Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 11901–12000 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Ruptech Educational India v.Registrar Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court set aside a previous rejection of Ruptech Educational India's trademark application ('SCOTTISH HIGH EARLY YEARS') under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act. The rejection was based on cited marks owned by Ms. Mansi Aggarwal, but subsequent to the initial order, these conflicting applications were withdrawn following a settlement agreement reached in a related commercial suit. The Court held that since the objections no longer existed, the application should proceed to advertisement.
M/S Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v.Union Of India & Others
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals challenging an IPAB order that directed the cancellation of its registered trademark 'VEGA ASIA'. The court upheld the IPAB's finding regarding prior use by the respondent, noting that while the petitioner argued for earlier adoption and assignment rights, the evidence presented by the respondent was sufficient to establish their claim of user since 2001. This ruling underscores the strict adherence required when challenging rectification orders before a High Court.
Art Screw Co., Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Art Screw Co., Ltd. appealed against the rejection of its patent application (No. 6541/DELNP/ 2011) by The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which cited lack of inventive step. The court directed the petitioner to place international granted patents on record and ordered further submissions from both parties.
Deepak Kumar Khemka v.Lakshmi Chand & Sons
The plaintiff, M/s Wizard Fragrances, sued the defendants alleging that they were infringing on the plaintiff's trademarks (SHUDH, SHUDH PLUS) by adopting and using 'SHUDH RATAN'. The plaintiff argued that this constituted passing off and dilution of goodwill. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
Parle Agro Private Limited / Surya Fresh Foods Limited v.Surya Fresh Foods Private Limited / Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing disputes between Parle Agro and Surya Fresh Foods concerning the trade dress of their competing apple-based beverages, 'APPY FIZZ' and 'FRESH FIZZY'. Recognizing a willingness among the parties to find an amicable solution through modifications to the trade dress, the court directed both companies to participate in mediation. This move signals a judicial preference for alternative dispute resolution while keeping the core infringement suits active.
Asian Paints Limited v.B. N. Ravi Prakash
The court heard arguments regarding the service of process in an ongoing IPR suit. After confirming that the defendant had been duly served, the Leave Petition was made absolute. The court granted the defendant one more opportunity to appear before considering the main prayer for passing off.
Unilever Plc. And Anr. v.Vikas
This interim application sought to continue and grant further ad-interim relief against the defendant, Vikas. The court reviewed the findings of the Court Receiver regarding additional infringing goods and permitted amendments to the plaint. Consequently, the court ordered the continuation of the exparte ad-interim injunctions.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Ashok Kumar
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed an interim application seeking permission to amend its suit plaint and interim application. The plaintiff sought to implead Mr. Kuldeep Singh, who was identified as the owner manufacturing counterfeit detergent preparations based on a Court Receiver's report. The court permitted the amendments and continued the existing ad-interim injunction.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.Pacific Paints & Anr.
The court heard an interim application filed by Asian Paints Ltd. against Pacific Paints & Anr. The court noted that the initial exparte ad-interim order was in place, and subsequent amendments were permitted based on a Court Receiver's report regarding additional infringing goods. The court decided to continue the existing ad-interim relief for a further period.
Usha International Limited v.Mr Haseen Ahmed Trading As Tusha Sewing Machine Co
The plaintiff, Usha International Limited, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was adopting the deceptively similar mark 'TUSHA' in relation to sewing machines, infringing upon the plaintiff's well-known mark 'USHA'. The court granted an interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and seize all infringing goods manufactured under the disputed marks.
Mahesh Gupta v.Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This Delhi High Court order addresses a writ petition filed by Mahesh Gupta challenging the Deputy Registrar's decision to dismiss his opposition against the trademark application 'KENT'. The core dispute revolves around whether the Petitioner abandoned their opposition due to repeated adjournments. While the Respondent argued that the Petitioner failed to appear and request adjournment properly, the Court granted an interim stay on the dismissal order pending production of the impugned order itself.
Kamdhenu Limited v.Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd
Kamdhenu Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design for surface patterns on steel rods. The core dispute revolved around whether this design was novel, as Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd contended that the pattern was derived from an existing British Standard (BS4449-2005). The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed Kamdhenu's appeal, holding that since the standard prescribed the specific surface pattern for identifying a steel grade, the design lacked originality and was incapable of registration.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Protrition Products Llp & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against Protrition Products Llp & Ors. The court found that despite having registrations in unrelated classes (29 and 30), the defendants were using deceptively similar marks, such as ABBZORB NUTRITION, for goods like whey protein which fall within the plaintiff's registered Class 5 pharmaceutical category. The judgment emphasized that once a defendant is aware of an existing mark, they must exercise caution to avoid infringement in related classes and goods.
