Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 14 of 56
Showing 391–419M/S Ralson (India) Limited v.Shri. Surinder Singla
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/s Ralson's appeal challenging the Trade Marks Registry's decision to dismiss their opposition against the 'RANCHO' trademark. The core issue revolved around whether service of documents via email constituted valid notice, especially when no explicit email ID was provided in the initial opposition filing. The court held that while general rules allow for electronic service, specific statutory requirements must be met, distinguishing this case from prior precedents. However, recognizing Ralson's substantive claims, the Court granted them liberty to file a cancellation petition against the registered mark.
Ralson India Limited v.Sham Lal M/S Ramesh Lal And Sons And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ralson India Limited against the Trade Marks Registry's decision that had allowed the registration of 'R RALSON'. The core issue revolved around whether service of documents via email, facilitated through an agent's filing (Form TM-M), constituted valid service under the Trade Marks Act. The Court held that while general court practice allows for email service, in this specific trade mark opposition context, the validity of service depended on clear provisions within the application or notice itself; however, it granted Ralson liberty to pursue a cancellation petition based on the mark's registered status.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Jai Farm Chemicals Pvt Ltd
The dispute between Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd (Plaintiff) and Jai Farm Chemicals Pvt Ltd (Defendant) regarding infringement of Indian Patent 394568 was settled. The Defendant acknowledged the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in the patented formulation and undertook not to infringe the patent during its lifetime.
Havells India Limited v.Polycab India Limited
Havells India Limited filed a suit alleging design piracy against Polycab India Limited concerning three registered designs for ceiling fans. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's ELANZA and ELEGANZ PLUS ranges infringed the plaintiff's 2016, 2021, and 2022 designs. The court examined the specific features of each design, particularly focusing on surface patterns and overall configuration. The judgment found that while the injunction against Polycab's ELANZA range regarding the 2016 design was maintained, the claims concerning the 2021 and 2022 designs were dismissed. The court concluded that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of piracy for these latter two designs due to marked differences in their surface patterns.
International Foodstuffs Co. Llc v.Vijay Kumar Mittal And Pawan Kumar And ...
The dispute between International Foodstuffs Co. Llc and Vijay Kumar Mittal was resolved through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement, acknowledging each other's proprietary rights in the trademark 'ALLEGRO' across different product categories and jurisdictions. This resolution required both parties to withdraw existing legal actions and abide by specific usage restrictions for the mark.
Yuvi Aspiring Pvt. Ltd. v.Manish Sharma And Anr
The Delhi High Court formally accepted a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Yuvi Aspiring Pvt. Ltd., Manish Sharma, and Unifique Hospitality International Pvt. Ltd. The court decreed the suit based on this settlement, which involved the transfer of the registered trademark 'The Drunken Botanist' from Manish Sharma to the third party for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Crucially, the settlement also included a waiver by the first party of all future claims related to the trademark.
Indarmal M Solanki v.Rakesh Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Indarmal M Solanki against Rakesh Gupta, leading to the cancellation of the contested trademark 'EL PASO'. The court found that the impugned mark was identical to the Petitioner's prior registered and used marks for readymade garments (Class 25). Furthermore, the Respondent failed to renew the registration since April 2017, making it liable for removal under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the court ordered the cancellation and deletion of the mark from the register.
Himalayan Heli Services Private Limited v.Himachal Helicopter Skiing Pty Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex dispute involving the cancellation of a trademark registration (No. 1523434) held by Himachal Helicopter Skiing Pty Ltd, which was sought by Himalayan Heli Services Private Limited. Given the extensive overlap between the ongoing cancellation petition and an older passing-off suit, the court directed that both cases be consolidated for trial. This strategic move aims to streamline the litigation process, ensuring a unified determination of who holds the rightful rights in the 'Himalayan Heli Services' mark.
Bolt Technology Ou v.Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court found the defendants guilty of contumacious and willful disobedience regarding a previous court order dated November 23, 2022. The original order had clearly prohibited the defendants from using their standalone mark 'BOLT' and an earlier logo, allowing only for future expansion under a modified mark ('BOLT.EARTH'). Despite this categorical direction, the defendants continued to use the proscribed marks. Consequently, the court held them in contempt and scheduled a hearing to determine the appropriate sentence.
Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited v.Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a review petition filed by Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited against an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB had previously allowed a rectification petition, effectively invalidating the petitioner's registered trademark. The court found that the original order violated the principles of natural justice because service of notice was not properly effected on the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and directed that the rectification petition be heard afresh before the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) of the Court.
Burger King Company Llc v.Ranjan Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the strong standing of Burger King Company LLC, declaring its trademark 'BURGER KING' to be well-known in India. The court relied on extensive global usage, massive promotional investment, and local market presence (over 400 outlets) to establish secondary meaning. This ruling significantly strengthens the brand's protection against unauthorized use by defendants operating under similar names like 'Burger King Family Restaurant'.
Burger King Company Llc v.Virendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the strong protection afforded to the 'BURGER KING' trademark, declaring it a well-known mark under the Trade Marks Act. The court relied on Burger King's extensive global presence, long history (since 1954), massive promotional spending, and established secondary meaning in India. This judgment reinforces that globally recognized brands can secure enhanced legal protection against unauthorized use by local operators.
Nripendra Kashyap Esco Corporation v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nripendra Kashyap Esco Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its divisional patent application (737/DELNP/2009) for a wear assembly. The rejection was based on lack of distinct invention and inventive step. The High Court quashed the rejection, holding that objections must be restricted to those provided in writing, and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
M/S Malhotra Book Depot v.M/S Mbd Industries And Anr.
