Delhi High Court - Orders
2164 cases · page 48 of 73
Showing 1411–1439Sabyasachi Couture v.Technicolour Dream Pants Private Limited
In a significant resolution for the fashion industry, the Delhi High Court decreed a suit involving Sabyasachi Couture against Technicolour Dream Pants Private Limited. The parties reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. Under the terms, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's trademark rights and undertook not to use or deal in garments bearing the 'SABYASACHI' mark or designs without authorization. This judgment provides a clear example of how IP disputes can be resolved through negotiated settlements.
Amrit Corp. Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Amrit Corp. Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the composite label mark 'JUST MILK'. The court found that the combination of the arbitrary word 'JUST' with 'MILK' was suggestive and capable of distinguishing goods, overcoming the objection based on lack of distinctiveness. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to proceed with the registration process for 'JUST MILK', while clarifying that this registration would not grant exclusive rights in the generic term 'MILK'.
Chasvinder Singh v.The Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors
This Delhi High Court order addressed a writ petition filed by Chasvinder Singh against The Registrar of Copyrights. During arguments, respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the appropriate legal remedy for challenging the copyright grant was through a rectification petition under Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court granted time to the petitioner to take further instructions before listing the matter for hearing.
Sweeton Foods Pvt Ltd v.M/S Grv Conferectionery And Foods
Sweeton Foods Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking the cancellation of a copyright held by M/S Grv Conferectionery And Foods for the label 'KARTIER GOLD 24 CARAT SWISS MILK CHOCO'. This action stemmed from an earlier civil suit regarding trademark infringement. The court found that since the respondent had undertaken in a settlement decree to withdraw and cancel the registration, the petition was allowed.
Shiv Nadar Foundation v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Shiv Nadar Foundation's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its device mark. The court held that because the mark is composite—combining a graphic representation with the institution's name and the word 'SHIKSHA'—it cannot be deemed descriptive in isolation. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, allowing the application to proceed for advertisement, provided the Appellant agrees not to claim exclusive rights over the common term 'SHIKSHA'.
Organo Gold Holdings, Limited v.Origano Gold Private Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit filed by Organo Gold Holdings against Origano Gold Private Limited. The parties reached a settlement agreement, which the court subsequently decreed. Under the terms, the defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's rights in the 'ORIGANO GOLD' mark and committed to immediately cease using similar marks or logos. Furthermore, Defendant No. 2 agreed to withdraw specific registered trademarks and pending trademark applications.
Virendra Kumar Gupta Trading As M/S Burger King v.Union Of India Through The Secretary & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a Writ Petition filed by Burger King, challenging the registration of a trademark. The petitioner argued that the Registry ignored their prior Notices of Opposition when granting registration to Respondent No. 4. However, the court noted that since the registration occurred before a key precedent was set, counsel for the respondent suggested that rectification might be the appropriate remedy instead of continuing with the current writ petition. The matter has been listed for further arguments.
Wockhardt Limited v.Zymes Bioscience Private Limited & Anr.
Wockhardt Limited filed a suit alleging that Zymes Bioscience Private Limited infringed its Indian Patent No. IN 318858, which covers the formulation of a new generation antibiotic combination (2 grams cefepime and 2 grams tazobactam). The court registered the plaint and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or marketing products containing this specific combination.
Siddharth Suri v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Siddharth Suri against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'ANDAMEN'. The initial refusal was based on similarity to an earlier trade mark under Section 11(1)(b). However, the court found that since 'ANDAMEN' is a name of a sea and does not have a reputation associated with Class-18 goods (leather goods), the absolute ground for refusal under Section 9(1)(a) was not attracted. Consequently, the Impugned Order was set aside, directing the Trademark Registry to process the registration application.
AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v.VICKY AGGARWAL & ORS.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute regarding the scope of an undertaking provided by defendants concerning the use of the trademark 'TOWER'. The court ruled that the undertaking could not be extended to specific goods (Monosodium Glutamate, Citric Acid, Tartaric Acid, Camphor, Hexamine tablets in Class 1, and green raisins in Class 29) because the plaintiff had explicitly acknowledged the defendants' right to use the mark for those categories in their plaint. Consequently, the court modified the undertaking, limiting its restriction only to other goods.
Anita Agarwal v.Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Anita Agarwal, who owns the registered trademark 'VENSOR'. The court found prima facie that the defendant, Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd., was circulating notices that were defamatory and disparaging towards the plaintiff's mark and goods. This preliminary order aims to protect the plaintiff's goodwill while the main suit proceeds, addressing both alleged trade mark infringement and passing off.
Jangeer Singh Trading As Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works v.Yogesh Jangid Trading As Jangid Agro Engineering & Anr.
In this commercial suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications filed by both parties. The court allowed Defendant No. 1 to place legal proceeding certificates related to its registered trademarks on record, despite initial objections regarding relevance. Furthermore, upon agreement from the Plaintiff, the court permitted the deletion of Defendant No. 2 (IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd.) from the array of parties, allowing the litigation to proceed with a refined set of defendants.
Aurorax Private Limited v.Bharatx Accelerator & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Aurorax Private Limited against Bharatx Accelerator & Ors. The plaintiff, a leading fintech start-up, sought protection for its registered trademark 'BHARATX' which it has used since 2019. The court found that the defendants were using similar marks and domain names, causing market confusion, and consequently restrained them from further use of the infringing trademarks until the final hearing.
Zephyr Biomedicals v.Lalit Mahajan And Anr
Zephyr Biomedicals filed a post-grant opposition against Patent No. 224469. The court addressed procedural issues regarding the patentee's non-response and the subsequent service of notice after the abolition of the IPAB, allowing the patentee to file a reply.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its application for patent (No. 3304/DEL/2005). The refusal was based on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which prohibits patents for computer programs. Microsoft argued that the reliance on outdated guidelines was incorrect and cited prior court views supporting patentability.
Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Whirlpool Properties, Inc. against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of its device mark application. The court found that the coined word 'AFFRESH' was inherently distinctive and not descriptive, thus overcoming objections under Section 9(1)(a). Furthermore, after reviewing cited marks, the court determined that the subject mark was prima facie dissimilar to existing registrations, allowing the registration process to continue.
Perkinelmer Health Sciences Inc And Ors v.Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged an order refusing a patent application under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, based on Section 3(f). The Appellant argued that the objection was raised for the first time at the hearing stage without prior notice, violating natural justice. The Court agreed, finding that the Respondent violated procedural fairness by not communicating all objections in advance.
Adani Wilmar Limited v.Baljit Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a complex legal issue concerning the enforceability of trademark rights after a party voluntarily waives actionable claims related to that brand. The court specifically examined an affidavit where the defendant, Baljit Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., declared they forewent any enforceable right in their unregistered brand 'Shubh Labh Fortune' for GST exemption purposes. Given the implications on the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court directed the Department of Revenue to file its stand and submissions in the current proceedings.
Modi Naturals Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Modi Naturals Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their device mark, 'OLEEV ACTIVE'. The court found that the coined word 'OLEEV', combined with 'ACTIVE' and a slogan, was distinctive and not merely descriptive. Furthermore, it determined that the subject mark was not deceptively similar to any earlier marks cited in the examination report. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and directed the Trademark Registry to proceed with the registration process.
Metis Eduventures Private Limited v.Career Power Coaching Centre Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Metis Eduventures Private Limited against Career Power Coaching Centre Private Limited & Ors. The court found a prima facie case based on the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation associated with the 'CAREER POWER' trademark in the education sector. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing marks across e-commerce websites and directed to remove specific content featuring the mark.
