Delhi High Court - Orders
2164 cases · page 28 of 73
Showing 811–839M/S Shrinath Travel Agency & Ors. v.M/S Shreenath Cargo Movers & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Shrinath Travel Agency & Ors. against M/S Shreenath Cargo Movers & Ors. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, noting the similarity between the marks and the services provided (travel, transport, logistics). Crucially, the defendants were ordered to deactivate their infringing domain name within one week, while the operational injunction would take effect after a six-week grace period.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Advent Brand House Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the ongoing trademark dispute between Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and Advent Brand House Private Limited. Noting that certain respondents were unserved despite previous attempts, the court directed the issuance of fresh notices to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner was also instructed to serve the Trade Mark Attorney who represented Respondent No. 1 in the registration process. This procedural step ensures all parties are properly notified before further proceedings continue.
Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. v.Dsr Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order directing the continuation of litigation concerning the 'RATHI' trademark dispute between Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. and Dsr Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Despite unsuccessful mediation efforts, the court scheduled the matter before a different bench for September 3, 2024, to continue addressing the disputed issues.
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their patent related to the pharmaceutical product NIVOLUMAB, marketed as OPDYTA in India. The defendant is attempting to process a biosimilar version of the plaintiff's drug.
Greenlam Industries Limited v.Greenland Particle Boards Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued procedural orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Greenlam Industries Limited against Greenland Particle Boards Private Limited. The court allowed exemptions from pre-institution mediation and granted various applications related to filing documents and time extensions. Crucially, the court directed that summons be issued to the defendant, initiating the formal trial process for the claim of trademark infringement based on the use of similar marks like 'GREENLAND' and 'ZOHA GREENLAND'.
Structural Integrated Panels Private Limited v.Hexpressions Megatech Private Limited & Anr.
The Petitioner, engaged in manufacturing integrated panels, filed a suit seeking the revocation of Patent No. 360834 held by Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner claims that the patented technology is identical to its own commercially available product and that the patent claim is factually misleading.
Sunflame Enterprises P. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
Sunflame Enterprises appealed the Registrar of Trademarks' decision to reject its opposition against a trademark application. The appellant argued that the Registrar incorrectly applied the 'actual confusion' test, contending that the standard should be the more robust 'likelihood of confusion.' The Delhi High Court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed written submissions within four weeks, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on the merits of the trademark dispute.
Chavvi Poplai And Anr v.Rajesh Chugh And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters in this order: an application seeking condonation of delay, which was granted, and a rectification petition challenging the trademark 'NIZAM'S'. The petitioners sought to remove the respondent's trademark registration, arguing that the word is publici juris. While the court accepted notice for the main petition, it also noted prior injunction orders favoring the respondents, directing both parties to file detailed replies before the next hearing.
M/S Shree Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mill) v.Registrar of Copyrights and Anr
M/S Shree Hari Industries filed a suit against the Registrar of Copyrights alleging that respondents were selling mustard oil using an almost identical trade dress and packaging to the petitioner's product. The Delhi High Court addressed procedural matters, noting the emergence of evidence showing blatant copying by the respondents. While granting some time for the respondent to file necessary documentation, the court emphasized the seriousness of the infringement claim and fixed a firm date for the next hearing.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Aricsson (Pub) v.Controller General of Patents and Designs and Trademarks
This order in Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Aricsson vs Controller General of Patents and Designs deals with a patent application that has technically expired. Despite the expiration, the appellant raised arguments concerning whether telecommunication methods fall under the scope of 'algorithm' or 'business method', which would restrict them under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1997. The court acknowledged this academic issue and scheduled the matter for further hearing.
Rayner Surgical Ireland Limited (formerly Omeros Corporation) v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant (Rayner Surgical Ireland Limited/Omeros Corporation) filed an appeal challenging the order dated January 31, 2020, which refused its patent application for 'STABLE PRESERVATIVE-FREE MYDRIATIC AND ANTI-INFLAMMATORY SOLUTIONS FOR INJECTION'. The court also addressed applications regarding exemption from fees and condonation of delay.
Samsung Electronics Co,M v.Samsung Leasing & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark passing off suit filed by Samsung Electronics. The court allowed a minor application concerning corporate name changes for one defendant, while simultaneously framing an additional issue to determine the validity and non-use of the plaintiff's 'SAMSUNG' trademarks. Furthermore, the court dismissed the defendants' attempt to prematurely adjudicate objections regarding the mode of proof during evidence, holding that such issues are best reserved for final arguments.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. v.Crystal Corporation & Ors.
The Delhi High Court modified an earlier ex-parte injunction in favor of Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. after Defendant No. 1 successfully argued that the initial court findings regarding prior communications were incorrect. The Court found that the notices sent by the plaintiff were not received by Defendant No. 1, leading to a variation of the injunction. While the defendant must avoid using 'CRYSTAL' as the principal brand mark on its agro-products, it is permitted to continue using its trade name 'CRYSTAL CORPORATION' and associated logo.
Puneet Chhabra Proprietor Of Rama Wire Industries v.Kewal Krishan Bansal Proprietor Of M/S Vee Pee Bansal And Company
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Rama Wire Industries (the appellant) seeking interim protection against a suit brought by Vee Pee Bansal and Company (the respondent). The core dispute involved allegations of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement. The court found that the appellant's claim to hold a copyright in its mark was dishonest, noting the striking similarity between the marks. Consequently, the court declined to grant any interim order in favor of the appellant.
