Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 12101–12200 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Sequenom Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Sequenom Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 3139/DELNP/2012) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which held it non-patentable under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the invention was a screening test, not a diagnostic test, while the respondent relied on the broad definition of 'Pre-Natal Diagnostic Test' under the PCPNDT Act.
Sandisk Llc v.Jpy Mobile Phone Accessories & Anr.
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court addressed persistent violations by JPY Mobile Phone Accessories despite an existing interim injunction. The court found that the defendants continued to sell counterfeit 'SanDisk' products, even after large stocks were seized and returned on superdari. Consequently, the court issued bailable warrants against the promoters of the defendant and directed the police to take custody of all previously inventoried infringing goods for the plaintiff's safe keeping.
Pi Industries Limited v.Seedlings India Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications before proceeding with the main suit. The court decreed the suit against Defendants No. 1 to 3, based on their submission that they would not contest the patent infringement claim and were willing to suffer an injunction.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd v.Sujay Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (AMUL). The court condoned a delay in filing an amended plaint and allowed Defendant No.1 to participate fully in the proceedings, recalling an earlier ex-parte order. Crucially, the court reiterated previous directions requiring social media platforms like Meta and Google to take down content featuring AMUL's brand or mascot that targets the company in the context of animal cruelty within 36 hours of notification.
Jagran Prakashan Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
Jagran Prakashan Limited appealed the abandonment of its trademark application for 'JAGRAN' in Class 12, which was initiated due to non-filing of a reply to the Examination Report (FER). The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had approached the court too belatedly. Despite acknowledging the appellant's existing rights in related marks, the court held that the delay in responding to the FER and filing the present appeal was too long to be condoned.
M/S P.M. Diesels P. Ltd. v.M/S Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex matter involving the trademark 'FIELD MARSHAL,' which had been pending for decades across multiple forums, including the IPAB. The court set aside an earlier order dismissing the cancellation petition by default, finding that the dismissal was erroneous given the long-standing nature of the dispute and common evidence already led. Consequently, the High Court restored the cancellation petition and consolidated it with the original suit (Suit No. 2408/1985), directing the matter to be listed for final arguments.
M/S.Gm Modular Private Limited v.K.Dalpat Singh
The Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by M/S. Gm Modular Private Limited seeking the rectification of two rival trademarks, 'GM Pipe' and 'GMware'. The court found that the 1st Respondent adopted these marks with an ulterior motive to ride on the Petitioner’s established goodwill and reputation associated with the 'GM' brand since 1999. Despite arguments regarding differing classes of goods (Class 19 vs Class 17), the court held that the similarity and bad faith adoption justified removing the infringing marks from the Register.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 233161, which covers 'ELTROMBOPAG OLAMINE / REVOLADE'. The cause of action arose from an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals indicating that the defendant was included in a list for procuring the patented preparation.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Msn Laboratories Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 283133, which covers PYRROLOPYRIMIDINE (RIBOCICLIB). The cause of action arose from an Office Memorandum indicating the government's intent to procure RIBOCICLIB TAB/CAP, and Novartis argued this posed a threat to its patent rights.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Msn Laboratories for alleged infringement of its patent (No. 237430) covering Inhibitors of Tyrosine Kinases, specifically related to the drug NILOTINIB/TASIGNA. The dispute arose from an Office Memorandum indicating that the Defendant was being considered by the Department of Pharmaceuticals for manufacturing this patented preparation.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis Ag filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 229051, which covers pharmaceutical compositions comprising Valsartan and NEP Inhibitors. The cause of action arose from an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, listing the defendant for procurement of 'SACUBITRIL + VALSARTAN'.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Mackedos Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
In this trademark infringement suit, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited sought a permanent injunction against Mackedos Pharmaceuticals Ltd. regarding the use of the mark 'OFLOMAC.' The court noted that the matter was previously stayed pending an IPAB order which ultimately favored the Plaintiff by ordering the removal of the Defendant's mark due to deceptive similarity with 'OFRAMAX.' However, given conflicting statements made by counsel before the Bombay High Court regarding the continuation of the suit, the Delhi High Court decided not to rule on the procedural dispute and instead issued notice for the Defendant to file a reply.
Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. v.Mukesh Dalmia
In this Delhi High Court order, Jindal Stainless sought to cancel an upcoming evidence recording date before a Local Commissioner. The request was made because the Plaintiff had filed rectification proceedings challenging the Defendant's trademark registration. Since the Defendant raised no objection, the court allowed the application and cancelled the scheduled date, allowing the parties to mutually fix a new convenient time.
