Delhi High Court - Orders
2164 cases · page 71 of 73
Showing 2101–2129Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. v.Jayesh Pahilajrai Ramani &Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. against Jayesh Pahilajrai Ramani &Anr. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a phonetically and visually similar mark ('PLUSS') and trade dress to sell fruit candies, causing consumer confusion with the plaintiff's registered trademark 'PULSE'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that granting relief was necessary to protect its commercial interests.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Angels Pharma India Private Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit alleging that Angels Pharma India Private Limited was attempting to manufacture and infringe its Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers the drug SITAGLIPTIN. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and granted interim relief.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Healing Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an infringement suit filed by Alkem Laboratories against Healing Pharma India. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's trademark and trade dress were deceptively similar, specifically mimicking the plaintiff's 'rising sun' motif. While the court allowed procedural applications for document filing and curing deficiencies, it also moved forward with the litigation by ordering summons to be issued in the main suit.
SAP SE v.ERP TRAINING INDIA & ORS.
SAP SE successfully secured a comprehensive interim injunction against ERP Training India and associated parties in the Delhi High Court. The court found prima facie evidence of trademark and copyright infringement related to unauthorized online SAP training courses. Consequently, the defendants were ordered to immediately deactivate websites, domains, email addresses, block specific IP access points, and freeze bank accounts linked to the infringing activities.
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited v.Competition Commission Of India
This appeal challenges a single judge's decision that appellants (Monsanto) were governed by both the Competition Act, 2002, and the Patents Act, 1970. The core dispute revolves around whether competition law proceedings are applicable when patented seeds are involved. The court allowed several applications and issued an interim restraint on the CCI from finalizing its report pending further hearing.
USV Private Limited v.Ridley Life Science Private Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement dispute concerning the use of 'Multi Vitamin Infusion' on pharmaceutical labels. The plaintiff, USV Private Limited, alleged that the defendant's product used emphasized letters ('M', 'V', 'I') in a manner confusingly similar to the plaintiff's registered mark. In a significant development, the court accepted the defendant's willingness to modify the label and remove the disputed words, directing them to file an affidavit confirming this commitment.
Jagran Prakashan Limited v.Telegram Fz Llc & Ors.
Jagran Prakashan Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Telegram FZ LLC in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff alleged that users on Telegram were illegally distributing and downloading copyrighted e-papers of Dainik Jagran through various public channels, causing significant financial loss. The court ruled that Telegram, as an intermediary, must exercise due diligence under IT laws and was directed to immediately block the infringing channels and disclose the identities of the channel owners.
GS1 India v.Barcodes Sl & Ors
GS1 India successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against a competitor operating barcode allocation websites. GS1, the sole licensed body in India for issuing standardized barcodes starting with '890', alleged that Defendant No. 1 was illegally allocating non-compliant and unverifiable codes, causing consumer deception. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of GS1, granting the injunction to protect its trademark rights and prevent irreparable harm to both itself and innocent customers.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh & Anr v.Morepen Laboratories Ltd
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh filed a suit against Morepen Laboratories Ltd alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 211300, which covers Rivaroxaban. The defendant admitted to making commercial use before expiry due to a miscommunication regarding the patent's expiration date. Both parties agreed that the suit could be decreed in terms of permanent injunction, leading to the final disposal of the case.
fdc limited v.zodley pharmaceuticals pvt ltd
FDC Limited sued Zodley Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. for infringement of its registered trademark ZIPOD (Class 5 - pharmaceuticals) alleging that Zodley was using the deceptively similar mark ZOPOD. FDC claimed ZOPOD had been in use since 2007 and achieved significant sales, while Zodley applied to register ZOPOD later.
G4S Plc.(Formerly Known As Group 4 Securicor Plc) v.G4 Excellence Management Security Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications and the core claim of trademark infringement brought by G4S Plc against G4 Excellence Management Security Solutions Private Limited. While granting various procedural exemptions, the court specifically dealt with an application seeking an ad interim injunction. The court found that before deciding on the merits of the infringement claim—where G4S alleged deceptive similarity using marks like 'G4EX' and 'G4 Excellence'—the defendant must be granted a full opportunity to respond. Consequently, notice was issued to the defendant for a hearing scheduled in June 2020.
Vidya Mandir Classes Limited v.Swastik Classes Private Ltd &Others
In this intellectual property dispute concerning educational services, the Delhi High Court issued an order addressing interim relief. The defendants committed to ceasing the use of the plaintiff's registered trademark and returning existing course materials. Furthermore, both parties indicated a willingness to refer the ongoing disputes to sole arbitration, while also agreeing to provide a list of affected students to determine their future enrollment.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp And Anr v.Oceanic Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendant was infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin and its salts. The plaintiff submitted evidence showing the defendant's online presence advertising and selling infringing Sitagliptin Phosphate API in India. Based on this prima-facie case, the court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from dealing in the infringing product.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Everest Organics Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Organics Limited for infringing its registered patent No. 209816, which covers the molecule SITAGLIPTIN. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was developing and preparing to commercialize an infringing product. Based on the prima facie case presented, the Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction.
