Delhi High Court - Orders
2164 cases · page 7 of 73
Showing 181–209Arq Providores v.Schloss Hma Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim relief in a trademark infringement suit filed by Arq Providores against Schloss Hma Private Limited. While the court acknowledged the likelihood of confusion and potential harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation, it balanced this against the Defendants' existing use of the marks since November 2024. Consequently, the Court granted a conditional interim injunction, requiring the Defendants to restrict the use of 'ARQ' only in conjunction with their house mark 'THE LEELA' for specific services (Class 43), discontinue an infringing logo by December 15, 2025, and refrain from using 'ARQ' for certain food/catering services.
Rajiv Mukul & Anr. v.Goutam Chand
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the court facilitated a potential settlement between the parties. The defendant indicated willingness to resolve the matter amicably while confirming the use of its registered trademark. The plaintiff agreed to review the defendant's new packaging and trademark before taking further action. Both sides were directed to meet within two weeks to discuss resolution, alongside procedural directions regarding proof of service.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd for infringing Indian Patent No. 394568, which covers a specific suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. Although the defendant conceded to the grant of permanent injunction, the court also directed notice to an e-commerce website (AgriBegri) regarding the listing of the infringing product 'DYNA' to investigate commercial sales.
Dassault Systèmes Solidworks Corporation & Anr. v.Mr. Madhav Arora & Ors.
The Plaintiffs, owners of the SOLIDWORKS software copyright, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction and allowing various procedural applications related to evidence and service.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Chaudhary Beverage & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Archian Foods Private Limited against Chaudhary Beverage & Ors. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the Plaintiff, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of interim relief. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to seek an interim injunction through the appointment of a Local Commissioner, enabling site inspection and seizure of infringing products related to the 'LAHORI ZEERA' brand.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd v.M/S Maxford Healthcare And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Danone Asia Pacific Holdings against M/S Maxford Healthcare. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with urgent interim relief. Crucially, the court allowed an ex parte ad interim injunction based on a local commission, which will investigate alleged infringement of the 'PROTINEX' mark and associated trade dress by the defendants' 'PROTILOX' products.
Omnidya Tech Llp v.Nayan India Science And Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 407425, titled 'CROWD-SOURCED ON DEMAND AI DATA ANNOTATION, COLLECTION AND PROCESSING', which was granted in favour of Respondent No. 1 by Respondent No. 2. The Court issued notice to all parties and set timelines for filing replies.
Gsp Crop Science Ltd v.Gilehri Organics & Ors.
The Plaintiff, Gsp Crop Science Ltd., filed a suit seeking to restrain the infringement of its Indian Patent (IN'568) related to a synergistic formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The court passed an order addressing various interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and allowing for urgent interim relief measures.
M/S Changsha Sinocare Inc. v.Mr Rajesh Kumar
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Changsha Sinocare Inc. against the defendants regarding alleged infringement and passing off. The court found a prima facie case based on the use of deceptively similar marks ('Safe AQ'/'Safe Accu') and trade dress, as well as confusingly similar corporate names. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from selling or marketing products that mimic Sinocare’s intellectual property, and specific infringing URLs were directed to be disabled by e-commerce platforms.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Krs Multipro Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Krs Multipro Private Limited. The suit involves allegations of trademark and copyright infringement concerning the popular brand 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Based on a prima facie case, the court found that the Defendants' product packaging copied the Plaintiff's registered mark precisely, posing a risk of market confusion. Consequently, the Defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.De Harbien Life Sciences Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against De Harbien Life Sciences Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of marks like 'NEFROKIND' and 'SILOKIND' was likely to cause confusion with Mankind's well-known trademarks, including 'MANKIND' and its formative variants. Given the pharmaceutical nature of the products and the potential for irreparable harm to the plaintiff and the public, the court restrained the defendant from selling or advertising the impugned marks until further hearing.
Sunil Jain v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Sunil Jain against the Registrar of Trademarks and others. The court noted that pleadings were complete but directed the respondent no. 2 to file their reply within one week, condoning the delay. The matter has been scheduled for listing on December 17, 2025, indicating ongoing litigation rather than a final decision.
Rajat Sharma & Anr. v.Tamara Doc & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in a suit concerning alleged infringement of personality and publicity rights, registered trademarks, and copyright. The court directed the plaintiff to serve advanced copies of their pending applications on the counsel representing proposed defendant no. 17 (Google LLC). This procedural step moves the litigation forward as the court prepares for further hearings regarding the injunction and impleadment requests.
LG Electronics Inc v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors
LG Electronics Inc filed a suit against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors seeking restraining orders for infringing its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 4G and 5G cellular standards. The court passed several interim orders allowing the plaintiff various applications, including filing confidential documents and adding claims for infringement of additional patents.
Rajan Adlakha v.Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.
Rajan Adlakha filed a writ petition seeking direction against the Registrar of Trademarks regarding a pending opposition. The petitioner argued that since the opponent failed to file evidence by the statutory deadline, the opposition was deemed abandoned under Trademark Rules, but the Registrar had not formally recorded this status. The Delhi High Court directed the Respondent No. 1 (Registrar) to treat the petition as a formal representation and pass appropriate orders recording the abandonment within four weeks.
