Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 12001–12100 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Shyam Sunder v.Pushpa Devi And Ors.
The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a complex dispute over the usage rights of the registered trademark 'Shehnai' for edible oils. The appeal, filed by Shyam Sunder (the defendant), challenged the lower court's decision which granted co-usage rights to the plaintiffs (Pushpa Devi and Ors.). After examining evidence regarding prior use, partnership history, and consumer perception, the High Court dismissed the appeal. It ultimately found that both parties had established usage rights, thereby upholding the principle of shared or concurrent trademark use in this specific context.
Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited v.Mahesh Edible Oils Products Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order addressing trademark disputes among related entities in the edible oil industry. The court affirmed that the 'SALONI' trademark belongs exclusively to Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd., preventing individual brothers from claiming it. However, the ruling allows the family members freedom to operate their own businesses, provided they do not use marks or trade dresses deceptively similar to 'SALONI'. This order sets a clear boundary for internal corporate IP rights while allowing independent commercial activity.
Disruptive Health Solutions Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court overturned a rejection of the trademark 'HEALTHSKOOL' by the Registrar, which had deemed it descriptive under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act. The court recognized that despite some indicia related to health, the mark was sufficiently distinctive given its long-standing use since 2015 and existing registrations in various classes. Consequently, the application was allowed to proceed for advertisement, albeit with a caveat preventing exclusive rights over the generic term 'Health'.
Best Agrolife Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller's decision granting Patent No. IN 394568, arguing that the grant was flawed because the pre-grant opposition raised on grounds like lack of novelty and non-patentability under Section 3(d) was ignored. The court found that the impugned order was non-speaking, failed to address key objections, and did not consider expert affidavits. Consequently, the matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision.
M/s Unik Industries v.M/s Amazon India Ltd.
M/s Unik Industries filed a contempt case against M/s Amazon India Ltd. alleging willful disobedience of an interim order regarding the removal of infringing design patent products (clothing hangers) from its online portal. The petitioner claimed continuous infringement despite compliance efforts. However, the court found that since Amazon acted as an intermediary and listings were made by third parties without their actual knowledge or human intervention, there was no wilful violation.
Havells India Ltd & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar/ John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Havells India Ltd against various defendants regarding the misuse of its registered trademarks, HAVELLS and LLOYD. The court found a prima facie case that rogue websites and domain names were being used to mislead consumers and conduct fraudulent activities. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate blocking of specific infringing domains by ISPs and directed the disclosure of registrant details from the responsible parties.
Applause Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Aryan Sharma & Anr.
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Applause Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. against Aryan Sharma & Anr. was settled between the parties via Consent Terms dated 02.05.2022. The court accepted these terms, permitted amendments to the case title, and subsequently disposed of the suit.
Nippon A&L Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents
Nippon A&L Inc. appealed a rejection order by the Deputy Controller of Patents regarding its application for a copolymer latex process and product. The Patent Office had raised objections concerning inventive step, non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), and lack of clarity in claims. The High Court focused specifically on the objection related to claim amendments. The court ruled that since the Appellant was narrowing the scope of the claims and the process sought was disclosed in the specification, the amendments were valid under Section 59.
Novo Nordisk A S v.Union Of India
Novo Nordisk challenged an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents, arguing that the decision did not address the substantive grounds raised in its representation regarding a pending post-grant opposition. The case involves Patent IN257402, which relates to pharmaceutical preparations. Despite years of delays and procedural complexities in the Opposition Board proceedings, the High Court intervened to ensure that the Deputy Controller would consider all arguments presented by the patentee before rendering a final decision.
Philips Lighting Holding B.V./Signify Holding BV v.Jai Prakash Agarwal And Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses applications concerning the infringement of registered designs related to LED lighting products. The court considered claims regarding Design Registration No. 299147 (T-Bulb) and others, where the plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendants. While the court noted the existence of similar products in the market, it denied the ad-interim injunction due to the lack of action against other competitors. However, for Design Registration No. 247723, the defendant was directed to file regular sales accounts.
Mrs. Anugya Gupta v.Mr. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mrs. Anugya Gupta against Mr. Ajay Kumar and others, finding that the defendants' use of domain names like 'SARKARIRESULT.INFO' was likely to cause confusion with her established trademark and website, 'SARKARIRESULT'. The court emphasized that the similarity between the marks/domains, coupled with evidence of dishonest adoption by the defendants, warranted immediate protection for the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Novartis Ag v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The petitioner filed an application alleging that the defendant violated a prior injunction by offering to supply Eltrombopag Olamine to the Government. The court examined whether this offer, made under Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970, constituted contempt.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Eris Health Care Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Alkem Laboratories against Eris Health Care regarding the alleged misuse of 'GEMCAL' and 'GEMCAL PLUS' trademarks and associated packaging. The court observed that the defendants agreed to change their marks from 'DE-CAL GEM' to 'DECAL PLUS' (and similar changes for 'PLUS'). After reviewing the proposed new artwork, the court allowed the adoption of the revised designs while permanently restraining the defendants from using any mark or packaging deceptively similar to Alkem’s original trademarks and presentation.
