Mixed
1,014 mixed decisions from Delhi High Court - Orders.
Mixed Decisions
1014 cases | Page 32 of 34
Anil Rathi v.Shree Sidhbali Steels Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark dispute concerning the use of 'Rathi' in manufacturing steel items. The plaintiff, Anil Rathi, challenged the defendants' use of the mark, alleging that a lease agreement was merely a camouflage for unauthorized production. While the defendants claimed they were operating under a valid license, the court allowed the plaintiff to file an additional affidavit and documents regarding a guarantee provided by Defendant No.1 to secure loans for Defendant No.2. The interim injunction remains in place pending further arguments.
The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company and Goodyear India Ltd. v.Deva Nand Sukhia
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark dispute where Goodyear sought an injunction against Deva Nand Sukhia for using the 'GOOD YEAR' mark in relation to lubricants and greases. The court affirmed that 'GOOD YEAR' is a well-known mark, granting an interim injunction restraining its use across various goods. Although the Plaintiff initially sought damages, they agreed not to press this relief after the Defendant tendered an apology, resulting in the decree being passed with costs imposed on the defendant.
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.
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.
The Himalaya Drug Company & Ors v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued interim protective orders in favor of The Himalaya Drug Company against Ashok Kumar & Ors regarding trademark infringement. The court restrained the defendants from using Himalaya's registered logos, trademarks (including 'Himalaya Pure Herbs'), specific domain names like <himalayawelness.com>, and associated email IDs. Furthermore, the court directed the freezing of certain websites and domain names to prevent further unauthorized capitalization on the plaintiff's goodwill.
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.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v.Union Of India And Ors
Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe challenged the refusal of its trademark registration by the Registrar of Trademarks. The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Registrar to treat the matter as a representation and reconsider the registration issue. This interim order allows Sony to address the concerns raised under Section 9 of the Trademarks Act without immediately litigating the merits in court.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Private Limited v.Prakash Distillery And Chemical Co Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge to the court's territorial jurisdiction raised by the defendant in a trademark dispute. While acknowledging that the cause of action is not strictly necessary under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Court required both parties to clarify their business presence across various locations (Delhi, Kolkata, Siliguri). The court directed the filing of specific affidavits detailing office locations and sales activities before reserving judgment on interim relief.
Aap Ki Pasand & Anr v.New Direction Exports & Crafts
In this trademark dispute, the defendant sought to establish a prior right by claiming they purchased the 'ANDEES' trademark and logo from a third party in 2018. The court accepted the defendant's temporary commitment to cease using the disputed packaging pending further proceedings. This order indicates that the matter is still actively litigating, with both parties encouraged to attempt an out-of-court resolution.
Rajendra Kumar Nanda & Ors. v.Dinesh Chandra Khimji Nandha & Ors.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions related to business operations, trade name usage, and trademark registration. While the court noted the plaintiffs' claims regarding family rights and potential infringement of their 'Khimji Jewels' mark, it also considered the defendants' counter-arguments, including challenges to existing agreements. The court ultimately issued an interim restraint order preventing the defendants from publishing any defamatory or disparaging advertisements against the plaintiffs until further hearing.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.M/S Yc Electric Vehicle & Ors.
In this ongoing trademark dispute, Bajaj Auto Limited sought compliance regarding the use of its 'CHETAK' brand. The Delhi High Court noted that the defendants claimed no E-rickshaws under the 'CHETAK' trademark had been sold since a previous interim order was issued. Consequently, the court directed the defendants to file an affidavit addressing these claims within three weeks, keeping the litigation moving forward.
Mahaan Foods Ltd & Anr. v.Calpro Specialities Pvt Ltd
In this Delhi High Court matter concerning trademark disputes, the court observed significant procedural difficulties on the part of the respondent. Despite being notified about the termination of key trademark license agreements, the respondent failed to provide a formal response and instead changed legal counsel without adequate instructions. Given these compounding issues, the bench decided to stay the operation of the impugned orders in the appeals, allowing time for the matter to be properly addressed.
Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt. Ltd. v.Rajesh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt. Ltd. challenging a lower court's refusal to grant an ad interim injunction. While noting the appellant's claims of prior use of its trademark and copyright registration on its packaging, the Court ultimately decided not to interdict proceedings at that stage. Instead, it directed the District Judge to expedite the hearing of the interlocutory application, ensuring the matter moves forward promptly.
Johnson & Johnson v.Pritamdas Arora T/A M/S Medserve & Anr
In a trademark infringement dispute, Johnson & Johnson sought permission from the Delhi High Court to amend its original plaint. The plaintiff argued that evidence gathered by a Local Commissioner revealed additional trademark infringements by the defendant concerning 'LIGACLIP,' which needed to be incorporated into the suit. Satisfied that these amendments were necessary for determining the real issues between the parties, the court allowed the application, allowing J&J to update its claims and proceed with the litigation.
Exphar S.A. v.Atlanta Biological Pvt. Ltd
In this trademark infringement matter, the defendant agreed not to contest the permanent injunction against them, provided the plaintiffs waived their claims for damages and costs. While both parties settled on the injunctive relief, the core dispute regarding whether the plaintiff's mark, VERZOL, qualifies as a well-known trademark remains unresolved. The court has scheduled further proceedings specifically to determine this crucial aspect of the case.
