Delhi High Court - Orders
2136 cases · page 22 of 72
Showing 631–659Elder Remedies Limited v.Elder Prroject Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications, including those concerning document filing procedures. Crucially, the court proceeded with the main petition filed by Elder Remedies Limited seeking cancellation of a copyright registration (No. 2153/2020-CO/A). The petitioner alleges that the respondent unlawfully obtained the copyright without proper notification under Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, which fundamentally prejudices the petitioner's rights. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed replies regarding the validity of the registration.
Astrazeneca Ab v.T Rao
The Delhi High Court framed multiple issues regarding the validity of three Indian Patents (IN 209907, IN 247984, IN 272674) held by Astrazeneca Ab. The court also addressed infringement claims related to the product TICAGRELOR and granted procedural directions for evidence recording.
Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Deepak Kumar Mittal & Anr.
Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd has filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the removal and cancellation of a similar trademark used by Deepak Kumar Mittal. The petitioner asserts that their family has been commercially using the 'GURU JI' mark since 1983-84, establishing prior and senior rights in relation to various goods. The court accepted notice from the respondent and directed both parties to file detailed replies within specified timelines, setting the stage for a full hearing on trademark infringement/revocation.
Micro Labs Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Micro Labs Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 247381, while Bristol-Myers Squibb Ireland Unlimited Company sought permanent injunction against Micro Labs for infringing the patent using 'Apixaban' and 'APIVAS'. The parties successfully negotiated a settlement agreement in mediation.
Micro Labs Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Micro Labs Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 247381, while Bristol-Myers Squibb Ireland Unlimited Company sought permanent injunction against Micro Labs for infringing the patent using 'Apixaban' and 'APIVAS'. The parties successfully negotiated a settlement agreement in mediation.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited v.Mittal Industrial Corporation & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute between M/S Rspl Health Private Limited and Mittal Industrial Corporation & Anr. While procedural matters like exemption from certified copies were granted, the core petition seeking removal or rectification of the impugned trademark 'SAGAR SUPREME LABEL' was advanced. The court accepted notice and directed all parties to file their replies within specified timelines, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on the alleged deceptive similarity.
Falcon Autotech Private Limited v.Kengic Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of its patented 'Integrated Pre-Sortation System' (Patent No. IN410846). The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to protect its statutory rights against the defendant, who was allegedly manufacturing and selling infringing sorter machines in India without proper licenses.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.The Controller of Patents
Boehringer Ingelheim International filed an appeal against the Controller of Patents' order dated April 24, 2024. The core issue is whether the patent application constitutes a valid divisional application under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an interim exemption regarding document filing and listed the main appeal for further hearing.
Pps International v.Subhajit Goswami And Another
Pps International filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the revocation of registered patent number 475011 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed an exemption application and issued notices to all respondents for filing their replies.
Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ks Agro Impex And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd against Ks Agro Impex. The court found that the defendant's use of a nearly identical packaging and mark ('ZARDA SPECIAL') created a significant likelihood of consumer confusion with the plaintiff's 'Zarda King' product. This ruling protects the plaintiff's trade dress, which was deemed both an original trade dress under the Trade Marks Act and an original artistic work under the Copyright Act.
L&T Valves Limited v.M/S Isteel
In a suit concerning trademark infringement, L&T Valves Limited successfully secured several interim reliefs from the Delhi High Court. The court granted exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advance service, allowing the plaintiff to proceed urgently. Crucially, the court passed an order for ex-parte ad-interim injunction, directing the appointment of a Local Commissioner to seize infringing material and inspect relevant documents, thereby providing immediate protection against alleged trademark misuse.
INCYTE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v.DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing copyright. The defendant raised defenses regarding service of documents and asserted that its activities are limited to permissible uses under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.
Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
This appeal was filed by Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co Ltd against an order dated March 14, 2024, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The original application for patent (No. 202117022431) was rejected based on objections under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
Agro Innovation International v.The Controller Of Patents
Agro Innovation International filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' decision dated 23.02.2024, which had rejected their patent application no. 202017025064. The court allowed applications for exemption and condoned a delay of eight days in filing the appeal, subsequently issuing notice to the respondent.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the refusal of its patent application (no. 202217036137) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court issued notice to the respondent and granted time for filing a reply, setting the matter for renotification.
University Of Florida Research Foundation Incorporated v.The Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs
The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for application no. 202017034395, citing non-patentability under Section 3(b). The court first condoned the delay in filing the appeal before directing parties to file replies regarding the main appeal.
