Delhi High Court
1672 cases · page 1 of 56
Showing 1–29Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. filed an intra-court appeal (LPA) challenging the Single Judge's order that had set aside the Registrar's rejection of its trademark application for 'OFFER' in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The appellant contended that the Single Judge erred in not directing publication of the mark under Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Division Bench held that since the application had not reached the stage of acceptance, advertisement under Section 20 could not be directed, and the authorities under the statute were better equipped to examine the application at the initial stage. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Registrar to reconsider the application afresh.
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
This appeal challenged the Single Judge's dismissal of the appellants' applications for interim injunction in a patent infringement suit. The appellants alleged that Xiaomi's smartphones, tablets, and other devices infringed their registered Indian Patent No. 244963 titled 'A Communication Device Finder System.' The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's findings that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, as the respondent's 'Find Device' feature did not read onto the essential elements of the suit patent's independent claim. The court further held that the balance of convenience favored the respondent due to the appellants' unexplained nine-year delay in approaching the court, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the counsel on record for the respondent in his personal capacity, seeking review of paragraphs 45-53 and the last two sentences of paragraph 56 of the judgment dated 20.08.2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026. The court found no merit in the counsel's contentions regarding the findings of suppression of documents in other cases, noting that the interim orders and subsequent judgments cited had already been duly considered. The court held that the counsel, appearing in his personal capacity, had no locus to seek review of the direction imposing costs on the respondent.
ASR Market Ventures Private Limited v.Fitship Private Limited & Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)
The Delhi High Court disposed of a rectification petition and connected interlocutory injunction application filed by ASR Market Ventures Private Limited against Fitship Private Limited concerning the trademark 'FITSHIP' (Registration No. 5154387 in Class 30). ASR, engaged in the fitness and lifestyle business, claimed prior adoption and use of the mark 'FITFEAST' since 2017 for nutrition and healthy food services, and sought cancellation of Fitship's registration along with an interim injunction. The Court held that ASR failed to establish a prima facie case for passing off and was not entitled to the interlocutory injunction, dismissing the application.
Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Mr. Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar) v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in a trademark dispute between two nutraceutical companies. The Respondent, owner of the registered trademark 'NUREWIRE', obtained the injunction against the Appellants' use of the mark 'RewireX', but had suppressed material facts including a prior cease-and-desist notice and trademark objection. The Division Bench held that the Respondent's suppression of material facts disentitled it to equitable relief, vacated the ex-parte injunction, dismissed the interim injunction application, and imposed costs of Rs. 2,00,000 on the Respondent.
Siddharth Vij v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Ors
These Letters Patent Appeals challenged an order dated 05.06.2026 by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, which disposed of petitions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal/cancellation of the word mark 'PONTA' and a device mark registered in Class-9 in the name of the appellant, Siddharth Vij. The parties arrived at mutual consent terms, with the appellant undertaking to cease manufacturing, exhaust existing stock by 31st March 2027, and refrain from any further use, promotion, or advertising of the marks thereafter. The Court disposed of the appeals in terms of the affidavits, binding the parties to their undertakings, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to comply with paragraph 34 of the impugned order within four weeks.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v.M/s Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of the trademark 'DAPLOGIN' (Registration No. 5208898 in Class 05) registered in the name of Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited. The Petitioner claimed prior adoption and continuous use of the coined trademark 'DAPLO' since 2020 for pharmaceutical products used to treat Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Delhi High Court held that 'DAPLOGIN' was deceptively similar to the earlier registered trademark 'DAPLO', and allowed the petition, directing cancellation of the registration of 'DAPLOGIN'.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal was filed by Parle Products Pvt Ltd challenging the order dated 10.03.2026 of the Single Judge, which had dismissed the appellant's challenge to the Registrar of Trade Marks' order dated 29.04.2025 allowing respondent no.2's application for registration of the trademark '20-20' in Class 30. The appellant claimed to be the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the marks '20-20', 'TWENTY-20' and 'T20' and alleged deceptive similarity with respondent no.2's mark. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was guilty of approbation and reprobation since it had obtained its own registrations by asserting its marks were distinct from respondent no.2's mark, and could not now claim deceptive similarity to challenge the latter's registration.
