3430921. The Applicant argued that parties in EPO oppositions needed full visibility into UPC revocation actions to protect their interests and uphold natural justice. While the court granted access to existing materials in the CMS, it firmly rejected requests for future documents or non-decision/order court-generated materials, citing a lack of legal basis and practical concerns.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Malla Rajiv
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. against Malla Rajiv for infringing on their trademarks and copyrights related to packaged drinking water. The court found that the defendant's use of 'JK COPPER+ WATER' was an unauthorized imitation, causing consumer confusion and diluting the plaintiffs' goodwill associated with brands like 'TATA COPPER+ WATER'. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunction, damages amounting to ₹ 10 lakhs, and recovery of actual legal costs.
Sunflame Enterprises P. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
Sunflame Enterprises appealed the Registrar of Trademarks' decision to reject its opposition against a trademark application. The appellant argued that the Registrar incorrectly applied the 'actual confusion' test, contending that the standard should be the more robust 'likelihood of confusion.' The Delhi High Court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed written submissions within four weeks, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on the merits of the trademark dispute.
Rich Products Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Rich Products Corporation appealed an order rejecting its pre-grant opposition against a patent application filed by Tropilite Foods Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on whether the claimed invention was anticipated by prior art, specifically RPC's earlier expired patent (D1). The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that RPC must exhaust statutory remedies available under the Patents Act, 1970.
Abhinav Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'VISA EXPERTS - PARTNERING LIFE CHANGING DECISIONS' for visa and immigration consultancy services. The court ruled that the composite nature of the mark prevents it from being deemed merely descriptive under Section 9(1)(b). Furthermore, addressing the likelihood of confusion (Section 11(1)), the Court noted an agreement with the conflicting trademark owner to proceed provided a disclaimer of the word 'VISA' is included. Consequently, the application was directed to be advertised for registration.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V.
This UPC Procedural Order addressed a preliminary objection raised by Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. against Visibly Inc.'s infringement claim concerning patent EP3918974. The defendants argued that claims based on director liability or tort were outside the UPC's competence. The Court rejected this argument, confirming that jurisdiction extends to such claims under Article 7(2) of Brussels I recast and establishing competence via Article 33(1)(a) UPCA due to the service being offered in Germany. This ruling clears the path for the main infringement proceedings.
Pluto Travels India Private Limited v.Ptw Holidays Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pluto Travels against Ptw Holidays. The court allowed several procedural requests, including condonation of delay and exemptions from pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court noted the plaintiff's claim regarding the use of the identical mark 'PLUTO' for travel services and directed service of notice on the defendant concerning the injunction request, setting a date for further hearing.
The Research Foundation for the State University of New York v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting its patent application, citing issues with both claim amendments and failure to meet the time limit for filing the National Phase Application. The court found that the respondent failed to properly consider the provisions allowing condonation of delay (Rule 138) and erroneously rejected the application based on non-application of mind.
Joy Creators Llp v.Bath And Body Works Brands Management Inc.
The Delhi High Court directed both parties to engage in mandatory pre-litigation mediation regarding a trademark infringement dispute concerning the use of 'JOY'. The plaintiff sought an injunction against Bath & Body Works for alleged passing off and trademark infringement. However, the court noted that the defendants had previously proposed a resolution, suggesting they would only sell the product through their own branded stores to avoid confusion, and were willing to refrain from filing trademarks on 'JOY' as a descriptive term. Given these discussions, the Court mandated mediation to explore an amicable settlement before proceeding with litigation.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request from Volkswagen AG seeking permission to submit additional written pleadings in an appeal concerning security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC. The court confirmed that under the Rules of Procedure, parties can lodge reasoned requests to exchange further submissions if necessary to correct facts or clarify issues. By allowing this request, the Court ensured all relevant factual arguments could be presented before closing the written phase.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed an order rejecting the grant of a patent application (No. 2559/CHENP/2012) on grounds of lack of inventive step. The Appellant argued that the Controller failed to provide proper consideration or independent reasons for concluding the invention was obvious in light of prior art and common general knowledge.
M/S. Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Elder Projects Limited
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Elder Projects Limited alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning the use of deceptively similar marks like ZINCODER for pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and damages. However, the parties successfully reached an amicable resolution through mediation.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. And Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited
Cardo Systems successfully obtained a provisional injunction against Shenzhen Asmax and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited regarding the patented fastening device EP 4 240 194. The Court granted the preliminary measure without hearing the defendants, immediately halting their ability to market or use the infringing product across UPC member states. This decision highlights the speed and effectiveness of provisional measures within the Unified Patent Court system for protecting IP rights.
Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. v.Dsr Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order directing the continuation of litigation concerning the 'RATHI' trademark dispute between Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. and Dsr Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Despite unsuccessful mediation efforts, the court scheduled the matter before a different bench for September 3, 2024, to continue addressing the disputed issues.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
This order addresses an application seeking five corrections to a previous judgment dated March 1, 2024. The plaintiffs sought corrections primarily regarding the timeline of Natco's revocation filing relative to Kudos' infringement suit, and technical errors in referencing patent numbers and claim descriptions.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
This procedural order addresses a request for an extension by the defendant, Orbisk B.V., in an infringement action brought by Winnow Solutions Limited concerning patent EP3198245. The Court of First Instance granted the requested extension, allowing Orbisk until September 6, 2024, to respond to the R190 evidence production request. This decision underscores the court's flexibility in managing procedural timelines while maintaining the necessity for timely handling of critical discovery requests.
University Health Network v.Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited
University Health Network filed a Writ Petition challenging the grant of Patent No.439474 to Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited, arguing lack of novelty and inventive step. The appeal before the Madras High Court focused on whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter, given that the patent application originated in Delhi.
H. Lundbeck A/S Through its Authorized Representative v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the Deputy Controller's order holding that their invention lacked inventive step. The core contention was that the Controller improperly relied on certain prior art documents that had been given up or never properly contested during the examination process. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions.
ICPillar LLC v.Arm Limited (and associated entities)
This procedural order addressed preliminary objections regarding UPC jurisdiction in a complex multi-defendant infringement case involving ICPillar LLC and various entities of the Arm group. The Court ruled that the Paris Local Division had jurisdiction, applying Article 33(1)(b) UPCA because one defendant was based in France. Crucially, the ruling broadened the interpretation of 'commercial relationship,' stating that corporate affiliation and shared commercial goals are sufficient to establish the necessary link for unified proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, Dexcom International Limited , Dexcom Inc.
In a procedural order concerning confidential information, the UPC Local Division Munich balanced the need for parties' effective legal representation against the protection of trade secrets. The Court granted the Defendants' request to classify certain internal documents as strictly confidential, limiting access only to named representatives and employees. This ruling reinforces the principle that while lawyers require necessary access, accountability must be maintained by clearly defining who is responsible for maintaining confidentiality.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This decision from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a motion for disclosure of confidential licensing agreements in an SEP dispute. The court ruled that, given the context of standard-essential patent enforcement and EU competition law requirements (FRAND), the claimant must submit these contracts to the court. While acknowledging confidentiality concerns, the court mandated the submission while allowing parties to redact irrelevant information, thereby facilitating a fair assessment of the licensing terms.
Ms Shri Gorakh Bhandar v.The Commissioner Of Customs Appeals & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order sets the stage for a complex dispute concerning Intellectual Property Rights enforcement at customs. The petitioner has raised several critical questions, including whether protection can be granted without adhering strictly to the IPR (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, and whether failure to mention specific goods in import documents constitutes misdeclaration. The court has allowed procedural applications and scheduled the main hearing for February 12, 2025.
Volkswagen AG and Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this preliminary ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed multiple objections raised by both parties regarding an infringement action concerning EP 1 552 399 B1. The court largely rejected attempts to dismiss the case outright, instead opting for a pragmatic approach based on efficiency. It ruled that while some initial objections were dismissed, the core issues—including validity and damages claims against TI—must be addressed in the main proceedings.
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This procedural order addressed a request by Powell Gilbert LLP for public access to the written pleadings and evidence in an ongoing UPC case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The Court ruled that once a decision has been rendered, the general interest of the public in scrutinizing court proceedings outweighs the parties' concern over maintaining procedural integrity, even if an appeal is pending. This reinforces the principle that transparency prevails after a judgment, setting a clear precedent for post-decision document access requests.
Honeywell International Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Honeywell International Inc appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for 'Organic Fluorescent Compositions.' The core dispute centered on the validity of amendments made to the original claims, specifically changing the scope from a 'composition' to just the 'compound.' Honeywell argued that these amendments merely narrowed the scope and were fully supported by the original specification. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the application for fresh examination.
Philip Morris Products S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Philip Morris Products S A appealed against the rejection of its patent by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Design. The appellant argued that the rejection, which relied upon Section 3(d) of The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019, was incorrect. The Court directed both parties to file replies and rejoinders.
M/s.Guangzhou Ocusun Ophthalmic Biotechnology Company Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents & Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application concerning a crystal form of lanosterol prodrug compound. The appellant argued that the new form exhibited significant therapeutic efficacy, particularly in treating cataract symptoms, which was not adequately considered by the original examiner. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
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.