Mixed
1,014 mixed decisions from Delhi High Court - Orders.
Mixed Decisions
1014 cases | Page 29 of 34
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.
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 The court noted that the defendant had withdrawn earlier applications seeking objections or rectification against the plaintiffs' trademarks.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.
Bacardi And Company Limited v.Bahety Overseas Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a suit concerning trademark infringement where the plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendants. The court reviewed an application filed by the defendant seeking vacation of the existing interim injunction, which was granted previously. The judge directed the defendant to place on record the memorandum of appeal and produce evidence regarding similar bottle shapes, while also addressing a counter-application by the plaintiff alleging non-compliance with the original injunction.
Republic Technologies (Na) Llc v.Vipin Pathak Trading As M/S Pathak Impex
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Republic Technologies against Vipin Pathak regarding the alleged infringement of the 'OCB' trademark and copyright related to smoking accessories. While the court noted that the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's rights, it also accepted the defendant's willingness to change their logo and mark. Consequently, an existing interim order was made absolute, while the matter was scheduled for further hearing after the defendant presented proposed changes.
Jindal Industries Private Limited v.Panther Pipes Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Jindal Industries Private Limited against Panther Pipes Private Limited & Anr. The court rejected an application seeking to delete a defendant, noting that the defendant was involved in filing the relevant trademark application for 'JINDAL POWER.' Furthermore, the court disposed of another procedural application regarding the plaint's filing requirements and maintained the existing ex parte ad-interim injunction until further orders.
Walmart Apollo Llc v.Aayush Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Walmart Apollo LLC alleging continued trademark infringement by the defendants, who were reportedly still using the mark 'WMART' despite a prior interim injunction. The court noted the defendants' willingness to propose a change of mark ('WM BAZAAR') in exchange for waiving costs and damages. Ultimately, the Court issued notice to the defendants and set deadlines for filing replies on various related applications, keeping the litigation active.
Raj Kumar Sharma v.Sandeep Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interconnected trademark disputes concerning the 'Pizza Galleria' brand between Raj Kumar Sharma and Sandeep Kumar & Anr. The court first resolved a factual contradiction regarding an MoU, accepting that the date should be 25th March 2018 instead of 9th June 2021. Furthermore, all applications seeking a stay on trademark registrations were dismissed as withdrawn by the Petitioner. Despite these procedural steps, the Court noted significant gaps in documentation and directed Respondent No.1 to file a comprehensive additional affidavit within six weeks.
Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr. v.Ena Universal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking to enforce an existing injunction against trademark infringement related to 'BAJAJ ALMOND DROPS'. The Plaintiffs argued that Defendants were circumventing the court order by selling infringing products through e-commerce platforms under different names. Recognizing this evasion, the Court allowed the impleadment of new parties, including AMZ Venturz, VBRO Skin Care, and Flipkart itself, to ensure comprehensive enforcement against all involved entities.
Rishabh Jain v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Rishabh Jain against The Registrar of Trade Marks. Despite multiple notices and previous hearings, key procedural steps remained incomplete, notably the service report and the required affidavit from the Respondent regarding notice of opposition. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner's counsel to inform the opponent of the orders and scheduled the matter for July 5, 2022, pending the filing of the necessary affidavit.
Ram Trading Co. v.Amar Singh Chawal Wala And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging the cancellation of the Petitioner's registered trademark 'RAJQILLA'. The court noted that since the mark had already been cancelled by the IPAB, an interim stay could not be granted without examining the merits of the challenge. After initial procedural delays and requests for adjournment due to connectivity issues, the matter was listed for further hearing.
Patanjali Aryurved Limited v.Raj Mandir Retails Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'PATANJALI' brand, specifically 'PATANJALI COW'S GHEE'. While the Plaintiff sought strict enforcement against alleged counterfeiters, the court opted for an amicable resolution approach. The parties, including Defendant No.1 (Raj Mandir Retails Private Limited) and Defendant No.3, were referred to the Mediation Centre. Furthermore, the Court granted interim relief allowing Defendant No.1 to exhaust its existing genuine stock while seeking a structured path toward resolving the dispute.
Victoria Foods Private Limited v.Rajdhani Masala Co. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed allegations of trademark infringement concerning the 'RAJDHANI' mark used for spices. While initially granting an interim injunction favoring Victoria Foods based on registration and prima facie evidence, the court subsequently heard a contempt application alleging continued violation by the defendants. Following a Local Commissioner's report detailing ongoing production post-injunction, the Court sealed the defendant's factory and ordered detailed inspections to assess compliance and potential misuse of goods.
Carlsberg Breweries A/S v.Tensberg Breweries And Industries Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an application regarding the alleged expansion of business by Tensberg Breweries despite a prior injunction order. Carlsberg contended that Tensberg was willfully violating the court's restraint by applying for fresh excise licenses in new states using the restrained marks. The court found merit in Carlsberg's contention, leading to notice being issued to Tensberg and setting the matter for further arguments.
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.
Octave Apparels v.Nirmal Kumar Trading As Apricot Fashion Alloy & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration ('METTLE') and simultaneously considered a related injunction suit. Recognizing the identical issues and parties, the court exercised its power under Section 24 CPC to transfer the pending commercial suit from the District Court to be tried alongside the present rectification petition in the High Court. This consolidation streamlines the legal process for both parties involved.