M/S Landmark Crafts Private Limited v.Romil Gupta Proprietor Of M/S Sohan Lal Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of a defendant's application to take certain affidavits on record in a trademark infringement suit. The court ultimately allowed the application, accepting the additional documents despite procedural delays. This decision emphasizes judicial flexibility and the importance of considering the context of litigation history when determining admissibility of evidence.
Omnidya Tech Llp v.Jayant Ratti & Ors.
Omnidya Tech Llp filed petitions seeking revocation of two Indian patents (IN 317629 and IN 373372) before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the relevant respondents and directed them to file their replies within six weeks.
Synertec Pty Ltd v.Union Of India & Anr.
Synertec Pty Ltd filed a writ petition seeking restoration of its patent application (No. 202217030233) which had been deemed withdrawn under Section 11B(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Petitioner argued that the failure to file the request for examination was due to an inadvertent error by its Patent Agent regarding the deadline. The Court allowed the petition, finding that the Petitioner acted diligently and should not suffer consequences of the agent's mistake.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co Kg v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses complex procedural issues arising from concurrent litigation between Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma and The Controller of Patents. Specifically, the court examined whether a revocation petition remains maintainable even if the patentee has already raised an invalidity defence in an infringement suit. Furthermore, the bench deliberated on the highly arguable question of whether a patent can be revoked after its term has expired by efflux of time. The court decided to list the matter for further hearing and stayed the impugned order.
Mylan Laboratories Limited v.Celator Pharmaceuticals Inc & Ors.
Mylan Laboratories Limited filed an appeal against the order passed by Respondent No. 2 rejecting the Post-Grant Opposition filed by Mylan against Patent No. IN 315447 held by Respondent No. 1. The court issued notice and directed parties to file replies and rejoinders.
Jaquar And Company Private Limited v.Jaquar Franchise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim injunctive relief in favor of Jaquar And Company Private Limited against various defendants regarding the unauthorized use of its 'JAQUAR' trademark. The court ordered immediate suspension of specific domain names associated with the mark and directed actions to freeze relevant bank accounts, recognizing the brand's well-known status. This order sets a strong precedent for protecting established trademarks in the digital age.
Silvermaple Healthcare Services Private Limited v.Desai Hospitals Ventures LLP & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Silvermaple Healthcare Services against Desai Hospitals Ventures LLP and others regarding alleged infringement of trademarks and copyrights related to hair restoration services. The court found that the Plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Defendants continued using the protected marks and copyrighted materials, leading to a favorable order for the Plaintiff.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Damyaa (Pj) Foods Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Damyaa (Pj) Foods Private Limited. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'SCHEZWAN TUFANI CHUTNEY' was a clear case of dishonest imitation and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark, 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Given the Plaintiff's established reputation and significant market presence, the injunction aims to prevent consumer confusion and irreparable harm.
Tata Sons Private Limited v.Martuj Ali & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited against Martuj Ali & Anr. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting the well-known status and extensive use of the 'TATA' mark by the Plaintiff. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from using the impugned mark 'TATA BIRI' or any deceptively similar variations, preventing consumer confusion regarding their association with the Tata Group.
XX v.Y
The Delhi High Court granted several critical reliefs to the Plaintiffs in their trademark infringement suit against Y. The court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed without mandatory pre-institution mediation, masked the parties' identities during initial proceedings, and permitted an ex parte interim injunction supported by a Local Commissioner's commission. This decision allows the plaintiffs, who own the 'HERO' brand, to swiftly investigate and address the alleged sale of counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Anupam Srivastava & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited filed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner challenged the registration of the mark 'VNYABAIE' in Class 3, which was registered in the name of Anupam Srivastava. The Delhi High Court issued notices to all parties and directed that the matter be listed before the Joint Registrar for completion of service and pleadings, setting a future date for hearing.
Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. v.Inkmango Inc. & Anr.
Juggernaut Books initiated contempt proceedings against Inkmango Inc. alleging non-compliance with a prior settlement decree regarding the publication of mandated disclaimers. The petitioner claimed that despite fulfilling its obligations, the respondents failed to publish the required notices on their digital platforms. While the court acknowledged the dispute over compliance, it did not immediately punish the respondent, instead directing them to file a compliance affidavit and listing the matter for further hearing.
Triveni Household Items Manufacturers Private Limited v.Radhey Radhey Industries & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, the defendants sought to vacate an existing injunction. The plaintiff argued that a pending rectification petition was irrelevant to the current litigation. The court directed the plaintiff to submit the entire record of the rectification petition within two weeks, ensuring both parties have access to all relevant information as the case proceeds.
M/S Bhagwati Enterprises v.Rajesh Kumar Aggrawal
In this Delhi High Court order, the court addressed several procedural applications in a suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted the plaintiff exemptions for filing copies and instituting pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed the plaintiff time to amend the plaint after finding that the initial claims regarding manufacturing capacity were unsubstantiated by the records.
Herbalife International Inc. v.Shiv Shakti Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended the existing interim injunction against Herbalife's trademarks to a newly impleaded defendant (Mr. Narayan Lal Kumawat) after relying on a local commissioner's report indicating counterfeit activity. The court also issued strict directives, requiring all involved parties to discontinue selling infringing goods on Flipkart and disclose detailed transaction information related to the alleged trademark infringement.
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.