IP Cases — 2025
2,122 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 13 of 71 · 2,122 total
Asian Paints Limited v.Galaxy Paints Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted Asian Paints Limited leave to combine its claims for trademark/copyright infringement with passing off against Galaxy Paints Private Limited. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of passing off, noting the deceptive similarity between the 'TRACTOR SHYNE' and 'MAGIC TOUCH' trade dresses. Furthermore, the Court issued an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling products using similar branding until the suit is finally disposed of.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al.
This procedural order in the UPC case between Adeia Guides Inc. and The Walt Disney Company addresses key logistical and financial aspects of a complex infringement and revocation dispute. The Court successfully set the monetary value of the claims at €12 million, streamlining the financial scope for both parties. Additionally, the court granted confidentiality measures requested by Disney, allowing the litigation to proceed under agreed-upon privacy terms.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V et al.
In this procedural decision, the UPC Court of First Instance granted the withdrawal of an infringement action brought by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC against several chemical companies. The withdrawal was based on a mutual agreement between the parties, indicating that the dispute was resolved outside of court. Additionally, the court addressed requests for confidentiality regarding settlement details and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the initial court fees to the Claimant.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd.
This procedural order concerns Apple Inc.'s successful application to intervene in an appeal brought by Sun Patent Trust against Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd. The core dispute involved the scope of confidentiality regarding highly confidential information (HCI) related to licensing agreements. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple, recognizing its direct legal interest in preventing the disclosure of its sensitive business data to VIVO employees. This decision reinforces the procedural mechanisms available for third parties whose interests are affected by ongoing litigation.
Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft v.Sipsnap Soda Llp & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Hell Energy against Sipsnap Soda. The court allowed several procedural applications, including granting exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advanced service upon the defendants. Crucially, the court permitted the plaintiff to appoint a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure of evidence at the defendant's premises, ensuring the preservation of potential infringing materials. This order moves the case forward by formalizing the suit for permanent injunction regarding the 'HELL ENERGY' trademark and trade dress.
L And T Valves Limited v.M/S Ksa Valve Control Inc. & Ors.
In a case concerning the alleged passing off of its goods, L And T Valves Limited successfully secured several critical interim reliefs from the Delhi High Court. The court exempted the plaintiff from pre-litigation mediation due to the sensitive nature of the industry (defence, aerospace, oil & gas). Crucially, the court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner with powers to search and seize infringing products at the defendants' premises, providing a strong procedural step in the ongoing trademark infringement suit.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a rehearing based on alleged fundamental procedural defects in a prior ruling. Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought to reopen proceedings concerning its patent EP 3 167 888, arguing that the court applied new standards without proper notice. The Court ultimately rejected the application, clarifying that a rehearing is an extraordinary remedy reserved only for truly fundamental flaws, not mere errors of legal reasoning or disagreement with the outcome.
HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order addressed an applicant's request for public access to the written pleadings and evidence in a terminated revocation action (EP2661892). The Court of First Instance granted redacted access to most documents, finding that the general interest in transparency outweighed concerns about proceeding integrity after termination. However, the court rejected access to specific exhibits containing non-technical information, emphasizing that file inspection must be limited to technical explanations regarding interpretation and validity.
Google Llc v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Google LLC challenging the refusal to register its trademark 'OUTLINE'. The core issue involved potential conflicts with existing trademarks. Recognizing that two pending rectification petitions, which directly impacted the dispute, were lodged in different registries (Chennai and Ahmedabad), the court took a procedural step. It directed the transfer of these two related rectification petitions to the High Court for consolidation with the main appeal, ensuring a unified adjudication of all interconnected trademark matters.
RPG Enterprises Limited v.RPG Industrial Products Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by RPG Enterprises Limited against RPG Industrial Products Pvt Ltd., leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark registration (No. 2778255). The court found that the impugned mark wrongfully incorporated the petitioner’s well-known 'RPG' brand, which has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning through long-standing use across various industries. This decision reinforces the principle that a registered mark cannot be maintained if it is deceptively similar to an established, widely recognized trademark.
Montblanc-Simplo Gmbh v.Ms. Jasmin Chandrakant Vora & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Montblanc-Simplo Gmbh sought permanent injunctions and damages against the defendants for using its registered trademarks and devices. The court noted the parties' initial request for exemption from mediation but ultimately referred them to pre-litigation mediation. Subsequently, the defendants assured the court that they would withdraw infringing products from e-commerce sites within a week and were granted time to file an undertaking confirming their non-infringement intentions.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG brought a combined infringement and revocation action against Vibrantz GmbH concerning the European Patent EP 3 215 288, which covers metal sintering preparations used in electronics. The Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed the infringement claim and rejected all other related applications. Despite the loss for the claimant, the decision provided important commentary on how national law governs the binding effect of prior national revocation judgments within the UPC framework.
Krish-V Facility Management Services Private Limited v.Krishvi Projects Private Limited
In a significant commercial appeal concerning trademark infringement and passing off, the Karnataka High Court overturned an earlier dismissal by the Trial Court. Krish-V Facility Management Services successfully argued that procedural errors led to them being placed ex-parte in the original suit filed by Krishvi Projects Private Limited. The High Court set aside the adverse order, allowing both parties a chance to present their full pleadings and evidence on the merits of the trademark dispute, while crucially maintaining the existing temporary injunction.