Vimala Parmar v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Vimala Parmar against The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner had sought judicial intervention to compel the Trademark Registry to accept evidence in an opposition proceeding concerning trademark application No. 812224. However, due to non-prosecution—the failure of the petitioner to file a new counsel or appear before the court—the High Court dismissed the petition.
Sanjeev Khandelwal v.Ganesh Medicals
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of his patent (No. 197822) against three defendants. Subsequently, the parties executed a Deed of Compromise dated 22.11.2010. The court disposed of the suit based on this compromise.
Sanjeev Khandelwal v.Ganesh Medicals
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of his patents against three defendants. Subsequently, the parties executed a Deed of Compromise dated 22.11.2010. The court disposed of the suit in terms of this compromise, decreeing it against the third defendant and dismissing it against the first and second defendants.
M/S. Precision Bearing Pvt. Ltd. v.The Addl. Cit, Range-5, Ahmedabad
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance of trade mark expenditure. The assessee also filed a cross-objection concerning the calculation of depreciation on machinery. The Tribunal partly allowed both appeals, addressing issues related to intangible asset deduction and depreciation.
Unilever IP Holdings B.V. v.Ruchi Ice Cream
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Unilever IP Holdings B.V. against Ruchi Ice Cream regarding an impugned mark was ultimately settled between the parties. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order and disposed of the suit, decreeing it in terms of the original plaint's prayers.
S.Maheswari v.The Union of India
This writ petition challenged a summons issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, which sought an explanation from the petitioner regarding statements made in a daily newspaper concerning the rejection of her trademark registration. The petitioner had previously appealed this rejection to the IPAB, which remanded the matter back for reconsideration. The Madras High Court ultimately quashed the impugned summons, holding that statutory authorities are creatures under law and cannot conduct inquiries or issue summons based merely on news reports published in a newspaper.
Saint-Gobain Glass France v.M/s.Harsha Exito Engineering (P) Ltd.
The suit was filed by Saint-Gobain Glass France (through its Indian subsidiary) against M/s.Harsha Exito Engineering for infringement of Suit Patent No.305596, which covers a system and method for installing glass panels. The Plaintiff sought permanent injunction, delivery up of infringing products, and damages. The Court found the Plaintiff to be the proprietor and decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Voltas Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex parte injunction in favor of Voltas Limited against Ashok Kumar & Ors. The court found that the defendants were infringing on Voltas' registered and well-known trademarks (VOLTAS and its logo) by operating a deceptive website, www.myvoltascare.com. Given the prima facie case established by Voltas regarding extensive goodwill and reputation, the court ordered immediate measures including restraining trademark use, blocking the domain name, disabling the website, freezing bank accounts, and suspending UPI IDs to prevent irreparable harm.
Neha Overseas v.Khushi Impex
The Bombay High Court rejected Khushi Impex's application to vacate an ex-parte interim order that had seized their alleged infringing goods. The court found that the defendant admitted infringement by copying the plaintiff's 'CROWN' trademark and packaging, noting that reliance on a rectification application before the Registrar was insufficient grounds for vacating the stay. Consequently, the relief sought for the release of the goods was also denied.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Sehgal Auto House Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sunil Sehgal
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited against Sehgal Auto House. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was engaged in the wholesale business of counterfeit spare parts using the HERO trademark and logo, infringing both trademark rights and copyright associated with packaging. The court authorized a Local Commissioner to search and seize all infringing products and related materials from the Defendant's premises.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.Mr. Bijender Kumar Trading As M/S Shri Balaji Enterprises
In a significant move to protect its brand integrity, Exxon Mobil Corporation sought an interim injunction against Mr. Bijender Kumar Trading As M/S Shri Balaji Enterprises for selling counterfeit products bearing the 'MOBIL' trademark. The Delhi High Court granted the ex-parte ad-interim injunction and authorized a Local Commissioner to search and seize the infringing goods at the defendant's premises. This order underscores the court's willingness to provide swift, robust remedies against trademark infringement and counterfeiting in the commercial sector.
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. v.Powereye Electronics
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. filed a fresh suit against Powereye Electronics under the Trademark and Copyright Act, seeking permanent injunction and relief for passing off. The petitioners challenged an earlier court order that merely adjourned the matter. While the High Court clarified it was not adjudicating the merits of the case, it supported the petitioner's request to expedite the proceedings. Consequently, the Trial Court was directed to take up the matter on 04.07.2022.
