Delhi High Court - Orders
2164 cases · page 50 of 73
Showing 1471–1499Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed an order dated July 31, 2019, wherein its application for grant of a patent was rejected. The court issued notice to the respondent and directed both parties to file written submissions within specified timelines.
Ajinomoto Co Inc v.Dattatrey Studios & Anr.
Ajinomoto Co Inc successfully secured an interim injunction against Dattatrey Studios in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, owner of the registered trademark 'AJI-NO-MOTO,' argued that the upcoming movie title infringed its rights and was disparaging, linking the brand to negative health claims. The court granted the relief, preventing the release of any film bearing the disputed name until further hearing.
Siddhant Icecreams Llp v.Ameet Pahilani
In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court facilitated an agreement between Siddhant Icecreams LLP (Plaintiffs) and Ameet Pahilani (Defendant No. 2). The court mandated that Defendant No. 2 cease using the terms 'Natural' and 'Naturals' in relation to ice creams across various media, including packaging and online platforms, to protect the Plaintiffs' trademark rights. However, the order provided specific carve-outs allowing the use of the mark 'NIC' under certain conditions within India and outside India, while also permitting the sale of existing stock until a specified date.
Apollo Tyres Limited v.Glory Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Apollo Tyres Limited against Glory Enterprise & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized the deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's 'APOLLO' mark and the defendants' 'OPOLLO' mark used on automotive tyres and tubes. Furthermore, the Court appointed Local Commissioners to conduct comprehensive searches, seizures, and inventories at the defendants' manufacturing premises to gather evidence against the alleged counterfeit operations.
Vbm Medizintechnik Gmbh v.Geetan Luthra
The Delhi High Court granted an interlocutory injunction in favor of Vbm Medizintechnik Gmbh against Geetan Luthra regarding the use of the mark 'VBM'. The court found that despite prior distribution agreements, the defendant's subsequent registration and use of a deceptively similar mark for medical equipment constituted infringement. The ruling emphasizes the need to prevent consumer confusion when one party leverages another's established brand identity.
Apnatime Tech Private Limited And Anr. v.Anik Dev Nath And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Apnatime Tech Private Limited against the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were passing off their services using a deceptively similar mark ('APNA JOBS') and infringing on their copyrighted website layout and user interface. Citing prima facie evidence, the court restrained the defendants from using the disputed mark and artistic works, while also directing domain name suspension and blocking to prevent further consumer confusion and irreparable harm.
Ecomax Solutions Pvt. Ltd v.Energeo Building Solutions Llp & Ors
The case involves issues related to patent infringement, rights relating to confidential information, and copyrighted drawings concerning the Automatic Tube Cleaning system. The court appointed Local Commissioners to ascertain the working of the system used by the Defendants.
Sorrel Hospitality Pvt. Ltd v.Lucknow Recreational Facility Centre Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Sorrel Hospitality Pvt. Ltd against Lucknow Recreational Facility Centre Private Limited. The petitioner sought to prevent the respondent from continuing to use the 'Best Western' sub-licensed mark even after the underlying Sub-License Agreement was terminated due to defaults by the respondent. The court found that the continued unauthorized use of the mark, despite termination and legal notice, was likely to cause irreparable damage and mislead the public regarding an ongoing relationship between the parties.
Burger King Corporation v.Swapnil Patil & Ors.
In a significant move protecting its brand integrity, Burger King Corporation successfully secured an ad interim injunction from the Delhi High Court. The court recognized that defendants were attempting to circumvent previous orders by opening new bank accounts and registering highly similar domain names (www.burgerkingfranchise.co.in). Consequently, the court ordered the immediate suspension of these domains, freezing the associated bank accounts, and mandating the takedown of all infringing online listings.
Parle Products Private Limited v.Britannia Industries Ltd.
Parle Products filed a suit against Britannia Industries alleging disparagement and unfair competition through advertisements for 'Britannia Milk Bikis.' The court found that the use of terms like 'G-NAHI' and similar packaging strongly suggested a comparison with Parle-G. Recognizing both parties' willingness to resolve the dispute, the Delhi High Court referred them to mediation while issuing an interim injunction preventing Britannia from re-publishing the print advertisements.
TIMAB NL BV v.Shamrock Geoscience Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a crucial interim injunction in favor of TIMAB NL BV against Shamrock Geoscience Ltd. The court found that TIMAB had demonstrated prior and continuous use of its mark, making it entitled to restrain Shamrock's use of identical or similar marks for cognate goods. This order significantly protects TIMAB's goodwill and exclusive rights during the pendency of the suits.
Vijay Baweja Proprietor Of Ms Vijay Auto Sales v.Ajay Baweja Trading As Ajay Auto Spares & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed by Vijay Baweja against Ajay Baweja concerning the trademarks 'AIRGOLD' and 'AIR GOLD (Device)'. The court accepted the petitioner's application to summon the original records related to these marks from the CGPDTM. The core dispute revolves around the joint ownership of the mark, which was subsequently assigned exclusively by the respondent without obtaining a necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the petitioner.
