Delhi High Court - Orders
2136 cases · page 29 of 72
Showing 841–869SRF LIMITED v.SOLVAY S A & ANR.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by Respondent No.1, including an application seeking leave to amend the claims of Patent IN 331314 and a request for condonation of delay. The Court allowed the condonation of delay and granted exemptions sought by the respondent.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
The plaintiffs filed an application alleging that the defendant was non-compliant with a prior court order by promoting or advertising the 'Present and Record' feature on its global website, potentially inviting Indian users to circumvent restrictions using VPNs. The Court found that while the feature is not available for download in India (which constitutes compliance), the defendant must take steps to ensure customer care does not suggest or exhort users to use VPNs to access the feature.
Kao Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kao Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents for its patent application titled "Hair Dyeing Or Bleaching Method". The appeal was based on procedural infirmities, including the failure to raise objections under Section 3(a) in the hearing notice and the erroneous recording regarding industrial applicability. The Court found merit in these submissions and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works v.Deluxeagriculture Industries Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works, overturning a rectification made by the Trademarks Registry that had transferred ownership of the 'Deluxe' trademark to Deluxe Agriculture Industries Private Limited. The court found that the purported Deed of Assignment was invalid because Respondent No. 2 denied executing it and alleged forged signatures. Consequently, the registration was restored to M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works, affirming their original proprietorship.
Bp P.L.C. & Anr. v.Subhash Chandra, Trading As Shivay Enterprises
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking summary judgment. While noting that the defendant had previously complied with a court injunction and ceased using the impugned trademarks, the court did not grant immediate relief. Instead, it allowed the defendant to file a response regarding claims for costs and damages, keeping the litigation active.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Sh. Gautam Tank And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a pending interlocutory application in the trademark infringement suit. The court framed an additional issue to determine whether the defendant is liable to pay additional damages for using the impugned mark after the suit was revived, given that the original ad interim injunction had stood. With evidence complete and parties consenting not to lead further evidence, the matter was scheduled for final hearing.
Shree Ganesh Rolling Mills (India) Ltd v.M/S Jindal Rolling Mill Ltd
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Shree Ganesh Rolling Mills against M/S Jindal Rolling Mill Ltd. The case, which involved allegations of passing off regarding the 'JINDAL' mark, was resolved through mediation and a subsequent settlement agreement. The court upheld the compromise decree, ensuring that while the parties remain bound by the terms, the specific details of the confidential settlement will not be disclosed in the public record.
Britannia Industries Ltd v.ITC Ltd
This case involves a dispute over the validity of a registered design used on 'Good Day' Biscuits labels. The defendant, ITC Ltd, sought summary judgment arguing that the design was not registrable under Section 19(1)(d) and Section 4(b) of the Designs Act, citing prior public disclosure. Britannia Industries Ltd countered this by seeking to place additional documents on record, which they claimed would correct an error in their user claim date. The court adjourned the matter to determine the admissibility of these crucial documents.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed an order dated January 19, 2024, where its patent application (No. 201614010107) for 'Enhanced Aerosol Test for Assessing Filter Integrity' was refused by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs due to lack of inventive step. The court issued notice and set a date for further hearing.
Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt Ltd v.Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark dispute between Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt Ltd and Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd following a comprehensive settlement. The defendant agreed to exhaust all existing stock bearing the disputed mark 'SHYAMJI' by September 30, 2024, while simultaneously withdrawing opposition and registration applications related to that mark. Crucially, the plaintiff consented not to oppose the defendant's adoption of the new trademark, 'SHYAM RASS', effectively resolving the conflict amicably.
Punam Flutes v.Mahesh Chand Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Punam Flutes' petition seeking the cancellation of a conflicting trademark registration ('PUNAM'). The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner's prior and well-established mark, 'PUNAM FLUTES,' used for musical instruments. Given the strong potential for consumer confusion and the Petitioner's established market reputation, the Court ruled that the Respondent's registration could not sustain under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act.
Mayfair Lighting Llp v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Mayfair Lighting Llp, overturning an earlier decision that had deemed their trademark opposition abandoned. The court found that the original timeline for filing evidence was flawed due to issues with service of the counter-statement by the Registrar of Trade Marks. Consequently, the registration of the mark 'LONDON MAY FAIR' in favor of Respondent No. 2 was cancelled, and the opposition proceedings were restored.
Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited v.M/S Savera Eats
The Delhi High Court granted an interim order in favor of Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited against M/S Savera Eats. The Petitioner sought injunctions against the Respondent for continuing to use the registered 'BURGER SINGH' trademarks after a franchise agreement had been terminated. Given the alleged ongoing infringement and reputational damage, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure of all infringing materials at the Respondent's premises.
Lt Foods Ltd & Anr. v.Ss Enterprises
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Lt Foods Ltd & Anr. against Ss Enterprises regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to rice products. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case, noting the defendant was distributing empty packaging filled with non-plaintiff's grains. This immediate relief prevents further damage while the main suit proceeds, underscoring the court's willingness to protect established brands against counterfeiting.
