Delhi High Court - Orders
2164 cases · page 20 of 73
Showing 571–599Mankind Pharma Limited v.Sanshiv Health Tech Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the pharmaceutical infringement suit filed by Mankind Pharma Limited. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed an application seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointed Local Commissioners to conduct search and seizure at the defendants' premises. This order provides a robust mechanism for the plaintiff to secure evidence related to alleged infringement.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Kohinoor Seed Fields India Private Limited
Dcm Shriram Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Kohinoor Seed Fields India Private Limited in the Delhi High Court. The court recognized a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given Dcm Shriram's established brand presence and statutory protection for its 'Shriram Super 303' mark. This crucial order temporarily prevents the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like '303' in relation to wheat seeds, protecting the plaintiff's market reputation during the critical Rabi cropping season.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Verizon Trademark Services LLC against Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr., finding a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like 'VERIEZON' across their hospital, pharmacy, and domain name. This crucial interim order protects Verizon's brand while allowing the parties time to contest the claims.
Kiehberg Gmbh And Anr v.Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kiehberg GmbH against Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited. The plaintiffs successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of passing off, arguing that the defendant's use of the identical trademark 'KIEHBERG' for airguns was likely to cause confusion and damage their established goodwill. This crucial order temporarily prevents the defendant from using the disputed mark until the full trial.
Leayan Global Private Limited v.Comfort X India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Leayan Global Private Limited and Comfort X India & Anr., granting a request for adjournment. While arguments were pending regarding the distinctiveness of competing trademarks like 'COMFORT WALK,' the court allowed the petitioner to present additional documents despite their recent filing. The hearing was re-notified for December 17, 2024, contingent upon Leayan Global depositing costs.
Chattisgarh Distilleries Limited v.Great Galleon Ventures Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a procedural order in the dispute between Chattisgarh Distilleries Limited and Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. The court directed the impleadment of the Registrar of Trademarks and ordered various parties to file amended memos, additional affidavits, and formal responses regarding original registration documents presented by the petitioner. This indicates the case is progressing through a detailed evidentiary phase.
Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab
Gala Precision Engineering Limited filed suits seeking a declaration that its manufacturing and sale of washers does not infringe Nord Lock Ab's patent. The court noted that the issues raised by the plaintiff are also subject matter in another suit filed by Nord Lock Ab (CS(COMM) 895/2023).
Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab
Gala Precision Engineering Limited filed suits seeking a declaration that its manufacturing and sale of washers does not infringe Nord Lock Ab's patent. The defendant submitted that these suits were not maintainable as they raised issues already subject to a suit filed by Nord Lock Ab (CS(COMM) 895/2023).
Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab
Gala Precision Engineering Limited filed suits seeking a declaration that its manufacturing and sale of washers does not infringe Nord Lock Ab's patent. The court noted that the issues raised by the plaintiff are also subject matter in another suit filed by Nord Lock Ab (CS(COMM) 895/2023).
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
In a trademark infringement suit, Mankind Pharma Limited sought an injunction against Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited regarding the use of the mark 'TOFASTAR' versus 'TOBASTAR'. The court allowed the plaintiff's request for exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Furthermore, both parties indicated a willingness to settle the dispute at the earliest opportunity, leading the court to renotify the case for further proceedings.
Rahul Kapoor Trading As Royal Field And Co. v.Naresh Kumar Trading As Ms Nutan Malleables
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications in a trademark rectification case concerning the mark 'ROYAL'. While granting an exemption from filing certified copies, the court also accepted the application for condonation of 143 days of delay. The core petition seeks to rectify the trademark 'ROYAL' based on the discovery of a competing registered mark owned by the respondent, arguing likelihood of confusion among consumers.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd v.Voiceage Evs Llc
The petitioners sought the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN405869 before the Delhi High Court. The court granted notice and allowed various interim applications, including directions for respondents to file prosecution records and granting extensions of time for both parties.
Panacea Biotec Limited v.Sanofi Healthcare India Private Limited
Panacea Biotec Limited filed a patent infringement suit against Sanofi Healthcare India Private Limited concerning the product Shan6, which allegedly infringes IN 351. The parties reached an amicable resolution and settled the dispute before the Delhi High Court.
Sanjeev Gupta v.Aman Gupta Trading As M/S Delhi Electricals Trading Company & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple petitions concerning trademark disputes between family members. The cases involved rectification requests challenging the registration of marks like 'USHA' and a suit seeking injunction against alleged infringement using the mark 'ANUSHA'. Given the familial nature of the dispute, the court opted not to proceed with immediate litigation. Instead, the parties were referred to Pre-Institution Mediation to explore an amicable resolution. This order highlights the judiciary's preference for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in complex family IP disputes.
