Delhi High Court - Orders
2164 cases · page 52 of 73
Showing 1531–1559Bayer Healthcare Llc v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
This order addressed various interlocutory applications in the commercial suit filed by Bayer Healthcare Llc against MSN Laboratories Private Limited. The court allowed several procedural requests, including granting time extensions and allowing additional documents. It also noted that the defendant had not yet launched its product and directed it to maintain status quo.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court passed an order on September 22, 2022, addressing several interlocutory applications in a suit concerning antenna technology. The court listed one application for hearing regarding the certificate of validity under Section 113 of the Patents Act, 1970.
M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd v.Pan Parag India Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the cancellation petition filed by M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd against Pan Parag India Limited & Anr. The court granted the relief based on an undertaking from Respondent No. 1, which stated they had no intention to use the impugned registered trademark 'GOLDIE' in their trade business of PAN MASALA. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to cancel and expunge the registration within six weeks.
Pfizer Inc v.Azista Industries Private Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit seeking an injunction against Azista Industries Private Limited for infringing patent no. IN 218291, which covers the pharmaceutical product 'Palbociclib'. After considering the submissions and assurances given by the Defendants that they would not manufacture or sell the product in India, the Court decreed the suit.
M/S Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. v.Kent Ro Systems Ltd.
The Delhi High Court resolved a complex trademark dispute between M/S Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Kent RO Systems Ltd. The case involved an injunction suit against alleged infringement of the 'HEPA PURE' trademark. After extensive litigation, including appeals challenging rectification orders, the parties successfully entered into mediation. Consequently, the court decreed the original suit based on a settlement agreement, allowing Kent RO Systems to continue using the mark while Mankastu Impex agreed not to object.
Dharampal Satyapal Limited v.Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a settlement reached between Dharampal Satyapal Limited (Plaintiff) and Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Defendants). The parties amicably resolved the dispute over trademark infringement concerning flavored pan-masala products. Key terms include the Defendants acknowledging the Plaintiff's sole proprietary rights in 'TANSEN' and 'TANSEN BLUES,' agreeing to immediately cease using the infringing mark 'TENSION FREE,' and undertaking to destroy all related materials and withdraw associated IP registrations.
Zydus Wellness Products Limited v.M/S Arihant Remedies & Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction in favor of Zydus Wellness Products Limited against M/S Arihant Remedies & Anr. The court found that the defendant's product was prima facie deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark and trade dress, despite arguments regarding ownership transfer and territorial jurisdiction. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to established brands through both trademark law and passing off principles.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Bryan Pharmaceuticals Through Its...
The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the unauthorized sale and distribution of Baricitinib, a drug used for rheumatoid arthritis, which allegedly infringes the plaintiff's patent. The case also involves claims for damages and delivery up.
Indiamart Intermesh Limited v.Mr Sameer Samim Khan & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiamart Intermesh Limited, granting permanent injunctions against the defendant for infringing its registered trademarks and copyrighted artistic works associated with the 'INDIAMART' brand. The court also ordered the transfer of specific domain names to the plaintiff and awarded punitive damages due to the defendant's alleged nefarious scheme to deceive innocent persons. This judgment strongly affirms the protection afforded to established digital brands operating in the B2B space.
Fmc Corporation v.Best Crop Science Llp
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Best Crop Science LLP for allegedly using the patented process IN '645 to manufacture Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR) under the brand name CITIGEN. Defendants contested the suit, raising issues of patent invalidity due to non-working and allegations of evergreening by plaintiffs. The Court ordered the appointment of a Local Commissioner and Scientific Advisors to independently analyze the product and map the defendants' process against the suit patent.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.M/S Blue Ivory & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S Blue Ivory & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed Local Commissioners with extensive powers to inspect premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the CK Marks, and demand disclosure of financial records from the defendants. This order provides immediate protection while allowing for thorough investigation into the alleged counterfeiting operations.
Aeronutrlx Sports Products Pvt Ltd v.Plumax Ebusiness Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court formally recorded a settlement between Aeronutrlx Sports Products Pvt Ltd and Plumax Ebusiness Solutions Private Limited regarding trademark disputes over the FAST&UP brand family. The parties agreed that Plumax acknowledged the validity and rights of Aeronutrlx in sub-brands like CHARGE, FORTIFY, RELOAD, and VITALIZE, including associated trade dress. In exchange for a payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Plumax committed to withdrawing opposition filings and ceasing all use of similar marks or designs.
Kent Ro Systems Limited v.Kent Cables Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed Kent Ro Systems Limited to seek exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of their trademark infringement and passing off claims against Kent Cables Private Limited. The court noted that Kent's 'KENT' mark is a registered and well-known trademark in relation to water purifiers. Consequently, the plaint was formally registered as a suit, and the matter proceeded toward filing written statements and considering an interim injunction.
Chugai Seiyaki Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against MSN Laboratories Private Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound 'Alectinib'. The Defendant initially claimed research use only, but subsequently provided an affidavit undertaking not to commercially launch Alectinib until the patent expires or is found invalid. The court accepted these undertakings and decreed the suit.
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd. v.Kothari Products Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a cancellation petition concerning the trademark 'GOLDIE'. The court accepted an affidavit of undertaking from Respondent No. 1, which stated that they had never used the impugned mark in trade and that the claimed user date was incorrect. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel/expunge Registration No. 490303 within six weeks.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The plaintiff sought to amend its plaint to implead ZTT International Limited as a necessary party, alleging that the entity infringes the plaintiff's patent through the import and sale of optical fibre cable. The court allowed the amendment, finding the proposed defendant was indeed a necessary party based on the facts pleaded in the written statement.
