Delhi High Court - Orders
2164 cases · page 65 of 73
Showing 1921–1949Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Cadila Healthcare Limited successfully concluded its trademark infringement suit against Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. by reaching a comprehensive settlement agreement before the Delhi High Court. The defendants formally acknowledged Cadila's absolute proprietary rights in the 'AMLODAC' trademark and committed to ceasing all use of the mark, including recalling existing stock and destroying promotional materials. This resolution allows the suit to be disposed of with a decree reflecting the agreed-upon terms.
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser sought an interim injunction against Hindustan Unilever, alleging that HUL's advertising campaign disparaged its product, Harpic. The Delhi High Court examined the claims of false and misleading comparisons between the two toilet cleaner brands. While the court found prima facie evidence suggesting one specific print advertisement denigrated Harpic, it reserved judgment on the remaining advertisements, requiring a detailed reply from the defendant before making a final determination.
P. P. Jewellers Retail Private Limited & Ors. v.P. P. Jewellers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a District Court's directions regarding the use of trademarks in a family business dispute. While initially restraining P. P. Jewellers Retail Private Limited from using the plaintiff's marks, the court granted a stay on these injunctions, acknowledging the appellants' long-standing and acknowledged use of the trademarks within the family structure. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inventory the stock at the shared showroom premises, ensuring proper accounting between the competing entities.
M/S Copenhagen Hospitality And Retails & Ors. v.M/S. A.R. Impex & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of M/S Copenhagen Hospitality And Retails & Ors. against M/S. A.R. Impex & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendant from using deceptively similar pizza names, proprietary products, and controlling the plaintiff's official social media accounts while the main suit proceeds. This order protects the brand integrity of LA PINO'Z PIZZA against unauthorized commercial use by the franchisee.
Abhishek Kumar v.Union Of India Through Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors.
Abhishek Kumar filed a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act seeking to expunge the copyright registration of the 'Turbo Plus' label, which was registered as an artistic work. The petitioner also sought the suspension of this registration's effect to protect against potential infringement threats. Given the ongoing proceedings before the Trademark Registry regarding the cancellation of a search certificate, the court renotified the matter for further hearing.
Moonshine Technology Private Limited v.Tictok Skill Games Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Moonshine Technology Private Limited (Baazi Group) against Tictok Skill Games Private Limited. The court found that the defendant was attempting to piggyback on the goodwill and reputation of Baazi by using confusingly similar marks, such as 'WinZo Baazi'. Given the plaintiff's established presence and registered trademarks in the gaming industry, the court ruled that this usage amounted to infringement and passing off, directing the defendants to immediately cease all use of the infringing brand.
Kent Ro Systems Pvt Ltd v.Pushpendra Yadav
Kent Ro Systems Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging that Defendant No. 1's product infringes its registered design for a water purifier. The plaintiff asserted that the shape and configuration of the defendant's product imitated their protected design, citing Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000. The defense challenged this claim, arguing that novelty resided only in specific portions of the design. To properly assess the complex issue of design infringement, the court permitted both parties to submit comparative charts detailing the similarities and differences between the designs.
Pepsico Inc. v.Parle Agro Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark dispute between Pepsico Inc. and Parle Agro Private Limited. The court granted certain exemptions while noting that the defendant intended to file an application seeking rectification under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The matter was subsequently renotified for further hearing on August 5, 2021.
Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited v.Fly High Institute & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services against Fly High Institute & Ors. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, noting that the plaintiff holds a registered mark 'FLY HIGH' and claims extensive usage rights. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing names or registering similar domain names until further hearing.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.M/S Electro International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited and its affiliates against a defendant operating the domain www.tatacliqsmart.com. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was infringing on their registered trademark 'TATA' and associated e-commerce brand, tatacliq.com, by using a similar name to sell products, including those belonging to the Tata Group. The court found sufficient grounds to grant the injunction, noting the apparent link between the defendant's activities and the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.
Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited v.M/S Frankfinn Creations & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., restraining M/s Frankfinn Creations from using the trademark 'FRANKFINN'. The court found a prima facie case, noting that the plaintiff has long-standing goodwill associated with its registered mark for aviation and training services. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises, inventory infringing materials, and examine their financial records.
Enlearn Education Pvt Ltd v.Imperial Heritage School
Enlearn Education Pvt Ltd successfully secured an interim injunction against Imperial Heritage School in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiffs, who operate a well-established school under the name 'The Heritage School,' alleged that the defendants were attempting to register and use the deceptively similar mark 'IMPERIAL HERITAGE SCHOOL.' The court found that a prima facie case was made out, granting immediate relief to prevent irreparable harm and confusion in the market.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Amoli Organics Private Limited
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Amoli Organics Private Limited for allegedly making, selling, or dealing in products that infringe its Indian Patent No 209816. The dispute centered on the Sitagliptin API and its salts.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.M/S Jbmr Enterprises
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Khadi And Village Industries Commission against M/S JBMR Enterprises. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant was using identical marks ('KHADI PRAKRITIK PAINT') and copying the entire trade dress and packaging of the plaintiff's eco-friendly paints. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from manufacturing or selling infringing products and directed to take down associated online presence.
El Baik Food Systems Co. S.A. v.Arsalan Wahid Gilkar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of El Baik Food Systems Co. S.A., a popular restaurant chain, against defendants accused of trademark infringement and copyright violation. The court found that the defendants were using the 'ALBAIK' trademarks and logos to fraudulently offer unauthorized franchises across India. Recognizing both the trademark rights and the artistic nature of the logos, the judge restrained the defendants from using any deceptively similar marks or offering fake franchise opportunities until the final hearing.
