Mixed
1,014 mixed decisions from Delhi High Court - Orders.
Mixed Decisions
1014 cases | Page 24 of 34
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.
Nif Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
In this appeal concerning trademark registration, the Registrar of Trade Marks argued that Nif Private Limited was seeking repeated registrations for the same device mark. The court noted conflicting claims regarding prior and subsequent applications related to the brand 'Namaste India Creamy Delicious Dahi'. To properly adjudicate whether multiple registrations were being sought for the identical mark, the High Court directed the appellant to place both relevant trademark application documents on record.
Deepak Khanna M/S B.D. Khanna Jewellers Pvt Ltd. v.Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers
The Delhi High Court consolidated multiple trademark infringement and rectification petitions involving the 'BDK' mark. Following the abolition of the IPAB, the court revived the suit for infringement alongside the pending rectification matters. The court appointed a new Local Commissioner to proceed with recording evidence, setting a timeline for completion within three months.
V-Guard Industries Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks and Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in V-Guard Industries Ltd. vs The Registrar of Trademarks and Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd., directing that the present appeal be listed along with another case for a final hearing on January 6, 2023. This interim order manages the procedural timeline of the ongoing trademark dispute between the parties.
Jaskaran Singh v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Jaskaran Singh against Flipkart regarding alleged trademark infringement and counterfeiting of goods under the 'ANMEX' brand. The appellant sought an interim injunction to stop unauthorized third parties from selling counterfeit goods on the platform. While acknowledging the severity of the issue, the court disposed of the appeal with a crucial direction: Flipkart must provide the names, addresses, and email IDs of the alleged infringing 'more sellers/latch on sellers' within one week. This move allows the litigation to proceed by identifying the specific parties responsible for the infringement.
EDUSPARK INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED v.LAXMI PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court issued an order directing the defendant, Laxmi Publications Private Limited, to take proactive measures regarding the disputed mark 'VIBGYOR'. The court noted that the defendant had taken down references to the trademark from its website and Facebook page and communicated with distributors to cease sales. The defendant was subsequently directed to file a detailed affidavit within three weeks outlining all compliance steps taken.
Sai Shreeja Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Shree Amba Industries
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Sai Shreeja Industries seeking an injunction against Shree Amba Industries, alleging 'slander' and 'libel.' The court noted that the plaintiff's claim stemmed from the defendant opposing the registration of the plaintiff's trademark. Finding that opposition to trademark registration does not inherently constitute slander or libel, the judge indicated the suit might be dismissed for lack of cause of action. However, the Court granted a renotification date to allow the plaintiff to further convince the court of the suit's sustainable basis.
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.
Sandisk Llc v.Patel Mobile Accessories And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Sandisk LLC's application to amend its suit, permitting the impleadment of three additional parties—Shree Mataji Mobiles, Target Telecom, and Paravathi Telecom. These entities were identified as selling and marketing counterfeit products bearing Sandisk's registered trademarks. The court granted the amendments sought by the plaintiff, allowing the case to proceed against a broader set of alleged infringers.
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.
Jaskaran Singh v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Jaskaran Singh against Flipkart regarding alleged trademark infringement and counterfeiting of goods under the 'ANMEX' brand. The appellant sought an interim injunction to stop unauthorized third parties from selling counterfeit goods on the platform. While acknowledging the severity of the issue, the court disposed of the appeal with a crucial direction: Flipkart must provide the names, addresses, and email IDs of the alleged infringing 'more sellers/latch on sellers' within one week. This move allows the litigation to proceed by identifying the specific parties responsible for the infringement.
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.
Siddhant Icecreams Llp v.Ameet Pahilani
In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court facilitated an agreement between Siddhant Icecreams LLP (Plaintiffs) and Ameet Pahilani (Defendant No. 2). The court mandated that Defendant No. 2 cease using the terms 'Natural' and 'Naturals' in relation to ice creams across various media, including packaging and online platforms, to protect the Plaintiffs' trademark rights. However, the order provided specific carve-outs allowing the use of the mark 'NIC' under certain conditions within India and outside India, while also permitting the sale of existing stock until a specified date.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Parulben Navnath Chothani Trading As Shiv Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court recorded a settlement between the Plaintiff, Sirona Hygiene Private Limited, and Defendant No. 1 in a trademark infringement suit concerning its 'SIRONA' brand. The settlement acknowledged Sirona's rights in both its registered mark and product packaging copyright. As part of the agreement, the infringing party agreed to cease using similar marks like 'SIROMA' and paid Rs. 65,000/-. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1, who was then deleted from the array of parties.
Parle Products Private Limited v.Britannia Industries Ltd.
Parle Products filed a suit against Britannia Industries alleging disparagement and unfair competition through advertisements for 'Britannia Milk Bikis.' The court found that the use of terms like 'G-NAHI' and similar packaging strongly suggested a comparison with Parle-G. Recognizing both parties' willingness to resolve the dispute, the Delhi High Court referred them to mediation while issuing an interim injunction preventing Britannia from re-publishing the print advertisements.