Getaround, Inc. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenges the rejection of a patent application for "VEHICLE ACCESS CONTROL SERVICES AND PLATFORM" by the Patent Office, which cited two US patents (D5 and D6) on grounds of lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that their invention differs significantly from the prior arts, particularly regarding communication flow.
Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. successfully appealed a trademark rejection by The Registrar of Trademarks in the Delhi High Court. The court overturned the Senior Examiner's decision, which had cited lack of distinctiveness and descriptive nature. Recognizing the extensive goodwill and long-standing use of the 'KARIM/KARIM'S' mark since 1913, the court allowed the application to proceed for registration, subject only to association with existing registrations regarding specific descriptive terms.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Vickey Trading As M/S Fash Wagon & Ors.
Havells India Limited successfully resolved its trademark infringement dispute against Vickey Trading As M/S Fash Wagon & Ors. through a comprehensive settlement agreement before the Delhi High Court. The parties agreed that the defendants would cease all use of the infringing mark 'HAVEL' and similar variants, take down online listings, destroy counterfeit materials, and pay damages to Havells. This judgment formally decrees the terms of this amicable resolution.
Starbucks Corporation v.Teaquila A Fashion Cafe & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Starbucks Corporation, granting a permanent injunction against Teaquila A Fashion Cafe & Anr. for infringing the registered trademark 'FRAPPUCCINO' and engaging in passing off. Despite the defendants being proceeded ex parte, the court found them guilty of infringement based on the evidence presented by Starbucks. Furthermore, the court awarded damages to Starbucks, noting that while specific sales figures were lacking, notional damages could be granted given the established infringement.
Symphony Limited v.Raj Cooling System Private Limited
Symphony Limited filed a suit against Raj Cooling System Private Limited alleging infringement of its registered design (No. 288184) for air coolers. The dispute was settled amicably between the parties, leading to the court disposing of the suit.
Kanishk Sinha & Anr v.Union Of India & Anr
The appellants challenged the dismissal of their writ petition, which sought linkage between their software and the 'VAHAN' vehicle registration system. The core issue raised was entitlement to compensation under Section 102(3) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Kuvam Gujral v.Ashim Gujral & Ors
This appeal challenges a single judge's order that restrained the appellant from using the trademark 'Moti Mahal'. The core dispute revolves around the devolution of proprietary rights in the unregistered trademark following the death of its original applicant. The appellant argues that since the trademark was inherited by multiple branches through intestate succession, all descendants should have the right to use it, preventing exclusion.
Ruptech Educational India v.Mansi Aggarwal
The Delhi High Court formally decreed a commercial suit between Ruptech Educational India and Mansi Aggarwal based on an amicable settlement reached by both parties. The settlement agreement addressed disputes concerning formative trademarks, specifically the word 'SCOTTISH.' Key terms included the withdrawal of pending trademark applications by the defendant, a limited grace period for the use of certain marks until December 31, 2022, and subsequent cessation of all related activities. This judgment provides a clear example of how parties can resolve complex IP disputes through mediation.
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. v.Swati Narula
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. successfully obtained an interim injunction from the Delhi High Court against Swati Narula in a copyright infringement suit concerning unique artistic garments. The court recognized the Plaintiff's rights over its distinctive designs and granted permission for a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the Defendant's premises. This decisive order allows the Plaintiff to gather evidence of alleged counterfeiting, paving the way for further litigation against the infringer.
Astra Zeneca Ab v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The dispute involved Astra Zeneca alleging infringement of its formulation patents (IN 247984 and IN 272674) by Torrent Pharmaceuticals' product, Ticagrelor. The parties amicably resolved their differences before the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Metrochem Api Pvt. Ltd
The parties amicably resolved their dispute concerning Patent Infringement (CS(COMM) No. 406 of 2019). The Settlement Agreement stipulated that the suit would be decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs, who hold exclusive rights over products containing Sitagliptin.
Galatea Ltd. v.M. Kantilal Exports
This case involved multiple suits concerning patent and copyright infringement, where petitioners sought the appointment of a local commissioner to inspect infringing activities. The High Court found that the initial commission report was flawed because it did not follow mandatory provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, specifically regarding issuing notice to respondents before inspection. Consequently, the court discarded the existing reports and directed the trial court to issue a fresh commission.
