Delhi High Court - Orders
2136 cases · page 28 of 72
Showing 811–839Tesla 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.
Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Welldorf Labs & Ors.
In a significant development for trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court allowed Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd to proceed with its petition seeking rectification of the mark 'APTIFAST'. The court accepted the respondent's instruction to voluntarily withdraw the registered trademark. Consequently, the petitioner's case was disposed of on the condition that the respondents formally file an application for withdrawal within three weeks, ensuring the mark is struck off the register.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has suppressed information regarding the utilization of the patent and has fabricated invoices to demonstrate its working. The Defendant contests the validity of the Plaintiff's claims and seeks dismissal of the application based on these allegations.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa & Anr. v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Helsinn Healthcare filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Hetero Healthcare Limited for infringing their patent (No. 426553) related to a combination treatment for nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy. The court, after considering the promotional material of 'NETUPIN', found that the defendant's product was an integrated combination of the patented compounds, thus making a prima facie case for infringement.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd v.Parijat Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd
The case involves a patent infringement dispute regarding two products, 'Xyfen' and 'Xyfen Ultra', which are alleged to infringe Indian Patent No. 394568. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the Defendant's products.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design which rejected its Patent Application No. 10885/DELNP/2015 for a product treating IBS. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court adjourned the matter.
Marelli Europe S.P.A. v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Marelli Europe S.P.A. filed an appeal challenging the Deputy Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 495/DEL/2013). The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patents Act, 1999. The court issued directions for notice and filing of replies.
Janssen Sciences Ireland Uc v.Controller Of Patents
Janssen Sciences Ireland appealed the Deputy Controller's refusal of its Indian Patent Application for 'LONG TERM TREATMENT OF HIV-INFECTION WITH TMC278'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step. The Court noted an inconsistency between the formulation claim and method claims in the application, allowing the Appellant to file a fresh, amended application.
The Procter & Gamble Company v.Rspl Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by The Procter & Gamble Company against Rspl Limited, directing the removal of the trade mark 'VINGS'. The court found that 'VINGS' was phonetically and identically similar to the petitioner's prior registered trademark 'WINGS', which covered identical goods (sanitary pads). Furthermore, the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of use for their mark during the application process. While the immediate rectification is granted, the broader issue regarding Rspl's descriptive use of 'with wings' remains open and will be decided in a separate suit.
Anuj Bindal M/S Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills v.Tarsem Chand M/S R.D Traders
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Aggarwal Rice and Oil Mills, leading to the cancellation of a nearly identical trademark registration held by R.D Traders. The court found that both marks were phonetically and structurally similar, creating a high likelihood of consumer confusion in the animal feed market. Crucially, the court determined that while the Petitioner's prior use was not perfectly documented, the Respondent failed to provide credible evidence supporting their claimed date of first use, thus invalidating the registration under Section 9(2)(a) and on grounds of fraudulent representation.
Star Scientific Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Star Scientific Limited filed an appeal against the impugned order dated December 18, 2023, which rejected its patent application No. 20201711947 due to non-appearance on a scheduled hearing date. The appellant sought remand for hearing and condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
Glow Shoes Private Limited v.Trk Industries Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the defendant, Trk Industries Pvt Ltd, challenging the validity of Glow Shoes Private Limited's trademark registration No. 1467735 ('TRV') in Class 25. Despite unsuccessful settlement attempts between the parties, the court issued notice and scheduled the matter for further proceedings on August 29, 2024. This order keeps the dispute alive, allowing both sides to proceed with their arguments regarding trademark validity.
Shrinath Travel Agency & Anr. v.Maventech Labs Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Shrinath Travel Agency against Maventech Labs Private Limited and others. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were deceptively adopting their registered trademarks ('SHRINATH') and associated marks in the tour and travel industry, including through identical domain names. The court found a prima facie case was made out, noting that balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, leading to immediate restraint on the use of infringing marks and websites until the final hearing.