Pandrol Limited & Anr. v.Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Pandrol Limited, who filed a suit alleging infringement of its copyright and trademark. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction by appointing a Local Commissioner with broad powers to seize infringing products and gather evidence from the defendants' premises.
Dabur India Limited v.Marico Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed disputes regarding trade dress infringement concerning SAFFOLA products between Dabur and Marico. The court noted that while the defendant had previously represented changes to its packaging (including embossing), it failed to inform the court when certain product lines, like glass bottles or 100gm PET bottles, could not comply with those representations. Consequently, the court revived the plaintiff's interim injunction application for these specific products and imposed a significant cost on the defendant for non-disclosure.
Livspace Pte. Ltd. v.Livspace-Reviews.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Livspace Pte. Ltd., directing the blocking of the domain name www.livspace-reviews.com. The court found that the defendant's website, which used a similar mark and contained derogatory reviews, was operating clandestinely to damage Livspace's business reputation. Furthermore, the Court mandated regulatory bodies (DoT and MEITY) to enforce the block and ordered a detailed investigation by the Cyber Crime Unit into the domain's ownership.
Sanjay Mehra v.Sharad Mehra & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed competing claims regarding the maintainability of a trademark infringement suit versus an arbitration clause contained in a family settlement agreement. The court acknowledged the arguments from both sides, particularly concerning the scope of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Instead of immediately granting or denying interim relief, the judge directed both parties to file replies to the pending applications (I.A. 12874/2022 and I.A. 13127/2022) before listing them for a final hearing.
Sardarjibakhsh Pvt. Ltd. v.Ekta Foods
The Delhi High Court allowed Sardarjibakhsh Pvt. Ltd. to amend its plaint, enabling them to include claims of trademark infringement alongside existing passing off claims. This amendment was necessitated by a new device mark registration granted during the pendency of the suit. The court permitted both parties to file amended pleadings, ensuring the litigation could proceed with the updated scope of IP rights.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh Co v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
The plaintiffs (Boehringer Ingelheim) filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing/importing generic versions of medicines covered by their Indian Patent No. 243301, which relates to Linagliptin compounds. The court found that the plaintiffs made out a good prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing products.
Dhyeya Educational Services Private Limited v.Dhyeya Ias Patna E Classes Centre & Ors
The Delhi High Court referred the trademark dispute between Dhyeya Educational Services Private Limited and Dhyeya Ias Patna E Classes Centre & Ors to mediation. The defendants indicated a willingness to settle the matter, stating they would cease using the impugned trademark in the future. This move signals an attempt by both parties to resolve the conflict outside of court through conciliation.
M/S Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Mr. Amit Kumar Sultania Proprietor Of Amit Agencies & Anr.
In a case concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court formalized a comprehensive settlement between M/S Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited (Plaintiff) and Mr. Amit Kumar Sultania (Defendant). The parties amicably resolved their disputes, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms. Key outcomes include the Defendant acknowledging infringement of 'JK/JKLC/JK Lakshmi' trademarks, undertaking not to use similar marks, withdrawing specific trademark applications, and destroying all infringing materials.
Delhi Public School Society v.Savita Girdhar And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner's application for an early hearing, noting that the respondents were allegedly in continuous contempt of previous orders and continuing to infringe upon the petitioner's trademark by enrolling new students. The court recognized the urgency due to ongoing alleged infringement despite prior legal dismissals. Consequently, the original hearing date was cancelled, and a new listing was set for September 12, 2022.
3D Systems Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
3D Systems Incorporated filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 201717015945) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design on grounds of lack of inventive step. The High Court issued notice and directed the respondent to file written submissions.
New India Biri Factory v.Mohd Saleem & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in favor of the Plaintiff, New India Biri Factory, while addressing various procedural applications. The court dispensed with pre-institution mediation and granted leave to file additional documents, streamlining the litigation process. Crucially, the court also granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, allowing the Plaintiff to proceed with a search and seizure operation via Local Commissioners against the Defendants' premises to prevent further infringement of their registered trademarks and copyrighted artistic works.
Om Shivam Utpadan v.Saraswati Utpadan Private Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of multiple trademark and copyright rectification petitions after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement through mediation. The agreement outlines specific usage rights for both parties' marks and logos, allowing them to continue using certain designs under modified conditions while withdrawing ongoing legal challenges. This resolution provides clarity on their respective intellectual property rights moving forward.
Msn Laboratories Private Limited v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
The petitioner filed a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to revoke patent number 247381 covering APIXABAN. The court allowed notice and directed the completion of pleadings within prescribed timelines.
Plusplus Lifesciences Llp & Anr. v.Dr. Shiwani Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiffs an interim injunction in a suit alleging trade secret misappropriation and trademark infringement. The court found that the defendants, former employees, had gained access to proprietary technical know-how and confidential business information regarding prenatal supplements (TRIMACARE/LAYERCARE). Based on this prima facie case, the court authorized local commissioners to seize digital data, stock of infringing products ('NUTRIEPIC' and 'UTTERCARE'), and relevant documents to prevent irreparable injury.
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.