Delhi High Court - Orders
2679 cases · page 4 of 90
Showing 91–119ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed a matter concerning an impugned patent. The respondent (patentee) submitted that the patent, granted in 2019, was due for renewal but the patentee had resolved not to seek renewal and would not exercise its right to revive it. Both parties agreed to this submission.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Ambush Cement Private Limited
Ultratech Cement Limited filed an application seeking permission from the Delhi High Court to challenge the validity of trademarks registered by Ambush Cement Private Limited. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders within specified timelines. This order sets the stage for a formal challenge to the defendants' trademark registrations before the Joint Registrar.
Baldev Raj v.Brothers Tobacco & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted Baldev Raj limited permission to introduce registered trademark certificates into the ongoing passing off suit against Brothers Tobacco. This relief was contingent upon a strict clarification: the Petitioner could not use these documents to convert the cause of action from passing off to infringement. The court emphasized that since the Petitioner possessed these registration details prior to framing issues, they must adhere strictly to the original claim of passing off.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The Delhi High Court passed several orders in CS(COMM) 1356/2025. The court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of interim relief, allowed applications for discovery and additional documents, and addressed an ad-interim injunction request.
Sunil Jain v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Sunil Jain against the Registrar of Trademarks and others. The court noted that pleadings were complete but directed the respondent no. 2 to file their reply within one week, condoning the delay. The matter has been scheduled for listing on December 17, 2025, indicating ongoing litigation rather than a final decision.
Singh And Singh Law Firm Llp v.Singh And Singh Attorneys
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs (Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP) against the Defendants (Singh And Singh Attorneys). The court found that the defendants were infringing upon the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and goodwill associated with the name 'Singh & Singh'. Despite modifications to the scope of relief sought, the court affirmed the right of the Plaintiffs to protect their brand identity, emphasizing the international reputation and established goodwill of the law firm.
Ms Allanasons Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the matter concerning Ms Allanasons Private Limited versus The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr. This interim order scheduled both associated commercial IP disputes (C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 86/2024 and C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 91/2024) for a hearing on August 29, 2025. The court's directive indicates the ongoing procedural progression of these trademark matters.
Max India Investment Services Private Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court stayed an order from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that had directed petitioner, Max India Investment Services Private Limited, to change its name. The dispute arose because a respondent company claimed the petitioner's name was too similar to their registered trademarks ('MAX' and 'Max India Limited'). The court found that since the petitioner has been using the name incorporating 'Max India' since 2007, it established a prima facie case for interim relief. Furthermore, the parties were referred to mediation to explore an amicable resolution.
Ajp Impex Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademark Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim stay in favor of Ajp Impex Private Limited regarding a trademark dispute. Despite the respondent failing to appear or file a reply, the court upheld and made absolute the existing interim order from February 2025. This decision allows the petitioner to maintain protection against the impugned mark until the final resolution of the main petition.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Dr. Mariya Parvez & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by Alkem Laboratories seeking to include a proposed defendant who had posted misleading content targeting its pharmaceutical products, PAN-D and PAN-40. Although the plaintiff initially sought to extend existing injunctions against this individual, the court noted that the impugned video had already been taken down. Consequently, the court dismissed the impleadment request but reaffirmed that the proposed defendant remains prohibited from using Alkem's 'PAN' family of marks in any videos, reserving the right for the plaintiff to seek further action if infringement recurs.
Rajput Jewellers Pvt Ltd v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Rajput Jewellers Pvt Ltd challenging an ongoing complaint lodged against it by a third party regarding trademark ownership. The petitioner sought interim relief to prevent adverse orders from the Regional Director, Northern Division. While dismissing the apprehension of arbitrary action, the court issued a crucial direction, mandating that the Regional Director must dispose of the Section 16(1)(b) complaint after thoroughly considering all submissions and granting a proper hearing to all concerned parties.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited Anr. v.Venuse Automobile
Hero Investcorp Private Limited filed a suit against Venuse Automobile alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'HERO' brand. The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of the Plaintiffs, including an ex parte ad-interim injunction. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with powers to inspect the Defendant's premises, seize infringing auto parts bearing the HERO marks, and ascertain the stock value, signaling strong initial support for the Plaintiff's claims.
Krbl Limited v.Vikram Roller Flour Mills Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the denial of interim injunction regarding the trademark 'INDIA GATE'. The court analyzed a prior consent order between the parties, which restricted usage based on product type and packaging size. While acknowledging the Appellant's claim as a well-known mark, the court ruled that if the Respondent's right to use 'dalia' flows from its existing rights for wheat products (atta, suji, etc.), it must adhere to the B2B/bulk sales restriction of 20 kgs and above. This interim order maintains the status quo while the core dispute over prior user rights remains sub-judice.
Docbel Industries & Anr. v.Braun Aktiengesellschaft
The Delhi High Court disposed of the dispute between Docbel Industries and Braun Aktiengesellschaft based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court accepted the compromise, which involved the formal assignment of Trademark registration no. 405367 (the mark BRAUN) from Appellant No. 2 to the Respondent. Furthermore, the parties agreed to the handover of all related documents and financial considerations, effectively resolving the underlying litigation.
Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt. Ltd. v.Smotect Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt. Ltd. against Smotect Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the Defendants were using the Plaintiff's copyrighted label in promotional content, specifically an Instagram video, to portray the Plaintiff's product as harmful while promoting their own alternative. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from further use of the label and directed to take down the infringing videos within 72 hours.
