IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 1 of 34 · 1,011 total
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. filed an intra-court appeal (LPA) challenging the Single Judge's order that had set aside the Registrar's rejection of its trademark application for 'OFFER' in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The appellant contended that the Single Judge erred in not directing publication of the mark under Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Division Bench held that since the application had not reached the stage of acceptance, advertisement under Section 20 could not be directed, and the authorities under the statute were better equipped to examine the application at the initial stage. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Registrar to reconsider the application afresh.
UPL Mauritius Limited & Anr. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
UPL Mauritius Limited and another have filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 15.05.2026 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing to grant a patent on Indian Patent Application No. 202211035759. The court allowed the exemption application and issued notice to the respondent, returnable on 03.12.2026. The matter is at the initial stage of hearing.
M/s. K.R. Bakes Pvt. Ltd. v.Pradeep Kumar K.R. & The Registrar of Trade Marks
M/s. K.R. Bakes Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation and removal of Trademark Registration No. 6305011 in Class 30 registered in the name of Pradeep Kumar K.R. Before the matter could be heard on merits, both parties arrived at an amicable settlement and filed a joint memo of compromise dated 19.08.2026. The Madras High Court recorded the settlement and disposed of the petition, with the compromise memo forming part of the order, and passed no order as to costs.
Surya Roshni Limited v.Maddi Ramiah Kutati (Trading as Safety Power Wires & Cables)
Surya Roshni Limited, a leading manufacturer of electrical and lighting products marketed under the well-known trademark 'SURYA', sued an individual trader (Safety Power Wires & Cables) for using the marks 'SURYA CAB' and other Surya-formative marks for electric wires and cables. The plaintiff claimed infringement of its registered trademarks and copyrights, passing off, and unfair trade competition. The Commercial Court at Delhi decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant's use of confusingly similar marks amounted to infringement and passing off, and granted permanent injunction, damages of Rs. 15 lakhs, and delivery-up of all infringing goods and materials.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Martin and Brown Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (in suit); Mr. Vineet Maini & Ors. (in rectification petition)
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. filed a commercial suit and a connected rectification petition against Martin and Brown Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. and others concerning the trademark 'SOMI-MB' (Application No. 5982177 in Class 5). The parties settled their disputes through mediation, executing a Settlement Agreement dated 27.07.2026. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of Alkem by consent and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel and expunge the impugned mark within four weeks. The plaintiff waived its claims for damages and costs, and was granted a full refund of court fee under the amended Court Fees Act.
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
This appeal challenged the Single Judge's dismissal of the appellants' applications for interim injunction in a patent infringement suit. The appellants alleged that Xiaomi's smartphones, tablets, and other devices infringed their registered Indian Patent No. 244963 titled 'A Communication Device Finder System.' The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's findings that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, as the respondent's 'Find Device' feature did not read onto the essential elements of the suit patent's independent claim. The court further held that the balance of convenience favored the respondent due to the appellants' unexplained nine-year delay in approaching the court, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Surf Loch LLC v.WhiteWater West Industries Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Surf Loch LLC's request for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in pending appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-75/2026) concerning EP 2 728 089. The court held that Surf Loch failed to demonstrate a direct interest that would outweigh the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing proceedings, as it was not involved in any current dispute concerning the patent and its reliance on terminated US IPR proceedings and abstract competitive interest was insufficient.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the release of a cost security (Prozesskostensicherheit) previously deposited by the defendant in connection with appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 778 423 B1. The defendant had paid the cost assessment amount of EUR 38,230.10 to the plaintiff in full, and the plaintiff consented to the release of the security, rendering the purpose of the security moot.
M/S Hi Tech Products Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Fabtech Cables P.Ltd. & Ors.
This is an order in CS(COMM) 555/2016 before the Delhi High Court, where the Plaintiff, M/S Hi Tech Products Pvt. Ltd., filed an interlocutory application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking permission to file a rectification petition concerning the registration of trademark No. 2261508 in Class 09, by framing an issue of invalidity of the said registration. The Court directed issuance of notice to the Defendants through all permissible modes, returnable on 26.11.2026, the date already fixed.
Braj Mohan Rathore v.Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd & Ors
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 685/2026) was filed before the Delhi High Court by Braj Mohan Rathore, who claimed he was not a party to the original proceedings before the learned Single Judge. The appellant contended that respondent nos. 3 and 4, who were the original parties, were his predecessors in interest, having assigned the rights in the trademark 'GOLDY' to him. The court directed the appellant to file supporting documents and an affidavit regarding his relationship with respondent nos. 3 and 4, while noting a potentially contradictory affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 before the Registrar of Trademarks.
Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited v.S Bahadur Singh, Sole Proprietor of Shaktiman Agro Industries and Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against S Bahadur Singh, Sole Proprietor of Shaktiman Agro Industries, before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff sought to place additional documents on record and sought interim injunctive relief. Based on the defendants' own stand in their written statement that they do not use the SHAKTIMAN trademark and instead sell their harvester combine under the AS-930 mark, the court directed the defendants not to use SHAKTIMAN as a trademark in future.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal and Ors.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited against the rejection of its temporary injunction application by the trial court in a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff had entered into an oral agreement with the respondent for mutual conveyance of land to set up an industrial park, and sought to restrain the respondent from altering the suit property and obstructing ingress and egress. The Division Bench set aside the trial court's order and granted the injunction, restraining the respondents from changing the nature of the suit property, making constructions, alienating the property, or obstructing the common passage.
Metro Brands Limited v.Met Brands Private Limited
Metro Brands Limited, a Mumbai-based footwear retailer, filed a commercial IPR suit against Met Brands Private Limited, a Kerala-based company, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought leave under Clause 14 of the Bombay High Court Letters Patent to join the cause of action for passing off (which arose in Kerala) with its trademark infringement claim filed in Bombay. The Bombay High Court dismissed the leave petition, holding that since both causes of action arose in Kerala and the defendant carried on business there, the plaintiff should file the suit in the appropriate forum in Kerala rather than exercising its discretionary choice of forum in Bombay.
Amycel, LLC v.Defendant (UPC-CoA-935/2025)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed a request by the appellant (a natural person and defendant in the underlying infringement proceedings) for interpretation facilities between English and Polish during an oral hearing. The court held that the appellant's legitimate interest in understanding the proceedings and communicating with his representative was not sufficient to render court-arranged interpretation appropriate under Art. 51(2) UPCA and R. 109.2 RoP. The court indicated that the appellant could engage an external interpreter at his own expense under R. 109.4 RoP, provided he informed the Registry by 9 September 2026.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court issued an order under R. 296.3 RoP interpreting the effect of resuming a suspended procedure on procedural time limits. The court ruled that after resumption of a suspended procedure, the ongoing procedural time limits are resumed from the resumption order, taking into account the time limits that had already elapsed before the suspension, rather than starting completely anew. The court set the deadline for the Statement of Defence at October 2, 2026, and established a briefing schedule for the security request side-procedure.
WEPA Nederland B.V. v.Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag
This is an appeal by WEPA Nederland B.V. against an ex parte order of the Hague Local Division granting Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag measures for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises under Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192 RoP in connection with European patent EP 3 289 139 (relating to tissue paper comprising Miscanthus pulp fibers). The Court of Appeal partially allowed the appeal, revoking the parts of the order that permitted Essity or its representatives to ask WEPA personnel direct questions about technical details of WEPA's products or processes, while otherwise largely upholding the preservation measures.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Zydus Healthcare Limited & Anr.
This was a patent infringement suit filed by Astrazeneca AB and another plaintiff against Zydus Healthcare Limited and another defendant, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing Indian Patent Nos. IN 205147 and IN 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the registry to draw up the decree sheet incorporating the Settlement Agreement.
Ever Resource Ltd & Anr v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a patent appeal. The matter was adjourned and re-notified for 20th January 2027 at the request of the respondent's counsel, who was stated to be unavailable on the date of hearing, with no objection from the appellants' side.
Ashok Kumar Bansal Sole Proprietor of M/s Hindson Industries v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks & Ors.
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a matter filed by Ashok Kumar Bansal, Sole Proprietor of M/s Hindson Industries, against the Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks and others. An adjournment slip was circulated on behalf of the Petitioner with no objection from the Respondents. The Court granted the adjournment and listed the matter for 04.02.2027.
Satpaul Mittal v.State of Punjab & Anr.
This is a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.20974/2025 arising from the High Court of Punjab & Haryana's final judgment dated 17-11-2025 in CRM-M No.43177/2020. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner would file an affidavit undertaking not to use the trademark allegedly similar to that of respondent no.2 before the next date of listing. The Court listed the matter for further hearing on 18.09.2026.
Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a patent appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 8/2026) filed by Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company against the Controller General of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications and others. The court, presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh, listed the matter for further hearing on 03.09.2026.
