IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 3 of 50 · 1,474 total
Alucopanel Industries v.Imperia Decor Industries & Anr
Alucopanel Industries, a registered partnership firm manufacturing Aluminium Composite Panels and building materials under Classes 6 and 19, filed a suit against Imperia Decor Industries & Anr. seeking an ex parte injunction to restrain the defendants from using the trademark 'ALUMAC', which was alleged to be phonetically and visually identical to the plaintiff's prior registered trademark 'ALOMAX'. The Delhi High Court, after examining the plaint and comparing the competing marks, found that the plaintiff was the prior adopter and registered proprietor of 'ALOMAX' and that the defendants' adoption of 'ALUMAC' was not bona fide, given that one of the directors of defendant no. 2 was previously associated with the plaintiff firm. The Court granted an ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark till the next date of hearing.
TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court in an appeal concerning European Patent EP 3 296 274. The judge-rapporteur declined TCL's request to hold an interim conference, finding no reason to deviate from the standard Rules of Procedure. The appeal was deemed ready for oral hearing, which was scheduled for 28 January 2027 in Luxembourg.
Amnex Infotechnologies Private Limited v.Google LLC & Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal was filed by Amnex Infotechnologies Private Limited against Google LLC and the Registrar of Trademarks, challenging an ex-parte order dated 07.04.2026 passed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) No.57/2026. The appellant contended that the Single Judge passed the order without affording an opportunity of hearing, thereby preventing them from placing their objections on record. The appeal was disposed of by remanding the matter to the Single Judge for a fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the parties, without the Division Court entering into the merits of the case.
Pennar Industries Limited v.R.Raghavendran
This case arose from an application filed by the 2nd respondent seeking dismissal of the main Original Petition (OP(TM) No. 59 of 2025) on the ground that it was filed in violation of Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The 1st respondent's counsel submitted that necessary leave had been obtained from the NCLT in December 2025, which the applicant's counsel conceded. The court dismissed the application as infructuous and directed the main OP to be listed on 16.10.2026.
Shri Narinder Kumar Trading As M/S Kundan Trading Company v.M/S Kyoto Tools Company Ltd & Anr
The petitioner, Shri Narinder Kumar trading as M/S Kundan Trading Company, filed a petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking rectification of the register and cancellation of the respondent's registered trademark (application no. 5930389 in class 7). The petitioner claimed prior registration of the mark 'KTC' in class 8 (since 16.04.2009) and class 9 (since 02.03.2012), whereas the respondent's mark was applied only on 19.01.2017 and registered in May 2026. The respondent countered that the petitioner's KTC registration was predicated on a forged invoice dated 10.11.1993. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file replies within six weeks, with the next date of hearing fixed for 15.01.2027.
The Coca-Cola Company v.M/S Chhabee Nutricos Industries LLP
The Coca-Cola Company filed an application alleging wilful disobedience by M/S Chhabee Nutricos Industries LLP of an earlier interim order dated 24.01.2025, which had restrained the defendant from using marks and bottle shapes similar to Coca-Cola's 'PULPY ORANGE' mark and distinctive bottle device. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had slightly altered the bottle shape to circumvent the earlier injunction, but the overall appearance remained deceptively similar. The Delhi High Court, finding prima facie that the new bottle was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered bottle device, restrained the defendant from using the impugned new shape bottle and granted three weeks to file a reply.
State v.Akash
The case involved prosecution of Akash for alleged sale of counterfeit HP-branded toner and ink cartridges under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arising from FIR No. 213/2019 at PS Daryaganj. The complainant, Khushmeet Singh Bhati from Ikon Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd., failed to identify the accused, the location of the raid, or the seized products during his testimony as PW-1. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish essential ingredients of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Mahesh Gupta v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal filed by Mahesh Gupta against the Registrar of Trademarks. The appellant's counsel circulated an adjournment slip, to which the respondent's counsel raised no objection. The court, at the request of the appellant, re-notified the matter to 02.02.2027.
Dunlop Aircraft Tyres Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Another
This is a procedural order from the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division in a trademark matter. After hearing the parties, the court treated the matter as heard-in-part since substantial arguments had been advanced. The matter was adjourned and listed for further consideration on 26th November, 2026.
Vivek Verma & Ors v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a Delhi High Court order in a trademark matter involving two connected cases that were listed before Justice Vikas Mahajan. At the request of the learned counsels for the parties, the court re-notified the matters to 23 November 2026 without any substantive ruling on the merits.