Sh Nirmal Kumar @ Nirmal Kumar Gupta & Ors. v.State(Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order rectifying entries in the Trade Marks Register concerning two trademarks (No. 1116678 and No. 2091984). Following mediation settlement, the court restored M/s Rattan Milk Specialities Private Limited as the original proprietor of TM No. 1116678, cancelling previous entries in favor of Nirmal Kumar. The court also rectified the entry related to TM No. 2094984. While the petitioners sought quashing of an FIR, the primary focus was on correcting the trademark ownership records based on the settlement terms.
Star India Pvt Ltd v.Extramovies.Click & Ors.
Star India Pvt Ltd filed suit seeking permanent injunction against various rogue websites, ISPs, and government bodies for the unauthorized hosting and streaming of its film 'Tadap'. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over the cinematograph work. Throughout the proceedings, numerous additional infringing URLs were identified and blocking orders were issued by MEITY and DoT. Given that the film's theatrical run had concluded and no defense was raised by the rogue websites, the court confirmed the existing injunction and decreed the suit in favor of Star India.
Ravinder Singhania v.Union Of India & Anr.
Ravinder Singhania filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a patent application by Respondent No. 2, seeking to quash the impugned decision and direct reconsideration. The petitioner primarily argued that he did not receive an essential email containing the examination report, preventing him from responding within the stipulated time.
Bpi Sports Llc v.Saurabh Gulati & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark opposition case involving Bpi Sports Llc and Saurabh Gulati. Despite initial claims of non-service, the court found that Respondent No.1 had been served through multiple modes (speed post, email, mobile), leading to him being proceeded against ex parte. Crucially, the court mandated that a status quo be maintained regarding Trademark Registration No. 4422891 for the mark 'BPI SPORTS', preventing any assignment or license during the pendency of the matter.
Jansen Pharmaceuticals & Others v.Aeon Formulations Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, who are exclusive licensees of the patent holder (Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation), filed a suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 was manufacturing and marketing Canagliflozin Tablets/Capsules, thereby infringing Indian Patent No. 232231. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs.
General Electric Company v.Union Of India And Anr.
General Electric Company challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents that rejected its patent application. The Petitioner argued that the Controller arbitrarily revisited the non-patentability objection under Section 3(k) without providing a proper opportunity for defense or written submissions. The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter, directing the Patent Office to provide a hearing on all objections.
M/S Torque Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.M/S Conset Pharma Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Torque Pharmaceuticals against Conset Pharma. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off related to the pharmaceutical product HEMOPLUS. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting the deceptive similarity between 'HEMOPLUS' and the Defendants' trademark 'CONSET HEEMOPULS,' particularly given the low threshold for confusion in the pharmaceutical sector. This immediate relief prevents the Defendants from continuing to manufacture or sell similar products until the final hearing.
Dabur India Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Ors
In a significant ruling concerning domain name disputes, the Delhi High Court directed various Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to appoint Grievance Officers in accordance with the IT Rules, 2021. This order was issued within the context of multiple connected suits involving trademark and cyber-related issues. The court emphasized the need for DNR compliance to protect intellectual property rights and ensure proper grievance redressal mechanisms are in place across the digital landscape.
Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v.Celebrities Management Private Limited
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiffs, Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited, to amend their plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Celebrities Management Private Limited. The amendment sought to elaborate on the grounds for territorial jurisdiction under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, specifically by adding details about the defendant's online presence and targeting of Delhi consumers. The court allowed the amendment, noting that it was intended only to buttress the jurisdictional plea, and directed that the challenge regarding lack of jurisdiction would be considered on merits after the amendment.
Diageo Brands B.V. v.Great Galleon Ventures Limited
Diageo Brands B.V. filed suit against Great Galleon Ventures Limited alleging that the latter was fraudulently imitating its 'Hipster' bottle, which is protected by a Registered Design (No. 306577). The Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent further infringement and passing off of their distinctive trade dress. While the court found similarities in the overall get-up, it ultimately granted an interim injunction based solely on design infringement, but declined the claim related to passing off.
Health And Glow Private Limited v.Vineet Chugh
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Health And Glow Private Limited against Vineet Chugh. The dispute centered on the use of the trademark 'H&G' for cosmetic and personal care products. Given that Health And Glow demonstrated a strong prima facie case—backed by extensive market presence, high turnover, and registered rights—the court restrained the defendant from using the identical mark until further hearing, preventing irreparable injury to the plaintiff’s business.