Novo Nordisk A/S v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk A/S appealed an order where a Single Judge found infringement and granted limited relief to Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited. The appeal centers on whether the suit patent (IN 2626971) is vulnerable to invalidity under Section 64 of the Patents Act, given that the learned judge found the claim obvious from prior art.
J S F Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Assistant Registar Of Trade Marks And Gi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court successfully mediated and settled disputes concerning trademark opposition appeals. Following a successful settlement agreement, the court disposed of the appeals and decreed the underlying suit based on the mutually agreed-upon terms. This judgment highlights the effectiveness of judicial mediation in resolving complex IP conflicts efficiently, allowing parties to achieve tailored resolutions rather than proceeding through lengthy litigation.
Punjab Fc Private Limited v.Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited
Punjab Fc Private Limited filed a petition seeking the removal (rectification) of the 'PFC' trademark registered under application no. 4611789 in Class 25, which was held by Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited. The petitioner highlighted a prior favorable judgment regarding an identical device mark. The Court accepted notice and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties, setting timelines for filing replies and rejoinders before listing the matter further.
Krbl Limited v.Vikram Roller Flour Mills Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the denial of interim injunction regarding the trademark 'INDIA GATE'. The court analyzed a prior consent order between the parties, which restricted usage based on product type and packaging size. While acknowledging the Appellant's claim as a well-known mark, the court ruled that if the Respondent's right to use 'dalia' flows from its existing rights for wheat products (atta, suji, etc.), it must adhere to the B2B/bulk sales restriction of 20 kgs and above. This interim order maintains the status quo while the core dispute over prior user rights remains sub-judice.
Mandeep Singh v.Shabir Momin & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications related to the rectification and cancellation of trademarks associated with 'Instant Bollywood.' While the court found that the petitioner had suppressed material documents indicating prior knowledge of the trademark registrations, it chose not to dismiss the interim injunction application. Instead, the court entertained the injunction but imposed a significant cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the petitioner for the non-disclosure.
Salman Khan v.Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by actor Salman Khan against various defendants for alleged misappropriation of personality rights, trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The court granted several procedural reliefs to the Plaintiff, including exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, the court issued directions for service on identified infringing parties and set a timeline for filing written statements and replication, while also considering an application for ad-interim injunction.
Parveen Kumar Gulati Trading As Apexseals v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court addressed a Writ Petition filed by Apexseals challenging the removal of its trademark application (No. 746049) without issuing the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner argued that this procedural lapse violated established rules. Following arguments from both sides, the Court issued a notice to the Registrar of Trademarks and granted time for filing a Counter Affidavit, indicating the matter will proceed through formal litigation.
Ohr Laboratory Corporation v.Gasion Airtech Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Ohr Laboratory Corporation against Gasion Airtech Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, irreparable harm would result without intervention, and the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiff. Defendants are now restrained from using the 'OHR' mark or similar names/model numbers, as well as from reproducing copyrighted brochure elements.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit was filed by Incyte Holdings Corporation seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN269841, which covers the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. During the proceedings, the defendant stated that they have not commercialized any infringing product and their activities are covered under Section 107-A of the Patents Act, 1970.
S Birpal Singh v.Pawandeep Singh Walia Trading As Pawandeep Singh and Company & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the procedural form of a petition seeking cancellation of four registered trademarks (AKALI PATRIKA). The respondent argued that Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act requires separate petitions for each mark. The petitioner countered, offering to deposit additional court fees or file multiple petitions. The Court found the petitioner's suggestions reasonable and directed the respondent to take instructions before listing the matter again.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Rameshwar Prasad & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pidilite Industries Limited. The court condoned delays in filing replications for certain defendants. Crucially, while some parties proceeded toward trial, other defendants (18, 19, 20, and 21) were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre, reflecting a judicial push towards alternative dispute resolution in complex IP litigation.
Dabur India Limited v.Wellford Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the registration of 'WELLFORD PUDIN HARA' (Registration No. 5509160) in favor of Dabur India Limited, who challenged the mark's validity. Dabur successfully established a prima facie case based on its long-standing use and reputation of the core mark 'PUDIN HARA' since 1930. The court found that the Impugned Mark completely subsumes the Petitioner's mark, creating an irrefutable likelihood of confusion and deception in the market.
Haryana Pesticide Manufacturers Association v.The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an impugned order regarding Patent application no. 201621004267. The petitioner asserted that mandatory procedures under Section 25(1) were not followed and the certificate of grant had not been issued despite filing a pre-grant opposition.
Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v.M/S Fly High Institute & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services against M/S Fly High Institute & Ors. The court found that the Defendant's use of marks like 'FLY HIGH INSTITUTE' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'FLY HIGH'. Given the high reputation and goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's mark, the court held that immediate restraint was necessary to prevent irreparable harm from infringement and passing off.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Sankalp Recreation Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Sankalp Recreation Private Limited and others. The court found that the defendants' use of deceptively similar marks, such as 'SCHEZUAN CHUTNEY', infringed upon the plaintiff's registered trademark 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Given that the products are edible goods, the Court adopted a stringent approach to prevent consumer confusion and potential health risks. The injunction restrains the defendants from using any identical or similar marks until further proceedings.
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.