Array Biopharma Inc v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Array Biopharma Inc appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the order dated 30.06.2023 refusing Patent Application No. 450/DELNP/2015 titled 'Pharmaceutical Combination Comprising a B Raf Inhibitor, an EGFR Inhibitor and Optionally a PI3K Alpha Inhibitor' on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(i). The Delhi High Court found the Controller's reasoning on inventive step, Section 3(d), Section 3(i), and Sections 10(4)(c) and 10(5) to be deficient and lacking in proper analysis. The appeal was disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Controller for de novo reconsideration, with directions to dispose of the application within six months and to grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Opella Healthcare Group v.Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted a summary judgment in favor of Opella Healthcare Group, the registered proprietor of the trademark PHENSEDYL (used since 1954 and in India since 1995 for pharmaceutical products), against Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd, which had adopted the deceptively similar mark PHENSERYL along with a similar trade dress. The Defendant's trademark and copyright registrations had already been cancelled by the Court on 12.11.2024. Since the Defendant failed to appear and had no real prospect of defending the claim, the Court decreed the suit in terms of the reliefs sought in paragraphs 38(a) to (e) of the plaint.
Jagdish Dahyalal Patel v.Anchor Consumer Products Private Limited
This appeal challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 26.05.2026 restraining the Appellant from using the mark 'DYNAFRESH' for air fresheners, on the ground that it was deceptively similar to the Respondent's registered trademark 'DYNA' used for soaps and personal care products since 1999. The Appellant contended that the Respondent suppressed material facts, namely 45 GST paid tax invoices evidencing use of 'DYNAFRESH' since June 2021. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no suppression of material facts and that the Appellant's earlier trademark application for 'DYNAFRESH' had already been refused by the Registrar on 29.07.2024 on grounds of conflict with the Respondent's mark and lack of bona fide adoption.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks' order dated 30.10.2025 refusing registration of the trademark 'OFFER' in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Appellant contended that the impugned order was non-speaking, showed non-application of mind, and applied the wrong legal test by requiring uniqueness rather than assessing distinctiveness. The Delhi High Court quashed the impugned order, holding that the Respondent applied the incorrect test under Section 9(1)(a) and failed to properly examine whether the mark was arbitrary and capable of distinguishing alcoholic beverages, directing reconsideration within four months.
M/S SDB Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v.SMC Pneumatics (I) Pvt. Ltd.
The Petitioner, M/S SDB Consultants Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an Arbitral Award dated 27.09.2025 that granted it Rs. 4,48,316/- along with 18% per annum interest from 20.07.2014. The dispute arose from an Architectural, Engineering, Project Management and Consultancy Agreement dated 23.08.2012 for the construction of the Respondent's factory and office in Noida. The Delhi High Court found no patent illegality on the face of the Impugned Award and dismissed the petition, holding that the Sole Arbitrator had conducted a reasoned and structured adjudication within the confines of the contractual terms.
M/S Bansal Construction Co. v.Union of India
This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged a District Judge's order setting aside an arbitral award in favor of M/S Bansal Construction Co. The appellant had been awarded a railway contract in 2004 for CTR of 15.75 km of non-circulated yard lines, which could not be completed due to the respondent's failure to provide P-Way materials. The Arbitral Tribunal allowed 7 out of 8 claims and awarded ₹22,44,464/-, but the Commercial Court set aside the award holding that pendente lite interest could not be granted as the contract expressly prohibited it. The Delhi High Court upheld the District Judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Havells India Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademarks 'HAVAI' and its device marks, which were found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' well-known 'HAVELLS' trademarks. The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the defendants had dishonestly adopted a mark by altering the letter 'I' to be read as 'L' to create confusion among consumers. The court found all three ingredients of passing off—goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage—were prima facie satisfied, and that balance of convenience and irreparable harm favoured the plaintiffs.
Honasa Consumer Ltd v.Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Honasa Consumer Ltd seeking rectification of the trademark 'D-TAN' registered in favor of Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd. The court held that the mark 'D-TAN' is descriptive and not registrable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The registration of the mark 'D-TAN' was cancelled, and the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to remove the registration from the Register of Trade Marks.
Renee Cosmetics Private Limited v.Ms. Rupali Sharma & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Renee Cosmetics Private Limited and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the registration of the mark 'GLASS SKIN' granted in favour of Ms. Rupali Sharma. The court held that the term 'GLASS SKIN' is generic and descriptive of the goods, and therefore, cannot be monopolized by any party. The respondent had filed a trademark application for the mark 'GLASS SKIN' in Class-03 on a 'proposed to be used basis' and was granted a registration certificate, which was challenged by the petitioner.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr v.Siddharth Vij & Anr
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark 'PONTA' in favor of Siddharth Vij, as it was found to be deceptively similar to the prior registered trademark 'PENTA' of Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court held that the registration of 'PONTA' was without sufficient cause and would create confusion and deception in the mind of the general public. The Registrar of Trade Marks has been directed to remove the registered mark 'PONTA' from the Register of Trade Marks.
Fortune Marketing Private Limited v.Gujarat Pesticides & Ors.
