IP Cases — 2025
2,122 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 10 of 71 · 2,122 total
Dpac Ventures Llp v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court intervened in a trademark dispute between Dpac Ventures LLP and Exotic Mile Private Limited, modifying the Commercial Court's order that had granted an ex parte temporary injunction against 'GOBOULT'. Recognizing the defendant's significant business turnover (Rs. 188.94 Crores) and operational impact, the High Court allowed the plaintiff to dispense with pre-institution mediation while permitting the defendant to continue using its trademark subject to filing weekly accounts. This decision emphasizes balancing IP rights protection against commercial viability during litigation.
Mohun Nicholas D'Souza v.The Controller of Patents of Designs
The petitioner challenged the refusal of his patent application, titled "TAMPER EVIDENT TWIST SEAL WITH BREAKAWAY ANCHOR MECHANISM," which was rejected on grounds of lack of inventive steps/obviousness under Section 25(1)(e) of the Patents Act. The High Court found that the Controller failed to conduct a proper analysis regarding obviousness, specifically failing to consider the differences between the claimed invention and prior art as pointed out by the applicant.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding party representation, specifically concerning confidentiality applications in an infringement case. The court upheld the finding that Suinno's representative lacked the necessary independence because he held extensive administrative and financial powers within his own company. This ruling reinforces strict interpretations of Art. 48 UPCA, emphasizing the absolute requirement for legal representatives to be sufficiently distant from their client's internal management.
Marriott Worldwide Corporation v.Sunjoy Hans And Ors.
Marriott Worldwide Corporation successfully appealed a decision by the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks that had dismissed its opposition against a deceptively similar mark. The Calcutta High Court found that the rejection was based purely on technical procedural grounds—specifically, the lack of apostille on evidence filed in the US—and not on the merits of the case. The court ruled that statutory provisions and rules governing trademarks supersede general laws like the Notaries Act, allowing for notarized affidavits from abroad to be accepted. Consequently, the original order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for a fresh hearing.
Mr Amit Arora Sole Proprietor M/S Hydro Valves v.The Controller General Of Patents Design and Trade Marks & Ors.
The petitioner filed Rectification Petitions seeking cancellation of three 'MILTON' trademarks registered in Class 21. Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the pendency of earlier related rectification petitions before the Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai. The court satisfied this objection after the petitioner undertook to withdraw the relevant pending petitions.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr. v.Eco Tech Recycling & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Manash Lifestyle Private Limited against Eco Tech Recycling & Ors. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, ruling that the defendants' actions—specifically reintroducing scrapped or disposed products into the market—posed grave harm to the reputation and goodwill associated with the plaintiff's registered trademarks (including PURPLLE) and copyrights. This protective order aims to safeguard consumer trust and prevent further unauthorized commercial activity related to the plaintiffs' intellectual property.
Xx And Anr v.Yy
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by Xx And Anr against Yy concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the mark 'HARDWYN'. While a prima facie case was established, the court opted not to grant an immediate ad-interim injunction due to the defendant's existing registration. The court issued notice to the defendant for reply and granted several procedural reliefs to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.
This Mannheim Local Court decision addressed a complex UPC case involving DISH Technologies and Sling TV against several defendants regarding EP 2 479 680, which covers rate-adaptive streaming methods. The ruling provided crucial guidance on patent law principles, specifically defining the limits of 'technical-functional equivalence' in infringement analysis. It also clarified that isolated challenges to dependent claims are generally insufficient for legal protection without challenging the independent claim.
S.Giridharan v.S.Sudhakar
The Madras High Court dismissed Civil Suit No. 193 of 2025 following a comprehensive settlement reached between the plaintiff, S.Giridharan, and several defendants. The suit, which sought declarations regarding ownership of the registered trademark UDHAIYAM and related injunctions, was resolved through a joint memorandum of settlement dated August 8, 2025. This agreement allowed the plaintiff to withdraw claims against certain parties while acknowledging existing titles held by others, leading to the final dismissal of the suit.
Tahoe Research Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Tahoe Research Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201647014734) by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that principles of natural justice were violated regarding lack of clarity objections, and that the novelty analysis incorrectly applied EPO reasoning without considering material differences in the claims.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
This UPC decision confirms the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures concerning EP 1 957 544 B1. DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC., the applicant, successfully withdrew its request with the agreement of Greenchemicals S.R.L., the defendant. The court formally closed the proceedings and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees to the Applicant. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to discontinue an action.
Dunlop International Limited (and Dunlop Slazenger Group Ltd.) v.Glorious Investment Limited And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court set aside multiple appeals concerning the registration of the 'Dunlop' word mark. The core dispute revolved around the validity of assignments made by Dunlop India Ltd. during its liquidation period, which were used by Glorious Investment Limited to secure trademark rights in various classes. Given serious questions regarding fraud, natural justice violations, and the limited jurisdiction of the Registrar concerning assignment validity, the Court remanded all matters back for a fresh hearing after ensuring all parties are heard.
S Chand And Company Ltd v.Kaushal Kumar And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the copyright and trademark infringement suit filed by S Chand And Company Ltd against various booksellers and e-commerce platforms. The court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of interim relief. Crucially, the court issued an ad interim injunction directing Defendant No. 5 (Flipkart) to immediately take down listings of counterfeit books infringing on S Chand's registered trademarks and copyrighted works. Furthermore, the court provided procedural directions for serving summons and verifying the addresses of the various defendants.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an application for leave to appeal against a cost determination in a prior infringement action involving Microsoft and Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. The court upheld the CFI's award of EUR 350,000.00 in costs to Microsoft. The ruling emphasizes the strict proportionality requirements under Article 69(1) UPCA when reviewing cost assessments.