Inventio Ag And Anr v.Schneider Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Inventio Ag And Anr. against a newly formed company, VDMIL Elevator India. The court found that this new entity was being used to circumvent existing trademark injunctions previously passed against the original defendants (Schneider Elevator). The order restrains the proposed defendant from using marks or logos deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks and from mimicking the plaintiff's website look and feel.
Cosmos Corporation v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by Cosmos Corporation seeking correction of a prior order. The correction was necessary because the parties had reached a settlement, resulting in the assignment of Trademark Registration No. 3628175 (TROPICLEAN) from the Registrar of Trade Marks to Cosmos Corporation. This ruling formally recognized the terms of the private agreement within the court record.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd & Ors
The case involves RXPRISM challenging the validity of a patent held by Canva, with arguments presented regarding non-infringement and prior art.
NEC Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
NEC Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201717010986) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step. The court allowed applications for exemption and condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subsequently listing the case for further hearing.
United Biotech Private Limited v.Cipla Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition seeking cancellation of an impugned trademark. Respondent No. 1 (Cipla Limited) assured the court that it was not using the mark, leading to the petitioner's success. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trademark and rectify the register accordingly.
ITC Limited v.Central Park Estates Private Limited & Anr.
In this trademark infringement suit, ITC Limited sought various procedural reliefs against Central Park Estates Private Limited. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advanced document service. Crucially, the court allowed an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect samples and inventory related to the disputed mark 'BALKH BUKHARA', setting the stage for detailed evidence gathering in the ongoing infringement dispute.
Imberatek Llc v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court passed an order in CS(COMM) 763/2022 addressing several interlocutory applications filed by Imberatek Llc against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowed the plaintiff to file confidential documents related to the suit patent under strict confidentiality terms.
Bibimoney Global Ltd. v.Taisys Technologies Ltd. And Ors.
The parties requested time to file written submissions regarding the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court concerning patent revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court listed the matter for further hearing.
Mahle Filter Systems (India) Pvt Ltd v.Mobis India Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the dispute between Mahle Filter Systems and Mobis India Ltd concerning a subject trademark. The court directed both parties to file concise written submissions and, crucially, instructed counsel to exchange proposals aimed at resolving the trademark issue amicably. This indicates the ongoing litigation is moving towards potential settlement or mediation.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves Nokia Technologies Oy filing against Oppo and Vivo for patent infringement related to telecommunications technology. The hearings have focused on non-infringement and invalidity aspects of the patents.
Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. v.Jaipur Steeltech India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark disputes concerning the use of the 'RATHI' mark in steel manufacturing. The Plaintiffs challenged the Defendants' compliance with previous undertakings regarding the cessation of unauthorized use of the trademark. While the Defendants submitted an affidavit, the court found it inconsistent with their prior assurances. Consequently, the court directed the Defendant to file a fresh, compliant affidavit within one week.
S. Bir Pal Singh v.Pawandeep Singh Walia Trading As M/S. Pawandeep Singh & Company and Ors.
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, S. Bir Pal Singh sought interim protection against Pawandeep Singh Walia Trading As M/S. Pawandeep Singh & Company. The court issued a crucial order directing Respondent No. 1 not to create any third-party rights in four specific registered trademarks associated with 'AKALI PATRIKA.' This protective measure ensures the status quo is maintained while the main litigation proceeds, setting a key date for further hearing.
Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application titled "HYGIENE WASH". The rejection was based on insufficient disclosure under Section 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed several interlocutory applications and listed the matter for further hearing.
Messrs Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd v.Mr Pushpinder Garg & Ors / Super Impex and Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple facets of the trademark dispute involving 'MONICA GOLD' and 'MONICA PRIME'. In the infringement suit, the court allowed an application to appoint a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises and inventory infringing goods. Separately, the court initiated proceedings for the rectification of the mark 'Monica Prime', issuing notices to the respondents. The overall matter remains active with interim orders in place.
Premier Nutritions Privat Limited v.Amit Product A Proprietary Connern
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Premier Nutritions Privat Limited against Amit Product A Proprietary Connern, finding that the defendant's use of 'DOODH MANTHAN' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'MANTHAN/PREMIER MANTHAN'. Furthermore, the court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory and seize infringing products, reinforcing the immediate protection available to IP holders facing market imitation.
Dfm Foods Ltd. v.Ms Nenimemi Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court granted a one-week extension to Defendant No. 1 to file its required affidavit. Crucially, the court also issued an assurance that the defendant would refrain from selling the disputed product under the 'CORN CURLS' trademark until the next hearing date. This interim order maintains the status quo while allowing procedural compliance in the ongoing infringement litigation.
Cinni Foundation Through Managing Trustee Dipak Kumar Sah v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Cinni Foundation challenging the rejection of its trademark application 'CINNI' in Class 07, which relates to pumps. The court issued notice and directed that the respondents be served with the appeal documents. Both matters were subsequently listed for a detailed hearing on January 16, 2023.
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd v.Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc, seeking permanent injunction and declarations that the defendant's legal threats regarding trademarks and architectural design were unjustifiable. The plaintiffs also claimed damages for alleged infringement. However, since the defendant had already initiated a counter-suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement, the court found the current claims infructuous. Consequently, the suit was disposed of without prejudice to the pending litigation.
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.