Delhi High Court
1672 cases · page 10 of 56
Showing 271–299Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Sachdeva And Sons Industres Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted rectification in favor of the petitioner, Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd., regarding the disputed trademark 'PRIME'. The court found that the respondent's registration for 'PRIME' should be limited to rice and allied goods, specifically deleting salt and spices from its scope. This decision was based on the petitioner's long-standing use of the mark in Class 30 (iodized salt) since 1995, establishing prior goodwill and preventing consumer confusion.
Axcess Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Axcess Limited appealed the Controller's refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 2427/DELNP/2011), which covered bile acids and biguanides as protease inhibitors for gut peptides. The Controller had rejected the application under Section 59(1) of the Patent Act, arguing that the amendments exceeded the original scope. However, the Delhi High Court found that a detailed examination of the complete specification supported the amended claims regarding composition as a product. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a rejection of its patent application, "Administration of Wireless Systems," which was initially objected to on grounds including lack of inventive step and subject matter eligibility under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court examined whether the invention provided a sufficient technical contribution beyond mere algorithmic processes. Ultimately, the court found that the core functionality relied heavily on conditional logic and procedural steps, classifying it as an algorithmic process excluded by law.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a refusal by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application titled 'Auto-Selection of Media Files.' The core dispute centered on whether the claimed method for automatically selecting media files based on user preference (confidence level) was non-patentable under Section 3(k). The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, directing that the patent be proceeded for grant as amended.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents which refused its patent application for a gas flue repair method and device under Section 3(d) of the Patent Act. The appellant argued that the rejection was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice because the specific objection (Section 3(d)) was not clearly communicated in the initial hearing notice. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the impugned order unsustainable due to lack of sufficient reasons. Consequently, the court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, mandating a clear delineation of all objections before granting a new hearing.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Km Swarnalatha & Ors.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 203937, which covers dasatinib. The court examined the connection between various defendants involved in manufacturing and marketing the drug. Ultimately, the court found that Defendant No. 7 had launched the impugned product under the brand name DASA SPL without appearing before the court. Consequently, the suit was decreed against the parties based on these findings.
Hyundai Motor India Limited v.Aaa Teleshoping Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Hyundai Motor India Limited, leading to the cancellation of a similar trademark registration held by Aaa Teleshoping Pvt Ltd. The court found that the respondent's mark was identical and confusingly similar to Hyundai’s prior and extensively used 'ELANTRA' brand in the automotive sector. This ruling reinforces the principle that prior adoption and continuous use grant exclusive rights, even when goods are in different classes but related.
Kawakami, Shigeki & Ors. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellants challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting their patent application. The core issue was that the rejection was based on a ground (lack of novelty) which was not included in the initial hearing notice, violating the Principles of Natural Justice. The Court found that since the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to address this specific objection, the impugned order suffered from procedural irregularities.
Madhu Food Products v.Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Madhu Food Products, upholding the Commercial Court's initial order favoring Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on alleged trademark infringement and passing off concerning food products under the marks 'HUNK' and 'HUNT'. The court found prima facie evidence that the appellant copied the respondent's distinctive trade dress and packaging, concluding that the use of 'HUNT' was intended to take advantage of the respondent's established goodwill. This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting brand identity through both trademark registration and distinct visual presentation.
Shri Rajesh Chugh v.Mehruddin Ansari & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Shri Rajesh Chugh against Mehruddin Ansari & Anr., directing the cancellation of the rival trademark ANDAAZ-E-NIZAAM. The court accepted the respondent's admission that the mark had been abandoned due to non-use, despite its initial similarity to the petitioner's established brand NIZAM'S. This ruling underscores the importance of continuous use and good faith in maintaining a registered trademark.
M/S. Ganesh Gouri Industries And Ors v.R. C. Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court set aside an earlier Commercial Court order that had restrained M/S. Ganesh Gouri Industries (Appellants) from using its trademark and trade dress, 'AQUA PLAST'. The court found that the trial court erred in concluding that the competing marks were deceptively similar merely by comparing parts of the devices. Instead, the High Court emphasized that a comprehensive review of the overall commercial impression of the marks is necessary when assessing infringement, thereby favoring Ganesh Gouri's right to use its label.
Charles And Keith International Pte Ltd v.Ambud Sharma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the fashion house Charles And Keith, directing the cancellation of a similar trademark registration held by the respondent. The petitioner successfully argued that its established brand 'CHARLES & KEITH' and abbreviation 'C&K' was well-known and used extensively across various classes, including Class 09 for masks. Given the similarity and the petitioner's prior use, the Court cancelled the respondent's mark in Class 09, despite it being filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis.
Elanco Tiergesundheit Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the refusal of their patent application, which claimed a method for generating live vaccines. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was merely a reproduction of the hearing notice and lacked independent reasoning or application of mind to the appellant's submissions. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Ab Initio Technology Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs / The Controller of Patents
Ab Initio Technology Llc challenged the rejection of its patent applications, which were initially denied on grounds that the subject matter was merely a computer program per se or algorithm (Section 3(k)). The appellant argued that their data processing method provided a 'technical effect' by improving resource efficiency. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeals to the extent that the objections under Section 3(k) and Section 16(1) were found not tenable, setting aside those impugned orders. However, the court remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh examination regarding inventive step (Section 2(1)(ja)).
