Delhi High Court - Orders
2284 cases · page 2 of 77
Showing 31–59Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd v.John Doe And Ors
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd, which operates the digital streaming platform 'FanCode', sought a 'dynamic+' injunction to notify defendants of further infringing websites streaming its licensed sporting events without filing fresh applications each time. The Delhi High Court, after balancing the need to combat online piracy of live sporting events against the caution expressed in Home Box Office Inc. v. Streamzy.to regarding not conferring adjudicatory powers on intermediaries, allowed the application and granted a tailored mechanism permitting the plaintiff to notify domain registrars, ISPs, and authorities by email, with corresponding obligations to suspend or block access within specified timeframes.
Triveni Household Items Manufacturer Private Limited v.Mr. Virendra Kumar Yadav Trading As Yadav Steel Furniture Works
Triveni Household Items Manufacturer Private Limited filed a contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Section 151 CPC against Mr. Virendra Kumar Yadav for alleged willful disobedience of a court order dated 08.07.2026, in which the respondent had undertaken not to use the disputed words and to withdraw Trade Mark Application No. 6702854 for the mark 'TRIVENI Y' in Class 20. The petitioner contended that the respondent continued to use the trademark in defiance of the undertaking given to the court. The Delhi High Court directed issuance of notice to the respondent and listed the matter for hearing on 11.03.2027.
Petals IVF and Women Care Centre LLP v.RPCI Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
This case concerns a rectification petition filed by Petals IVF and Women Care Centre LLP against RPCI Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. regarding the trade mark/device mark 'MAAERI'. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking to restrain the petitioner from misrepresenting an earlier order dated 30.03.2026 to the Chief Medical Officer of Uttar Pradesh, implying that respondents had been restrained from using the 'MAAERI' mark. The court clarified that the earlier order only directed respondents not to create third-party proprietary rights in the mark, and did not restrain them from using it.
Modicare Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in two connected trademark matters filed by Modicare Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks and another party. The court, finding no time left to hear the matters on the scheduled date, adjourned both cases and directed them to be re-notified for hearing on 11th January 2027.
Society For Human Resource Management (SHRM) v.Sphinx Worldbiz Ltd & Ors
The plaintiff, Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), a globally recognized HR organization with nearly 340,000 members across 180 countries, filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Sphinx Worldbiz Ltd and others for using the mark 'SHRM PRO' and related formative marks. The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining defendants from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered 'SHRM' trademarks, and directed the domain registrar and app store platforms to take down the infringing website and mobile applications.
Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a procedural order in a patent appeal before the Delhi High Court. The appeal was received from the Roster Bench as it had been substantially heard by the Court. The matter was listed for further hearing on 16 October 2026.
Esme Consumer Pvt. Ltd v.Blueheavenin.Com & Ors
Esme Consumer Pvt. Ltd., the registered proprietor of the trademarks 'BLUE HEAVEN' and associated formative/device marks, filed a commercial suit against Blueheavenin.Com and others for online trademark infringement and cybersquatting. The plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1 was operating the domain blueheavenin.com, which incorporated its trademark in its entirety and presented itself as the official website, while Defendant No. 2 was hosting an infringing BLUE HEAVEN cosmetics page on an unrelated domain. The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from operating the impugned websites and directed the domain registrars/intermediaries to preserve records and transfer-lock the domain names.
Gola Sizzlers Private Limited v.M/S GM Foods & Anr
The plaintiff, Gola Sizzlers Private Limited, filed a commercial suit against M/S GM Foods & Anr. Defendant No. 1 sought to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on an arbitration clause in a Tripartite Lease Agreement dated 19.03.2024. The Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitration clause in the Lease Agreement did not bind the parties with respect to their separate inter se agreement governing their rights and obligations, and that an arbitration agreement cannot be inferred where none exists.
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Devinder Singh
This is a civil suit filed by Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd against Devinder Singh seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- paid under the agreement along with interest. The court framed six issues for trial, including whether the agreement was cancelled/terminated as alleged by the defendant and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its obligations. The matter was listed for recording of evidence before the Joint Registrar (Judicial).
