Mixed
1,014 mixed decisions from Delhi High Court - Orders.
Mixed Decisions
1014 cases | Page 23 of 34
Kamal Kumar & Ors. v.Jagteshwar Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Kamal Kumar & Ors. against Jagteshwar Singh & Anr., which originated from a suit involving trademark and copyright infringement claims. The court noted that due to regulatory notifications, the matter needed specific handling within the IP division of the High Court. Consequently, the Registry was directed to re-register the appeal and schedule its hearing before the Intellectual Property Division on March 14, 2023.
Marico Limited v.Narico Agrovet Private Limited & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses the ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Marico Limited against Narico Agrovet Private Limited. The court was reviewing Defendant 1's compliance with a previous directive to change its company names to avoid infringing on Marico's registered trademark. However, the defendant raised procedural hurdles related to the unavailability of necessary e-forms from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). Consequently, the Court directed the MCA to appear and clarify this position, ensuring that administrative difficulties do not impede the legal process.
Prem Raj Parekh (Deceased) / Abhishek Parakh v.Shah Food Products And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the substitution of the deceased Plaintiff, Prem Raj Parekh, with his legal representative, Abhishek Parakh. This order facilitated the continuation of the trademark suit, allowing the applicant to formally assign ownership of Trademark No. 543474 in his name. While the procedural hurdle was cleared, the court explicitly left open the substantive objections raised by the Defendant regarding the Plaintiff's actual ownership of the trademark, setting the stage for further litigation.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Media Private Limited
In a matter concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued an order on April 2, 2024. The court addressed the Plaintiff's concerns regarding ongoing trademark filings by the Defendant through 'VISTARA PRAKASHANA LLP'. Upon receiving notice, the Defendant stated its intention to dissolve the LLP and withdraw all related trademark applications. Consequently, the court determined that no immediate directions were necessary for the Plaintiff at this juncture.
M/S Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers v.Bhagwan Das Khanna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Plaintiff sought to strike out two specific issues related to a partnership deed. The Plaintiff argued that since the Defendants had not raised any counterclaims or filed a declaration suit concerning the partnership structure, these issues were irrelevant to the core controversy of trademark infringement. The Court directed the Defendants to file a reply within four weeks and subsequently a rejoinder, keeping the litigation moving forward.
The Capital Group Companies, Inc v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a request by an intermediary (Defendant No. 11) seeking to modify its obligations under trademark infringement proceedings involving 'CAPITAL ONE.' The Court rejected the plea for extended compliance time, emphasizing that due to the nature of the case—which involves fraudulent ponzi/pyramid schemes proliferating on social media like Telegram—swift action is imperative. Consequently, the court reinforced the existing order, mandating Defendant No. 11 to take down infringing accounts within 72 working hours upon receiving a complaint from the Plaintiff.
Seagull Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Uni-Pex Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the Defendants successfully moved an application to expedite the proceedings. The court allowed the request for early hearing on applications concerning interim injunctions and the preliminary issue regarding the invalidity of the Plaintiff's trademark registration. Consequently, the next hearing date was rescheduled.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Nineplus Shoes Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues arising from a Local Commissioner's report detailing alleged removal of infringing goods. The Court clarified that while the Defendant was found to be using the impugned mark contrary to assurances, it dismissed adverse observations against the defendant's counsel for merely informing industry associations about the lawsuit. Crucially, the Court mandated fresh service and personal appearance by the key representative of the Defendant, ensuring due process before proceeding with coercive measures.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust & Anr. v.M/S. R.J Enterprises & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit brought by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S. R.J Enterprises, the Delhi High Court facilitated a potential settlement pathway. The court noted that Defendant No. 1 offered an undertaking to cease using the disputed marks if the Plaintiff waived their claim for damages. The Plaintiff agreed to this condition provided the Defendant paid INR 75,000/- towards local commission charges. This order sets the stage for further negotiation and resolution of the dispute.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal challenging a single judge's refusal to grant an interim injunction against the use of the mark 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting that the respondent copied not only the registered trademark but also the stylization, color combination, get-up, and trade dress from the appellant. Despite arguments regarding descriptiveness and genericness, the High Court concluded that the appellant's mark had acquired secondary significance due to substantial sales and promotional investment, leading it to issue notice and stay the lower court's adverse findings.
