Delhi High Court - Orders
2136 cases · page 41 of 72
Showing 1201–1229Jay Switches India Pvt Ltd v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd & Ors
The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants for the infringement of Patent No. 427110 and registered Design No. 275676, along with passing off and rendition of accounts.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves issues of patent infringement, invalidity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance related to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Nokia against Oppo. The court has reserved judgment on injunction applications after extensive hearings.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves issues of patent infringement, invalidity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance related to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Nokia against Oppo. The court has reserved judgment on injunction applications after extensive hearings.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was infringing Indian Patent No. 426553, which covers a combination therapy (Netupitant and Palonosetron) used as an antiemetic for CINV. The court registered the plaint as a suit and directed both parties to file their respective written statements and pleadings.
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its divisional application (No. 201918017795) concerning a bifunctional co-polymer composition. The refusal was based on outstanding objections regarding lack of inventive step and sufficiency of disclosure under the Patents Act, 1970.
Jaypore E-Commerce Private Limited v.Mr Jitendra Ravjani
Jaypore E-Commerce Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mr. Jitendra Ravjani, alleging infringement and passing off concerning the mark 'JAYPORE'. The Delhi High Court proceeded to frame seven key issues in the matter, including whether the defendant's use constitutes trademark infringement or passing off, and whether the plaintiff is guilty of concealment. This order sets the stage for detailed evidence presentation by both parties.
Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Eicore Technologies filed a suit against Eexpedise Technologies alleging infringement of its software 'HealthBuzz' and misuse of confidential information by former employees who formed competing entities. The Plaintiffs sought interim injunctions restraining the Defendants from copying, publishing, or providing services related to their proprietary software. While the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants were infringing copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957, the Court recognized the highly technical nature of the dispute.
Communication Components Antena Inc v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh
The case involves a patent infringement action where the Plaintiff is enforcing rights in Indian patent no. IN240893 titled 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The patent relates to a method and apparatus for increasing subscriber capacity and enhancing base station performance.
M/S Laxmi Agro Impex India v.M/S Ladli India Commodities
In a dispute concerning the trade mark 'LADLI/SABKI LADLI', the Delhi High Court addressed parallel proceedings related to trademark rectification. Recognizing that simultaneous litigation could lead to multiplicity of suits, the court permitted both parties to withdraw their respective pending rectification petitions. This decision aims to consolidate the issues and streamline the legal process for a comprehensive trial.
United Breweries Limited v.Rajesh Kumar Kohli And Anr
United Breweries Limited filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the 'KINGFISHER' mark registered by Rajesh Kumar Kohli, arguing exclusive association with its brand. However, due to the Petitioner's repeated failure to appear before the court, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. This case highlights the procedural requirements in trademark litigation and the importance of consistent representation.
The Coca-Cola Company v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The Coca-Cola Company filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' decision to reject a patent application concerning 'BIO-BASED POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE POLYMER AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME'. The appellant argues that all grounds for patentability were satisfied, despite the rejection based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure. The court allowed applications for exemption from filing documents and condoned delay in filing the appeal.
Cresset Capital Management Llc & Anr. v.Registrant Of Www.Cressetcapital.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in a trademark infringement suit filed by Cresset Capital Management LLC against domain name registrants. The court recognized the global goodwill associated with the 'Cresset' mark, despite its lack of Indian registration, finding that several registered domains were being used to commit fraud and misrepresent the Plaintiffs' business. Consequently, the Court directed Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to immediately lock and suspend the infringing websites, while also directing law enforcement to commence action against the perpetrators.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Fast Cure Pharma And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking the rectification of a trademark registration, declaring the mark 'RAZOFAST' illegal. The court found that 'RAZOFAST' was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior registered mark 'RAZO', which is used for the pharmaceutical compound Rabeprazole. Consequently, the registration of 'RAZOFAST' was cancelled and removed from the register.
Nayan India Science And Technologies Private Limited v.Intents Mobi Private Limited & Anr
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of three Indian Patents (373372, 407425, and 317629) by the defendant. The court registered the plaint as a suit and directed parties to file pleadings while addressing applications for injunctions.
Hindware Limited v.Anil Kumar & Ors.
In a significant development concerning trademark infringement, Hindware Limited successfully negotiated an amicable settlement with Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff agreed to drop its claim for damages provided that the defendant withdraws his pending trademark application and commits not to use the disputed mark 'HINDWARE' on his goods. This order marks a pragmatic resolution in the ongoing dispute.
Macgregor, Alexander v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order dated November 19, 2020, which rejected Patent Application No. 3036/DELNP/2012 for 'Derivatives of Di(phenylpropanoid) Glycerol'. The court first condoned a delay of 479 days in re-filing the appeal and subsequently issued directions to list the matter before the Joint Registrar.
Microsoft Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patants And Designs
Microsoft Corporation filed an application seeking discharge of its advocates. It was stated that Microsoft had assigned the subject Patent Application no. 84/DEL/2005 to Zhigu Holdings Limited in 2017, and since the matter transferred from IPAB, there has been no communication with the assignee.
