IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 4 of 50 · 1,474 total
Surya Hotels And Properties v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Surya Hotels And Properties, engaged in the hospitality business and proprietor of the registered mark 'Misty Mountain Resort' (Application No.1969012 in Class 43), filed a writ petition seeking cancellation of the rival 'Misty Mountain' trade mark (Registration No.2441920 in Class 43) held by Misty Mountain Plantation Resort, along with transfer of its pending rectification proceeding (No.MAS-279782) from the Trade Marks Registry to the Madras High Court's Intellectual Property Division. The petitioner subsequently restricted its prayer to only the transfer of the rectification proceeding, to which the second respondent raised no objection. The court allowed the petition to that limited extent, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to transfer the rectification records to the Intellectual Property Division within four weeks.
R.Booma Rani v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The petitioner, a safety match manufacturer from Sattur, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to accept her renewal application for the trade mark 'THOTHA' (Hindi label with parrot) registered under No.1532336 in Class 34. The mark was registered on 07.02.2023, nearly sixteen years after her 2007 application, by which time the first ten-year term had already expired on 20.02.2017. The Madras High Court allowed the petition, holding that since the mark had not been formally removed from the register under Rule 58(3) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, no time bar operated against renewal, and directed the Registrar to accept the renewal application and renew the registration for the period 20.02.2017 to 20.02.2027.
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr v.M/S Ech Ess Builders
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another challenged the judgment dated 09.08.2024 of the District Judge, Kinnaur, which had dismissed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an arbitral award dated 05.12.2019 in a construction contract dispute with M/s Ech Ess Builders. The High Court held that since the dispute was a 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the District Judge was not designated as a commercial court at the time the objections were filed on 17.07.2020, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The appeal was disposed of by setting aside the District Judge's judgment and directing return of the objections for presentation before the appropriate forum.
KSB SE & Co. KGaA & Anr. v.M/s. UK Fire System
The plaintiffs, KSB SE & Co. KGaA, proprietors of the trademark 'KSB' in Classes 7, 9, 11 and 35, filed a commercial intellectual property rights suit against M/s. UK Fire System for trademark infringement. The defendant, through its sole proprietor Mr. Shah Shariq Ahmed, filed an affidavit-in-reply giving undertakings acknowledging the plaintiffs' trademark rights and agreeing not to use the 'KSB' mark or any deceptively similar mark, and not to deal in counterfeit products. The court accepted the undertakings and decreed the suit on admission, while disposing of the connected interim application.
KSB SE & Co. KGaA & Anr. v.M/s. UK Fire System
This was a commercial intellectual property rights suit filed by KSB SE & Co. KGaA and another against M/s. UK Fire System for alleged infringement of the trademark 'KSB' registered in Classes 7, 9, 11, and 35. The defendant, through its sole proprietor Mr. Shah Shariq Ahmed, filed an affidavit-in-reply giving undertakings acknowledging the plaintiffs' proprietorship of the 'KSB' trademark and agreeing not to use the mark or any deceptively similar mark, not to deal in counterfeit products, and to surrender any infringing material. The court accepted the undertakings and decreed the suit on admission, while disposing of the connected interim application.
Simrat Randhawa & Others v.Poonam Dhawan & Others
This Civil Revision petition challenged the judgment of the District Judge, Solan, dated 31.07.2025, which had set aside the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli dismissing the plaintiff's application for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The plaintiff, Poonam Dhawan, claimed co-ownership of joint property through a registered Will dated 06.06.2014 executed by Smt. Surinder Kaur, while the defendants contended she was a non-agriculturist barred from inheriting under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The High Court allowed the revision, quashed the appellate court's order, and rejected the plaintiff's injunction application, holding that the appellate court had improperly substituted its discretion for that of the trial court.
Petals IVF and Women Care Centre LLP v.RPCI Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
This case concerns a rectification petition filed by Petals IVF and Women Care Centre LLP against RPCI Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. regarding the trade mark/device mark 'MAAERI'. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking to restrain the petitioner from misrepresenting an earlier order dated 30.03.2026 to the Chief Medical Officer of Uttar Pradesh, implying that respondents had been restrained from using the 'MAAERI' mark. The court clarified that the earlier order only directed respondents not to create third-party proprietary rights in the mark, and did not restrain them from using it.
Naman Agarwal (Proprietor of MS Radhe Radhe) v.M/S Ferns N Petals Pvt Ltd & Anr
This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by Naman Agarwal, Proprietor of MS Radhe Radhe, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of four composite agreements dated 20.08.2025 with M/S Ferns N Petals Pvt Ltd & Anr. The respondents did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement. The Delhi High Court found no impediment in appointing a sole arbitrator and appointed Mr. Sagar Saxena, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator, with the arbitration to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
Modicare Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in two connected trademark matters filed by Modicare Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks and another party. The court, finding no time left to hear the matters on the scheduled date, adjourned both cases and directed them to be re-notified for hearing on 11th January 2027.
