Mixed
715 mixed decisions from Delhi High Court - Orders.
Mixed Decisions
715 cases | Page 19 of 24
Mahesh Gupta v.Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This Delhi High Court order addresses a writ petition filed by Mahesh Gupta challenging the Deputy Registrar's decision to dismiss his opposition against the trademark application 'KENT'. The core dispute revolves around whether the Petitioner abandoned their opposition due to repeated adjournments. While the Respondent argued that the Petitioner failed to appear and request adjournment properly, the Court granted an interim stay on the dismissal order pending production of the impugned order itself.
Sh Nirmal Kumar @ Nirmal Kumar Gupta & Ors. v.State(Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order rectifying entries in the Trade Marks Register concerning two trademarks (No. 1116678 and No. 2091984). Following mediation settlement, the court restored M/s Rattan Milk Specialities Private Limited as the original proprietor of TM No. 1116678, cancelling previous entries in favor of Nirmal Kumar. The court also rectified the entry related to TM No. 2094984. While the petitioners sought quashing of an FIR, the primary focus was on correcting the trademark ownership records based on the settlement terms.
Bpi Sports Llc v.Saurabh Gulati & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark opposition case involving Bpi Sports Llc and Saurabh Gulati. Despite initial claims of non-service, the court found that Respondent No.1 had been served through multiple modes (speed post, email, mobile), leading to him being proceeded against ex parte. Crucially, the court mandated that a status quo be maintained regarding Trademark Registration No. 4422891 for the mark 'BPI SPORTS', preventing any assignment or license during the pendency of the matter.
Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v.Celebrities Management Private Limited
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiffs, Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited, to amend their plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Celebrities Management Private Limited. The amendment sought to elaborate on the grounds for territorial jurisdiction under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, specifically by adding details about the defendant's online presence and targeting of Delhi consumers. The court allowed the amendment, noting that it was intended only to buttress the jurisdictional plea, and directed that the challenge regarding lack of jurisdiction would be considered on merits after the amendment.
Bridgestone Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents Designs & Trademarks & Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in the matter of Bridgestone Corporation versus Controller General Of Patents Designs & Trademarks. The court directed both parties to prepare and exchange short notes detailing their submissions and to compile relevant judicial precedents for consideration. This procedural step moves the case closer to final disposal, which is scheduled for February 2, 2022.
Sanjeev Juneja & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar Bhatia
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the Plaintiffs sought to withdraw their suit after making changes to their trademark, label, and packaging/trade dress. Despite the intention to withdraw, counsel requested an adjournment due to scheduling conflicts in another court. The Court granted the request, listing the matter for further hearing on August 24, 2022.
Core Integrated Management Systems Pvt Ltd v.The Bci Forum Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Core Integrated Management Systems Pvt Ltd seeking permanent injunction against trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution related to the marks 'CONTINUITY AND RESILIENCE' and 'CONTINUITY & RESILIENCE'. Given that oppositions have been filed against the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks, the court suspended the registration certificates. Consequently, both parties agreed that the pending opposition proceedings must be decided first before the injunction application can proceed. The court also directed both sides to file documents detailing the nature of use of the disputed mark.
Mother Diary Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited v.Nalgonda Rangareddy District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses ongoing trademark infringement litigation between Mother Diary Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited and Nalgonda Rangareddy District Milk Producers. The court noted arguments regarding the alleged violation of a Settlement Agreement, with both parties presenting their positions—the respondent denying any misuse of the 'Mother Dairy' trademark, while the petitioner asserted contempt of court. The court directed further action, including filing rejoinders and listing the case for subsequent proceedings.
Disposafe Health And Life Care Ltd & Hindustan Syringes & Medical Devices Limited v.Rajiv Nath & Anr.
The Delhi High Court consolidated two related commercial suits concerning trademark disputes involving the 'DISPOSAFE' and other 'DISPO' formative marks. The court framed detailed issues covering questions of mark proprietorship, alleged infringement, passing off, and prior user rights. This consolidation paves the way for a comprehensive trial to determine the validity and scope of the trademarks in the medical device sector.
