Delhi High Court - Orders
2136 cases · page 40 of 72
Showing 1171–1199ITC Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of ITC Limited, restraining defendants from using infringing domain names and sub-domains that fraudulently solicit franchises and dealerships under the guise of ITC's brand. The court reinforced previous orders, directing Domain Name Registrars to immediately lock and suspend the specified domains while also instructing the Cyber Cell to freeze numerous bank accounts linked to these fraudulent activities.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Dermazone Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Glaxo Group Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Dermazone Pharmaceuticals in a trademark infringement suit. The Delhi High Court found that the Defendant's mark, 'BECLOVATE,' is phonetically and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered mark, 'BETNOVATE.' Given the identical nature of the products (skin treatments) and strong market presence of Glaxo, the court granted immediate relief to prevent consumer confusion. The injunction restricts the manufacture and sale of the infringing product moving forward.
Cde Asia Limited v.Propel Industries Private Limited
The court heard an application by Cde Asia Limited seeking to place additional documents related to a post-grant opposition concerning a subject patent. The court allowed these documents and also registered a counterclaim filed by Propel Industries Private Limited under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Cryomass Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Cryomass LLC filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated May 31, 2021, which refused Patent Application No. 201917048279 titled "Cryogenic Separation of Plant Material". The refusal was based on non-fulfillment of requirements under Section 2(1)(ja) and claims falling within Section 3(f) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Essee Networks Private Limited & Ors. v.Paragon Cable India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Essee Networks Private Limited, upholding the Single Judge's decision. The core dispute revolved around the trademark 'ELEKTRON' for electric wires and cables. The court found that while the appellants claimed prior use dating back to 1992, they failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate this claim. Conversely, the respondents successfully demonstrated a credible basis to challenge the validity of the appellant's registrations due to misleading claims regarding their usage period.
Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. v.Union Of India Through Its Secretary Department For Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Ors.
Kent Cables Private Limited challenged the inclusion of the trade mark 'KENT' in the list of well-known trademarks, which was advertised by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The Delhi High Court acknowledged that the matter involves complex procedural and substantive issues regarding the declaration of a well-known mark. After reviewing previous directions and legal precedents, the court issued notice to the respondents while keeping open questions of maintainability and jurisdiction, setting the stage for further detailed arguments.
Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G. v.Union Of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications and made key interim directions in the case concerning the Geographical Indication (GI) for Chilean Pisco. The court allowed various exemptions related to documentation due to pandemic conditions, while also agreeing to delete one respondent from the array of parties. Crucially, the court directed that the Registrar of Trademarks & GI would not pass final orders on the GI application no. 689 until further notice, providing a temporary stay on the registration process.
Devanand Nagpal Prop. Nagpal Foods And Caterers v.Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Devanand Nagpal seeking the issuance of his Trade Mark registration certificate for 'NAGPAL'S SPECIAL CHOLE BHATURE'. Although the opposition against his mark was dismissed in July 2023, the certificate had not been issued. The Court ordered the immediate issuance of the certificate within 10 working days, but crucially stipulated that this registration would remain subject to the final outcome of a parallel appeal filed by the opposing party. This decision balances administrative delay with ongoing legal disputes.
Ht Media Limited & Anr. v.Hindustan News Network & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ht Media Limited against Hindustan News Network. The court found that the defendant was attempting to pass off its news channel and name as being connected with the long-established 'HINDUSTAN' mark owned by the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing mark and logo, and orders were issued compelling domain registrars (GoDaddy) and tech platforms (Google/Meta) to suspend the infringing website and take down related content.
Fitflop Limited v.Urban Shore Wholesale India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in a trademark infringement suit filed by Fitflop Limited against Urban Shore Wholesale India Private Limited. While directing the Defendant to immediately cease all use of the 'FITFLOP' mark, the court allowed the continued existence of current stock. A Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect and segregate the existing inventory at the Goa warehouse to determine which products are genuine and which may be unauthorized, paving the way for future valuation and dispute resolution.
Mex Switchgears Pvt Ltd v.Twinkle Luminaires Pvt Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court issued orders in two connected trademark appeal matters, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 140/2021 and C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 92/2022. In both cases, the court addressed procedural issues regarding service of documents, specifically the counterstatement filed by the respondents. The appellant argued that they were never properly served with these crucial documents. Consequently, the Court granted time for both parties to place their respective evidence on record and scheduled further hearings in January 2024.
Cashgrail Private Limited v.Blue Horizone Infotech Llp
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the suit filed by Cashgrail Private Limited against Blue Horizone Infotech LLP concerning alleged infringement of online games and trademarks. Cashgrail claims that the defendant's 'LUDO TOURNAMENT' replicates essential features of its proprietary skill-based games, such as 'Ludo Supreme League.' The court allowed the suit to proceed while ensuring the defendant receives an opportunity to respond before any interim orders are passed.
Major League Baseball Properties Inv. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry, Delhi
Major League Baseball Properties Inc. appealed the Registrar's decision that their opposition against the 'BLUE-JAY' trademark application was abandoned due to procedural delays in filing evidence. While the initial rejection was based purely on technical grounds, the Delhi High Court allowed MLBP to pursue its substantive claims. The court disposed of the appeal but permitted MLBP to file a cancellation petition, ensuring the merits of their opposition would be considered.