Harale Seva Sangh v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The petitioner, Harale Seva Sangh, filed a Commercial Miscellaneous Petition before the Bombay High Court against the Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner's advocate sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file appropriate rectification proceedings in compliance with applicable process requirements. The court disposed of the petition as withdrawn, granting the liberty prayed for.
Vivek Verma & Ors v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark matter involving Vivek Verma & Ors as appellants and the Registrar of Trademarks as respondent. The order, passed by Justice Vikas Mahajan, was issued at the request of learned counsels for the parties. The matter was adjourned and listed for re-notification on 23 November 2026.
Inficon GmbH v.Elitech Technology, Inc. and Elitech UK Ltd.
Inficon GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 567 356 B1 relating to a sniffing leak detector, brought an infringement action against Elitech Technology, Inc. and Elitech UK Ltd. concerning their 'METRUM' product, while the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant's measurements regarding the buffer chamber feature were unconvincing and inconclusive, and that the patent as granted was valid.
Abbvie Inc. v.Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks and Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a procedural order in a patent appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 37/2026) filed by Abbvie Inc. before the Delhi High Court against the Controller General of Patents and others. The court addressed issues of service upon respondents and granted time for filing replies and rejoinders, while also directing requisitioning of the Controller General of Patents' records.
Gufic Biosciences Limited & Anr v.Niraj S Sahuji & Anr
This is a rectification petition filed by Gufic Biosciences Limited and another petitioner before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the trademark 'SHREE SAMPANNA SHALLAKI' (Registration No. 4739384) registered under Class 5 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court allowed the petitioners' applications for exemption, condonation of 109 days' delay in re-filing the petition, and leave to file additional documents. Notice was issued to the respondents, with directions to file replies within six weeks and rejoinders within four weeks thereafter.
Levi Strauss And Co. v.Mr. Promod Yadav & Ors.
Levi Strauss And Co., the globally renowned owner of the LEVI'S trademark and associated logos including the Two Horse design, BATWING designs, and Arcuate Stitching Design, filed a commercial suit seeking summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC against three defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing, selling, and marketing counterfeit garments bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court, finding irrefutable and unrebutted evidence of infringement and likelihood of consumer confusion, allowed the application and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and damages.
Dr Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr v.Medicine Me & Ors
The plaintiffs, Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty (a renowned cardiac surgeon) and Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain infringement of their personality rights and registered trademarks, along with other ancillary reliefs against various Facebook pages, YouTube channels, and social media platforms. None of the defendants contested the suit, and the court made the interim order dated 28.11.2024 absolute, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The court granted the plaintiffs liberty to approach Meta Platforms Inc. and Google LLC regarding any subsequently discovered infringing URLs or content, while reserving the question of declaring the marks as well-known trademarks.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
SharkNinja Operating LLC appealed an order of the Paris Local Division dismissing its application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 689 198 and paid court fees of EUR 90,300 based on the case value set by the Local Division. The Court of Appeal subsequently determined the value of the appeal proceedings at EUR 3,750,000, half of the original value, resulting in a correct fee of EUR 52,400. SharkNinja applied for reimbursement of the EUR 37,900 overpayment, which the Court of Appeal granted.
V-Guard Industries Limited v.Sh. Teja Ram K Chaudhary Proprietor of M/s G. Gaurd Cable Industries and Anr
V-Guard Industries Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the registered trade mark 'G-GUARD' (Registration No. 3799286) in Class 35, held in the name of respondent Teja Ram K. Chaudhary. The petitioner claimed prior adoption and extensive use of the mark 'V-GUARD' since 1977, and alleged that the respondent's adoption of the similar mark 'G-GUARD' was deliberate and not bonafide. The Court permitted the petitioner to file additional documents, issued notice to the respondents, and directed the filing of reply and rejoinder, with the matter re-notified for 30 November 2026.
Good Drop Wine Cellars Private Limited v.Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Others
The petitioner, Good Drop Wine Cellars Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Trade Marks Registry to expeditiously dispose of its pending rectification petition (No. 269295) filed against the trademark registration (No. 1334766 in class 33) held by the third respondent, Vina Santa Carolina S.A. The petitioner's own trademark application had been refused due to the third respondent's prior registration, and the rectification petition had been pending since September 2020 with the third respondent failing to appear. The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of the rectification petition within eight weeks.
