Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 11 of 56
Showing 301–329ITW 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.
Mahesh Gupta v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mahesh Gupta appealed the refusal of his patent application for a 'Portable Vehicle Management System' by the Assistant Controller. The refusal was based on the lack of inventive step, citing various prior art documents (D4 and D5). The High Court upheld the rejection, finding that the features were predictable applications of existing technology.
Shivkumar Shankarrao Thakur & Ors. v.Shiv Biri Manufacturing Co P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Shivkumar Shankarrao Thakur & Ors. against a trademark registration granted to Shiv Biri Manufacturing Co P Ltd. The court found that the impugned trademark was not deceptively similar to the appellants' existing trademarks, thereby negating the core grounds of opposition and prior use claims. This ruling reinforces the principle that similarity between marks is paramount in determining infringement or opposition success.
Honeywell International Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Honeywell International Inc appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for 'Organic Fluorescent Compositions.' The core dispute centered on the validity of amendments made to the original claims, specifically changing the scope from a 'composition' to just the 'compound.' Honeywell argued that these amendments merely narrowed the scope and were fully supported by the original specification. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the application for fresh examination.
Tirupati Structurals Limited v.Jai Prakash Singhal
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tirupati Structurals Limited against Jai Prakash Singhal, finding that the defendant's use of 'MM TIRUPATI' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'TSL-TIRUPATI'. The court held that despite minor differences in prefixes, the identical and prominent shared element 'TIRUPATI', coupled with the similarity in goods (pipes and fittings), created a high likelihood of consumer confusion. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded by common law passing off principles against calculated attempts to capitalize on established goodwill.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co Ltd
Communication Components Antenna Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co Ltd for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893, which covers 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant's Bi-Sector Array Antennas infringed both method and product claims of the patent. Despite the Defendant raising challenges regarding the patent's validity under Sections 64(e), 64(f), and 3(d) of the Patents Act, the Court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Alimentary Health Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Alimentary Health Limited appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 3989/DELNP/2012), which covered a formulation using the probiotic strain Bifidobacterium longum NCIMB 41676 (AH1714). The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under various sections of the Patent Act. The Delhi High Court set aside this refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The court provided detailed directions to the Controller, requiring a thorough reassessment focusing on novelty, specific dosage/methodology, and whether the claims relate to second medical use.
Winzo Games Private Limited v.Hike Global Pte. Ltd.
WinZO Games Private Limited filed a petition seeking interim reliefs against Hike Global Pte. Ltd. alleging that the Respondents launched a competing app ('Rush') which imitated WinZO's features, misused confidential information, and utilized WinZO's proprietary match-making algorithm. The court issued an interim order directing both parties to place relevant source codes and algorithms on record for the Sole Arbitrator.
Guala Closures Spa v.Agi Greenpac Limited
Guala Closures Spa filed a suit seeking enforcement of its patent rights against Agi Greenpac Limited, alleging infringement by the latter's 'Voila Closure.' The Plaintiff holds Patent No. 349522 for a tamper-evident closure with a two-level tear-off seal mechanism. The court examined the prima facie case regarding infringement and the necessity of an interim injunction. Ultimately, the Court found that the triple test for granting an injunction was not met, favoring the Defendants' business interests at this preliminary stage.
Informa Markets India Private Limited v.M/S 4Pinfotech And Anr
Informa Markets India Private Limited filed a petition seeking rectification and removal of an existing copyright registration (L-79443/2018) for the work titled 'Virtual Expo'. The petitioner challenged the validity of the registration, arguing that the document merely described generic benefits of conducting virtual expositions. The Delhi High Court examined whether this description constituted protectable literary material or was simply a documentation of an idea. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that since the content was abstract and extremely generic, it did not meet the threshold for copyrightability.
Amit Sood v.Union Of India And Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Amit Sood, granting cancellation of the mark 'ROSHAN' (No. 1324435) registered by the respondents under Class 42. The court found that the petitioner was the prior adopter and user of the name since the 1960s, establishing extensive goodwill in the photography sector. This judgment underscores the principle that prior use and established reputation outweigh subsequent trademark registration when seeking cancellation.
