IP Cases — 2024
1,861 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 3 of 63 · 1,861 total
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Limited & Anr v.Micky Metals Limited
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' interim application seeking protection for their trademark 'LUX'. Despite presenting evidence of long-standing use, massive sales figures, and international presence, the court found insufficient grounds to grant relief at the interim stage. The judgment noted that the mark 'LUX' has been used by various entities and pointed to prior legal challenges regarding its registration, ultimately finding no compelling reason to favor the plaintiffs.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This UPC decision addressed procedural motions filed by an intervening party, Photon Wave Co., Ltd., in a patent infringement case brought by Seoul Viosys against Laser Components SAS. The court rejected Photon Wave's requests for an extension of time to file a counterclaim for revocation and denied the request to change the language of proceedings. While the core infringement claims remain pending, the ruling clarifies strict procedural limitations on intervening parties under UPC rules.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Morepen Laboratories Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Mankind Pharma against Morepen Laboratories. The court granted exemptions regarding document filing and pre-institution mediation, while proceeding with the main injunction application (I.A. 38001/2024). The plaintiff alleged dishonest adoption of their registered trade dress and copyright for a pregnancy detection strip, leading to claims of infringement and passing off. The defendant countered by arguing that the plaintiff approached the court belatedly.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v.Interdigital Technology Corp. & Ors.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile filed appeals challenging a single judge's order that imposed deposits, costs, and restricted their ability to secure respondents with an Indian Bank guarantee. The dispute centers on the alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to telecommunication standards by mobile device manufacturers.
Novozymes A/S v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Novozymes A/S appealed against the rejection of its Patent Application No.650/CHENP/2009, which covered 'Enzyme Granules for Animal Feed'. The initial objections raised by the Assistant Controller included lack of inventive step and non-patent eligibility under Section 3(d).
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. initiated an infringement lawsuit against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning EP 3 339 920 B1. However, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently filed a request to withdraw the claim. The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the withdrawal, formally ending the proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can lead to the dismissal of UPC infringement actions.
Casablanca Apparels Pvt Ltd v.Polo Lauren Company Lp & Anr. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Casablanca Apparels against Polo Lauren's trademark 'POLO'. The court held that since an application challenging the mark's validity (under Section 124) was already pending before the Trial Court, the current rectification petition was not maintainable at this stage. This ruling emphasizes the procedural hierarchy between concurrent proceedings in civil suits and intellectual property rectification actions.
Martinswerk Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Martinswerk Gmbh appealed the rejection of its product patent application for novel aluminum hydroxide flame retardants. The appeal argued that the Patent Controller repeatedly shifted and reverted between different limbs of Section 3(d) without providing a consistent or fair hearing process. The High Court found merit in these submissions.
Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab
Gala Precision Engineering Limited filed suits seeking a declaration that its manufacturing and sale of washers does not infringe Nord Lock Ab's patent. The court noted that the issues raised by the plaintiff are also subject matter in another suit filed by Nord Lock Ab (CS(COMM) 895/2023).
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning service of documents in cross-border litigation, specifically involving China. The applicant sought confirmation that the extensive efforts made to serve the preliminary measures application constituted 'good service' despite the failure of formal and informal methods under the Hague Service Convention. The Court granted this request, effectively validating the steps taken by the registry. This ruling provides significant procedural relief for applicants facing intractable service issues in foreign jurisdictions.
Anuj Bindal M/S Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills v.Tarsem Chand M/S R.D Traders
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Aggarwal Rice and Oil Mills, leading to the cancellation of a nearly identical trademark registration held by R.D Traders. The court found that both marks were phonetically and structurally similar, creating a high likelihood of consumer confusion in the animal feed market. Crucially, the court determined that while the Petitioner's prior use was not perfectly documented, the Respondent failed to provide credible evidence supporting their claimed date of first use, thus invalidating the registration under Section 9(2)(a) and on grounds of fraudulent representation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
This UPC decision is a procedural order in an ongoing infringement and revocation case between Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and Netgear entities concerning EP patent No. 3 678 321. The court addressed the resignation of one of the technically qualified judges assigned to the panel. Consequently, the court mandated the reassignment of a new judge to maintain the integrity and continuity of the proceedings.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag et al.
In a significant decision, the UPC Local Division in Munich revoked EP 3 797 685 B1 during an infringement action brought by DexCom against Abbott. The patent covered communication systems for analyte monitoring devices, specifically glucose monitors like FreeStyle Libre 2. Because the patent was found to be invalid and subsequently revoked, the Court dismissed all claims of infringement. This case underscores the critical importance of concurrent revocation proceedings in UPC litigation.
Belle Wears Private Limited v.Hobby Garments Private Limited
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in the trademark infringement and passing off case filed by Belle Wears Private Limited against Hobby Garments Private Limited. The court formally registered the suit and directed the issuance of summons to the defendant. Crucially, the plaintiff was also granted an interim order allowing notice to be served on the defendant regarding the alleged infringement of the 'TEENAGER' trademark and artistic work, setting the stage for further litigation.
