IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 11 of 50 · 1,474 total
M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v.The Asst. Commissioner (CT), VMU-1
M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (TCS) challenged assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) demanding VAT of Rs.52,39,44,119/- on a service turnover of Rs.11,50,52,48,700/- for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, on transactions involving custom-made/customized software development and issuance of Digital Signature Certificates. TCS contended that these were pure service transactions on which Service Tax had already been paid under the Finance Act, 1994, and that no VAT was leviable. The Telangana High Court allowed the writ petitions, holding that the transactions did not constitute a 'sale' of goods and therefore could not attract VAT under the TGVAT Act, 2005, and set aside the impugned assessment orders.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-2 v.M/s Sun Pharma Sikkim
The Revenue filed tax appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's common order dated 16.05.2019 that allowed M/s Sun Pharma Sikkim's claim for deduction under Section 80IE for Assessment Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The Gujarat High Court examined multiple substantial questions of law concerning the genuineness of plant and machinery purchases, whether the assessee firm was constituted by reconstruction of an existing business, and the apportionment of selling, distribution, and R&D expenses. The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal and dismissed both appeals.
Hahnemann Scientific Laboratory India v.Registrar Of Trademarks
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by Hahnemann Scientific Laboratory India against the Registrar of Trademarks. The matter could not be taken up on the scheduled date because the Supreme Court had directed the presiding judge to hear a certain batch of matters on a day-to-day basis. The court re-notified the matter for hearing on 18th December 2026.
VKC Nuts Private Limited v.Connedit Business Solutions Private Limited & Anr.
VKC Nuts Private Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of trademark registration No. 6656555 in Class 29 held by Connedit Business Solutions Private Limited. During proceedings, Respondent No. 1 voluntarily agreed to withdraw the impugned registration, while reserving its right to enforce common law rights through separate legal proceedings. The Court accepted the respondent's statement as binding and disposed of the petition accordingly.
Gufic Bioscience Ltd & Anr v.The Varma Pharmacy Private Limited & Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of interlocutory applications in a rectification petition filed by Gufic Bioscience Ltd & Anr against The Varma Pharmacy Private Limited & Anr. The Court allowed the exemption application and condoned a one-day delay in re-filing the rectification petition. Notice was issued to the Respondents in the main petition seeking cancellation of trademark registration no. 2533114 under Class 05, returnable on 08.12.2026.
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Saurabh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Shyam Singh)
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit against Saurabh Kumar Agarwal and Shyam Singh seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing or passing off its registered 'GOLDMEDAL' trademarks and copyrights. The plaintiff applied for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court allowed the application, granted a decree of permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1, awarded damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- and legal fees of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and dismissed the suit against Defendant No. 2 as not pressed.
Amar Tulsiyan, Proprietor of M/s Wizard Fragrances v.Corona Plus Industries Limited
This is an ex-parte judgment in a trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Amar Tulsiyan, proprietor of M/s Wizard Fragrances, against Corona Plus Industries Limited. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant issued groundless threats through legal notices and letters regarding the plaintiff's trademarks SHUDH, SHUDH PLUS, and SHUDH PLUS ULTRA LABEL used in relation to supari, pan masala, gutkha, and related goods. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the threats illegal and granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using identical or deceptively similar marks, though no damages were awarded due to lack of evidence.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V. et al. (Pfizer and BioNTech entities)
This is a case management order from the Unified Patent Court's The Hague Local Division in patent infringement proceedings brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively PBNT) concerning European Patent EP2590626, which relates to Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine products. The order addresses procedural matters arising after the interim conference, including the admission of late-filed exhibits, clarification of the scope of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests to be relied upon at the upcoming oral hearing, and the rejection of certain unsolicited submissions.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Windhager's appeal as inadmissible because its Statement of appeal was not electronically signed within the non-extendable two-month time period under Rule 224.1 RoP. The Court held that logging into the CMS with two-factor authentication does not satisfy the signature requirement under Rule 4.1 RoP, and that the signature requirement is not part of the formal examination under Rule 229 RoP. Windhager's belated application for re-establishment of rights was also rejected as inadmissible.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that an appeal filed without the required electronic signature under Rule 4.1 of the Rules of Procedure is not a valid filing, and a subsequently signed appeal submitted after the two-month deadline under Rule 224.1 cannot cure the defect. Windhager's appeal against the Local Chamber Mannheim's decision finding infringement of EP 2 223 589 was therefore rejected as inadmissible, along with its belated applications for restoration of rights and additional filing time.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 805 415 B1. The Japanese plaintiff, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., requested simultaneous interpretation from German to Japanese for the oral hearing and permission for Japanese representatives to participate via video conference. The court allowed the plaintiff to hire interpreters at its own cost using the existing courtroom equipment, but declined to order court-funded interpretation, finding that the plaintiff was not disproportionately burdened by the German language of proceedings.
Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH v.Cybex GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appellants' (Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH) application for suspensive effect of their appeal against the Local Division Hamburg's order of August 10, 2026, concerning alleged infringement of EP 4 242 056 (a child seat system patent). While the Court identified a manifest error in the first instance order regarding an unrequested 'insbesondere ohne' (in particular without) addition to the indirect infringement ruling, it found that the suspensive effect could be limited to the distinct part affected by the error. Since Cybex had validly waived enforcement of that specific erroneous part, the appellants' need for legal protection was eliminated.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This is an appeal from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning provisional measures related to European patent EP 3 689 198, owned by SharkNinja. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance decision that had dismissed SharkNinja's application for provisional measures regarding EP 3 689 198, finding that the patent was more likely than not valid and infringed by SEB's Cookeo Infinity cooking devices. The court ordered SEB to cease infringing activities in France and Germany, imposed penalty payments for non-compliance, and required SEB to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH & Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH
This order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns the release of an expert's detailed description (ausführliche Beschreibung) prepared during an inspection and preservation of evidence proceeding under Articles 58 and 60 of the UPCA, and the protection of confidential information. The applicant Topsoe A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1, sought disclosure of the detailed description, while respondent SYPOX GmbH sought extensive redactions. The court ordered partial redaction of the detailed description, restricted disclosure to specific named natural persons on Topsoe's side, and rejected SYPOX's request for an Attorney-Eyes-Only restriction.
Rajat Gupta v.The State NCT Of Delhi
Rajat Gupta filed an anticipatory bail application before the Delhi High Court in connection with FIR No. 109/2026 registered at Police Station Crime Branch for offences under Sections 318(4)/336(4)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, relating to manufacturing and sale of counterfeit automobile spare parts bearing trademarks of reputed companies. The State opposed bail, contending that custodial interrogation was necessary as the applicant was part of an organized counterfeit syndicate. The Court observed that the only incriminating material against the applicant was the disclosure statement of his brother Harshit (who had already been granted bail) and directed the applicant to join investigation, with no further precipitative steps to be taken till the next date of hearing.
Exquisite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v.Oberoi Realty Limited and Ors.
This interim application was filed by Defendant No.1, Oberoi Realty Limited, seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The underlying suit was filed by Exquisite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and flat purchasers against the developer and municipal authorities, seeking declarations regarding their undivided share in land and FSI, injunctions against ongoing construction, and conveyance of their share. The Bombay High Court rejected the application, holding that the suit genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief due to the continuing nature of the alleged wrong, and the prayer for interim relief was not a mere camouflage to bypass the statutory mediation requirement.
Activision Publishing Inc v.Oao Info India Pvt Ltd
This entry does not constitute a judgment but rather a cause list entry from the Bombay High Court dated 21 August 2026. Two matters filed by Activision Publishing Inc against OAO Info India Pvt Ltd were listed as fresh matters (COMMP(L)/27173/2026 and COMMP(L)/27270/2026) before Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan. As per the board's header note, the petitioner was directed to issue private notice, and the matters were to be listed as post-notice matters three weeks later on 18 September 2026.
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v.Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.
This is a patent infringement suit filed by Mold-Tek Packaging Limited against Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. before the Delhi High Court, concerning alleged infringement of suit patents bearing Nos. 401417 and 298724. The Defendant has raised a counter-claim seeking revocation of the patents and alleged suppression of material facts by the Plaintiff. The court, with the consent of the parties, settled the issues for trial and directed the filing of witness lists and evidence affidavits, listing the matter before the Joint Registrar on 30.09.2026.
Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 645 903. The applicant, Valeo Electrification, filed a request under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP to protect confidential information. The respondent, SEG Automotive Germany GmbH, challenged the request, arguing certain information was publicly known. The court found the request admissible and substantively justified, establishing a confidentiality club limited to four named individuals from the respondent's side.
Fifth Generation Inc. v.Tito's Resorts and Hospitalities Private Limited & Anr.
