Delhi High Court - Orders
2679 cases · page 83 of 90
Showing 2461–2489Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt. Ltd. v.Rajesh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt. Ltd. challenging a lower court's refusal to grant an ad interim injunction. While noting the appellant's claims of prior use of its trademark and copyright registration on its packaging, the Court ultimately decided not to interdict proceedings at that stage. Instead, it directed the District Judge to expedite the hearing of the interlocutory application, ensuring the matter moves forward promptly.
Pb Fintech Pvt Ltd v.Policy Bazar Finance & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Pb Fintech Pvt Ltd's application to implead additional defendants (No. 18 to 22) in its trademark infringement suit against Policy Bazar Finance & Ors. Crucially, the court modified existing interim injunction orders to extend protection against these newly added parties. The order reinforces the plaintiff's rights by restraining all named parties from using deceptively similar marks and mandates domain registrars and ISPs to block access to infringing websites.
Johnson & Johnson v.Pritamdas Arora T/A M/S Medserve & Anr
In a trademark infringement dispute, Johnson & Johnson sought permission from the Delhi High Court to amend its original plaint. The plaintiff argued that evidence gathered by a Local Commissioner revealed additional trademark infringements by the defendant concerning 'LIGACLIP,' which needed to be incorporated into the suit. Satisfied that these amendments were necessary for determining the real issues between the parties, the court allowed the application, allowing J&J to update its claims and proceed with the litigation.
Exphar S.A. v.Atlanta Biological Pvt. Ltd
In this trademark infringement matter, the defendant agreed not to contest the permanent injunction against them, provided the plaintiffs waived their claims for damages and costs. While both parties settled on the injunctive relief, the core dispute regarding whether the plaintiff's mark, VERZOL, qualifies as a well-known trademark remains unresolved. The court has scheduled further proceedings specifically to determine this crucial aspect of the case.
The Himalaya Drug Company & Ors v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued interim protective orders in favor of The Himalaya Drug Company against Ashok Kumar & Ors regarding trademark infringement. The court restrained the defendants from using Himalaya's registered logos, trademarks (including 'Himalaya Pure Herbs'), specific domain names like <himalayawelness.com>, and associated email IDs. Furthermore, the court directed the freezing of certain websites and domain names to prevent further unauthorized capitalization on the plaintiff's goodwill.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Woodol International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court partially ruled in favor of Volvo, granting a preliminary decree against Woodol International regarding the unauthorized use of the 'VOLVO' trademark on lubricants. Despite initial defenses by the defendants claiming no infringement and non-compliance with mediation requirements, the court accepted the affidavits stating that the defendants had ceased or were not manufacturing under the mark. The suit will now proceed to trial to determine the final quantum of damages and rendition of accounts.
R X Infotech Private Limited v.Jalpa Rajesh Kumar Jain
The Delhi High Court dismissed a defendant's application seeking to reject the plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that even if the suit was primarily based on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, the general provisions of Section 20 of the CPC allow for jurisdiction where any part of the cause of action arose. Specifically, the court found that online transactions related to the defendant's website could reasonably be considered to have occurred within Delhi, thus validating the plaintiff's choice of forum.
JK Lakshmi Cement Limited v.JK Shian Cement Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute between JK Lakshmi Cement Limited and JK Shian Cement Private Limited. The court allowed a defendant's application to condone a 90-day delay in filing its written statement, noting that negotiations regarding settlement had taken place. Additionally, while acknowledging ongoing disputes over interim orders, the court granted time for defendants to file their replies, setting a future hearing date.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Chiral Biosciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp, filed a suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. 209816 covering Sitagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor used to treat Diabetes Mellitus Type II. The court issued an order granting an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products until further hearing.
M/S Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd. v.Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd. against Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd and associated sellers. The plaintiff alleged that unauthorized third-party sellers were using the registered 'BOYA' trademark to sell counterfeit microphones on the platform, causing reputational damage and fraud. The court recognized a prima facie case and granted the injunction, compelling the e-commerce platform to take steps to remove listings of fake products.
Kanjibhai Ishwarbhai Patel & Ors. v.Jafar Ali
This appeal was filed by Kanjibhai Ishwarbhai Patel & Ors. challenging an ex parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court in a suit for patent infringement. The appellants argued that the Commercial Court had incorrectly applied parameters suitable for trademark infringement, constituting a jurisdictional error. They also raised concerns regarding procedural lapses and prior litigation history which prejudiced their case. Despite finding merit in the contentions, the High Court decided to allow the matter to proceed before the Commercial Court to ensure a fair hearing on the interim relief application.
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
In a trademark dispute concerning the brand name OMEZ, Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited and Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Private Limited agreed to pursue settlement. The defendants indicated they had ceased using the disputed mark, leading both parties to agree that mediation was the preferred path forward. Consequently, the Delhi High Court scheduled the parties for mediation at its Conciliation Centre.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt. Ltd. v.Times Coaching Centre
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning an existing trademark infringement suit between Triumphant Institute of Management Education and Times Coaching Centre. The core issue revolved around whether the Defendant's subsequent change in its trademark, from 'Times Coaching Centre' to 'Future Times Coaching Centre', constituted wilful disobedience of a prior interim injunction. The court found that the Defendant acted under a genuine misunderstanding of the scope of the injunction, believing the new mark was outside its restraint. Consequently, while dismissing the applications for non-wilful reasons, the court imposed costs on the Defendant due to the continued use of infringing marks.
Societe D Elastographie v.N.W. Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 244875 by the defendants. The patent's validity lapsed in February 2020, affecting the need for interim relief.
