IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 9 of 56 · 1,677 total
M/s.Haryana Soap Factory (Sh.Krishan Kumar Jain) v.Sh.A.J.Saravanan & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This Madras High Court judgment confirms the dismissal of Transfer Original Petitions filed by M/s.Haryana Soap Factory seeking rectification of specific trademarks (936165 and 1833170). The court noted that both parties had reached a compromise regarding the underlying dispute, which was formalized in a memo recorded by the District Court, Delhi. Consequently, the petitioner voluntarily withdrew their claims, leading to the dismissal of the petitions without costs.
Fives Combustion Systems P Ltd v.Vadodara-I
The appellant challenged the demand raised by the revenue regarding royalty payments made for technical knowhow supplied by a foreign company. The core issue was whether this payment constituted a taxable intellectual property service under Indian law, given that the service provider was not governed by any Indian law.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the effective date of service for an appeal statement in a pharmaceutical patent case (EP 3167888). The core issue was whether direct communication between parties via specialized electronic mailboxes ('beA') could count as valid service. The court definitively ruled that only service effected by the Registry through the official CMS is considered effective under UPC rules.
M/S Vans Inc. Usa v.Fcb Garment Tex India ( P) Ltd. And Anr
The Delhi High Court took proactive steps to streamline complex intellectual property disputes involving M/S Vans Inc. Usa and Fcb Garment Tex India. The court ordered the consolidation of three separate trademark rectification petitions concerning the marks 'IVANS NXT', 'IVANS', and 'IVANS Active'. Furthermore, it directed the transfer of a related civil suit from the Patiala House Courts to be heard alongside these IP matters. This move ensures that all interconnected disputes are adjudicated together under one judicial umbrella.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
In this UPC case, Motorola Mobility LLC sought leave to amend its infringement claim against Ericsson, specifically to include requests for injunctive relief and recall of infringing products. The court ultimately rejected this application, ruling that the Claimant had not acted with sufficient diligence. The decision emphasizes strict procedural adherence in SEP litigation within the UPC, particularly regarding when remedies like injunctions can be introduced.
Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd., setting aside a previous rejection by the Trade Marks Registry. The core issue was the similarity between the appellant's registered word mark 'ORKID' and the respondent's applied-for word mark 'ORZID' in Class 5 (pharmaceutical products). The Court found that despite minor spelling differences, the marks were visually similar and capable of causing confusion, thereby directing the rectification of the trademark register.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG to stay revocation proceedings against EP 3 876 490 pending parallel opposition proceedings at the EPO. The Court ultimately rejected the stay application, emphasizing that 'rapid decision' must mean a concrete and near-future expectation from the EPO. The ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to expeditious justice, prioritizing the right holder's interest in timely legal certainty over potential cost savings for the defendant.
Shri Rajesh Chugh v.Mehruddin Ansari & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Shri Rajesh Chugh against Mehruddin Ansari & Anr., directing the cancellation of the rival trademark ANDAAZ-E-NIZAAM. The court accepted the respondent's admission that the mark had been abandoned due to non-use, despite its initial similarity to the petitioner's established brand NIZAM'S. This ruling underscores the importance of continuous use and good faith in maintaining a registered trademark.
Srinivas S. Devathi v.Union of India
Srinivas S. Devathi challenged the Union of India's refusal to provide a consent letter required under Section 86 of the CPC to initiate legal action against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The petitioner alleged that USPTO committed fraud by issuing a fabricated International Search Report (ISR) for his PCT application, thereby jeopardizing his global patent rights. The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the non-speaking order of the Ministry of External Affairs and directing the Union of India to reconsider the matter and issue a reasoned decision within six months.
Nirmal Seeds Private Limited v.M/S Nirmal Seeds Corporation
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application leading to a consent decree between Nirmal Seeds Private Limited and M/S Nirmal Seeds Corporation. The settlement formalized that the Plaintiff is the proprietor of the 'NIRMAL' trademark for seeds and agro products, and the Defendant agreed not to manufacture or market similar goods using deceptive trademarks. In exchange for these undertakings, the Plaintiff dropped its claims for damages, and the Court also ordered a 50% refund of the plaintiff's court fees.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf granted an extension of time to the claimant, FUJIFILM Corporation. The request was necessitated by the defendants' application for protection of confidential information (R. 262A RoP), which initially restricted access to key factual pleadings. The Court ruled that granting this extension is essential to uphold the principles of due process and ensure the claimant can properly develop its defense strategy based on all available facts.
Red Bull Ag v.Rahul Ranjan Partner Of M/S Wings Energy & Ors.
The Delhi High Court finalized a trademark infringement suit between Red Bull Ag and Rahul Ranjan Partner of M/S Wings Energy after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The court decreed the suit in favor of Red Bull, granting permanent injunctions against Defendants No. 1 & 2 to prevent them from using confusingly similar marks like 'WINGS' or 'ENERGY'. This resolution allows both parties to conclude the litigation amicably.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG; Mammut Sports Group GmbH
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought permission to introduce new evidence regarding the respondent's offering of a 'Barryvox S' device with voice control. The court ultimately rejected this request. While existing interim measures protect against infringement by the 'Barryvox S2', the introduction of the 'Barryvox S' requires careful procedural handling, balancing the claimant's need for information against the respondents' right to be heard within the limited time frame.