T K D Keerthi, Sole Proprietress, M/S Lifeimpressions v.Yamini Manohar
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by T K D Keerthi against the Commercial Court's decision regarding an interim injunction. While the appellant initially accepted waiting for a final decision, the core grievance centered on the lower court prematurely deciding material issues related to trademark abandonment. The Court subsequently issued notice to the respondent, allowing the litigation to proceed and address these specific concerns.
BASF SE v.SEEDLINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR
BASF SE filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Seedlings India Private Limited and others for infringing its Patent No. IN 271338, which covers crystalline complexes used in fungicides/insecticides. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants' products were approved under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, despite previous undertakings by related group companies not to infringe the patent.
Unilever Plc v.Mukesh
The applicants filed an interim application seeking the extension and granting of ad-interim injunctions against the defendants. The court granted temporary injunctions restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods in the FMCG industry using counterfeit marks, pirated artwork, or trade dress deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks (VIM) and prior used trademarks (U-Logo, SURF/SURF EXCEL).
BASF SE v.GSP CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit seeking protection of its patent No. IN 271338, which covers crystalline complexes containing thiophanate-methyl and pyraclostrobin used as a fungicide. The court addressed several procedural applications before granting an interim order regarding the injunction request.
Unilever Plc. v.Aman Chauhan
In this interim application concerning trademark and copyright infringement, Unilever Plc. sought a short adjournment to continue identifying the true parties involved in the counterfeiting operation. The court noted that amendments had been made to implead the party found at the premises during the execution of an earlier ad-interim order. Given that Unilever was still actively tracing the ultimate owner of the infringing premises, the High Court granted the request for adjournment until May 4, 2022, ensuring the existing protective orders remained in force.
M/S M K Enterprises v.M/S Jems Engineering
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S M K Enterprises against an interim injunction favoring M/S Jems Engineering. The dispute centered on trademark infringement and passing off concerning submersible pumps, where both parties used similar marks (JAMES vs. JEMS). The court found that the respondent-plaintiff successfully established prima facie evidence of prior use dating back to 2004, outweighing the appellant's claims of later registration and business commencement in 2013. Consequently, the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, upholding the injunction.
Mody Pumps Inc v.Sovereign Pumping Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed an interim application alleging that defendants, former employees, colluded to steal copyrighted engineering drawings and confidential data relating to water pumps. The plaintiffs sought a restraining order against the defendants for manufacturing and marketing identical products. The court granted an interim injunction but stayed its operation for one week.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing their patent on Lactam-Containing Compounds (Apixaban API). The Defendant submitted an affidavit stating that it had not supplied commercial quantities and agreed to manufacture/sell the drug solely under Section 107A(a) of the Patents Act, leading the Court to pass an interim restraint order.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India
The petitioner, the patentee/assignee of Patent No. 254875, challenged an order by the Secretary, Government of India, regarding their request for a patent linkage to the VAHAN e-Module. The core dispute was whether the patent holder could mandate that electric vehicle registration (specifically e-Rickshaws) be subject to NOC issuance based on the patent before official registration.
Mahindra And Mahindra Limited v.Kanishk Sinha & Ors.
The case involved a suit alleging violation of Patent Rights. The petitioner sought modification/variation of an existing ad interim injunction, citing financial losses and delay in the disposal of interlocutory applications. The court directed the lower court to ensure these pending applications are disposed of expeditiously within six weeks.
Satnam Brush Industry v.Kori Brush Industries
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Satnam Brush Industry, decreeing the suit against Kori Brush Industries for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant deliberately imitated the plaintiff's complete range of products, trade dress, packaging, and product codes, causing consumer confusion. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from further misuse and ordered to pay costs to the plaintiff.
Parmesh Construction Company Limited v.Mahinder Bhutani & Anr.
Parmesh Construction Company Limited filed a petition seeking the cancellation and rectification of Mahinder Bhutani's registered mark 'BHUTANI'. The court noted that while the petitioner argued 'BHUTANI' is a common surname, they also use it in their own trademark 'BHUTANI INFRA'. The court directed notice to be issued to the respondents and scheduled further hearings, indicating the matter will proceed through litigation.
Lilly Icos Llc v.Vivek Pharmachem And Anr.