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.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited v.M/S R.M. Foods & Ors.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited filed a suit alleging that M/S R.M. Foods & Ors. adopted a deceptively similar trade dress for their products in the fitness and peanut butter industry. The Delhi High Court, while allowing the main suit to proceed, addressed several interlocutory applications regarding documentation and mediation. Crucially, the court noted the dispute over whether the Defendants' alleged infringing trade dress has been discontinued or if the current suit also covers a newer design adopted by the Respondents.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
TIRU successfully obtained provisional measures from the UPC Local Division of Paris to investigate alleged infringement by MAGUIN SAS regarding a waste incineration patent (EP3178578). The court authorized physical seizure of documents, digital data preservation, and site inspections at VALINEA ENERGIE's facilities. This decision is crucial for TIRU as it allows them to gather necessary evidence before initiating the main infringement proceedings under the UPC.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In this UPC decision, Avago Technologies sued Tesla regarding the infringement of EP 1 838 002, a patent covering programmable hybrid transmitters. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Tesla, declaring the patent invalid for Germany because its claims were anticipated by prior art (D3). This ruling not only dismissed the infringement claim but also established a significant precedent regarding the enforceability of patents facing strong prior art challenges within the UPC framework.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Shri Balaji Beverages & Ors.
Archian Foods Private Limited successfully secured an ex-parte interim injunction from the Delhi High Court against Shri Balaji Beverages & Ors. The court granted permission for a Local Commissioner to be appointed, enabling the seizure and confiscation of alleged counterfeit products bearing the 'LAHORI ZEERA' brand. This decisive order allows the plaintiff to take immediate action against infringement across multiple IP rights, including trademark, trade dress, copyright, and design.
Rachna Sagar Pvt Ltd v.Sovereign Mercantile Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing interim injunction in favor of Rachna Sagar Pvt Ltd against Sovereign Mercantile Pvt Ltd and others. The court found that the Defendants' use of a deceptively similar mark, 'RACHNA SAGAR,' amounted to prima facie passing off. Given the Plaintiff's extensive market presence, prior usage since 1996, and substantial revenue in the publishing sector, the court ruled that allowing the defendants to continue using the mark would inevitably cause consumer confusion and loss to the Plaintiff.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Court Munich accepted the mutual agreement by Panasonic Holdings Corporation and Xiaomi Inc. to withdraw all pending infringement claims and counterclaims related to three European patents. This decision effectively terminated the complex litigation proceedings without a final judgment on patent validity or infringement. The court also confirmed the parties' right to receive a partial refund of their court fees, reflecting the procedural nature of the settlement.
Asian Paints Limited v.Ajeet Kumar And Others
The Delhi High Court allowed Asian Paints Limited's application to implead numerous additional parties—including domain name registrars, banks, and telecom service providers—in its trademark infringement suit. The court found a prima facie case for the plaintiff, noting that fraudsters were using various digital channels (websites, phone numbers, bank accounts) to perpetuate the misuse of the 'ASIAN PAINTS' mark. Consequently, the existing injunction was expanded, and specific directions were issued compelling these third-party defendants to block infringing websites, freeze associated bank accounts, and suspend mobile numbers.
YC Electric Vehicles v.Saksham Trading Company
YC Electric Vehicles successfully concluded its trademark and design infringement suit against Saksham Trading Company through an amicable settlement. The court decreed the suit, formalizing the defendant's admission that YC is the sole owner of the 'YATRI' and 'YC' trademarks, as well as specific E-Rickshaw designs. The settlement also included a payment of ₹50,000 to the plaintiff, providing a definitive resolution to the dispute.
Jai Rajendra Impex Private Limited v.Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Jai Rajendra Impex Private Limited's appeal, setting aside the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its 'BONUS' trademark application. The court accepted the appellant's plea of honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, despite a phonetic conflict with an existing mark ('BONUSS'). The judgment emphasized that prior usage, even in different classes, can establish bona fides, allowing for registration.
Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals v.Sana Herbals Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals against a lower court's decision concerning the consolidation of connected trademark rectification proceedings. The appellant argued that a prior transfer of a rectification petition involving the mark 'DEHLVI' should necessitate consolidating all related matters. However, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order, thereby maintaining the status quo regarding the procedural handling of the cases.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Jfe Steel Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by The Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for a method of activating a continuous annealing furnace. The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art (D1 and D2). The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Impugned Order and remanding the matter to the Controller.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding the time limit for lodging an appeal against an order from the Court of First Instance (CFI). The appellant, AIM Sport Development AG, argued that the CFI's own 'Information about appeal' stated a two-month deadline, even though the strict rule (R.224.1(b) RoP) mandated only 15 days for certain orders. Applying the principle of legitimate expectations, the Court of Appeal sided with AIM, finding the appeal admissible. This ruling highlights the importance of procedural fairness and how courts must interpret rules when CFI guidance creates a reasonable expectation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC decided to split the ongoing infringement case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation and Xiaomi Inc. The separation was necessitated by the complex international service of process requirements for defendants located in China and Hong Kong. This decision allows the court to maintain momentum on cases where parties are already represented while addressing the logistical challenges posed by foreign jurisdiction.
SRF LIMITED v.SOLVAY S A & ANR.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by Respondent No.1, including an application seeking leave to amend the claims of Patent IN 331314 and a request for condonation of delay. The Court allowed the condonation of delay and granted exemptions sought by the respondent.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a critical procedural requirement for opting out of the Unified Patent Court's jurisdiction. The court ruled that an opt-out application must be lodged by or on behalf of every proprietor holding any national part of the European patent. This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of Art. 83(3) UPCA, ensuring that no single owner can unilaterally remove a patent from UPC competence if co-ownership exists across different member states.
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.