Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 1 of 56
Showing 1–29Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited v.Alaina Healthcare Private Limited & A. Menarini India Private Limited
Mankind Consumer Products, the registered proprietor of the trademark ACNESTAR (Reg. No. 1352577 in Class 5) since 2005, sued Alaina Healthcare and A. Menarini India for using the marks ACNE SCAR/ACNE+SCAR/ACNESCAR on their acne scar serum product HEXILAK. The court found a prima facie case of deceptive similarity, noting that the dominant feature 'ACNE' was common and the suffix 'STAR' vs 'SCAR' was insufficient to distinguish the marks, especially given the identical trade channels and consumer class. The court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff while allowing defendant no. 2 a two-month period to recall existing stock from the trade.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.M/S Havells PVC Pipes Industry
Havells India Limited and another plaintiff filed a trademark infringement suit against M/S Havells PVC Pipes Industry for using the identical mark 'HAVELLS' and the domain name https://havellspvc.com/. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was proceeded against ex parte. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the defendant's use of the mark was phonetically, visually, and structurally identical to the plaintiffs' well-known registered trademark, and awarded damages of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Dr Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr v.Medicine Me & Ors
The plaintiffs, Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty (a renowned cardiac surgeon) and Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain infringement of their personality rights and registered trademarks, along with other ancillary reliefs against various Facebook pages, YouTube channels, and social media platforms. None of the defendants contested the suit, and the court made the interim order dated 28.11.2024 absolute, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The court granted the plaintiffs liberty to approach Meta Platforms Inc. and Google LLC regarding any subsequently discovered infringing URLs or content, while reserving the question of declaring the marks as well-known trademarks.
Japan Tobacco Inc And Anr v.The Central Wearhouse And Anr
This petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 was filed by Japan Tobacco Inc. and its affiliate Worldwide Brands Inc. seeking rectification of the Register of Copyrights by expunging Copyright Registration No. A-54242/97 dated 22.10.1997 for an artistic work depicting a camel, registered in the name of respondent Mrs. Veena R. Hinduja. The petitioners claimed to be the first owners of the original 'CAMEL' artistic work, asserting prior and continuous use of the mark since 1913 for tobacco and since the late 1970s for non-tobacco goods. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to establish themselves as the 'First Owner' of the original artistic work under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, which was the essential substratum for seeking rectification.
Glisten LLC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Glisten LLC appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 202017005875 titled 'Gemstone Coating and Methods of Making and Using the Same.' The appellant contended that the Assistant Controller violated principles of natural justice by refusing the application on the ground that claims 1 to 17 lacked inventive step, when the hearing notice had confined the inventive step objection solely to claim 18. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the application for fresh consideration, holding that the respondent could not raise a fresh or revived objection without putting the appellant on notice and affording it an opportunity to respond.
Naman Agarwal (Proprietor of MS Radhe Radhe) v.M/S Ferns N Petals Pvt Ltd & Anr
This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by Naman Agarwal, Proprietor of MS Radhe Radhe, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of four composite agreements dated 20.08.2025 with M/S Ferns N Petals Pvt Ltd & Anr. The respondents did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement. The Delhi High Court found no impediment in appointing a sole arbitrator and appointed Mr. Sagar Saxena, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator, with the arbitration to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
Novartis AG & Anr. (Novartis Healthcare Private Limited) v.Novosys Life Sciences Private Limited & Anr.
Novartis AG and its Indian subsidiary Novartis Healthcare Private Limited sued Novosys Life Sciences Private Limited for infringement of their registered and well-known trademark 'NOVARTIS', passing off, dilution, and unfair competition, alleging that the defendant's mark 'NOVOSYS' used for pharmaceutical products was deceptively similar. The matter was resolved through settlement, with the defendant undertaking to cease use of the impugned mark, clear existing stock, and withdraw/cancel its trademark registrations and applications. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, granted three months for exhaustion of existing stock, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the defendant's registrations and treat its pending applications as withdrawn.
Puneet Batra v.Union Of India & Ors
The Petitioner, an Advocate, challenged the search conducted on 25.07.2025 at the premises of M/s Bass Legal LLP, including his cabin, and the seizure of his CPU and documents, along with the panchnama and summons issued on the same date, alleging violation of advocate-client privilege. The Respondents contended that the search was duly authorized under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act and that prima facie material indicated the Petitioner was personally involved in the affairs of M/s Matkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (MTPL) beyond acting as a legal adviser. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the search was validly authorized and that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigation into the Advocate's own conduct, while directing safeguards for the protection of privileged and third-party client data.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
This intra-court appeal (LPA 688/2026) was filed by Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. against the decision of a Single Judge who had set aside the rejection of its trademark application for 'OFFER' in Class 33 and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The appellant contended that the Single Judge erred in not directing publication under Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the application had not reached the stage of acceptance and that the statutory authorities were better equipped to examine the application at the initial stage.
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.
Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc & Anr v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors
This case involves a patent infringement suit filed by Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc. and its parent company against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and related entities, which manufacture smartphones under the ITEL, INFINIX, and TECNO brands. The plaintiffs, holders of standard essential patents (SEPs) for 3G, 4G, and 5G technologies committed to ETSI on FRAND terms, sought pro tem security payment under Section 151 of the CPC. The Delhi High Court, finding that the technologies were deeply interconnected and that the gap between the parties' licensing offers was wide, directed the defendants to deposit one-fifth of the amount based on the defendants' own counter offer, or alternatively furnish an unconditional bank guarantee.
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.
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.