Plaintiff Favorable
796 plaintiff favorable decisions from Delhi High Court - Orders.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
796 cases | Page 5 of 27
Astha Jain & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief in favor of the plaintiffs against various traders accused of selling counterfeit goods. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning the marks 'AYUVYA', 'i-GAIN+', 'IMFRESH', and 'BOOBEAUTIFUL'. Consequently, all defendants were restrained from using these impugned marks until further hearing, and specific directions were issued to take down product listings from major e-commerce platforms.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd & Anr. v.Janricsan Pharma P Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against Janricsan Pharma P Ltd. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, noting the potential for dangerous public confusion due to the similarity between the parties' pharmaceutical product names. This protective order restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling products under marks deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks until the final hearing.
Lotus Herbals Private Limited v.Nishtu Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Lotus Herbals Private Limited to implead a new entity, Jhalak Cosmetics Store, as a defendant in its trademark infringement suit. This decision was based on the plaintiff's discovery that the new store was selling counterfeit products using the infringing 'LOTUS' mark and trade dress. Furthermore, the court extended the existing interim injunction to this newly added defendant and granted extensive powers to a Local Commissioner to conduct search, seizure, and document examination at the premises of the infringer.
Bishan Purohit v.Mr Nensingh & Ors
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Bishan Purohit following an amicable settlement reached with Defendants 1 through 4. The defendants admitted the proprietary rights of the plaintiff in registered trademarks (MONITOR LABEL & MONITEC LABEL) and trade names, agreeing to cease using deceptively similar marks like MONTEIL LABEL. Furthermore, the court also passed a decree against Defendant No. 5 due to their default and withdrawal of relevant trademark applications, reinforcing the plaintiff's exclusive rights.
Vinit Dua v.Prashant Mani Tripathi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Vinit Dua, to register his trademark infringement claim against Prashant Mani Tripathi & Ors. The court found that a prima facie case of infringement was made out because the defendant's mark, 'AFFINITY ELEVE,' is highly likely to deceive customers into associating it with the plaintiff's registered mark, 'AF FINITY.' Consequently, the Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the confusingly similar mark while the suit proceeds.
Ricky Rubber Industries v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Ricky Rubber Industries challenging the Trade Marks Registry's rejection of an application for rectification. The petitioner sought to correct a minor typographical error—a wrong registration number—in a recordal form (FORM TM-P). The court ruled that procedural rules should not be interpreted so rigidly as to dilute substantive rights, directing the Registrar to accept the rectification application and make the necessary amendments.
Play Games 24X7 Private Limited v.Www10Xbettcom & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application to implead additional infringing websites, domains, and their registrars in a suit concerning trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court extended the existing ad-interim injunction to these newly added defendants. The order imposes strict restraints on the new parties, prohibiting them from using the 'MY11CIRCLE' mark or similar names, while also directing domain name registrars to suspend/block infringing domains and disclose subscriber information.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Kapoor Bike Point
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. against Kapoor Bike Point, affirming the seriousness of the alleged IP infringements. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation and advance service to the defendant, recognizing the urgent need for protection due to potential consumer deception. Crucially, the Court granted an injunction based on trademark and copyright infringement claims, allowing for a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendant's premises.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Caremankind Hospital Private Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Caremankind Hospital Private Limited in the Delhi High Court. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant was using identical or deceptively similar marks ('MANKIND'/'CAREMANKIND') in relation to similar services. This crucial early ruling protects Mankind Pharma's established brand equity while the main suit proceeds.
Lt Foods Limited v.Murli Flour Mills P Ltd
Lt Foods Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Murli Flour Mills P Ltd in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, a major player in the rice and food category, alleged that the defendant was infringing its registered trademarks 'DAAWAT' and 'DAWAT' by using an identical mark for premium 'Jeera'. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, granting immediate relief to prevent consumer confusion while the suit proceeds.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Gunwal Sports
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte injunction in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited against Gunwal Sports concerning alleged trademark and copyright infringement. The court recognized the public interest risk associated with consumer deception regarding the 'HERO' brand merchandise. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were allowed to proceed without pre-litigation mediation or advance service, enabling the immediate appointment of a Local Commissioner for search and seizure of evidence.
Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd, directing the respondents (Union of India) to renew and restore its registered trademark 'JAGAT(DEVICE)'. The court found that the mandatory statutory notice (Form O-3) regarding the approaching expiry was not properly issued or served on the petitioner, thereby upholding the principle of natural justice. This decision emphasizes that a trademark proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry.
Kickstarter, Pbc v.Kickstarter Private Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim permanent injunction in favor of Kickstarter, Pbc, against Kickstarter Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case for infringement, noting that the defendant obtained registration of the identical mark 'KICKSTARTER' potentially in a dishonest manner. Given the irreparable harm to the plaintiff and the likelihood of market confusion, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the disputed trademark across all platforms.
Master Capital Services Limited & Anr. v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted crucial interim relief in favor of Master Capital Services Limited regarding the misuse of its 'Master Trust' trademark. The court recognized that unidentified individuals were using the brand name on messaging platforms like WhatsApp for fraudulent investment schemes. Consequently, the court issued directions to block specific WhatsApp accounts and permanently freeze bank accounts linked to the alleged infringers, safeguarding the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Malti Gupta v.Sunil Kumar Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Malti Gupta against Sunil Kumar Seth & Anr. The court found a prima facie case existed regarding the infringement of the registered wordmark 'ROJGAR RESULT' and associated device mark. The defendants were immediately restrained from using the plaintiff's trademark on their competing websites, www.sarkariexam.com and www.sarkariresult.com, and were ordered to delete all infringing content.
Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited and Anr. v.John Doe And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited regarding its online gaming platforms. The court granted permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing on the plaintiffs' registered trademarks (such as 'PLAYSHIP', 'RUMMY CULTURE') and copyrights related to their website layouts and content. Furthermore, the court directed specific defendants to compel Internet Service Providers and Mobile Network Operators to block numerous identified infringing websites and applications.
Mittal Electronrcs v.Shashi Kant Garg & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Mittal Electronrcs against Shashi Kant Garg & Ors. The court found that the defendants were using the identical registered trademark 'SUJATA' for allied and cognate goods, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation. Given the likelihood of consumer confusion and the irreparable loss to the plaintiff, the court restrained the defendants from using the mark until the final hearing.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Sankalp Recreation Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Sankalp Recreation Private Limited and others. The court found that the defendants' use of deceptively similar marks, such as 'SCHEZUAN CHUTNEY', infringed upon the plaintiff's registered trademark 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Given that the products are edible goods, the Court adopted a stringent approach to prevent consumer confusion and potential health risks. The injunction restrains the defendants from using any identical or similar marks until further proceedings.
BPTP Limited v.Confido Landbase Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of BPTP Limited against Confido Landbase Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the defendants were unauthorizedly using the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BPTP' to promote a non-existent project, causing potential market confusion and irreparable harm. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from advertising or dealing in services under the disputed marks and directed to immediately take down all infringing online content.
More Retail Private Limited v.Begud Beverages Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by More Retail Private Limited seeking the cancellation of a specific trademark registration held by Begud Beverages Private Limited. This decision was reached following a settlement agreement between the parties, which stipulated the cancellation as part of the compromise of the underlying commercial suit. The court directed the Trade Mark Registry to proceed with the revocation.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd & Ors. v.M/S Jai Maa Vaishnao Brick Field & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against Jai Maa Vaishnao Brick Field. The court found a prima facie case for trademark and copyright infringement, noting that the defendant continued using protected marks ('Moti Mahal') and associated artistic elements despite the termination of a franchise agreement. Consequently, the court issued a strong injunction directing the defendant to immediately cease use of the impugned marks across all platforms, including menus, invoices, and social media websites.
Skechers South Asia Private Limited v.Delhi Polymer & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs, Skechers South Asia Private Limited, to amend their plaint following the successful impleadment of new defendants. Crucially, the court also granted an interim injunction against these newly added parties (Defendants 20 and 21). This order recognizes a prima facie case of trademark infringement based on goods discovered during local commission proceedings, immediately restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling counterfeit products bearing Skechers' trademarks.
Devdarshan Dhoop Industries & Anr v.Adhyatmik Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs' review petition, significantly modifying a previous order to strengthen their intellectual property protections. The court clarified that the injunction against the Defendants must cover not only traditional goods but also digital services like virtual worshipping and darshan under the 'DEVDARSHAN' trademark. Furthermore, the judgment reinforced the specific performance of the prior Settlement Agreement and mandated the removal of all related listings.
Enhaz Beverages Private Limited v.Shubh Food Agro Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Enhaz Beverages Private Limited against Shubh Food Agro Industries & Ors. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'GROWSY' and a deceptively similar trade dress constituted infringement, passing off, and dilution of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'GROOVY' and its family of marks. This preliminary order protects the plaintiff's brand reputation while the full suit proceeds.
Havells India Limited v.Hetram Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against Hetram Sharma & Ors. regarding the unauthorized use of its registered trademark 'REO'. The court found that the defendants' adoption of similar marks ('R3 REO 3X') was intended to ride upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation in the electrical goods market. Furthermore, the court permitted a local commission to search the defendant's premises and seize infringing materials.
Raj Kumar Proprietor Of Ms Royal Pets Cart v.Pooja Ahirwar Proprietor Of Ms Aselfy Enterprises
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Raj Kumar Proprietor Of Ms Royal Pets Cart, against Pooja Ahirwar Proprietor Of Ms Aselfy Enterprises. The court found that the defendant's pending trademark application for 'ROYAL PETS CART/' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark and constituted a prima facie case of infringement. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the impugned mark in relation to identical goods until the final hearing.
Signatureglobal (India) Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Signatureglobal (India) Limited, a leading real estate developer. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off by various online entities imitating its brand 'SIGNATUREGLOBAL'. Consequently, the defendants were directed to immediately take down or block all infringing websites and were restrained from registering similar domains, protecting the company's digital presence and consumer trust.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ashok Kumar (John Doe)
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd in its suit against an unidentified entity manufacturing and selling counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts. The court recognized the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and trade dress associated with 'HERO GENUINE PRODUCTS.' Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to execute a search and seizure commission at the Defendant's premises to recover infringing goods, setting the stage for further litigation.
Ms C R Auluck And Sons Private Limited v.Ms Dharamlaxmi Machines Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the registered trademark 'DHARMLAXMI' belonging to the respondent, in favor of the petitioner who owns 'LUXMI'. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting deceptive similarity between the two marks and products (sewing machines), noting that the respondent was using the mark in a manner different from its registration. This interim order is crucial for the petitioner as it prevents the respondent from continuing to operate under the disputed trademark while the rectification petition proceeds.
More Retail Private Limited v.Begud Beverages Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by More Retail Private Limited seeking the cancellation of a specific trademark registration held by Begud Beverages Private Limited. This decision was reached following a settlement agreement between the parties, which stipulated the cancellation as part of the compromise of the underlying commercial suit. The court directed the Trade Mark Registry to proceed with the revocation.
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.