IP Cases — 2025
2,122 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 71 of 71 · 2,122 total
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P (Demandeur) and LAMA France (Défendeur)
This UPC procedural decision addressed a third party's request for access to the case file (UPC_CFI_358/2023). LIFE 365, an Italian company involved in the printer cartridge market, sought full access to documents related to the infringement and revocation proceedings between HPDC and LAMA France. The court balanced the applicant's legitimate interest—driven by ongoing national litigation and high costs—against the need to protect confidentiality and maintain procedural integrity. Ultimately, limited access was granted, restricting disclosure only to specific pleadings relevant to the patent validity challenge.
Celagenex Research India Pvt Ltd v.Pharmak & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its suit patents. The court examined the composition of the impugned products and found that they used exactly the same salt compositions as the plaintiffs' patented formulations. Consequently, the court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V., Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning a cost order issued by the CFI in provisional measures proceedings. Barco N.V., the appellant, sought to suspend the enforcement of a €112,000 cost award against it. The Court ultimately rejected this request, upholding the principle that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are met. This case reinforces the strict application of procedural rules regarding the suspension of judicial decisions within the UPC framework.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC's Board of Appeal addressed requests from 10x Genomics to recover court fees paid during three separate appeal proceedings. The court ruled in favor of 10x, granting partial refunds based on when they withdrew their appeals relative to the procedural stages (written vs. oral). This decision is significant for patent practitioners as it clarifies the application of fee refund rules under the UPC Agreement.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed requests for extensions and case management adjustments in a patent infringement action involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics. The court granted the requested extension, allowing Samsung more time to respond to key applications concerning claim amendments and case review. This decision highlights the Court's role in managing complex litigation timelines while also issuing guidance on efficient procedural practice.
Rajani Products v.Bhagwan Das Harwani S/o Unknown; Karishma Trading Corporation
The Rajasthan High Court allowed an appeal, quashing a lower court order that had rejected an interim injunction application. The petitioner, Rajani Products, holds a registered trademark for 'Swastik' used in edible oils. The court found prima facie evidence that the respondents were using a deceptively similar mark ('Shree Parwati Swastik'), amounting to infringement. Citing prior identical rulings in related cases, the High Court granted an ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing trademark until the main suit is decided.
Neeraj Jain v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademark & Anr.
Neeraj Jain challenged the rejection of his design application (No. 393302-001), which was deemed abandoned due to a delay in filing the Power of Attorney (POA) and subsequent reply to the FER. The Controller had rejected the application because the response was filed beyond the stipulated six-month period. The Delhi High Court, recognizing a bona fide mistake by the petitioner's agent, intervened.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Rspl Limited
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) sought an interim injunction against Rspl Limited over disparaging advertisements for its 'Ghadi' detergent, claiming the ads tarnished HUL's flagship product, 'Surf Excel.' The Delhi High Court found that while comparative advertising is permissible, derogatory and defamatory remarks are not. Consequently, the court issued a prima facie order directing Rspl to remove specific phrases—such as 'Na Na, yeh dhoka hai' and 'Aapka kare badi badi baatein, dho nahi patey'—from its commercials before they can be broadcast.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
In a significant procedural development concerning solar panel technology, the UPC Local Division Munich granted an extension to multiple defendants. The case involves Chinese claimants asserting infringement against several LONGi-related entities regarding European patent EP 4 372 829. This order allows all parties sufficient time to prepare their defenses and counterclaims for revocation, keeping the core dispute alive.
Diageo Scotland Limited v.Prachi Varma & Anr.
Diageo Scotland Limited successfully appealed against the rejection of its opposition to a new trademark registration, 'CAPTAIN BLUE'. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Diageo, finding that 'CAPTAIN BLUE' was deceptively similar and constituted an imitation of Diageo's established family of marks, particularly 'CAPTAIN MORGAN'. The court set aside the previous order and directed the removal of the infringing mark from the Register, reinforcing the protection afforded to well-known brands.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 1071/DEL/2007) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The refusal was based partly on objections related to amendments, which the appellant argued were merely corrections and explanations within the scope of Section 59. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasoning regarding the rejection of these amendments.