The Himalaya Drug Company & Ors v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued interim protective orders in favor of The Himalaya Drug Company against Ashok Kumar & Ors regarding trademark infringement. The court restrained the defendants from using Himalaya's registered logos, trademarks (including 'Himalaya Pure Herbs'), specific domain names like <himalayawelness.com>, and associated email IDs. Furthermore, the court directed the freezing of certain websites and domain names to prevent further unauthorized capitalization on the plaintiff's goodwill.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Woodol International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court partially ruled in favor of Volvo, granting a preliminary decree against Woodol International regarding the unauthorized use of the 'VOLVO' trademark on lubricants. Despite initial defenses by the defendants claiming no infringement and non-compliance with mediation requirements, the court accepted the affidavits stating that the defendants had ceased or were not manufacturing under the mark. The suit will now proceed to trial to determine the final quantum of damages and rendition of accounts.
JK Lakshmi Cement Limited v.JK Shian Cement Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute between JK Lakshmi Cement Limited and JK Shian Cement Private Limited. The court allowed a defendant's application to condone a 90-day delay in filing its written statement, noting that negotiations regarding settlement had taken place. Additionally, while acknowledging ongoing disputes over interim orders, the court granted time for defendants to file their replies, setting a future hearing date.
Kanjibhai Ishwarbhai Patel & Ors. v.Jafar Ali
This appeal was filed by Kanjibhai Ishwarbhai Patel & Ors. challenging an ex parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court in a suit for patent infringement. The appellants argued that the Commercial Court had incorrectly applied parameters suitable for trademark infringement, constituting a jurisdictional error. They also raised concerns regarding procedural lapses and prior litigation history which prejudiced their case. Despite finding merit in the contentions, the High Court decided to allow the matter to proceed before the Commercial Court to ensure a fair hearing on the interim relief application.
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
In a trademark dispute concerning the brand name OMEZ, Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited and Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Private Limited agreed to pursue settlement. The defendants indicated they had ceased using the disputed mark, leading both parties to agree that mediation was the preferred path forward. Consequently, the Delhi High Court scheduled the parties for mediation at its Conciliation Centre.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt. Ltd. v.Times Coaching Centre
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning an existing trademark infringement suit between Triumphant Institute of Management Education and Times Coaching Centre. The core issue revolved around whether the Defendant's subsequent change in its trademark, from 'Times Coaching Centre' to 'Future Times Coaching Centre', constituted wilful disobedience of a prior interim injunction. The court found that the Defendant acted under a genuine misunderstanding of the scope of the injunction, believing the new mark was outside its restraint. Consequently, while dismissing the applications for non-wilful reasons, the court imposed costs on the Defendant due to the continued use of infringing marks.
Anil Rathi v.Sanjog Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued several interim orders in the dispute concerning the 'RATHI' trademark. The court restrained Defendant No. 4 from granting new licenses related to the mark until further hearing, providing immediate relief to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court mandated that certain defendants maintain and file detailed accounts of sales made under the 'RATHI' trademark during a specified period, while also allowing for the impleadment of proposed parties.
Ampm Fashions Private Limited v.Mr. Akah Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a rectification application concerning a trademark registration. The plaintiff informed the court that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had previously directed the removal of the defendant's mark from the Trademarks Register. However, the defendants requested an adjournment as they were in the process of challenging the IPAB's decision, leading the court to list the matter for a future date.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Woodol International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court partially ruled in favor of Volvo, granting a preliminary decree against Woodol International regarding the unauthorized use of the 'VOLVO' trademark on lubricants. Despite initial defenses by the defendants claiming no infringement and non-compliance with mediation requirements, the court accepted the affidavits stating that the defendants had ceased or were not manufacturing under the mark. The suit will now proceed to trial to determine the final quantum of damages and rendition of accounts.
Cipla Limited v.Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd
In a trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court directed the parties, Cipla Limited and Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd, to engage in formal mediation. Following successful settlement talks on two of the three trademarks, the court facilitated further negotiations for the remaining mark. This order underscores the judiciary's preference for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in complex IP conflicts.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Chetan Padilya & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing injunction protecting Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd's trademark rights against specific infringing content published by the defendant. Crucially, the court clarified that this injunction is not a 'gag order.' While the defendant must refrain from publishing articles identical or similar to the impugned material and avoid derogatory remarks, they retain the right to engage in lawful discourse comparing plant-based beverages with dairy milk products.
M/S Asugar Engineering Services & Anr. v.Weld Trade Pvt. Ltd. and M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to implead M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd. as a defendant in the trademark infringement suit, recognizing that this new party was also infringing the 'AZUCAR' mark. The court found it necessary for the cause of action against them. Furthermore, the court extended existing interim orders to include the newly added defendant. This procedural step ensures all parties involved in the alleged trademark violation are properly before the court.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Ektarfa Garments Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark infringement suit filed by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ektarfa Garments Private Limited. During the proceedings, the plaintiff indicated that the defendants had expressed interest in settling the matter. The court acknowledged these overtures and scheduled the case for further hearing on December 8, 2020, allowing time for settlement discussions.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Nitin Jain & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute where the AMUL Federation alleged that videos produced by Defendant No. 1 were scandalous, disparaging, and specifically targeted their brand using trademark elements like the 'AMUL Girl' mascot. The core issue revolved around whether the content constituted fair use or targeted defamation against the Plaintiffs. While the Plaintiff argued the targeting was evident through specific advertisements shown in the video, the Court directed the Defendant to provide detailed affidavits regarding the sources of their investigative journalism, allowing the Plaintiffs to adequately address the allegations.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Ektarfa Garments Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark infringement suit filed by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ektarfa Garments Private Limited. During the proceedings, the plaintiff indicated that the defendants had expressed interest in settling the matter. The court acknowledged these overtures and scheduled the case for further hearing on December 8, 2020, allowing time for settlement discussions.
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.