Plaintiff Favorable
632 plaintiff favorable decisions from Delhi High Court - Orders.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
632 cases | Page 13 of 22
Satbir Singh v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Satbir Singh appealed the rejection of his patent application for a 'Pellet Feed Manufacturing Plant'. The Assistant Controller rejected the application citing lack of inventive steps and that it was merely an arrangement or re-arrangement. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the objection under Section 3(f) was not afforded to the Appellant during the examination process.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Buildtech Llp & Anr.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Vistara Buildtech LLP and others in the Delhi High Court. The court found a clear prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given that Tata Sia is the proprietor of the well-known mark 'VISTARA' used in commercial aviation. The order restrained the defendants from using the infringing mark while the main suit proceeds.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.Win Health Pharma Through: Its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd., finding that the Defendant's use of the mark 'CARDIOCONTIN' constituted a prima facie infringement on the Plaintiffs' established 'CONTIN' series trademarks and trade dress. The court noted the extensive goodwill, high sales figures (over Rs. 2000 crores), and the likelihood of confusion caused by the identical product type and near-identical packaging. While the injunction was granted against 'CARDIOCONTIN', the issue regarding the use of the mark 'WIN' was reserved for a later hearing after notice to the Defendants.
Sns Products Private Limited v.Ijazuddin
The Delhi High Court disposed of a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 34/2022) in favor of Sns Products Private Limited. The defendant, Ijazuddin, agreed to permanent injunctive relief for the plaintiff and consented to transferring all relevant trademark and copyright applications to the plaintiff. Consequently, the court passed a decree based on these terms, resolving the dispute.
Fontaine Limited v.Vinod Mahadik & Anr.
Fontaine Limited successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court for the cancellation of a conflicting trademark, 'impugned mark,' registered by Vinod Mahadik & Anr. The Petitioner demonstrated that the Respondent had failed to use the mark continuously for over five years, providing evidence of non-use through investigator reports and online searches showing inactivity. Given the Respondent's failure to appear despite substituted service, the Court allowed the petition, directing the cancellation of the conflicting registration.
Element Six Technologies Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Design
The appellant challenged the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of a patent application (No. 10030/DELNP/2011) under Section 3(d). The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal and remanding the application for fresh consideration of the remaining claims.
Dabur India Limited v.Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited
Dabur India Limited successfully secured a decree against Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited regarding the infringement and passing off of its trademark 'HONITUS.' The dispute was amicably resolved through mediation, leading to a Settlement Agreement. Under this agreement, the Defendant acknowledged Dabur's rights, agreed to cease using the infringing packaging/label/trade dress, modified their product presentation, and paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Plaintiff.
Umang Dairies Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Umang Dairies Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their device mark 'WHITE MAGIK'. The court found that while the word 'WHITE' might relate to milk products, the composite mark is suggestive rather than descriptive. Furthermore, the court determined that the subject mark was prima facie dissimilar from cited marks and noted that evidence of use had been on record but overlooked by the Examiner. Consequently, the refusal was set aside, and the registration process was directed to proceed.
Surender Kumar v.The Registrar Of Trademakrs
The Delhi High Court allowed Surender Kumar's appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' decision to refuse registration for the mark 'CANON'. The court found that the Senior Examiner erred by disregarding a prior settlement decree, which explicitly permitted the use and registration of 'CANON' for the services applied for. Furthermore, the court dismissed objections regarding user date requirements as they were introduced after the application was filed. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the Registry was directed to proceed with the mark's advertisement and registration.
American International School Chennai v.American International School Greater Noida & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of American International School Chennai against American International School Greater Noida. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant's use of the name 'American International School' was likely to deceive the public. This crucial early ruling protects the plaintiff's registered trademarks while the full litigation proceeds.
Travelodge Hotels India(Ip) Pte Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Travelodge Hotels India(Ip) Pte Ltd against the Trademark Registry's refusal of its application for 'TRAVELODGE SKYE'. Despite concerns regarding similarity with prior marks, the court directed that the subject mark be permitted to be advertised without acceptance. This decision allows the applicant to proceed with the registration process while any underlying disputes over the core 'TRAVELODGE' mark remain pending.
Desert Friendly Camps Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Desert Friendly Camps Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of its trademark application, 'THE SERAI JAISALMER.' The court found that the mark was not descriptive for Class 43 services, especially given the existence of a nearly identical registered mark in the same classes. Furthermore, considering the lapse or refusal status of most cited prior marks, the Court directed the Trademark Registry to process and advertise the application, subject to an explicit disclaimer regarding the word 'JAISALMER.'
Jockey International Inc v.Domain Administrator & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Jockey International Inc's application to add domain name registrars and associated banks as additional defendants in its trademark infringement suit. The court granted crucial interim relief, directing the blocking and suspension of specific infringing domain names (www.jockeydealer.in and www.jockeyshops.in). Furthermore, it issued orders freezing bank accounts linked to these domains, significantly strengthening Jockey's ability to protect its 'JOCKEY' trademark against online infringement.
Robotics Today B.V. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Robotics Today B.V., setting aside the rejection of its trade mark application 'ROBOTICS TODAY' under Section 9(1)(b) and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the composite mark was suggestive rather than descriptive when used in the robotics industry, and determined that it was prima facie dissimilar to the cited conflicting mark. Crucially, the judgment mandated a disclaimer, ensuring the registered rights would only cover the combination 'ROBOTICS TODAY' and not the individual words.
Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited v.Chotiwala & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited against Defendant No. 5, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that their registered mark 'CHOTIWALA,' which has acquired significant goodwill over decades, was being deceptively used by the defendant. This order provides immediate protection to the established brand while the main litigation proceeds.