John Vadassery v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The petitioner, a trademark agent registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, filed a writ petition challenging the Trade Marks Registry's practice of insisting that authorisations filed by trademark agents under Section 145 of the Act be stamped as powers of attorney. The petitioner contended that the statutory framework only requires a simple authorisation, not a stamped power of attorney, while the respondents argued that the long-standing practice of accepting stamped powers of attorney was necessary. The Kerala High Court examined the provisions of Section 145 of the Act and Rule 19 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, and considered whether the Registrar of Trade Marks, being an officer of the Central Government and not a court or tribunal, could insist on stamp duty being paid on such authorisations.
Hurtel Sp. z o.o. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin entities (UPC-CoA-165/2026)
The UPC Court of Appeal issued an order concerning Hurtel Sp. z o.o.'s application for access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in relation to the concluded main proceedings (UPC-CoA-534/2024) concerning EP 2 867 997. The court held that the language of the access application must correspond to the language of the main proceedings, which was German. Hurtel was granted the opportunity to resubmit its application in German by October 9, 2026.
Hurtel Sp. z o.o. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin
Hurtel Sp. z o.o. applied to the UPC Court of Appeal for access to the case file of proceedings UPC-CoA-683/2024, in which Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin entities were parties. The main proceedings had been conducted in German, and Hurtel initially filed its access request in a different language. The Court of Appeal held that the language of the access application must match the language of the main proceedings and ordered Hurtel to resubmit its request in German by October 9, 2026.
Atul Bhaleraav Patil v.State Of Gujarat & Ors.
The applicant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR No.11191037211559 of 2021 registered at Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957, arising from seizure of duplicate Honda two-wheeler accessories bearing counterfeit Honda stickers. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the application, holding that a prima facie case of copyright infringement was disclosed and that the remedies under the Copyright Act operate independently of the Trade Marks Act.
Society For Human Resource Management (SHRM) v.Sphinx Worldbiz Ltd & Ors
The plaintiff, Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), a globally recognized HR organization with nearly 340,000 members across 180 countries, filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Sphinx Worldbiz Ltd and others for using the mark 'SHRM PRO' and related formative marks. The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining defendants from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered 'SHRM' trademarks, and directed the domain registrar and app store platforms to take down the infringing website and mobile applications.
Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.PCMX Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
This is a review application filed by the respondents seeking review of an order dated 23rd March, 2018, in a rectification proceeding. The review application was originally filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) but stood transferred to the Calcutta High Court following the abolition of IPAB under the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The Court directed the matter to be listed in November 2026 and asked the advocates to resolve discrepancies in the arrangement of papers in the paper book.
M/s. Cipla Ltd. v.M/s. Embiotic Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This case involves two interlocutory applications filed by M/s. Cipla Ltd. in a pending trade mark opposition petition, seeking permission to file additional documents and to lead secondary evidence. The documents relate to various 'OMNI' formative marks including OMNICAL, OMNIGEL, OMNIM, OMNIX, and OMNICLAV. The respondents objected on the ground of delay, but the Madras High Court allowed the applications, holding that any objections could be raised at trial without causing prejudice.
Rio Children's Hospital Pvt Ltd (represented by its Managing Director Dr. M. Saravanan) v.Rajesh Jayaraj trading as Rio Scans and Labs
The petitioner, Rio Children's Hospital Pvt Ltd, sought transfer of a pending infringement and passing off suit (O.S. No. 302 of 2022) from the Principal District Court, Madurai to the Intellectual Property Division of the Madras High Court for consolidation with its rectification petition (O.P.(TM) No.64 of 2025) concerning the rival marks 'RIO' and 'RIO SCANS AND LABS'. The court held that consolidation and transfer under Rule 14 of the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 read with Section 24 CPC are discretionary and not automatic merely because a rectification proceeding is pending. The application was dismissed, with the court observing that the rectification petition could proceed independently and its effect could be worked out in the civil suit in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
S. Purushottam, Sashibhushan & S. Nagraj, Trading as M/s. Sri Raghavendra Parboiled Industries v.ITC Limited & The Registrar of Trademarks
This case involves an application filed by the applicants, trading as M/s.Sri Raghavendra Parboiled Industries, seeking permission to mark additional documents in a trademark opposition proceeding against ITC Limited. The applicants sought to introduce documents including an invitation card, income tax returns, advertisements, and trademark prosecution records. The respondents objected on the ground of delay, as evidence and cross-examination had already been completed. The Madras High Court allowed the application, permitting the documents to be marked subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility.
Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a procedural order in a patent appeal before the Delhi High Court. The appeal was received from the Roster Bench as it had been substantially heard by the Court. The matter was listed for further hearing on 16 October 2026.
