Delhi High Court - Orders
2284 cases · page 1 of 77
Showing 1–29Ms Pas Agro v.M/S Krbl Limited & Anr
Ms Pas Agro has filed a petition under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trademarks Act challenging the Commercial Court's order dismissing its application to frame a preliminary issue on the invalidity of KRBL's registered trademark 'INDIA GATE' (application no. 599833). The underlying suit CS (COMM) 78/2025 was filed by KRBL against Pas Agro. The Delhi High Court issued notice, permitted deletion of respondent no.2, and granted time for filing reply and rejoinder. The substantive question of whether a preliminary issue on trademark invalidity should be framed remains pending.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Anupam Srivastava & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited filed a rectification petition seeking removal of the trademark 'VNYABAIE' (application no. 5055762 in Class 3), primarily objecting to the letter 'V' being displayed in a different colour from the rest of the mark. During proceedings, the petitioner clarified that it had no objection if the respondent used the letter 'V' in the same colour as the remaining alphabets, even in a different font. Respondent No. 1, appearing in person, agreed to change the colour of 'V' to match the rest of the mark, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
GlaxoSmithkline Biologicals SA v.Human Biolife India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
GlaxoSmithkline Biologicals SA sued Human Biolife India Pvt. Ltd. for trademark infringement concerning its well-known vaccine brands including ENGERIX, HAVRIX, INFANRIX, ROTARIX, CERVARIX, and SYNFLORIX. The defendant had adopted confusingly similar marks such as RUTORIX, DROTARIX, AMIRIX, CEFTARIX, and MIRIX for pharmaceutical products. The parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 24.04.2026, and the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, directing the defendant to cease all infringing use, recall products, cancel its trademark applications, and take down online listings.
M/S Dindayal Industries Ltd v.M/S Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged the framing of issues in a commercial suit concerning the trademark 'Dindayal' used by both parties for Ayurvedic products. The court deleted Issue No. 10, holding that opposition to a trademark application (No. 2885787 in Class 05) cannot be adjudicated in a civil suit as it is pending before the Trade Marks Registry. The court further modified Issue No. 12 to expand the scope of the passing off inquiry beyond narrow ocular similarity of packaging, citing the Supreme Court's rulings in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Parle Products v. J.P. and Co.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.) v.Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited v.Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Cobble Stone Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Cobble Stone Private Limited appealed against the order dated 06.08.2025 of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing its trade mark application no. 4009557 in Class 19 for the mark 'COBBLE STONE' under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The appellant contended that it had been using the mark since 2011 and was an honest concurrent user under Section 12 of the Act, and that the Registrar failed to consider its adjournment request. The respondent had no objection to a remand for de novo consideration, and the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to be completed within 60 days.
Ashok Jain v.State NCT Of Delhi And Anr
The petitioner, Ashok Jain (Accused No. 2), sought quashing of FIR No. 15/2012 registered at P.S. EOW, Delhi, alleging offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, relating to counterfeiting of car speakers bearing the registered trademark 'PIONEER' belonging to Respondent No. 2. The parties had amicably settled the dispute through a Memorandum of Understanding executed in March 2025, with the petitioner agreeing to pay Rs. 1 lakh as full and final settlement. The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner, while directing the police to destroy the seized counterfeit goods.
L'Oreal S.A. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
L'Oreal S.A. filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trademarks to renew its trademark 'ELSEVE' bearing registration no. 471634 in class 03, or alternatively to dispose of the interlocutory petition for renewal after granting an opportunity of hearing. The Court allowed the exemption application, issued notice to the Respondent who accepted notice, and directed the Respondent to file its reply within four weeks, with the matter re-notified for hearing on 08.12.2026.
Raj Kumar Jain v.Pravesh Narula & Anr
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a consolidated set of matters involving Raj Kumar Jain and Pravesh Narula. The petitioner's counsel submitted that evidence was still ongoing and prayed for adjournment of the hearing. The court acceded to the request and adjourned the hearing to 22.03.2027, directing that any interim order shall continue.
Raj Kumar Jain v.Pravesh Narula & Anr
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court consolidating multiple connected cases between Raj Kumar Jain and Pravesh Narula, along with related matters. The petitioner's counsel requested adjournment on the ground that evidence was still being recorded. The court acceded to the request and adjourned the hearing to March 22, 2027, directing that any existing interim orders would continue.
Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan And Anr v.Bollywood Time & Ors
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a set of connected commercial suits involving Bollywood celebrities seeking protection of their personality and publicity rights. The order records that the amicus curiae in CS(COMM) 868/2026 (Janhvi Kapoor vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.) has concluded submissions, while the amicus curiae in CS(COMM) 105/2026 (Vivek Anand Oberoi vs Collector Bazar & Ors.) has handed up extracts from McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. The matter was re-notified for further hearing on 9th October 2026.
Kei Industries Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark matter filed by Kei Industries Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks and another party. The court addressed an interlocutory application (I.A. 27177/2026) filed under Section 151 of the CPC by Respondent No. 1 and directed the matter to be listed on 30.10.2026.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Goldenstuff And Beverages Private Limited & Ors.
Archian Foods Private Limited, which manufactures and markets traditional Indian flavoured non-alcoholic beverages under the 'LAHORI' family of marks (such as LAHORI ZEERA, LAHORI NIMBOO, LAHORI KACHA AAM, LAHORI SHIKANJI, and LAHORI IMLI BANTA), filed a commercial suit against Goldenstuff And Beverages Private Limited and others for infringement of its registered trademarks, copyrights, and designs, along with passing off. The plaintiff sought an ex parte ad interim injunction, alleging that the defendants, who commenced business only in January 2026, had adopted an identical or deceptively similar logo, trade dress, colour scheme, and bottle shape. The Delhi High Court granted the ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using any marks, logos, labels, trade dress, packaging, taglines, slogans, or domain names identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's LAHORI formative trademarks.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr v.Neeraj Bagh House
The plaintiffs, Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr., filed a suit against Neeraj Bagh House seeking a decree of permanent injunction, trademark and copyright infringement, delivery up, and damages. During the pendency of the suit, the parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, where they arrived at a settlement agreement dated 28.07.2026. The court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and directed refund of full court fees to the plaintiffs.
Prg Pharma Private Limited v.Cure And Care Drugs Private Limited
The plaintiff, PRG Pharma Private Limited, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Cure and Care Drugs Private Limited, was using the trademark 'PRQ PHARMA,' which was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'PRG PHARMA.' The defendant's counsel indicated willingness to resolve the dispute through mediation and offered to change the packaging, trade dress, and mark if the seized consignment of cough syrup was returned. With the plaintiff's counsel also consenting, the court referred the matter to mediation.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr v.Ashok Kumar Unknown
The plaintiffs, Hero Investcorp Private Limited and another, filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts, and damages on the John Doe principle. During the pendency of the suit, the parties were referred to mediation and arrived at a settlement agreement dated 03.09.2026. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and directed refund of full court fees to the plaintiffs.
V-Guard Industries Limited v.Sh. Teja Ram K Chaudhary Proprietor of M/s G. Gaurd Cable Industries and Anr
V-Guard Industries Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the registered trade mark 'G-GUARD' (Registration No. 3799287) in Class 11, owned by the respondent. The petitioner claimed prior adoption and extensive use of the mark 'V-GUARD' since 1977, alleging that the respondent's adoption of the similar mark 'G-GUARD' was not bonafide. The Court permitted the petitioner to file additional documents, issued notice to the respondents, and directed the filing of reply and rejoinder, with the matter re-notified for hearing on 30.11.2026.
Reliance Industries Limited v.Rahul Meena & Ors
Reliance Industries Limited filed a commercial suit seeking interim injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing its well-known registered trademark 'JIO' by using identical or deceptively similar marks in numerous domain names and websites related to lottery, gaming, and payment services. The Delhi High Court disposed of several interlocutory applications, granting exemption from pre-institution mediation, permission to file additional documents, exemption from service, and dispensing with notice to defendant no. 1 for the purpose of considering the urgent interim relief application.
Geetanjali Salon Pvt. Ltd v.Nitin Ajitkumar Kotwani & Anr
This is a trademark cancellation petition before the Delhi High Court filed by Geetanjali Salon Pvt. Ltd. against Nitin Ajitkumar Kotwani and another. The dispute arose when an email from a purported trademark attorney of the respondent indicated no objection to the cancellation of the impugned registration, but the court found no material on record to establish the attorney's authority. The court directed fresh notice to be issued to respondent no. 1 by all permissible modes.
