IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 30 of 56 · 1,677 total
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
In this matter concerning a trademark opposition, Louis Vuitton Malletier sought relief after being unable to complete the payment for its notice of opposition due to a technical glitch with the payment gateway. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim regarding the non-fault nature of the delay and took steps to ensure all parties were heard. Consequently, the applicant of the disputed mark was impleaded as Respondent No. 2, allowing the litigation to proceed fairly.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, represented by Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and its Indian subsidiary, sought an interim injunction against Eris Lifesciences Limited for allegedly infringing their Indian Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and balance of convenience, leading to the grant of temporary relief.
Mayfair Lighting Llp v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Mayfair Lighting Llp, overturning an earlier decision that had deemed their trademark opposition abandoned. The court found that the original timeline for filing evidence was flawed due to issues with service of the counter-statement by the Registrar of Trade Marks. Consequently, the registration of the mark 'LONDON MAY FAIR' in favor of Respondent No. 2 was cancelled, and the opposition proceedings were restored.
Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Sachdeva And Sons Industres Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted rectification in favor of the petitioner, Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd., regarding the disputed trademark 'PRIME'. The court found that the respondent's registration for 'PRIME' should be limited to rice and allied goods, specifically deleting salt and spices from its scope. This decision was based on the petitioner's long-standing use of the mark in Class 30 (iodized salt) since 1995, establishing prior goodwill and preventing consumer confusion.
Sterlite Technologies Ltd v.Hfcl Limited
The Delhi High Court passed an order in a commercial suit and counterclaim concerning two patents held by Sterlite Technologies Ltd against Hfcl Limited. The court completed pleadings and framed detailed issues regarding alleged infringement of the patents (IN 241433 and IN 280211) and potential revocation of these patents.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.SIBIO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; UMEDWINGS NETHERLANDS B.V.
This UPC decision confirms a settlement reached in an application for provisional measures concerning EP 2 393 417 B1, which covers analyte sensors. The settlement mandates that the Defendants cease offering the infringing products in Germany, France, and the Netherlands, destroy existing stock, recall products from distribution channels, and compensate the Applicant for all damages on the merits. This case highlights how parties can resolve complex infringement disputes early through negotiated settlements within the UPC framework.
AGFA NV v.Gucci Sweden AB, Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci Logistica S.p.A., GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS
In a complex infringement case involving AGFA NV and the Gucci group, the UPC Local Division issued a critical procedural order granting confidentiality protection to sensitive business information. The defendants successfully argued that their internal supply chain data, sales figures, and quality control metrics constituted trade secrets under EU law. This ruling is significant as it establishes clear boundaries for evidence disclosure in high-stakes luxury goods litigation within the UPC framework.
Dupont Industrial Biosciences Usa Llc v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenges the order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected the grant of a divisional patent application (No. 202118031579). The Appellant argues that the divisional application clearly demonstrates distinct claims, contrary to the Deputy Controller's finding.
Star Scientific Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Star Scientific Limited appealed the Controller's order refusing the grant of a patent (Application No. 202017011947) for Catalytic Combustion. The appellant argued that the refusal was flawed because it failed to consider their detailed responses and amendments, and that non-attendance at the hearing was not abandonment due to financial difficulties. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG
In a complex infringement and revocation case concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a procedural order. The defendants sought to delay proceedings by requesting time to respond to an appellate court's decision. The Court rejected this motion, indicating that the main substantive proceedings are moving forward without further delays based on the appeal ruling. This highlights the strict procedural management of UPC cases.
Prakash Pipes Limited v.Jai Ambay Industries And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Prakash Pipes Limited against Jai Ambay Industries. The court found that the respondent's registration of the mark 'KIRANPARKASH' was obtained fraudulently and dishonestly, as it was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established mark 'PRAKASH'. Furthermore, the court noted discrepancies in the respondent's claimed turnover versus its micro-enterprise status. Consequently, the Court directed the Trade Mark Registry to remove the impugned trademark from the register.
Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd v.Ucon Pt Structural System Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd against its former licensee, Ucon Pt Structural System Private Limited, and associated entities. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendants continued to use the plaintiff's registered 'UTRACON' marks after the license expired. Furthermore, the court directed the blocking of the infringing domain name www.utraconindia.com, securing immediate protection for the plaintiff's brand.
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 claimants (VW/Audi) and respondents (NST). The court largely rejected procedural challenges regarding jurisdiction and admissibility. Crucially, while allowing the infringement action to proceed, the court significantly narrowed the scope of alleged infringement, limiting it only to specific detailed embodiments like the TI DRA79x SoC. This decision sets a clear precedent for how broad claims must be substantiated in UPC proceedings.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd v.Parijat Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd
The case involves a patent infringement dispute regarding two products, 'Xyfen' and 'Xyfen Ultra', which are alleged to infringe Indian Patent No. 394568. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the Defendant's products.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB, Interlux UAB, Vab-Logistik UAB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a stay of infringement proceedings pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings at the EPO. The court affirmed the legal basis for such a stay under Art. 33(10) UPCA, noting that it is crucial to prevent conflicting judgments between the UPC and the EPO regarding patent validity. Despite recognizing the merits of the request, the Court ultimately referred the case back to the Court of First Instance (CFI), allowing the CFI to exercise its discretion with full knowledge of the infringement proceedings' status.