The dispute between Lilly Icos Llc and Vivek Pharmachem was amicably resolved through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties executed a settlement agreement where they mutually acknowledged each other's respective trademarks, 'CIALIS' and 'ZYDALIS'. Crucially, Defendant No. 2 agreed not to use any mark with the suffix 'ALIS' for erectile dysfunction drugs, while Plaintiff agreed to withdraw an opposition against ZYDALIS. The court subsequently decreed the suit against Defendant No. 2 based on these settlement terms.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.M S Sunmarker Pharmaceuticals & Anr
In a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. successfully reached a comprehensive settlement with M S Sunmarker Pharmaceuticals & Anr before the Delhi High Court. The parties jointly filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, leading to a decree that formally acknowledged Sun Pharma's rights in 'SUN' and 'SUN PHARMA'. Under the terms of the agreement, the Defendants agreed to cease using the infringing mark, destroy related materials, and withdraw their trademark application.
Amritsar Rice Land v.Sumit Bansal & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark dispute concerning rice products, the Delhi High Court issued a critical interim order regarding seized inventory. Recognizing that rice is a perishable commodity, the court permitted the Defendants to dispose of the substantial stock (30,000-35,000 kgs) held under local commissioner's supervision. This relief was contingent upon the Defendants depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- with the court and strictly adhering to a complete cessation of further manufacture or sale under the disputed brands.
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 during the proceedings.
Valent Biosciences Llc v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Valent Biosciences Llc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201717025151). The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step under relevant sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed applications for additional documents and exempted filing fees, and listed the appeal for further hearing.
The British School Society v.Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of The British School Society, confirming an existing interim injunction against the Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society. The court found that the unauthorized and continuous use of the identical mark 'The British School' by the Defendants constituted misrepresentation and caused irreparable prejudice to the Plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the Defendants were mandated to change their school names effective May 1, 2022, ensuring a smooth transition for enrolled students.
Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Orangebelly Food And Beverages Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Defendants sought to return the plaint due to a lack of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the Plaintiff's principal place of business was in Mumbai while the Defendant operated only one restaurant in Patna. The Delhi High Court rejected the immediate request for return of the plaint, noting the Plaintiff's successful history of obtaining injunctions across various jurisdictions. Consequently, the court ordered that the status quo be maintained by the Defendant until further orders, allowing the litigation to proceed.
Dr Ramesh Chander Munjal & Ors. v.Dr Suraj Munjal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed two connected suits, one concerning the infringement of the registered trademark 'SPECTRA EYE' and the other dealing with immovable property partition. The court noted that the trademark issue was complex and had been extensively heard by another bench. Consequently, the matter was listed for further adjudication before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal on May 11, 2022.
Pb Fintech Pvt Ltd v.Policy Bazar Finance & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Pb Fintech Pvt Ltd's application to implead additional defendants (No. 18 to 22) in its trademark infringement suit against Policy Bazar Finance & Ors. Crucially, the court modified existing interim injunction orders to extend protection against these newly added parties. The order reinforces the plaintiff's rights by restraining all named parties from using deceptively similar marks and mandates domain registrars and ISPs to block access to infringing websites.
Wsou Investments Llc v.Zte Telecom India Private Limited & Anr
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringement of Indian Patent No. 322101, along with damages and other reliefs. The disputes were settled, leading to the withdrawal of the suit and counterclaim.
Marico Limited v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
Marico Limited successfully challenged the actions of the Trademark Registry in the Madras High Court, arguing that the Registrar acted without jurisdiction when removing its registered trademark 'MANJAL'. The court ruled in favor of Marico, holding that the Registrar improperly bypassed statutory requirements by proceeding with rectification despite an ongoing infringement suit. This judgment reinforces the strict jurisdictional limits placed on the Registrar under the Trademarks Act.
Saga Lifesciences Limited v.Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the brand 'ULTRAMOL', the Delhi High Court recognized Saga Lifesciences Limited as the prior adopter and user of the mark for pharmaceutical preparations. Despite initial procedural applications being disposed of, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises of Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The commissioner is tasked with inventorying products bearing both 'ULTRAMOL' and 'ARISTO ULTRAMOL', and critically, examining the sales accounts of the defendant to assess the scope of alleged infringement.
Osram Gmbh & Anr. v.Tejmeet Singh Sethi & Anr.
In this Delhi High Court matter, the court addressed the ongoing suit concerning the 'OSRAM' trademark. The defendants voluntarily expressed their intent to abandon two specific trademark applications for the mark. Consequently, the court confirmed the existing interim injunction granted in favor of Osram Gmbh & Anr., while also directing the parties to list all relevant trademark filings for future consideration.