Carousel Design Pvt Ltd v.Kurush Noshir Jungalwala & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Carousel Design Pvt Ltd, who holds the registered trademark 'SHIFT'. The court found that the defendant's adoption of a deceptively similar mark ('CHEMOULD SHIFT') created a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Despite initial attempts at amicable settlement, the plaintiff successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, leading the court to restrain the defendants from using the infringing marks until further orders.
akash aggarwal v.flipkart internet private limited
Akash Aggarwal, owner of the 'V Tradition' trademark for women's clothing, sued Flipkart alleging that the platform’s ‘latching on’ feature allowed third-party sellers to use his brand name and product images without consent, constituting passing off. The Plaintiff claimed significant sales and consumer engagement through Flipkart before this unauthorized usage.
Bridgestone Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents Designs & Trademarks & Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in the matter of Bridgestone Corporation versus Controller General Of Patents Designs & Trademarks. The court directed both parties to prepare and exchange short notes detailing their submissions and to compile relevant judicial precedents for consideration. This procedural step moves the case closer to final disposal, which is scheduled for February 2, 2022.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Harman Finochem Limited
The suit was filed by Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp seeking permanent injunction against Harman Finochem Limited for infringing Patent No. 209816 related to Sitagliptin. Although an interim injunction had been granted earlier, the matter reached a settlement as the patent expired during the pendency of the suit. The Defendant agreed to pay partial litigation costs.
Csg International Ltd v.Ddit International Taxation Circle 1
The assessee (Csg International Ltd) appealed against an order taxing revenue earned from supplying software as 'royalty'. The core dispute was whether the payment for using copyrighted software constituted a transfer of copyright rights or merely a license to use a copyrighted article. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments, concluding that non-exclusive licenses do not attract royalty under DTAAs.
Mother Diary Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited v.Nalgonda Rangareddy District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses ongoing trademark infringement litigation between Mother Diary Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited and Nalgonda Rangareddy District Milk Producers. The court noted arguments regarding the alleged violation of a Settlement Agreement, with both parties presenting their positions—the respondent denying any misuse of the 'Mother Dairy' trademark, while the petitioner asserted contempt of court. The court directed further action, including filing rejoinders and listing the case for subsequent proceedings.
Bombinate Technologies Private Limited v.Koo Coin And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bombinate Technologies Private Limited against Koo Coin and others, finding a prima facie case of trademark misuse. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were using the registered 'KOO' mark and similar bird device marks on fraudulent cryptocurrency platforms (like www.koo.money) to mislead consumers into believing they were associated with the legitimate social media platform. Consequently, the Court directed MEITY and ISPs to block the infringing websites and restrained the defendants from further use of the 'KOO' name or offering digital coins until the final hearing.
Sanjeev Juneja & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar Bhatia
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the Plaintiffs sought to withdraw their suit after making changes to their trademark, label, and packaging/trade dress. Despite the intention to withdraw, counsel requested an adjournment due to scheduling conflicts in another court. The Court granted the request, listing the matter for further hearing on August 24, 2022.
Core Integrated Management Systems Pvt Ltd v.The Bci Forum Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Core Integrated Management Systems Pvt Ltd seeking permanent injunction against trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution related to the marks 'CONTINUITY AND RESILIENCE' and 'CONTINUITY & RESILIENCE'. Given that oppositions have been filed against the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks, the court suspended the registration certificates. Consequently, both parties agreed that the pending opposition proceedings must be decided first before the injunction application can proceed. The court also directed both sides to file documents detailing the nature of use of the disputed mark.
T. V. Today Network Limited v.News Laundry Media Private Limited
T. V. Today Network Limited, a major media group operating channels like AajTak and India Today Television, filed a suit seeking relief against News Laundry Media Private Limited for alleged infringement of its content. The plaintiff sought an interim mandatory injunction to prevent further dissemination of allegedly defamatory and infringing material. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that since the plaintiff could be compensated with damages (quantified at Rs. 2 crores), there was no irreparable loss warranting immediate injunctive relief.
Pfizer Inc v.Azista Industries Private Limited
The suit was filed by Pfizer Inc seeking an injunction against the infringement of Patent No. IN 218291, which covers the pharmaceutical product 'Palbociclib'. The court condoned the delay in filing replications and made the existing ad-interim injunction absolute during the pendency of the suit.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh appealed the Patent Office's order rejecting its divisional patent application (No. 201918027661). The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step and insufficient experimental data. The Court directed the parties to submit the full file wrapper of both the parent and subject applications for further consideration.
