Introduction The case of M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Pyromaitre INC. and Others represents a significant judicial examination…

Introduction: Trademark Dispute The dispute arose from overlapping names beginning with “Rexcin” and “Rekin,” but extended to allegations of trademark…

Delhi High Court dismisses Canva’s appeal against interim injunction for infringing RxPrism’s patent on interactive content system; upholds single judge’s prima facie findings on layered architecture, configurability, and doctrine of equivalents; emphasizes claim-centric analysis for infringement and validity, rejecting product-to-product comparisons and unsubstantiated prior art challenges;

This judgment clarifies that under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, “reasonable cause” for non-disclosure of documents with the written statement demands a genuine, specific explanation, with a lower proof threshold than “good cause” but mandating demonstration that documents were not in the defendant’s power, possession, custody, or control at filing; mere delay or post-appeal discovery without prior diligence does not suffice, reinforcing the Commercial Courts Act’s intent for vigilant, time-bound litigation over procedural leniency in ordinary suits.

High Court of Delhi holds that writ petitions challenging pre-abolition orders of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) on trademark matters are to be heard by a Single Judge of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD), as per IPD Rules, 2021, unless falling under specific Division Bench exceptions in Delhi High Court Rules; rejects mandatory Division Bench listing, treating such petitions as original IPD proceedings for efficient adjudication post-IPAB dissolution.

The Delhi High Court held that the Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018, reducing the specified value for commercial disputes to Rs. 3 lakhs, applies prospectively only to suits filed on or after May 3, 2018, and does not permit retrospective transfers of pre-2018 suits under Section 15 of the 2015 Act, preserving vested rights and avoiding administrative burdens.

Introduction This judgment, delivered by a division bench, underscores the distinction between mere prior use and the requirement to establish…

This judgment settles several critical points in patent litigation, particularly for biologics in quia timet scenarios, affirming that product-to-claim mapping under Rule 3(A)(ix) of the Delhi High Court Patent Suits Rules cannot be entirely dispensed with, even in anticipatory actions; the phrase “to the extent possible” allows flexibility but demands maximum feasible effort, and collateral evidence alone may not suffice for prima facie infringement without raising triable issues.

This judgment settles that in trademark disputes involving registered marks, no statutory infringement action lies against another registered proprietor under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, but passing off remains actionable under common law via Section 27(2), provided the plaintiff proves prior goodwill predating the defendant’s use, misrepresentation, and damage.

The Division Bench’s reasoning pivoted on a critical procedural distinction between interim relief and final rectification under Section 57 of the Act. While acknowledging the Single Judge’s analysis of phonetic similarity—observing that “INSEAD” and “INSAID” shared auditory traits that could invoke initial interest confusion, especially in educational services—the court noted that these conclusions were repeatedly qualified as “prima facie.” For instance, the Single Judge held that phonetic similarity existed based on examples like “dead” and “said,” and that even enlightened students might experience momentary wonderment upon encountering the marks, satisfying the likelihood of confusion test under Section 11.