M/S. Ganesh Gouri Industries And Ors v.R. C. Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court set aside an earlier Commercial Court order that had restrained M/S. Ganesh Gouri Industries (Appellants) from using its trademark and trade dress, 'AQUA PLAST'. The court found that the trial court erred in concluding that the competing marks were deceptively similar merely by comparing parts of the devices. Instead, the High Court emphasized that a comprehensive review of the overall commercial impression of the marks is necessary when assessing infringement, thereby favoring Ganesh Gouri's right to use its label.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore Sp. z o.o., Autostore System GmbH, Autostore System AT GmbH, Autostore System AB, Autostore System S.L, Autostore System Srl, Autostore AS, Autostore S.A.S.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope of public access to court documents under R.262.1(b) RoP, specifically in the context of a settlement reached in infringement proceedings. The court ruled that while confidentiality interests must be considered (Art. 45 UPCA), the general interest in justice and public order generally favors granting access unless the requester has a direct, specific legitimate interest in the subject matter. This ruling provides important guidance on balancing transparency with proprietary rights within UPC litigation.
M/S Imberatek Llc v.Apple Inc & Anr.
M/S Imberatek Llc filed a commercial suit alleging patent infringement against Apple Inc. Initially, the plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit to explore mediation, and the court allowed it with a refund of court fees. However, subsequent consideration found that since no urgent interim relief was sought, the plaintiff could not circumvent the mandatory requirement of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, leading to the final dismissal of the suit.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH; expert klein GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court addressed a claimant's request to introduce further amendments to an existing European patent (EP 3 926 698 B1). The court rejected the motion, establishing a strict interpretation of the UPC Rules of Procedure. The decision clarifies that late-stage amendment requests do not activate the standard two-month response window for defendants, thereby preventing procedural stagnation and ensuring the timely conduct of litigation.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This UPC CFI case involved an application for rectification filed by Magna against Valeo following a previous injunction order concerning electric motor generators and gearbox assemblies used in BMW vehicles. Magna sought to amend the scope of the permitted use exceptions and clarify the geographical reach of related litigation actions. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected these requests, confirming that the original Order was legally sound and contained no clerical errors or obvious slips.
Asana Biosciences Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
The appellant sought condonation of a 37-day delay in filing an appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court allowed the application for condonation of delay, while simultaneously issuing notice regarding the main appeal seeking to set aside the impugned patent office order.
M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. v.Indu Devi
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd., directing the cancellation of a conflicting trademark, 'GOLDY,' held by Indu Devi. The court found that despite minor visual differences, the first respondent's mark was strikingly and deceptively similar to the petitioner's established marks ('GOLDIEE'). This decision reinforces the principle that phonetic similarity can outweigh superficial design elements in trademark disputes.
Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Schneider Electric It Corporation has appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting the grant of patent for Patent Application No. 201617000209. The appellant contends that the respondent failed to consider their detailed submissions regarding the invention requirements under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application to change the language of proceedings from German to English for an infringement case involving drug infusion systems. The Court ruled that despite one defendant being based in Germany, the interests and positions of the defendants collectively justified switching the language to English, which was the patent's granting language. This ruling reinforces the principle that when balancing linguistic interests, the position of the defendants holds decisive weight.
Elanco Tiergesundheit Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the refusal of their patent application, which claimed a method for generating live vaccines. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was merely a reproduction of the hearing notice and lacked independent reasoning or application of mind to the appellant's submissions. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Accord Distillers And Brewers Pvt Ltd
In a trademark dispute concerning the brand 'BLENDERS PRIDE', the Delhi High Court allowed Pernod Ricard India Private Limited to introduce supplementary documentation. The petitioner sought these documents to rebut the respondent's denial regarding the well-known status and earlier adoption of their trademark. This interim order facilitates the ongoing litigation, allowing both parties to present a more complete factual record before the court.
Max Healthcare Institute Limited v.Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a lower court's rejection of a temporary injunction sought by Max Healthcare Institute Limited against Imax Healthcare Private Limited. The core dispute centered on the alleged deceptive similarity between Max's well-known 'MAX' trademark, used extensively in healthcare services since 2000, and the respondent's use of 'IMAX'. While acknowledging the strong prima facie case for confusion, the High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, directing the matter back to the District Judge for a fresh hearing on the injunction application.
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This UPC decision confirms a settlement reached between Steindl Krantechnik and BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik regarding EP3287315. The court formally validated the terms of the agreement, which was initially filed as an application for provisional measures. Crucially, both parties successfully requested that the details of this confidential settlement be kept private by the UPC.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex parte injunction in favor of Louis Vuitton Malletier against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff, a well-known luxury brand, had made out a prima facie case for infringement of its registered trademark 'LV' and associated copyrights. This interim order immediately restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling products featuring marks identical or deceptively similar to LV, pending further proceedings.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the acceptance of a pre-grant opposition by the Patent Office despite an internal decision to proceed with the patent grant. The court addressed procedural issues related to the timing of the decision versus the filing of the opposition, referencing Section 43 of the Patents Act.
Fiitjee Ltd. v.Brahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend existing Trademark cancellation petitions. The core issue was the merger of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 following an amalgamation order passed by the NCLT in 2019. The court allowed the formal amendments, permitting only the surviving petitioner (Fiitjee Ltd.) to continue the proceedings against Brahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd., while noting the delay in filing.
Panchhi Petha Store v.Union Of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by the Regional Director which rejected a trademark rectification application. The petitioner argued that the RD exceeded its jurisdiction by making a finding on the ownership of the 'Panchhi' trademark, a matter reserved for IP courts. The court agreed, stating that while the RD can examine name similarity to prevent consumer confusion, it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of trademark ownership between parties involved in ongoing litigation.
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.