XXX v.Union Of India
The petitioner, suffering from HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer, sought an interim direction compelling the 3rd respondent (DPIIT) to consider their representation regarding the high cost of Ribociclib. The petitioner argued that since Ribociclib enjoys patent monopoly and is not manufactured in India, compulsory licensing under Section 92 of the Patents Act, 1970, was necessary for affordability.
Aasik Jindran v.Mohammad Rafiq
Aasik Jindran, proprietor of M/s GBL Agro Equipments, filed a petition challenging an earlier commercial court order. The dispute centered on the use of the brand name 'GBL' for agricultural goods by Mohammad Rafiq, which Jindran claimed infringed his registered trademarks and copyrights. While the trial court had granted injunction against 'GBL', Jindran sought an extension to include restraint against the similar mark 'SGBL'.
M/s. Varkey Overseas Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. v.Official Liquidator Of Sumeet Machines ...
The Bombay High Court issued an ad-interim order in a company petition dispute involving the liquidation assets of Sumeet Machines. The court found that certain agreements produced late by one party lacked credibility, leading it to grant relief to the Official Liquidator. The ruling mandates that Sumeet Appliances Pvt. Ltd. must provide a full Affidavit of Disclosure detailing how they have used the trademarks and copyrights associated with the company's artistic works, along with all related income and actions taken.
Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Ravi Mehra
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging infringement and passing off against the defendants for manufacturing and selling apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to 'Levi's'. The court found that the defendants were deliberately copying the plaintiff's marks with dishonest intent.
M/s.Proklean Technologies P. Ltd. v.M/s.Godrej Consumer Products Ltd
The Madras High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions against trademark infringement and passing off concerning the mark 'ProKlean' versus 'ProClean'. While acknowledging the applicant's registered marks, the court found that the balance of convenience tilted against granting an immediate injunction due to the respondent's significant turnover. Consequently, the applications were disposed of without granting the requested restraint, but the respondent was mandated to submit quarterly accounts of sales and profits related to the disputed mark.
Crazy Concepts And Mazes Pvt. Ltd. v.N. Venkta Yayadri Rao
The Gujarat High Court allowed the appeal filed by Crazy Concepts And Mazes Pvt. Ltd., overturning a lower court's rejection of an interim injunction application. The plaintiffs, owners of the 'SCARY HOUSE' trademark and copyright in their dramatic work, successfully argued that the defendant was illegally adapting and reproducing their copyrighted material under a new name ('TERRIFIC DEVIL ZONE'). The Court emphasized that since the defendants failed to deny the allegations of adaptation during pleadings, the injunction should be granted to protect the plaintiffs' reputation and goodwill.
Geoscope Exim Private Limited v.Snj Distillers Private Limited
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal filed by Geoscope Exim Private Limited challenging an interlocutory order regarding passing off. The court noted that the main suit was at an advanced stage and, based on mutual agreement between counsel, decided to dispose of the appeal without expressing a definitive view on the merits. This decision allows the Commercial Division to proceed with the final arguments in the original infringement and passing-off case.
Netsweeper Inc. v.Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited & Others
Netsweeper Inc. filed a suit against several entities for passing off its corporate name 'NETSWEEPER' and infringing on its trademark rights. The plaintiff sought damages, permanent injunctions, and an accounting of profits derived from the deceptive use of the brand. While the court addressed multiple claims including licensing fees and tax debts owed to the government, the judgment primarily focused on restraining the defendants from using or dealing with the 'NETSWEEPER' name in a manner that suggests affiliation with the plaintiff.
M/S.Godaddy.Com Llc v.M/S.Puravankara Projects Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a dispute over domain name infringement brought by M/S.Puravankara Projects Limited against Godaddy.com LLC and its Indian subsidiary. While the court acknowledged the Plaintiff's trademark rights, it significantly curtailed the scope of the suit. The mandatory injunction seeking removal of infringing trademarks was rejected due to lack of necessary parties, but the Plaintiff was allowed to proceed regarding alleged liability arising from the Defendants' use of domain suggestion tools.
Chitali Bottling Limited v.Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Chitali Bottling Limited seeking a temporary injunction against Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited. The core dispute revolved around the right to use specific country liquor brand names and labels. The court found that the Appellant's claim of an 'oral license' was a sham plea, especially given the existence of a written License Agreement from 2014. Furthermore, the court ruled that under the Trade Marks Act, perpetual oral assignment is not legally possible, concluding that the Appellant had no prima facie case.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitions were filed seeking directions to expedite the hearing and adjudication of a post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN 257402, which was facing significant delays by the Respondents (Controller/UOI). The Petitioner also challenged the validity of the Opposition Board's constitution and recommendation.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
Plaintiffs (Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr.) filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound Alectinib (Alecensa®). The dispute centered on the Defendant's alleged export and potential commercial launch of generic Alectinib products. The matter was amicably resolved.
