Delhi High Court - Orders
2136 cases · page 38 of 72
Showing 1111–1139Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
JFE Steel Corporation filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents' decision to refuse its patent application. The refusal was based on the grounds that the claims did not fulfill the criteria of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Rahul Sharma And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., recognizing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off against Rahul Sharma and others. The court found that the use of deceptively similar marks like 'Dream 11 onlinematka' creates a high chance of confusion, especially online. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing mark and directed to lock and suspend the associated website and domain name.
Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr. v.Ena Universal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking to enforce an existing injunction against trademark infringement related to 'BAJAJ ALMOND DROPS'. The Plaintiffs argued that Defendants were circumventing the court order by selling infringing products through e-commerce platforms under different names. Recognizing this evasion, the Court allowed the impleadment of new parties, including AMZ Venturz, VBRO Skin Care, and Flipkart itself, to ensure comprehensive enforcement against all involved entities.
Daicel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Daicel Corporation appealed a rejection order passed by the Joint Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application for a disintegrating tablet. The Patent Office rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v.Shree Sakshat Money Lenders And Exchange Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed petitions filed by Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. seeking cancellation of 'TIGER' device logos registered by Shree Sakshat Money Lenders. The court noted the near identity between the marks and directed that status quo be maintained concerning the registrations. This interim order prevents any transfer, license, or assignment of the disputed trademarks while the matter proceeds.
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v.Shree Sakshat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Heineken Asia Pacific filed cancellation petitions against trademarks registered by Shree Sakshat Infrastructure, alleging that the Respondent is a squatter who has registered an identical device mark. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the near identity between the marks in dispute. Consequently, the court directed that status quo be maintained concerning the registration and prohibited any transfer or assignment of the disputed trademark until further proceedings.
Sunstar Overseas Ltd. v.Hello Minerals Waters Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Sunstar Overseas Ltd. seeking rectification of the trademark 'HELLO' (No. 666671). The court noted that despite repeated attempts to serve notice and ensure appearance, neither the petitioner nor the respondent appeared in court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
S3G Technology Llc v.Sourcetrace Systems India Private
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 328489. The parties later entered into a settlement agreement, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Insecticides (India) Limited v.Anu Products Limited
Insecticides (India) Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of its patent (IN 316801), which covers an insecticidal composition. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement via mediation, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Prk Productions Llp
Himalaya Wellness Company filed a suit alleging trademark infringement against Prk Productions LLP over the use of 'VIMALAYA' in their film 'Aachar & Co.' The Plaintiffs argued that this usage distorted their established brands like 'HIMALAYA', 'Liv.52', etc., causing consumer confusion. Despite initial denials by the Defendant, the Court found strong evidence supporting the similarity and registered trademarks of the Plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was formally registered, and summons were issued to compel the Defendant to appear and defend the allegations.
Tibra Collection v.Fashnear Technologies Private Limited & Ors.
Tibra Collection filed suit against several unauthorized sellers operating on the Meesho platform (run by Fashnear Technologies Private Limited) for copyright infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were selling counterfeit garments that copied their designs and misusing their copyrighted photographs. After initial interim injunctions, the parties reached a settlement agreement. The court subsequently decreed the suit against the infringing sellers (Defendants 2-6), formalizing the undertaking which included a payment of Rs. 10 lakh to Tibra Collection and permanent cessation of all infringing activities.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Bristol Myers Squibb Company And Anr
The matter involved Natco Pharma Limited and Bristol Myers Squibb Company regarding Indian Patent No. IN 247381, which covers Factor Xa Inhibitors used in the pharmaceutical preparation APIXABAN. The parties amicably settled their disputes via an agreement dated August 8, 2023.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Hetero Healthcare Limited And Anr
In a complex trademark dispute, Sun Pharma sought permanent injunction against Hetero Healthcare regarding the alleged infringement of its mark 'LETROZ' by 'LETERO'. The court allowed the Defendants to challenge the validity of Sun Pharma's marks through a rectification petition under Section 57. Crucially, the court clarified that while invalidity can be challenged, the primary suit for passing off will proceed independently, leading to framing of multiple issues covering both infringement and validity.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed a refusal order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application 'Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices'. The refusal was based on lack of novelty and inventive step citing prior art. The court directed that an IPO official must be present for further hearings to address these technical objections.
Janssen Schiences Ireland Uc v.Controller Of Patents
Janssen Schiences Ireland Uc appealed the refusal of a patent application for 'Prevention of HIV- Infection with TMC278' by the Deputy Controller of Patents. The appeal challenged the grounds of lack of inventive step and non-patentability due to mere admixture. However, the appellant subsequently decided to withdraw the present appeal.