The Supreme Court of India disposed of two transfer petitions filed by Fifth Generation Inc. (makers of Tito's Handmade Vodka) against Tito's Resorts and Hospitalities Private Limited after the parties reached a mediated settlement. The dispute concerned the use of the 'TITO'S' trademark in India across liquor and hospitality businesses. The Court recorded the settlement agreement dated 04.08.2026, which established terms for coexistence, restricted use of the mark in specific business segments, and mandated withdrawal of all pending opposition, cancellation, criminal, excise, and civil proceedings between the parties.
State v.Amar & Anr.
The State prosecuted Amar and Umesh Chand Sharma for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 104 of the Trademark Act, alleging they were found in possession of counterfeit Gillette foam bottles bearing falsified trademarks at shops in Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The prosecution's case was primarily rooted in the testimony of the complainant, Titu Sharma, who during examination as PW-1 failed to depose as per the prosecution version and failed to identify the accused persons and the case property. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted both accused persons.
Himalayan Hotels Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trademarks Government of India Trademarks Registry
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal filed by Himalayan Hotels Pvt Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks. The court listed the matter for the next date of hearing on 22 September 2026, with no substantive ruling or detailed reasoning provided in the order.
Simpleenergy Private Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office, Chennai
Simpleenergy Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the Controller of Patents, Chennai, in Patent Application No. 202341071388. The respondent did not appear or file any objections despite private notice being served. The Madras High Court allowed the condonation petition, granting the appellant relief with no costs.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Moleculight Inc.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 117 A of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended by the Tribunals, Reforms Act, 2021) seeking condonation of a 33-day delay in filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The appeal was directed against the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which revoked the grant of Indian Patent No. IN323440 (filed on 22.03.2017 with Indian application No. 201741010111). The counsel for the second respondent, Moleculight Inc., raised no objections and made an endorsement to that effect. The Madras High Court allowed the condone delay petition as prayed for, with no costs.
Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Mr. Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar) v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in a trademark dispute between two nutraceutical companies. The Respondent, owner of the registered trademark 'NUREWIRE', obtained the injunction against the Appellants' use of the mark 'RewireX', but had suppressed material facts including a prior cease-and-desist notice and trademark objection. The Division Bench held that the Respondent's suppression of material facts disentitled it to equitable relief, vacated the ex-parte injunction, dismissed the interim injunction application, and imposed costs of Rs. 2,00,000 on the Respondent.
Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v.Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves a trademark dispute between Bhavesh Suresh Kataria, proprietor of 'Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy', and Kataria Insurance Brokers Private Limited, both operating in the insurance sector. The Plaintiff had obtained an expansive interim injunction from a Single Judge restraining the Defendant from using the mark 'KATARIA' in any form. After the Defendant's appeal to the Division Bench set aside this order, the Supreme Court remanded the matter directing the Defendant to seek vacation before the Single Bench. The Bombay High Court varied the interim order, allowing the Defendant to retain its corporate name but prohibiting it from acting as a market intermediary in gems and jewellery insurance, and imposing conditions on its domain name and website usage.
Smt Anita Kharbanda Trading As Prem Di Hatti v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court dealing with two connected trademark matters. The parties jointly submitted that they were at an advanced stage of settlement, and the court listed the matter for the next date. No substantive ruling was made on the merits of the trademark dispute.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
Orange SA, the proprietor of European patent EP 2 345 029 B1 relating to digital audio signal decoding, sued HMD Global Oy before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court for infringement, alleging that HMD's Android smartphones and tablets implementing the USAC standard infringed the patent. HMD filed a counterclaim for revocation, which it made conditional upon a finding of infringement. The Court examined infringement first and concluded that Orange failed to prove infringement because the USAC decoder's transition mechanism relies on the FAC (Forward Aliasing Cancellation) tool, which transmits additional corrective information inconsistent with the patent's teaching of avoiding such additional data transmission.
LS9 GmbH v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan issued a final decision in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1, owned by Bellissa HAAS GmbH, relating to a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip. The court held that the plaintiff LS9 GmbH, a legal person whose business purpose was seminars and publications, had standing under Article 47(6) UPCA, and that the action was not an abuse of process despite allegations of being a shell company. The court found the subject matter differed from a parallel revocation counterclaim before the Mannheim Local Division, and ultimately dismissed the revocation action insofar as the patent was maintained in the amended form of the defendant's auxiliary request 1.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 755 901, a patent for a display and distribution package for eggs owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S. Hartmann had sued Omni-Pac for infringement of certain claims through its 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal rejected Hartmann's appeals, partially revoked the patent by limiting it to a specific restricted claim wording, and ordered Hartmann to bear the majority of the costs.
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.