Delhi High Court - Orders
2679 cases · page 89 of 90
Showing 2641–2669Telefonaktiebolaget 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an application by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 seeking permission to sell non-infringing packaging was dismissed as withdrawn.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.
Eih Ltd. v.Sahana Realty Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed challenges to the court's territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement dispute brought by EIH Ltd. against Sahana Realty Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' use of 'THREE SIXTY WEST' and 'OBEROI' infringed their established luxury brand rights. The court ultimately dismissed the applications challenging its jurisdiction, affirming that the cause of action arose within Delhi due to consumer confusion and business activities in the region.
Arun Chopra v.Kaka-Ka Dhaba Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court modified an existing interim injunction in the trademark infringement suit filed by Arun Chopra against Kaka-Ka Dhaba Pvt Ltd. While acknowledging the Plaintiff's prior use and reputation in Delhi, the court balanced this against the Defendants' established presence in Nashik. The final order permits the Defendants to continue operating their existing outlets under certain names but strictly prohibits them from opening new branches or using the name 'Kaka-Ka Hotel', ensuring a status quo while the main suit proceeds.
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.
Cedar Properties & Trading Llp & Ors. v.Hab Pharmaceuticals & Research Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Cedar Properties & Trading LLP against Hab Pharmaceuticals & Research Limited. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were using the deceptively similar trademark 'DROTIOST' for pharmaceutical preparations, infringing upon their registered mark 'DROTIN'. Given the potential for consumer confusion in the medical field, the court restrained the defendant from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned mark until further hearing.
Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. v.Trustbanq Reality Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim permanent injunction in favor of Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd., who holds the registered trademark 'BELLEVUE' for luxury apartments. The court found that the Defendants were using a confusingly similar mark, 'BELLE VUE', for their real estate projects. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from launching any new projects under this name and faced restrictions on executing new sale deeds in existing projects.
Luxembourg Brands S.A.R.L & Anr. v.G.M. Pens International Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an extension of five weeks to the Local Commissioner in a trademark infringement dispute involving the brand TERAMAX. The court noted that while the defendant had finally filed an affidavit regarding net revenue, it lacked necessary annexures detailing the accounts workings. Given these procedural delays and ongoing verification processes, the court allowed more time for the commissioner to submit a comprehensive report on the defendant's sales.
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v.Mr. Gagan Varshney & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited against Mr. Gagan Varshney & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court observed that the defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'PULSER' and identical trade dress for candies, which infringed upon the plaintiff's registered trademark PULSE and its associated artistic packaging. This protective order prevents the defendants from manufacturing or selling products under the infringing marks until further orders.
Jhs Svengard Laboratories Limited v.Ranir Llc & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the unique ornamental design of toothbrushes, where JHS Svengard Laboratories claimed exclusive rights over its 'CURVY' design. The court noted that the Plaintiff sought an injunction against Defendants selling similar products and had previously initiated a trademark cancellation action against one of the defendants. Recognizing the interconnected nature of the claims, the Court ordered the transfer of the pending trademark cancellation petition to be heard alongside the current infringement suit.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Venkata Reddy Alla
The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered Patent No. 209816, along with damages and other reliefs. The case was successfully mediated, leading to a settlement agreement between the parties.
Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors v.Darshanam Life Space Private Limited
The Delhi High Court stayed an adverse interim order that had vacated the appellants' ex-parte injunction, which was related to trademark infringement concerning 'Central Park'. The court acknowledged the strong goodwill and reputation of the appellant's registered mark. While keeping the core dispute in abeyance, the court granted permission for the respondent to sell remaining unsold flats, balancing the need to protect IP rights with commercial realities.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking to defer or modify the appointment of a scientific expert to determine if the defendant's product, VALSAC, falls within the scope of Claim 1 of their patent (IN 229051). The court accepted the suggestion to appoint an expert from the Roll of Experts and framed a specific question for the appointed Expert Advisor.
Akhil Bhatia & Anr. v.Shri Krishan Kumar Bhatia & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in the dispute concerning the trademark 'ELLWIN'. Recognizing that settlement was not immediately possible, the court directed all parties to maintain the status quo regarding relevant assets and businesses. Crucially, the Registrar of Trademarks was instructed not to act on a specific assignment deed dated July 18, 2018, thereby keeping proceedings related to that transfer stayed.
Oriflame India Pvt. Ltd. v.Dinender Jain & Others
In this interim order, the Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Oriflame against various defendants, including Amazon. The core dispute centered on whether Direct Selling Entities (DSEs) like Oriflame must obtain prior written consent before their products are sold on e-commerce platforms. While Amazon argued it was merely an intermediary exempt from liability under the IT Act, the Court issued specific interim directions. These orders mandate Amazon to identify sellers offering Oriflame's products and verify if they have obtained proper consent; listings without consent must be removed within strict timelines.