Dunlop International Limited (and Dunlop Slazenger Group Ltd.) v.Glorious Investment Limited And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court set aside multiple appeals concerning the registration of the 'Dunlop' word mark. The core dispute revolved around the validity of assignments made by Dunlop India Ltd. during its liquidation period, which were used by Glorious Investment Limited to secure trademark rights in various classes. Given serious questions regarding fraud, natural justice violations, and the limited jurisdiction of the Registrar concerning assignment validity, the Court remanded all matters back for a fresh hearing after ensuring all parties are heard.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Viraj Harjai & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted rectification to Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, a major online beauty retailer operating under the mark 'PURPLLE'. The court cancelled two registrations held by the respondent for similar marks ('PURPLLE TREE/'), finding that the petitioner was the prior and continuous user. This decision underscores the importance of establishing genuine, long-standing market presence over mere application dates when challenging trademark validity.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE S.L.U., ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED, Novartis AG, ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope of public access to court documents, specifically written pleadings and evidence. Stadapharm appealed a lower court's denial of access to documents from a withdrawn main infringement proceeding. The Court ultimately granted access, emphasizing that once proceedings are concluded and parties consent or do not object, the general interest in public access prevails. This ruling provides clarity on how confidentiality concerns must be balanced against transparency requirements within the UPC framework.
M/S.Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.Sh.S.Lal Singh
In this appeal before the Madras High Court, M/S.Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. challenged the Trade Marks Registry's decision to dismiss an opposition based on the finding that 'GOLDMEDAL' and 'SILVERMEDAL' were different marks. The court noted evidence of prior use by Goldmedal's predecessor since 1987, and crucially, referenced a separate Civil Court decree confirming the deceptive similarity between the two trademarks. Consequently, the High Court ruled that the Registry's finding of difference would not be binding on the appellant in future proceedings related to these marks.
Vifor (International) Ag v.Controller Of Patents
Vifor (International) Ag appealed an order by the Assistant Controller rejecting its patent application for a pharmaceutical composition used to treat iron deficiency. The appellant argued that the rejection based on lack of novelty and inventive step was flawed, as the prior art cited was irrelevant and the Controller ignored technical data provided.
UCB Pharma GMBH v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
UCB Pharma appealed an order refusing to proceed with its patent application for a solid dispersion formulation of Rotigotine. The court found that the Controller had caused inordinate delays and violated statutory timelines, compounded by citing new prior art documents at the hearing without proper notification. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v.Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. and Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for listing before the appropriate bench on December 6, 2022, to continue the ongoing litigation.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. v.Barco NV
Yealink filed an application seeking to rectify a previous Final Order concerning legal costs in the UPC case against Barco. Yealink argued that the original order was flawed regarding the cost award amount. However, the Local Division Brussels dismissed the rectification request, holding that the initial decision was legally sound and consistent. This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of R. 353 RoP, emphasizing that procedural corrections must be limited to clear errors rather than re-evaluations of legal reasoning.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In a significant enforcement ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance imposed severe penalties on Kodak entities for non-compliance with a previous final decision regarding EP 3 511 174. Fujifilm successfully argued that despite clear deadlines and notices, the Defendants failed to execute obligations related to information disclosure, destruction, recall, and removal from commerce. The court established a multi-tiered penalty structure, starting with an immediate lump sum payment of €100,000, escalating to daily fines, underscoring the UPC's robust enforcement mechanisms.
Sunil Jain v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Sunil Jain against the Registrar of Trademarks and others. The court noted that pleadings were complete but directed the respondent no. 2 to file their reply within one week, condoning the delay. The matter has been scheduled for listing on December 17, 2025, indicating ongoing litigation rather than a final decision.
Anand Sarup Sachdeva M/S Diachi International v.Rex Sewing Machine Co. Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking correction of clerical errors in a previous order related to a trademark dispute. The Court found that certain discrepancies, including the petitioner's name and the scope of cancellation, were inadvertent mistakes. Consequently, the court corrected the relevant paragraphs, ensuring the restoration of M/s Daichi International's trademark registration (No. 696905) while confirming the cancellation of the respondent's mark (No. 1573729). This order clarifies the legal standing of both parties in the ongoing dispute.
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.