Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 13 of 56
Showing 361–389Freebit 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.
BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. v.Tube Investments Of India Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court resolved a trademark dispute between BSA Business Software Alliance and Tube Investments of India Limited regarding the use of the mark 'BSA'. The court mandated that both parties agree on clear delineations of services to prevent conflict. Following this agreement, the appeals were disposed of, allowing BSA to register its mark in specific, restricted classes related to software promotion and education (Classes 16, 35, 41, 42). Crucially, the court also ensured that the Respondent's right to seek a declaration as a well-known mark for their goods in Class 12 remains unaffected.
Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited v.Fashion One Television Llc and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited, quashing the trademark registrations held by Fashion One Television Llc. The court found that the respondent's mark infringed upon the petitioner's established 'NOW'-centric family of marks (such as TIMES NOW and ET NOW) because both operate within the same Class 38 for broadcasting services. The judgment emphasized that a viewer would likely associate the impugned mark with the petitioner’s repertoire, establishing a subsisting interest in the common element 'NOW'.
V Guard Industries Ltd v.Ms Mahavir Home Appliances And Anr. & Anr.
The dispute concerning the registered design for ceiling fans was amicably resolved by both parties. The Defendants recognized the Plaintiff's exclusive rights and agreed to cease production/distribution of similar designs, while also undertaking to withdraw pending cancellation petitions against the design. However, the court noted a separate legal issue regarding the refund of court fees in private settlements.
Freebit As v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
Freebit AS filed a suit seeking an injunction against Exotic Mile Private Limited regarding its granted patent, IN 276748, for an 'Improved Earpiece'. The Defendant challenged the validity of this patent by presenting evidence that corresponding foreign patents had been invalidated or refused in several jurisdictions, including based on lack of novelty.
Quantum University v.International Quantum University For Integrative Medicine Inc
This case involved a challenge by Quantum University against an arbitration award that directed the cancellation of its domain name (www.quantumuniversity.edu.in). The respondent, International Quantum University For Integrative Medicine Inc., had successfully argued that the petitioner's domain was confusingly similar to their prior formative domain names (e.g., quantumuniversity.com). The Delhi High Court examined this challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ultimately upholding the original award.
Rishabh Jain v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Rishabh Jain against The Registrar of Trade Marks. Despite multiple notices and previous hearings, key procedural steps remained incomplete, notably the service report and the required affidavit from the Respondent regarding notice of opposition. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner's counsel to inform the opponent of the orders and scheduled the matter for July 5, 2022, pending the filing of the necessary affidavit.
Joseph Taheny v.Tektronix Inc.
Joseph Taheny challenged an arbitral award that directed him to transfer the domain name 'tek.in' to Tektronix Inc., arguing that his registration predated the respondent's trademark filing. The petitioner contended that the domain was registered as a generic Turkish term and not in bad faith. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, finding no infirmity in the arbitral award. The court upheld the transfer, emphasizing that the complainant only needed to be a registered proprietor of the mark for the INDRP rules to apply.
Institute Of Directors v.Worlddevcorp Technology And Business Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, ruling against the use of 'Directors' Institute' by the defendants. The court held that because the plaintiff previously represented to the Trademark Registry that its device mark contained common English words and was descriptive, it could not claim exclusivity over those words. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff failed in its duty of fair disclosure by suppressing this prior representation, thereby disentitling it from equitable relief.
Harbans Lal Wadhwa Trading As Uttam Chemicals v.Subhash Chand Trading As Subhash Chand And Sons & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings regarding the cancellation of a registered trademark ('UTTAM') held by the Respondent. The Petitioner, claiming prior use since 1999 for various cleaning products, sought cancellation based on their earlier market presence. Recognizing that the dispute required detailed proof of goodwill and sales figures beyond mere pleadings, the court framed specific issues and directed both parties to file lists of witnesses and lead evidence.
Paul Components Private Limited v.Hi Tech Arai Private Limited
This matter before the Delhi High Court concerned an application by Paul Components Private Limited seeking permission to inspect the original, unredacted versions of technical drawings filed by Hi Tech Arai Private Limited. The defendant had initially placed redacted copies on record, citing that the removed portions contained commercially sensitive trade secrets related to manufacturing specifications. Despite the plaintiff's initial 'no objection' to the redactions, the court rejected the application, holding that once a party agrees to documents being placed on record in a redacted format due to confidentiality concerns, they are not entitled to inspect the unredacted originals.
Emerson Process Mangement Power And Water Solutions Inc v.Controller Of Patents
Emerson Process Management filed appeals challenging the rejection of its patent applications (Nos. 1253/DEL/2006 and 4197/DEL/2015) relating to computer software. The court noted that the main ground for rejection—the lack of novelty and inventiveness in associated hardware—no longer aligns with current Patent Office guidelines.
Emerson Process Management Power And Water Solutions Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emerson Process Management appealed the rejection of its patent applications (Nos. 1253/DEL/2006 and 4197/DEL/2015) for computer software patents. The court noted that the main ground for rejection—the novelty and inventiveness of associated hardware—no longer applied under current Patent Office guidelines.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter & Gamble challenged the Controller's order refusing its 'Detergent Compositions' patent application due to lack of inventive step. The appeal argued that the rejection was arbitrary, citing a four-year delay in processing and the Patent Office failing to grant adequate time for responding to objections raised under Section 8(2) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court agreed with the appellant, finding the process contrary to natural justice and statutory timelines.
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.