Pfizer Inc. v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Pfizer Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for infringement of Indian Patents Nos. 241773 and 218212, which cover Tofacitinib (XELJANZ(R)). The plaintiffs alleged that defendants were illegally manufacturing and selling generic versions under the brand 'TOFAXEN'.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, holding patents and licenses for Sitagliptin (under trade names ISTAVEL and ISTAMET), filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling the drug under the brand name TwoTrack, thereby infringing their patent. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction.
Snapdeal Private Limited v.M/S Futuretimes Technologies Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Snapdeal Private Limited against M/S Futuretimes Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The court found a prima facie case that the defendant was infringing and tarnishing Snapdeal's registered trademark, not only through its use but also through false advertising claims. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the phrase "everything cheaper than Snapdeal" across all social media platforms pending further hearings.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The plaintiff, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Triveni Interchem Private Limited, was selling and advertising various compositions of Sitagliptin without taking any license. The plaintiff holds a valid patent for Sitagliptin.
Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex dispute involving trademark and copyright infringement concerning the brand SANDHI SUDHA. The court framed multiple issues, including whether the plaintiff owns the mark and packaging, and whether the defendants' use constitutes passing off or infringement. Crucially, recognizing the defendants held a registered trade mark (MEDSEA SANDHI SUDHA), the Court granted the plaintiff liberty to approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) for rectification within 30 days. This decision sets a clear timeline, allowing the IPAB to potentially dispose of the matter quickly while protecting the rights of both parties.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Harish Chaudhary & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Inter Ikea Systems Bv against Harish Chaudhary & Anr. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of its 'IKEA' trademark, along with its trade dress. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or any deceptively similar marks, and were also ordered to suspend specific domain names and social media accounts until further orders.
Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc., setting aside previous refusal orders regarding a trademark registration. The court found that the original orders violated Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, because they failed to provide adequate reasons for refusing the application. This judgment underscores the mandatory requirement for IP authorities to furnish clear and reasoned decisions when rejecting an application.
V Guard Industries Ltd. v.Taisong Chong And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of V Guard Industries Ltd., preventing the defendants from transferring or registering the disputed domain name, www.vguard.com. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, concluding that the defendant was acting as a cyber squatter to exploit the plaintiff's established trademark rights. Furthermore, the judgment clarified that administrative decisions under ICANN dispute resolution mechanisms are not binding adjudications and do not prevent civil litigation.
Japan Tobacco v.D.Jhamnadas
This Delhi High Court order addresses a complex dispute between Japan Tobacco and D.Jhamnadas, involving multiple IP claims. While the defendant relies on their registered trademark 'CAMEL,' the plaintiff asserts claims based on copyright and passing off. The court allowed the suit to proceed despite the pending Supreme Court appeal regarding the trademark registration, directing both parties to file detailed written submissions.
Vishnu Kant & Ors v.Eduvision Traders And Printers Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark infringement suit, Vishnu Kant & Ors vs Eduvision Traders And Printers Private Limited & Ors. The court settled several key issues, including whether the plaintiffs are registered proprietors of the trademark 'CURRIMAKERS' and their entitlement to injunctions and rendition of accounts. The parties were directed to file witness lists and affidavits within specified timelines, setting the stage for the commencement of the trial.
Shemford Schools Private Limited & Anr. v.R.R.R Education And Charitable Trust & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Shemford Schools Private Limited against R.R.R Education And Charitable Trust. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off of the registered trademark 'SHEMFORD' by the defendants, who were operating schools under similar names like 'SHAMFORD'. Given the virtual identity between the marks and the potential for consumer confusion in the educational sector, the court found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss without immediate protection.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co. Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court passed an order in a patent infringement suit concerning several Ericsson patents related to 2G, EDGE, and 3G technology. The court framed issues regarding whether the patents are Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), whether there is infringement by Gionee, and whether the plaintiff complied with FRAND commitments.
Tulsyan Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. v.R.R. Enterprises & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement related to rice products, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders. The court directed the defendants (D1 and D2) to provide a detailed reply affidavit within three weeks regarding the supply chain of the impugned goods. Additionally, an application by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 seeking permission to sell non-infringing packaging was dismissed as withdrawn. The suit remains listed for issue settlement on April 28, 2020.
Novartis Ag v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd
The plaintiffs own the patent for the compound 'NILOTINIB', which is valid until July 4, 2023. The defendant announced the launch of a product based on NILOTINIB, which the plaintiffs claim infringes their patent.
All India Patent Officers Welfare Association v.Union Of India & Ors
The All India Patent Officers Welfare Association filed a petition alleging that the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) unlawfully provided access to sensitive, unpublished trademark and patent application data to a private multinational company. The petitioner argued this access lacked necessary checks and balances. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and directed an investigation into the matter, setting a timeline for the respondents to file their reply.
Pfizer Inc v.Actiza Pharmaceutical Private Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit against Actiza Pharmaceutical Private Limited alleging infringement of its patents covering Sunitinib and Axitinib. The parties subsequently reached a settlement through mediation before the Delhi High Court.
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.