Kunj Bihari Food Processors Private Limited v.Shree Shakambari Rice Mill Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Kunj Bihari Food Processors Private Limited against Shree Shakambari Rice Mill Private Limited. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, specifically concerning the use of identical or deceptively similar labels and trade dress for rice products. This immediate relief prevents the defendants from continuing to manufacture or sell goods under the disputed marks until the full trial can take place.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed petitions concerning the registration of impugned trademarks. While an initial request for document exemption was granted, a subsequent interim application seeking directions was dismissed because the marks had already been registered. The court noted that despite the registrations, the core legal question regarding third-party rights under Section 19 of the Trade Marks Act requires further consideration and set a date for re-notification.
Dupont Industrial Biosciences Usa Llc v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenges the order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected the grant of a divisional patent application (No. 202118031579). The Appellant argues that the divisional application clearly demonstrates distinct claims, contrary to the Deputy Controller's finding.
Pharma Mar, S.A. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Pharma Mar, S.A. filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its Patent Application No. 202117032003 for "Anti-Cancer Compounds" by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court accepted notice and listed the matter for further hearing.
The Indian Hotels Company Limited v.Shivgyan Developers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint settlement application between The Indian Hotels Company Limited (Plaintiff) and Shivgyan Developers Private Limited (Defendant). To avoid protracted litigation regarding the well-known trademark 'VIVANTA', both parties mutually agreed to resolve the dispute. Under the terms, the Defendant acknowledged Plaintiff's sole ownership of VIVANTA, committed to using the alternative mark 'VIVIAN,' and undertook to withdraw four pending trademark applications related to the disputed brand.
Anil Kumar Gera Trading As Alka Food Industries v.Mr Ramesh Chander Trading As Anil Food Industries
This Delhi High Court order addressed petitions challenging two existing copyright registrations held by M/s Anil Food Industries. The petitioner, Alka Food Industries, alleged that these registrations for artistic labels were obtained improperly and in contravention of statutory rules. The core legal issue revolved around whether the Respondent complied with the mandatory requirement of issuing notice to all interested parties during the registration process. The Court directed that the impugned copyrights be treated as revoked/cancelled, while simultaneously reviving the original applications. This allows the Petitioner a fresh opportunity to file an opposition, ensuring the matter is re-decided in accordance with law.
Schneider Electric Buildings Americas Inc v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appeal challenges the Assistant Controller's order dated January 23, 2024, which rejected Appellant's patent application (No. 6956/DELNP/2014) under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an exemption request and directed parties to file written submissions.
Cassiopea Spa v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Cassiopea Spa filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 655/DELNP/2010) under Section 15 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. The court granted condonation of delay and set out directions for further proceedings in the appeal.
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited v.Shri Ram Polymers & Anr
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited filed an opposition against the trademark registration of 'Shri New Prakash Flex' by Shri Ram Polymers & Anr, arguing that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to their existing registered marks ('Prakash', 'Prakash Gold'). The Delhi High Court has initiated the proceedings, issuing notice and setting timelines for both parties to file detailed written submissions. This case will determine whether the new registration infringes upon the petitioner's established brand rights.
Mankind Pharma Ltd. v.Gurinder Singh
The Delhi High Court allowed Mankind Pharma Ltd.'s petition seeking the cancellation of a competing trademark registered by Gurinder Singh. The court held that due to Mankind's long-standing use and established goodwill, its marks (including 'MANKIND' and the 'KIND' family) had acquired well-known status. Consequently, the registration of the impugned mark was deemed violative of Sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Trademarks Act, leading to its removal from the register.
M/S. Vaibhav Equipments v.Vandhana Jain & Anr.
M/S. Vaibhav Equipments initiated trademark opposition proceedings against Vandhana Jain & Anr., challenging the registration of identical marks in classes 9 and 35. The petitioner asserts prior use of their trademarks, including 'VESUMO' and 'SUMO', since 1997 for welding tools, arguing that the subsequent adoption by the respondent is in bad faith. The court has issued notice to the respondents and scheduled the matter for further pleadings and hearing.
Tesla Inc. v.Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.
Tesla Inc. filed a suit against Tesla Power India Private Limited and others, alleging infringement of its 'TESLA' trademark and passing off in relation to battery technology marketing. The Delhi High Court formally registered the suit and allowed the parties to proceed with litigation. Crucially, during the initial hearing, the defendants provided an undertaking assuring they would not use the impugned trademarks deceptively or market EVs under the brand name, a significant development for the ongoing dispute.
Pfizer Inc v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their patent related to the pharmaceutical product 'LORLATINIB'. The defendants are accused of manufacturing and selling an infringing product under the brand name 'LORBREXEN'.
Gautam Bhatia v.Vinayak Enterprises
The court addressed several interlocutory applications. Most notably, it allowed the Plaintiff's application invoking Section 58 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to amend the claims of Patent IN No. 410993. Notice was served on the Controller and Defendants, setting a date for completion of pleadings.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.Meet Dilipkumar Patel And Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the 'KHADI ARK' and similar marks, maintaining the status quo during the ongoing suit. While the court upheld the protection of the plaintiff's trademark rights, discussions opened regarding a potential settlement, with the defendant offering an undertaking not to use the trademarks in the future if damages were waived. The matter was adjourned for further resolution.
Liberty Group Marketing Division v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Liberty Group Marketing Division's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their trademark application. The court set aside the initial refusal, which was based on a cited mark under Section 11 of the Trademarks Act. Crucially, the court restored the application to its original number but made it conditional: the applicant must first take steps to have the cited mark cancelled or rectified before the merits of their own application will be considered.
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.