M/S Luxottica Group S.P.A & Anr v.M/S Deals Cracker & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex-parte injunction granted against the defendants in a trademark infringement suit brought by Luxottica Group S.P.A regarding its 'RAY-BAN' brand. The court proceeded to frame several key issues, including whether the defendant website (Shopclues) has infringed or committed passing off, and specifically addressed the defense of being merely an intermediary under the IT Act. This marks a significant step toward the trial phase of the dispute.
ITC Limited v.Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed two separate applications in the dispute between ITC Limited and Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors. Regarding a request to use a new label, the court found that the proposed packaging did not appear deceptively similar to ITC's marks, thereby lifting the existing ad-interim injunction for this specific design. Separately, the Court initiated proceedings against Mr. Prem Chand Mittal for alleged assault and deliberate disobedience of previous orders.
Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh Subsidiary Of Accell Group v.Reliance Brands Limited (Rbl)
The Delhi High Court addressed preliminary objections and the merits of a trademark infringement suit filed by Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh against Reliance Brands Limited. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's use of 'RALLEYZ' is confusingly similar to its registered mark 'RALEIGH' on identical goods (bicycles). While dismissing initial procedural challenges, the court directed both parties to file detailed affidavits and pleadings regarding the core issues of similarity and prior usage, setting the stage for further substantive hearings.
Zippo Manufacturing Company v.Raja Bhai Traders & Anr
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Zippo Manufacturing Company, restraining Defendant No. 3 from manufacturing or selling counterfeit ZIPPO lighters and related goods bearing deceptively similar trademarks. Crucially, the court clarified that this order does not impede the defendant's sale of genuine products. Separately, the court initiated contempt proceedings against Defendants No. 1 and 2 for alleged violation of previous orders, keeping the litigation active.
Star Sintered Products Ltd. v.Karan Bhutani
The Delhi High Court addressed an application related to trademark rectification between Star Sintered Products Ltd. and Karan Bhutani. The court noted that the defendant had withdrawn earlier applications seeking objections or rectification against the plaintiffs' trademarks. Consequently, the status of the plaintiff's marks was updated in the Registrar's records, removing references to prior objections. As a result, one specific interlocutory application (I.A. 2301/2021) was disposed of, while the court scheduled further hearings to consider the plaintiffs' claim for damages and other pending matters.
Virendra Kumar Gupta Trading As M/S Burger King v.Union Of India Through The Secretary & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a Writ Petition filed by Burger King, challenging the registration of a trademark. The petitioner argued that the Registry ignored their prior Notices of Opposition when granting registration to Respondent No. 4. However, the court noted that since the registration occurred before a key precedent was set, counsel for the respondent suggested that rectification might be the appropriate remedy instead of continuing with the current writ petition. The matter has been listed for further arguments.
AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v.VICKY AGGARWAL & ORS.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute regarding the scope of an undertaking provided by defendants concerning the use of the trademark 'TOWER'. The court ruled that the undertaking could not be extended to specific goods (Monosodium Glutamate, Citric Acid, Tartaric Acid, Camphor, Hexamine tablets in Class 1, and green raisins in Class 29) because the plaintiff had explicitly acknowledged the defendants' right to use the mark for those categories in their plaint. Consequently, the court modified the undertaking, limiting its restriction only to other goods.
Jangeer Singh Trading As Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works v.Yogesh Jangid Trading As Jangid Agro Engineering & Anr.
In this commercial suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications filed by both parties. The court allowed Defendant No. 1 to place legal proceeding certificates related to its registered trademarks on record, despite initial objections regarding relevance. Furthermore, upon agreement from the Plaintiff, the court permitted the deletion of Defendant No. 2 (IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd.) from the array of parties, allowing the litigation to proceed with a refined set of defendants.
