Mixed
1,014 mixed decisions from Delhi High Court - Orders.
Mixed Decisions
1014 cases | Page 26 of 34
Braj Mohan Rathore (BMR Group) v.Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. & Ors. (SDM Group)
The Delhi High Court issued directions in the ongoing commercial dispute between Braj Mohan Rathore (BMR Group) and Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. (SDM Group). The court focused on facilitating an amicable resolution, particularly concerning the valuation of the flagship brand 'SALONI' and the use of the name 'MAHESH'. Both parties were directed to exchange financial data and present proposals regarding brand distinction before the next hearing.
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.
Parle Agro Private Limited / Surya Fresh Foods Limited v.Surya Fresh Foods Private Limited / Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing disputes between Parle Agro and Surya Fresh Foods concerning the trade dress of their competing apple-based beverages, 'APPY FIZZ' and 'FRESH FIZZY'. Recognizing a willingness among the parties to find an amicable solution through modifications to the trade dress, the court directed both companies to participate in mediation. This move signals a judicial preference for alternative dispute resolution while keeping the core infringement suits active.
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.
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.
Parmesh Construction Company Limited v.Mahinder Bhutani & Anr.
Parmesh Construction Company Limited filed a petition seeking the cancellation and rectification of Mahinder Bhutani's registered mark 'BHUTANI'. The court noted that while the petitioner argued 'BHUTANI' is a common surname, they also use it in their own trademark 'BHUTANI INFRA'. The court directed notice to be issued to the respondents and scheduled further hearings, indicating the matter will proceed through litigation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Sh. Gautam Tank And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a pending interlocutory application in the trademark infringement suit. The court framed an additional issue to determine whether the defendant is liable to pay additional damages for using the impugned mark after the suit was revived, given that the original ad interim injunction had stood. With evidence complete and parties consenting not to lead further evidence, the matter was scheduled for final hearing.
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.
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.