IP Cases — 2025
1,915 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 23 of 64 · 1,915 total
Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v.Wow Burger & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Wow Momo Foods Private Limited, quashing a single judge's order that had dismissed an application for an interlocutory injunction. The court found that the respondent's proposed mark, 'WOW BURGER', was highly likely to cause confusion with the appellant's established marks like 'WOW MOMO' and 'WOW DIMSUMS'. Despite arguments regarding common usage or descriptive nature of 'WOW', the court held that the combination of the exclamation with the food item created a distinctive association in the mind of the average consumer, thereby establishing a prima facie case of infringement.
Kpn Farm Fresh Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned a rejection order issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding Kpn Farm Fresh Private Limited's application for the word mark 'KPN'. The court found that the initial decision failed to consider the appellant's defense of honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of the TM Act. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the Registrar for fresh consideration on this crucial legal point.
Kemin Industries, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Kemin Industries appealed an order rejecting its patent application concerning the use of Ferulic Acid Esterase (FAE) combined with four main chain degrading enzymes in monogastric animals. The appellant argued that the specific combination provided synergistic effects and was not obvious from prior art. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.
Ds Drinks And Beverages Private Limited v.Hector Beverages Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ds Drinks And Beverages Private Limited, upholding the interim injunction granted to Hector Beverages Private Limited. The court found that despite differences in surrounding words and product types (energy drink vs. juice), the core mark 'SWING' is predominant and highly similar. Given that both products are allied and sold across the same counter, the court ruled that there is a clear likelihood of customer confusion, favoring the established goodwill of Hector Beverages.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
In this procedural order, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf addressed the complex interplay between an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation concerning several coffee system patents. The court decided to handle both claims jointly under Article 33(3)(a) EPC, streamlining the proceedings. This early decision was deemed efficient given the moderate technical complexity of the subject matter.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
This order addresses a procedural dispute regarding the costs associated with public access requests to court documents within UPC proceedings. The judge-rapporteur clarified that Article 69 UPCA, which governs cost allocation, is not applicable when parties are consulted by the judge-rapporteur under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. This ruling sets a clear boundary on who can seek reimbursement of legal costs in these specific procedural contexts, emphasizing that public access requests do not automatically trigger standard cost recovery mechanisms.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
This UPC Procedural Order addressed a critical dispute over the starting date of deadlines for filing Preliminary Objections and Statements of Defense in an infringement action. The Court confirmed that prior agreements regarding confidentiality regimes establish the effective start date, despite subsequent appeals. While maintaining strict adherence to procedural efficiency, the judge-rapporteur granted a limited three-week extension based on the parties' voluntary compliance with information sharing requests.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Vivisol B BV
This UPC decision concerns a request for costs determination in the context of an ongoing infringement case. The court suspended the cost procedure because the defendant had filed an appeal against the initial ruling. This highlights the principle that final cost allocation must wait until the main dispute is definitively resolved by the appellate body, ensuring legal certainty and preventing fragmented judgments.
Urban Money Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Urban Money Private Limited appealed a trademark opposition decision before the Delhi High Court, challenging the Registrar's rejection of its 'URBAN MONEY' application. The appellant argued that the opposing party's claim of prior use was unsubstantiated by external evidence. While the case proceeds toward mediation and further arguments, the court granted an interim stay on the impugned order, providing immediate protection to the trademark applicant.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This UPC decision is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in an infringement and revocation action concerning egg packaging (EP 2 755 901 B1). The court has meticulously defined the technical scope of the dispute for the upcoming oral hearing. Key focus areas include the interpretation of structural elements, such as the retainment projection and nose, and the specific manufacturing method involving balancing deformations during suction molding. This order sets a clear roadmap for both parties to prepare their arguments.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Femilab Healthcare
The applicant sought an interim injunction against the respondents for infringing Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court, however, noted that the subject patent had already expired, leading to the vacation of the existing interim protection.
T T Krishnamachari And Co. v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The appellant firm, dealing in consumer durables and healthcare products, was assessed service tax on royalty income received for allowing its group companies to use its 'TTK' logo. The appellant argued that since the logo is registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957, it qualifies for exemption. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the demand was unsustainable and citing relevant exemptions and prior judicial decisions.
Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti v.MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti filed three Original Applications seeking an interim injunction against MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'SEVEN HILLS' brand, which is registered by the plaintiff. The dispute arose in the context of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) where the corporate debtor was undergoing restructuring. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the applications, finding that the resolution plan sanctioned by the NCLT prima facie granted permission to use 'Seven Hills,' thus balancing convenience in favor of the defendant.
Saint Gobain Glass France v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Saint Gobain Glass France appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 201717045317), titled 'Material comprising a stack of thin layers', by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). The High Court upheld the Controller's decision, finding that the claimed invention lacked technical advancement over prior art.
Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
This UPC decision is a procedural order concerning the logistics of an upcoming oral hearing in the Munich Local Division. Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC requested permission to use private interpreters due to facility limitations, which the Court partially granted. This ruling highlights the court's flexibility in accommodating parties' needs while maintaining procedural integrity.