Elcom Innovation Pvt Ltd v.Harish Sharma & Ors.
Elcom Innovation Pvt. Ltd. filed suit seeking permanent injunction against its erstwhile employee and shareholder, Harish Sharma, alleging misuse and disclosure of proprietary sensitive and highly confidential information/data. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent further leakage of this IP. However, the court dismissed both applications, finding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction due to the vagueness of the claimed confidential information.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed against an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected a post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN319780, thereby maintaining the patent. The Appellant argued that the impugned order was non-speaking and unreasoned. Both parties consented to the matter being remanded.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Co. KG v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs sought an injunction and damages against the defendant for infringing their patent rights related to Linagliptin. The defendant challenged the plaint's validity, arguing that the suit was barred by law under Section 53(4) of the Patents Act or not properly filed. The court dismissed the application seeking rejection of the plaint.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The court heard various interlocutory applications in a patent infringement suit concerning standards essential patents related to 3G, 4G, and 5G communications. The primary focus was on allowing the Plaintiffs (Interdigital) to reserve rights to add future infringing devices and additional patents from their large portfolio.
Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v.Akash S. Shah & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a suit filed by Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. against Akash S. Shah & Anr., which sought permanent injunctions for trademark and copyright infringement and passing off. The parties reached an out-of-court settlement, which the court incorporated into its decree. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff based on these terms, and the Plaintiff was granted a refund of the entire Court Fees.
M/S Drs Logistics (P) Ltd & Another v.Google India Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by Drs Logistics against Google regarding trademark infringement via search engine advertising. The court recognized that using a registered trademark as a keyword could lead to consumer confusion, diverting traffic from the plaintiff's site to competitors. Consequently, the court granted interim injunctions requiring Google and other defendants to investigate any complaints of misuse and remove or block advertisements found to be infringing or causing passing off.
SMC Foods Limited & Anr. v.Jyoti Devi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of SMC Foods Limited, recognizing the prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were deceptively imitating the Plaintiffs' established brand 'MADHUSUDAN,' including its unique packaging and trade dress. This interim order immediately restricts the defendants from manufacturing or selling products bearing similar marks or designs until the final hearing.
ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD. v.JUMBO ELECTRIC COMPANY
The case involves a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the infringement of patent no. 193488, which pertains to a conversion kit for fluorescent lighting. The Plaintiff has not appeared in court since November 2017, leading to the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution.
Sanofi India Limited v.Ridley Life Science Private Limited
Sanofi India Limited filed a suit against Ridley Life Science Private Limited alleging continuous violation of an earlier injunction order, specifically regarding the sale of products under the marks 'CONCIFLAM' and 'CORIFLAM'. The Plaintiff claimed that these infringing products were being sold despite the May 2021 restraint on using marks similar to its registered trademark 'COMBIFLAM'. The court noted the defendant's history of alleged habitual infringement in pharmaceutical preparations. Consequently, the court directed the defendant to submit detailed sales figures and imposed a significant deposit amount due to the persistent violations.
Surbhi Tangri v.Nishant Goel
The Punjab-Haryana High Court allowed Surbhi Tangri's appeal, setting aside a lower court order that had dismissed her application for an injunction. The court found that the defendant's use of 'DECORALLEY' was deceptively similar to the petitioner's registered trademark, 'The Décor Alley'. Despite arguments regarding different mark types (word vs. device) and business models, the High Court emphasized the common law principle of passing off, ruling that a common man would be deceived by the similarity.
Sopariwala Exports & Ors. v.Mr Grijesh Kumar Garg & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Sopariwala Exports & Ors. against Mr Grijesh Kumar Garg & Ors. The court found that the Plaintiffs had established a strong prima facie case regarding their well-known trademark 'AFZAL' used for tobacco products. Given the potential irreparable harm to the Plaintiff's goodwill, the Court restrained the Defendants from manufacturing or selling any goods using deceptively similar marks like 'AFDHAAL' and 'ALAFDHAAL', pending further hearings.
The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company and Goodyear India Ltd. v.Deva Nand Sukhia
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark dispute where Goodyear sought an injunction against Deva Nand Sukhia for using the 'GOOD YEAR' mark in relation to lubricants and greases. The court affirmed that 'GOOD YEAR' is a well-known mark, granting an interim injunction restraining its use across various goods. Although the Plaintiff initially sought damages, they agreed not to press this relief after the Defendant tendered an apology, resulting in the decree being passed with costs imposed on the defendant.
