Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 12 of 56
Showing 331–359Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. v.D N Bahri Trading As The Veldon Chemical And Food Product And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd against D N Bahri Trading As The Veldon Chemical, ordering the removal of the respondent's registered mark under Class 32. The petitioner successfully argued that the impugned trademark was either not used continuously for the required period or constituted an infringement/passing off risk given the established reputation and extensive use of the 'AMUL' brand. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to well-known marks against unauthorized registrations.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents regarding its patent application 'Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices'. The refusal was based on objections concerning lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k). Google argued that its amended claims introduced differentiating features over the cited prior art.
M/S P.M. Diesels P. Ltd. v.M/S Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.
In a complex 40-year dispute over the 'FIELDMARSHAL' trademark, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd. The court set aside previous orders from the IPAB that had rejected P.M. Diesels' applications and cancelled a key registration held by Thukral Mechanical Works. This landmark decision allows P.M. Diesels to proceed with registering its mark, effectively resolving a long-standing conflict over brand ownership in the diesel engine sector.
Apl Apollo Tubes Limited v.M/S Steel Track & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Apl Apollo Tubes Limited against M/S Steel Track & Ors. regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'APOLLO/APOLLO TMT' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established marks, risking irreparable harm to their brand equity. While acknowledging the Plaintiff's delay in filing the suit, the Court issued a comprehensive restraint order covering all marketing and sales activities, though it exempted goods already manufactured by the Defendants.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Ericsson against Lava International. The court examined the validity, novelty, and inventive step of several patents, while simultaneously determining the scope of infringement and the quantum of damages owed. Ultimately, the judgment affirmed the validity of seven specific patents while directing the revocation process for another patent, alongside awarding substantial damages to Ericsson.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Lava International Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute over Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) between Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Lava International Limited. The court examined the validity, novelty, and inventive step of several patents asserted by Ericsson against Lava. While the suit patent IN 203034 was subject to revocation proceedings, the judgment ultimately affirmed the validity of seven other key patents held by Ericsson. Consequently, the Court passed a decree in favor of Ericsson for substantial damages related to past infringement.
Pidilite Industries Ltd. v.Sanjay Jain & Anr
Pidilite Industries Ltd. sought the rectification and cancellation of a respondent's trademark ('POMA-EX KIWKHEAL') under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, arguing that it was deceptively similar to their well-known mark 'FEVIKWIK'. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Pidilite could not claim a monopoly over the generic element 'KWIK' or its variations. Furthermore, the court noted that the rectification application must stand on its own merits and cannot rely solely on prior injunctions granted in separate infringement suits.
Visakha Chemicals v.Bindal Food Products
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Visakha Chemicals against Bindal Food Products for trademark infringement and passing off related to Ayurvedic products. The Plaintiff successfully demonstrated prior usage and established significant goodwill for their trademarks 'ROCHAK' and 'AM PACHAN,' as well as the associated trade dress/packaging, which were deceptively copied by the Defendant. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using these marks and awarded nominal damages.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Narender Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the existing interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited against Narender Kumar & Ors. The dispute centered on alleged passing off, where the defendant used the mark 'CAFTADAY' for an eye drop containing the compound ALCAFTADINE, deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark 'CAFTA'. Despite arguments from the defense regarding generic drug naming conventions and INNs, the Court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the triple test for passing off. Consequently, the injunction was maintained, preventing the defendants from using the impugned mark during the pendency of the suit.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited & Anr.
Sulphur Mills Limited sought an interlocutory injunction against several defendants, alleging infringement of its Indian Patent IN 282429 for a 'Novel Agricultural Composition.' The plaintiff argued that their composition offered significant advantages over existing fertilizers, such as faster sulphate conversion and compatibility with modern irrigation. However, the court found that the defendants had successfully established a credible challenge to the patent's validity on the grounds of obviousness based on extensive prior art.
Bayer Pharm Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Bayer appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 5818/DELNP/2006), which was rejected on grounds that the composition did not meet criteria under Sections 3(e) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the Controller failed to adhere to principles of natural justice by not clearly communicating all objections in the hearing notice, and ruled that the claimed composition was patentable.
Gm Modular Pvt Ltd. v.Mayur Electromeck Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the rectification petition filed by Gm Modular Pvt Ltd., successfully challenging the registration of a similar mark held by Mayur Electromeck Pvt Ltd. The court found that the Impugned Mark was not genuinely used in commerce, despite the respondent's claims. Based on the lack of substantial evidence of use and potential confusion with the established 'GM' brand, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the infringing trademark registration.
SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors. v.Mr Vishal Choudhary
The plaintiffs, SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors., filed an application seeking a permanent injunction against Mr. Vishal Choudhary for allegedly manufacturing and selling similar brick making machines that infringe on their patents (Nos. 353483, 359114, etc.) and copyrights in technical literature. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of infringement.
Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh Subsidiary Of Accell Group v.Reliance Brands Limited (Rbl)
The Delhi High Court addressed preliminary objections and the merits of a trademark infringement suit filed by Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh against Reliance Brands Limited. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's use of 'RALLEYZ' is confusingly similar to its registered mark 'RALEIGH' on identical goods (bicycles). While dismissing initial procedural challenges, the court directed both parties to file detailed affidavits and pleadings regarding the core issues of similarity and prior usage, setting the stage for further substantive hearings.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
Kudos Pharmaceuticals, the registered proprietor of Patent IN 228720 for 'Phthalazinone derivative' (Olaparib), filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement due to Natco manufacturing and selling its generic version under the brand name BRACANAT. Kudos sought a permanent injunction, which was supported by an interlocutory injunction application.