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit alleging infringement based on their patent. The court addressed several interlocutory applications, granting exemptions for mediation and allowing parties time to file necessary pleadings and documents.
Grauer And Weil (India) Limited v.Mr. Nirav Shah & Ors.
In a dispute concerning specialized lubricants, the Delhi High Court allowed Grauer And Weil to proceed with its suit against former employees and their associated firms. The court granted an exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation and appointed a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with conducting a detailed inventory of the defendants' products and collecting samples, based on allegations that the defendants are using confidential information and trade secrets related to the plaintiff’s 'GRODAL' brand.
Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trademark & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the case of Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd vs The Registrar Of Trademark & Anr. While granting exemption and condoning a delay of 21 days, the court proceeded with the main petition (W.P.(C)-IPD 25/2023). Notice was issued to all respondents, setting a timeline for them to file their counter-affidavit within four weeks, indicating that substantive litigation on the matter is moving forward.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Om Shiv Footwear Through Its Owner Partner Proprietor Mr. Sushil Bansal
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Relaxo Footwears Limited against Om Shiv Footwear. The suit alleged infringement of a registered design (Design No. 365606-001) for its 'BAHAMAS' footwear, along with passing off and imitation of the unique trade dress and packaging. The court found that a prima facie case was made out, noting striking similarities in both the product design and the distinctive packaging between the parties. This interim order immediately restrained the defendant from further dealing in the infringing products.
Bigmuscles Nutrition Pvt Ltd v.Avijit Roy & Ors.
Bigmuscles Nutrition Pvt Ltd successfully secured an ad interim injunction against social media influencers (Defendants 1-3) who were allegedly spreading false and defamatory claims about its '100% Performance Whey' product. The court found that the defendants' videos, which claimed the supplement was unsafe and amino spiked, constituted deliberate defamation and tarnishment of goodwill. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate takedown of specific impugned content across various social media platforms to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and sales.
Carlsberg Breweries A/S v.Tensberg Breweries And Industries Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an application regarding the alleged expansion of business by Tensberg Breweries despite a prior injunction order. Carlsberg contended that Tensberg was willfully violating the court's restraint by applying for fresh excise licenses in new states using the restrained marks. The court found merit in Carlsberg's contention, leading to notice being issued to Tensberg and setting the matter for further arguments.
Arjan Impex Pvt Ltd v.Ashish Padia & Anr.
Arjan Impex Pvt Ltd filed a rectification petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 418294, titled "BONDED FUSION BOWL," registered in the name of Respondent No. 1. The court issued interim orders addressing procedural matters and restraining both parties from engaging in conduct that hinders each other's business during the pendency of the proceedings.
Great Galleon Ventures Limited v.Champa Prema Tandel Sole Proprietor Of Dharmesh Distillery & Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ex-parte interim injunction, ruling in favor of Great Galleon Ventures Limited (Plaintiff) against Champa Prema Tandel Sole Proprietor (Defendant). The court found that the Plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off concerning their 'GOA' brand. Crucially, the court dismissed the Defendant's challenge to territorial jurisdiction, noting that the plaint explicitly stated the goods were being sold in Delhi, thereby maintaining the injunction pending final disposal of the suit.
Modern Doordevices Pvt. Ltd. v.Jai Maa Vaishno Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the trademark dispute between Modern Doordevices Pvt. Ltd. and Jai Maa Vaishno Traders Pvt. Ltd. The court directed the Registry of Trade Marks to provide the complete record related to the impugned trademark 'INDO GARV' (Registration No. 5361272) for review by the parties. Furthermore, procedural applications regarding document exemptions were disposed of, while notice was issued in the main proceedings.
Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v.Mr. Vinod K. And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Eureka Forbes Limited against Defendant No. 1 for infringing its trademarks ('AQUAGUARD', 'PAANI KA DOCTOR') and copyrights related to water purification systems and spares. The court also awarded damages and costs of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the plaintiff. This judgment underscores that a defendant who evades court proceedings by non-appearance can be held liable for damages, preventing them from benefiting from their evasion.
Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v.Pramod Jain And Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several interim orders in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes Limited against Pramod Jain and others. The court granted the plaintiff exemptions regarding advance service to defendants and pre-institution mediation, recognizing the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court appointed Local Commissioners to visit the premises of the defendants for inventorying and seizing counterfeit spares bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks and copyrighted get-ups.
Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v.Santosh Nath And Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes against Santosh Nath and others. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the plaintiff, including exemption from advance service and pre-institution mediation, allowing the case to proceed urgently. Crucially, the court authorized the appointment of Local Commissioners to visit the defendants' premises to prepare inventories and seize stocks bearing the impugned marks, signaling a strong judicial intent to protect the plaintiff's intellectual property rights.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.Vensat Bio & Ors.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed an application to set aside an ex parte judgment against Defendant No. 3 (Vensat Bio & Ors.) due to sufficient cause of absence. Simultaneously, the court recognized the strong prima facie case presented by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like ORISON/SPORTEK in relation to pharmaceutical products. This dual outcome highlights the procedural complexities alongside the substantive strength of trademark infringement claims.
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.