Delhi High Court - Orders
2164 cases · page 38 of 73
Showing 1111–1139Vidya Mandir Classes Ltd. v.Wefrew Educations P. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Vidya Mandir Classes Ltd. against Wefrew Educations P. Ltd., finding that Vidya Mandir had a prima facie case regarding the unauthorized use of its trademarks and proprietary course materials. The court observed that Wefrew was allegedly using these assets while simultaneously claiming disassociation, causing potential irreparable harm to the petitioner. Consequently, Wefrew was immediately restrained from using any material or marks associated with Vidya Mandir Classes.
M/S Dandi Salt Pvt. Limited v.M/S Indo Brine Industries Limited
M/S Dandi Salt Pvt. Limited filed a review petition challenging an earlier dismissal by the Copyright Board on grounds of being time-barred. The core dispute involved objections raised by the petitioner against M/S Indo Brine Industries Limited's attempt to register copyright for the artistic work 'INDOBRINE DANDI SALT/DANDI NAMAK'. Although the initial appeal was dismissed due to procedural delays, the High Court considered the parties' claims and subsequent settlement. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Copyright Office for fresh consideration.
Toyo Aluminium Kabushiki Kaisha v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting their patent application ('MULTILAYER BODY AND CONTAINER') due to non-compliance with requirements for inventive step under the Patent Act, 1970. The court allowed a procedural exemption and directed the respondent counsel to file written submissions before listing the matter further.
Grasim Industries Limited v.Lenzing Ag & Anr.
Grasim Industries Limited filed a revocation petition against Patent no. IN 367685, granted to Lenzing AG for 'Fire-retardant cellulose fiber'. The court disposed of several interlocutory applications and initiated proceedings by issuing notice and setting timelines for filing the counter affidavit.
Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Limited v.Mahavir Spinning Mills Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the trademark cancellation petitions filed by Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Limited against Mahavir Spinning Mills Limited. The dismissal was based on a pre-existing settlement agreement from 2010, which stipulated that both parties would continue using their respective shade numerals and adopt unique identifiers for future shades. This compromise effectively resolved all disputes related to the trademarks in question.
T-Mobile Usa Inc v.Controller Of Patents
The court heard matters concerning various parties, including T-Mobile Usa Inc vs Controller Of Patents. The hearing focused on issues related to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Colgate-Palmolive Company v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Colgate-Palmolive Company appealed the refusal of its national phase patent application (4411/DELNP/2007) for 'An Oral Composition'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). However, due to the Appellant's failure to appear despite repeated notices, the court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals appealed against an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which refused their patent application (201717017554) due to a lack of novelty. The court directed the respondent to file a reply, specifically addressing the inconsistency of the claims cited by the Controller.
Walter Bushnell Pvt Ltd. v.Galaxi Drugs Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark cancellation petition filed by Walter Bushnell Pvt Ltd. against Galaxi Drugs Pvt Ltd. The dispute centered on the conflicting marks 'DROTIN' and 'DROTAGAN' in Class 5 (pharmaceuticals). Crucially, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to Respondent No.1 agreeing to surrender its registration for 'DROTAGAN' and acknowledging the Petitioners' rights in 'DROTIN'. The court accepted this agreement, effectively resolving the dispute.
Iconic Ip Interests Llc & Anr v.Varshaben Kantilal Talreja & Anr
In this trademark dispute, the defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit in Delhi High Court, arguing they only operate in Gujarat. The court permitted the defendants time to file their written statement and replication. The matter is now scheduled for a hearing on both the injunction application and the issue of maintainability.
