Settled
134 settled decisions from Delhi High Court - Orders.
Settled Decisions
134 cases | Page 3 of 5
Insecticides (India) Limited v.Anu Products Limited
Insecticides (India) Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of its patent (IN 316801), which covers an insecticidal composition. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement via mediation, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Bristol Myers Squibb Company And Anr
The matter involved Natco Pharma Limited and Bristol Myers Squibb Company regarding Indian Patent No. IN 247381, which covers Factor Xa Inhibitors used in the pharmaceutical preparation APIXABAN. The parties amicably settled their disputes via an agreement dated August 8, 2023.
Exide Industries Ltd / Chloride Group Limited v.Vertiv Company Group Limited / R.G. Kapadia & Others
The Delhi High Court decreed two consolidated suits concerning the trademark 'CHLORIDE' after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The dispute involved Exide Industries Ltd (and Chloride Group Limited) against Vertiv Company Group Limited regarding the unauthorized use of the mark on UPS products. Under the terms of the settlement, Vertiv agreed not to use the 'CHLORIDE' trademark or its variants directly or indirectly, effectively resolving the long-standing infringement claims.
Intervet International B.V. v.Veko Care Private Limited
The plaintiff sued the defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 283279, which covers the active ingredient 'FLURALANER' used in veterinary drugs like 'Bravecto'. The dispute involved the defendant promoting a counterfeit product under the mark 'FURALINE'. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement and filed a joint application.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Sms Pharmaceuticals Limited
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an injunction against the manufacture and sale of Sitagliptin products by the Defendant. The parties subsequently resolved their disputes through a settlement agreement dated September 15, 2023, which was recorded by the Court.
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Jubilant Generics Limited And Anr
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories filed a suit seeking an injunction against Jubilant Generics for allegedly infringing on its trademark 'RAZO' with the mark 'RAZOEASE'. Following the filing, the Defendant proactively acknowledged an inadvertent mistake and issued assurances to immediately cease all manufacture and sale under the disputed mark. The court accepted these undertakings, leading to the disposal of the injunction application and directing the parties to file consent terms for closure.
Astrazeneca Ab v.USV Private Limited
AstraZeneca filed a suit for infringement against USV Private Limited regarding the pharmaceutical preparations covered by three patents, including those for 'TICAGRELOR'. The parties subsequently resolved their disputes amicably and filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC to record the settlement.
Hindware Limited v.Anil Kumar & Ors.
In a significant development concerning trademark infringement, Hindware Limited successfully negotiated an amicable settlement with Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff agreed to drop its claim for damages provided that the defendant withdraws his pending trademark application and commits not to use the disputed mark 'HINDWARE' on his goods. This order marks a pragmatic resolution in the ongoing dispute.
R.H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd v.Sweety Jain, Proprietor Of Mahajan Foods & Ors
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition filed by R.H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd against Sweety Jain and others regarding alleged breach of an earlier court undertaking. The respondent parties provided a fresh, binding undertaking to the court, promising not to misuse the petitioner's registered trademark 'NAFIS' or its associated copyright in any manner. With both parties agreeing to this resolution, the court formally disposed of the pending litigation.
Kalsi Metal Works Pvt Ltd v.Shree Ram Plastic Industries And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application filed by Kalsi Metal Works Pvt Ltd and Respondent No. 1, leading to the cancellation of the impugned trademark registration (No. 2262092) in Class 17. This decision was reached following a compromise between the parties involved in the dispute. The court disposed of the appeal based on these mutual settlement terms.
Zydus Healthcare Ltd v.Shahid Ahmad Mir
In a significant resolution for the pharmaceutical sector, Zydus Healthcare Ltd successfully concluded its dispute with Shahid Ahmad Mir through a comprehensive settlement decree. The parties agreed that Defendant would cease all use of marks or packaging deceptively similar to 'PROTIMED.' Crucially, the defendant formally transferred all rights and goodwill associated with the registered trademark 'PROTIMED' (No. 2159273) to Zydus for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000, effectively resolving the infringement claim.
Ht Media Limited v.Entertainment Network (India) Ltd
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark infringement suit between Ht Media Limited and Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. The original dispute centered on the use of trademarks identical or deceptively similar to 'PEHLA NASHA.' Crucially, both parties successfully reached a settlement through the court's mediation center. Consequently, the High Court decreed the underlying suit based on the terms of the executed Settlement Agreement, effectively concluding the litigation.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Nuberg Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Sun Pharma and Nuberg Pharmaceuticals reached a full settlement in their commercial IP dispute before the Delhi High Court. The court formally decreed the suit based on the agreed-upon terms, which included significant concessions from both parties. Furthermore, the judgment mandated that Respondent No. 2 remove a specific trademark entry (No. 3797651) from the Register of Trademarks within six weeks.
Rspl Limited v.Grindwell Norton Limited
Rspl Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Grindwell Norton Limited before the Delhi High Court. The parties reached a compromise where Grindwell Norton agreed not to manufacture or market products under deceptively similar marks (like 'COMPASS GHADI CHAP') in specific classes, while Rspl Limited withdrew its opposition and agreed not to seek damages. This resolution allows both parties to move forward without protracted litigation.
Gpl Exports Limited & Golden Peakock Overseas Limited v.Global Lighting Source Private Limited & Others
The Delhi High Court formally recorded a comprehensive settlement reached between GPL Exports Limited and Global Lighting Source Private Limited. The original suit involved claims related to intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, designs, and confidential information concerning the lighting industry. By entering into a mediated agreement, both parties resolved their disputes, with the court decreeing the suit based on the terms of the settlement.
