Plaintiff Favorable
624 plaintiff favorable decisions from Delhi High Court - Orders.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
624 cases | Page 1 of 21
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis AG sued Torrent Pharmaceuticals for infringement of Indian Patent No. 275655 covering the anti-cancer drug Dabrafenib. Torrent accepted summons and voluntarily undertook not to manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any Dabrafenib-containing API or formulation during the patent's validity. The Delhi High Court accepted the undertaking as part of the decree, effectively granting Novartis the relief of a permanent injunction without contest, while preserving Torrent's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act to use the compound for research purposes.
Cipla Limited v.Union of India & Ors. (including Registrar of Trade Marks)
Cipla Limited filed a writ petition seeking restoration of its trademark 'NO DARAR' (application no. 1694972 in Class 5), which had been removed from the register. The Delhi High Court allowed restoration, and the Registrar subsequently updated the status to 'Registered'. A third-party applicant then sought impleadment and recall of the restoration order, arguing that the Registrar had not followed Rule 60 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 and that the applicant had not been heard. The court dismissed the third-party applications, holding that renewal/restoration is strictly between the Trademark Registry and the registered proprietor, and any aggrieved third party must pursue rectification proceedings rather than intervening in restoration proceedings.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Incyte Holdings sued Macleods Pharmaceuticals for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841 covering the novel compound Ruxolitinib, used in treating myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera. Macleods had listed Ruxolitinib products as 'Under Development' in its US CTD Product List and was offering the API for sale on Pharmacompass. The defendant gave an undertaking not to commercially manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any product containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity (expiring 12.12.2026), and the suit was disposed of with the undertaking binding the defendant while preserving its Section 107A research rights.
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd sought an ex parte ad interim injunction against Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd for infringement of its ZEST family of trademarks. The court granted the injunction, restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks. The plaintiff had made significant investments in advertising its products under the ZEST trademarks and had generated considerable income. The defendant's use of the CELSIUSDIZEST mark was likely to cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an injunction against the defendants for infringing the plaintiff's trademarks, copyrights, and artistic works. The court also exempted the plaintiff from pre-litigation mediation and effecting advance service. The defendants were directed to block and suspend the impugned website and preserve domain registration records.
M/S. Motherson Through Its Partners V.C. Sehgal, Vidhi Sehgal and Laksh Vaaman Sehgal v.Motherson Industries Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S. Motherson, restraining Motherson Industries Private Limited from using the trademark 'MOTHERSON'. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's use of the mark would amount to infringement of their registered trademark. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and granted exemption from pre-institution mediation. The matter is listed for further hearing on October 29, 2026.
Amber Nutrition Private Limited v.Ms. Neetu Choudhary & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Amber Nutrition Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'AMBER KREAM TOFFEE' or any other similar mark. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and that irreparable harm would be caused if the injunction was not granted. The defendants were directed to file an affidavit disclosing their sales and to provide an account of profits.
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr v.Awadh Bihari Badal Proprietor Of Aloe Care Arogya Life & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, restraining the defendant from using the mark 'Liv-22' which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Liv.52'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction and that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant's use of the mark 'Liv-22' was likely to cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a lawsuit against Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing and selling products under the impugned marks ORZIFER-XT, which are deceptively similar to Emcure's trademarks OROFER and OROFER-XT. The court found that Emcure has established a strong reputation and goodwill in its trademarks and that the Defendants' actions are likely to cause irreparable damage to Emcure's goodwill and reputation.
Safex Chemicals India Limited v.Safex Seed India Llp & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Safex Chemicals India Limited, restraining Safex Seed India Llp & Anr from using the trademark 'SAFEX' in relation to agrochemical products. The plaintiff claimed to have adopted and used the trademark 'SAFEX' since 1991 and had established a substantial sales turnover and widespread advertising and promotion of its products under the trademark. The court allowed the plaintiff's application for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, citing the plaintiff's prima facie case and the balance of convenience in its favor.
Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited v.Garg Realtech Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited against Garg Realtech Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'CITYWALK' or 'GLOBAL CITYWALK'. The court also granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service to the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were using a deceptively similar trademark, which could cause confusion among consumers.
Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited v.Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited against Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd. for using a deceptively similar trademark. The plaintiff claimed that the trademark 'CITYWALK' is a unique mark adopted by them in 2004 and has become an industry standard for shopping malls and commercial spaces in India. The court allowed the plaintiff's application for exemption from filing original documents and advance service to the defendants.
Crocs Inc. & Anr v.Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited
Crocs Inc. filed a lawsuit against Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited for trademark infringement. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant, restraining them from manufacturing and selling footwear that infringes Crocs' trademark. The court also directed the defendant to maintain and preserve accounts and documents related to the manufacture and sale of the impugned products.
Novartis Ag & Anr v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to expedite the consideration of their Indian Patent Application No. 1014/DELNP/2011, which had been pending for over 15 years despite multiple pre-grant oppositions being filed. The Court noted the unacceptable delay and directed the Respondents to decide the application and all related oppositions as expeditiously as possible within four months.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Lupin Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed suit against Lupin Limited regarding the public display of a specific product by the defendant. The court accepted that if the defendants modify their website to include an asterisk stating 'for the purposes of research under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970', it would suffice to address the plaintiff's grievance.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The refusal was based on a lack of novelty in view of prior art D1: US3840070A. The court allowed an auxiliary request to amend claim 1, finding that the amendment did not broaden the scope and was disclosed in the specification.