Adani Wilmar Limited v.Baljit Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a complex legal issue concerning the enforceability of trademark rights after a party voluntarily waives actionable claims related to that brand. The court specifically examined an affidavit where the defendant, Baljit Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., declared they forewent any enforceable right in their unregistered brand 'Shubh Labh Fortune' for GST exemption purposes. Given the implications on the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court directed the Department of Revenue to file its stand and submissions in the current proceedings.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Media Private Limited
In a matter concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued an order on April 2, 2024. The court addressed the Plaintiff's concerns regarding ongoing trademark filings by the Defendant through 'VISTARA PRAKASHANA LLP'. Upon receiving notice, the Defendant stated its intention to dissolve the LLP and withdraw all related trademark applications. Consequently, the court determined that no immediate directions were necessary for the Plaintiff at this juncture.
Jindal Industries Pvt Ltd v.Prawesh Agencies Through Its Partners Vikash Singh Ravindra Kumar Singh
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit where the defendant claimed a co-branding arrangement with an affiliate of the plaintiff's group. The court found that the plaintiff failed to disclose this vital co-branding agreement in their plaint, despite being required to attest to full disclosure under the Commercial Courts Act. Consequently, the court noted the breach of procedural rules and directed the plaintiff to place the relevant agreement on record before further proceedings.
Mr. Vivek Bhardwaj v.Mr. Gagan Bhardwaj
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off in the pharmaceutical sector, the Delhi High Court issued a series of orders. The court granted an interim restraint on the defendant from manufacturing or selling similar products while allowing him to liquidate his existing stock within three months. Furthermore, the parties were mandated to undergo mediation, signaling that the dispute will proceed through structured negotiation before further litigation.
M/S Prakash Industries Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Mark & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a contempt case involving M/S Prakash Industries Ltd. against the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning two specific trademark registrations. The court noted that one mark (No. 1800087) had been removed by the registry, while another (No. 1800086) was stated to have been abandoned. The court granted time for the respondents to file their replies and rejoinders, setting a future date for consideration.
Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v.Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. and Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for listing before the appropriate bench on December 6, 2022, to continue the ongoing litigation.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 8620/DELNP/2012) by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The original rejection was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that the claimed method for repairing a gas flue inside was merely standard operation or part of an operational manual. Nippon Steel contended that its claims disclosed several unique technical steps ignored by the Examiner. The Delhi High Court issued directions for both parties to file detailed submissions and supporting documents before proceeding with the appeal.
Shree Ganesh Rollings Mills (India) Ltd. v.Jindal Rollings Milla Ltd.
In a significant procedural order, the Delhi High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to transfer two pending rectification applications filed by the respondents against the petitioner's trademarks. This move ensures that all related intellectual property proceedings are heard together in the High Court, aligning with established IP Division rules. The court set a timeline for the transmission and digitization of these records, paving the way for consolidated pleadings.
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.
Manoj Kumar Goyal, Sole Propreitor Of M/S Manoj Sweets v.The Controller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks Also Registrar of Trademark Registry & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute where the petitioner, Manoj Sweets, claims prior use and registration of the mark 'MANOJ SWEETS' in classes 30 and 43. The core issue is the subsequent registration of an identical mark, 'MANOJ BAKERS,' by another party (Respondent No. 2), which the petitioner alleges was done without proper citation of his existing rights. The court has initiated proceedings to examine this conflict, directing notice to all parties and setting timelines for filing detailed submissions.
Ramesh Chander v.Pritam Das
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark opposition filed by Ramesh Chander against Pritam Das. The petitioner claims prior use and ownership of the mark 'ANIL' for confectionary goods, arguing that the respondent's later registration is barred under Section 12(1) and obtained through fraud. The court issued directions to serve notice on the respondent and set timelines for filing replies and rejoinders, moving the matter forward in the opposition proceedings.
Ttk Prestige Ltd v.K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors
Ttk Prestige Ltd filed a suit against K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors alleging trademark infringement and passing off concerning its registered brand 'PRESTIGE'. The court granted temporary relief, restraining Defendants No. 2 and 3 from manufacturing or selling products using the disputed mark until the next hearing date. This interim order protects the plaintiff's established market reputation while the full merits of the case are examined.
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.