Delhi High Court
1664 cases · page 12 of 56
Showing 331–359Maj. 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.
Freebit AS v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
Freebit AS, a Norwegian corporation, filed an infringement suit against Exotic Mile Private Limited (operating under the brand "Boult") alleging that their products infringed Freebit's registered patent IN'748 for an improved 'C'-shaped earphone interface. The appellant sought an interim injunction but it was rejected by the Single Judge on grounds of non-disclosure and potential patent invalidity. This appeal challenged the rejection, but the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision regarding the denial of interim relief.
V.R. Industries Private Ltd. v.Rajesh Kejriwal
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's interim injunction restraining V.R. Industries Private Ltd. from using the trademark 'GOLDEN GATE.' The respondent, Rajesh Kejriwal, holds registered trademarks for this name across various food and chemical classes. Despite the appellant claiming prior use and pending cancellation proceedings against the registration, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Commercial Court's exercise of discretion regarding the injunction. This decision reinforces the weight given to existing trademark registrations in preventing potential infringement.
Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (Uab) Baltijos Mineraliniu Vandenu Kompanija v.Mr. Sahil Tandon Trading As A And Z Exports International & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (UAB) against Mr. Sahil Tandon, leading to the cancellation of a registered trademark for 'TICHE' in Class 32. The court found that UAB was the prior and legitimate adopter of the mark since 1998, citing extensive international use and evidence of trans-border reputation spilling over into India. The judgment underscores the importance of proving prior usage and bona fide adoption when challenging a trademark registration.
Smt. Harbans Kaur / Gurmarg Appliances Pvt Ltd v.Ascent Electronics / Gurmarg Appliances Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court ruled decisively in favor of the original proprietor regarding the trademark 'TANASHI'. The court found that the plaintiff had established prior rights through long-standing use dating back to 1993, despite subsequent registrations by the defendant. Crucially, the court held that a distributor is merely a permissive user and cannot claim proprietary rights over a mark belonging to the original owner. Consequently, the suit for infringement was decreed, and the defendant's conflicting trademark registration was cancelled.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited & Anr.
Novartis appealed an order that allowed certain amendments in its Indian Patent Application (IN'518) based on a finding that pre-grant opponents should be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The core dispute centered on whether the examination process and opposition proceedings are independent or merged under the Patents Act, 1970.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Kavitha Kuruganti
This appeal challenged the revocation of a plant variety registration (FL 2027) granted to PepsiCo. The initial Single Judge affirmed the revocation primarily due to incorrect information regarding the date of first commercial sale and failure to submit requisite documentation. The High Court allowed PepsiCo's appeal, setting aside the revocation order while noting that the mistake in styling as 'new' was remediable.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Kavitha Kuruganti
PepsiCo appealed the revocation of registration for its plant variety FL 2027. The original revocation was based on PepsiCo furnishing incorrect information about the date of first commercial sale and alleged non-compliance with documentation requirements. The High Court allowed PepsiCo's appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment regarding the eligibility to apply for registration.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner, an association of pesticide manufacturers, challenged the dismissal of their pre-grant opposition against a patent application (No.538/DEL/2010) filed by Crystal Crop Protection Limited. The core dispute revolved around whether the respondent failed to serve notices correctly after the petitioner changed their email address.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) v.Girdhar Industries And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) seeking an interim injunction against Girdhar Industries regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. Despite KVIC asserting immense goodwill associated with its 'KHADI' mark, the court found that the balance of convenience did not favor granting a restraining order at this interlocutory stage. Consequently, the application for an injunction was dismissed, though the defendants were mandated to maintain and periodically file detailed accounts of their product sales.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors. v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited
The suit alleged infringement of several patents held by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Olaparib (LYNPARZA). The Plaintiffs contended that Dr. Reddy's Laboratories was manufacturing and exporting Olaparib API, violating their patent rights. The court decreed the suit, permanently restraining the Defendant from commercially launching the product before the patent expiry date, subject to Section 107A provisions.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Synergy Insecticides Pvt Ltd
The dispute between Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd and Synergy Insecticides Pvt Ltd was settled out of court. The Defendant acknowledged the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in products protected by Indian Patent 394568, which covers specific formulations.
Apex Europe B.V. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge raised by Apex Europe B.V. regarding the refusal of the Trademarks Registry to consider a prior Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order while processing its trademark application for 'GTT'. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to take the IPAB's order into account, provided that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking and indemnity against any liability arising from that order. This resolution allows the matter to proceed based on the historical decision.
Laurus Labs Limited v.Union Of India
This judgment addresses a batch of suits alleging infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib (IMBRUVICA). The writ petition filed by Laurus Labs challenged the earlier decision of the IPAB. The Delhi High Court decided applications for interim relief in these cases. While dismissing the writ petition, the court granted an interim restraint order preventing defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending final disposal of the suits, allowing them only to exhaust existing stock under strict conditions.
Pharmacyclics, Llc & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a batch of patent infringement suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC and its affiliates against various pharmaceutical companies, including Natco Pharma Limited. The core dispute revolves around the unauthorized manufacturing and marketing of Ibrutinib, a drug covered by Indian Patent 262968. The court granted interim restraint orders preventing the defendants from further manufacturing or marketing the drug while the suits are pending. However, it allowed them to exhaust existing stock under specific conditions.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Hetero Labs Limited
This judgment addresses a batch of suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC concerning the alleged infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib (marketed as IMBRUVICA). The court heard applications for interim relief in these patent infringement cases. While dismissing one writ petition, the Delhi High Court granted an interim restraint order preventing defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending final disposal of the suits. However, it allowed defendants to exhaust existing stock under specific conditions.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Shilpa Medicare Limited & Anr.
This judgment addresses a batch of six infringement suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC and its affiliates against various pharmaceutical companies, including Shilpa Medicare Limited. The core dispute revolves around the alleged unauthorized manufacturing and marketing of Ibrutinib, a drug protected by Indian Patent 262968 (IN'968). The court granted interim restraint orders preventing the defendants from further manufacturing or marketing the drug pending the final disposal of the suits.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Hetero Labs Limited & Ors. / Natco Pharma Limited / Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd / Shilpa Medicare Limited & Anr. / Alkem Laboratories Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a batch of six suits alleging infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against defendants who were launching or had launched the generic version of the patented drug. While the court dismissed one related writ petition, it granted interim relief restraining all defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending the final disposal of the suits. Furthermore, the court allowed defendants to exhaust their existing stock, provided they file an affidavit detailing the batch numbers and expiry dates.
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.