IP Cases — 2025
1,915 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 40 of 64 · 1,915 total
Ntn Corporation v.Assistant Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ntn Corporation against the Assistant Registrar's decision to allow the registration of the trade mark 'NTW'. The court held that despite arguments regarding phonetic and visual similarity between 'NTN' and 'NTW', the marks were not deceptively similar. Furthermore, the court rejected the appellant's claims of prior use, concluding that the difference in letters ('W' vs 'N') was sufficient to distinguish the two trademarks.
Chet Chamnitiravanich v.Organovedics Through Its Partners Ms. Sonia and Mr. Nitin Gangadhar and Ors
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court granted crucial interim relief to the plaintiff, Chet Chamnitiravanich. The court allowed the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct an inventory and seize counterfeit 'MENA' soap products being manufactured and exported by the defendants. Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of stopping counterfeiting, the court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory advance service requirements against key defendants.
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.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna Biotech UK Limited (and all Moderna group entities)
This UPC Procedural Order addressed preliminary objections raised by the Moderna group against Arbutus Biopharma Corporation's infringement claims concerning two biotech patents (EP2279254 and EP4241767). Moderna challenged the Court's jurisdiction, particularly regarding long-arm jurisdiction for various international subsidiaries. The Hague Local Division largely rejected these objections, confirming its competence to hear the case. This ruling is significant as it clears a major procedural hurdle, allowing the substantive infringement claims to move forward.
Astha Jain & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief in favor of the plaintiffs against various traders accused of selling counterfeit goods. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning the marks 'AYUVYA', 'i-GAIN+', 'IMFRESH', and 'BOOBEAUTIFUL'. Consequently, all defendants were restrained from using these impugned marks until further hearing, and specific directions were issued to take down product listings from major e-commerce platforms.
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.
Docket Navigator v.Sumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited; Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by the litigation intelligence platform, Docket Navigator, seeking access to confidential written pleadings and evidence in an concluded case. The court ruled that the commercial interest of making these documents available to subscribers does not meet the threshold for protection under Article 45 UPCA. Furthermore, the requirement for representation was deemed essential to safeguard procedural integrity. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining judicial confidentiality unless a legitimate public interest is demonstrated.
M/S Metrix Research And Analytics Private Limited v.Shri Vineet Kumar Tripathi
The plaintiff, a market research company, sued its former employee, Shri Vineet Kumar Tripathi, alleging that he misused confidential trade secrets and proprietary methodologies after resigning to benefit his new employer. The court examined the allegations of misappropriation but found the evidence led by the plaintiff to be deficient and conjectural.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural matter concerning the reimbursement of court fees following a settlement in a revocation action. Tandem Diabetes, which had appealed a dismissal by the Central Division Paris, successfully applied for a refund of 60% of its appeal costs. The ruling confirms that if an action is settled before the written procedure concludes, the party responsible for the initial costs is entitled to this partial reimbursement under UPC Rules of Procedure.
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Nordic AB, Samsung Electronics France SAS, Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the Mannheim Local Division granted requests from all parties to harmonize timelines and service dates in an infringement action concerning EP 2 936 439. The court accepted the agreement to set uniform service dates for all defendants and extended deadlines for filing defenses and replies. This decision underscores the UPC's flexibility in managing proceedings efficiently when parties mutually agree on procedural adjustments.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against Moderna addressed extensive jurisdictional challenges raised by the large group of Moderna entities. Moderna argued that several subsidiaries lacked sufficient domicile or connection to the UPC territory for the court to exercise jurisdiction. The Court rejected these objections, confirming its competence based on established connectivity principles (e.g., co-defendants in the same country). This decision clears the path for the main infringement proceedings concerning Spikevax.
Jay Switches India Pvt. Ltd. v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd.
The suit was filed by Jay Switches India Pvt. Ltd. against Sandhar Technologies Ltd. & Ors for alleged infringement of a patented 'Air Tight Fuel Cap' and a registered design 'Fuel Tank Cap', along with claims of passing off. The court proceeded to frame issues based on the pleadings, including counterclaims regarding the novelty and inventive step of the Plaintiff's IP rights.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE et al.
In this UPC case, Promosome LLC sought to compel BioNTech and its affiliates to produce detailed raw data and experimental methods used in an expert report related to patent infringement. The Defendants argued that access to this data was necessary for them to properly defend against the infringement claims. However, the Court rejected the request, emphasizing that the defendants failed to specify concrete facts or evidence they wished to contest. This decision reinforces the high threshold required for a Rule 190 request, even when made by a defendant.
Kluster Llc & Anr. v.Mr. Deval Ravindrabhai Bambhaniya & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit between Kluster Llc & Anr. and Mr. Deval Ravindrabhai Bambhaniya & Ors., formalizing an amicable settlement reached by the parties. The defendants acknowledged Kluster's proprietary rights over the 'KLUSTER' mark, trade dress, and copyrighted material. In exchange for a decree, the defendants agreed to cease all use of the infringing marks/designs, refrain from copying original works, and pay Rs. 3,00,000/- in litigation costs.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a procedural decision before the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC, Huawei Technologies withdrew its infringement claim against MediaTek. Concurrently, MediaTek's subsidiary also withdrew its counterclaim for revocation of the patent EP 3 567 731. The court formally accepted both withdrawals and declared the proceedings terminated. While no substantive judgment was reached on infringement or validity, the decision provided clarity on procedural matters, including the partial reimbursement of court fees.