Sequoia Capital Operations Llc & Ors. v.Seene Trader & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Sequoia Capital Operations LLC and Peak XV Partners against the alleged fraudster 'Senee Trader'. The court granted several urgent reliefs, including exempting the plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed domain name registrars (Dynadot, Gname) to suspend relevant domains and mandated government bodies (MeitY, DoT) and financial institutions (NPCI) to take steps to permanently block or remove access to fraudulent websites, social media accounts, and UPI IDs used by the defendant.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Om Prakash Gupta
In a case concerning the infringement of trademarks and copyrights, Tata Sons sought judicial assistance to manage seized counterfeit products. The Delhi High Court granted the application, appointing a Local Commissioner to visit the warehouse where 624 packages of fake TATA TEA PREMIUM were stored. This order allows Plaintiffs to draw samples for trial purposes while also granting them liberty to destroy the remaining inventory, ensuring the chain of custody is maintained.
Disposafe Health And Life Care Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, Disposafe Health And Life Care Limited sought clarification on the service status of a hearing notice related to their application. While the Registrar of Trade Marks cited database records indicating successful notice dispatch, the appellant argued that the portal did not confirm actual service. The court granted the appellant liberty to file an affidavit to substantiate their claim regarding the lack of service confirmation.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Manking Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against Manking Pharmaceutical Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case based on the phonetic similarity between the 'MANKIND' mark and the defendant's adopted variations, as well as the use of a deceptively similar logo device. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted suspicious corporate links, suggesting the defendant was incorporated by an ex-employee to dishonestly adopt the protected brand identity.
Pluto Travels India Private Limited v.Ptw Holidays Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pluto Travels against Ptw Holidays. The court allowed several procedural requests, including condonation of delay and exemptions from pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court noted the plaintiff's claim regarding the use of the identical mark 'PLUTO' for travel services and directed service of notice on the defendant concerning the injunction request, setting a date for further hearing.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected a post-grant opposition against Patent no. IN 319780. The appellant argued that since the respondent failed to comply with previous court remands, the High Court should rule on the merits of the case.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated November 9, 2023, which refused its patents application. The court first allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Karan Rathore v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Karan Rathore appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision that dismissed his opposition against a trademark application. The Delhi High Court accepted the appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing the matter to proceed. Notice has been issued to the respondents, who have been granted six weeks to file their reply and subsequent rejoinder.
Zydus Healthcare Limited v.Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed concerns raised by Zydus Healthcare regarding counterfeit goods sold on Flipkart. While acknowledging that e-commerce platforms have mechanisms in place, the court highlighted critical procedural flaws, particularly concerning seller onboarding, GST misuse, and product identification (FSN). The judgment mandates Flipkart to investigate these issues, provide specific documentation like bank details, and implement technical solutions to prevent genuine sellers from being unfairly de-listed.
Bic Cello India Private Limited v.Ramanlal Rughnathmalji Jain
Bic Cello India Private Limited initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking the invalidation of a trademark registration held by Ramanlal Rughnathmalji Jain, specifically concerning the mark 'TRIMORE'. The court accepted the plaintiff's application and issued notice to the defendant. This marks the initial procedural step in challenging the validity of the registered trademark.
Belle Wears Private Limited v.Hobby Garments Private Limited
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in the trademark infringement and passing off case filed by Belle Wears Private Limited against Hobby Garments Private Limited. The court formally registered the suit and directed the issuance of summons to the defendant. Crucially, the plaintiff was also granted an interim order allowing notice to be served on the defendant regarding the alleged infringement of the 'TEENAGER' trademark and artistic work, setting the stage for further litigation.
Thukral Mechanical Works v.Pm Diesels Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court, in a series of connected appeals, addressed challenges to an earlier finding regarding trademark non-use. While some applications were disposed of with exemptions allowed, the court granted a stay on the main impugned judgment. This decision highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny over trademark cancellation proceedings, particularly when conflicting interpretations of Supreme Court precedents arise.
Novartis Ag v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit for infringement of Indian Patent No. 229051, while the Defendant challenged the validity of the patent. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and sought a consent decree.
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.