Delhi High Court - Orders
2164 cases · page 68 of 73
Showing 2011–2039Microsoft Corporation & Anr. v.Pcpatchers Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Microsoft against Pcpatchers Technology Pvt. Ltd. and associated parties. The suit alleged that the defendants were using various domain names and impersonating Microsoft's authorized technical support staff to defraud customers. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence, noting that the defendants were infringing on Microsoft's registered trademarks, domain names, and copyrights while engaging in fraudulent activities.
Havells India Limited v.Yash Fans Pvt. Ltd.
Havells India Limited filed a suit against Yash Fans Pvt. Ltd. for infringement of its design and passing off. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was recorded by the court.
Ms Gip Development Sarl v.Ms Trigur Electronics India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Ms Gip Development Sarl, the owner of the 'Blaupunkt' trademark. The petitioner sought relief after terminating a license agreement with Ms Trigur Electronics India Private Limited due to non-payment of minimum license fees. Given that the respondent had not challenged the termination and failed to pay outstanding dues, the court ruled that the respondent lacked authority to use the mark, thereby restraining them from manufacturing or selling products under 'Blaupunkt' until the final disposal of the case.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd And Anr v.Dilip Kumar Shukla & Ors.
In this ongoing commercial suit concerning alleged infringement and passing off related to Kent RO's products, the court addressed a procedural challenge regarding one of the defendants. The defendant argued that the design right relevant to their involvement had expired, prompting the plaintiff to consider removing them from the case. While no final judgment was reached, the court issued several directions for the completion of pleadings and document exchange.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Ors. v.Sarfaraz Khan
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'TAZA WATER PLUS' while operating in the same trade channel as Tata's registered trademarks. Based on the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable harm to Tata's goodwill, the court issued an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.
Philip Morris Brands S.A.R.L v.Ntc Industries Limited & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, Philip Morris Brands S.A.R.L challenged Ntc Industries Limited regarding the use of its stylized 'Maypole' mark and packaging devices. During the proceedings on October 20, 2020, the court noted that the defendants would place advertisements showing the use of the 'Maypole' mark since 1994 on record. Furthermore, the defendants assured the court they would not use the specific roof device integral to the plaintiff’s trademark packaging, leading the matter to be listed for further hearing.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use and copying of the registered trademark 'OMEZ' for the medicinal preparation OMEPRAZOLE. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting both trademark infringement ('OMZES') and copying of packaging, thereby preventing irreparable loss to Dr. Reddys.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.R S Chauhan Proprietor Of Fern Biotech & Mediva Lifecare
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction favoring Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited in its trademark infringement suit against R S Chauhan Proprietor Of Fern Biotech & Mediva Lifecare. The dispute centered on the use of 'RAZO' by the plaintiff and 'RAPRAZO' by the defendant for the drug Rabeprazole. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima-facie case, noting similarities in both the marks and the packaging design (blue and white color combination), leading to the grant of immediate injunctive relief.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt Ltd v.Agribiotech Industries Limited (Abil)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt Ltd against Agribiotech Industries Limited. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was infringing on its registered trademarks ('Officers Choice') and copyrighted trade dress associated with its IMFL products, specifically by using a deceptively similar label for its 'Chetak Whisky'. The court found that there was a high likelihood of consumer confusion, satisfying both the 'average intelligence' test and the 'triple identity' test. This interim order protects the plaintiff's brand reputation pending final disposal of the suit.
Minda Corporation Ltd. v.Star Minda Oil Lubricants Ind. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Minda Corporation Ltd. against Star Minda Oil Lubricants Ind. Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's adoption of the 'STAR MINDA' mark was deceptively similar to their registered device marks, leading to a risk of consumer confusion and passing off. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss.
Gulf Oil Lubricants India Limited v.Voltronic India Lubricants & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Gulf Oil Lubricants India Limited, to appoint two more Local Commissioners in its ongoing infringement suit. The court recognized that new entities were using the registered trademark 'GULF PRIDE 4T PLUS' and employing deceptively similar trade dress for their engine oil products. This order allows the plaintiff to further investigate and seize infringing goods from newly identified parties, reinforcing the court's initial finding of widespread infringement.
Giani S Foods Private Limited v.Mr. Keshav Aggarwal, Trading As M/S Keshav Foods & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Giani S Foods Private Limited against Mr. Keshav Aggarwal regarding alleged trademark infringement. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, noting irreparable harm to its commercial interests due to the unauthorized use of the 'GIANI'S' mark and associated trade features by the defendant. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the protected trademark or similar marks on their products and from utilizing any distinctive store layouts or fixtures belonging to Giani S Foods.
Astral Poly Technik Limited & Anr. v.Astralglee Through Its Proprietor Ms Pooja Surendra Ayre & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Astral Poly Technik against Astralglee, concerning the use of 'Astral' and 'Astralglee' in Class 3 goods. The court noted conflicting arguments regarding prior use, consumer confusion, and the scope of statutory rights conferred by registration. Given the complex factual matrix and competing legal precedents cited by both sides, the judge decided to proceed with a detailed examination of the issues.
Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Gepl) v.Gadham Ramesh
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (GEPL) against Gadham Ramesh regarding alleged trademark infringement. GEPL, claiming extensive use and registration of the 'GMR' mark across various sectors since 1978, sought protection against the defendant who was using a similar mark for a news channel on YouTube. The court found that GEPL had made out a prima facie case and granted immediate relief to prevent irreparable damage to its goodwill.
Novartis Ag v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant's product infringes their patent for a pharmaceutical composition consisting of sacubitril and valsartan. The defendant claims their product is different and has filed for revocation of the suit patent.
Ascot Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v.Prashant Sharma & Dikshant Sharma
The Delhi High Court addressed an execution petition concerning a prior settlement where the judgment debtor had agreed to cease using the trademarks 'SAVOY SUITES' and 'SAVOY'. The court found that the judgment debtor was violating this undertaking by advertising their property in Mumbai under the same name, thereby leveraging the goodwill of the decree holder. Consequently, the Court issued strict directions compelling the defendant to immediately remove all references to the trademark from websites and third-party platforms, including major booking sites.
Sarla Holdings Private Limited v.Pathways School Gurugram Parents Association
Sarla Holdings Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the 'PATHWAYS' mark, sought to restrain a parents' association from using its trademark. The Delhi High Court mediated a settlement where the Defendants agreed to modify their association's name and remove all references to 'PATHWAYS' or 'PSG' from their communications and social media platforms. This order allows the Plaintiff to protect its brand identity while accommodating the community interest.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The case involves requests for injunctions against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Worknest Business Centre Llp & Anr. v.M/S Worknests Through Rajesh Goyal
Worknest Business Centre LLP filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement against M/S Worknests, claiming that the defendant's use of 'WORKNESTS' in the co-working space business infringed upon its established mark 'WORKNEST'. While the plaintiff presented evidence of prior domain registration and trademarks, the court found no immediate grounds to grant an interim injunction. The matter was directed to proceed as a full suit for detailed examination.
Culinary Culture India Pvt. Ltd. v.Culinary Communications Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Culinary Culture India Pvt. Ltd., challenging a restraining order issued by the District Judge regarding the use of the 'Culinary Culture' trademark. The appellant argued that the injunction unfairly restricted its business operations in Classes 38 and 42, where it holds registered marks. While the respondents initially sought restraint only in Class-35, the court allowed both parties time to file comprehensive replies and rejoinders before the matter is heard expeditiously by the Trial Court.
Bharat Bhushan Gupta Prop. Bharat Light Machines v.Nitin Mittal Prop. M/S G.K. Trading Co.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Bharat Light Machines regarding its trademark OZOMAX. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was deceptively using a similar mark, OZOWAX, and copying the artistic packaging for body massagers. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting the phonetic and visual similarity between the marks and the clear imitation of the product packaging.
Living Media India Limited & Anr. v.Www.News-Aajtak.Co.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Living Media India Limited, who claimed ownership of the 'AAJ TAK' trademark. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement by various defendants using similar marks in their domain names. Consequently, the court directed the concerned Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to immediately block and suspend the infringing websites and take down related content from social media platforms.
Capital Food Pvt. Ltd. v.Radiant Indus Chem. Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim relief in a trademark infringement suit concerning 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. While the court found that 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' is likely a descriptive and common term, thus denying the injunction against the mark itself, it granted protection for the plaintiff's trade dress/packaging and marketing content. This mixed ruling highlights the distinction between protecting generic product descriptors versus unique visual branding elements in IP law.
Exide Industries Limited v.Krishna International & Ors.
Exide Industries Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction in the Delhi High Court against Krishna International and others. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dishonestly adopting its well-known 'EXIDE' trademark to manufacture and sell various products, including bulbs and power banks. Given the prima facie case made out by Exide regarding the unauthorized use of its mark, the court granted the injunction to prevent irreparable loss until the final hearing.
Modern Foods Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed cross-suits concerning the identical mark 'MODERN' used in the FMCG sector. While acknowledging that the plaintiff (Modern Foods) was a prior adopter of the mark, the court granted an interim injunction with significant caveats. The defendant (Modern Snacks) is restrained from expanding its product range using 'MODERN', but is allowed to continue using it on existing labels and registered goods. This decision balances the rights of both parties while preserving the status quo pending final determination.
BASF SE v.UPL LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit against UPL Limited seeking permanent injunction for infringing its India Patent No. 262428, which covers Boscalid anhydrous Form-II. The court considered affidavits from both parties regarding infringement and R&D activities. Ultimately, the court decreed the suit in favor of BASF SE, granting a permanent injunction.
Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v.Malvinder Mohan Singh And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications concerning the sale of trademarks ('Religare', 'SRL', and 'Fortis') owned by a Judgment Debtor. While some parties conceded no objection to the sale, others vehemently opposed it due to existing charges or lack of information. The court granted time extensions to opposing parties to file affidavits detailing their stance on the trademark sales, ensuring all stakeholders are heard before proceeding with any auction.
Astrazeneca AB & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The plaintiffs presented an overview of their case. Since the defendant challenged the validity of the suit patent (IN-235625), the court directed the defendant to present arguments on that matter.
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.