Ashok Kumar Jain v.Kumar Food Industries Ltd
This appeal arose from a judgment and decree dated 16.05.2026 in CS (COMM) 842/2024, wherein the respondent's suit was decreed including damages of Rs. 5 lakhs against the appellant. The appellant challenged only the damages portion and did not contest the finding regarding the impugned trademark 'MAHA SHAKTI BHOG'. The parties ultimately settled the dispute, with the appellant agreeing to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- in three equal installments within three months and to withdraw his trademark application for 'Maha Shakti Bhog' in Class-30.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. v.Sanofi
This order of the Delhi High Court disposed of two connected first appeals arising from a trademark dispute concerning the mark CLAVIX used for clopidogrel bisulphate drugs. The appellants (Intas) stated they had no intention to revert to the trademark CLAVIX and were instead using CLAVINTAS, and accordingly sought to withdraw their appeal. The respondent (Sanofi) did not wish to press its cross-appeal, and both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with Intas directed to satisfy the judgment/decree by paying Sanofi within four weeks.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr v.Sanofi
This order pertains to two connected appeals before the Delhi High Court arising from a trademark dispute involving the mark CLAVIX used for clopidogrel bisulphate. The appellants (Intas Pharmaceuticals) sought to withdraw their appeal, stating they had no intention to revert to the trademark CLAVIX and were instead using the brand CLAVINTAS. The respondent (Sanofi) did not wish to press its cross-appeal, and accordingly both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with the appellants directed to satisfy the judgment/decree by paying Sanofi within four weeks.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.R. Venkatachalam & Anr
This case concerns the execution of a decree of permanent injunction passed in favour of Aktiebolaget Volvo and others restraining the Judgment Debtors from using the trademark 'PENTA'. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 27.07.2026, under which the Judgment Debtors agreed to pay Rs. 50,00,000/- to the Decree Holders. The Delhi High Court recorded the settlement, disposed of the execution petition in terms of the MoU, directed release of Rs. 32,00,000/- already deposited in court, and directed the Judgment Debtors to pay the remaining Rs. 18,00,000/- within four months.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.R. Venkatachalam & Anr.
This order pertains to an execution petition arising from a trademark infringement suit (CS(COMM) 346/2018) where Aktiebolaget Volvo obtained a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'PENTA'. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.07.2026. The Court recorded the settlement, directed release of Rs. 32,00,000/- already deposited by the Judgment Debtors, and directed payment of an additional Rs. 18,00,000/- within four months.
KRBL Limited v.Sri Krishna Agencies & Others
KRBL Limited, the proprietor of the well-known registered trademark 'INDIA GATE' for rice and food products (registered since 1993 under Class 30), filed a suit against Sri Krishna Agencies and its partners for infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' adoption and use of the trademark 'MADRAS GATE' for identical goods was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'INDIA GATE' mark. Since the defendants failed to appear despite service, the court proceeded ex parte and granted a permanent injunction, delivery up, and awarded compensatory and punitive damages of Rs. 1.00 lakh along with costs.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings sued The Walt Disney Company and ten affiliated entities for infringement of European Patent EP 2 080 349, which relates to sharing multimedia content in a peer-to-peer configuration, targeting the Disney+ streaming service in Germany and the Netherlands. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Düsseldorf Local Division found the patent valid in a limited form based on auxiliary requests and held that the defendants infringed, ordering an injunction, information disclosure, and damages, with costs split 90/10 in favor of the claimant for the infringement action and 70/30 for the counterclaim for revocation.
Wittenstein SE v.Vestas Wind Systems A/S
Wittenstein SE brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court against Vestas Wind Systems A/S seeking revocation of European Patent EP 4 226 039 B1, which relates to a 'Wind turbine power transmission system.' The Claimant argued invalidity on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and that the patent proprietor was not entitled to the patent under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC. The Court addressed key headnotes on the interpretation of the entitlement ground for revocation and the treatment of dependent claims in stand-alone revocation actions.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Europe Ltd., Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH, Micron Semiconductor France SAS
This procedural order concerns a dispute over the timing of new arguments raised by the Defendants in their Rejoinder in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 909 047. The Claimant sought to have the Defendants' new arguments regarding the Z01M die prior use right and the 'internal mode' of the Y2BM die disregarded as belated, or alternatively to be permitted to file further written pleadings. The Düsseldorf Local Division deferred the decision on whether to reject the new arguments until during or after the oral hearing, but granted the Claimant the opportunity to respond in writing to the new arguments by 17 September 2026.
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.