India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 51 of 311 · 7,456 total
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Varav Biogenesis Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals against Varav Biogenesis Private Limited. The court permitted the plaintiff to file additional documents, including sales figures for its 'COBADEX' mark, in a sealed cover. Crucially, the court also initiated proceedings regarding the core dispute, noting that the plaintiff alleges the defendants are using the deceptively similar mark 'CODODEX' for medicinal products, seeking permanent injunction against trademark infringement and passing off.
Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in a rectification petition filed by Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills. The petitioner sought the removal of the registered trademark 'DOUBLE KABOOTAR BRAND' (Registration No. 5574981) from the Trade Marks Register, which was held by respondent no.2. The court accepted notice on behalf of one respondent and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties, setting a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders before listing the matter for further hearing.
Selle Royal Group S.P.A. v.Ace Footmark (P) Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Selle Royal Group S.P.A., directing the cancellation of the respondent's trademark, FIZIFREAK. The court found that FIZIFREAK was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established and well-known trademarks, fi'zi:k and FREE:K. Given the identical goods (footwear) and the clear attempt by the respondent to exploit the petitioner's goodwill, the registration of FIZIFREAK was deemed invalid.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd & Ors. v.M/S Jai Maa Vaishnao Brick Field & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against Jai Maa Vaishnao Brick Field. The court found a prima facie case for trademark and copyright infringement, noting that the defendant continued using protected marks ('Moti Mahal') and associated artistic elements despite the termination of a franchise agreement. Consequently, the court issued a strong injunction directing the defendant to immediately cease use of the impugned marks across all platforms, including menus, invoices, and social media websites.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.Bali Ram Trading As Bali Kitchenware Industries and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited's application to rectify and remove the trademark 'CROMPTON' registered by Bali Ram Trading. The court found that Crompton Greaves was the prior adopter, user, and well-known proprietor of the mark in Class 21 since 1943. Given the identical nature of the marks and the respondent's failure to contest the claims, the court ruled that the registration was contrary to the TM Act and liable for cancellation.
Rashi Santoshi Soni & Anr. v.Prince Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Mr. Niraj Nirottamsingh Chavhan
In a trademark infringement dispute, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order allowing the defendant (Prince Enterprises) to de-seal the premises and access materials. The court permitted the removal of non-infringing goods while mandating that infringing products bearing the 'SURYA/SURYA GOLD PLUS' mark be kept separate under the supervision of the plaintiffs' representative. Furthermore, the court set a date for the vacation of an earlier ex-parte injunction order, indicating the matter will proceed to further hearings.
Energeo Works India Private Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Energeo Works India Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 17, 2025, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The original order refused to grant a patent in respect of Indian Patent Application No. 202211052563.
Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Zeria Pharmaceutical appealed the refusal of its patent application for a novel intermediate compound (formula 5a). The Controller refused the grant, citing lack of novelty and inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), and falling within the scope of Section 3(d) due to prior art disclosures. The High Court upheld the Controller's decision.
Junglee Games India Private Limited v.John Doe & Ors.
Junglee Games India Private Limited filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement against unknown parties operating deceptive websites. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications related to the service of process, granting exemptions for advanced service due to the defendants' anonymous nature or the urgency of the relief sought. The court subsequently registered the plaint as a suit, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with seeking permanent injunctions against online infringers.
Glaxo Group Limited And Anr. v.Dinesh Sirvi And Ors
In a trademark infringement suit concerning pharmaceutical products 'Augsomention' and 'Sheoical-nx CCM,' the Delhi High Court issued several orders. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation while granting them liberty to file confidential sales documents in sealed cover for protection. Crucially, after both parties agreed to refer their dispute to mandatory mediation, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed marks until a settlement is reached.
Tecniqua India Private Limited v.Shree Ji Industries & Anr.
Tecniqua India Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the removal of the trademark '/ TENDA SPORTS' (Application No. 4417483) registered in the name of Respondent No. 1. The court accepted notice and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties. Both sides were given specific timelines—six weeks for a reply and three weeks thereafter for a rejoinder—setting the stage for substantive arguments on trademark cancellation.
El Baik Food Systems Co Sa v.M/S. Albaik Foods Trading Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in a dispute between El Baik Food Systems Co Sa and M/S. Albaik Foods Trading Private Limited regarding trademark, color combination, and packaging. The court noted that the defendants were preparing to file their written statement and would seek instructions on the reliefs sought by the plaintiff. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for renotification on August 5, 2025, indicating ongoing litigation.
