Delhi High Court - Orders
2164 cases · page 21 of 73
Showing 601–629The Motor And General Finance Limited v.A.S. Enterprises, Partnership Firm
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of The Motor And General Finance Limited against A.S. Enterprises, Partnership Firm regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's use of 'MGF INDIA' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established trademark 'MGF'. Given the prima facie case for infringement and the risk of irreparable loss, the court restrained the defendant from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Ms. Sunita Devi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a suit and a rectification petition following a successful mediation process between the parties. The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr., successfully secured a decree against Ms. Sunita Devi & Anr. based on a settlement agreement dated May 22, 2024. Crucially, the respondent was directed to withdraw their trademark 'RAKARNI GYPSUM' (Registration No. 3618245) and undertake not to commit any acts of infringement or passing off related to similar marks in Class 19.
M.K. Srinivasan And Another v.Chemsol India And Another
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M.K. Srinivasan And Another against Chemsol India And Another, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized that the plaintiffs possess significant goodwill associated with their 'TAURUS' trademarks used for testing and measurement instruments. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Morepen Laboratories Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Mankind Pharma against Morepen Laboratories. The court granted exemptions regarding document filing and pre-institution mediation, while proceeding with the main injunction application (I.A. 38001/2024). The plaintiff alleged dishonest adoption of their registered trade dress and copyright for a pregnancy detection strip, leading to claims of infringement and passing off. The defendant countered by arguing that the plaintiff approached the court belatedly.
Ms. Bhupinder Mehta v.Sh Pradeep Bareja & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings seeking the rectification/cancellation of the trademark 'BSM' (Application No. 5149074) in Class-11. The petitioner alleged that the respondent dishonestly adopted a deceptively similar mark, which was identical to her prior registered trademark. While some procedural applications were disposed of, the court formally issued notice to all respondents and set a timeline for filing replies, moving the core dispute forward.
Malpani Enterprises v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Malpani Enterprises, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to accept and proceed with its Notice of Opposition. The core issue was a technical glitch in the online filing portal which prevented the petitioner from meeting the deadline. Given that the respondent admitted the statutory period had not lapsed, the court held that a party should not suffer due to administrative or technical failures, thereby setting aside the rejection letter.
Ppc Broadband Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Ppc Broadband Inc filed an appeal challenging an impugned order dated 28.03.2024 which held that its patent application subject matter ('REEL ENCLOSURES') fell under Section 2(1)(ia) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed applications for exemption from filing documents and condonation of a 55-day delay in filing the appeal.
Grains Research And Development Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed an earlier decision concerning a patent application related to insect control methods. The court also addressed two interlocutory applications: one granting exemption from filing originals, and another condoning a 13-day delay in filing the main appeal.
M/S Avon Automotive And Ors v.M/S Avon Cycles Limited
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on an earlier injunction restraining M/S Avon Automotive And Ors from using trademarks like 'AVON' in connection with cycles and related goods. The court recognized the appellants' claims of long-standing usage since 1980, despite the initial order being passed ex parte based on trademark registration details. This interim relief allows the appellants to continue their trade operations while the full merits of the infringement dispute are heard.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Lumix Domestic Appliances Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed Panasonic Holdings Corporation's appeal and rectification petition against Lumix Domestic Appliances Private Limited. This decision was reached following a settlement between the parties, which stipulated that Lumix would not object to Panasonic's trademark application for 'LUMIX'. Consequently, the court set aside the Registrar of Trademarks' previous refusal, allowing Panasonic's trademark registration and directing the limitation of goods in Lumix's existing registration.
Merck Kgaa v.Bharat Patel
Merck Kgaa successfully secured an ex parte ad interim injunction against Bharat Patel in the Delhi High Court. The court found that Merck's trademark 'MERCK' is well-known and granted immediate relief, preventing the defendant from using any confusingly similar marks or names. This ruling underscores the strong protection afforded to established, globally recognized trademarks under Indian law.
Sanjay Mehra v.Jagdish Choudhary
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sanjay Mehra, proprietor of the trademark 'SUPERON', against Jagdish Choudhary. The court found that the defendant was dishonestly adopting an identical mark for allied goods, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation. This protective order prevents the defendant from using the disputed marks until the final hearing.
M/S Nuchem Limited Earlier Known As Nuchem Plastics Limited v.M/S Archit Nuwood Industries Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Nuchem Limited and Archit Nuwood Industries. The court granted the defendant an extension of time to file a rejoinder, contingent upon payment of Rs. 25,000/- in costs. Furthermore, the court scheduled both the injunction application (I.A. 7713/2023) and the trademark-related application (I.A. 11949/2023 under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act) for consideration on July 31, 2024.
YC Electric Vehicles v.Saksham Trading Company
YC Electric Vehicles successfully concluded its trademark and design infringement suit against Saksham Trading Company through an amicable settlement. The court decreed the suit, formalizing the defendant's admission that YC is the sole owner of the 'YATRI' and 'YC' trademarks, as well as specific E-Rickshaw designs. The settlement also included a payment of ₹50,000 to the plaintiff, providing a definitive resolution to the dispute.
Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v.Wow Punjabi
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark infringement suit (CS(COMM) 253/2024) between Wow Momo Foods Private Limited and Wow Punjabi. The case, which sought permanent injunctions against passing off and unfair trade practices, was settled amicably by both parties. The court decreed the suit in favor of Wow Momo, based on the settlement terms, wherein Wow Punjabi acknowledged Wow Momo's exclusive ownership of the 'WOW' trademark and agreed to cease all use of similar marks.
