IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 32 of 140 · 4,175 total
Gsp Crop Science Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors
Gsp Crop Science Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation and removal of Indian Patent No. 298645 from the Register of Patents. The court heard initial arguments but adjourned the matter to allow counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 time to obtain instructions, noting that the patent is nearing its expiry date.
Pataka Industries Private Limited v.Verinder Cigrate Store And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pataka Industries against Verinder Cigrate Store. The court granted exemptions from advance service, filing certified copies, and mandatory pre-institution mediation, allowing the case to proceed swiftly. Crucially, the court permitted a Local Commissioner to execute a commission to seize stock bearing similar marks ('S02 PATAKHA') to the Plaintiff's registered trademark '502 PATAKA', signaling strong judicial support for immediate injunctive relief.
Tommy Hilfiger Europe Bv & Anr. v.Mr Lalit Kumar Goel & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs in favor of the plaintiffs, Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein. The court exempted them from pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of interim relief sought. Furthermore, it allowed an exemption from advance service to the defendants, recognizing the imminent risk that the defendant might conceal infringing operations. Crucially, the court directed local commissioners to inspect the premises to ascertain the value of deceptively similar stock and gather evidence against the alleged infringers.
Pooja Electric Co. v.Anand Tomar Trading As Pooja Rading Company
In this intellectual property dispute, the Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Pooja Electric Co., to introduce evidence of subsequently registered trademarks into the ongoing litigation. Although the plaintiff sought an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the court determined that since the original plaint already disclosed the pendency of these trademark applications, a formal amendment was unnecessary. The court permitted the plaintiff to rely on the registration certificates while leading evidence, allowing the suit to proceed toward the recording of evidence.
M/S Blinkit Private Limited / M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited v.M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited / The Registrar of Trade Marks Chennai
The Karnataka High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by M/S Blinkit Private Limited and M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited. The petitions involved disputes over the validity and cancellation of specific trademark registrations (Nos. 3480206 and 3480207). Both parties submitted memos requesting the dismissal of their respective cases as withdrawn, leading to the court's order.
Havells India Limited v.Aman Virmani
Havells India Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Aman Virmani before the Delhi High Court. The parties agreed to a comprehensive settlement where the defendant acknowledged Havells' rights in 'REO', committed to ceasing all use of similar marks like 'RIEO', and agreed to destroy all infringing products. Furthermore, the defendant consented to withdraw his pending trademark application (No. 5774240), leading to the suit being decreed based on these mutual terms.
Ebc Publishing (P) Ltd & Anr v.Young Global Publications
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring EBC Publishing against Young Global Publications regarding the distinctive 'coat pocket' edition of Bare Acts. The court recognized that the plaintiffs' unique trade dress, including specific color combinations and font styles, had become iconic and integral to their brand identity in legal publishing. This protective order immediately restrained the defendant from producing or selling similar editions while the main suit proceeds.
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.
Aculife Healthcare Private Limited v.Auspharma Private Limited
The Madras High Court disposed of OP(TM)No.34 of 2025, which sought rectification of a trademark registration. Although listed for reporting settlement, the court formally accepted and gave effect to a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC) between Aculife Healthcare Private Limited and Auspharma Private Limited. The judgment confirmed that the MOC would form part of the order, effectively resolving the dispute without further litigation.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH, BEGA-Consult Internationale Handelsagentur GmbH & Co KG, BEGA BBK Sp. z o.o. sp. K and NEG Novex Großhandelsgesellschaft für Elektro- und Haustechnik GmbH v.Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance (The Hague Local Division) dated 11 September 2025, relating to European Patent EP 3 522 755. The appellants requested a two-week extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Grounds of Appeal, citing professional constraints including an EPO oral hearing. The Court of Appeal granted a limited extension of three working days, extending the deadline from 26 September 2025 to 1 October 2025.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.M/S Balaji Foods And Beverages & Anr.
Archian Foods Private Limited filed suit against M/S Balaji Foods And Beverages & Anr. alleging infringement of its trademarks, copyright, and trade dress related to 'LAHORI ZEERA' non-alcoholic beverages. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated the established goodwill and reputation of its brand. Although the defendants were proceeded ex-parte, the court found their actions not innocent and awarded nominal damages of Rs. 50,000/- to deter further illegal activities.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Anita Anu regarding the use of 'Poly Punkaj' for plastic goods. The core dispute revolved around whether the court should dispense with mandatory pre-suit mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Although the plaintiff claimed urgency due to the defendant's alleged bad faith registration, the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal. The judgment held that the plaintiff's prolonged delay in approaching the court demonstrated a lack of genuine urgency, leading to the revocation of leave and dismissal of the suit on procedural grounds.
Mr. Ar Rahman v.Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar
This appeal addressed a dispute over the copyright ownership of the musical composition 'Shiva Stuti.' The plaintiff, Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, claimed authorship and sought recognition and injunctions against A.R. Rahman for using the composition in his song 'Veera Raja Veera.' The core legal challenge revolved around whether the plaintiff could establish prima facie evidence of copyright ownership based on family claims and performance history. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's judgment. The court held that mere evidence of rendering or performing a musical work is insufficient to prove authorship under Section 2(d)(ii) and Section 2(ffa), thereby dismissing the plaintiff's suit.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. v.Syed Jawed Mohsin & Another
The Calcutta High Court allowed Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.'s application for the cancellation and rectification of the mark 'PROTIFIX'. The court found that PROTIFIX was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established trademark, PROTINEX, both visually and phonetically, leading to a high likelihood of consumer confusion in the healthcare goods market. Furthermore, the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of genuine use for the impugned mark, satisfying the grounds for cancellation under Section 47 of the Act.