Kent Ro Systems Limited & Anr. v.Bajrang Impex Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kent Ro Systems Limited against Bajrang Impex Private Limited, finding a prima facie case of infringement regarding the design and logo used on water purifier cabinets. The court recognized that irreparable harm would occur without immediate protection. Furthermore, to definitively ascertain the extent of manufacturing and sales, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with specific mandates to inspect the defendant's premises, seize infringing materials, and report on production figures.
Mensa Brand Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Kartik Fashion & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Mensa Brand Technologies against Kartik Fashion & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized that the defendants were deceptively using the 'DENNIS LINGO' mark, along with similar trade dress features, to ride on the plaintiff's reputation in the e-commerce market. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises, seize counterfeit goods, and document their infringing activities.
Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited v.Karaikudi Chettinad Mess
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited, finding that the defendant's use of 'KARAIKUDI CHETTINAD MESS' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's registered marks. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using the similar trade name for hospitality services. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to surrender all infringing materials, although claims for damages and rendition of accounts were rejected due to lack of evidence or representation.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Tomar Enterprises
The plaintiffs initiated a suit for infringement and perpetual injunction under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000, concerning their registered air cooler design. The defendants subsequently filed an application challenging the suit's validity before the High Court. This court addressed the objections raised by the defendants regarding jurisdiction, parallel proceedings, and cause of action. Ultimately, the court dismissed the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, affirming the maintainability of the original infringement suit.
Vifor International Ltd. v.Competition Commission Of India
Vifor International Ltd. challenged the orders of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) which initiated an inquiry into its licensing practices regarding the patent for Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM). Vifor argued that the CCI was exceeding its jurisdiction by seeking commercially sensitive information related to a patented product, touching upon rights under the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding it premature and noting that the CCI would consider the petitioner's objections.
Novartis A G v.Supermax Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Novartis A G filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Supermax Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited for infringing its patent (IN 237430) covering the drug molecule Nilotinib. The dispute arose after the Defendant submitted bids to a government tender using the patented substance. During the proceedings, the Defendants conceded that they had no intention to manufacture or sell the preparation during the patent's lifetime. Consequently, the court decreed the suit for permanent injunction, contingent upon the filing of an affidavit detailing existing stock and an undertaking to comply with the decree.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd & Ors.
The court heard various interlocutory applications in a patent infringement suit filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd & Ors. The core issue addressed was whether the Plaintiff could amend its claims to include additional infringing devices or assert infringement under other patents during the pendency of the suit.
Ravinder Singhania v.Union Of India & Anr.
Ravinder Singhania filed a writ petition challenging the validity of certain provisions related to patents. Since one of the reliefs sought involved questioning the legal validity (vires) of Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Rule 24B(2)(i) of the Patents Rules, 2003, the court ordered the matter to be listed before a Division Bench.
Sotefin Sa v.Indraprastha Cancer Society And Research Center
Sotefin SA filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 214088, which relates to a self-propelled carriage for horizontal transfer of motor vehicles. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and entered into Consent Terms.
Hachette Filipacchi Presse v.Aerolite Industries And 5 Ors
The Bombay High Court disposed of Commercial IP Suit No. 55 of 2010 after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The Consent Terms mandated that the defendants agree to use and register the trademark 'elle' in lowercase lettering while restricting its use in specific classes, and crucially, they committed not to adopt an identical or similar font to the plaintiff's registered mark 'ELLE'. This resolution provides clarity on brand usage rights through mutual agreement.
M/s.Neuberg Hitech Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Dr.Ganesan'S Hitech Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court order addressed applications seeking to vacate existing interim injunctions in a trademark infringement suit between Neuberg Hitech Laboratories and Dr. Ganesan's Hitech Diagnostic Centre. The court upheld the injunction regarding the mark 'Hitech,' noting its long-standing use, but modified the protection for the corporate name. Regarding device marks like 'Nalam,' the court found them to be descriptive and limited the scope of protection only to identical or deceptively similar composite marks, allowing defendants broader usage.
Disposafe Health And Life Care Ltd & Hindustan Syringes & Medical Devices Limited v.Rajiv Nath & Anr.
The Delhi High Court consolidated two related commercial suits concerning trademark disputes involving the 'DISPOSAFE' and other 'DISPO' formative marks. The court framed detailed issues covering questions of mark proprietorship, alleged infringement, passing off, and prior user rights. This consolidation paves the way for a comprehensive trial to determine the validity and scope of the trademarks in the medical device sector.