Enlearn Education Private Limited & Anr. v.Sd Memorial Education And Welfare Society & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an injunction application filed by Enlearn Education Private Limited against Sd Memorial Education Society concerning the use of the mark 'HERITAGE'. The court found prima facie grounds for intervention, noting that the Defendants adopted a similar name ('THE HERITAGE PRIDE MODERN SCHOOL') after being aware of the Plaintiffs' established trademark rights. Consequently, the Court issued an immediate directive restraining the Defendants from opening any further schools incorporating the word 'HERITAGE' or applying for recognition under that name. The court reserved the final decision on interim relief regarding the existing school until proper notice was served.
Dr.S.Chandralekha / M/s.Iswarya Fertility Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Dr.Aravind Chander
The Madras High Court addressed applications filed by the defendant, Dr. Aravind Chander, challenging the jurisdiction and maintainability of a trademark infringement suit brought by Dr. S. Chandralekha and M/s. Iswarya Fertility Services Pvt. Ltd. The court rejected arguments regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiff could establish personal work for gain in Chennai under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. Furthermore, the court ruled that the non-joinder of a related entity was not fatal to the suit's maintainability.
Zydus Wellness Limited v.Mis. Siddhi Margarine Specialities Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses a suit previously decreed between Zydus Wellness Limited and Mis. Siddhi Margarine Specialities Limited. Following an amicable resolution, both parties had deposited funds with the DHCBA Pandemic Relief Fund. The court noted compliance regarding deposits and stock statements. Crucially, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process the modification/alteration forms filed by Defendant No.1 concerning their registered marks.
Preeti / Kosmos Global v.Suresh R. Jain
This case involved allegations by Preeti (Kosmos Global) against Suresh R. Jain for infringing their registered copyright and passing off their hair colour products under the trademark 'BEAUTE BLANC'. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of a similar pack/carton design and the name 'Skenique'. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement agreement, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the terms of the joint memo.
Government E Marketplace v.Unilex Consultants & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Government E Marketplace (GeM) against various parties for misusing its brand name. The plaintiff alleged that several defendants were registering or using 'GeM' as a domain name or URL extension, misleading the public into believing they were associated with the official portal. The court granted permanent injunctions and ordered the suspension of multiple infringing domains, reinforcing the protection of government digital brands against unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiffs, developers of the Fantasy Sports Mobile Application 'EXCHANGE22', filed a suit alleging that the Defendants operate a competing application named MYFAB11 which infringes upon their copyrighted works. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using or making available the infringing content and directed them to suspend domain name registration and remove the app.
Bajaj Finance Ltd & Anr. v.Niko Das & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Bajaj Finance Ltd against Niko Das & Anr. The court found that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case demonstrating that the Defendants were fraudulently using identical or deceptively similar marks, such as 'BAJAJ' and 'BAJAJ FINANCE,' to offer financial services. This unauthorized use was deemed to constitute trademark infringement and passing off, causing potential confusion among the public.
M/s.R.K.Ganapathi Chettiar v.Kothai Dairy Farm
M/s.R.K.Ganapathi Chettiar filed a suit against Kothai Dairy Farm and others alleging infringement of their trademarks and copyrights related to the product 'ghee'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and rendition of accounts due to alleged passing off and unauthorized use of artistic works and trade dress. Ultimately, the parties reached a Joint Compromise Memo on 21.03.2022, which was subsequently decreed by the Madras High Court.
M/s.R.K.Ganapathi Chettiar v.Kothai Dairy Farm
M/s.R.K.Ganapathi Chettiar filed a suit against Kothai Dairy Farm and others alleging infringement of their trademarks and copyrights concerning the product 'ghee'. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were passing off goods using deceptively similar artistic works, trade dress, and color combinations associated with the plaintiff's registered trademark (No. 463167). Despite the initial claims for injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately resolved their dispute by entering into a Joint Compromise Memo dated March 21, 2022.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Mr. Mahaveer Chand
The contempt petition was filed by Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp alleging non-compliance with a previous court order and settlement agreement concerning patent IN' 816. The petitioner claimed that the respondent continued dealing in products covered by the patent, specifically generic versions of Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate. The Court directed the respondent to file an affidavit with an unconditional apology.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
This judgment addressed an application seeking dismissal of a patent revocation petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The court examined Section 64 of the Patents Act and the concept of a 'person interested'.
Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademarks
Daewoong Pharmaceutical appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No.201817048074), which covered a crystalline form of compound c28. The rejection was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, as the drug was considered known and lacked enhanced therapeutic efficacy. Daewoong sought to introduce additional data demonstrating superior properties like stability and dissolution rates. The High Court accepted the application for additional documents but framed two critical issues: whether this post-filing data is admissible, and if the crystalline form ultimately meets Section 3(d) requirements.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 1, 2021, passed by the Assistant Controller. The said order rejected the patent application for 'Use of a Thiazolo Pyrimidinone' on grounds of lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Sections 3(e) and 3(d) of the Patents Act.
Ms Aman Engineering Works v.Registrar Trade Marks Trade Marks Registry New Delhi & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses the status of two trademark applications, 'RITE KRANTI' and 'B&M KRANTI,' which are subject to review regarding potential abandonment. The core legal question revolves around whether applications for abandoning these trademarks could be accepted after a significant passage of time. Furthermore, the court noted that the Petitioner had previously filed an opposition against these very marks in 2020, adding complexity to the ongoing dispute.
Minda Spectrum Advisory Limited & Ors. v.Ab Petrochem
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Minda Spectrum Advisory Limited & Ors. against Ab Petrochem, recognizing the Plaintiffs' established rights over the MINDA trademark and its variants. The court found that the Defendant was operating under infringing marks (AB MINDA) in the oil and grease sector. To enforce this interim relief, a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the Defendant's premises, seize infringing goods, and inventory relevant business records.
SOTKON SP SLU v.WESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PVT. LTD.
The case involves the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's patent and copyright rights related to a waste management system. The Defendants are accused of infringing the Plaintiff's patent by submitting a tender for a similar waste management technology.
Pfizer Products Inc v.D Rawal
The contempt petition was filed by Pfizer Products Inc alleging non-compliance with a previous court order. The respondent submitted an affidavit stating that they had applied to the DCGI for permission to manufacture and market the new drug, Tofacitinib, under New Drugs and Clinical Trial Rules, 2019. They undertook not to commercialize the product until the patent expiry date.
Dr. Sapna Nangia v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Dr. Sapna Nangia filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated January 29, 2021. The original patent application (No. 201911010599) for a device and process was rejected primarily on the ground of lacking inventive step.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Ms Glowsun India Labs Private Limited
Bristol-Myers Squibb filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ms Glowsun India Labs for infringing its patent (IN 247381) related to the drug APIXABAN. The parties subsequently resolved their dispute amicably through mediation, leading to a final settlement.
Ferring B.V. v.Precise Bio Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
Ferring B.V. filed a suit alleging infringement of Patent IN 387567, which covered RTS Carbetocin for preventing post-partum haemorrhage. The Plaintiffs argued that manufacturing occurred while the patent was validly granted in February 2022. However, the court found merit in the Defendants' contention that since the grant order was subsequently set aside by a writ petition, there was no valid patent to sustain the infringement suit.
Novartis AG v.Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
Novartis AG filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd and Metrochem Api Private Limited for infringing its patent (No. 233161) covering 'Eltrombopag Olamine', the API in Revolade. The court found that both defendants acknowledged the validity of the patent and admitted they had not manufactured or commercially sold the patented product, leading to a decree granting permanent injunction during the patent's term.
Ds Intellectual Properties Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Faizi Khan
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark infringement suit filed by Ds Intellectual Properties Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. Faizi Khan regarding the use of similar marks, specifically '0'/'ZERO' versus '00', on respective products. The court noted the dispute over consumer confusion and directed the defendant to consider modifying their mark or label design. Crucially, the defendant was ordered to cease manufacturing fresh stock using the disputed marks pending further proceedings.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Neeram Garg & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning the brand SAKRNI PLASTER, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders on April 7, 2022. The court granted exemptions to the Plaintiffs regarding document filing and advance notice service due to urgency. Crucially, the court allowed an application for ex-parte ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, leading to the appointment of Local Commissioners to seize infringing products and inspect the Defendants' premises.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. v.Nilkamal Plastics Limited
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nilkamal Plastics Limited, seeking permanent injunction against alleged infringement of Design No.176931 related to plastic moulded chairs. The plaintiff argued that the design was common knowledge and liable for rectification or revocation. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as infructuous because the registration period for the design had expired.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. v.Nilkamal Plastics Limited
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nilkamal Plastics Limited seeking permanent injunction regarding alleged infringement of Design No.176931 related to plastic moulded chairs. The plaintiff argued that the design was common knowledge and liable for rectification, while also challenging the defendant's Cease and Desist Notice. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as infructuous because the registered design rights had expired.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. v.Nilkamal Plastics Limited
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nilkamal Plastics Limited alleging infringement of Design No.176931 related to plastic moulded chairs, seeking permanent injunction and declaration that the Cease and Desist Notice was unjustifiable. The plaintiff argued that the design was common use in the industry and liable for rectification due to lack of novelty. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as infructuous, noting that the registered design's protection period had expired.