Kawakami, Shigeki & Ors. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellants filed an appeal challenging the order dated November 15, 2021, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The original application (No. 201817032492) was rejected on the ground of lack of novelty under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Union of India
The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking directions to the respondents (Controller/UOI) to expedite the hearing and adjudication of a post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN 257402. The petitioner also challenged the validity of the Opposition Board's recommendation, alleging procedural flaws. The Court directed the Competent Authority to decide the pending representation and scheduled the patent proceedings.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Anupam Singh & Ors.
Sterlite Technologies Limited filed a suit seeking protection of its confidential IBR technology, which was developed by key employees who later joined a competing entity (Defendant No.3). The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants disclosed this proprietary information, leading to similar patent applications being filed by Defendant No.3, naming the former employees as inventors.
Kiran Jain & Ors. v.Kangaro Industries (Regd.) & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a long-standing dispute between two families regarding the use of the 'KANGARO' trademark for stationery products. Despite the Plaintiffs seeking permanent injunctions against foreign litigation, the Court recognized the complex history and the familial nature of the conflict. Consequently, the court mandated mediation while issuing interim directions allowing both parties to continue their respective trademark applications and statutory proceedings globally, provided they notify the opposing party if new civil or criminal actions are initiated.
S M Motorenteile Gmbh v.Maharashtra Motors & Ors.
S M Motorenteile GmbH successfully pursued an infringement suit in the Delhi High Court regarding its 'SM' trademark used for high-quality automotive parts. While a settlement was reached with Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the court decreed the suit against Defendants 4 to 6, finding them liable for selling counterfeit products under the disputed mark. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining clear documentation of brand history and rights in complex international IP disputes.
Tommy Hilfiger Europe Bv v.Ms Originals Clothing And Ors
In this execution petition, Tommy Hilfiger sought to enforce a settlement decree against Ms Originals Clothing for continuing the sale of its branded goods. Despite having previously settled, the Decree Holder alleged that the Judgment Debtors continued infringing on their trademarks both in physical stores and online platforms. The court allowed the application for local commissioners to conduct an investigation into post-decree sales and directed the Judgment Debtors to provide access to relevant financial records.
Ambuja Cements Limited v.Shiv Kripa Steels & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ambuja Cements Limited against Shiv Kripa Steels & Anr. The court found that the defendants' use of marks was a slavish imitation of Ambuja's registered trademarks 'AMBUJA' and 'VIRAT'. Given the likelihood of customer confusion in the common building materials trade, the injunction prevents the defendants from using deceptively similar marks or devices related to cement and allied goods.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The applicants (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma) filed applications seeking interim directions to restrain the respondents (MSN Laboratories and others) from infringing their patent rights over the medicinal product, Linagliptin. The court found that the defendants had not laid a credible challenge to the validity of the patent and tilted the balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiffs.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, filed applications seeking interim directions to restrain respondents from infringing their patent rights related to Linagliptin. The court found that the defendants had not presented a credible challenge to the patent's validity and tilted the balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiffs.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The applicants (Boehringer Ingelheim) filed applications seeking interim directions against the respondents (MSN Laboratories and others) for alleged infringement of their patent covering the compound Linagliptin. The court found that the defendants had not laid any credible challenge to the validity of the patent, thus tilting the balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiffs.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, filed applications seeking interim directions against respondents (including MSN Laboratories and others) for infringing their patent rights related to the medicinal product Linagliptin. The court found that the defendants had not presented a credible challenge to the patent's validity and tilted the balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiffs.
MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED v.THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS, BOUDHIK SAMPADA BHAVAN, DWARKA, SECTOR-32, PLOT 14 NEW DELHI-400037; BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO. KG
The plaintiff (MSN Laboratories) filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 243301. The defendants argued that the petition was time-barred as it was filed more than three years after the patent grant date. The court dismissed the applications, holding that the limitation period for challenging a patent is not necessarily from the date of grant but when the right to sue accrues, and affirming its territorial jurisdiction.
Tube Investments Of India Limited v.M/S Jagdamba Enterprises & Ors.
Tube Investments Of India Limited successfully moved the Delhi High Court to protect its 'DIAMOND' trademark against widespread counterfeiting in the automotive parts market. The court recognized the extensive goodwill associated with the mark and the clear evidence of infringement presented by the plaintiff, including discrepancies found via QR codes and packaging differences. Consequently, the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction and appointed Local Commissioners to conduct seizures and verification across various premises.