Delhi Public School Society v.Delhi Public International School
The Delhi Public School Society filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Delhi Public International School for alleged trademark infringement and passing off, claiming that the use of 'DPIS' was deceptively similar to their established brand 'DPS'. The court initially granted an interim injunction recognizing the plaintiff's prior rights. However, upon considering subsequent developments, particularly the change in name by the defendant school, the court concluded that the main cause of action no longer survived against all parties. Consequently, the suit was disposed of, allowing the plaintiff to pursue remedies regarding pending trademark applications.
UltraTech Cement Limited v.Dlvk Cement Private Limited
The suit filed by UltraTech Cement Limited against Dlvk Cement Private Limited was settled out of court. The Bombay High Court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, disposed of the suit and interim application, and decreed the matter in accordance with the settlement terms.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This judgment addresses applications filed by Respondent No.2 (Patentee) seeking dismissal of revocation petitions on the grounds of being time-barred. The court held that since no specific limitation is prescribed for revocation under Section 64, a three-year limitation period cannot be read into the provision. Furthermore, interim stay applications were dismissed as the patent was already granted and injunctions had been granted elsewhere.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This judgment addresses applications filed by Respondent No.2 seeking dismissal of revocation petitions concerning patent IN 243301 (Linagliptin) on the grounds that they were time-barred. The Court held that since no specific limitation period is prescribed for revocation under Section 64, a three-year limitation period cannot be read into the provision.
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. v.Surjit Dairy Products
The commercial IP suit filed by Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. against Surjit Dairy Products was settled out of court. The parties executed Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit.
Apple Hair And Beauty Services Private Ltd. v.Kavita Ankush Borude
This appeal before the Bombay High Court challenges a trial court order that restrained Apple Hair and Beauty Services from using the trade mark 'Apple Unisex Salon.' The appellant raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that the suit should have been filed in the Commercial Court due to its valuation and nature (trade mark infringement/passing off). The court granted time for the respondent-plaintiff to address this issue before proceeding with the appeal.
Kajaria Ceramics Limited & Ors. v.Mr Suresh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning trademark matters, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues raised by the defendants. Despite initial difficulties in compliance with court orders, the Court allowed the written statement to be filed after imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000. The Court also directed that Defendant No. 1 would participate virtually due to health reasons and set future dates for the proceedings.
Infiniti Retail Limited v.M/S Croma Wholeseller & Ors.
Infiniti Retail Limited successfully sought judicial intervention against an infringing website, www.cromawholesellersltd.co.in, which was identified as using its registered trademarks and logo. The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to implead the website owner as a defendant and extended the existing ex-parte ad-interim injunction to cover this new party. Crucially, the court directed the suspension of the infringing domain name and mandated that the responsible parties provide detailed registrant information, reinforcing strong protection for well-known trademarks in the digital space.
Osaka University v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Osaka University appealed the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application (No. 3495/DELNP/2012) for 'Bridged Artificial Nucleoside and Nucleotide'. The rejection was based on lack of novelty, inventive step, and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited
The suit was filed by Glaxo Group Limited seeking rendition of accounts and recovery of money against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Patent No. IN212714. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which the Court accepted and decreed the suit in terms of that agreement.
I. M. A. Industria Macchine Automatiche S. P. A. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant, a manufacturer of packaging materials, appealed against the Controller's rejection of its patent application for a transporting apparatus. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step over cited prior art documents. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked sufficient reasons and failed to deal with the merits or arguments raised by the appellant.
Incyte Holding Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Incyte Holding Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 8686/DELNP/2010) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal was filed after a considerable delay of 530 days. The court condoned this delay, allowing the main appeal to proceed.
RRR Motion Pictures And Ors v.Shahe Ali
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking to set aside an order that framed issues in a trademark infringement suit. The core issue was whether the Petitioners' request for permission to file a rectification petition under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had been properly considered. The Court clarified that while a civil court must examine the prima facie tenability of an invalidity plea, this process is not equivalent to granting 'permission.' It directed the Commercial Court to decide on the validity application before proceeding with the main infringement trial.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Jimsun Life Sciences P. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'JIMSUN' held by Jimsun Life Sciences P. Ltd. The court granted the relief based on a settlement reached between the parties, where Respondent No. 1 agreed to have no objection to the cancellation. This order effectively cleared the path for the Petitioner to remove the disputed mark from the registry.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Sanjeev Gupta
The commercial suit for patent infringement concerning Sitagliptin (protected by IN 209816) was settled between Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. The Defendants acknowledged the validity of the patent and agreed to cease all infringing activities, including manufacturing generic versions, until the patent expires.