Ab Initio Technology Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 6500/DELNP/2011). The court first condoned a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal, and subsequently granted further time to the Respondent to file their reply.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg v.Natco Pharma Limited
The judgment addresses multiple applications within a commercial suit concerning pharmaceutical patents. The court disposed of an application regarding electronic records and issued directions on several other pending matters, including contempt proceedings related to the sale of Afatinib tablets.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Controller Of Patents And Design
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201617023236) for a solid preparation containing Tofogliflozin in monohydrate crystal form. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and falling under Section 3(d) because it was merely a new use/form of a known drug without enhanced efficacy.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The court addressed two matters concerning the revocation of Indian Patent No. 243301, which covers the compound Linagliptin. The proceedings involved procedural steps such as treating a plaint as a petition and returning counter statements under objections.
Deepak Singh v.Bunty Raghav (Producer) and others
Deepak Singh filed a petition seeking interim relief against producers (Respondents) who were making a film based on his book, 'Janhit Mein Jaari'. The core dispute revolved around copyright infringement. While the High Court noted that the civil suit was pending before the Trial Court and emphasized the need for evidence regarding similarity between the book and the film, it ultimately directed the parties to proceed with the trial court's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., ensuring the existing interim relief continued until a final decision.
Rpg Enterprises Limited v.M/S Vijay Goel & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendants' application seeking further time to file their written statement in a trademark infringement suit. The court emphasized that despite pandemic-related considerations, the defendants were fully aware of the proceedings and failed to adhere to strict timelines. While denying the extension, the court also directed the defendants to file an affidavit detailing the quantum and sales figures of products using the disputed 'RPG' mark.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited. v.Deepak Arora & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics, ordering the cancellation and rectification of a conflicting trademark registered by Deepak Arora ('MARC HEAVEN'). The court found that 'MARC HEAVEN' was deceptively similar to the Petitioner's established mark 'BLUE HEAVEN,' particularly due to the appropriation of the dominant feature 'Heaven.' Citing Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, the judgment held that the Respondent's registration lacked distinctive character and caused public confusion.
Savelife Foundation v.Mr. Aslam Shaikh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Savelife Foundation against Mr. Aslam Shaikh and others. The court found that Defendants were fraudulently using deceptively similar trademarks ('Save LIFE' and 'Save LIFE Foundation') and associated domains to solicit funds, thereby infringing the Plaintiff's well-known trademark and committing passing off. This immediate relief aims to prevent irreparable harm while the main suit proceeds.
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v.Www.Dhanifinance.In & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., granting permanent injunctions against Www.Dhanifinance.In for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court found that the defendant was operating a fraudulent website using deceptively similar marks ('Indiabulls', 'Dhani') and domain names to mislead consumers into believing they were dealing with Indiabulls Group. Consequently, the defendant's website operation was suspended, and damages were awarded.
Red Bull Ag v.Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Red Bull's application for an interim injunction against Pepsico India Holdings regarding the use of the tagline 'STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY.' by their product STING. The court found that both taglines are descriptive and laudatory in nature, meaning the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case at this stage. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favored the defendants given their long-standing market presence with the tagline.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Vifor (International) Ltd filed suit against Hetero Healthcare Limited alleging infringement of its patented drug, FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE. Vifor contended that Hetero was preparing to launch a generic version under the brand HETROFER, which infringed upon their exclusive patent rights for treating iron deficiency anaemia. The Delhi High Court examined the prima facie case and balance of convenience presented by the Plaintiffs.
Shivnath Rai Harnarain India Ltd. v.Mr. Rakesh Kumar And Ors
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court provided a final opportunity for the Plaintiff, Shivnath Rai Harnarain India Ltd., to formally include an assignee of the trademarks 'LALMAHAL' and 'SHRILALMAHAL' in the ongoing litigation. The court noted that the assignment occurred in 2018 and granted four weeks to file the necessary application. Failure to do so will result in the suit proceeding without the new party on record.