Miss Kiara Rawat Through Mrs. Lovely Gusain v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner sought directions from the Delhi High Court regarding the high cost of the drug Zolgensma. The petitioner requested that the Union of India facilitate the issuance of compulsory licenses under the Patents Act, 1970, and also asked for the formation of a committee to raise funds for her treatment.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek Computer Inc.
In this UPC case involving Lenovo against ASUSTEK entities, the Local Division issued an order consolidating the proceedings. The court decided to hear both the infringement claim brought by Lenovo and the counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 682 587 together. This procedural step is significant as it streamlines the litigation process, allowing the validity of the patent to be assessed concurrently with its alleged infringement.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Pragati Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court formally accepted a settlement reached between Manash Lifestyle Private Limited and Pragati Enterprise & Ors. The original suit involved claims of trademark infringement, copyright violation, passing off, and unfair competition related to the brand 'DermDOC'. By agreeing to the terms of the Settlement Agreement dated May 28, 2025, the defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights, agreed not to use similar marks, and consented to the transfer of the domain name https://dermdoms.com/ to the plaintiff. The court consequently decreed the suit based on this compromise.
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al.
In this UPC case concerning the infringement of a patent covering Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene Multifilament Yarn, Avient Protective Materials B.V. sought an alternative method of service against its Chinese defendants. After months of unsuccessful attempts via The Hague Service Convention (HSC), the Court ruled in favor of the Claimant. The court authorized service by German bailiff at a trade fair in Düsseldorf, ensuring that the legal proceedings could proceed without delay or risk of default judgment.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.Novartis AG, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited
This preliminary order addressed a request by STADAPHARM GmbH, an applicant in a non-infringement action, seeking access to the main proceedings documents. The Court clarified the scope of document inspection under Rule 262.1 b), stating that such requests are limited to existing filings and cannot preemptively cover all future submissions. The ruling underscored the importance of maintaining procedural integrity and protecting parties' rights to independent legal defense when balancing public transparency.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG; Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This UPC decision involves a complex dispute over an avalanche rescue device (LVS) protected by EP 3 466 498 B1. The claimant sued the defendants for infringement while simultaneously challenging the patent's validity in Switzerland. The court issued detailed injunctions, establishing specific legal principles regarding indirect infringement when user activation is required and setting high standards for market removal measures like destruction. This case highlights the UPC's ability to handle combined actions of infringement and revocation.
Ferrero Spa & Ors. v.M. B. Enterprises
Ferrero Spa filed a suit against M. B. Enterprises alleging infringement, passing off, and unfair competition related to its globally recognized brand, NUTELLA. Following reports of counterfeit products being manufactured under the same name in Thane, Maharashtra, Ferrero sought immediate protection. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendant from continuing the alleged infringing activities until further proceedings.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Jinko Solar against LONGi Solar sets the stage for a major patent dispute concerning solar panel technology. The court has scheduled an interim conference and a full oral hearing, confirming that the proceedings will cover both infringement and validity of the patent. This decision is significant as it moves the complex technical dispute into the active litigation phase within the UPC framework.
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.
Shimadzu Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Shimadzu Corporation appealed an order rejecting its patent application (No. 201647043103), which concerned a surrogate biomarker for evaluating amyloid beta peptide accumulation. The rejection was based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, as it related to diagnostic methods. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter, finding that the appellants were prejudiced by not having access to a key judgment before the initial hearing.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited
The plaintiffs filed a quia timet action alleging infringement of their patent (IN'841) covering the drug 'Ruxolitinib', marketed as JAKAVI®. The defendants denied commercialization and requested protection under Section 107A. Both parties agreed to settle, with the defendant undertaking not to commercially exploit the compound during the patent's validity.
Powermat Technologies, Ltd. v.Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 481 141, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request by Anker Innovations and associated entities to stay infringement proceedings. The defendants sought a stay pending a decision on their FRAND counterclaim before the Munich LD. The Court determined that this request must be decided after the oral hearing because the applicability of the FRAND defense depends entirely on the outcome of the main infringement and validity arguments.
Trans Union, LLC v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Trans Union, LLC appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding its application for a database matching system. The core issue was whether the invention constituted a non-patentable 'computer programme per se' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the invention involved technical considerations and achieved a technical effect by optimizing data retrieval. However, due to overly broad claims, the court remanded the matter for further examination to narrow the scope and ensure enablement.
Scantrust v.Advanced Track And Trace (ATT)
In a procedural victory for settlement, the Paris Central Division of the Unified Patent Court homologated an agreement between Scantrust and Advanced Track And Trace (ATT). The case, which had initially been brought as a revocation action against patent EP2364485, concluded with both parties agreeing to terminate the dispute. This decision underscores the UPC's role in facilitating amicable resolutions while maintaining confidentiality for sensitive transaction details.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a complex jurisdictional issue arising from pending ECJ case law regarding international jurisdiction. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the application of Brussels Ia Regulation rules, the Panel opted not to delay decisions on national parts of the patent that were ready for adjudication. Consequently, the proceedings concerning specific non-UPC member states (Poland, Spain, Turkey, and UK) were separated into a distinct proceeding.
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.