Amazon Seller Services Private Limited v.Amazonbuys.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Amazon Seller Services Private Limited to implead a new infringing website, 'storeamazon.co.in,' in its ongoing suit against rogue sellers. Citing precedent regarding mirror websites, the court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining this new defendant from infringing Amazon's trademarks and copyrights. Furthermore, the court directed various internet service providers (ISPs) and domain registrars to block access to the site and disclose registrant details, reinforcing judicial control over online piracy.
One Moto Scooters Trading Llc v.Centre Systems Group Internet Content Provider (CSG ICP)
The Delhi High Court issued interim orders in favor of One Moto Scooters Trading Llc, restraining Centre Systems Group Internet Content Provider from using the trademark 'ONE MOTO' or any deceptively similar mark. This protective order was granted to prevent imminent threat of unauthorized use, including manufacturing automotive products. Furthermore, the court directed that the domain name 'www.one-moto.in' remain blocked, maintaining the status quo until further proceedings.
Abhishek Kathuria & Anr. v.Ramesh Kumar Malhotra
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Abhishek Kathuria & Anr. against Ramesh Kumar Malhotra regarding the disputed trademark 'ROSABAGH'. The plaintiffs, who own and use the mark for furniture and artifacts, successfully argued that the defendant's adoption of a similar mark for a banquet hall constituted potential dilution and infringement. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs, leading to an immediate restraint on the defendant's use of the contested trademark until further hearing.
Capital One Financial Corporation v.Ashok Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital One Financial Corporation against Ashok Kumar & Anr. The court found a prima facie case that the defendants were unauthorizedly using marks and domain names deceptively similar to 'CAPITAL ONE' to mislead consumers into believing they were dealing with the major US bank. Consequently, the court restrained the parties from using these infringing marks and directed Google LLC to block the associated email address.
Mohit Varshney Proprietor, M/S Raj Food Products v.Serveshwar Food Product Pvt. Ltd.
In a complex cross-suit involving competing snack food brands, the Delhi High Court addressed trademark disputes between M/s Raj Food Products ('DECY') and Serveshwar Food Product Pvt. Ltd. ('LACY'). While acknowledging that the Plaintiff (Serveshwar) had prior registration of 'LACY', the court sought to balance interests by directing the Defendant (Raj Food) not to expand its product line under 'DECY' until further decision on injunctions. Crucially, the Court mandated mediation to explore an amicable resolution for both trademark and packaging disputes.
Kamla Kant And Company Llp v.Sanjay Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit filed by Kamla Kant & Company LLP against Sanjay Gupta & Anr. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of similar marks ('RAJ', 'KG') for tobacco and allied products, infringing upon the Plaintiff's established trademarks 'RAJSHREE' and 'KP'. Through a settlement agreement, the court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from using confusingly similar marks while allowing them to use 'KANTHA RAJA' under strict conditions. The parties also agreed on financial compensation and the destruction of infringing materials.
The European Union Represented By The European Commission v.Union Of India & Ors.
The European Union challenged the deemed abandonment of two patent applications (11123/DELNP/2012 and 3466/DELNP/2013) filed under Indian law. The Petitioner argued that despite procedural delays involving multiple patent agents, they had taken steps to respond to the First Examination Reports (FERs). Citing exceptional circumstances and observations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee regarding the inflexibility of abandonment rules, the Delhi High Court set aside the abandonment orders.
Havells India Limited v.Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt Ltd
Havells India Limited filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt Ltd, alleging that the latter's VENICE PRIME series of ceiling fans was a blatant imitation and substantial reproduction of Havells' registered ENTICER/ENTICER ART designs. The Plaintiff asserted its market dominance and unique design features protected under the Designs Act, 2000. The Delhi High Court found that the Plaintiff had successfully made out a prima facie case for infringement and balance of convenience in its favor.
The European Union Represented By The European Commission v.Union Of India & Ors.
The European Union challenged the deeming abandonment of two patent applications (11123/DELNP/2012 and 3466/DELNP/2013) filed under the Indian Patents Act. The Petitioner argued that delays, stemming from changes in legal counsel and communication issues with the initial patent agent, led to the abandonment orders. Citing exceptional circumstances and observations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee regarding the inflexibility of the Patent Act, the Delhi High Court set aside the abandonment orders.
Proprietect L P v.The Controller Of Patents
Proprietect L P filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 5706/DELNP/2011) by the Asst. Controller of Patents. The primary issue addressed in this order was the condonation of a significant delay in filing the appeal, which was ultimately granted.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Chardikla Accessories & Ors.