Elder Projects Ltd. v.Elder Labs Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addressed a trademark dispute concerning the use of 'Elder' on pharmaceutical products. The court heard statements from key executives of both parties, including those from Elder Projects Ltd. and Elder Labs Limited. While the plaintiff raised claims regarding unauthorized use, the court noted that it was of a prima facie view that the plaintiff had made false claims, reserving judgment on this matter for future hearings.
Marico Limited v.Mahajan Group Of Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Marico Limited against Mahajan Group Of Industries & Ors. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off regarding the plaintiff's 'SAFFOLA Oats' brand. Given that the defendants were allegedly selling oats with packaging deceptively similar to SAFFOLA, the court restrained them from manufacturing or distributing the competing product, 'NUTRI DELITE OATS,' until further orders.
Amit Bansal v.Amit Garg & Anr
The Delhi High Court stayed an earlier injunction order passed by the ADJ in a trademark dispute involving 'ATHERMAL'. The appeal challenged the lower court's decision, which had favored the plaintiff (Amit Garg) based on registration and alleged prior use since 2003. However, the High Court noted serious procedural flaws, including the inclusion of an unverified party (Plaintiff No. 2), and directed further examination of the trial record.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Nk Singh & Ors.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. sought an ad interim injunction against Nk Singh & Ors., alleging that the defendants were openly offering for sale a patented anti-hyperglycemic agent, REMOGLIFLOZIN ETABONATE. The court found that the plaintiff held exclusive rights and granted the injunction.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing its patented pharmaceutical composition, Valsartan + Sacubitril (Patent No. 229051). The dispute centered on whether Natco's product, VALSAC, was identical to the claimed invention. The court found prima facie merit in Novartis' contentions and appointed an independent Expert Advisor to determine infringement.
H & M Hennes & Mauritz Ab & Anr. v.Hnm Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hennes & Mauritz (H&M) against Hnm Traders. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendants' adoption of 'HnM' was nearly identical to H&M's distinctive style and color schemes. This order prevents the defendant from using any confusingly similar marks or applying for registration until further orders.
Institute For Inner Studies & Ors v.Charlotte Anderson & Ors
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute concerning the exclusive rights over the name and practices of 'Pranic Healing'. The defendants argued that these terms and concepts were pre-existing since 1904, forming part of traditional knowledge available in the public domain, and thus incapable of protection under existing IP laws. The court directed specific defendants to file an affidavit detailing their position before further arguments.
S.S White Burs,Inc v.S.S. WHITE DENTAL PVT LTD
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark disputes between S.S White Burs,Inc and S.S. White Dental Pvt Ltd, which had previously been stayed pending decisions by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Noting significant delays due to the non-appointment of technical members at IPAB, the court issued directions. The parties were directed to seek a status report from the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) regarding the appointment process, highlighting the potential harassment and delay faced by litigants.
Panchhi Petha Store v.Union Of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by the Regional Director which rejected a trademark rectification application. The petitioner argued that the RD exceeded its jurisdiction by making a finding on the ownership of the 'Panchhi' trademark, a matter reserved for IP courts. The court agreed, stating that while the RD can examine name similarity to prevent consumer confusion, it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of trademark ownership between parties involved in ongoing litigation.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh & Anr v.Mn Reddy & Anr
The dispute involved allegations of patent infringement concerning the drug RIVAROXABAN (Patent No. 211300). The parties reached a settlement, leading to a decree in favour of the plaintiff.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Rshyamala Ranganathan
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants for infringement of their registered patent. The defendants stated they have never manufactured the products in question and agreed to the decree.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v.Dr. Abhijit Mukherjee
Bayer sought execution of a prior judgment restraining Dr. Abhijit Mukherjee and others from commercially launching 'RIVAROXABAN' during the lifetime of Patent IN 211300. The court accepted an undertaking from the defendants, including representatives of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited, that they would not make commercial use of the product until the patent expires.
patanjali ayurved ltd v.axiom ayurveda
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. sued Axiom Ayurveda for trademark infringement, alleging that Axiom was using the terms 'endorsed by Maharishi Patanjali Ayurved Foundation Trust' and 'endorsed by Maharishi Patanjali Yogpeeth Foundation Trust' on their products, creating a deceptive association with Patanjali’s trademarks PATANJALI and PATANJALI AYURVED. The plaintiff claimed significant revenue (approximately Rs. 9,000 crores) and widespread distribution of its products under the contested marks.
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.