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.
Vijay Baweja Proprietor Of Ms Vijay Auto Sales v.Ajay Baweja Trading As Ajay Auto Spares & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed by Vijay Baweja against Ajay Baweja concerning the trademarks 'AIRGOLD' and 'AIR GOLD (Device)'. The court accepted the petitioner's application to summon the original records related to these marks from the CGPDTM. The core dispute revolves around the joint ownership of the mark, which was subsequently assigned exclusively by the respondent without obtaining a necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the petitioner.
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.
Sterne India Private Limited v.Haier Appliances India Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sterne India Private Limited against a District Judge's order that had appointed a Local Commissioner to seize goods allegedly infringing Haier's trademark. The court noted that the original order appeared flawed because it treated the appellant as the direct seller, ignoring its role as an online marketing platform. While staying the seizure order, the High Court mandated that Sterne provide details of all sellers on its platform using the 'HAIER' brand to properly address the infringement claims.
Cosmos Corporation v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by Cosmos Corporation seeking correction of a prior order. The correction was necessary because the parties had reached a settlement, resulting in the assignment of Trademark Registration No. 3628175 (TROPICLEAN) from the Registrar of Trade Marks to Cosmos Corporation. This ruling formally recognized the terms of the private agreement within the court record.
Tata Consumer Products Limited v.M/S Varahi Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Consumer Products Limited against M/S Varahi Limited. The court allowed defendants to file their original notarized affidavits and permitted the plaintiff to place numerous additional documents on record, including sales turnover details and evidence of prior meetings. While the core dispute involves the use of the 'HIMALAYAN' mark for mineral water, the current order focuses on procedural steps necessary to build a comprehensive case before trial.
ITC Limited v.Central Park Estates Private Limited & Anr.
In this trademark infringement suit, ITC Limited sought various procedural reliefs against Central Park Estates Private Limited. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advanced document service. Crucially, the court allowed an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect samples and inventory related to the disputed mark 'BALKH BUKHARA', setting the stage for detailed evidence gathering in the ongoing infringement dispute.
ITC Limited v.Central Park Estates Private Limited & Anr.
In this trademark infringement suit, ITC Limited sought various procedural reliefs against Central Park Estates Private Limited. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advanced document service. Crucially, the court allowed an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect samples and inventory related to the disputed mark 'BALKH BUKHARA', setting the stage for detailed evidence gathering in the ongoing infringement dispute.
Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v.Karan Holiday Inn Private Limited & Anr
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court noted that while the defendant had largely removed the disputed mark from various sources, some instances persisted on third-party websites. The court allowed the plaintiff to issue notices to these specific sites demanding the takedown of the infringing trademarks and associated photographs. Furthermore, the parties were directed to continue mediation proceedings, indicating a potential path toward an amicable settlement.
Mahle Filter Systems (India) Pvt Ltd v.Mobis India Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the dispute between Mahle Filter Systems and Mobis India Ltd concerning a subject trademark. The court directed both parties to file concise written submissions and, crucially, instructed counsel to exchange proposals aimed at resolving the trademark issue amicably. This indicates the ongoing litigation is moving towards potential settlement or mediation.
Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. v.Jaipur Steeltech India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark disputes concerning the use of the 'RATHI' mark in steel manufacturing. The Plaintiffs challenged the Defendants' compliance with previous undertakings regarding the cessation of unauthorized use of the trademark. While the Defendants submitted an affidavit, the court found it inconsistent with their prior assurances. Consequently, the court directed the Defendant to file a fresh, compliant affidavit within one week.
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.
Messrs Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd v.Mr Pushpinder Garg & Ors / Super Impex and Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple facets of the trademark dispute involving 'MONICA GOLD' and 'MONICA PRIME'. In the infringement suit, the court allowed an application to appoint a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises and inventory infringing goods. Separately, the court initiated proceedings for the rectification of the mark 'Monica Prime', issuing notices to the respondents. The overall matter remains active with interim orders in place.
Dfm Foods Ltd. v.Ms Nenimemi Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court granted a one-week extension to Defendant No. 1 to file its required affidavit. Crucially, the court also issued an assurance that the defendant would refrain from selling the disputed product under the 'CORN CURLS' trademark until the next hearing date. This interim order maintains the status quo while allowing procedural compliance in the ongoing infringement litigation.
Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd v.Xpert Tricks Softwares & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an ongoing suit filed by Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd against various defendants for copyright infringement and trademark passing off related to its 'BUSY Software.' The court noted that previous interim injunctions were in place, and several pro-forma defendants had been discharged after providing undertakings. On December 8, 2023, the court directed the Plaintiff to file an updated memo of parties within one week before listing the matter again.
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.