Kajaria Ceramics Limited & Ors. v.Mr Suresh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning trademark matters, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues raised by the defendants. Despite initial difficulties in compliance with court orders, the Court allowed the written statement to be filed after imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000. The Court also directed that Defendant No. 1 would participate virtually due to health reasons and set future dates for the proceedings.
Popsockets Llc v.Flipkart India Private Limited & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Popsockets LLC sought remedies against Flipkart India Private Limited for allegedly selling products under an infringing mark. The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders on November 12, 2020. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and permitted the issuance of summons to all defendants, while also noting the dispute regarding whether Flipkart itself was infringing by selling the product under the disputed trademark.
Sandeep Kumar v.Pla Foods Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sandeep Kumar challenging an ex parte ad interim injunction issued by a lower Commercial Court, which restrained him from using the trademark 'CHEFFY'. The court noted that while the appellant raised issues regarding territorial jurisdiction and prior knowledge of usage, it deemed inappropriate to interfere with the existing interim order at that stage. The appeal was ultimately disposed of, allowing the original parties to advance their full contentions before the Commercial Court.
General Mills Inc. v.Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd Federation
In this ongoing trademark dispute, General Mills Inc. sought to incorporate the registration of its mark 'TRIX' into the existing pleadings. The Delhi High Court accepted the amendment and subsequently framed a new, specific issue before the court. This new issue directly addresses whether the defendant's use of the 'TRIX' mark constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark.
Usha International Limited v.Citizen Udyog
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by the defendant seeking vacation of an interim injunction and return of the plaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. While the defendant argued that all operations were outside Delhi, the plaintiff countered by citing Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and evidence showing export activities originating from ICD Delhi. The court directed both parties to obtain and file the Local Commissioner's report and related photographic evidence before proceeding with the substantive arguments.
M/S Babaji Udyog v.Lalit Kumar
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in the trademark dispute between M/S Babaji Udyog and Lalit Kumar. The respondent was directed to modify his product's label, tagline, and general get-up to ensure no similarity with the appellant's registered marks. Concurrently, the appellant was required to submit clear copies of its trademarks. This order sets the stage for further evidence presentation in the ongoing infringement litigation.
Godrej Properties Ltd. v.Ashok Kumar & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed the delay in deactivating infringing domain names. The court emphasized that Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) like GoDaddy must process valid requests from the plaintiff, especially when they relate to misuse of a protected mark. To resolve the dispute, the court directed GoDaddy to file an affidavit explaining why certain domains remain active and providing full details of the domain registrants.
Synthes Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
Synthes Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'BONE FIXATION APPARATUS' by the Controller General of Patents. The appeal was transferred to the Delhi High Court following legislative changes. Initially, the court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the court directed both parties to file comprehensive written submissions and place prior art on record before proceeding with the merits of the patent rejection.
Hebei Hailan Bearing Manufacture Co. Ltd. v.M/S Pearl Bearing Co.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed an application by the Plaintiff seeking disclosure of financial and import documents from the Defendant. While the Defendant argued that some information was confidential, the Court issued a conditional order. The Defendant must now file an affidavit detailing complete sale figures and submit all requested documents in a sealed cover for judicial review before they can be released to the Plaintiff.
Appy Pie Llp v.Engineer.Ai India Pvt. Ltd.
In this trademark infringement matter, Appy Pie LLP sought to address the misuse of its 'APPY PIE' brand through the Google Ads Program. The Delhi High Court recognized that since Google LLC was not initially part of the suit, it needed to be formally added to the proceedings. This order allowed for the impleadment of Google as Defendant No. 5, ensuring all relevant parties are involved in addressing the trademark misuse allegations.
Emaar Properties Pjsc v.Address Infrastructures Private Limited
Emaar Properties filed a suit against Address Infrastructures Private Limited alleging trademark infringement regarding the use of 'ADDRESS' and 'THE ADDRESS' in real estate projects. The Delhi High Court issued an ad interim order, allowing the Defendant to continue operating its existing projects under the disputed name. However, the court imposed a strict condition: any future expansion or new project using the word 'Address' must first seek explicit leave from the Court, balancing the Plaintiff's transborder reputation claims against the Defendant's established business operations.
