Delhi High Court - Orders
2164 cases · page 60 of 73
Showing 1771–1799Surya Roshni Limited v.Group Surya
Surya Roshni Limited challenged an arbitral award concerning the domain name 'groupsurya.co.in', arguing that the arbitrator erred in holding that the mark 'SURYA' was generic. The Delhi High Court accepted the petitioner's application to condone a significant delay, citing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods. Consequently, the court took the petition on record and issued notice to the respondent, setting the stage for a detailed legal challenge against the initial arbitral decision.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Hfcl Limited
The case involves a suit seeking an injunction against HFCL Limited for allegedly infringing on Sterlite Technologies' patent related to optical fiber cables. The plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling the infringing products.
Vifor International Ltd v.Unijules Life Sciences Limited
The dispute involved allegations of infringement regarding Ferric Carboxymaltose protected under Indian Patent No. 221536. The parties referred the matter to mediation, resulting in a Settlement Agreement dated 21.02.2022.
The Chartered Institute Of Taxation v.Institute Of Chatered Tax Advisers Of India Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by The Chartered Institute Of Taxation against a lower court's dismissal of its interim injunction application regarding the trademark 'ADIT'. The Court found that the Respondent, Institute of Chartered Tax Advisers of India Ltd., was likely to cause enormous harm by using a similar name and mark. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the Defendant must refrain from launching any course under the name 'ADIT' while the main suit is pending.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Daxia Healthcare & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the product SILODAX-8 D, the Delhi High Court directed both parties toward mediation. The defendants agreed not to manufacture or sell further stock of the infringing product while also committing to provide details of all products manufactured and sold to date. This order signals a judicial preference for alternative dispute resolution in complex IP disputes.
SNPC Machines Private Limited v.Pankaj Rana
SNPC Machines Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patents, copyright, and misappropriation of trade secrets related to a brick-making machine. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was recorded by the Court.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of its Indian Patent No. 240893, titled 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The court issued directions regarding bank guarantees and continuous cash deposits from the defendants to secure the claims during the pendency of the suit. The matter remains pending trial.
Tata Sons Private Limited v.Dinesh Kumar
The Delhi High Court disposed of the dispute between Tata Sons Private Limited and Dinesh Kumar after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The agreement confirmed Tata's ownership of the well-known 'TATA' mark and required the defendant to cease all use of the mark or any deceptively similar variations. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to assign his related trademark registration and pay a full and final settlement amount of INR 2,00,000/-.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Hfcl Limited
The case involves a suit filed by Sterlite Technologies Limited against HFCL Limited for the infringement of their patent related to an optical fiber cable. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling the allegedly infringing products.
Syngenta Participations Ag v.Gsp Crop Science Private Limited
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was using a process patented under IN 206995. The Defendant defended by claiming invalidity based on prior art (EP 1031566). This order addressed procedural applications, allowing the Defendant time to file the official translated copy of the cited prior art.
Deepak Kukreja v.Anil Kukreja
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Deepak Kukreja against Anil Kukreja, restraining the latter from using the deceptively similar trademark 'RIGALITE' in relation to electrical goods. The court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off concerning his registered trademarks RIGA and RIGGA. Furthermore, the Court allowed the appointment of Local Commissioners to visit the Defendant's premises, seize infringing materials, and inventory the goods.
Ani Media Pvt Ltd v.Vinay G David & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Ani Media Pvt Ltd alleging that Defendant No.1 was willfully disobeying a prior ad interim injunction order. The court found prima facie evidence of breach, as the defendant continued using the plaintiff's registered trademarks and domain name on his Facebook account despite the restraint order. Consequently, the court issued a show cause notice to initiate proceedings for disobedience and mandated that the defendant remove all offending content within 48 hours.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Eris Lifesciences Limited filed a revocation petition challenging Patent No. IN 243301, arguing that it should be revoked because the claims were covered by an earlier genus patent (IN 227719). The Delhi High Court noted that another appeal concerning the same patent was already pending before the court. Consequently, the court directed both parties to serve notices upon each other and listed the matter together with the existing appeal for a hearing on April 6, 2022.
Thyssenkrupp Rothe Erde Germany Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN254458 before the Delhi High Court. The contesting respondent raised objections regarding the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the patent was granted in Chennai and an earlier revocation petition had already been filed before IPAB, Chennai.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Raman Gupta And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Khadi & Village Industries Commission against Raman Gupta and others. The court found that the defendants were illegally using the registered trademark 'KHADI' and associated logos, particularly for medical products like PPE kits and hand sanitizers under the trading style 'KHADI BY HERITAGE'. Given the potential risk to public health due to unauthorized quality control, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling any such products bearing the infringing marks.
Enlearn Education Pvt. Ltd. v.Indian Heritage School
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Enlearn Education Pvt. Ltd., who alleged that the defendant was infringing on their established use of the mark 'HERITAGE' in the education sector. The court found a prima facie case for confusion among students and parents due to the similarity of marks used by both parties. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from opening any new educational institutions using 'INDIAN HERITAGE' or 'HERITAGE', and were ordered to cease using the name 'Indian Heritage World School' for their existing pre-school starting May 1, 2022.