Les Ateliers Louis Moinet Sa v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Les Ateliers Louis Moinet Sa against the rejection of its trademark application 'LOUIS MOINET' for horological instruments and jewellery. The court recognized that the mark, being the founder's name used for luxury timepieces, possessed inherent distinctiveness. Despite objections regarding similarity to a cited mark ('LOUIS MONT'), the Court allowed the application to proceed to advertisement without acceptance, directing that any subsequent opposition must be decided on its own merits.
Kentucky Fried Chicken International Holdings LLC v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Kentucky Fried Chicken's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'CHICKEN ZINGER'. The court found that while the word 'CHICKEN' itself is generic, the combination with 'ZINGER' was suggestive rather than purely descriptive. Crucially, the court clarified that KFC would not acquire exclusive rights in the common term 'CHICKEN', ensuring a disclaimer would be reflected upon registration.
United Coffee House v.Raghav Kalra
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by United Coffee House, leading to the cancellation of a nearly identical mark registered by Raghav Kalra. The court found that the respondent's registration was ex-facie dishonest because it failed to disclose his partnership interest in the petitioner's firm during the application process. This decision reinforces the principle that prior use and established goodwill outweigh subsequent registrations made in bad faith.
Global Car Group Ltd. v.Vienna It Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Global Car Group Ltd. successfully secured an ex parte ad interim injunction against Vienna It Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant registered the domain name 'www.cars24.in' and used a deceptively similar mark, infringing upon their well-known trademark 'Cars24'. Given the prima facie case made out, the court granted immediate relief, restraining the defendant from using the mark and ordering the takedown of the associated dummy website.
G4S Limited & Anr. v.Groupon 3 Security Services India Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of G4S Limited against Groupon 3 Security Services India Private Limited. The court found that the defendants were adopting marks ('G3S', etc.) that were structurally, phonetically, and visually similar to G4S's registered trademarks. Given the identical nature of the security services offered, the court held that a prima facie case was made out for infringement, granting immediate relief to prevent irreparable harm.
Delhi Public School Society v.Delhi Public School Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi Public School Society filed petitions seeking the cancellation of a specific copyright registration held by its subsidiary, Delhi Public School Pvt Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether the impugned copyright was an exact replica of the Petitioner's original copyrights and if the Respondent had the right to hold such a registration. The Court found that the rival copyrights were nearly identical and that the Petitioner's rights predated the challenged registration. Furthermore, the court noted a prior decree restraining the Respondent from using similar marks.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Anil Pendela
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies against Anil Pendela regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs, owners of the 'Dream11' brand, successfully argued that the defendant's use of 'Dreamz11 Sports' and the tagline 'Khelo Dil Se' was deceptively similar to their registered marks. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from using these infringing marks and ordered the suspension of the associated domain name and takedown of social media pages.
Amrit Corp. Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Amrit Corp. Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the composite label mark 'JUST MILK'. The court found that the combination of the arbitrary word 'JUST' with 'MILK' was suggestive and capable of distinguishing goods, overcoming the objection based on lack of distinctiveness. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to proceed with the registration process for 'JUST MILK', while clarifying that this registration would not grant exclusive rights in the generic term 'MILK'.
Sweeton Foods Pvt Ltd v.M/S Grv Conferectionery And Foods
Sweeton Foods Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking the cancellation of a copyright held by M/S Grv Conferectionery And Foods for the label 'KARTIER GOLD 24 CARAT SWISS MILK CHOCO'. This action stemmed from an earlier civil suit regarding trademark infringement. The court found that since the respondent had undertaken in a settlement decree to withdraw and cancel the registration, the petition was allowed.
Shiv Nadar Foundation v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Shiv Nadar Foundation's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its device mark. The court held that because the mark is composite—combining a graphic representation with the institution's name and the word 'SHIKSHA'—it cannot be deemed descriptive in isolation. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, allowing the application to proceed for advertisement, provided the Appellant agrees not to claim exclusive rights over the common term 'SHIKSHA'.
Organo Gold Holdings, Limited v.Origano Gold Private Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit filed by Organo Gold Holdings against Origano Gold Private Limited. The parties reached a settlement agreement, which the court subsequently decreed. Under the terms, the defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's rights in the 'ORIGANO GOLD' mark and committed to immediately cease using similar marks or logos. Furthermore, Defendant No. 2 agreed to withdraw specific registered trademarks and pending trademark applications.
Siddharth Suri v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Siddharth Suri against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'ANDAMEN'. The initial refusal was based on similarity to an earlier trade mark under Section 11(1)(b). However, the court found that since 'ANDAMEN' is a name of a sea and does not have a reputation associated with Class-18 goods (leather goods), the absolute ground for refusal under Section 9(1)(a) was not attracted. Consequently, the Impugned Order was set aside, directing the Trademark Registry to process the registration application.
Aurorax Private Limited v.Bharatx Accelerator & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Aurorax Private Limited against Bharatx Accelerator & Ors. The plaintiff, a leading fintech start-up, sought protection for its registered trademark 'BHARATX' which it has used since 2019. The court found that the defendants were using similar marks and domain names, causing market confusion, and consequently restrained them from further use of the infringing trademarks until the final hearing.
Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Whirlpool Properties, Inc. against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of its device mark application. The court found that the coined word 'AFFRESH' was inherently distinctive and not descriptive, thus overcoming objections under Section 9(1)(a). Furthermore, after reviewing cited marks, the court determined that the subject mark was prima facie dissimilar to existing registrations, allowing the registration process to continue.
Perkinelmer Health Sciences Inc And Ors v.Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged an order refusing a patent application under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, based on Section 3(f). The Appellant argued that the objection was raised for the first time at the hearing stage without prior notice, violating natural justice. The Court agreed, finding that the Respondent violated procedural fairness by not communicating all objections in advance.
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.