Rajesh Daseja (Huf) Trading As D Rajkumar v.Simran Gaba & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in a trademark dispute where Rajesh Daseja (Huf) sought the cancellation of Trademark No. 4776864 for the mark 'GSK/' from the Trade Marks Register. The court initiated the formal process, directing the petitioner to take necessary steps and issue notice to all respondents. This marks the commencement of substantive proceedings aimed at removing the disputed trademark.
Sharvan Kumar Mittal Trading As Girish Chemical Industries v.Janhvi Sharma Trading As Janhvi Chemical Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings seeking the cancellation and stay of Trademark No. 3017399, a device mark registered in Class 2. The court allowed the petitioner to proceed by directing notice to all respondents and setting key dates for filing replies and written synopses. Furthermore, the court granted an application to summon the complete registration record pertaining to related trademarks, ensuring transparency in the dispute.
Rakesh Kumar Mittal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Rakesh Kumar Mittal, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore his trademark 'MILTON/'. The core issue was the removal of the mark due to non-renewal. The court held that the removal was illegal because the Registrar failed to comply with the mandatory statutory procedure—specifically, issuing a Form O-3 Notice as required under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural compliance is a prerequisite for administrative action in trademark law.
Skechers South Asia Private Limited v.Delhi Polymer & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs, Skechers South Asia Private Limited, to amend their plaint following the successful impleadment of new defendants. Crucially, the court also granted an interim injunction against these newly added parties (Defendants 20 and 21). This order recognizes a prima facie case of trademark infringement based on goods discovered during local commission proceedings, immediately restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling counterfeit products bearing Skechers' trademarks.
M/S Ambika Industrial Corporation v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an order by the Trade Marks Registry that had allowed a change in the registered address for the 'AMBIKA' trademark. The petitioner firm argued that the change, filed by a former partner (Respondent No. 2), lacked justification and was detrimental to the established proprietor. The court ruled that since the petitioner remains the undisputed registered owner, the registry could not unilaterally alter the address based on an unsupported application, thereby restoring the original details.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Wockhardt Limited And Anr.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation of the trademark registration 'PACTYON' held by Wockhardt Limited. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the mark was registered in Mumbai. The court accepted notice and set procedural timelines for filing replies and rejoinders, indicating that the matter will proceed through standard litigation steps.
Ihhr Hospitality Ananda Pvt. Ltd. v.Avirup Sircar
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation in a trademark opposition case. The court dismissed the plaintiff's request, noting that extensive prior communication and action had already taken place between the parties regarding the mark 'ANANDA RESORTS'. Consequently, both parties were directed to participate in pre-litigation mediation before proceeding with the main litigation.
Castrol Limited v.Govind Mohan Sharma
In a matter concerning trademark recognition, Castrol Limited sought to establish its 'CASTROL' and 'ACTIV' marks as well-known trademarks before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff presented detailed arguments supporting this claim. While the court did not issue a final ruling on the merits of the well-known status, it granted an adjournment to the defendant for further submissions, indicating that the matter remains active in litigation.
Harpal Singh Gulati v.Registrar Of Trademarks
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Harpal Singh Gulati challenging the rejection of his trademark application for 'Martban -MAA KE HAATH SA'. The core dispute revolves around the appellant's claim of prior use. Crucially, M/s Martbaan, proprietor of similar marks, was impleaded as a respondent to participate in the proceedings. The Court set out a detailed schedule for filing pleadings and listing the matter before the Joint Registrar.
Mohammed Azam Trading As M/S Noor Ahmed v.Paramjeet Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of the plaintiff, Mohammed Azam Trading As M/S Noor Ahmed. The court granted an immediate interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark 'NURY/' while the main suit proceeds. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation, setting a clear path for the litigation's progression.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd filed an appeal seeking to quash a previous opposition order related to trademark application no. 6109894 in Class 30. The Delhi High Court issued an interim order, allowing both the appellant (Parle) and respondent no. 2 sufficient time—six weeks for synopsis filing and subsequent reply periods—to prepare their arguments before proceeding with the substantive hearing.
Devdarshan Dhoop Industries & Anr v.Adhyatmik Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs' review petition, significantly modifying a previous order to strengthen their intellectual property protections. The court clarified that the injunction against the Defendants must cover not only traditional goods but also digital services like virtual worshipping and darshan under the 'DEVDARSHAN' trademark. Furthermore, the judgment reinforced the specific performance of the prior Settlement Agreement and mandated the removal of all related listings.