Jindal (India) Limited v.Ratan Kumar Choudhary & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Jindal (India) Limited against Ratan Kumar Choudhary & Anr. While granting procedural exemptions, the court specifically advanced the main injunction request (I.A. 6082/2024). The court found prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's registered mark 'JINDAL' and the defendants' usage on roofing sheets, ordering notice to the defendants to record their undertaking before the Court.
Yonex Kabushiki Kaisha Trading As Yonex Co Ltd v.Harshit Setia & Anr.
Yonex filed a petition seeking the rectification and expungement of a trademark registration (No. 5548308) in Class 25, held by Harshit Setia, for the mark 'AERUS'. Yonex argued that the registration was obtained in bad faith and lacked bonafide use, making it ex facie illegal under Section 47(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. The Delhi High Court accepted notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies within specified timelines, setting the matter for further hearing.
Natera Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Natera Inc appealed against an order issued by The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which held that its patent application (No. 18/DELNP/2015) was not patentable due to non-compliance with various sections of the Patent Act, 1970. The High Court issued notice and granted time for the respondent to file a reply.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lotus Labs Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit regarding infringement of patent IN'841. The court considered the defense that the defendants were only engaged in permitted activities under Section 107(A) and had not yet obtained commercial manufacturing licenses from CDSCO. The court granted an interim order allowing the defendants to proceed with obtaining necessary permissions.
Havells India Ltd v.Hirvijay Industries Llp & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Ltd against Hirvijay Industries Llp & Ors regarding the alleged infringement of the registered trademark 'REO'. The court found that the defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark, 'REIO', constituted passing off and dilution. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct searches at the defendants' premises, seize infringing goods, and inspect relevant financial records.
M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Aum Universal Inc. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s application seeking permission to introduce crucial new evidence into the ongoing trademark dispute. The plaintiff sought to file the official trademark registration certificate and status, which was granted after the initial opposition filed by the defendants was rejected. This ruling allows the plaintiff to strengthen its case for rectification in the suit.
Shri Kirit Bhadiadra v.Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent) to introduce a recent trademark registration certificate for 'MEDILICE' into the ongoing litigation. Although the original suit concerned infringement and passing off, the court recognized that the new Class 5 registration could bear on the disputes between the parties. This order allows the introduction of evidence relating to the mark's expanded scope, while preserving the rights of the appellant.
Fdc Limited v.Zaventis Healthcare Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Fdc Limited against Zaventis Healthcare Private Limited. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant's adoption of the mark 'ZIFISAFE' for identical pharmaceutical products constitutes a blatant attempt to capitalize on the established reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'ZIFI'. Citing prima facie evidence and irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendant from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.
Mars Incorporated v.Rf Limited And Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit filed by Mars Incorporated against Rf Limited And Ors. following a comprehensive settlement between the parties. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off related to the distinctive packaging, trade dress, and branding of Mars' PEDIGREE pet food line. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants acknowledged Mars' proprietary rights and agreed to cease manufacturing or marketing pet foods using an identical trade dress or get-up for their 'PETYUM' brand.
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v.Ideal Technoplast Industries Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Mold-Tek Packaging Limited, filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its registered patents and designs. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the plaintiff, including exemption from advance service and pre-litigation mediation. Furthermore, the court allowed an application for Local Commissioners to conduct search and seizure at the defendants' premises regarding alleged patent infringement.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application. The Controller refused the grant on the ground that the invention related to tobacco use, which causes serious prejudice to human life or health, making it ineligible under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Schneider Electric It Corporation has appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting the grant of patent for Patent Application No. 201617000209. The appellant contends that the respondent failed to consider their detailed submissions regarding the invention requirements under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
Mohd Shakir v.Gopal Traders & Anr.
Mohd Shakir appealed a single judge's decision that dismissed his petition seeking cancellation or rectification of a work registered under No. A-120894/2017, which was claimed by Gopal Traders & Anr. The core dispute revolves around the mark "MYA," where the appellant claims prior rights based on third-party trademark registrations held by Mr Youssef and Mya International. The court found the matter required examination and issued notice to all respondents.
Primestack Pte. Ltd And Anr. v.John Doe And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Primestack Pte. Ltd against John Doe and others regarding the infringement of its registered trademark 'CoinDCX'. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case, irreparable loss was likely, and the balance of convenience favored granting relief. The order specifically restrained unauthorized use of the trademarks and directed various defendants to suspend operations of associated accounts, domains, and phone numbers.
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.