Anil Rathi v.Sanjog Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued several interim orders in the dispute concerning the 'RATHI' trademark. The court restrained Defendant No. 4 from granting new licenses related to the mark until further hearing, providing immediate relief to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court mandated that certain defendants maintain and file detailed accounts of sales made under the 'RATHI' trademark during a specified period, while also allowing for the impleadment of proposed parties.
Ampm Fashions Private Limited v.Mr. Akah Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a rectification application concerning a trademark registration. The plaintiff informed the court that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had previously directed the removal of the defendant's mark from the Trademarks Register. However, the defendants requested an adjournment as they were in the process of challenging the IPAB's decision, leading the court to list the matter for a future date.
V Guard Industries Ltd v.Sukan Raj Jain & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of V Guard Industries Ltd against Sukan Raj Jain & Anr. The plaintiff sought protection for its well-known trademark 'V-GUARD' and associated designs from the use of the deceptively similar mark 'N-GUARD'. Citing a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned marks and designs. This order sets the stage for the full trial on trademark infringement, design infringement, and passing off.
M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited v.Bhcosmetics Llc
The Delhi High Court permitted M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited to amend its plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Bhcosmetics Llc. The amendment corrected an inadvertent typographical error, clarifying that the 'BH' logo/label was not yet a registered trademark but rather had a pending application and long-standing user rights since 1986. The court allowed this correction, recognizing it would not alter the core relief sought (permanent injunction for passing off and infringement), and subsequently modified an earlier court order to reflect the accurate status of the mark.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.M/S Shri Sai Foods & Beverages & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, an extension of 90 days to execute local commissions in a trademark infringement suit. The court also appointed four additional advocates as local commissioners. This order facilitates the quantification of damages by allowing detailed inspection and inventory of infringing goods at the defendants' premises.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Woodol International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court partially ruled in favor of Volvo, granting a preliminary decree against Woodol International regarding the unauthorized use of the 'VOLVO' trademark on lubricants. Despite initial defenses by the defendants claiming no infringement and non-compliance with mediation requirements, the court accepted the affidavits stating that the defendants had ceased or were not manufacturing under the mark. The suit will now proceed to trial to determine the final quantum of damages and rendition of accounts.
Pharmacyclics Llc. v.Alkem Laboratories Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a commercial suit filed by Pharmacyclics Llc. against Alkem Laboratories Ltd., alleging infringement of Patent IN 262968. The court noted that the plaintiffs had other related suits pending before different benches regarding the same patent. Consequently, the court ordered the listing of the current suit for further consideration.
Jagmohan Ratra v.Ampa Cycles Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction in favor of Jagmohan Ratra against Ampa Cycles Pvt. Ltd., finding that the latter was engaging in passing off. The court determined that the defendant was illegally using the identical mark 'AMPA' and a deceptively similar logo to ride upon the plaintiff's established goodwill, which had been built over nearly three decades. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to unregistered trademarks under common law principles of passing off.
H Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drug Ltd.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were infringing their patent (IN 227963) by manufacturing and exporting substantial quantities of the anti-depressant drug Vortioxetine. The court found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, considering the allegations of export and potential use under Section 107 of the Patents Act.
Cipla Limited v.Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd
In a trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court directed the parties, Cipla Limited and Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd, to engage in formal mediation. Following successful settlement talks on two of the three trademarks, the court facilitated further negotiations for the remaining mark. This order underscores the judiciary's preference for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in complex IP conflicts.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The commercial suit for patent infringement regarding the drug Sitagliptin was settled between Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (Plaintiffs) and Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1). The court accepted the settlement, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against Defendant No. 1.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Chetan Padilya & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing injunction protecting Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd's trademark rights against specific infringing content published by the defendant. Crucially, the court clarified that this injunction is not a 'gag order.' While the defendant must refrain from publishing articles identical or similar to the impugned material and avoid derogatory remarks, they retain the right to engage in lawful discourse comparing plant-based beverages with dairy milk products.
M/S Asugar Engineering Services & Anr. v.Weld Trade Pvt. Ltd. and M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to implead M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd. as a defendant in the trademark infringement suit, recognizing that this new party was also infringing the 'AZUCAR' mark. The court found it necessary for the cause of action against them. Furthermore, the court extended existing interim orders to include the newly added defendant. This procedural step ensures all parties involved in the alleged trademark violation are properly before the court.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Ektarfa Garments Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark infringement suit filed by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ektarfa Garments Private Limited. During the proceedings, the plaintiff indicated that the defendants had expressed interest in settling the matter. The court acknowledged these overtures and scheduled the case for further hearing on December 8, 2020, allowing time for settlement discussions.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Nitin Jain & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute where the AMUL Federation alleged that videos produced by Defendant No. 1 were scandalous, disparaging, and specifically targeted their brand using trademark elements like the 'AMUL Girl' mascot. The core issue revolved around whether the content constituted fair use or targeted defamation against the Plaintiffs. While the Plaintiff argued the targeting was evident through specific advertisements shown in the video, the Court directed the Defendant to provide detailed affidavits regarding the sources of their investigative journalism, allowing the Plaintiffs to adequately address the allegations.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v.Godaddy Operating Company Llc & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the admissibility of a written statement in a trademark infringement suit involving domain names. The court clarified that in complex domain name disputes with numerous impleadments, the 120-day period for filing a written statement commences from the date the amended memo of parties is filed, not the initial notice date. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and permitted the defendants' written statement to be taken on record after they paid a stipulated fee.
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.