Delhi High Court - Orders
2164 cases · page 49 of 73
Showing 1441–1469Stanley Black And Decker, Inc. v.Stanley Switchgear Products
The Delhi High Court rejected a defendant's attempt to have the plaintiff's trademark infringement suit dismissed on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court affirmed that the plaintiff successfully demonstrated sufficient nexus to New Delhi, citing the defendant's sales across India, online transactions via websites like shoption.in and indiamart.com, and physical delivery within the city. This ruling reinforces the expansive interpretation of jurisdictional reach in modern commercial disputes involving digital commerce.
Comviva Technologies Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents & Design
Comviva Technologies Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201611000234) on grounds of ineligibility under Section 3(k). The appellant argued that the invention was a technical advancement with practical implementation and should be granted a patent.
M.I. Industries, Incorporated v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M.I. Industries against the Registrar of Trade Marks, overturning the rejection of their trademark application 'NATURE'S VARIETY'. The court found that despite consisting of common dictionary words, the mark was sufficiently distinctive when applied to animal foodstuffs (Class 31), as it evoked a natural quality without being directly descriptive of the goods. Furthermore, the Appellant's international reputation and goodwill were noted in the decision.
The Hind Samachar Limited v.M/S Punjab Kesari Publishers Pvt. Ltd
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed for the rectification of the 'PUNJAB KESARI NATIONAL' trademark following an inter-party settlement. The court directed the Trademark Registry to amend the registration, limiting the scope and territory of the mark exclusively to specific regions defined in the parties' Memorandum of Family Signature (MoFS). This decision provides a clear legal mechanism for resolving complex territorial disputes between brand owners through negotiated settlements.
Laans Portfolios Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Laans Portfolios Pvt Ltd's appeal against an order that deemed its trademark application 'VEGAZVA' abandoned. The core issue was a procedural discrepancy where the Registrar failed to consider the Appellant's filed counter-statement despite it being on record for one of the identical opposition filings. Recognizing this clerical error and the unfairness to the applicant, the Court set aside the abandonment order, restored the application, and directed the Registry to process the registration.
M/S Tejram Dharampaul v.M/S Ganesh Tobacco Company
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Tejram Dharampaul against M/S Ganesh Tobacco Company. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'GANESH CHHAP TOBACCO' was likely to cause confusion with the Plaintiff's long-established mark, despite the Plaintiff lacking a formal word mark registration for the specific phrase. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inventory and seize goods bearing the infringing mark.
Ds Intellectual Properties Llp & Anr v.Ashutosh Kumar Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ds Intellectual Properties Llp against Ashutosh Kumar Singh and others. The plaintiffs, owners of the 'Rajnigandha' trademark and associated copyrights, alleged that defendants were using a deceptive website ('www.rajnigandhadealership.online') to lure the public into fake distributorships under their brand name. Consequently, the court restrained the defendants from using the trademarks or the domain name and directed the domain registrar and bank to take immediate action.
Ramesh Chander v.Pritam Das
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark opposition filed by Ramesh Chander against Pritam Das. The petitioner claims prior use and ownership of the mark 'ANIL' for confectionary goods, arguing that the respondent's later registration is barred under Section 12(1) and obtained through fraud. The court issued directions to serve notice on the respondent and set timelines for filing replies and rejoinders, moving the matter forward in the opposition proceedings.
Biogaia Ab v.Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Biogaia Ab against the Senior Examiner's refusal of the 'PROTECTIS' trademark for Class 5 goods (pharmaceutical products). The court found that 'PROTECTIS,' being an arbitrary term with no dictionary meaning, possesses sufficient distinctiveness and is not descriptive. Furthermore, the court noted that prior objections regarding similarity to other marks were unsustainable after reviewing their status. Consequently, the refusal was set aside, and the trademark application was directed to proceed for registration.
Electronica Semiconductors Pvst Ltd v.Naveen Goel And Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued procedural orders in the trademark opposition proceedings involving Electronica Semiconductors Pvt Ltd against Naveen Goel and others. The court directed the parties to cure registry objections, provide necessary documentation, and file consolidated briefs of submissions within specified timelines. This order sets the stage for further substantive arguments regarding the trademark dispute.
Anurag Saxena T/As Unique International v.Qaysa Care Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring the plaintiff, Anurag Saxena T/As Unique International, against Qaysa Care Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of 'NEW IMPROVED HAMMER OF THOR' was virtually identical to the plaintiff's registered marks and trade dress, constituting prima facie passing off and trademark infringement. This decision provides immediate protection to the plaintiff's brand while the main suit proceeds.
Deepak Khanna M/S B.D. Khanna Jewellers Pvt Ltd. v.Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers
The Delhi High Court consolidated multiple trademark infringement and rectification petitions involving the 'BDK' mark. Following the abolition of the IPAB, the court revived the suit for infringement alongside the pending rectification matters. The court appointed a new Local Commissioner to proceed with recording evidence, setting a timeline for completion within three months.
Exhibitions India Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Exhibitions India Pvt Ltd against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the 'SMART CITIES INDIA' device mark. The court found that the mark was not merely descriptive or generic, especially given the Appellant's extensive history of using it for organizing exhibitions since 2015. Furthermore, the court determined that the mark was not deceptively similar to conflicting marks cited by the Examiner. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the Trademark Registry was directed to process the registration.
Nif Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
In this appeal concerning trademark registration, the Registrar of Trade Marks argued that Nif Private Limited was seeking repeated registrations for the same device mark. The court noted conflicting claims regarding prior and subsequent applications related to the brand 'Namaste India Creamy Delicious Dahi'. To properly adjudicate whether multiple registrations were being sought for the identical mark, the High Court directed the appellant to place both relevant trademark application documents on record.