M/S Vans Inc. Usa v.Fcb Garment Tex India ( P) Ltd. And Anr
The Delhi High Court took proactive steps to streamline complex intellectual property disputes involving M/S Vans Inc. Usa and Fcb Garment Tex India. The court ordered the consolidation of three separate trademark rectification petitions concerning the marks 'IVANS NXT', 'IVANS', and 'IVANS Active'. Furthermore, it directed the transfer of a related civil suit from the Patiala House Courts to be heard alongside these IP matters. This move ensures that all interconnected disputes are adjudicated together under one judicial umbrella.
Rich Products Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Rich Products Corporation appealed an order rejecting its pre-grant opposition against a patent application filed by Tropilite Foods Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on whether the claimed invention was anticipated by prior art, specifically RPC's earlier expired patent (D1). The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that RPC must exhaust statutory remedies available under the Patents Act, 1970.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Nineplus Shoes Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues arising from a Local Commissioner's report detailing alleged removal of infringing goods. The Court clarified that while the Defendant was found to be using the impugned mark contrary to assurances, it dismissed adverse observations against the defendant's counsel for merely informing industry associations about the lawsuit. Crucially, the Court mandated fresh service and personal appearance by the key representative of the Defendant, ensuring due process before proceeding with coercive measures.
Wieden+Kennedy India Private Limited v.Jindal Steel And Power Limited
Wieden+Kennedy India Private Limited approached the Delhi High Court seeking interim protection against Jindal Steel And Power Limited regarding an ad film campaign titled 'Steel of India'. The petitioner claimed authorship and copyright over the creative works, arguing that the respondent terminated the contract without fulfilling payment obligations. The court addressed the dispute under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, while acknowledging the IP nature of the claim. The judgment mandated a deposit of Rs. 59 lakhs by the respondent and granted an interim injunction against distribution if the deposit was not made within two weeks.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Novartis Ag And Anr.
Novartis filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN 233161) concerning Eltrombopag bis (monoethanolamine) (ELT-O), leading to an interim injunction against Natco. Natco appealed this order, challenging the validity of IN 233161 on grounds including prior claiming and lack of inventive step under Section 3(d).
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC appealed a refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents to grant a patent titled 'Reversible 2-Dimensional Pre-/Post-Filtering for Lapped Biorthogonal Transform'. The refusal was based on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court ultimately held that the invention provided tangible benefits beyond ordinary computing functionality and was therefore patentable.
Jabir Hussain Trading As M/S Hakeem Hotel v.Ali Asgar Trading As M/S. Hakeem Restaurant
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Jabir Hussain (M/S Hakeem Hotel) against a Commercial Court's decision to return its trademark infringement plaint. The appellant sought permanent injunction against the respondent for infringing and passing off their registered trademarks in North West Delhi. The High Court ruled that since the plaintiff pleaded both existing operations via e-commerce platforms within Delhi's jurisdiction, and an imminent threat of physical expansion into Delhi, a valid cause of action existed within the territorial limits. Consequently, the Commercial Court's order returning the plaint was set aside, and the suit was restored.
Bhimavaram Community Network Bcn v.M/S Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of its application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a commercial suit filed by the respondent. The core dispute involved allegations that the petitioner was infringing the respondent's copyright by removing/overshadowing the 'T-Series' Logo while broadcasting content. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no patent perversity in the Trial Court's decision.
Mallcom (India) Limited v.Shanti Udyog Weldsafe Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mallcom (India) Limited, protecting its registered trademark 'TIGER' used for safety shoes. The court found that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar and violated both statutory and common law rights. While restraining further use, the defendants were allowed a grace period to deplete their existing stock and were ordered to take down the infringing website.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited seeking permanent injunction against the exploitation of its patent (IN 276026) covering Ceritinib. The dispute centered on whether the patent was invalid due to prior art and obviousness, which Natco argued. The court dismissed Natco's application to vacate the existing interim injunction.
Mohd Shakir v.Gopal Traders And Anr
Mohd Shakir filed a petition seeking rectification of an artistic work titled 'MYA', which was registered under the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner claimed that the impugned registration belonging to Gopal Traders copied an earlier artwork owned by a third party in Lebanon and had prior international trademark registrations for 'MYA'. However, the court dismissed the petition, noting that copyright registration is only prima facie evidence of particulars entered therein. Furthermore, the court highlighted the petitioner's own conflicting assertions regarding ownership in previous opposition proceedings, ultimately upholding the validity of the existing registration.
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.