Retail Royalty Company & Anr. v.Garvit Khandelwal, Trading As Ektarfa Garments & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, Retail Royalty Company & Anr., against Garvit Khandelwal (Ektarfa) for trademark infringement involving 'American Eagle' apparel. Despite the defendant claiming lack of knowledge and offering a settlement, the court found him liable due to his previous conduct as an infringer. The suit was decreed with a permanent injunction and an award of Rs. 3,00,000/- in damages.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Naresh Kumar Goyal, Trading As Maiden Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex interplay between an infringement suit and concurrent rectification petitions concerning pharmaceutical trademarks. The court clarified that while the statute requires rectification to be decided first, the simultaneous filing by the plaintiff preempted the need for a mandatory adjournment. Consequently, the court framed multiple issues covering trademark validity, infringement, passing-off, and defenses like adoption from APIs, setting the case for trial.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.Sauss Home Products Private Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses a complex trademark dispute between Reckitt Benckiser and Sauss Home Products concerning the 'Robin Bird' device mark. The core issue revolves around establishing who is the prior adopter or owner of the distinctive mark and artistic work used on their respective products. The court has directed both parties to file comprehensive evidence, including marketing materials and advertisements, to substantiate their claims of priority. Furthermore, several applications regarding territorial jurisdiction, stays, and cancellation petitions are pending, indicating a multi-faceted legal battle.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application (1519/DELNP/2005) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The appeal was ultimately disposed of by the Delhi High Court because the life term of the patent application had expired during the pendency of the appeal.
M/S Shree Rathnam Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Vrindavan Foods And Anr
M/S Shree Rathnam Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. filed a contempt petition against M/S Vrindavan Foods And Anr alleging violation of a prior court order dated March 6, 2023. The original order had restrained the respondents from operating under the 'SHREE RATHNAM' brand or utilizing the petitioner's trade secrets and confidential data. After hearing the arguments, the Delhi High Court disposed of the contempt petition, accepting the defense that the respondents had complied with the judgment in letter, spirit, and intent.
Mhg Ip Holding (Singapore) Pte. Ltd v.Anantara Greens & Ors
This Delhi High Court order marks the initial procedural steps in a trademark infringement suit filed by MHG IP Holding against Anantara Greens. The court registered the plaint and set out the schedule for pleadings, while simultaneously addressing several interlocutory applications. Key decisions included condoning the plaintiff's delay in refiling the suit and granting exemptions necessary to proceed with the claim of continuing trademark infringement.
M/S Sachdeva And Sons Industries Ppvt Ltd v.M/S Jivan Ram And Sons
This matter involved a rectification petition filed by M/S Sachdeva And Sons Industries Ppvt Ltd against the Copyright registration held by M/S Jivan Ram And Sons for an artistic work titled 'PYARI'. The petitioner sought to challenge this copyright based on its own registered Trademark, 'PARI'. However, due to repeated failures of the Petitioner to appear in court and difficulties in serving notices, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the rectification petition for non-prosecution.
Mr Archit Lohia & Ors. v.Ons Mechcon Project Private Limited & Anr.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendants' product, 'Alumina Ceramic Adjustable Line Orifice', infringes upon their Indian Patent IN355705 concerning a variable orifice for regulating mass transport. The court registered the plaint and issued orders regarding pleadings, interim injunctions, and exemption from pre-institution mediation.
Exide Industries Ltd / Chloride Group Limited v.Vertiv Company Group Limited / R.G. Kapadia & Others
The Delhi High Court decreed two consolidated suits concerning the trademark 'CHLORIDE' after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The dispute involved Exide Industries Ltd (and Chloride Group Limited) against Vertiv Company Group Limited regarding the unauthorized use of the mark on UPS products. Under the terms of the settlement, Vertiv agreed not to use the 'CHLORIDE' trademark or its variants directly or indirectly, effectively resolving the long-standing infringement claims.
ITC Limited v.Godfrey Phillips India Limited & Anr
ITC Limited filed a Rectification Petition seeking the removal of the 'SUN FLAKE' trademark registration held by Godfrey Phillips India Limited. The petition, which also involved striking off certain paragraphs and documents from affidavits, was listed before the Delhi High Court on November 10, 2023. The court accepted notice and scheduled the matter for further hearing on November 21, 2023.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd & Ors
The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants' product infringes their patent titled 'A system and a method for creating and sharing interactive content rapidly anywhere and anytime'. The Defendants were previously restrained from making the product available in the market.
Arcturus Therapeutics Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arcturus Therapeutics Inc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent (IN'205) for 'Ionizable Cationic Lipid for RNA Delivery'. The refusal was based on non-submission of required data and pending claims.
Rakesh Kumar Trading As M/S Sai Birbal Das Foods v.Khilender Gupta Trading As M/S Bobby Enterprises
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'BOOM BOOM'. The court noted prima facie merit in the appellant's claim regarding the long-standing use of the trademark since 2000. Given discrepancies in the starting date of use found by the lower court, the High Court granted a stay on the District Judge's previous order while reserving further consideration of the matter.
The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P. v.Home Needs
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on an adverse commercial court order in favor of The Polo/Lauren Company L.P., which was seeking to protect its trademarks against 'POLOLIFETIME'. The court noted that the appellant holds registrations for 'POLO' and 'RALPH LAUREN', and referenced prior findings recognizing these marks as 'well-known'. Finding merit in the challenge, the High Court stayed the lower court's order until further hearing.
Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited v.Garima Singh & Anr.
In a trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed an application filed by the respondent seeking condonation of a 21-day delay. The petitioner, Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited, expressed no objection to the delay being excused. Consequently, the court allowed the application, allowing the respondent's reply to be taken on record and granting time for filing a rejoinder.
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.