IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 85 of 189 · 5,670 total
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Gunwal Sports
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte injunction in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited against Gunwal Sports concerning alleged trademark and copyright infringement. The court recognized the public interest risk associated with consumer deception regarding the 'HERO' brand merchandise. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were allowed to proceed without pre-litigation mediation or advance service, enabling the immediate appointment of a Local Commissioner for search and seizure of evidence.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Sunil Gupta
New Balance Athletics Inc. successfully secured several critical preliminary orders in its suit against Sunil Gupta regarding trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, allowing immediate legal action. Crucially, the court passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like 'NEW BLANCO' and 'BALANCE'. Furthermore, the court authorized a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure of evidence and counterfeit products at the defendant's premises.
Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V. and managing director v.Visibly Inc.
This appeal concerned cross-appeals against an order of the Hamburg Local Division requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs of EUR 75,000 for the revocation action in proceedings involving patent EP 3 918 974. Following the Local Division's order staying the proceedings in their entirety due to insolvency proceedings regarding the Easee companies, the Court of Appeal stayed the appeal proceedings as they were devoid of purpose during the stay.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Vermeer’s preliminary response to Kubota’s PGR petition argues that the cited Korean patent KR996 fails to disclose the pivotal attachment of linkages and actuators to the mainframe, a core limitation of claims 4‑14. The owner seeks denial of the petition on both anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Vermeer’s preliminary response contends that Kubota’s petition relies on KR996, which does not disclose the pivotal linkage to the loader support required by the ’891 patent. The owner argues the petition’s modifications are non‑obvious and urges denial of institution.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4‑14 of Vermeer’s ’063 patent covering a compact tool carrier. The petition relies on Korean, Japanese, and U.S. prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness, and disputes any discretionary denial.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all ten claims of Vermeer’s ’891 compact tool carrier patent, relying on Korean patent KR996 and secondary references Bares and SAE.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned PGR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent for agricultural machinery, leading to institution on all 11 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness based on prior art references like KR996.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent, leading to institution on all 10 challenged claims. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of 'loader support,' finding that prior art supports anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp.
The plaintiff, Communication Components Antenna Inc., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ace Technologies Corp. for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893 related to cellular base station components. Despite previous orders requiring deposits/bank guarantees from the defendants, the court found that the defendants' financial position was precarious and their non-compliance undermined the plaintiff's rights. Consequently, the court directed the defendant to deposit a substantial amount as security.
Kroll Information Assurance, Llc v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Ors
Kroll Information Assurance, LLC appealed the refusal of its patent application concerning a Peer-to-Peer Network search system. The Controller had rejected the application primarily on grounds that it fell under the excluded subject matter of 'computer program per se' and 'algorithm' as defined by Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court upheld this rejection, concluding that the invention merely performs conventional search functions without demonstrating a demonstrable technical advancement to the hardware. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
M/S Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India & Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses multiple appeals filed by Crocs Inc USA against various footwear manufacturers, including Bata India. The core issue revolved around the maintainability of Crocs' suits for passing off, which had previously been dismissed by a Single Judge. The court found that dismissing the suits outright was an error, as the claim for passing off extends beyond merely copying a registered design and requires factual examination.
Srinivas Jegannathan v.The Controller of Patents
The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting Patent Application No. 122/CHE/2006 for a novel antibiotic formulation (Ceftazidime, Tazobactum, and Linezolid). The appellant argued that the combination was not obvious from prior art. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration based on the original claims.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki v.Lmw Limited
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendant for using products allegedly infringing Indian Patents IN2447593 and IN3948834. The court focused only on IN2447593 (Spinpact) and found that since this patent had already expired on May 24, 2025, it could not grant an effective restraining order.
Dong Yang Pc, Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dong Yang Pc, Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2554/DEL/2013) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step in view of prior art D-5. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
VIP Industries Ltd v.Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision granting an interim injunction to Carlton Shoes Ltd. against Vip Industries Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether Vip's adoption of the 'CARLTON' mark for travel luggage constituted passing off, despite both parties possessing registrations in Class 18. The court found that VIP undertook the risk by adopting a non-ordinary word mark without sufficient prior knowledge of Carlton's established use and goodwill, thus upholding the injunction.
Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd, directing the respondents (Union of India) to renew and restore its registered trademark 'JAGAT(DEVICE)'. The court found that the mandatory statutory notice (Form O-3) regarding the approaching expiry was not properly issued or served on the petitioner, thereby upholding the principle of natural justice. This decision emphasizes that a trademark proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry.
YKK Corporation v.Kalpesh Kumar Gowanl
YKK Corporation successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to remove a conflicting trademark entry, '4 KK', registered under Kalpesh Kumar Gowanl. The court disposed of the Original Petition by directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the specified registration within 30 days. This ruling reinforces the rights of established brand owners against potentially confusing or infringing marks.
products and ideas india pvt ltd v.nilkamal limited
M/S Products And Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd. sued Nilkamal Limited and others for trademark infringement, alleging unauthorized use of the 'STELLA' mark on induction cooktops, despite having a license to use 'STELLADEXIN'. The plaintiff claimed prior registration and significant sales under the 'STELLADEXIN' mark.
Chandan Sadija & Vikas Nahlani v.Neeraj Jewellery & Nishant Gupta
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Commercial Court's jurisdiction in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The petitioners argued that the court lacked territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, as the original trademark originated outside Chhattisgarh. However, the High Court upheld the lower court's finding, noting that the defendants were operating within Chhattisgarh and that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded their cause of action and valued the suit above the required threshold for commercial court jurisdiction.
Avient Switzerland Gmbh v.Treadfast Ventures & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Avient Switzerland Gmbh, setting aside the previous rejection of its trademark application 'RENOL'. The court found that the original Trade Marks Registry failed to holistically consider all evidence presented by the appellant during the opposition proceedings. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the Registrar for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the applicant a second chance to prove their claim.
Major League Baseball Properties Inc v.Manish Vijay & Ors.
Major League Baseball Properties Inc successfully petitioned for the rectification (cancellation) of the trademark 'BLUE-JAY' registered in favor of Manish Vijay & Ors. The court recognized that MLB is the prior adopter and user of the mark, having used it since 1976 globally. Despite procedural hurdles regarding previous opposition attempts, the Delhi High Court ruled that the similarity between the marks constituted an attempt to ride upon MLB's established goodwill, thereby directing the Registrar to cancel the infringing registration.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. After the parties settled the patent infringement action and counterclaims for revocation through three separate settlements following the oral hearing, both the plaintiffs and defendants applied for partial reimbursement of court fees under R. 370.11 and R. 370.9(c) of the Rules of Procedure. The court rejected all applications, holding that because the oral procedure had already been completed at the time of settlement, no reimbursement was available.
Acer Computer GmbH v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Acer Computer GmbH applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated application-to-amend proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892 B1. The court granted access, finding that Acer had a specific interest due to a related infringement action and that the general principle of public access applies even when proceedings have ended without a decision. The court rejected Nokia's argument that Acer should be restricted from distributing the documents, holding that confidentiality conditions apply only to pending proceedings.
Acer Computer GmbH v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Acer Computer GmbH applied for public access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892, owned by Nokia Technologies Oy. Acer had a specific interest as it faced an infringement action based on the same patent. The court granted access to most documents with redaction of personal data, rejected access to certain exhibits, granted Nokia leave to appeal, and suspended the order's effects pending appeal.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order concerns an application by Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, a German law firm, for public access to written pleadings and evidence from a terminated revocation action (UPC_CFI_181/2024) involving patent EP2661892. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court granted access to most requested documents with personal data redacted, applying the Court of Appeal's Ocado v Autostore principles, but rejected access to two specific exhibits. The court also granted leave to appeal and suspended the effects of the order pending any appeal.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, a firm of UPC representatives, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for public access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated proceedings (UPC_CFI_181/2024) concerning EP2661892, a revocation action between HP and Nokia that ended by withdrawal. Nokia opposed the request, arguing the applicant lacked a sufficient specific interest and should not be permitted to distribute the file contents. The Court of First Instance granted access with personal data redacted, finding that the general principle of public access applies once proceedings have ended, and also granted Nokia leave to appeal.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC
Amazon and its AWS affiliate filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR against DivX’s 11,611,785 video‑streaming patent. The Board has not yet institutioned the case, and DivX does not oppose the withdrawal. The motion seeks termination of the proceeding for efficiency.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 12,004,262, asserting that its four claims are obvious over several IEEE 802.11 draft and standard documents, as well as the Yang publication. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.
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.