Alucopanel Industries v.Imperia Decor Industries & Anr
Alucopanel Industries, a registered partnership firm manufacturing Aluminium Composite Panels and building materials under Classes 6 and 19, filed a suit against Imperia Decor Industries & Anr. seeking an ex parte injunction to restrain the defendants from using the trademark 'ALUMAC', which was alleged to be phonetically and visually identical to the plaintiff's prior registered trademark 'ALOMAX'. The Delhi High Court, after examining the plaint and comparing the competing marks, found that the plaintiff was the prior adopter and registered proprietor of 'ALOMAX' and that the defendants' adoption of 'ALUMAC' was not bona fide, given that one of the directors of defendant no. 2 was previously associated with the plaintiff firm. The Court granted an ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark till the next date of hearing.
Amnex Infotechnologies Private Limited v.Google LLC & Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal was filed by Amnex Infotechnologies Private Limited against Google LLC and the Registrar of Trademarks, challenging an ex-parte order dated 07.04.2026 passed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) No.57/2026. The appellant contended that the Single Judge passed the order without affording an opportunity of hearing, thereby preventing them from placing their objections on record. The appeal was disposed of by remanding the matter to the Single Judge for a fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the parties, without the Division Court entering into the merits of the case.
Shri Narinder Kumar Trading As M/S Kundan Trading Company v.M/S Kyoto Tools Company Ltd & Anr
The petitioner, Shri Narinder Kumar trading as M/S Kundan Trading Company, filed a petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking rectification of the register and cancellation of the respondent's registered trademark (application no. 5930389 in class 7). The petitioner claimed prior registration of the mark 'KTC' in class 8 (since 16.04.2009) and class 9 (since 02.03.2012), whereas the respondent's mark was applied only on 19.01.2017 and registered in May 2026. The respondent countered that the petitioner's KTC registration was predicated on a forged invoice dated 10.11.1993. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file replies within six weeks, with the next date of hearing fixed for 15.01.2027.
The Coca-Cola Company v.M/S Chhabee Nutricos Industries LLP
The Coca-Cola Company filed an application alleging wilful disobedience by M/S Chhabee Nutricos Industries LLP of an earlier interim order dated 24.01.2025, which had restrained the defendant from using marks and bottle shapes similar to Coca-Cola's 'PULPY ORANGE' mark and distinctive bottle device. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had slightly altered the bottle shape to circumvent the earlier injunction, but the overall appearance remained deceptively similar. The Delhi High Court, finding prima facie that the new bottle was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered bottle device, restrained the defendant from using the impugned new shape bottle and granted three weeks to file a reply.
Mahesh Gupta v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal filed by Mahesh Gupta against the Registrar of Trademarks. The appellant's counsel circulated an adjournment slip, to which the respondent's counsel raised no objection. The court, at the request of the appellant, re-notified the matter to 02.02.2027.
Vivek Verma & Ors v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a Delhi High Court order in a trademark matter involving two connected cases that were listed before Justice Vikas Mahajan. At the request of the learned counsels for the parties, the court re-notified the matters to 23 November 2026 without any substantive ruling on the merits.
Vivek Verma & Ors v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark matter involving Vivek Verma & Ors as appellants and the Registrar of Trademarks as respondent. The order, passed by Justice Vikas Mahajan, was issued at the request of learned counsels for the parties. The matter was adjourned and listed for re-notification on 23 November 2026.
Abbvie Inc. v.Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks and Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a procedural order in a patent appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 37/2026) filed by Abbvie Inc. before the Delhi High Court against the Controller General of Patents and others. The court addressed issues of service upon respondents and granted time for filing replies and rejoinders, while also directing requisitioning of the Controller General of Patents' records.
Gufic Biosciences Limited & Anr v.Niraj S Sahuji & Anr
This is a rectification petition filed by Gufic Biosciences Limited and another petitioner before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the trademark 'SHREE SAMPANNA SHALLAKI' (Registration No. 4739384) registered under Class 5 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court allowed the petitioners' applications for exemption, condonation of 109 days' delay in re-filing the petition, and leave to file additional documents. Notice was issued to the respondents, with directions to file replies within six weeks and rejoinders within four weeks thereafter.
V-Guard Industries Limited v.Sh. Teja Ram K Chaudhary Proprietor of M/s G. Gaurd Cable Industries and Anr
V-Guard Industries Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the registered trade mark 'G-GUARD' (Registration No. 3799286) in Class 35, held in the name of respondent Teja Ram K. Chaudhary. The petitioner claimed prior adoption and extensive use of the mark 'V-GUARD' since 1977, and alleged that the respondent's adoption of the similar mark 'G-GUARD' was deliberate and not bonafide. The Court permitted the petitioner to file additional documents, issued notice to the respondents, and directed the filing of reply and rejoinder, with the matter re-notified for 30 November 2026.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.