Star Scientific Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Star Scientific Limited appealed the Controller's order refusing the grant of a patent (Application No. 202017011947) for Catalytic Combustion. The appellant argued that the refusal was flawed because it failed to consider their detailed responses and amendments, and that non-attendance at the hearing was not abandonment due to financial difficulties. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Irvinder Laur Chadha v.Garnish Electronics Pvt Ltd And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed to remove the trademark 'GARNISH'. The court found that the registration had expired on June 4, 2022. Since the statutory grace period for restoration and renewal under Section 25(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Rule 60 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, had lapsed in 2023, the court directed the Registry to remove the mark. This decision underscores the strict adherence required to maintain trademark registrations.
Vishal Choudhary v.Snpc Machines Private Limited
Vishal Choudhary appealed an order that restrained him from manufacturing and selling brick making machines due to alleged patent and copyright infringement. The High Court reviewed the matter, including a local commissioner's report confirming the availability of eight such machines.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited & Anr. v.Smt Krishnaben Dipesh Gol & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a significant victory to Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited, directing the cancellation of a deceptively similar 'AMUL' trademark registered by the respondents in Class-06. The court recognized AMUL as a well-known trademark entitled to high protection across classes, thereby preventing unauthorized use and protecting the brand's integrity. This ruling reinforces the robust legal standing of established national brands against subsequent registrations.
Emami Ltd. v.Dabur India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Emami Ltd. seeking the rectification and removal of the trademark 'CHYAWANPRASAD' registered in favor of Dabur India Ltd. The petitioner argued that the respondent was not using the mark, engaging in what they termed 'ghost registration.' Although the respondent initially conceded non-use, the court directed Dabur to immediately initiate the process for cancellation of the mark from the Trade Mark Registry, effectively favoring Emami's claim regarding the mark's validity and use.
Loreal India Pvt Ltd v.Rajesh Kumar Taneja Trading As Innovative Derma Care and Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Loreal India Pvt Ltd seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'CLARIWASH' registered in favor of Rajesh Kumar Taneja. Loreal argued that its predecessor used formative marks like 'CLARI-FI' and 'CLARIMOIST' prior to the registration, claiming deceptive similarity and prior use. However, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the original judgment, noting that the application was filed over 14 years ago and procedural errors alone were insufficient basis for cancellation.
Modi Paints And Varnish Works v.Sanjay Gupta And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a petition for the rectification and removal of the 'MODI CRYL' trademark. The court found that the trademark, registered in the name of Sanjay Gupta, had lapsed as its renewal was due but never completed after May 21, 2018. Since the mark was no longer subsisting, the petitioner's request for its removal was satisfied.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs, ITW GSE APS, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd for infringing their registered patent IN 330145. The patent relates to a Preconditioned Air Unit (PCA) with Variable Frequency Driving (VFD). The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and granted an interim injunction.
Saurav Chaudhary v.Union Of India & Anr.
Saurav Chaudhary challenged the abandonment of his patent application, "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine," which occurred because he failed to file a response to the First Examination Report (FER) within the stipulated time. The court found that the negligence and lack of communication from the appointed Patent Agent constituted professional misconduct. Consequently, while the petition was disposed of, the court directed the CGPDTM office to initiate an enquiry against the defaulting Patent Agent and mandated the creation of a formal Code of Conduct for IP agents.
Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd. v.Anand Aggarwal And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd., preventing the defendants from using the identical trademark 'HUALI'. The Plaintiff successfully argued that despite the Defendant securing a statutory registration, their prior and extensive common law usage established significant goodwill and market reputation for the mark. The court found that the Defendants' adoption was dishonest and likely to cause irreparable consumer confusion, thus protecting the Plaintiff's brand equity.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The suit involved Interdigital Technology Corporation alleging infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by Guangdong Oppo Mobile. The parties filed interlocutory applications regarding document discovery and the constitution of a confidentiality club. The court ruled that defendants must disclose their agreements with Qualcomm, while rejecting plaintiffs' request for Ericsson and Orange S.A. agreements.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v.Interdigital Technolgy Corp. & Ors.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile appealed a judgment regarding the payment and security requirements for using Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Interdigital. The dispute centered on whether the appellants were unduly penalized for non-compliance with previous consent terms involving global bank guarantees. The Court issued directions requiring the defendants to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee from an Indian public sector bank instead of relying solely on foreign guarantees, allowing them continued use of the SEPs.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v.Interdigital Technology Corp. & Ors.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile filed appeals challenging a single judge's order that imposed deposits, costs, and restricted their ability to secure respondents with an Indian Bank guarantee. The dispute centers on the alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to telecommunication standards by mobile device manufacturers.
GTZ India Pvt. Ltd. v.Artek Surfins Chemicals Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by GTZ India Pvt. Ltd. against a commercial court order that granted an injunction to Artek Surfins Chemicals Ltd. The dispute centered on the use of specific alphanumeric codes (e.g., '786', '2048M') in chemical products. The court found prima facie evidence that GTZ copied these unique alpha numerals, which are used by Artek as source identifiers for their goods, thereby establishing a case of both trademark infringement and passing off.
Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt Ltd v.Gm Sales
Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging that Gm Sales was engaging in passing off, unfair competition, and copyright infringement by slavishly copying its salon furniture designs and using its product images. The plaintiff claimed market dominance and distinctiveness in their products. The court reviewed the application to vacate the interim injunction granted earlier.
Saregama India Limited v.Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited
Saregama India Limited filed a declaratory suit under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, seeking protection against threats made by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited regarding copyright infringement. The core dispute involved Saregama claiming ownership over numerous sound recordings and literary works. However, when Zee subsequently initiated its own suit for copyright infringement against Saregama, the Delhi High Court held that this action brought the matter within the scope of the proviso to Section 60. Consequently, the initial declaratory suit filed by Saregama was rendered infructuous.
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.