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Ramesh Chand And Ors
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit (CS(OS) 666/2024) involving a dispute over an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022. The plaintiff seeks specific performance of the agreement, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 4,90,00,000/- paid to the defendants. The court framed six issues for trial, directed the parties to file witness lists and evidence affidavits, and listed the matter before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of evidence.
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Ramesh Chand And Anr
This is a commercial suit filed by Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd against Ramesh Chand and Anr seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- paid under the agreement along with interest. The Defendants contended that the agreement was cancelled or terminated. The Delhi High Court framed the issues for trial and directed the parties to file witness lists and evidence affidavits, listing the matter before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of evidence.
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Ramesh Chand And Ors
This is a commercial suit (CS(OS) 665/2024) before the Delhi High Court in which the plaintiff seeks specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022 executed between the parties, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- paid under the agreement along with interest. The court, with the consent of the parties, framed six issues for trial and directed the parties to file their lists of witnesses and evidence affidavits within stipulated timelines. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of evidence, while a pending interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was listed separately.
Onesto Labs Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Onesto Labs Private Limited, a Delhi-based personal care products company operating under the house mark 'Innovist' and brands including 'Chemist at Play', filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement of its registered trademark, logo, trade dress, and domain name, as well as passing off. The suit was filed on a John Doe basis against the operator of the infringing website www.chemistatplay.com. Since the domain name Registrar (defendant no.4) agreed to transfer the impugned domain to the plaintiff and there was no contest, the court made the temporary injunction absolute and decreed the suit against defendant no.1.
Havells India Limited v.Ratheesh Govindan & Ors. (including proposed defendant nos. 5-8: Mohit Talwar and associated entities)
This is an order passed by the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 283/2020) filed by Havells India Limited against Ratheesh Govindan and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff sought impleadment of proposed defendants 5 to 8, who were identified as the manufacturers and controlling entities behind the infringing products. The Court allowed the impleadment application, noting that the proposed defendants were not innocent or bona fide users, and bound them to the existing interim injunction order dated 30.07.2020.
Sh Shashi Bhushan & Ors v.State Of Delhi & Ors
The petitioners (10 in number, led by Mr. Shashi Bhushan) filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 0896/2022 registered at P.S. Sadar Bazar under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging stocking and sale of counterfeit products bearing infringing marks. The parties entered into a compromise deed dated 27.07.2026, and the court, applying the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, holding that the non-compoundable offences were essentially against the rights of the IP proprietor and were of a commercial/civil character.
Ankur Mahajan v.VRV Sattvic Private Limited & Ors
The petitioner, Ankur Mahajan, filed a petition under Section 47 read with Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation/removal of the respondents' trademark registration no. 3197787 in Class 32 from the Register of Trade Marks. The court allowed the petitioner's application for leave to file additional documents and issued notice to all respondents, who accepted notice through their respective counsel. The matter was adjourned with directions for filing of replies and rejoinders, and re-notified for hearing on 15.01.2027.
TCL Monitors Pvt Ltd v.State Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by TCL Monitors Pvt Ltd before the Delhi High Court concerning a trademark dispute. The petitioner's counsel suggested mediation, but the respondent's counsel informed the Court that a prior mediation attempt had failed and that the respondents had already voluntarily discontinued use of the impugned mark. The Court declined to refer the matter to mediation, permitted the parties to file short written submissions, directed summoning of the e-TCR record, and required the petitioner's Director to appear in person on the next date of hearing.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.M/S Pooja Lubricant
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Aktiebolaget Volvo and its related entities restraining M/S Pooja Lubricant from using the marks 'MAX VOLVO', 'MAX VOLWO', 'VOLWO GOLD', and other marks deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trade mark 'VOLVO' in relation to lubricants and allied goods. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of trade mark infringement, passing off, and dilution, and that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury warranted urgent relief without prior notice to the defendant.
Ankit Kumar Singla v.The State NCT of Delhi Through SHO Police Station Nangloi & Anr.
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 478/2021 registered at Police Station Nangloi for offences under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, on the ground that the complainant (respondent no. 2) had compromised the dispute. Upon the court observing that in trademark infringement or passing off cases the general public is the victim and not merely the complainant, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition to face trial. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Precise Bio Pharma Private Limited & Anr.