Shri Dhruv Gupta v.M/S Ujala Aquatech India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Shri Dhruv Gupta against M/S Ujala Aquatech India Private Limited concerning the trademark 'UJALA'. The Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctions for alleged infringement, passing off, and dilution. Given that the original owner of the mark is under insolvency proceedings (NCLT), the court deemed it necessary to issue notice to the Resolution Professional (RP) to ascertain their position before proceeding with the case.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Km Swarnalatha & Ors
The plaintiffs, Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland, sought an interim injunction regarding their patented anti-cancer molecule 'dasatinib' (SPRYCEL). The court disposed of the application for interim injunction as the patent term had expired. However, the court allowed amendments to the plaint to include new manufacturers and directed further proceedings.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Batra Brewries And Disttilleries Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the trademark infringement suit between Allied Blenders and Batra Brewries. The court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction against the defendants, noting their adoption of the mark 'PRINCIPAL PREMIUM.' However, permission for the defendants to exhaust existing stock was recalled due to non-compliance with providing a stock statement. Furthermore, the court condoned the delay in filing the written statement and dismissed an application seeking the deletion of one defendant.
University Of Guelph v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
The University of Guelph filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated July 26, 2019, which refused to grant Indian patent application no. 642/DELNP/2011. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and statutory exclusions under the Patents Act, 1970.
Sintex Industries Ltd. v.Acme Tale Power Ltd And Anr (now Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited)
Sintex Industries Ltd filed a rectification petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 2137154, titled "Phase Change Material," which was granted to Acme Tele Power Limited (now Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited). The court considered an affidavit from the respondent confirming that while they were previously in the telecom industry, their current focus is renewable energy and solar power projects. Crucially, the respondent stated they had no objection to the patent being revoked prospectively.
E. I. Dupont De Nemours And Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
E. I. Dupont De Nemours And Company filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated December 16, 2019, which refused to grant Indian patent application no. 1845/DELNP/2011. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and objections under Sections 3(e) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
The Himalaya Durg Company & Ors v.Himalya International Ltd
In this ongoing trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed an application by the defendant seeking permission to file fresh evidence. Despite objections from the plaintiffs that the new defense went beyond pleadings, the court permitted the filing of the affidavit in evidence (DW-1). The court also reminded both parties about the long pendency of the case and directed a day-to-day trial to expedite proceedings.
M/S F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. v.M/S Modern Machinery Stores G.T. Road
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the ongoing trademark dispute between M/S F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. and M/S Modern Machinery Stores G.T. Road. The court noted that the matter was pending before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Consequently, the judge requested the mediator to expedite the proceedings and listed the case for further hearing on December 7, 2023.
M/S Loreal S.A. v.Ravi Gandhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Loreal S.A., setting aside a lower court order that had permitted respondents to use the trademark 'MABELLE' as part of their corporate name and business communications. The Court clarified that while Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, addresses trade names, the unauthorized use of a registered mark in this manner still constitutes infringement under other sections, specifically Section 29(6)(d). This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to registered trademarks against deceptive similarity and commercial exploitation.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its divisional patent application (8584/DELNP/2007). The appeal was filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. However, the court disposed of the appeal because the term of the parent patent application had expired during the pendency of the appeal.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v.Sudpita Dey Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Ors.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated January 11, 2022, which refused to grant a patent for 'Insecticidal Composition'. The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and listed the matter for final hearing.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter & Gamble Company appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs which refused its patent application for 'A DETERGENT COMPOSITION COMPRISING LIPASE VARIANT'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art. P&G argued that the refusal violated natural justice principles due to procedural delays.
T-Mobile Usa Inc v.Controller Of Patents
T-Mobile USA Inc appealed the Controller's refusal to grant a patent for 'Preferred Contact Group Centric Interface'. The Controller refused the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art and arguing that the invention was essentially a computer program per se, lacking technical effect beyond normal hardware interaction.
Vakzine Projekt Management Gmbh v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Vakzine Projekt Management Gmbh appealed against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its patent application. The rejection was based on the grounds that the composition fell within the scope of Section 3(d) and Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Abbvie Biotherapeutics Inc & Abbvie Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents Designs
Abbvie Biotherapeutics Inc & Abbvie Inc filed a fresh appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated July 31, 2023, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs refusing to grant patent application no. '201817047767'. The subject matter is related to ANTI-cMet Antibody Drug Conjugates.
Jfe 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.
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.