IP Cases — 2025
2,122 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 66 of 71 · 2,122 total
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a request for confidentiality regarding trade secrets arising from license negotiations between Huawei and MediaTek. The court successfully granted an order classifying specific documents as confidential information. This ruling reinforces the robust protection of business secrets within UPC proceedings by applying existing rules analogously to ensure secrecy.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Pitambari Products Private Limited
In a dispute over trademark infringement, Capital Foods Private Limited and Pitambari Products Private Limited reached an out-of-court settlement. The Delhi High Court formalized this compromise, decreeing the suit in favor of the Plaintiff while allowing the Defendant limited usage rights for specific packaging (PITAMBARI RUCHIYANA SCHEZWAN HOT & SPICY). This resolution allows the parties to move forward without protracted litigation over damages and accounts.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This decision from the Munich Local Division addresses an applicant's request for access to case files related to a patent infringement and revocation proceedings involving EP 1 770 912 B1. The court found that the applicant had a legitimate interest in reviewing the historical legal and technical arguments, particularly since the main litigation was already concluded. Access was granted to all relevant documents from the associated procedures (infringement, counterclaim for invalidity, and amendment application), with necessary redactions applied.
Ajp Impex Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademark Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim stay in favor of Ajp Impex Private Limited regarding a trademark dispute. Despite the respondent failing to appear or file a reply, the court upheld and made absolute the existing interim order from February 2025. This decision allows the petitioner to maintain protection against the impugned mark until the final resolution of the main petition.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation initiated an infringement action against Meril GmbH and its affiliates concerning European patent EP 3669828. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a procedural order scheduling the case for an oral hearing on February 11, 2025. This initial step moves the complex dispute from filing to active litigation in Munich. This case is significant as it involves major players in the medical device industry utilizing the UPC framework.
Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v.Malvinder Mohan Singh And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications concerning the sale of trademarks ('Religare', 'SRL', and 'Fortis') owned by a Judgment Debtor. While some parties conceded no objection to the sale, others vehemently opposed it due to existing charges or lack of information. The court granted time extensions to opposing parties to file affidavits detailing their stance on the trademark sales, ensuring all stakeholders are heard before proceeding with any auction.
Krbl Limited v.Vikram Roller Flour Mills Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the denial of interim injunction regarding the trademark 'INDIA GATE'. The court analyzed a prior consent order between the parties, which restricted usage based on product type and packaging size. While acknowledging the Appellant's claim as a well-known mark, the court ruled that if the Respondent's right to use 'dalia' flows from its existing rights for wheat products (atta, suji, etc.), it must adhere to the B2B/bulk sales restriction of 20 kgs and above. This interim order maintains the status quo while the core dispute over prior user rights remains sub-judice.
Glanbia Performance Nutrition Limited v.Hercules Nutra Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a cancellation petition filed by Glanbia Performance Nutrition Limited against Hercules Nutra Pvt. Ltd., directing the removal of an identical trademark registration from the register. The court found that Glanbia was a prior user and adopter of the 'ON' mark for nutritional supplements, possessing immense goodwill in India since 2003. Given the deceptive similarity of the respondent's mark (including copying the swoosh arrow) and the identity of the goods, the registration was deemed dishonest and liable to be cancelled.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Aubade Healthcare Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Glaxo Group Limited against Aubade Healthcare Private Limited regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, demonstrating a balance of convenience, and noting the likelihood of irreparable harm if the Defendants were not restrained from using similar marks to 'ZENTEL.' This interim order is crucial for protecting the Plaintiff's brand integrity while the main suit proceeds.