Usha International Limited v.Citizen Udyog
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by the defendant seeking vacation of an interim injunction and return of the plaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. While the defendant argued that all operations were outside Delhi, the plaintiff countered by citing Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and evidence showing export activities originating from ICD Delhi. The court directed both parties to obtain and file the Local Commissioner's report and related photographic evidence before proceeding with the substantive arguments.
Popsockets Llc v.Flipkart India Private Limited & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Popsockets LLC sought remedies against Flipkart India Private Limited for allegedly selling products under an infringing mark. The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders on November 12, 2020. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and permitted the issuance of summons to all defendants, while also noting the dispute regarding whether Flipkart itself was infringing by selling the product under the disputed trademark.
General Mills Inc. v.Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd Federation
In this ongoing trademark dispute, General Mills Inc. sought to incorporate the registration of its mark 'TRIX' into the existing pleadings. The Delhi High Court accepted the amendment and subsequently framed a new, specific issue before the court. This new issue directly addresses whether the defendant's use of the 'TRIX' mark constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark.
Sandeep Kumar v.Pla Foods Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sandeep Kumar challenging an ex parte ad interim injunction issued by a lower Commercial Court, which restrained him from using the trademark 'CHEFFY'. The court noted that while the appellant raised issues regarding territorial jurisdiction and prior knowledge of usage, it deemed inappropriate to interfere with the existing interim order at that stage. The appeal was ultimately disposed of, allowing the original parties to advance their full contentions before the Commercial Court.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Chougle Salt Works Private Limited
Tata Sons Private Limited successfully resolved its intellectual property dispute against Chougle Salt Works Private Limited through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties executed a comprehensive settlement agreement acknowledging that the defendant had inadvertently infringed upon Tata's registered copyrights (TATASALT packaging) and trademarks (TATA SALT). Under the terms, the defendant agreed to cease using similar marks, destroy infringing materials, and permanently refrain from applying for or using any confusingly similar IP rights. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on this settlement.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction restraining the infringement of its rights in patents claimed to be standards essential to 3G and 4G communications standards. The Plaintiff suspects that various other patents may also be infringed by the Defendants.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Laziq Trading Company
The Plaintiff, Pidilite Industries Limited, filed an interim application seeking relief against Laziq Trading Company for alleged infringement of its well-known trademarks and copyrights associated with the DR. FIXIT silicone sealant range. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling goods bearing similar marks or infringing the artistic work on the packaging.
M/s.Five Star Films Pvt. Ltd. v.Karthik Subbaraj.G
M/s.Five Star Films Pvt. Ltd filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership over the copyrights of its film 'Jigardhanda', damages, and permanent injunction against Karthik Subbaraj.G for alleged infringement. The parties subsequently executed a Joint Compromise Memo.
Usha International Limited v.Tarun Arora Trading As Krishan Enterprises
Usha International Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Tarun Arora for trademark infringement concerning sewing machines. The Delhi High Court examined the plaintiff's claim, noting Usha's long-standing use of the mark 'USHA' since 1936 and its status as a well-known mark. Finding that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'WSHA', the court granted an interim restraint order, preventing the defendant from using the infringing marks until further proceedings.
Essential Export Sociedad Anonima v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Essential Export Sociedad Anonima challenging the rejection of its multi-class trademark application (No. 3639686). While dismissing a request for stay, the court found prima facie grounds to reconsider the matter. The court noted that certain facts, including oppositions and COVID-19 related adjournments, had not been properly considered by the Registrar's Examiner. Consequently, the case was remanded back to allow for fresh consideration of the application.
Provident Housing Ltd v.Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed Provident Housing Ltd's appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order that restrained its use of 'Provident Central Park'. The court found that the appellant's mark was deceptively similar to the respondents' registered trademarks, particularly because 'CENTRAL PARK' is a prominent feature in the respondent's marks. While clarifying that no exclusive right exists over the generic words 'CENTRAL PARK', the judgment affirmed that copying this prominent portion of a device mark constitutes infringement.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Chiral Biosciences Limited
The suit was filed seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Chiral Biosciences Limited for infringing Merck Sharp & Dohme's patent (IN 209816) covering Sitagliptin. Although the court found evidence of infringement, it ultimately denied the permanent injunction because the patent had expired by July 2022, but awarded damages and costs.
Kanishka Sinha & Anr v.The Union Of India & Ors
The petitioners sought a direction to the Deputy Director General (VAHAN), National Informatics Centre, to grant linkage of their patented software with the Vehicle Registration and Homogation System. The matter was settled amicably between the parties, leading to the court disposing of the writ petition.
