Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Novartis AG Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs & Ors. Order Date: 16th September 2025 Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 50/2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8211 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Hon’ble Judge: Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora Fact Novartis AG is the holder of Indian Patent No. 414518, which was granted after dismissal of several pre-grant oppositions. Post-grant, various pharmaceutical parties filed oppositions challenging the validity of the patent on the grounds of lack of inventive step and violation of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The patent grant was followed by procedural battles—opponents submitted further expert…

UPL Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. Case Title: UPL Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. Order Date: 16 September 2025 Case Number: WPA-IPD No.3 of 2024 Neutral Citation: 2025:CHC-AS:1812 Court: High Court at Calcutta Hon’ble Judge: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur Facts This case revolves around a patent application made by UPL Limited seeking rights over a specific fungicidal combination, which, according to the company, shows unexpected benefits such as a reduction in fungal diseases, delayed ageing in crops, and improved yield. The invention proposed the combination of various categories of fungicides—specifically a succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor (SDHI), a…

WOW Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. WOW Burger & Anr. — Case Summary High Court of Delhi at New Delhi — Order dated 12 September 2025 Facts WOW Momo Foods Private Limited began operations in 2008 in Kolkata and gradually grew into a well-known food business with more than 600 outlets across India. Its core brand identity revolved around the mark “WOW! MOMO,” which it used along with other related marks such as “WOW! CHINA,” “WOW! CHICKEN,” and “WOW! DIMSUM.” The plaintiff claimed that “WOW!” itself was the essential and distinctive feature of all its trademarks. It relied on its…

Case Title: New Bharat Overseas Vs Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 843/2022 Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Date of Order: 08 September 2025 Hon’ble Judge: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora Facts The petitioner, New Bharat Overseas, has been engaged in the business of processing, selling, and exporting rice since 1978. It holds long-standing trademark registrations for the mark “TAJ MAHAL,” including one registered in 1981 under No. 338004 and another in 1989 under No. 387177, both in Class 30. Alongside trademark rights, the petitioner also secured copyright registration of its artistic…

Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs. Standard Corporation India Ltd. Case Number: C.S No. 602 of 2007 Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:2145 Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras Order Date: September 3, 2025 Name of Honourable Judge: The Honourable Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy Fact: ​The plaintiff, Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, was established in 1961 to manufacture and sell tractors and other farm equipment in India. They were authorized by AGCO Corporation, USA, to use the trademarks and designs of Massey Ferguson. The plaintiff has been producing popular tractor models like MF 245 DI and MF 1035 DI since…

Saint Gobain Glass France Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr. Order Date: 11 September 2025 Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 13/2024 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7941 Court: High Court of Delhi Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal Facts of the Case This case involves a challenge to the refusal of a patent application by the Indian Patent Office. The appellant, Saint Gobain Glass France, is a French company that makes and researches various glass products used in buildings, cars, airplanes, solar panels, and interior designs. They filed a patent application in India as part of an international process under the Patent…

Hi Tech Arai Private Limited v Paul Components Private Limited & Ors. Order Date: September 9, 2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 891/2023 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7819 Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Hon’ble Judge: Mr. Justice Amit Bansal Facts The plaintiff, Hi Tech Arai Private Limited, is a well-established company engaged in manufacturing and supplying rubber products like oil seals and aluminium die casting products, primarily for the automobile industry. They have used the trademark “HTA” since 1985 and other related marks (“Ars-HTA,” logos with concentric circles) since the 1990s. Their products enjoy substantial sales and goodwill among major Original…

Ashiana Ispat Limited Vs. Kamdhenu Limited & Ors. | Delhi High Court Judgment Facts Ashiana Ispat Limited (Appellant) applied to register a trademark “AL KAMDHENU GOLD” for its products under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Five applications were made, and some were accepted and advertised, while others received an examination report (FER) from the Registrar citing certain conflicting trademarks but not all. Kamdhenu Limited (Respondent) claimed that many of its own previously registered trademarks were not cited as similar marks in the Registrar’s process. Instead of opposing the trademark through the standard legal channel, Kamdhenu Limited challenged this process by…

Case Summary: Nehru Memorial Museum & Library Society Vs Dr. N. Balakrishnan Order Date: 25.10.2010 | CCP No.380/2010 in WP (C) No.13733/2009 | High Court of Delhi, New Delhi Facts The Nehru Memorial Museum and Library Society (petitioner) filed a contempt petition against Dr. N. Balakrishnan (respondent) under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The petition alleged that the respondent had committed contempt of court by creating an atmosphere of “trial by press.” This allegation arose after a news report appeared in “The Hindu” newspaper during the…

Case Summary — Velji Karamshi Vaid & Anr. Vs V3 Fashion & Ors. Commercial IP Suit No. 348 of 2025 — Interim application summary. Facts of the Case The main parties are two garment businesses: the plaintiffs, Velji Karamshi Vaid & Anr., and the defendants, V3 Fashion & others. Plaintiffs own and run a business selling garments under the brand and trademark “V3” and “Volume 3”. They have trademark registrations for these and related marks (like “VOLUME…3 THE PERFECT FASHION”, “CASUAL”, etc.). The plaintiffs allege that they have been in this business for a long time, using their brand all…