M/S Khubsons Electronics Llp Through Its Partner Mr. Bharat Khubchandani v.Mr. Gautam Puniani Trading As Yk Enterprises
In a case concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court formalized an amicable settlement between M/S Khubsons Electronics Llp (Plaintiff) and Mr. Gautam Puniani Trading As Yk Enterprises (Defendant). The parties agreed that the Defendant infringed upon the Plaintiff's well-known trademarks (TAKAI / HAK), acknowledged their rights, and committed to ceasing all use of similar marks. The court decreed the suit based on these terms, which included the cancellation of the infringing trademark and a payment of liquidated damages.
Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd. v.Mumtaz Ahmed & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal or rectification of the registered trademark 'GMW' (No. 1978669) from the Register, alleging that it is deceptively and confusingly similar to their own mark. The court accepted notice and directed that respondent no. 1 be served with notice, allowing them four weeks to file a reply. This order sets the stage for further litigation on trademark infringement and rectification grounds.
Paragon Cable India & Anr. v.Essee Networks Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit filed by Paragon Cable India against Essee Networks Private Limited, upholding a settlement agreement reached between the parties. The core dispute involved the infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'ELEKTRON'. Crucially, the court directed the Trademark Registry to expeditiously transfer the rights of the 'ELEKTRON' mark into the name of the plaintiffs, formalizing the assignment made by the defendants.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
The Delhi High Court has initiated proceedings in the suit concerning the alleged infringement of the 'HAVELLS' trademark. The court allowed several procedural applications filed by Havells India Limited, granting exemptions from pre-litigation mediation and advance service upon the defendants. Furthermore, the court registered the plaint seeking permanent injunctions for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation, while also addressing an application for interim relief based on the plaintiff's well-known mark status.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex parte injunction in favor of Louis Vuitton Malletier against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff, a well-known luxury brand, had made out a prima facie case for infringement of its registered trademark 'LV' and associated copyrights. This interim order immediately restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling products featuring marks identical or deceptively similar to LV, pending further proceedings.
Headout Inc. v.Ashok Kumar / John Doe And Ors.
Headout Inc. successfully secured an interim injunction against the defendants in the Delhi High Court, addressing claims of trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the use of confusingly similar marks related to travel services. Furthermore, specific mandatory directions were issued compelling the defendants to immediately take down, block, and suspend all infringing websites, domain names, and social media profiles.
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Terre Primitive & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by the Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation (AMUL) against Terre Primitive. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Amuleti' was identical and deceptively similar to AMUL's well-known mark, leading to potential consumer confusion. Consequently, the court granted interim relief, directing the defendant to cease using the infringing marks, take down products from their website, surrender materials for destruction, and block specific social media URLs.
Thijs, Roeland Michel Mathieu v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the respondent's refusal to restore Indian Patent no. 408932. The court issued notice and, without addressing the merits, granted the respondent two weeks to clarify a discrepancy regarding the email ID of the Patent Agent.
Genovie Ab v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Genovie Ab has appealed against an order passed by the Controller of Patents under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appeal challenges new objections raised at the notice stage, which the appellant claims were not appreciated on merits despite submissions being filed.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd v.Shree Shubh Rathnam Associates And Ors
In an amicable settlement reached before the Delhi High Court, Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd secured a decree against Shree Shubh Rathnam Associates. The parties agreed that the defendants would transition their seven existing 'Sagar Express' outlets into franchisees under Sagar Ratna's brand. Crucially, the defendants committed to surrendering the 'Sagar Express' trademark and agreeing not to use any similar names in the future, effectively resolving long-standing trademark infringement disputes.
SMC NOVA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED v.SURYA MARKETING COMPANY
The Delhi High Court ordered the settlement of an IP dispute between SMC Nova Estate Private Limited and Surya Marketing Company. The matter specifically concerned the respondent's mark in relation to Tea and Elachi products. As part of the resolution, the petitioner agreed to file documentation showing a proposed change in their packaging and trademark, replacing 'NOVA' with 'SUPERHOVA', before the court.
Saint Gobain Placo & Anr. v.M/S Steel India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to be exempted from pre-litigation mediation and advance service. The court also granted permission to file additional documents and, crucially, ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendants' premises to gather evidence regarding patent infringement.
INCYTE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v.GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED
The plaintiffs sought a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants concerning Indian Patent No. 269841. The defendants submitted that they had not commercialized any product containing 'Ruxolitinib' and did not intend to do so in the future.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking to set aside a deemed abandonment notice issued by Respondent No. 2 concerning Indian Patent Application No. 202017037539. After reviewing submissions and noting the lack of reply from respondent no. 2, the court directed both parties to file their short notes of submissions.
Philip Morris Products S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Philip Morris Products S A appealed against the rejection of its patent by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Design. The appellant argued that the rejection, which relied upon Section 3(d) of The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019, was incorrect. The Court directed both parties to file replies and rejoinders.
Sanjay Kumar v.Rattan Lal Garg & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sanjay Kumar, who holds the registered trademark 'CHAND' for mustard oil. The court found that the defendants were deceptively using the mark 'R.L. CHAND' on identical products and packaging, causing potential confusion among consumers. This preliminary order restrains the defendants from continuing to use the infringing mark until the full trial.
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.