The Goodyear Tire Rubber Company v.Deva Nand Sukhia
The Delhi High Court issued an order directing the Trademark Registrar to immediately comply with a prior judgment favoring Goodyear Tire Rubber Company. The court confirmed that the defendant had paid the stipulated litigation costs. Crucially, the Registrar was directed to remove the defendant's infringing 'GOOD YEAR' trademark (No. 1120219) from the register and dispose of related rectification and opposition proceedings within one week. This order solidifies Goodyear's position against unauthorized use of its mark.
M/S Babaji Udyog v.Lalit Kumar
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in the trademark dispute between M/S Babaji Udyog and Lalit Kumar. The respondent was directed to modify his product's label, tagline, and general get-up to ensure no similarity with the appellant's registered marks. Concurrently, the appellant was required to submit clear copies of its trademarks. This order sets the stage for further evidence presentation in the ongoing infringement litigation.
Abhishek Gupta v.Vipin Jain
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Abhishek Gupta, who was seeking restraint against trademark and copyright infringement related to his 'BOL' sports publication. Despite initial resistance based on delayed approach, the court found a prima facie case for the appellant. The judgment specifically restrained Vipin Jain from passing off or associating their goods with the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and copyrights, recognizing the likelihood of consumer confusion due to similar get-up and use.
Synthes Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
Synthes Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'BONE FIXATION APPARATUS' by the Controller General of Patents. The appeal was transferred to the Delhi High Court following legislative changes. Initially, the court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the court directed both parties to file comprehensive written submissions and place prior art on record before proceeding with the merits of the patent rejection.
Godrej Properties Ltd. v.Ashok Kumar & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed the delay in deactivating infringing domain names. The court emphasized that Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) like GoDaddy must process valid requests from the plaintiff, especially when they relate to misuse of a protected mark. To resolve the dispute, the court directed GoDaddy to file an affidavit explaining why certain domains remain active and providing full details of the domain registrants.
M/S Oswal Premium Silk Mills Ltd & Ors v.Swadesh Raiment Pvt Ltd
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S Oswal Premium Silk Mills Ltd, upholding the trial court's decision regarding the usage of the trademark 'OSWAL'. The dispute centered on whether the appellants had the right to continue using the mark after a specific period. The court found that the defendant's claim based on the deed of assignment (valid for 15 years) was valid and the memorandum of understanding did not override this limitation, thus favoring the respondent.
Excitel Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court overturned the rejection of the trade mark application 'REELTIME' by the Senior Examiner. The court held that website printouts could constitute valid evidence of use, provided they are accompanied by a Section 65B certificate under the IT Act. Furthermore, the court found that prior registrations and a settlement agreement with Google LLC were sufficient to establish the Appellant's rights, allowing the mark to proceed for advertisement.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit for trademark infringement and passing off against Shri Rhythm Agarwal. The core dispute revolved around the court's jurisdiction, as the respondent argued the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, not Chennai. The Madras High Court ultimately set aside the lower court's decision, holding that despite the defendant's arguments, the appellant had sufficient grounds under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act to file the suit in its jurisdiction.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit against Shri Rhythm Agarwal for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'Radisson Paints'. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction, with the respondent arguing the suit should have been filed in Uttar Pradesh where they operated. The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that despite the defendant's arguments, the court possessed the necessary jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act to try the matter.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit against Shri Rhythm Agarwal for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'Radisson' paints. The lower court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action did not arise wholly within its territorial limits, despite the appellant having a branch office in Uttar Pradesh. The Division Bench overturned this decision, asserting that Section 134(2) allows filing where the principal place of business is situated, and holding that the court had sufficient jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. v.Nixi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in favor of Colgate Palmolive, addressing ongoing trademark infringement and fraudulent activities using their brand name. The court directed the domain registrar, GoDaddy.com LLC, to immediately block and suspend the infringing domain www.colgatepalmolive.work. Furthermore, the court ordered the disclosure of registrant details for the domain and mandated the freezing of a bank account linked to the scam operation, demonstrating strong judicial action against brand impersonation and cyber fraud.
Neeraj Kumar Trading As M/S Ganga Traders v.M/S Chacha Food Company & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Neeraj Kumar Trading As M/S Ganga Traders against M/S Chacha Food Company, finding that the defendant's packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress for non-alcoholic beverages. The court recognized a strong prima facie case and ordered the defendants to immediately cease all activities related to the infringing goods. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the defendant's premises to seize and seal all incriminating materials, including packaging and molds.
