Interim Order
196 interim order decisions from Delhi High Court - Orders.
Interim Order Decisions
196 cases | Page 6 of 7
Cross Fit Llc v.Rtb Gym And Fitness Centre Through Its Proprietor Mr. Arun Sharma
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Cross Fit LLC against RTB Gym And Fitness Centre for using the identical mark 'CROSSFIT' in the fitness industry. Given that the defendant had failed to appear despite service, the court appointed a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is mandated to visit the premises, remove all infringing signage and advertisements, seize stock of materials bearing the disputed mark, and prepare an inventory report for the plaintiff.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr v.Harman Finochem Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendant was violating and infringing their registered patent (IN 209816) related to Sitagliptin. Despite previous assurances, the plaintiffs presented evidence showing the defendant continued to advertise and export infringing products. The court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from further infringement.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendants for dealing in generic Apixaban product that infringes Indian Patent No. 247381. The court, relying on previous orders regarding the same patent, passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing the infringing generic product.
Sotkon Sp Slu v.Western Imaginary Transcon Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, a Spanish company operating in India, filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed its patented 'Subsurface System for the Collection of Refuse' (IN 329620) and violated its copyrights. The infringement was alleged based on the defendants' tender bid submitted to Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation.
Pfizer Inc v.Natco Pharma Limited
The court passed several orders regarding various interlocutory applications in the suit filed by Pfizer Inc against Natco Pharma Limited. Specifically, the court granted an undertaking to the defendant that they would provide four weeks prior notice before launching the drug alleged to infringe the patent.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 294424 related to the drug Alectinib. The court granted the injunction, restraining commercial activities, but allowed the defendant to use the product for research purposes under Section 107A of the Patents Act.
Mr. Anil Rathi v.Shri Sharma Steeltech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Mr. Anil Rathi concerning the unauthorized use of his trademark 'RATHI'. The plaintiff alleged that a proposed defendant was using the mark in violation of a prior court injunction order. The court issued notice to the alleged contemnors and scheduled the matter for service and completion of pleadings, keeping the litigation active.
Om Logistics Ltd v.Sh Mahendra Pandey
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in favor of Om Logistics Ltd, restraining Sh Mahendra Pandey and his associates from using the deceptively similar trade mark 'OM EXPRESS LOGISTICS'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, given the long-standing reputation of 'OM LOGISTICS LTD.' and the similarity in the marks used by the defendant. This order allows the suit to proceed while protecting the established brand identity.
Sotefin Sa v.Indraprastha Cancer Society And Research Center & Ors.
Sotefin Sa filed a suit for patent infringement against Indraprastha Cancer Society and others, alleging that the 'smart dollies' installed by Defendant No. 4 infringed Plaintiff's Patent No. 4214088. Both parties agreed to the appointment of a Scientific Advisor from IIT Delhi to conduct an expert examination and report on whether the Defendants' product falls within the scope of the patent claims.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 294424 concerning Alectinib. The court allowed the application subject to exceptions and noted that while the defendant could use the drug for research under Section 107A, any commercial launch would require prior permission from the court.
Wheelseye Technology India Pvt. Ltd. v.Zinka Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Wheelseye Technology filed a suit alleging that its competitor, Zinka Logistics Solutions, along with several former WheelsEye employees, conspired to disrupt the business. The Defendants allegedly misappropriated Confidential Information, solicited employees through en masse poaching, and induced breaches of contractual obligations.
Anay Kumar Gupta v.Jagmeet Singh Bhatia
The Delhi High Court allowed an interim application filed by Anay Kumar Gupta against Jagmeet Singh Bhatia in a suit concerning trademark infringement. The court granted an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from continuing to manufacture and sell whisky using the 'EVERSHINE PREMIUM CLASSIC WHISKY' label, bottle shape, or logo AWB. This order was issued after the plaintiff demonstrated that the agreements allowing the use of the mark had expired, leading to alleged unauthorized continued use by the defendant.
Chugai Seiyaki Kabushiki Kaisha v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against MSN Laboratories Private Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 294424, which covers Alectinib or its derivatives. The court allowed the application subject to exceptions, permitting the defendant to use the drug for research purposes under Section 107A of the Patents Act, but prohibiting commercial launch without prior court permission.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd filed a writ petition seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of opposition proceedings against Patent No. 257402, which was granted to Novo Nordisk A/S. The court addressed the procedural delay and directed the respondents to furnish the Opposition Board's recommendations within one week, subsequently rescheduling the hearing.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.