In the ongoing trademark dispute between Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Chardikla Accessories, the Delhi High Court issued an order on February 24, 2023. The court noted that Defendant No. 4 expressed a willingness to settle the matter, similar to Defendants No. 1 through 3. Consequently, the case was listed for further proceedings and settlement discussions on April 6, 2023.
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v.Www.Indiabullsdhanifinance.Co & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., finding that the defendant's website and domain name were engaged in trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court found that the use of deceptively similar marks ('Indiabulls', 'Dhani') and identical get-up was designed to mislead customers into believing the fraudulent site was affiliated with the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the defendant was permanently restrained from using the infringing marks and their website operation was suspended.
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller Of Patents
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft appealed an order by The Controller of Patents which rejected its patent application (No. 9149/DELNP/2014). The rejection was based on the grounds that the antibodies claimed were naturally occurring and thus non-patentable under Section 3(c) of the Act. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including condonation of delay, and issued notice for further arguments.
Evonik Operations Gmbh Address For Service In India Lexorbis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
Evonik Operations GmbH filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 201714031257). The rejection was based on the finding that the specification lacked a working example necessary to disclose the best method of performing the invention. This procedural order sets out the next steps for the appeal, requiring the respondent to file written submissions.
M/S Dreams Lingerie Products v.Akash Chaudhary
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Dreams Lingerie Products against Akash Chaudhary, restraining him from manufacturing or selling products under the deceptively similar mark 'DREAM'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case regarding trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises, inventory infringing goods, and examine manufacturing records.
ITC Limited v.Fortune Holidays Inn And Suites Private Limited & Anr.
ITC Limited filed a suit against Fortune Holidays Inn And Suites Private Limited and others, alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the use of the 'FORTUNE' brand in the hospitality sector. The court acknowledged ITC's extensive rights over the 'FORTUNE' trademarks and noted the potential for consumer confusion caused by the Defendants' unauthorized use. While reserving a full hearing on the merits, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, immediately stopping the Defendants from making new bookings under the disputed mark.
Ecomax Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Energeo Building Solutions Llp & Ors
The Plaintiff, Ecomax Solutions Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against the Defendants for infringing its patented ECOMax-HE Automatic Tube Cleaning System (ATC) and copyrighted drawings. The Plaintiff alleged that the defendants obtained confidential information and drawings while their partners were employees of the Plaintiff's customer, Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration Limited. The court allowed various interim applications and ordered a local commission to inspect the Defendants' manufacturing process.
Khandelwal Laboratories P Ltd v.Nava Healthcare P Ltd
The Delhi High Court formally recorded an amicable settlement between Khandelwal Laboratories P Ltd and Nava Healthcare P Ltd regarding trademark infringement. The Defendant, Nava Healthcare, acknowledged the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in 'KHANDELWAL' and 'KLAB' logos used for pharmaceutical products. As part of the settlement, the Defendant agreed to a permanent injunction, ceased using the marks, committed to disposing of existing stock by specific deadlines, and agreed to pay outstanding liabilities totaling over Rs 1.51 crores.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.M/S. K.K.Garments, Through Its Owner
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S. K.K.Garments, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed multiple Local Commissioners to inspect the defendants' premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the CK trademarks, and demand disclosure of financial records, significantly bolstering the plaintiff's ability to enforce its rights.
Shivan Ramachandran & Anr. v.Madhur Sharma
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on May 27, 2022. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents while simultaneously accepting a significant undertaking from the defendant. The defendant agreed to withdraw pending trademark applications and cease all sales of the disputed products, providing an affidavit detailing existing stock and past sales figures.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 229051 concerning pharmaceutical compositions comprising Valsartan and NEP Inhibitors. The court clarified that the Department's Public Notice was merely to collate local manufacturers and did not constitute Government Authorization under Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970. Consequently, the suit was decreed granting a permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against MSN Laboratories for alleged infringement of Patent No. 283133 concerning Pyrrolopyrimidine compounds. The dispute also involved whether a public notice issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals constituted government authorization to manufacture the patented drug, Ribociclib.
Interdigital Vc Holdings Inc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing their patents related to the High Efficiency Video Encoding (HEVC/H.265) standard. The Plaintiffs also seek to add further patents and devices that may infringe their rights.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Msn Laboratories Private Limited for alleged infringement of Patent No. 237430 (Inhibitors of Tyrosine Kinases). The dispute centered on whether the Department of Pharmaceuticals' public notice constituted government authorization to manufacture the drug Nilotinib. The court, without considering the merits of infringement or validity, directed that Msn Laboratories must provide four weeks' advance notice before commencing commercial production.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 233161. The court examined the defendant's affidavit, which claimed no commercial activity related to the patented drug ELTROMBOPAG OLAMINE/ REVOLADE. Furthermore, the Department of Pharmaceuticals clarified that its public notice was merely for collating local manufacturers and did not constitute government authorization under Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970.
