LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Atomberg Technologies Private Limited vs Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr.

Not available · 2025 INSC 1253Decided 17 Oct 2025
Not available
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Background

Atomberg Technologies launched a water purifier and was allegedly warned by a competitor, Eureka Forbes, that the product infringed Eureka Forbes's patents: warnings Atomberg says were made "groundlessly" to its own distributors, causing it business harm. Atomberg sued Eureka Forbes for these "groundless threats" in the Bombay High Court on 1 July 2025. Six days later, Eureka Forbes sued Atomberg for actual patent infringement in the Delhi High Court, basing Delhi's jurisdiction on the fact that Eureka Forbes had bought and had a sample of Atomberg's product delivered there. Each side then asked the Supreme Court to transfer the other's suit to their own preferred city, so both disputes could be heard together.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that a suit for "groundless threats" of patent infringement (under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970) is a legally independent cause of action from a suit for actual infringement, since Parliament deliberately removed a proviso (present in the old 1911 law) that would have barred a groundless-threats suit whenever a real infringement suit was also pending. The Court found that the Bombay suit was filed first, the parties had their registered offices in Mumbai, and the two suits raised substantially overlapping facts and legal issues about the same product, creating a real risk of two courts reaching conflicting conclusions on the same set of facts. Applying precedent that overlapping suits with common issues should be tried together to avoid duplicated evidence and inconsistent decrees, the Court transferred Eureka Forbes's Delhi infringement suit to the Bombay High Court to be heard alongside Atomberg's suit, and dismissed Eureka Forbes's competing request to move the Bombay suit to Delhi.

Lesson Learnt

When two closely related lawsuits between the same parties over the same underlying dispute are filed in different High Courts, the Supreme Court can and will consolidate them in one court, generally favoring the court where the earlier suit was filed, to avoid wasted judicial time and the risk of contradictory verdicts.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Intellectual Property Law

Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

Japan Tobacco Inc. & Anr. vs. The Central Warehouse & Anr.

The Court held that the petitioners had not established that they were the "first owner" of the original artistic work, which was a precondition for expunging the impugned registration. Because that point was not established, the Court considered the argument about alleged violation of Section 45(1) of the Act and Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 to be academic and unpersuasive. It also held that the parties' authorities relied on were not relevant to this analysis. The petition was dismissed, with an express clarification that the observations about the earlier suit (CS(COMM) 644/2018) do not decide the merits of that suit.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawSupreme Court of India

I.S.D.S. Private Limited v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd.

This is a referral order, not a final judgment. The Court found a conflict between two of its earlier decisions, Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation and Jaycee Housing v. Registrar, Orissa High Court, on this question. It referred the matter to a larger bench and stayed the underlying commercial suit until the reference is decided.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Division Bench held that publication of a trademark under the Trade Marks Act only happens after an application is formally "accepted," and this application had not yet reached that stage. It agreed with the Single Judge's approach of sending the matter back to the trademark authorities for fresh, correct examination rather than the High Court deciding registrability itself, especially since the Registry was already re-examining the application per the earlier order. Finding no legal error, the appeal was dismissed.

Decided 15 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

ITC Limited vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Ors. and connected matters

The High Court held that although the Controller's order deciding the two interlocutory petitions was framed somewhat confusingly, there was no real violation of fair procedure: ITC had been given adequate opportunities to respond at every stage, and the Patentee's later written submissions did not introduce anything genuinely new or unfair. The writ petition was dismissed alongside the connected appeal, with the Court finding no legal infirmity in how the patent opposition process was conducted.

Decided 10 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited

The Division Bench found that hoardings for the disputed advertising campaign had been put up in Delhi before the lawsuit was filed, and that Kwick Living itself had a GST-registered principal place of business in Delhi's Naraina Industrial Area and admitted selling its products there. On this basis, the Court held that Delhi's territorial jurisdiction was clearly established under Section 20(a) and 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. It allowed HUL to formally amend its plaint to record these two facts and sent the case back to the Single Judge to decide the interim injunction application on its merits, directing an expedited hearing.

Decided 2 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawSupreme Court of India

Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that once the plaintiff's own affidavit asserted trademark and trade-dress infringement and claimed prior use of the brand, the defendant was entitled to test that claim by asking when the mark had actually been used - regardless of whether the defendant's written statement was formally on record. The Court reversed the High Court's order and directed that the trial proceed with the plaintiff recalled to answer the question, while clarifying it expressed no view on the merits of the underlying dispute.

Decided 7 Aug 2026Read case