The petitioner (Nokia Technologies Oy) filed an application seeking temporary injunction and disclosure of assets against the respondent (Guangdong Oppo Mobile). The court, while addressing various interlocutory applications, granted a direction for the defendants to furnish specific disclosures regarding their sales and revenues related to the alleged infringing devices.
Abhishek Kumar v.Union Of India Through Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors.
Abhishek Kumar filed a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act seeking to expunge the copyright registration of the 'Turbo Plus' label, which was registered as an artistic work. The petitioner also sought the suspension of this registration's effect to protect against potential infringement threats. Given the ongoing proceedings before the Trademark Registry regarding the cancellation of a search certificate, the court renotified the matter for further hearing.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a writ petition challenging the procedural approach of the Patent Controller, arguing that its application for cross-examination of expert witnesses had not been decided. The court observed the long pendency and directed the Controller to first dispose of Natco's cross-examination application before proceeding with the merits of Novartis' patent application.
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. v.Musky Couture
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. to proceed with its suit against Musky Couture, which alleges infringement of the 'GAURAV GUPTA' trademark and copyright in unique artistic garments. The Plaintiff detailed how the Defendant was allegedly manufacturing and selling identical, low-budget imitations while falsely claiming association with the original designer. Crucially, the Court issued a significant interim order allowing a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure of the Defendant's premises in Mumbai to gather evidence of infringement.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Indilina Pharmaceuticals
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (Plaintiff) filed a suit seeking an injunction against Indilina Pharmaceuticals (Defendant) for infringing their patent (IN'816) covering the compound Sitagliptin. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was offering tablets of Sitagliptin for sale in tenders. The Court granted interim relief restraining the Defendant from any infringing activities and directed disclosure of profits.
H. Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drugs Limited
The dispute involves H. Lundbeck A/S challenging Hetero Drugs Limited's export activities, which are claimed by the defendants to be permissible under Section 107A of the Patents Act for R&D purposes. The court issued an interim order allowing the defendants to continue exports to seven specified entities while addressing objections raised by the plaintiff.
H. Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drugs Limited
H. Lundbeck A/S filed a suit against Hetero Drugs Limited regarding alleged infringement of Patent IN227963, which covers Vortioxetine Hydrobromide. During the hearing, the defendants asserted that they were not commercially launching any product and were using the substance solely for regulatory and R&D purposes.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr v.Actis Generics Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiffs, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., filed a suit seeking an injunction against Actis Generics Pvt Ltd for infringing Patent No. IN'816, which covers the compound Sitagliptin. The court examined the prima facie case and found that the Defendant was distributing and selling infringing Sitagliptin API without authorization.
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.
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.
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.
ASTRAZENCA AB & ANR v.AJANTA PHARMA LTD.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their patent IN '625. The present order addressed the defendant's request for an early hearing, noting that in connected suits, the court had previously declined interim injunctions.
ASTRAZENECA AB & ANR. v.MICRO LABS LIMITED
The plaintiff, AstraZeneca, filed a suit alleging infringement of its genus (IN 147) and species (IN 625) patents for the drug DAPAGLIFLOZIN (brand name FORXIGA). The defendant, Micro Labs Limited, was accused of manufacturing, selling, and seeking approval for generic versions. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp & Anr. v.Cleanchem Laboratories Llp
The plaintiffs, owners of Indian Suit Patent IN 209816 for SITAGLIPTIN, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was selling and dealing in SITAGLIPTIN without a license. The court found prima facie evidence of violation and granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction.
BASF SE v.UPL LIMITED
The plaintiff, BASF SE, filed a suit claiming infringement of its patent (IN-262428) covering the superior anhydrous-II form of the fungicide BOSCALID. The defendant, UPL Limited, appeared and submitted that no valid patent existed for the specific anhydrous-II form at the time they applied for licenses, asserting their use was limited to R&D.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Union Of India
Astrazeneca challenged an order from the Patent Office that directed immediate publication of its granted patent (IN 235625) due to a clerical error. The petitioner argued that this belated direction, after 11 years, would prejudice them by effectively extending the statutory limitation period for post-grant opposition beyond one year as stipulated in Section 25(2).
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.