The Delhi High Court revoked the impugned copyright registration of the artistic work/label/packaging titled ZOOOK in favor of Gujarat Pesticides & Ors. due to procedural flaws. The court found that the grant of copyright registration was procedurally flawed and deserved to be revoked. The original application filed by Respondent No.1 is revived for fresh consideration by Respondent No.2. The court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Mr Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr v.Microsoft Corporation
The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award that directed the transfer of the domain name 'www.exceltotally.in' from the petitioners to Microsoft Corporation. The court found that the arbitral award lacked independent evaluative analysis establishing intentional deception or bad faith. The petitioners had been using the domain name since 2010 for their software solutions and applications facilitating data transfer between Microsoft Excel and Tally accounting software.
Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ks Agro Impex And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an injunction in favor of Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd, restraining Ks Agro Impex from selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice in packaging that is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade dress. The court found that the defendant's packaging was likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm the plaintiff's goodwill. The defendant is allowed to continue selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice using distinct and non-deceptive packaging. The case highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, particularly in the FMCG sector.
Dabur India Limited v.Emami Limited
The Delhi High Court has upheld an injunction against Dabur India Limited's product 'COOL KING THANDA TAEL' due to its deceptively similar trade dress to Emami Limited's Navratna Oil. The court found that the trade dress of Dabur's product was likely to mislead consumers and constitute passing off. The appeal by Dabur India Limited was dismissed, and the pending application was also dismissed. The court's findings are prima facie and subject to the final decision in the suit post-trial.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd v.Manju Kumari Wife Of Sudhir Suman & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd to cancel the registration of the trademark PROTRILEX, which was found to be deceptively similar to Danone's registered trademark PROTINEX. The court held that the registration of PROTRILEX was in violation of Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register within four weeks.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Walter Healthcare Private Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court declared the trademark CALPOL as a well-known trademark in terms of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to its long-standing reputation and extensive use in India. The court recognized the significant commercial presence and recognition of the mark CALPOL in the field of medicine and pharmaceutical products. The defendant was restrained from using the WALPOL mark, which was deemed deceptively similar to the CALPOL mark.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Toyota's appeal, directing the removal of Tech Square Engineering's registration for the mark ALPHARD. The court found that Toyota had established prior adoption and spill-over reputation of the mark in India. The respondent's adoption of the mark was found to lack bona fides. The court ordered the rectification of the Register of Trade Marks to reflect the removal of the impugned mark.
S.S. White Burs Inc v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, & S.S. White Dental Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted rectification of the respondent's trademark registration for 'S.S. WHITE' in Class 5 and Class 10, as the petitioner, S.S. White Burs Inc, had prior use and registration of the mark 'S.S. WHITE BURS INC' in Class 10. The court held that the respondent's use of the impugned mark was likely to cause confusion among consumers. The respondent was directed to file an affidavit indicating the quantity and batch number of the existing stock of products bearing the impugned mark and was allowed to dispose of the existing stock within a specified time frame.
Ms Anuradha Sharma & Anr v.Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an order granting an interlocutory injunction to Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited, allowing Ms Anuradha Sharma to continue using the mark 'SHATAM JEEVA'. The court found no deceptive similarity between the rival marks and no misrepresentation. The appeal was allowed, and the observations made were prima facie in nature. The court's decision will not influence the consideration of the merits of the suit pending before the Commercial Court.
More Than Water Private Limited v.Nesco Limited
The Delhi High Court denied an ad-interim injunction to More Than Water Private Limited against Nesco Limited, but directed both parties to sell their packaged drinking water products within their respective states. The court found that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case for an ad-interim injunction. The plaintiff had claimed that the defendant's mark 'MY WATER BOX' was similar to its own mark 'WATER BOX' and would cause confusion among consumers.
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd v.Jai Shiv Oil Industries And Anr
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd, directing the cancellation of Jai Shiv Oil Industries' trademark 'GOLDI' due to its similarity with the petitioner's trademark 'GOLDIEE'. The court found that the two marks were phonetically, visually, and structurally nearly identical, and that the respondent's adoption of the mark 'GOLDI' was without bonafide intention. The court also noted that the two parties were in the same business and had common trade circles, distribution networks, and retail outlets, which increased the likelihood of confusion among consumers.
Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc v.Brewholik Private Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application by Brewholik Private Limited to sell existing stock of whiskey bearing the trademark 'OLD FORESTER', which is registered by Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc. The court held that the sale of the seized goods would be violative of the provisions of the Excise Act, 2009 and the Act. The court also noted that the plaintiff had vehemently disputed the quality of the seized goods, alleging them to be counterfeit.
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.