Raman Kwatra & Anr. v.Kei Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court overturned an interim injunction that had restrained Raman Kwatra & Anr. from using a similar trademark, 'KEI', in relation to electrical goods. The court found merit in allowing the matter to proceed further, specifically directing the lower court to examine the respondent's claim of infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. This decision highlights the importance of correctly framing the legal basis for trademark infringement claims during interim proceedings.
Patola Industries v.Mahesh Namkeen Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court directed the parties, Patola Industries and Mahesh Namkeen Pvt Ltd & Ors, into mediation regarding trademark disputes. The petitioner had submitted that they ceased using their trademark, while the respondent sought a permanent injunction against the use of similar marks for namkeens and snacks. Despite differing views on settlement, the court prioritized resolving the dispute amicably by mandating appearance at the Mediation Centre.
Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited v.Mahesh Edible Oils Products Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order addressing trademark disputes among related entities in the edible oil industry. The court affirmed that the 'SALONI' trademark belongs exclusively to Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd., preventing individual brothers from claiming it. However, the ruling allows the family members freedom to operate their own businesses, provided they do not use marks or trade dresses deceptively similar to 'SALONI'. This order sets a clear boundary for internal corporate IP rights while allowing independent commercial activity.
Tommy Hilfiger Europe Bv v.Ms Originals Clothing And Ors
In this execution petition, Tommy Hilfiger sought to enforce a settlement decree against Ms Originals Clothing for continuing the sale of its branded goods. Despite having previously settled, the Decree Holder alleged that the Judgment Debtors continued infringing on their trademarks both in physical stores and online platforms. The court allowed the application for local commissioners to conduct an investigation into post-decree sales and directed the Judgment Debtors to provide access to relevant financial records.
One Moto Scooters Trading Llc v.Centre Systems Group Internet Content Provider (CSG ICP)
The Delhi High Court issued interim orders in favor of One Moto Scooters Trading Llc, restraining Centre Systems Group Internet Content Provider from using the trademark 'ONE MOTO' or any deceptively similar mark. This protective order was granted to prevent imminent threat of unauthorized use, including manufacturing automotive products. Furthermore, the court directed that the domain name 'www.one-moto.in' remain blocked, maintaining the status quo until further proceedings.
Mohit Varshney Proprietor, M/S Raj Food Products v.Serveshwar Food Product Pvt. Ltd.
In a complex cross-suit involving competing snack food brands, the Delhi High Court addressed trademark disputes between M/s Raj Food Products ('DECY') and Serveshwar Food Product Pvt. Ltd. ('LACY'). While acknowledging that the Plaintiff (Serveshwar) had prior registration of 'LACY', the court sought to balance interests by directing the Defendant (Raj Food) not to expand its product line under 'DECY' until further decision on injunctions. Crucially, the Court mandated mediation to explore an amicable resolution for both trademark and packaging disputes.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Chardikla Accessories & Ors.
In the ongoing trademark dispute between Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Chardikla Accessories, the Delhi High Court issued an order on February 24, 2023. The court noted that Defendant No. 4 expressed a willingness to settle the matter, similar to Defendants No. 1 through 3. Consequently, the case was listed for further proceedings and settlement discussions on April 6, 2023.
Evonik Operations Gmbh Address For Service In India Lexorbis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
Evonik Operations GmbH filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 201714031257). The rejection was based on the finding that the specification lacked a working example necessary to disclose the best method of performing the invention. This procedural order sets out the next steps for the appeal, requiring the respondent to file written submissions.
ITC Limited v.Fortune Holidays Inn And Suites Private Limited & Anr.
ITC Limited filed a suit against Fortune Holidays Inn And Suites Private Limited and others, alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the use of the 'FORTUNE' brand in the hospitality sector. The court acknowledged ITC's extensive rights over the 'FORTUNE' trademarks and noted the potential for consumer confusion caused by the Defendants' unauthorized use. While reserving a full hearing on the merits, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, immediately stopping the Defendants from making new bookings under the disputed mark.
Shivan Ramachandran & Anr. v.Madhur Sharma
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on May 27, 2022. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents while simultaneously accepting a significant undertaking from the defendant. The defendant agreed to withdraw pending trademark applications and cease all sales of the disputed products, providing an affidavit detailing existing stock and past sales figures.
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.