Colonel Dhyan Mayadas Retired v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner, a retired military officer, filed a patent application for 'Ballistic Armour Shield' in 2018. Despite the application being deemed 'in order for grant' by the Patent Office (Respondent No. 2), it remained pending with DRDO (Respondent No. 3) for nearly seven years without consideration. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to expedite the process.
M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appeal challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of a patent application (No. 201717022856) due to lack of inventive step. The appellant sought permission to amend its claims, which were subsequently accepted by the High Court provided they did not broaden the scope of the original claims.
The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v.Mr Shahjahan Khan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of The Ritz Hotel Limited and its subsidiaries against Mr. Shahjahan Khan and others. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, recognizing the established goodwill and reputation associated with the 'Ritz' mark. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using deceptively similar marks like 'RITZ RIVERIA' across various media, pending further hearings.
Bunch Microtechnologies Pvt Ltd v.Telegram Fz Llc & Anr.
In an amicable resolution, the Delhi High Court disposed of the copyright infringement suit filed by Bunch Microtechnologies against Telegram Fz Llc. The parties successfully negotiated and formalized a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) governing how complaints regarding content infringement must be handled. This SOP mandates specific proof requirements from complainants, such as demonstrating ownership of copyright or trademark, before Telegram takes action. The court upheld this agreement, binding the defendant to the terms while granting the plaintiff a partial refund of court fees.
Saint Gobain Placo & Anr v.M/S Steel India & Ors
The Plaintiffs, holding patents related to a corrugated construction element and its manufacturing method, filed a suit against the Defendants for infringement. The court found merit in the Plaintiffs' submission and passed orders restraining the Defendants from dealing with infringing materials.
Myokardia Inc. v.Lucius Pharmaceutical
Myokardia Inc. filed a suit against Lucius Pharmaceutical alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 392872, which covers novel pyrimidinedione compounds used to treat serious cardiovascular diseases like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The Plaintiffs argued that the defendants' generic product infringed upon their patented technology and caused irreparable harm. Based on a prima facie assessment, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling generic Mavacamten until further hearing.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Motherkind Pharma Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Mankind Pharma Limited against Motherkind Pharma Private Limited. The court found that Motherkind's use of 'MOTHERKIND' prima facie amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, given its similarity to Mankind's well-known marks ('MANKIND' and 'KIND') in the pharmaceutical sector. This preliminary order restrains the Defendant from using the infringing mark until further proceedings.
Novartis Ag v.Novarise Gastro Bariatrics & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Novartis Ag against Novarise Gastro Bariatrics & Ors. The court found that the use of the impugned tradename 'NOVARISE' by the defendants was likely to cause confusion among consumers, given the established goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's well-known trademark 'NOVARTIS' in the pharmaceutical sector. Citing prima facie evidence, the court held that irreparable harm would be caused to Novartis if the injunction was not granted immediately.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr. v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in a suit concerning trademark and copyright infringement related to the 'DERMDOC' brand. While granting several procedural exemptions to the plaintiffs, the court also issued significant interim relief. Specifically, it directed Scribd Inc. (Defendant No. 17) to immediately remove all documents associated with the infringing trademarks from its platform. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was ordered to disclose details of commissions earned through the alleged infringement period.
Government Emarketplace v.Ankit Jain & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an urgent interim injunction in favor of Government Emarketplace (GeM), a non-profit public procurement platform. The court directed domain registrar Godaddy.com to suspend specific infringing domain names and required social media intermediary Amazon to remove links hosting unauthorized webpages. This decisive order protects the GeM trademark against online infringement, setting a strong precedent for digital rights enforcement in India.
SNV Aviation Private Limited v.Alaska Aviation Academy Private Limited and Others
SNV Aviation Private Limited successfully secured critical interim relief against defendants accused of impersonating the company to run fraudulent job scams. The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunctions and directed immediate action against digital assets, including suspending infringing domain names like akasaairltd.com. Furthermore, the court mandated financial institutions and telecom providers to disclose KYC details and block bank accounts and UPI IDs linked to the perpetrators, providing robust protection against trademark misuse and fraud.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited Anr. v.Venuse Automobile
Hero Investcorp Private Limited filed a suit against Venuse Automobile alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'HERO' brand. The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of the Plaintiffs, including an ex parte ad-interim injunction. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with powers to inspect the Defendant's premises, seize infringing auto parts bearing the HERO marks, and ascertain the stock value, signaling strong initial support for the Plaintiff's claims.
Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt. Ltd. v.Smotect Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt. Ltd. against Smotect Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the Defendants were using the Plaintiff's copyrighted label in promotional content, specifically an Instagram video, to portray the Plaintiff's product as harmful while promoting their own alternative. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from further use of the label and directed to take down the infringing videos within 72 hours.
Ohr Laboratory Corporation v.Gasion Airtech Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Ohr Laboratory Corporation against Gasion Airtech Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, irreparable harm would result without intervention, and the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiff. Defendants are now restrained from using the 'OHR' mark or similar names/model numbers, as well as from reproducing copyrighted brochure elements.
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.