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 UPC decision in Mannheim concerns the procedural conclusion of a patent infringement and revocation case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation against various Xiaomi entities. The parties reached an agreement and subsequently withdrew both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for invalidity. Although the core dispute was settled, the court issued detailed rulings on the reimbursement of court fees based on the final determination of the dispute's value.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This UPC decision confirms the termination of a patent infringement and revocation counterclaim between Hand Held Products, Inc. and Scandit AG following an out-of-court settlement. The claimant successfully withdrew its infringement suit, while the respondents consented to dropping their revocation counterclaim. Crucially, the court formalized the cost allocation, ordering both parties to receive a 60% refund of their respective legal fees.
Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd, directing the respondents (Union of India) to renew and restore its registered trademark 'JAGAT(DEVICE)'. The court found that the mandatory statutory notice (Form O-3) regarding the approaching expiry was not properly issued or served on the petitioner, thereby upholding the principle of natural justice. This decision emphasizes that a trademark proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry.
Novartis Ag v.Cdymax (India) Pharma Private Limited
The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their patent related to the compound Ribociclib, used in breast cancer treatment. The defendant allegedly started manufacturing and exporting the patented compound without authorization.
Rajesh Daseja (Huf) Trading As D Rajkumar v.Simran Gaba & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in a trademark dispute where Rajesh Daseja (Huf) sought the cancellation of Trademark No. 4776864 for the mark 'GSK/' from the Trade Marks Register. The court initiated the formal process, directing the petitioner to take necessary steps and issue notice to all respondents. This marks the commencement of substantive proceedings aimed at removing the disputed trademark.
Trutzchler Gmbh And Co Kg Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision to reject its patent application (1250/KOL/2009) primarily on grounds of lacking inventive steps. The appellant argued that the reintroduction of this objection after amendments and previous hearings violated natural justice principles. The High Court found that the procedure was against the scheme of the Act, setting aside the rejection order.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Chembott Chemicals And Pharmaceutical Private Limited and Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals against Chembott Chemicals. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case regarding the infringement of its registered trademark, 'COBADEX', by the defendants' mark, 'COZIDEX'. Given the nature of pharmaceutical products and the potential for irreparable harm to both parties and the public, the injunction was granted immediately until the next hearing date.
M/S Aggarwal Trading Company v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
M/S Aggarwal Trading Company approached the Delhi High Court seeking rectification of their trademark register entries (Registration Nos. 671443 and 671598). The petitioner argued that despite the marks being valid up to specific future dates, the online system incorrectly displayed messages indicating renewal failure due to delays. The court took cognizance of this discrepancy and issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, directing them to provide clarifications regarding the validity and renewal status of both trademarks.
M.Ramesh v.V.Balu
The Madras High Court set aside an order from the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, which had rejected a trademark infringement suit based on the existence of an arbitration agreement. The court ruled that since the defendants were not parties to the partnership deed containing the arbitration clause, and the dispute concerned trademark rights against third-party entities, the commercial suit was maintainable in civil court. This decision allows the original trademark infringement case to proceed.
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents, which dismissed their application for 'A LAMP LIGHTNING CONTROL CIRCUIT' on grounds of obviousness and lack of inventive steps. The High Court found that the impugned order was unsustainable because it lacked reasons and failed to address the appellant's submissions and evidence.
ITC Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark
ITC Ltd appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark regarding its patent application for an 'Electronic Aerosol Generating Device'. ITC contended that the rejection was based on technical materials not provided to them, violating principles of natural justice. Given this procedural lapse, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the original rejection and remanding the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order from the Munich Local Division addresses complex issues arising in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 215 288. The court corrected an earlier decision regarding party substitution in the counterclaim and deferred a ruling on an application to bar proceedings (RoP362). By reserving the decision until after the main hearing, the UPC ensures that procedural rulings do not disrupt the planned unified trial schedule for both infringement and validity issues.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH, Eurobio Scientific
In this UPC case, GXD-Bio Corporation sued Myriad Genetics and others for alleged infringement of EP 3 346 403. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence to hear claims related to acts predating the claimant's registration as proprietor. The Judge-rapporteur rejected this objection, affirming the UPC's subject-matter jurisdiction over infringement actions. This ruling clarifies that standing issues are matters of merit and not grounds for excluding the case at the preliminary stage.
Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G. v.Union Of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications and made key interim directions in the case concerning the Geographical Indication (GI) for Chilean Pisco. The court allowed various exemptions related to documentation due to pandemic conditions, while also agreeing to delete one respondent from the array of parties. Crucially, the court directed that the Registrar of Trademarks & GI would not pass final orders on the GI application no. 689 until further notice, providing a temporary stay on the registration process.
Epikindifi Software And Solutions Pty Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court addressed rectification petitions filed by Epikindifi Software and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. concerning the marks LEND.EZEE (No. 6174368 and 6174369). The court noted a procedural error in the filing, specifically regarding the petitioner's name. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to file a corrected Memo of Parties within one week. Further proceedings were scheduled after granting time for both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders.
Saksham Impex Private Limited v.Amit Patel
Saksham Impex Pvt. Ltd. challenged an arbitral award that rejected its claims against former employee Amit Patel, alleging breach of confidentiality and trade secrets related to the 'Monin' brand. The petitioner argued the arbitrator erred on grounds of perversity and patent illegality. However, the court upheld the arbitration award, finding no ground to set it aside.
Salman Khan v.Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by actor Salman Khan against various defendants for alleged misappropriation of personality rights, trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The court granted several procedural reliefs to the Plaintiff, including exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, the court issued directions for service on identified infringing parties and set a timeline for filing written statements and replication, while also considering an application for ad-interim injunction.
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.