The Regents of the University of California v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
The Regents of the University of California filed an appeal challenging the rejection of their patent application, No.10336/DELNP/2013, titled "Blockade Of Inflammatory Proteases With Theta - Defensins." The initial rejections were based on objections under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970. After subsequent amendments, the application was rejected again under S. 59 r/w S.15. This order sets out procedural directions for the parties to file replies and written submissions before the next hearing.
Pfizer Inc And Ors v.Jodas Expoim Pvt Ltd And Anr
The court framed several issues in this commercial suit concerning alleged patent infringement by the defendants against Pfizer Inc and Ors. The core questions revolve around whether the defendants' activities infringe two specific Indian Patents (No. 218291 and No. 209251) and if the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction or damages.
Patanjali Aryurved Limited v.Raj Mandir Retails Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'PATANJALI' brand, specifically 'PATANJALI COW'S GHEE'. While the Plaintiff sought strict enforcement against alleged counterfeiters, the court opted for an amicable resolution approach. The parties, including Defendant No.1 (Raj Mandir Retails Private Limited) and Defendant No.3, were referred to the Mediation Centre. Furthermore, the Court granted interim relief allowing Defendant No.1 to exhaust its existing genuine stock while seeking a structured path toward resolving the dispute.
Sterne India Private Limited v.Haier Appliances India Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sterne India Private Limited against a District Judge's order that had appointed a Local Commissioner to seize goods allegedly infringing Haier's trademark. The court noted that the original order appeared flawed because it treated the appellant as the direct seller, ignoring its role as an online marketing platform. While staying the seizure order, the High Court mandated that Sterne provide details of all sellers on its platform using the 'HAIER' brand to properly address the infringement claims.
A India Print House Through Its Partners Kunal Kapoor and Vibha Kapoor v.Pavan Bansal Trading As Bajrang Traders
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of A India Print House against Pavan Bansal Trading As Bajrang Traders. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was deceptively using the identical trademark, trade-dress, and color scheme ('MERCURY') for playing cards, leading to a high likelihood of consumer confusion and passing off. The Court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, concluding that the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm while the suit proceeds.
Shakthi Fashion & Anr. v.Burberry Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to reject a plaint based on territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement suit. The court examined whether the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction, considering both past incidents in Bangalore and ongoing activities in New Delhi. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claims regarding online sales (IndiaMart) and local solicitation in Delhi, the High Court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, stating that the question of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence at trial.
Ht Media Limited & Anr. v.Www.Hindustantimes.Tech & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted permission to HT Media Limited to proceed against the infringing domain name www.hindustantimes.tech in a suit covering copyright, trademark, and passing off. The court found that the impugned website was deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' established brand 'Hindustan Times' and was reproducing their copyrighted content. Crucially, the judgment provided a strong enforcement mechanism by directing the communication of the order to ICANN, leveraging Registrar Accreditation Agreement clauses to ensure compliance from domain registrars.
FMC Corporation v.Insecticides India Limited
The case involves FMC Corporation and others against Insecticides India Limited regarding patent infringement. The defendant has indicated they will not launch a product until certain patents expire.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Beaukev Pharma International Pvt. Ltd
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Beaukev Pharma International Pvt. Ltd for infringing its registered patent (IN'816) related to Sitagliptin. The dispute was subsequently settled under the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc appealed the rejection of its patent application for "ghosted synchronization" by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The rejection was primarily based on non-patentability under Section 3(k). The Court directed the Assistant Controller to submit a comprehensive report addressing the objections raised in the First Examination Report.
Sunit Shah v.Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sunit Shah against Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal regarding alleged trademark infringement. The court found that the similarity between the plaintiff's mark ('SHAH/SHAH NAMKEEN') and the defendant's mark ('SHAH JI NAMKEEN'), applied to identical goods (namkeen), created a likelihood of confusion. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the infringing mark until further hearing, and a Local Commissioner was appointed to seize and inventory the disputed goods.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Msn Laboratories Limited
This order was passed in an interim application filed by the Plaintiffs (Astrazeneca Ab). The Defendant (MSN Laboratories Limited), through its counsel, requested a restraint on commercial launch while challenging the patent's validity and rights under Section 107(A) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Welcome Shoes Private Limited v.Retro Footwears Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court judgment in Welcome Shoes vs. Retro Footwears concluded the dispute through an amicable settlement between the parties. The defendants agreed to withdraw several similar trademarks, cease using deceptively similar marks like 'BURE' or 'WELCOMO' for footwear, and refrain from diluting the plaintiff's established brands ('WELCOME' and 'PURE'). This resolution provides a clear path forward, binding both companies to the terms of the settlement decree.
