<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Ongoing patent and design infringement in manufacturing and sales: delay doesn&#039;t bar urgent interim relief u/s 12A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95339</link>
    <description>In a commercial suit alleging continuing infringement of patent and design rights, the issue was whether the plaint &quot;contemplates any urgent interim relief&quot; under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act so as to dispense with pre-institution mediation despite delay in filing. The Court held that continuing manufacture, sale, or offer for sale constitutes a recurring cause of action, and mere delay does not legalise infringement or bar injunctive relief; urgency must be assessed from the plaint and annexed material showing ongoing injury, irreparable harm, and public interest in preventing deception, not by deciding merits. The High Court&#039;s approach treating delay as negating urgency was set aside; the impugned orders were quashed and the appeal allowed - SC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:29 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=873744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Ongoing patent and design infringement in manufacturing and sales: delay doesn&#039;t bar urgent interim relief u/s 12A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95339</link>
      <description>In a commercial suit alleging continuing infringement of patent and design rights, the issue was whether the plaint &quot;contemplates any urgent interim relief&quot; under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act so as to dispense with pre-institution mediation despite delay in filing. The Court held that continuing manufacture, sale, or offer for sale constitutes a recurring cause of action, and mere delay does not legalise infringement or bar injunctive relief; urgency must be assessed from the plaint and annexed material showing ongoing injury, irreparable harm, and public interest in preventing deception, not by deciding merits. The High Court&#039;s approach treating delay as negating urgency was set aside; the impugned orders were quashed and the appeal allowed - SC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:29 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95339</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>