Harvinder Kumar v.M/S Upgride Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's interim injunction in favor of Harvinder Kumar regarding the infringement of his registered trademark. The dispute centered on M/S Upgride Solutions Pvt. Ltd.'s continued use of batteries and chargers bearing the plaintiff's mark after their agreement was terminated. The court found that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, granting directions to the respondent to cease using the marked assets and return them within one week.
Croda Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Croda Inc filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated November 6, 2020, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The original patent application (No. 1432/DELNP/2013) concerning Agrochemical Adjuvants and Formulations was refused.
Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors. v.Rajkumar Sabu
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex family dispute concerning the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' used for sabudana. The appeal challenged a lower court judgment that favored the respondent, holding that the appellants failed to prove prior use of the mark. Recognizing the contentious nature and the underlying familial connection to the brand creation, the Court directed that the status quo ante should be maintained until the final disposal of the appeal. This allows both parties to continue operating their businesses without claiming sole ownership.
Monster Energy Company v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Monster Energy Company's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark 'SUPER FUEL.' The court found that the Registrar erred by comparing 'SUPER FUEL' (for non-alcoholic beverages) with a similar existing mark ('FUEL') used for different products. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the appellant was directed to be allowed to publish the trademark in the journal, allowing any third parties to file opposition petitions on merits.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH; expert klein GmbH
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. successfully sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for infringing its patent covering light emitting diodes (LEDs). The Düsseldorf Local Chamber found infringement, leading to an injunction and damages award against the defendants. Crucially, despite the joint action, the court dismissed the counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent, thereby upholding the validity of EP 3 926 698 B1. This decision reinforces the enforcement power of the UPC while clarifying procedural rules regarding multi-defendant litigation.
Ambuja Cements Limited v.Sudheer Sharma And Ors
Ambuja Cements Limited filed a suit alleging that several defendants were fraudulently using its 'AMBUJA CEMENT' trademarks and associated domains to run phishing websites, deceiving consumers into making payments. The Delhi High Court granted interim relief, directing the maintenance of status quo on relevant domain names and ordering telecom/internet service providers (MEITY and DoT) to suspend access to these fraudulent sites. Furthermore, the court mandated that various defendants provide KYC documents and details of registered phone numbers to aid in identifying the perpetrators.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Verizon Trademark Services LLC against Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr., finding a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like 'VERIEZON' across their hospital, pharmacy, and domain name. This crucial interim order protects Verizon's brand while allowing the parties time to contest the claims.
Living Seed Technologies Llp. v.Karthikeya Crop Technologies
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Living Seed Technologies LLP against Karthikeya Crop Technologies regarding Trade Mark Application No. 4972011. The petitioner sought an expedited resolution to an ongoing opposition petition, citing prior injunctions obtained in civil courts concerning passing off. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of the interlocutory petition promptly and further mandated that no certificate of registration be issued until the matter is resolved.
Cassiopea S.P.A. v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Cassiopea S.P.A. appealed the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patent, which rejected its Indian Patent Application (No. 201717042863) and accepted a pre-grant opposition filed by other respondents. The Delhi High Court allowed applications for condoning delay in filing and re-filing the appeal.
Sicpa Holding Sa v.The Controller of Patents
Sicpa Holding Sa appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Inline Spectroscopic Reader and Methods' by the Controller of Patents, which cited a lack of inventive step. The High Court found that the Controller had not adequately considered the detailed explanations provided by the appellant in response to the objections raised on prior art. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH; SSAB Europe Oy
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures, Tiroler Rohre GmbH sought an interim injunction against SSAB entities. After a hearing, the claimant withdrew its application. The court subsequently dismissed the request and ruled that since the withdrawal did not prevent future proceedings, there was no legitimate interest for the respondents to have a decision on the matter. Consequently, the claimant was ordered to cover all procedural costs.
CEAD B.V. v.BEGO Medical GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a motion concerning the confidentiality of litigation costs in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_367/2023). The parties sought to restrict access to detailed cost breakdowns, which included individually negotiated attorney fees. The Court ultimately granted public confidentiality for these documents, finding that the private interest in protecting fee arrangements outweighed the general public's need for such granular financial detail. This ruling reinforces the protection of sensitive commercial information within UPC proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, AUDI AG
Network System Technologies LLC successfully withdrew its infringement action against Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH following a settlement, as permitted under UPC Rule 265 RoP. The court formally closed these proceedings while leaving the claims against Volkswagen AG and AUDI AG unaffected. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties reach private settlements.
Shri Kirit Bhadiadra v.Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent) to introduce a recent trademark registration certificate for 'MEDILICE' into the ongoing litigation. Although the original suit concerned infringement and passing off, the court recognized that the new Class 5 registration could bear on the disputes between the parties. This order allows the introduction of evidence relating to the mark's expanded scope, while preserving the rights of the appellant.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd
The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringement of Patent No. 210284, along with damages and other reliefs. The patent has expired, and the remaining issue pertains to the payment of damages.
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.