Precise Bio Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Precise Bio Pharma Pvt Ltd challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents which dismissed a pre-grant opposition against its patent application. The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was not a 'speaking order' and lacked sufficient reasoning. The High Court agreed, setting aside the order and remanding the matter for a reasoned decision.
Whitehat Education Technology Private Limited v.Ms Kanishk Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Whitehat Education Technology Private Limited against Ms Kanishk Enterprises & Anr. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trademark entry bearing number 4786408 in Class 16. This decision effectively removed the contested mark from the register, favoring the petitioner's claim regarding the intellectual property rights.
Hamlai Industries Pvt Ltd. v.WD 40 Manufacturing Company
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Hamlai Industries challenging an ex parte injunction granted in a trademark dispute. The court noted the Appellants' claims regarding suppressed correspondence and prior international registrations, arguing that the initial injunction should be suspended. However, before deciding on the merits of the stay application, the court issued directions to both parties, requiring the Appellants to disclose detailed sales and import figures since 2010, and the Plaintiff to provide the complete records from the Trial Court.
Vishal Pipes Limited v.Bhavya Pipe Industry
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court addressed several procedural issues while advancing the main dispute between Vishal Pipes Limited and Bhavya Pipe Industry. The court allowed an application for a Local Commissioner, who was tasked with visiting the defendant's premises to inventory all products bearing the 'BPI' mark and obtain relevant sales accounts. Furthermore, the court issued notice to the defendant regarding the interim injunction request, reserving the final decision for a later date.
WHITEHAT EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED v.MS KANISHK ENTERPRISES & ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addressed a petition for the rectification of a registered trademark. While the substantive issues were not decided on this date, the court focused on procedural matters. The court noted that the Vakalatnama for Defendant No. 1 was missing from the record and directed steps to be taken to place it on file. The matter has been listed for further hearing.
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED AND OTHERS v.RAJIV MUKUL AND ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an execution petition filed by Glaxo Group Limited seeking enforcement of a prior decree. The core issue is the alleged infringement and passing off committed by the judgment debtors who began selling products under the deceptively similar trade name 'BETNEVIN'. Although the original suit covered various trademarks, the petitioners argued that their rights in 'BETNOVATE' and 'BETNESOL' were encompassed within the general scope of the decree. The Court directed notice to the defendants regarding this new alleged infringement, setting the stage for further litigation.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Beaukev Pharma International Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 209816) concerning Sitagliptin. The court closed the defendant's right to file a written statement and passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling the patented drug until the final disposal of the suit.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.Tata Motors Limited
The dispute between Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited and Tata Motors Limited regarding the use of 'T-Series' marks was amicably settled in the Delhi High Court. The settlement requires Tata Motors to acknowledge the statutory and common law rights of Super Cassettes in 'T-Series', undertake not to use the mark on automobile products, and remove all related content from its websites and social media platforms. In return, Super Cassettes acknowledged the rights of Tata Motors in marks like 'Tata' and agreed to drop claims for damages.
The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc (COMPTIA) v.Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited (The Times Group)
This Delhi High Court judgment records the amicable resolution of a trademark dispute between COMPTIA and The Times Group. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement, wherein The Times Group acknowledged COMPTIA's ownership of 'CHANNELCON' and agreed to immediately cease using it or deceptively similar marks like 'CHANNELICON'. Furthermore, The Times Group committed not to oppose future registration efforts for the mark.
Novartis Ag v.Windlas Biotech Pvt. Ltd.
The cases involve Novartis AG against Windlas Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and Eris Lifesciences Limited regarding commercial disputes. The hearings are scheduled for further directions.
PRECISE BIO PHARMA PVT. LTD. v.ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS & ANR.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking a stay against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. This order rejected the pre-grant opposition filed by Precise Bio Pharma Pvt. Ltd. regarding Indian Patent Application No. 2471/DELNP/2013 under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Hindustan Syringes And Medical Devices Ltd. v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Hindustan Syringes And Medical Devices Ltd. challenging the Senior Examiner's refusal to register the trademark 'DISPOSAFE'. While granting procedural exemptions regarding document submission, the court formally initiated the substantive appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner argued that their unique combination mark should not have been rejected as generic or descriptive. The matter is now set for further hearing after notice has been issued to the Respondent.
Lt Foods Limited v.Sri Annapurna Agro Indsutries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on a comprehensive settlement reached between Lt Foods Limited and Sri Annapurna Agro Industries. The defendants formally acknowledged Lt Foods as the exclusive proprietor of the trademark 'HERITAGE/INDIAN HERITAGE SELECT.' Crucially, the defendants undertook to cease all use of the mark, refrain from registering similar marks globally, and pay damages amounting to INR 5,00,000/- to the plaintiff. This judgment provides a clear example of how parties can resolve complex IP disputes through negotiated settlements.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited v.Mr. Nitish Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited against the defendants. The court found that the defendants were fraudulently adopting and misusing Hero's registered trademarks ('Hero Electric', 'Hero Motocrop') and identity materials to set up fake dealerships, thereby deceiving the public. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using these marks or offering services under the plaintiff's name, and associated domain names and bank accounts were ordered to be frozen pending the final disposal of the suit.
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.