M/S JK Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Raj Kumar Singla Trading As M/S Shiv Shakti Sanitary Store & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S JK Lakshmi Cement Limited against Raj Kumar Singla Trading As M/S Shiv Shakti Sanitary Store. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of trademark infringement, leading to the restraint on the defendants from using the 'JK Smart' mark for wall putty and related products. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing goods and inspect the defendant's accounts, reinforcing the immediate protective measures available in IP litigation.
Semco Infratech Pvt Ltd v.Simla Chemicals Pvt Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment resolves a trademark dispute between Simla Chemicals (owner of SIMCO) and Semco Infratech (using SEMCO). The parties reached an amicable settlement, leading the court to decree the original suit in terms of this agreement. Under the settlement, Simla retains ownership of 'SIMCO' but is permitted to expand its product range, while Semco can continue using 'SEMCO' for specific goods and services, provided they pursue necessary registrations. The ruling provides a clear path forward for both parties to operate without ongoing litigation.
Sudhir Bhatia Trading As V.Bhatia International v.Central Government Of India & Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a challenge to the registration of the trademark 'LAXMAN REKHA' by arguing that the initial advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal was illegible. The petitioner sought to quash the advertisement and compel re-advertisement, claiming this error prejudiced their ability to file an opposition. However, the court ultimately dismissed the petition, emphasizing that while the Registrar has a duty to ensure proper advertising, the petitioner's significant delay in challenging the registration—despite learning of the issue years earlier—precluded the High Court from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
M/S Subros Educational Society v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Subros Educational Society against the refusal of registration for its trademark 'SBS World School'. The court found that the Registrar failed to properly consider the Appellant's existing registrations for similar marks under 'SBS' in Class 41. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trademarks for fresh consideration.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The court found that the Defendant's use of the deceptively similar trademark 'FOLZEST' infringed upon the Plaintiff's registered mark 'FORZEST'. Recognizing the potential for irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendant from selling or manufacturing the infringing product until further hearing. Furthermore, a Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect and seize all medicines bearing the impugned mark.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The case involves a dispute over the infringement of a patent related to the drug Pazopanib Hydrochloride. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant manufactured stock during the patent's lifetime, while the Defendant argues that they launched the product only after the patent expired.
Radico Khaitan Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Radico Khaitan Ltd challenging the rejection of its trademark application for "EFKAY'S FIVE STAR MYSORE BRANDY." The court found that the Senior Examiner failed to properly consider the Appellant's existing assigned rights in 'EFKAY'S.' While this addressed the Section 11 objection, the court remanded the matter back to the Registrar. The examiner must now reconsider the application based on the remaining descriptive elements of the mark, ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. v.Registrar Trade Marks
Radico Khaitan Ltd. appealed the rejection of its trademark application 'EFKAY'S XXX RUM (DEVICE)' by the Registrar of Trademarks, citing conflicts with existing marks. The appellant argued that several related 'EFKAYS' series marks had been legally assigned to them. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the arguments and directed all related appeals concerning similar mark rejections to be listed together for a comprehensive hearing.
Makind Pharma Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Makind Pharma Limited's appeal against the rejection of its trade mark application for "DON'T WORRY" in Class 3. The court held that, given the Appellant's existing registrations of the mark across various classes, the refusal based solely on lack of distinctiveness was unwarranted. The application was permitted to proceed for advertisement before acceptance, provided it is associated with the registered trademark 'MANKIND'S DON'T WORRY', and no exclusive rights are granted in the words 'DON'T' or 'WORRY' alone.
Northland Rubber Mills v.Varun Mahajan & Anr.
Northland Rubber Mills filed a civil suit seeking an injunction against Varun Mahajan and others to prevent the use of the trademark 'NORTHLAND' or similar marks. The plaintiff asserted ownership based on historical adoption dating back to 1972. However, the defendants argued that Defendant No. 1 had rights as a legal heir and ex-partner of the firm. The court registered the suit and issued notice for the injunction application, setting the stage for further arguments.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (l026/DEL/2012) by the Controller of Patents, Chennai. The rejection was based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court ordered a report to be filed regarding novelty and inventive step before further consideration.
Jitendra Kohli v.The Controller Of Patents
Jitendra Kohli appealed the rejection of his patent application concerning an electronic tendering system. The Assistant Controller rejected the application under Section 3(k) for being a business method, based on the original process claims. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller erred by not considering the later-filed amended 'system and process claims', leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.