Tractors And Farm Equipments Limited v.Massey Ferguson Corp
The Madras High Court settled three commercial suits involving Tractors And Farm Equipments Limited and Massey Ferguson Corp. The final decree was passed based on the joint memos of compromise entered by both parties. This resolution effectively merged all previous interim orders related to trademark disputes concerning the 'Massey-Ferguson' brand, providing a definitive conclusion to the litigation.
Agco International GmbH v.Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited
The Madras High Court heard multiple Original Applications filed by Agco International GmbH against Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited concerning trademark infringement, domain name misuse, and interference with licensed intellectual property. Despite the detailed prayers seeking interim injunctions to protect trademarks like 'Massey Ferguson' and associated livery, all parties subsequently filed withdrawal memos. Consequently, the court closed all related Original Applications without issuing a substantive judgment on the merits of the IP disputes.
3VSigma v.AGA-ACEF
1 di 7 Divisione Locale di Milano UPC CFI n. 342/2025 Ordinanza depositata il 23.9.2025 RICORRENTE 3V Sigma s.p.a. RESISTENTI ACEF s.r.l. AGA s.r.l. (già ACEF s.p.a.) ORGANO DECIDENTE presiding judge e judge rapporteur Pierluigi Perrotti LINGUA DEL PROCEDIMENTO Italiano
APPLE Inc. (intervener) in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Apple Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal concerning Ericsson's appeals against orders of the Milan Local Division that had rejected an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, finding that Apple had demonstrated a legal interest in the outcome of the appeals because the confidential information at issue included information on agreements between Ericsson and Apple. The Court granted Apple the right to file a Statement in intervention, respond at the oral hearing, and participate in support of Ericsson's position, while rejecting Apple's separate applications to file further submissions.
APPLE Inc. (intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on 23 September 2025 admitting Apple Inc. as an intervener in appeal proceedings concerning the confidentiality regime for highly confidential information (HCI). The appeals arose from Sun Patent Trust's infringement actions against Vivo, where the Paris Local Division had permitted three Vivo employees to access HCI. The Court held that Apple had a legal interest in the outcome because the HCI included information on agreements between Apple and Sun Patent, and that the potential revocation of the impugned orders could prevent further access and use of such information.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,626,066 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that no merits have been decided.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2023‑01075, finding that none of the 24 challenged claims of Samsung Display’s OLED pixel‑arrangement patent (U.S. 11,594,578) were unpatentable. The Board rejected BOE’s obviousness arguments based on Matthies, Yamada, and Hong, concluding no teaching of a "pixel defining layer" existed. All claims remain in force.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The PTAB held that Samsung Display’s OLED pixel‑arrangement patent claims 1,4‑10,13 and 15 are obvious over prior art, while claim 2 remains patentable.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential. The parties seek to have Exhibit 1029 treated as business confidential information and separated from the patent file.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑arrangement patent. The petition relies on five grounds of obviousness over prior‑art references such as Cok, Suh, Hong, Credelle‑379 and Elliott‑724. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. d/b/a MeshDynamics
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Dynamic Mesh Networks’ ’385 patent covering wireless mesh networking. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art from Castagnoli, Bohm, and Liu.
Alfa Laval Corporate Ab v.Clean Earth Energy Solution India Private Limited
The Plaintiff filed a suit alleging patent infringement regarding heat exchanger plates. The Defendants asserted that their product does not infringe the suit patent. To resolve this dispute, the Court ordered the appointment of an independent Scientific Advisor to inspect the impugned product and provide a technical report on potential overlap with the patented claims.
Suneeta Sharma v.German Plast Industries Private Limited
The case involves a dispute regarding the validity of Suneeta Sharma's registered design, Design No. 331213-001. Defendant No. 1 filed an application seeking fresh summons and directions for the Controller of Patent and Designs (Defendant No. 2) to produce complete records related to the design registration.
Baba Wheel Alignment Through Its Proprietor Mohammed Firoz Mohammed Shafi v.Sailani (S) Baba Wheel Alignment Through Its Proprietor Sayyad Kadar Sayyad Shabbir
This contempt petition was filed by Baba Wheel Alignment against Sailani (S) Baba Wheel Alignment, alleging continued use of a registered trademark despite an existing court injunction. The petitioner argued that the respondent had committed grave contempt by continuing to use the protected name and style. Although the petitioner requested a bailable warrant, the Court decided to stand over the matter for further hearing on October 7, 2025.
Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v.Fly- Hi Maritime Travels Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court modified an interim injunction in a trademark dispute between Frankfinn Aviation Services and Fly-Hi Maritime Travels. The court allowed the defendant to use its logo mark 'FLY HI' for its current, specified services, subject to plaintiff's consent. Furthermore, the defendant was granted conditional liberty to use the word form 'FLY HI' only as a reference in its normal course of business, provided it identifies specific, necessary circumstances and avoids trademark usage.
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.