Anil Rathi v.Barhi Concast Llp & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Anil Rathi against Barhi Concast LLP and others. The court found that the defendants were attempting to circumvent a previous injunction by adopting the deceptively similar mark 'BCLLPRATHI' while dealing in TMT bars and steel products, which are identical to the goods covered under Mr. Rathi's registered trademark 'RATHI'. This interim order restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under this contested mark until the final hearing of the suit.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Solitaire Pharmacia Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed for an ex-parte injunction against the defendants for infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816 related to SITAGLIPTIN and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs.
Stanley Switchgear Products v.Sunil Agarwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal filed by Stanley Switchgear Products challenging a Commercial Court order regarding trademark infringement and passing off concerning the 'STANLEY' mark used for wires and cables. The core dispute centered on conflicting claims of prior usage dates. Ultimately, the court facilitated an amicable resolution, with the respondents agreeing not to seek interim injunctions against the appellant's use of the mark. Furthermore, the court suggested a permanent settlement where both parties could distinguish their products by adding unique house marks.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Yms Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant is infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816 related to SITAGLIPTIN. They seek an injunction to prevent the defendant from manufacturing or selling infringing products.
Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited v.West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
In this trademark infringement suit concerning Omeprazole capsules, the Delhi High Court addressed a request for ex parte ad interim relief. While the plaintiff presented an arguable case regarding the deceptive similarity between 'OMEZ' and 'OMES', the court ultimately refused immediate injunction. The judge emphasized that mere prima facie evidence is insufficient; the balance of convenience, irreparable loss, and public interest must be weighed, leading to a decision to allow the defendant a chance to respond.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a writ petition challenging the procedural approach of the Patent Controller, arguing that its application for cross-examination of expert witnesses had not been decided. The court observed the long pendency and directed the Controller to first dispose of Natco's cross-examination application before proceeding with the merits of Novartis' patent application.
UPL Limited v.Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd & Anr.
UPL Limited filed a suit alleging that Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd was manufacturing and intending to launch a product comprising Acephate 50% + Imidacloprid 1.8% SP, infringing UPL's registered patents (IN 194211 and IN 211250). The court decreed the suit in favor of UPL Limited, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant for the validity period of the patents.
SAP SE v.SAP HANA SERVER ACCESS HYDERABAD AND ORS
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of SAP SE against the defendants. The court found merit in SAP's claims regarding its proprietary software and trademarks ('SAP', 'SAP HANA'). Consequently, the court directed the immediate de-activation of multiple infringing websites and social media accounts, as well as freezing a specific bank account linked to the alleged pirated activities.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Innovation Meditech Private Limited
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the Plaintiffs (Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors.) and the Defendant (Innovation Meditech Private Limited) have reached a mutual understanding. The court noted that the parties were actively engaged in drawing up a settlement agreement to resolve the ongoing litigation. This indicates a cooperative approach toward resolving commercial disputes outside of full trial.
Bennett Coleman Co Ltd v.Whatsappinc & Ors.
Bennett Coleman Co Ltd filed a suit against Whatsappinc and others alleging widespread unauthorized circulation and distribution of its proprietary e-newspapers. The plaintiff asserted that their published news articles, available through subscription on their websites, constitute original literary works protected under copyright law. Given the evidence presented regarding illegal dissemination via platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bennett Coleman Co Ltd.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Nava Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit concerning pharmaceutical products, the Delhi High Court addressed the plaintiff's request for immediate interim injunction. The court declined to grant an ex parte order, emphasizing that the defendants had claimed prior use of the mark since 2018 and that public interest required them to be given a chance to respond. Consequently, notice was issued to the defendants, allowing the litigation process to proceed with due consideration for all parties.
Bajaj Finance Limited v.Registrant Of Www.Bajaj-Finserve.Org & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim order in favor of Bajaj Finance Limited against the registrant of infringing domains. The court found that three specific domain names were clearly violating the petitioner's trademark. Consequently, the concerned Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) were directed to lock these illegal domains, and the Department of Telecommunications/Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (DOT/MEITY) was mandated to block access to them.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.Vaishali Travels & Anr.
In a case concerning the use of the 'VOLVO' trademark, the Delhi High Court facilitated a settlement between the plaintiffs (Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors) and defendant No. 2. The court ordered that the settlement, wherein the defendant agrees not to use the registered trademark 'VOLVO', must be placed on record within two weeks. This order confirms an earlier interim decision and keeps the litigation moving toward resolution.
Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v.Rajendra Mahadev Dakare
In this trademark infringement suit, Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. sought a temporary injunction against Rajendra Mahadev Dakare regarding the use of the mark 'RENAISSANCE'. The plaintiff argued that their established global hospitality brand was being threatened by the defendant's application for a similar mark. The Delhi High Court allowed the necessary applications and issued notice to the defendant, allowing the suit to proceed while granting interim relief pending further hearings.
Kulvinder Singh Kohli & Anr. v.Monsendeep Kaur
The Delhi High Court granted an interim ex-parte injunction to Kulvinder Singh Kohli & Anr. against Monsendeep Kaur regarding the trademark 'Pamoist'. The plaintiffs established that they were prior adopters and users of the mark, which was used by their charitable trust before being transferred to Pamoist International. This preliminary order restrains the defendant from using the disputed mark or similar variants until the matter is further heard, while clarifying that the Trademark Registry retains full authority over the opposition proceedings.
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.