Alcon Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Alcon Inc filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to refuse the grant of its Indian Patent Application No. 201914027377. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file written submissions, setting a date for re-notification.
Oxular Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Oxular Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant an Indian Patent Application (No. 201817034819). The appellant argued that the invention disclosed a substantial technical advancement and economic significance, fulfilling the necessary criteria.
Medilabo Rfp Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Medilabo Rfp Inc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application (no. 202117034705) under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court first condoned a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and subsequently issued notice to the respondent for submission.
Immunovative Therapies, Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Immunovative Therapies, Ltd filed an appeal against objections raised by The Controller of Patents. The respondent completed submissions on Sections 10(4) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, requesting a hearing regarding objections under Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d).
Taco Bell Corp. v.Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises
The Delhi High Court allowed Taco Bell Corp. to withdraw its rectification petition against Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises' trademark registration, provided the latter adheres to a binding undertaking. Tamoghna had previously initiated opposition proceedings against Taco Bell’s 'TACO SUPREME' mark despite limitations on their own registered device mark. The court accepted Tamoghna's commitment to cease all oppositions and cancellations related to 'TACO SUPREME', allowing the petition to be disposed of while preserving rights for future action in case of breach.
Meenu (Trading As M/S Albro Industries) v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications filed by Meenu (M/S Albro Industries) in an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' order. The court condoned a 11-day delay in filing the Memorandum of Appeal and allowed the appellant exemption from submitting original documents. The core dispute, concerning whether a counter statement was properly served during opposition proceedings for the 'AIRODO' trademark, has been listed before the Joint Registrar to complete service, setting the stage for further litigation.
Saint Gobain Glass France v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Saint Gobain Glass France appealed against the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 201717045317 by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the refusal erroneously applied the test of inventive step, failing to recognize the technical advancement and substantial differences in the claimed invention compared to prior art.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Www.Royalenfielddealerships.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended the existing ad interim injunction granted in favor of Eicher Motors Limited against various parties involved in trademark infringement. The court found that new imposter domain names were being used to deceive customers, collecting money under the guise of fake dealerships using the 'Royal Enfield' mark. Consequently, the court issued sweeping directions requiring Domain Name Registrars and financial institutions to lock and suspend the infringing domains and accounts.
Fmi Limited v.Fakhruddin Saifuddin Bharmal
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Fmi Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Fakhruddin Saifuddin Bharmal for using the deceptively similar trademark 'FREEMANS PROFESSIONAL' on protective hand gloves. Despite the defendant arguing that he was merely a reseller and not the manufacturer, the court found his admission of dealing in the infringing goods sufficient to uphold the infringement claim. The judgment underscores that even resellers can be held liable if they use marks confusingly similar to an established trademark.
Honasa Consumer Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Honasa Consumer Limited's appeal against the refusal to register its trademark 'THE DERMA CO'. The initial rejection was based on similarity and likelihood of confusion with an earlier cited mark. However, by providing a disclaimer that they only claim rights over the composite mark and not the word 'DERMA', the court accepted the application. This decision highlights how strategic disclaimers can overcome objections in trademark registration proceedings.
Adret Retail Private Limited v.Abhinandan Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a detailed order in the ongoing suit concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off by defendants using the 'KAPIVA' family of marks. The court granted an interim injunction application (I.A. 8103/2024) by directing the execution of local commissioners' commissions at the defendants' premises. This action is crucial for the plaintiff, Adret Retail Private Limited, to gather evidence regarding the alleged counterfeit products and unauthorized use of their registered trademarks in the market.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Solitaire Pharmacia And Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Mankind Pharma Limited and Solitaire Pharmacia And Anr. The court directed the Respondent to file additional documents demonstrating that the Petitioner was simultaneously seeking rectification of the impugned trademark 'CUREKIND' before the Trademark Registry. Furthermore, the hearing was adjourned to September 2nd, 2024, allowing both parties time to submit composite briefs.
Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. v.Vishwaratna Hotel Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. against Vishwaratna Hotel Pvt Ltd. The court found that the plaintiff, owner of the well-known trademark 'FAIRMONT', had made out a prima facie case for infringement. This order specifically restrains the defendant from using 'FAIRMONT' or any deceptively similar mark in connection with their hotel properties, including the disputed 'OCTAVE FAIRMONT SUITES'. The ruling underscores the immediate protection available to brand owners against unauthorized use of their trademarks.
Mittal Electronic Industries v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mittal Electronic Industries filed a petition challenging the current registration status of the trademark 'MILTON' (No. 419520). The petitioner contends that despite their historical association with the mark, the proprietorship is now incorrectly listed under an unrelated entity, 'Indian Agencies.' The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, prompting a formal inquiry into the ownership and registration details of the trademark.
Astra Zeneca Ab v.Natco Pharma Limited
The case involves a dispute regarding the validity of Indian Patent No. 235625, which was held to be prima facie invalid by co-ordinate benches of the court.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The court addressed arguments concerning the maintainability of a writ petition related to the deletion of an amendment in five patent claims. The court noted similar pending decisions on this issue and allowed the interlocutory application (I.A.) to proceed, considering the counter claim filed by the defendant.
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.