House Of Diagnostics Llp & Ors. v.House Of Pathology Labs Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction favoring the plaintiffs, House Of Diagnostics LLP, against House Of Pathology Labs Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case of idea infringement, noting that both parties operate in the highly similar field of diagnostic services and their marks are glaringly similar. The defendant was restrained from using 'House of Pathology' in connection with its diagnostic activities, pending further consideration of the main suit.
Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Vijay Kalra And Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark dispute between Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Vijay Kalra And Anr., based on an amicable settlement reached by both parties. The settlement agreement mandated that Respondent No. 1 acknowledge the exclusive rights of the petitioner in 'VKC' marks and cease using similar trademarks like 'VKV'. Crucially, the court directed the Trademark Registry to process the withdrawal and subsequent rectification/removal of the infringing trademark from the register.
Reckitt & Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited v.Ashok Kumar(S)/ John Doe(S)
In a major infringement suit concerning hygiene products, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs favoring the plaintiffs, Reckitt & Colman. The court allowed the plaintiffs to implead Ashok Kumar and John Doe as defendants and sanctioned an extensive local commission to investigate counterfeiting activities related to brands like HARPIC and LIZOL. Furthermore, the court provided exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, paving the way for swift enforcement of their claims regarding trademark, copyright, design, and passing off infringement.
M/S Shree Vallabh Metals v.Pappu Farishta Sole Proprietor Of M/S Pappu Farishta
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Shree Vallabh Metals against Pappu Farishta Sole Proprietor Of M/S Pappu Farishta, granting a permanent injunction. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted trademark infringement and passing off concerning the plaintiff's 'MAXFRESH' brand across various household goods categories. While dismissing an application to add another party, the court proceeded with the suit, decreeing the specific relief sought by the plaintiff regarding the use of their protected marks.
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court passed an order framing issues in the suit concerning the validity and enforceability of Plaintiff's Suit Patent IN 363203 against the Defendants. The court also appointed a Commissioner to record evidence and set out a tentative timeline for the trial.
Archidply Industries Limited v.Archit Nuwood Industries Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Archidply Industries Limited against Archit Nuwood Industries Private Limited. While granting minor procedural exemptions and directing the transfer of court fees, the Court primarily focused on moving the main dispute forward. The matter was formally registered as a suit for infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and subsequently referred to the High Court's Mediation Centre to explore an out-of-court settlement.
Mrs. Shubhangi S. Jachak v.Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order modifying a prior decision in the trademark dispute between Mrs. Shubhangi S. Jachak and Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr. The modification allows Respondent No. 1 to bring on record several crucial additional documents related to ownership changes, examination objections, and responses filed with the Trademark Registry. This procedural step is significant as it introduces detailed evidence regarding trademark assignment timelines and prior rejection grounds into the ongoing litigation.
Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH v.Devki Nandan Malik T/A Delhi Hardware and Engg Works
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH against Devki Nandan Malik. The court granted exemptions to the plaintiff regarding filing documents and pre-institution mediation, while simultaneously allowing urgent interim relief. Crucially, the court authorized a Local Commissioner to conduct an inspection of the defendant's premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the 'AKEMI' trademark, and examine relevant financial records.
Nnova And Company v.Nitin Gupta Trading As Krishna Agencies
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition following a settlement between Nnova And Company and Nitin Gupta Trading As Krishna Agencies. The court cancelled the registered trademark 'GLOWNOWO' (No. 3830607) in Class-03, which was deemed deceptively similar to the petitioner's mark NOVA. In exchange, the respondent agreed not to use any confusingly similar marks and committed to using a specific label format for 'Glownow', ensuring distinctiveness from the original brand.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
Astrazeneca filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Pharmaceuticals for infringing its patent IN 297581, which covers the compound Osimertinib. The court found that the plaintiffs made out a prima facie case and granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing product until further hearing.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Beacon Pharmaceuticals Plc
Astrazeneca filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Beacon Pharmaceuticals and others for infringing its patent (IN 297581) covering the compound Osimertinib. The court, after considering the prima facie case, granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from selling or offering the patented compound in any form.
Neela Film Productions Private Limited v.Taarakmehtakaooltahchashmah.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders in favor of Neela Film Productions Private Limited (Plaintiff) in its copyright and trademark infringement suit against Taarakmehtakaooltahchashmah.Com & Ors. (Defendants). The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation, allowed the plaintiff to serve advance copies on a specific defendant despite lack of contact details, and directed that the plaint be formally registered as a commercial suit. These orders pave the way for the substantive trial concerning the alleged infringement of the popular show 'Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah'.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited v.Mr Jayesh Dilip Mehta & Anr.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited filed multiple applications seeking an injunction against Mr. Jayesh Dilip Mehta and others, alleging that the respondents were communicating with e-commerce platforms to falsely claim infringement of their trademark 'MYFITNESS'. The petitioner argues that the respondents' actions are causing product delisting on major online marketplaces. While the respondent opposes the maintainability of the applications, citing different sections of the Trade Marks Act, the court has ordered notice and set a date for further arguments.
Havells India Limited v.Hetram Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against Hetram Sharma & Ors. regarding the unauthorized use of its registered trademark 'REO'. The court found that the defendants' adoption of similar marks ('R3 REO 3X') was intended to ride upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation in the electrical goods market. Furthermore, the court permitted a local commission to search the defendant's premises and seize infringing materials.
Himalaya Wellness Company And Ors v.Vlado Sky Enterprise Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company against Vlado Sky Enterprise Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found a prima facie case for passing off, noting that the plaintiffs have established significant goodwill with their 'HIMALAYA' brand since 1930. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from manufacturing or selling products under the deceptively similar mark 'HIMALAYAN ORGANICS', though they were allowed three months to exhaust existing stock.
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.