Astral Limited & Anr. v.Astralglee & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the suit between Astral Limited and Astralglee following a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs against specific defendants (No. 1, 2, and 3) according to the terms of the settlement dated February 21, 2023. Notably, the judgment confirmed that one clause within the settlement—where Defendants admitted 'ASTRAL' is a well-known trademark—would legally bind them.
Sabyasachi Couture v.Technicolour Dream Pants Private Limited
In a significant resolution for the fashion industry, the Delhi High Court decreed a suit involving Sabyasachi Couture against Technicolour Dream Pants Private Limited. The parties reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. Under the terms, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's trademark rights and undertook not to use or deal in garments bearing the 'SABYASACHI' mark or designs without authorization. This judgment provides a clear example of how IP disputes can be resolved through negotiated settlements.
SAP SE v.SAB INFOTECH SOLUTION PVT LTD & ANR
The dispute between SAP SE and Sab Infotech Solution Pvt Ltd was resolved through a comprehensive settlement decree by the Delhi High Court. The core agreement mandates that while Sab Infotech can continue using the full trading name 'SAB INFOTECH,' they must not use the mark 'SAB' in isolation or deceptively similar to SAP's registered trademarks. Furthermore, Sab Infotech agreed to withdraw a specific trademark application related to their brand. This settlement allows both parties to move forward with defined usage parameters.
The Hind Samachar Limited v.M/S Punjab Kesari Publishers Pvt. Ltd
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed for the rectification of the 'PUNJAB KESARI NATIONAL' trademark following an inter-party settlement. The court directed the Trademark Registry to amend the registration, limiting the scope and territory of the mark exclusively to specific regions defined in the parties' Memorandum of Family Signature (MoFS). This decision provides a clear legal mechanism for resolving complex territorial disputes between brand owners through negotiated settlements.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Rishabh Bansal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a complex IP dispute involving trademark infringement, copyright violation, and rectification petitions between Ashok Kumar Gupta and Rishabh Bansal. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement mediated by the court. Under the terms, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiffs' proprietary rights in the 'SAKARNI' brand (trademark) and its packaging features (copyright). The defendant committed to withdrawing an infringing mark, ceasing all use of similar marks/designs, and paying substantial damages.
Pfizer Inc & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
Pfizer Inc & Ors filed a suit for permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement of patent IN 218291 covering the drug 'Palbociclib'. The parties subsequently entered into an amicable settlement agreement, which was recorded by the Court.
M/S Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. v.Kent Ro Systems Ltd.
The Delhi High Court resolved a complex trademark dispute between M/S Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Kent RO Systems Ltd. The case involved an injunction suit against alleged infringement of the 'HEPA PURE' trademark. After extensive litigation, including appeals challenging rectification orders, the parties successfully entered into mediation. Consequently, the court decreed the original suit based on a settlement agreement, allowing Kent RO Systems to continue using the mark while Mankastu Impex agreed not to object.
Dharampal Satyapal Limited v.Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a settlement reached between Dharampal Satyapal Limited (Plaintiff) and Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Defendants). The parties amicably resolved the dispute over trademark infringement concerning flavored pan-masala products. Key terms include the Defendants acknowledging the Plaintiff's sole proprietary rights in 'TANSEN' and 'TANSEN BLUES,' agreeing to immediately cease using the infringing mark 'TENSION FREE,' and undertaking to destroy all related materials and withdraw associated IP registrations.
Aeronutrlx Sports Products Pvt Ltd v.Plumax Ebusiness Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court formally recorded a settlement between Aeronutrlx Sports Products Pvt Ltd and Plumax Ebusiness Solutions Private Limited regarding trademark disputes over the FAST&UP brand family. The parties agreed that Plumax acknowledged the validity and rights of Aeronutrlx in sub-brands like CHARGE, FORTIFY, RELOAD, and VITALIZE, including associated trade dress. In exchange for a payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Plumax committed to withdrawing opposition filings and ceasing all use of similar marks or designs.
Chugai Seiyaki Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against MSN Laboratories Private Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound 'Alectinib'. The Defendant initially claimed research use only, but subsequently provided an affidavit undertaking not to commercially launch Alectinib until the patent expires or is found invalid. The court accepted these undertakings and decreed the suit.
M/S Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Mr. Amit Kumar Sultania Proprietor Of Amit Agencies & Anr.
In a case concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court formalized a comprehensive settlement between M/S Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited (Plaintiff) and Mr. Amit Kumar Sultania (Defendant). The parties amicably resolved their disputes, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms. Key outcomes include the Defendant acknowledging infringement of 'JK/JKLC/JK Lakshmi' trademarks, undertaking not to use similar marks, withdrawing specific trademark applications, and destroying all infringing materials.
Om Shivam Utpadan v.Saraswati Utpadan Private Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of multiple trademark and copyright rectification petitions after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement through mediation. The agreement outlines specific usage rights for both parties' marks and logos, allowing them to continue using certain designs under modified conditions while withdrawing ongoing legal challenges. This resolution provides clarity on their respective intellectual property rights moving forward.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Harman Finochem Limited
The suit was filed by Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp seeking permanent injunction against Harman Finochem Limited for infringing Patent No. 209816 related to Sitagliptin. Although an interim injunction had been granted earlier, the matter reached a settlement as the patent expired during the pendency of the suit. The Defendant agreed to pay partial litigation costs.
Sotefin Sa v.Indraprastha Cancer Society And Research Center
Sotefin SA filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 214088, which relates to a self-propelled carriage for horizontal transfer of motor vehicles. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and entered into Consent Terms.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited
The suit was filed by Glaxo Group Limited seeking rendition of accounts and recovery of money against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Patent No. IN212714. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which the Court accepted and decreed the suit in terms of that agreement.
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.