Loreal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Loreal's appeal against the refusal of its trademark application 'PILLOW PROOF BLOWDRY' for hair care products. The court found that the mark was suggestive rather than descriptive, noting that while individual words are common, their combination does not immediately describe the product. Consequently, the court set aside the previous orders and directed the Trademark Registry to proceed with registration, provided a disclaimer is placed on the rights of the individual component words.
Joy Universal Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Joy Universal Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register the word mark 'PRINCESS PAT'. The court found that the grounds for refusal, based on similarity to earlier marks under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, were unsustainable. Crucially, the court noted that several cited conflicting marks had since been removed or refused registration, significantly changing the circumstances. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed, subject to a disclaimer ensuring no exclusive rights are granted in 'PRINCESS' or 'PAT' individually.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistance Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for 'Use of a Thiazolo Pyrimidinone for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and falling under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Act. The court released the matter from part heard due to heavy board load.
Centrient Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V. v.Dalas Biotech Limited
The dispute involves a claim of infringement regarding a process patent for manufacturing Amoxicillin Trihydrate. The Plaintiffs sought to implead the Drug Controller General of India, arguing the Defendant failed to prove their process was different from the patented process. The Defendant countered that the Plaintiff was exceeding the scope and had not demonstrated product identity.
Akums Drugs Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Ferring B.V.
Akums Drugs Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a suit seeking a declaration that its pharmaceutical composition does not infringe Patent IN 387567 held by Ferring B.V. The defendant raised a preliminary objection regarding the non-compliance with pre-institution requirements under Section 105 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed the plaint to be registered as a suit and directed the issuance of summons.
EDUSPARK INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED v.LAXMI PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court issued an order directing the defendant, Laxmi Publications Private Limited, to take proactive measures regarding the disputed mark 'VIBGYOR'. The court noted that the defendant had taken down references to the trademark from its website and Facebook page and communicated with distributors to cease sales. The defendant was subsequently directed to file a detailed affidavit within three weeks outlining all compliance steps taken.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc filed an appeal challenging the order dated July 22, 2019, by The Controller of Patents. This order rejected the application for grant of a patent under various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file submissions and pleadings.
Sai Shreeja Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Shree Amba Industries
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Sai Shreeja Industries seeking an injunction against Shree Amba Industries, alleging 'slander' and 'libel.' The court noted that the plaintiff's claim stemmed from the defendant opposing the registration of the plaintiff's trademark. Finding that opposition to trademark registration does not inherently constitute slander or libel, the judge indicated the suit might be dismissed for lack of cause of action. However, the Court granted a renotification date to allow the plaintiff to further convince the court of the suit's sustainable basis.
Sandisk Llc v.Patel Mobile Accessories And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Sandisk LLC's application to amend its suit, permitting the impleadment of three additional parties—Shree Mataji Mobiles, Target Telecom, and Paravathi Telecom. These entities were identified as selling and marketing counterfeit products bearing Sandisk's registered trademarks. The court granted the amendments sought by the plaintiff, allowing the case to proceed against a broader set of alleged infringers.
Gea Refrigeration Netherlands Nv v.Metalex Cryogenics Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon their Indian Patent (IN 296857) related to piston compressor crankcases. The court registered the plaint and issued summons, setting out procedural directions for filing written statements and addressing various interlocutory applications.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
The court heard an application filed by Defendant 7 seeking permission to place screenshots and a research paper on record to challenge the novelty of Design No. 263764 asserted by Sirona Hygiene Private Limited. The plaintiff opposed the application, citing delay. The Court allowed the documents but directed the plaintiff to file an affidavit of admission or denial.
Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v.Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. and Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for listing before the appropriate bench on December 6, 2022, to continue the ongoing litigation.
Alpa Laboratories Limited v.Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Anr.
The petitioner, Alpa Laboratories Limited, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent IN '231479. The petitioner argued that although the patent was revoked by the Deputy Controller of Patents on December 1, 2020, an appeal had stayed this revocation order. The court issued notice and directed parties to file submissions.
Jaskaran Singh v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Jaskaran Singh against Flipkart regarding alleged trademark infringement and counterfeiting of goods under the 'ANMEX' brand. The appellant sought an interim injunction to stop unauthorized third parties from selling counterfeit goods on the platform. While acknowledging the severity of the issue, the court disposed of the appeal with a crucial direction: Flipkart must provide the names, addresses, and email IDs of the alleged infringing 'more sellers/latch on sellers' within one week. This move allows the litigation to proceed by identifying the specific parties responsible for the infringement.
M/S Jindal (India) Limited v.M/S Spectrum Metal Profiles Through Its Partners Rakesh Gandhi and Vinay Gandhi
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Jindal (India) Limited against M/S Spectrum Metal Profiles. The court found that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks, such as 'JINDAL ROOFING SYSTEM' and 'JINDAL RANGOLI,' on roofing sheets, which infringed upon Jindal's registered trademarks like 'JINDAL SABRANG.' Recognizing a prima facie case and irreparable harm to Jindal's reputation, the court immediately restrained the defendant from selling or advertising goods using these infringing marks.
Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. v.The Controller Of Patents And Anr
Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its Indian Patent Application no. 4805/DELNP/2007 by the Controller of Patents and Anr. The application was rejected on grounds of lacking inventive step (Section 2(1)(j)) and insufficient disclosure (Section 10) of the Patents Act, 1970.
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.