Ms Shivam Hardware Store v.Ms Century World
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court in favor of Ms Century World against Ms Shivam Hardware Store. The dispute centered on the use of the mark 'SHIVAM CENTURY,' which was deemed deceptively similar to Ms Century World's registered marks, including 'CP CENTURY.' Despite arguments that 'CENTURY' is a common word, the court found that the prominent inclusion of this term in both marks, coupled with the similarity of goods and lack of justification for the appellant's use, warranted protection of the respondent's goodwill. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Hebei Hailan Bearing Manufacture Co. Ltd. v.M/S Pearl Bearing Co.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed an application by the Plaintiff seeking disclosure of financial and import documents from the Defendant. While the Defendant argued that some information was confidential, the Court issued a conditional order. The Defendant must now file an affidavit detailing complete sale figures and submit all requested documents in a sealed cover for judicial review before they can be released to the Plaintiff.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Hetero Labs Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound Alectinib used in cancer treatment. The dispute centered on whether the Defendant's import and use of Alectinib Hydrochloride were commercial infringements or activities permitted under Section 107A (Bolar provision) for research and regulatory purposes.
Appy Pie Llp v.Engineer.Ai India Pvt. Ltd.
In this trademark infringement matter, Appy Pie LLP sought to address the misuse of its 'APPY PIE' brand through the Google Ads Program. The Delhi High Court recognized that since Google LLC was not initially part of the suit, it needed to be formally added to the proceedings. This order allowed for the impleadment of Google as Defendant No. 5, ensuring all relevant parties are involved in addressing the trademark misuse allegations.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Assistant Controller that refused its application seeking cross-examination during pre-grant opposition proceedings against Novartis A.G.'s patent application (No. 4412/DELNP/2007). The court ultimately disposed of the petition, allowing for procedural steps to be taken in the underlying opposition.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim appealed the Controller's rejection of a divisional patent application related to DPP-IV inhibitors. The core dispute centered on whether the parent application contained a 'plurality of inventions' sufficient to support the new product claims sought in the divisional filing. The Delhi High Court ultimately rejected the appeal, holding that since the original application only contained method or use claims and not distinct product claims, the subsequent introduction of such products was considered disclaimed. Consequently, the divisional application could not proceed.
Raman Kwatra & Anr. v.Kei Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court overturned an interim injunction that had restrained Raman Kwatra & Anr. from using a similar trademark, 'KEI', in relation to electrical goods. The court found merit in allowing the matter to proceed further, specifically directing the lower court to examine the respondent's claim of infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. This decision highlights the importance of correctly framing the legal basis for trademark infringement claims during interim proceedings.
M/s.Langro-Chemie Theo Lang Gmbh v.Mr.N.Balaji
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Langro-Chemie Theo Lang Gmbh, granting a substantial judgment for the recovery of dues and permanent injunctive relief. The suit involved claims related to goods supplied and investments made towards a joint venture that failed to materialize. Crucially, the court also recognized the plaintiff's registered trademark rights, ordering all defendants to cease any infringement of the 'Langro' trade name and associated logo. This judgment underscores the dual nature of IP disputes, combining commercial debt recovery with protection of intellectual property assets.
Patola Industries v.Mahesh Namkeen Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court directed the parties, Patola Industries and Mahesh Namkeen Pvt Ltd & Ors, into mediation regarding trademark disputes. The petitioner had submitted that they ceased using their trademark, while the respondent sought a permanent injunction against the use of similar marks for namkeens and snacks. Despite differing views on settlement, the court prioritized resolving the dispute amicably by mandating appearance at the Mediation Centre.
Yonex Co., Ltd v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Yonex Co., Ltd against unauthorized use of its trademark 'YONEX'. The court found sufficient grounds for restraining infringement related to the domain name 'www.yonexindiastore.com', ordering the domain registrar, NameSilo LLC, to block the site and maintain status quo until further orders.
Emaar Properties Pjsc v.Address Infrastructures Private Limited
Emaar Properties filed a suit against Address Infrastructures Private Limited alleging trademark infringement regarding the use of 'ADDRESS' and 'THE ADDRESS' in real estate projects. The Delhi High Court issued an ad interim order, allowing the Defendant to continue operating its existing projects under the disputed name. However, the court imposed a strict condition: any future expansion or new project using the word 'Address' must first seek explicit leave from the Court, balancing the Plaintiff's transborder reputation claims against the Defendant's established business operations.
Astrazeneca Ab v.MSN Laboratories Limited
Astrazeneca filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringing Indian Patent IN 297581 related to cancer treatment. The dispute centered on whether a Public Notice issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals constituted Government Authorization allowing generic manufacturing. The Court clarified that the notice was merely for collating local manufacturer details, not an authorization to infringe.