Mr. Vivek Bhardwaj v.Mr. Gagan Bhardwaj
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off in the pharmaceutical sector, the Delhi High Court issued a series of orders. The court granted an interim restraint on the defendant from manufacturing or selling similar products while allowing him to liquidate his existing stock within three months. Furthermore, the parties were mandated to undergo mediation, signaling that the dispute will proceed through structured negotiation before further litigation.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 8620/DELNP/2012) by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The original rejection was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that the claimed method for repairing a gas flue inside was merely standard operation or part of an operational manual. Nippon Steel contended that its claims disclosed several unique technical steps ignored by the Examiner. The Delhi High Court issued directions for both parties to file detailed submissions and supporting documents before proceeding with the appeal.
Tci Foundation v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by TCI Foundation against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of its label mark application. The court overturned the initial rejection, which was based on grounds including non-compliance with examination reports and similarity to prior marks in different classes. The judgment clarified that a composite mark can be registered and directed the Registry to process and advertise the subject mark.
Entertainment Network (India) Limited v.Https//Tuneincom/Podcasts/Arts--Culture- Podcasts/Bangla-Sunday-Suspense-P2082186/ and Ors
In this copyright infringement case, Entertainment Network (India) Limited sought to protect its audio content, 'Sunday Suspense,' which is based on literary works. The court issued an ex-parte order directing intermediary platforms (like Tuneincom) to immediately take down the infringing URLs and compelling Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to disclose server details used by the infringers. This ruling highlights the proactive role of courts in enforcing IP rights against digital infringement.
Ds Intellectual Properties Llp & Anr v.Abhinav Singh & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Ds Intellectual Properties Llp & Anr against Abhinav Singh & Ors. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were operating a fraudulent website using the 'Rajnigandha' trademark and DS Group trademarks to lure the public into fake distributorship schemes, while also infringing on copyright by copying the label layout. The court found a prima facie case was made out, leading to immediate restraining orders against the use of the marks and domain name, along with directives to suspend the domain and freeze associated bank accounts.
Shree Ganesh Rollings Mills (India) Ltd. v.Jindal Rollings Milla Ltd.
In a significant procedural order, the Delhi High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to transfer two pending rectification applications filed by the respondents against the petitioner's trademarks. This move ensures that all related intellectual property proceedings are heard together in the High Court, aligning with established IP Division rules. The court set a timeline for the transmission and digitization of these records, paving the way for consolidated pleadings.
Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v.The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr.
Nestle appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents and Design regarding its patent application for a composition comprising DGLA. The initial objection was related to Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, which Nestle addressed by amending the claims. However, the subsequent amendment was rejected under Section 59 on grounds of expanding the original claim scope.
SAP SE v.SAB INFOTECH SOLUTION PVT LTD & ANR
The dispute between SAP SE and Sab Infotech Solution Pvt Ltd was resolved through a comprehensive settlement decree by the Delhi High Court. The core agreement mandates that while Sab Infotech can continue using the full trading name 'SAB INFOTECH,' they must not use the mark 'SAB' in isolation or deceptively similar to SAP's registered trademarks. Furthermore, Sab Infotech agreed to withdraw a specific trademark application related to their brand. This settlement allows both parties to move forward with defined usage parameters.
Aditya Infotech Limited v.Dipankar Mandal
Aditya Infotech Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Dipankar Mandal in a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant was falsely printing the plaintiff's registered 'CP Plus' logo on unbranded CCTV cameras, leading to potential consumer confusion. Given the market reputation of 'CP Plus' and the risk of irreparable harm, the court granted immediate relief to protect the brand's goodwill.
Manoj Kumar Goyal, Sole Propreitor Of M/S Manoj Sweets v.The Controller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks Also Registrar of Trademark Registry & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute where the petitioner, Manoj Sweets, claims prior use and registration of the mark 'MANOJ SWEETS' in classes 30 and 43. The core issue is the subsequent registration of an identical mark, 'MANOJ BAKERS,' by another party (Respondent No. 2), which the petitioner alleges was done without proper citation of his existing rights. The court has initiated proceedings to examine this conflict, directing notice to all parties and setting timelines for filing detailed submissions.
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.