Manu Chaudhary v.Controller Of Patents
Manu Chaudhary appealed against the Controller of Patents' order dated May 31, 2023, which refused his patent application (No. 2545/DEL/2010). The refusal was based on non-fulfillment of various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice and listed the matter for further hearings.
Communication Components Antena Inc. v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. Kg
The suit is a patent infringement action concerning Patent No. IN240893 ('Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'). The court proceeded with the recording of cross-examinations of the Defendants' witnesses on September 22, 2023. Evidence has now been concluded, and directions were issued for parties to file written submissions before final arguments.
Kubota Corporation v.Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited
Kubota Corporation filed a suit for patent infringement in the Delhi High Court against Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited. The dispute centers on Kubota's 'HARVES KING' combined harvester, which the Plaintiff claims is infringed by the Defendants' product, 'Ruilong Plus ++'.
Communication Components Antena Inc v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh
The case involves a patent infringement action regarding a patent titled 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency', which relates to methods and apparatus for increasing subscriber capacity and enhancing base station performance.
Astrazeneca Ab v.USV Private Limited
AstraZeneca filed a suit for infringement against USV Private Limited regarding the pharmaceutical preparations covered by three patents, including those for 'TICAGRELOR'. The parties subsequently resolved their disputes amicably and filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC to record the settlement.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The court addressed several interim applications filed by Vifor (International) Ltd. in various suits, including CS(COMM) 505/2022. Following a prior judgment by a Coordinate Bench dismissing the plaintiffs' interim injunction applications, the status quo orders were vacated, subject to conditions preventing defendants from following the patented process IN 221536.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
This order addresses various applications seeking interim directions in suits related to the patent IN 221536. The court vacated previous status quo orders following a Coordinate Bench's dismissal of injunction applications, but imposed conditions that defendants must not follow the patented process and must maintain complete sales accounts.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs sought interim directions based on a prior Division Bench order. The court noted that a Coordinate Bench had dismissed the plaintiffs' interim injunction applications concerning patent IN 221536. Consequently, the status quo orders previously passed were vacated, subject to conditions preventing defendants from following the patented process.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The court addressed several interim applications filed by Vifor (International) Ltd. in various suits, primarily concerning the patent IN 221536 related to Water Soluble Iron Carbohydrate Complex. Following a prior judgment by a Coordinate Bench dismissing plaintiffs' interim injunction applications, the status quo orders were vacated, subject to conditions preventing defendants from following the patented process.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
This order addresses various applications seeking interim directions in multiple commercial suits related to Patent IN 221536. The court noted that a Coordinate Bench had dismissed the plaintiffs' interim injunction applications, leading to the vacation of previous status quo orders. The court declined to grant an immediate direction for deposit of entire sales amount but directed defendants to maintain and file complete accounts of sales.
Honasa Consumer Ltd v.Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd
Honasa Consumer Ltd filed a petition seeking cancellation of the trademark 'D-TAN' registered by Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd. The dispute arose after Honasa received a cease and desist notice from Visage claiming rights over the mark, which overlaps with Honasa's use of 'DETAN' in conjunction with its brand 'AQUALOGICA'. The Delhi High Court allowed procedural applications regarding document filing and issued notice to the Respondent for the stay application, setting future dates for hearing.
Lottoland Holdings Private Limited v.Kuldeep Sharma
Lottoland Holdings Private Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Kuldeep Sharma for using the 'LOTTOLAND' trademark and associated device. The Plaintiff, a global leader in online lottery and betting services, alleged that the Defendant's application was a dishonest attempt to appropriate its globally recognized mark. The Delhi High Court granted an interim status quo order, preventing the Defendant from launching any business under the disputed mark until further proceedings.
Uab Research Foundation And Anr v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The Uab Research Foundation appealed against an order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The impugned order refused to grant a patent application titled 'Purine Nucleoside Phosphorylase as Enzymatic Activator of Nucleoside Prodrugs' because the claims were deemed to fall within the scope of Section 3(i) of the Act.
Raytheon Company v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Raytheon Company appealed the rejection of its patent application by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection relied on outdated guidelines (CRI Guidelines, 2016), while the newer 2017 guidelines were already in effect and did not mandate novel hardware for Section 3(k) applicability.
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents that refused to grant a patent for 'Leave-on Compositions Containing Cellulose Materials' due to lack of inventive step. The core dispute revolved around the prior art cited against the application, particularly documents in Japanese. The court condoned procedural delays and directed remedial steps to ensure translated copies of the foreign language prior art were made available before listing the case for final hearing.
Microsoft Corporation v.Pcpatchers Technology Private Limited
In a significant ruling concerning brand protection, the Delhi High Court directed various international Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to comply with an existing injunction. Microsoft Corporation sought permanent relief against entities allegedly violating its trademarks and copyrights through fraudulent activities using 'MICROSOFT' in domain names. The court granted a final opportunity for DNRs to provide necessary WHOIS details and suspend the infringing domains, warning that failure to comply within one week would lead to legal action by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
Sanjeev Juneja v.Imaamuddin Khan And Anr
Sanjeev Juneja filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'Dr. Ortho' registered by Imaamuddin Khan. The petitioner argued that his established use of the identical mark in orthopaedic goods (Class 10) would be violated by the respondent's registration for textiles and mattresses (Class 24). Despite the class difference, the court found the petitioner prima facie aggrieved and issued notice to the respondents, setting the matter for detailed arguments.
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.