XX v.YY
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 419280, which covers Benzamide Derivatives. The court registered the plaint as a suit and issued directions regarding the appointment and scope of the Local Commissioner to investigate the matter.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect filed by NUC Electronics against a judgment ordering it to disclose confidential business information regarding the origin and distribution of its products. The court ruled that the disclosure obligation is necessary for effective IP enforcement under EU directives. Consequently, NUC's request to suspend the appeal was dismissed, meaning the original order compelling information disclosure remains in force.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a complex infringement case involving Huawei and MediaTek concerning 5G-capable Dimensity chips, the UPC issued an interim procedural order focusing on confidentiality. The court granted extensive protection for trade secrets related to licensing agreements, limiting access to highly sensitive information only to specific parties. This decision highlights the UPC's robust mechanisms for managing confidential data during litigation, which is crucial in high-tech patent disputes.
Purple Innovation, Llc v.Mr. Martin Davis Trading As M/S Purple Martin Mattreses And Ors.
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff, Purple Innovation, LLC, to amend its plaint to incorporate details regarding three newly registered trademark applications. While the suit continues, the court noted that both parties use deceptively similar marks ('PURPLE' and 'PURPLE MARTIN') for mattresses. The court encouraged a settlement, instructing the plaintiff to consider dropping claims for costs and damages if the defendants agree to adopt a new mark.
Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson v.Motorola Mobility LLC
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed jurisdictional issues concerning multiple actions on the same patent. The court held that if an action for revocation is already pending between the same parties in the same division, a subsequent counterclaim for revocation must be rejected as inadmissible (lis pendens). This decision clarifies the scope of Article 33(2) UPCA, preventing duplicative litigation and ensuring procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
Reckitt And Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited & Ors. v.Ashok Kumar(S)/John Does & Ors.
In a significant commercial dispute concerning the HARPIC brand, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders favoring the Plaintiffs (Reckitt And Colman). The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granted exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advance service. Crucially, the court also permitted an ex parte ad interim injunction by appointing Local Commissioners to conduct inspections of the alleged infringing products, reinforcing the strength of the brand's trademark and trade dress protection.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Powell Gilbert LLP
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the scope of public access to court documents, specifically addressing whether pending appeals or parallel proceedings justify withholding evidence from the public register. The Court ruled that once the CFI has rendered a decision, the general interest in public access prevails, even if the initial order concerned provisional measures. This ruling significantly lowers the threshold for transparency in UPC litigation, reinforcing the principle of open justice.
Le Shark Apparel Limited v.Anil Shah And 2 Ors
The Bombay High Court granted rectification to remove a registered trademark (No. 466002) belonging to the Respondents, which was identical to the Petitioner's established global mark 'LE SHARK'. The court found that the Respondents had fraudulently adopted the mark and lacked evidence of genuine use, thereby allowing the Petitioner to proceed with its brand in India. This decision reinforces the principle that a trademark register must maintain purity against deceptive or fraudulent registrations.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy, TGI Sport Virtual Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL (and potentially TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited)
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted AIM Sport Development AG leave to significantly amend its infringement action against the Supponor group. The amendments included adding a new defendant (TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited) and extending the scope of the claims to cover joint infringing acts in Spain. The court reasoned that these changes were necessary to prevent conflicting judgments, thereby promoting procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
Ram Roop Singh Trading As M/S Durga Trading Co. v.Girjesh Singh Trading As M/S Murli Trading Co.
Ram Roop Singh Trading As M/S Durga Trading Co. filed a commercial suit against Girjesh Singh Trading As M/S Murli Trading Co., alleging infringement of trademarks and copyrights related to edible products. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications, granting the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the potential health risks associated with substandard goods. Furthermore, the court condoned a delay in re-filing the suit, allowing the main plaint seeking permanent injunction for infringement to be registered and listed before the court.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Ashok Kumar (Unkown)
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ashok Kumar. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Crucially, the court ordered a local commission to be conducted to inspect and inventory all infringing products bearing deceptively similar marks, thereby strengthening the plaintiff's case for permanent injunction.
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.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Aberdare Technologies Private Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of two patents related to optical fiber production. The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of these same patents. Both parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Qpharm Health Care Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple issues in the ongoing dispute between Glaxo Group Limited and Qpharm Health Care Limited. The court allowed a petition seeking the transfer and consolidation of trademark rectification proceedings against 'BETNOTREAT' into the main infringement suit, recognizing the interconnected nature of the disputes. Furthermore, after hearing arguments regarding trade dress similarity, the parties were referred to mediation, indicating a potential path toward settlement.
Innoviti Payment Solutions Private Limited v.Pine Labs Private Limited
The Original Suit filed under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, was listed for an interlocutory application. The plaintiff subsequently submitted that they were withdrawing the suit, which the court accepted and dismissed it as withdrawn. Additionally, the counter claim filed by the defendant was dismissed due to the prior revocation order.
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.