ITC Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of ITC Limited, restraining defendants from using infringing domain names and sub-domains that fraudulently solicit franchises and dealerships under the guise of ITC's brand. The court reinforced previous orders, directing Domain Name Registrars to immediately lock and suspend the specified domains while also instructing the Cyber Cell to freeze numerous bank accounts linked to these fraudulent activities.
Havells India Limited v.Hetram Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against Hetram Sharma & Ors. regarding the unauthorized use of its registered trademark 'REO'. The court found that the defendants' adoption of similar marks ('R3 REO 3X') was intended to ride upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation in the electrical goods market. Furthermore, the court permitted a local commission to search the defendant's premises and seize infringing materials.
Zepto Private Limited v.Mohammad Arshad & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Zepto Private Limited seeking the removal and cancellation of a specific trademark registration (No. 2773518) from Class 9. The court granted procedural directions, allowing the petitioner to file additional documents and setting timelines for both parties to submit replies, rejoinders, and a combined written synopsis. This order moves the case forward in the process of challenging the validity or use of the registered mark.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
In a significant decision by default, the UPC Local Division Munich granted an injunction in favor of air up group GmbH against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. The case involved patent EP 3 655 341, which covers a specialized drinking device designed for retronasal aroma reception. Since the defendant failed to respond to the service of the application, the court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering an immediate cease-and-desist order across all UPC Member States.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division permitted Leap Tools Inc. to withdraw its infringement action against Wizart LLC (Defendant 2). The court found that because service of process had not been completed and Defendant 2 appeared non-existent or unserviceable, it lacked a legitimate interest in continuing the lawsuit. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding multi-defendant actions when one party becomes practically unreachable.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Kapoor Bike Point
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. against Kapoor Bike Point, affirming the seriousness of the alleged IP infringements. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation and advance service to the defendant, recognizing the urgent need for protection due to potential consumer deception. Crucially, the Court granted an injunction based on trademark and copyright infringement claims, allowing for a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendant's premises.
Sanofi SA v.Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order addressed a dispute between Sanofi and Zentiva regarding the timeline and scope of written submissions in an infringement action concerning EP patent 2 493 466. Zentiva sought to amend the case management schedule, arguing that the existing deadlines were insufficient or unclear. The UPC Panel dismissed these requests, upholding the judge-rapporteur's procedural order. This decision reinforces the strict application of the Rules of Procedure in managing complex infringement litigation within the UPC.
Tube Investments Of India Ltd. v.BSA-Regal Group Ltd.
This case involved disputes between Tube Investments Of India Ltd. and the BSA-Regal Group Ltd. concerning the use of the 'BSA' trademark on motorcycles, parts, and accessories. Both parties filed suits alleging infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, during the proceedings before the Madras High Court, both plaintiffs successfully endorsed that their respective suits had been settled out of court.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
Huawei initiated infringement proceedings against MediaTek regarding its Dimensity series chips, which are alleged to infringe EP 3 905 840 B1. A key procedural development was the dispute over the disclosure of confidential license agreements and licensee names. The UPC court issued a detailed order granting protective measures under Rule 262A VerfO, strictly limiting access to sensitive information while allowing the infringement case to proceed.
Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Lakha Ram Sharma Proprietor Of Kundan Cable India
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an order that had stayed several ongoing trademark suits. The stay was granted by the Trial Court based on observations from a Division Bench judgment regarding rectification petitions. However, the High Court held that the reference to 'passing off' in the cited precedent was merely obiter dicta and not binding law. Consequently, all the consolidated suits were directed to proceed expeditiously for trial.
Brita SE v.Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o.
Brita SE successfully obtained an interim injunction from the UPC Local Chamber against Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o. regarding the alleged infringement of EP 2 131 940 B1. The patent covers a specific water treatment device featuring a cartridge with a rotatable locking shaft for securing the connection head. The court ordered an immediate cessation of offering and placing on the market of the infringing cartridges across multiple EU member states. This decision highlights the UPC's efficiency in granting urgent provisional measures to protect IP rights.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC provisional measures case, Aesculap AG sought interim relief against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding EP 2 892 442 B1. Although the core dispute is ongoing, the respondent challenged the patent's validity (novelty and inventive step). The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled that given the technical complexity and the challenge to validity, it was necessary to appoint an additional technically qualified judge to assist the panel early in the proceedings.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In a procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addressed the bifurcation issue in the case between Maxeon Solar and several defendants. The court opted to proceed with a joint hearing, combining the infringement action against EP 3 065 184 B1 and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision is significant as it prioritizes judicial efficiency and ensures consistency by having both validity and infringement assessed under a single, uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf issued a confidentiality order concerning EP 2 263 098 B1. The court ruled in favor of the claimant, Ona Patents SL, restricting access to sensitive exhibits and documents. Crucially, the court also prevented the disclosure of this confidential information to parallel national proceedings, setting a strong precedent for maintaining secrecy within UPC litigation.
Dileep Bakliwal Prop Poonam Marketing v.Mohan Singh Panwar
This petition challenged the rejection of a request to transfer a trademark infringement suit to the Commercial Court. The petitioner argued that since the dispute involved intellectual property, it should automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, regardless of the low valuation. However, the High Court ruled that while IP rights are covered by the Act, the requirement for a 'commercial dispute' to have a specified value of at least Rs. 3 lakhs must be met. Since the suit was valued below this threshold, the court upheld the trial court's decision and dismissed the petition.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE, Nintendo Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a motion concerning the confidentiality of sensitive sales and profit data submitted by Nintendo. The Court ruled on balancing the fundamental right to be heard against the protection of trade secrets, ultimately upholding the general principle of confidentiality while granting limited access to specific Claimant personnel. This case reinforces the strict obligations parties have regarding handling confidential information, especially when it originates from third-party sources.
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.