Net World Sports Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Net World Sports Limited filed a petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The respondent's counsel fairly stated that he had instructions to dispose of the petition by way of remand, given the degree of detail in the reasoning adopted in the impugned order. By consent, the petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trademarks for appropriate reconsideration by a responsible officer.
NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses NVIDIA's request for reimbursement of court fees paid in error. NVIDIA had filed a reinstatement application and an appeal against the decision on the revocation counterclaim under the wrong case number (UPC-COA-55/2026) before re-filing under the correct number (UPC-CoA-140/2026), resulting in duplicate fee payments. The Court of Appeal partially granted the reimbursement, ordering the Registry to refund 2,940 EUR in overpaid appeal fees and 460 EUR in overpaid reinstatement application fees.
NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning court fees and a request for reimbursement. NVIDIA had filed an appeal and a request for re-instatement under an incorrect case number (UPC-COA-55/2026) and subsequently re-filed them under the correct number (UPC-CoA-140/2026), resulting in duplicate fee payments. The Court of Appeal ordered partial reimbursement of 2,940 EUR for overpaid appeal fees and full reimbursement of 460 EUR for the overpaid re-instatement application fee.
NovaCloud Licensing, LLC v.Amazon.com, Inc. et al.
NovaCloud Licensing, LLC filed a patent infringement action against multiple Amazon entities before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 4 024 777. Both parties subsequently withdrew their respective claims—the claimant withdrew its infringement action and the defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation—and agreed that each party would bear its own costs. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and set the overall value of the dispute at 5 Mio. EUR.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Reown Moto And Another
Eicher Motors Limited, the proprietor of the Royal Enfield brand and registered owner of the 'REOWN' trademark across multiple classes, sought an ad-interim injunction against Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB for allegedly infringing its registered marks by using 'REOWN MOTO / RM REOWN MOTO'. The plaintiff contended that the defendants' use of a deceptively similar mark amounted to trademark infringement. The Court extended the previously granted interim stay until the next date of hearing, noting that settlement discussions between the parties were underway.
Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v.Glorious Investments Limited And Anr.
This is a rectification application before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division concerning trademarks originally associated with Dunlop India Limited (DIL). The petitioner, Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited, argued that the chain of trademark assignments from DIL to the respondent Glorious Investments Limited is void because the assignments post-date the winding up petition against DIL, which was allowed on 31st January, 2013, with the winding up dating back to the date of filing. The petitioner further contended that DIL had admitted to being out of production at its Sahaganj and Ambattur Units, supporting non-use of the mark for over five years. The arguments could not be concluded and the matter was adjourned to 1st October, 2026.
Sanjeet Prakash v.The State Of Bihar
This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjeet Prakash and Abhishek Kumar, directors of Glowline Poly Plast Pvt. Ltd., in connection with Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 246 of 2026 registered for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 324(4), 352, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The case arose from allegations by Usha Polytubes that the petitioners' company was manufacturing and selling PVC pipes bearing the counterfeit 'Usha Gold' trademark. The Patna High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing that the petitioners be enlarged on bail upon arrest or surrender within eight weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., East Zone, Kolkata v.Union of India & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by IRCTC challenging orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority directing it to pay gratuity to a contract worker who had served through three different contractors from 2002 to 2020. The court held that the principal employer is liable to pay gratuity to contract labour under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, but modified the order to grant IRCTC liberty to recover the gratuity amount from the contractor.
Narender Kumar v.The State
This criminal revision petition was filed by Narender Kumar, proprietor of M/s Kundan Trading Company, challenging the trial court's order dated 04.06.2024 discharging the accused persons in FIR No. 03/2019 registered under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision, finding no infirmity or illegality in the discharge order, holding that the recovered goods bore the mark of KTC Japan (Kyoto Tools Company) and not the complainant's mark, and that the offence of falsification of trade mark was not made out against the accused.
State v.Yuvraj Singh And Ors.
The State prosecuted accused Ashok Kumar (along with Yuvraj Singh, whose proceedings were later abated) for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, alleging that counterfeit Maruti Suzuki products were recovered from his shop during a raid on 19.07.2018. The complainant, Sh. Surender Singh, an employee of EIPR India Pvt. Ltd. (authorized by M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.), turned hostile and failed to identify the accused or the seized goods, and the case property was destroyed in a fire. The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted Ashok Kumar, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Esme Consumer Pvt. Ltd v.Blueheavenin.Com & Ors
Esme Consumer Pvt. Ltd., the registered proprietor of the trademarks 'BLUE HEAVEN' and associated formative/device marks, filed a commercial suit against Blueheavenin.Com and others for online trademark infringement and cybersquatting. The plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1 was operating the domain blueheavenin.com, which incorporated its trademark in its entirety and presented itself as the official website, while Defendant No. 2 was hosting an infringing BLUE HEAVEN cosmetics page on an unrelated domain. The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from operating the impugned websites and directed the domain registrars/intermediaries to preserve records and transfer-lock the domain names.
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.