Japan Tobacco Inc And Anr v.The Central Wearhouse And Anr
This petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 was filed by Japan Tobacco Inc. and its affiliate Worldwide Brands Inc. seeking rectification of the Register of Copyrights by expunging Copyright Registration No. A-54242/97 dated 22.10.1997 for an artistic work depicting a camel, registered in the name of respondent Mrs. Veena R. Hinduja. The petitioners claimed to be the first owners of the original 'CAMEL' artistic work, asserting prior and continuous use of the mark since 1913 for tobacco and since the late 1970s for non-tobacco goods. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to establish themselves as the 'First Owner' of the original artistic work under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, which was the essential substratum for seeking rectification.
Micron Technology, Inc. v.Ultron AG, Lexar Europe B.V., Apacer Technology B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the service of the Statement of Claim on Defendant 2, Lexar Europe B.V. The Court had attempted service by registered post in accordance with Rules 270-274 RoP and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, but the documents were not collected and were returned undelivered. The Claimant requested alternative service via a Dutch judicial officer (gerechtsdeurwaarder) under Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, and the Court granted the request.
Canfield Scientific GmbH et al. v.QUANTIFICARE S.A.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Canfield's application to stay the appeal proceedings pending a separate invalidity action filed by a third party, Manteana Holdings SAS, before the Central Chamber Paris. The court held that since the appeal also challenged the first-instance dismissal of Canfield's invalidity counterclaim, the appeal court would itself review the patent's validity, making a stay unjustified. The court further noted that the invalidity action before the Central Chamber was at an early stage while the appeal proceedings were already advanced.
Canfield Scientific GmbH & Others v.QUANTIFICARE S.A. (EP 3 156 843)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Canfield's application to stay the appeal proceedings pending a revocation action filed by a third party, Manteana Holdings SAS, before the Central Chamber Paris. The court held that no special circumstances justified a stay, particularly because the appeal court would itself review the validity of the patent in the context of Canfield's appeal against the dismissal of its revocation counterclaim, and because the third-party revocation action was at an early stage while the appeal proceedings were already advanced.
The Brand Brewery Private Limited & Anr. v.Arman Anand
This Interim Application arose from a commercial intellectual property rights suit concerning trademark infringement. The Defendant, through his counsel, gave an undertaking to the Bombay High Court to discontinue the use of the marks impugned at Exhibits 'D' and 'E' to the plaint and to transition to a new trademark depicted at Annexure-1 within six months. The Court accepted the statement as an undertaking given to the Court and disposed of the Interim Application in those terms.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd v.John Doe And Ors
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd, which operates the digital streaming platform 'FanCode', sought a 'dynamic+' injunction to notify defendants of further infringing websites streaming its licensed sporting events without filing fresh applications each time. The Delhi High Court, after balancing the need to combat online piracy of live sporting events against the caution expressed in Home Box Office Inc. v. Streamzy.to regarding not conferring adjudicatory powers on intermediaries, allowed the application and granted a tailored mechanism permitting the plaintiff to notify domain registrars, ISPs, and authorities by email, with corresponding obligations to suspend or block access within specified timeframes.
Glisten LLC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Glisten LLC appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 202017005875 titled 'Gemstone Coating and Methods of Making and Using the Same.' The appellant contended that the Assistant Controller violated principles of natural justice by refusing the application on the ground that claims 1 to 17 lacked inventive step, when the hearing notice had confined the inventive step objection solely to claim 18. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the application for fresh consideration, holding that the respondent could not raise a fresh or revived objection without putting the appellant on notice and affording it an opportunity to respond.
Kaira District Co-Operative v.Asian Beverage Private Limited.
Court decision.
Hotel Millennium Continental Pvt. Ltd. v.Millennium And Copthorne International Ltd. & Anr.
This case arose from a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Millennium & Copthorne International Ltd. against Hotel Millennium Continental Pvt. Ltd. before the Delhi High Court under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, concerning the mark 'Millennium' and its logo. The defendant had challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed, leading to an SLP before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred the matter to mediation by former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, and the parties ultimately settled their disputes through a Settlement Agreement dated 22 September 2026, with the Court disposing of the appeal and the pending suit in terms of the settlement.
Triveni Household Items Manufacturer Private Limited v.Mr. Virendra Kumar Yadav Trading As Yadav Steel Furniture Works
Triveni Household Items Manufacturer Private Limited filed a contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Section 151 CPC against Mr. Virendra Kumar Yadav for alleged willful disobedience of a court order dated 08.07.2026, in which the respondent had undertaken not to use the disputed words and to withdraw Trade Mark Application No. 6702854 for the mark 'TRIVENI Y' in Class 20. The petitioner contended that the respondent continued to use the trademark in defiance of the undertaking given to the court. The Delhi High Court directed issuance of notice to the respondent and listed the matter for hearing on 11.03.2027.
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.