Incyte Holdings Corporation and its associated entities filed a patent infringement suit against Precise Bio Pharma Private Limited before the Delhi High Court, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841 which protects the compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were offering for sale Ruxolitinib/Ruxolitinib Phosphate API through their website and third-party platforms, and had obtained a manufacturing licence and developed a generic version of the patented compound. The court, satisfied that a prima facie case was made out and that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in pharmaceutical products containing Ruxolitinib until the next date of hearing.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Melody Healthcare Private Limited
Incyte Holdings Corporation and others filed a patent infringement suit against Melody Healthcare Private Limited before the Delhi High Court, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841 which protects the compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant was offering for sale Ruxolitinib Phosphate API on third-party platforms and had obtained a manufacturing licence to commercially produce a generic version. The court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in pharmaceutical products containing Ruxolitinib that would infringe the suit patent.
Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a procedural directions order in a commercial appeal concerning patents before the Delhi High Court. The appellant's counsel submitted that the matter had already been heard at length by the predecessor bench of Justice Jyoti Singh and that he was concluding his rejoinder arguments before that bench. The court directed the matter to be relisted before Justice Jyoti Singh's bench on 29th September 2026.
Phonepe Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural listing order passed by the Delhi High Court in a commercial appeal concerning trademark matters. The court listed the matter for the next date of hearing without recording any substantive reasoning or decision on the merits.
Panacea Biotec Limited v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Ors.
Panacea Biotec Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Patent Controller regarding Patent No. 272351, and to withdraw its post-grant amendment application (Form-13) filed on 17.05.2019 under Section 57 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court allowed the petition, permitting the withdrawal of the amendment application without prejudice to the parties' rights, and directed the Learned Controller to decide the pending post-grant oppositions under Section 25(2) of the 1970 Act within nine weeks.
K K Electro Appliances Pvt Ltd v.Indotech Switchgear And Controls Delhi Private Limited & Anr.
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a trademark cancellation petition filed by K K Electro Appliances Pvt Ltd against Indotech Switchgear and Controls Delhi Private Limited & Anr. The petition was filed under Sections 47, 57 and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 151 CPC seeking cancellation/removal of trademark registration No. 4314092 in Class 09. The court disposed of the interlocutory applications and issued notice to the respondents, returnable on 19.01.2027.
Man Mohan Narang v.Union Of India & Anr
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to process and allow Form TM-12 filed on 21.02.2012 for Trademark Registration No. 1081552, and to waive a surcharge of Rs. 5,000/-. The Registrar agreed to process the renewal application in accordance with law upon payment of prescribed fee, restoration charges, and the surcharge. The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition granting the petitioner liberty to file the renewal application within one month, with no expression on merits.
Phonepe Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is an interlocutory application filed by Respondent No. 1 seeking waiver of a cost of Rs. 10,000/- that had been imposed upon it by an earlier order dated 13.08.2026. The court found no ground made out for waiver of the cost and dismissed the application.
M/S Raj Abhushan Bhandar v.Deputy Registrar, Trademark & Anr
This is a non-substantive procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 36/2023). Because the presiding judge was on leave, the matter was not taken up and was re-notified for hearing on 11th January 2027.
Abbott GmbH & Anr. v.Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited
The plaintiffs, Abbott GmbH & Anr., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining Dr Reddy's Laboratories Limited from using the marks COMIFFIN/COMIFFIN PLUS, which were alleged to be identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered CREMAFFIN marks. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes, with the defendant agreeing to cease use of the impugned marks and withdraw its trademark application. The court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and granted the plaintiffs a refund of court fees.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Curewell Drugs And Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
This order of the Delhi High Court dealt with multiple interlocutory applications in a trademark dispute between Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Curewell Drugs and Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. concerning the marks REVITAL and BEVITAL. The court allowed Sun Pharma to place additional documents on record to substantiate its claim of prior use of the trademark REVITAL since 1988, noting that no new case was being set up. The application for appointment of Local Commissioners was not pressed, and the matter was listed for further proceedings.
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.