Brawn Biotech Ltd. v.Brawn Healthcare India P. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Brawn Biotech Ltd. against Brawn Healthcare India P. Ltd., following the failure of mediation proceedings to settle the dispute. The court has set out procedural timelines, including filing written statements and replication. Crucially, the court also granted notice for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction application, allowing the plaintiffs to seek immediate protection against alleged infringement of the 'BRAWN' trademark.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Juul Labs International Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for access to written pleadings and evidence in parallel proceedings concerning patent validity. The court granted immediate access to specific documents requested by Nicoventures, recognizing its direct interest as an opponent in the EPO. However, this access was strictly conditioned: Nicoventures could not file or distribute these materials with other courts, like the EPO Boards of Appeal, until the UPC appeal concluded. This ruling highlights the Court's power to balance transparency with procedural integrity.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited
In a recent procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC decided to consolidate the infringement action brought by Ona Patents SL against Google entities with the counterclaim for revocation. This strategic decision was made at the request and consent of both parties. By combining these two complex issues into one hearing, the court aims to enhance efficiency and ensure that any determination of patent validity is applied uniformly when assessing infringement.
Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (No. 2416/CHE/2009) for 'TWO-STAGE MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL TECHNIQUE'. The rejection was based on Section 3(k), classifying the claims as a mere computer programme per se. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the patent office failed to discuss or record reasons for rejecting the appellant's contentions.
Montblanc Simplo Gmbh v.Montblancindia.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark infringement issues concerning Montblanc's brand. While the court previously extended an interim injunction to prevent the use of a newly identified fraudulent domain, it ultimately de-reserved the final judgments in the core suit. This indicates that while immediate injunctive relief is maintained against new infringers, the matter will proceed towards a full trial to determine damages and resolve the main claims.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.ehemalige Patentinhaber
This UPC appellate decision addresses a complex issue regarding cost allocation in patent litigation where one party initiates an invalidity action and the other subsequently waives their rights to the patent. The court ruled that equitable considerations can override strict procedural requirements concerning the timing of a waiver and revocation request under Art. 105a EPC. This provides significant relief for patentees who may have delayed formalizing their withdrawal due to complex legal circumstances.
X & Anr. v.Y & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended an existing ex parte ad-interim injunction against a trademark infringer, ANCHOR/, to seven newly identified entities. This extension was granted after the Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that these new parties were involved in dealing/selling counterfeit products during a local commission investigation. Furthermore, the court allowed the immediate execution of the local commission without prior notice to prevent disruption of evidence gathering.
Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v.Haresh Patel Trading As Hans Zarda And Registrar of Trademarks Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., ordering the cancellation and removal of the trademark 'HANS ZARDA' (No. 2660422). The court found that 'HANS ZARDA' was visually, structurally, and phonetically deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s established mark, 'HANS CHAAP'. Furthermore, the court noted a lack of credible evidence regarding the Respondent's continuous use of 'HANS ZARDA', leading it to conclude that the mark should be expunged from the register to prevent consumer confusion.
Aroa Biosurgery Limited v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Aroa Biosurgery Limited challenged an order by the Controller General of Patents which dismissed its patent application for 'Tissue Scaffolds Derived From Forestomach Extracellular Matrix.' The core dispute centered on procedural fairness, as the rejection order introduced a ground of non-patentability (Section 3(i)) that was never raised during the examination process. The Calcutta High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing on the merits.
Unnamed Applicant v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC CFI decision addressed a request for access to the case file of an ongoing provisional measures action (UPC_CFI_830/2025). An unnamed applicant, claiming to represent a competitor in the CGM field, sought access to conduct an FTO analysis. The Court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that vague claims of 'specific interest' are insufficient and that procedural integrity must be maintained, especially in fast-tracked proceedings.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request by Kodak defendants seeking enhanced confidentiality protections for information disclosed during enforcement proceedings following an earlier infringement judgment. The court rejected these requests, emphasizing that such confidentiality issues should have been raised and addressed within the original merits proceedings. The ruling reinforces the principle that existing judicial limitations on information use are often sufficient, preventing parties from using tactical procedural applications to secure retroactive secrecy.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural request concerning the composition of the confidentiality club in an ongoing infringement action involving Fujifilm and Kodak. The court ruled that while the claimant could not fully expand its access authorizations, it was granted permission to replace certain members with others whose involvement did not pose an undue risk to the defendants' confidential information. This highlights the court's careful balancing act when managing procedural aspects of sensitive IP litigation.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter adopted a similar name and business model for selling electronic goods. The defendants challenged the suit by arguing that the Bombay High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the Plaintiff did not operate or conduct any infringing acts within Mumbai city. After examining the evidence, the court found that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants had established sufficient grounds to demonstrate that the cause of action arose within its territorial limits, leading to the dismissal of the suit and return of the Plaint.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.M/S Electrical Master
Philips filed a suit against Electrical Master for infringing its registered trademarks (PHILIPS), copyrights, and design rights concerning its Advanced Beard Trimmer Series 3000. The court found in favor of Philips, granting permanent injunctions, damages, and costs.