Audertec Solutions Llp v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trade Marks & Anr.
Audertec Solutions LLP appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning 'a method and system for detecting road anomalies.' The Controller rejected the application, primarily citing a lack of inventive step compared to prior art D-2. The Delhi High Court was tasked with determining if the distinguishing features of the invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art based on the disclosures in D-2. Ultimately, the court found no reason to differ from the Assistant Controller's decision.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited, the registered proprietor of Indian Patent IN 228720 for 'Phthalazinone derivative' (Olaparib), filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement due to Natco manufacturing and selling its generic version under the brand name BRACANAT. Kudos sought a permanent injunction, and subsequently an interlocutory injunction.
Maj. Pankaj Rai v.M/S Niit Ltd.
Maj. Pankaj Rai challenged an Arbitral Award dated 19.10.2023, which rejected his claims against M/S Niit Ltd. The dispute arose from a License Agreement (dated 30.12.2015) allowing the petitioner to set up an education center using NIIT's intellectual property. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Arbitral Award.
Mehboob Ahmad v.Muneer Ahmad & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the rejection of a device mark application for painting brushes. While the court upheld the finding that the mark was registrable (i.e., it had distinctive character), it noted that the initial Examiner's order failed to address objections under Section 11(1) regarding similarity with earlier marks. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal by remitting the matter back to the Examiner, directing them to proceed only on the grounds of Section 11(1) and allowing the registration process to continue.
A.K. Al Muhaidib And Sons v.Chaman Lal Sachdeva And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, removing the mark 'AL-WALIMAH' (TM No. 523217) from the register. The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent had failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark in relation to goods in Class 30 for a continuous period of five years. Given the lack of evidence of genuine commercial use, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the removal of the mark.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd
Nokia Technologies OY filed a patent infringement suit against Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd and others, claiming infringement of their patent related to mobile telecommunications. The case involved multiple hearings and ultimately led to a settlement agreement between the parties.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd and others, asserting that three of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) were being infringed by the Defendants' mobile phones. After extensive hearings regarding infringement, validity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance, the parties reached a settlement agreement.
Man Truck Bus Se v.Assistant Controller Of Patents Designs
The appellant, a commercial vehicle manufacturer, appealed the Assistant Controller's decision rejecting its patent application. The appeal argued that the Controller ignored foreign patents filed by the appellant and violated natural justice by relying on prior art (D5) during the hearing which was never included in the initial notice.
Ovid Therapeutics, Inc. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Ovid Therapeutics appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for 'Methods of Increasing Tonic Inhibition and Treating Secondary Insomnia'. The initial rejection cited multiple grounds, including non-patentability (Section 3(i) and 3(e)), lack of inventive step, and insufficient disclosure. Ovid Therapeutics argued that their composition offered a synergistic effect and provided novel dosage information not present in the prior art. This appeal challenges the Controller's decision to refuse patent protection for the pharmaceutical methods.
Vifor International Ltd & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd & Anr., Corona Remedies Pvt Ltd, Dr Reddys Laboratories Ltd
Vifor International Ltd challenged an interim injunction order that restricted its patent claims by interpreting product-by-process claims as limited only to the specific manufacturing process. The Delhi High Court addressed this significant issue, clarifying that the scope of a patent claim cannot be unduly narrowed merely because it is described using a 'product-by-process' format. The court emphasized that claim construction must define the full scope of protection granted by the patent, allowing the suit proceedings to continue based on this clarified legal position.
Vifor International Ltd v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Vifor International Ltd challenged an interim injunction order that restricted its patent claims to only the manufacturing process. The Delhi High Court addressed the critical issue of product-by-process claims, emphasizing that the scope of a patent monopoly cannot be limited solely by the process used to obtain the product. The court clarified that claim construction must define the full scope of the invention as disclosed in the complete specification, allowing for broader protection than merely the method.
Vifor (International) Limited v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Vifor (International) Limited appealed an interim injunction order that restricted its claims to only the process aspect, arguing against the narrow interpretation of product-by-process patents. The Delhi High Court addressed the significant issue of how such claims should be construed under the Patent Act, 1970. The court clarified that a patent's scope cannot be limited solely by the process used, emphasizing that claim construction must define the full extent of the monopoly granted to the patentee. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the restrictive judgment was set aside.
The Regents Of The University Of California v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
The Regents of the University of California appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding their patent application for 'Blockade of Inflammatory Proteases with Theta Defensins'. The rejection primarily hinged on objections related to novelty and inventive step, compounded by concerns over the permissibility of claim amendments under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the amendments served only as explanations or incorporated facts already disclosed, thereby allowing the application to be remanded for fresh examination.
Yashoda Super Specialty Hospitals & Anr. v.Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Yashoda Super Specialty Hospitals challenging a Single Judge's order that had set aside a trademark rectification order. The core dispute centered on whether the respondent received proper notice of the rectification proceedings before its trademark was removed from the register. The court ultimately found no error in setting aside the initial review petition, emphasizing that ambiguity regarding service should benefit the party seeking relief.
Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute v.President And Fellows Of Harvard College
Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute challenged an arbitral award that directed the transfer of its domain name, <kashmirharvard.edu.in>, to President and Fellows of Harvard College. The dispute arose from a complaint filed under the INDRP alleging trademark infringement due to the confusing similarity between the domain name and the globally recognized 'HARVARD' mark. The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award, finding that the domain was identical to the trademark and caused confusion, thereby dismissing the petitioner's appeal.
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.