Snapdeal Private Limited v.Godaddycom Llc And Ors
Snapdeal Private Limited filed an application seeking a temporary injunction against Godaddycom and others, alleging widespread infringement of its registered 'SNAPDEAL' trademark through the registration and offering of infringing domain names. The court examined the feasibility of granting such a broad injunction, particularly concerning the ability to prevent the registration of any domain name containing the mark. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claims of infringement, the judge required further clarification from the defendant regarding the practical implementability of the requested relief before making a final decision on the interim order.
Mrs. Anugya Gupta v.Mr. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute concerning the use of the trademark 'SARKARI RESULT' and associated domain names. The core issue revolves around establishing who is the prior adopter and user of the mark by comparing the actions of the Plaintiff and Defendants. The court has listed the matter for further hearing, indicating that the substantive determination of rights remains pending.
Surya Roshni Limited v.Group Surya
Surya Roshni Limited challenged an arbitral award concerning the domain name 'groupsurya.co.in', arguing that the arbitrator erred in holding that the mark 'SURYA' was generic. The Delhi High Court accepted the petitioner's application to condone a significant delay, citing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods. Consequently, the court took the petition on record and issued notice to the respondent, setting the stage for a detailed legal challenge against the initial arbitral decision.
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.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Daxia Healthcare & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the product SILODAX-8 D, the Delhi High Court directed both parties toward mediation. The defendants agreed not to manufacture or sell further stock of the infringing product while also committing to provide details of all products manufactured and sold to date. This order signals a judicial preference for alternative dispute resolution in complex IP disputes.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Eris Lifesciences Limited filed a revocation petition challenging Patent No. IN 243301, arguing that it should be revoked because the claims were covered by an earlier genus patent (IN 227719). The Delhi High Court noted that another appeal concerning the same patent was already pending before the court. Consequently, the court directed both parties to serve notices upon each other and listed the matter together with the existing appeal for a hearing on April 6, 2022.
Hamlai Industries Pvt Ltd. v.WD 40 Manufacturing Company
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Hamlai Industries challenging an ex parte injunction granted in a trademark dispute. The court noted the Appellants' claims regarding suppressed correspondence and prior international registrations, arguing that the initial injunction should be suspended. However, before deciding on the merits of the stay application, the court issued directions to both parties, requiring the Appellants to disclose detailed sales and import figures since 2010, and the Plaintiff to provide the complete records from the Trial Court.
Vishal Pipes Limited v.Bhavya Pipe Industry
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court addressed several procedural issues while advancing the main dispute between Vishal Pipes Limited and Bhavya Pipe Industry. The court allowed an application for a Local Commissioner, who was tasked with visiting the defendant's premises to inventory all products bearing the 'BPI' mark and obtain relevant sales accounts. Furthermore, the court issued notice to the defendant regarding the interim injunction request, reserving the final decision for a later date.
Ampm Fashions Private Limited v.Mr. Akash Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application concerning the use of the 'AMPM' trademark. While the plaintiff asserted its mark was well-known and infringed upon by the defendant's stylized version, the court declined to grant the requested injunction. However, in a compromise, the defendants agreed to prominently display a specific subtitle ('Interior design by Akash Mehta and Poonam Mehta') alongside their impugned mark and submit quarterly turnover accounts to the court.
WHITEHAT EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED v.MS KANISHK ENTERPRISES & ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addressed a petition for the rectification of a registered trademark. While the substantive issues were not decided on this date, the court focused on procedural matters. The court noted that the Vakalatnama for Defendant No. 1 was missing from the record and directed steps to be taken to place it on file. The matter has been listed for further hearing.
Vishal Pipes Limited v.Bhavya Pipe Industry
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court addressed several procedural issues while advancing the main dispute between Vishal Pipes Limited and Bhavya Pipe Industry. The court allowed an application for a Local Commissioner, who was tasked with visiting the defendant's premises to inventory all products bearing the 'BPI' mark and obtain relevant sales accounts. Furthermore, the court issued notice to the defendant regarding the interim injunction request, reserving the final decision for a later date.
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED AND OTHERS v.RAJIV MUKUL AND ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an execution petition filed by Glaxo Group Limited seeking enforcement of a prior decree. The core issue is the alleged infringement and passing off committed by the judgment debtors who began selling products under the deceptively similar trade name 'BETNEVIN'. Although the original suit covered various trademarks, the petitioners argued that their rights in 'BETNOVATE' and 'BETNESOL' were encompassed within the general scope of the decree. The Court directed notice to the defendants regarding this new alleged infringement, setting the stage for further litigation.
Hindustan Syringes And Medical Devices Ltd. v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Hindustan Syringes And Medical Devices Ltd. challenging the Senior Examiner's refusal to register the trademark 'DISPOSAFE'. While granting procedural exemptions regarding document submission, the court formally initiated the substantive appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner argued that their unique combination mark should not have been rejected as generic or descriptive. The matter is now set for further hearing after notice has been issued to the Respondent.
Capital Food Private Limited v.Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement of 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY,' the Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to introduce crucial subsequent evidence. The court ruled that the take-down notices and market surveys were necessary for a fair adjudication, despite the defendant's objections regarding late filing. This order allows the case to proceed with expanded evidentiary material.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.M/S Moosa Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court formally registered the lawsuit filed by Relaxo Footwears Limited against M/S Moosa Enterprises & Anr. The suit alleges infringement of the 'SPARX' trademark, along with claims of passing off and copyright infringement. During the initial proceedings, the defendant acknowledged receiving summons and stated that they had ceased online sales of the goods in question following objections from the plaintiff.
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.