Parveen Kumar Gulati Trading As Apexseals v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court addressed a Writ Petition filed by Apexseals challenging the removal of its trademark application (No. 746049) without issuing the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner argued that this procedural lapse violated established rules. Following arguments from both sides, the Court issued a notice to the Registrar of Trademarks and granted time for filing a Counter Affidavit, indicating the matter will proceed through formal litigation.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Sweden) AB, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS (Danemark) ApS, EJNER HESSEL A/S
This procedural order addressed POSCO's request to access confidential pleadings and evidence in an infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against the XPENG group. POSCO sought access to inform its parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO regarding patent EP3290200, which is central to both actions. The Court ultimately granted limited access, recognizing that claim interpretation must be consistent across both infringement and revocation proceedings, while maintaining confidentiality for sensitive technical exhibits.
Abdul Rahim Khalilur Rehman v.Abdul Karim Khalilur Rehman
The Bombay High Court addressed two Commercial Arbitration Petitions concerning a dispute over the dissolved partnership firm's assets, specifically the 'Moulvi' trademark. The core issue was whether third parties (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) could be bound by the ongoing arbitration proceedings against Respondent No. 1. The court ruled that instead of granting immediate relief, it converted the petitions into Section 17 applications, directing the Petitioner to raise the 'alter ego' doctrine before the Arbitral Tribunal itself. This allows the tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedent, to determine if the third parties are bound by the existing arbitration agreement.
Hamdard Laboratories India Medicine Division v.Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA)
Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) appealed against an order dismissing its applications, alleging that UDMA was misleading the public by claiming market dominance and associating Hamdard Food Division products with medicinal claims. The core dispute revolved around the scope of a Family Settlement Deed which divided the HAMDARD Group into Medicine and Food divisions, restricting their respective product lines. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that the matter fundamentally involved commercial disputes concerning IP rights and required adjudication by a competent Commercial Court.
Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction request concerning alleged trademark infringement. Gensol Electric Vehicles sought to restrain Mahindra Last Mile Mobility from using 'eZEO,' claiming prior rights over 'EZIO.' However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for confusion, noting that the defendant had already launched its product while the plaintiff was yet to market theirs. The judgment emphasizes the importance of actual market presence and use when assessing likelihood of confusion.
M/S Ambika Industrial Corporation v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an order by the Trade Marks Registry that had allowed a change in the registered address for the 'AMBIKA' trademark. The petitioner firm argued that the change, filed by a former partner (Respondent No. 2), lacked justification and was detrimental to the established proprietor. The court ruled that since the petitioner remains the undisputed registered owner, the registry could not unilaterally alter the address based on an unsupported application, thereby restoring the original details.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited
The Bombay High Court addressed the trademark infringement suit filed by Ultratech Cement against Dalmia Cement Bharat. The court formally framed seven key issues, including whether the defendant's use of 'DALMIA ULTRA' infringes upon Ultratech's registered trademarks and whether there is an act of passing off. This judgment sets the stage for detailed evidence presentation, directing the plaintiff to file affidavits within four weeks.
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.