ASWAL ASSOCIATES- Intellectual Property Law firm India

  Conqueror Innovations v. Xiaomi – Legal Analysis and Commercial Implications Conqueror Innovations Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. , FAO(OS) (COMM) 147/2025 — Delhi High Court (Division Bench), decided 7 September 2026 Brief Summary In a judgment that will interest any technology company selling into India — and any patentee contemplating enforcement there — a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking to injunct Xiaomi's ubiquitous "Find Device" anti-theft feature. The Court upheld the Single Judge's conclusion that the patentee had failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, that a nine-year delay disentitled it to interim relief, and that the balance of convenience lay with the manufacturer. The decision is notable less for any new rule of law than for the disciplined way it applies several settled ones at once: the narrow scope of appellate interference with discretionary interim orders...

The Rule 45 Deadline in Trademark Oppositions- The High Court Divide The Madras High Court recently ruled in V-Guard Industries v. Kangaro Industries (LPA No. 18 of 2026, decided 30 July 2026) that the two-month deadline under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is strict and mandatory. If an opponent misses it, the opposition is deemed abandoned, and the Registrar has no power under Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (read with Rule 109) to extend that period. The Bench accordingly set aside a single Judge’s order that had revived the abandoned opposition and remanded it. This ruling deepens a national split: Delhi and Madras say the deadline is absolute, while Bombay says it is flexible. With no Supreme Court ruling yet, the conflict is ripe for resolution. 1. BACKGROUND FACTS •            The mark V-GUARD with the device of a Kangaroo was first adopted by Mr.Kochouseph Chittilappilly in 1977 in respect of voltage stabilizers...