Malhotra Book Depot filed a suit against Mbd Industries, alleging trademark infringement and passing off due to the Defendant's use of the deceptively similar mark 'MBD' for non-metallic building materials. The Plaintiff held multiple registrations for 'MBD' across various classes related to publishing. During mediation, the parties agreed that the Defendants would change their mark to 'JMVD'. Consequently, the court disposed of all pending interim injunction applications, allowing the Defendants to continue operating under the new mark.
Ischemix Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Ischemix LLC appealed a refusal of its patent application, which covered an isomer used to treat ischemia. The refusal was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, requiring demonstration of 'enhanced therapeutic efficacy.' The court acknowledged the strict interpretation required by law but noted that the Patent Office had failed to consider various supporting data provided by the applicant. Consequently, the High Court directed the record back to the Patent Office for re-examination and final adjudication within a stipulated timeframe.
Perfetti Van Melle S.P.A v.M.G Products / M.G Food Product
Perfetti Van Melle S.P.A filed a cancellation petition seeking rectification of a specific copyright registration (A-79261/2007) held by M.G. Products. The court examined the matter in light of a prior civil suit that had been decreed based on a settlement agreement dated October 31, 2012. This settlement explicitly included the Respondent's agreement to cancel the impugned copyright registration. Consequently, the Delhi High Court directed the cancellation and expungement of the registration from the Register of Copyrights.
Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited v.E1 Entertainment Television , Llc Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the respondent's applications seeking to introduce a specific YouTube video into the rectification proceedings. The respondent argued that this video was crucial evidence supporting their claim of continuous use of the mark since the early 1990s, which directly counters the petitioner's request for trademark cancellation/rectification. The court ruled that since the link had been previously cited in the written statement, the video clip was not an 'additional document,' thereby allowing its admission to ensure a fair trial.
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd v.Meta Platforms Inc Ors & Ors.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Patanjali Ayurved against a trial court order that had returned its trademark infringement suit, citing lack of jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the suit was not commercial in nature, despite the trial court's finding. The High Court found that the trial court failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements under the CPC when returning the plaint. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to present their case afresh before the Trial Court.
M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited v.M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court approved an amicable settlement between the Plaintiff, M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited, and Defendant No. 1, M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited. Under the settlement, Defendant No. 1 acknowledged the exclusive rights to the 'SALLAKI' trademark and agreed to permanently cease using any similar marks or packaging. Furthermore, the court granted the Plaintiff permission to delete Defendants 2 and 3 from the suit, allowing them to pursue separate legal actions against those parties.
M/S. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors.
The long-standing dispute between Goodricke Group Limited and M/S. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt Ltd. regarding the use of the 'SUPER CUP' mark was amicably resolved by both parties. After multiple rounds in the Delhi High Court, including appeals to the IPAB and Supreme Court, the parties entered into a Co-Existence Agreement. Under this settlement, Girnar agreed to use 'Girnar Super Cup' for tea and other allied products, while Goodricke withdrew its suit and opposition claims. The court formally dismissed both the appeal and the original suit as withdrawn.
Shrinath Travel Agency & Anr. v.Infinity Infoway Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interlocutory injunctions regarding trademark infringement in the travel industry. While the court found prima facie evidence that Defendants 3 and 4 were infringing the plaintiff's registered marks by using deceptively similar spellings ('SHREENATH' vs 'SHRINATH'), it rejected the request to restrain Defendant 5 due to insufficient factual basis. The court issued a mixed order, granting injunctions against specific words and domain names while mandating removal of infringing marks and disclosure of earnings from Defendants 3 and 4.
Viridian Development Managers Private Limited & Anr. v.Rps Infrastructure Limited
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions against Rps Infrastructure Limited after a petition alleging trademark infringement concerning the 'World Trade Centre' brand in Faridabad. The court temporarily restrained the respondent from using the disputed trademarks on its projects, requiring immediate removal of the marks from all public materials and mandating disclosure to unit buyers that the developer holds no rights to the brands. While granting these protective measures, the Court deferred the adjudication of significant monetary claims (over Rs 31 crore) to the ongoing arbitration proceedings.
Nilkamal Crates And Contaners & Anr. v.Ms. Reena Rajpal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning plastic molded chairs, balancing claims over both word marks and device marks. While the court found no deceptive similarity between the word marks 'NILKAMAL' and 'NILKRANTI,' it did find that the defendants' adopted logo was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered device mark. Consequently, the injunction sought against the use of the word mark was rejected, but the defendants were strictly restrained from using the infringing device mark.
Intercontinental Great Brands Llc v.Parle Product Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed by Intercontinental Great Brands Llc seeking a stay of infringement proceedings. The plaintiff sought to challenge the validity of the defendant's registered trademark, FABIO, under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to raise any prima facie tenable grounds challenging the registration in its pleadings (plaint or replication). Consequently, the application for stay was rejected, allowing the main infringement suit to proceed.
Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel Trading As Rakesh Pharmaceuticals v.Sss Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court addressed critical procedural issues concerning IPR litigation under the Commercial Courts Act. The court clarified that despite the plaintiff's freedom to value a suit, this principle cannot be used to undervalue IPR disputes below the Rs. 3 lakh threshold to avoid the rigors of the CCA. The judgment mandates that intangible rights must be ascribed a 'specified value,' considering both the relief sought and the market value of the IP right involved. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the order vacating the injunction, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the defendants, inspect their Preconditioned Air Units (PCAs), and audit related accounts to demonstrate infringement of Patent IN 330145. The court dismissed the application, holding that the prayers were misconceived and did not meet the strict criteria required for appointing a commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC.
Sabhyasachi Gorai v.Aveenshi International Private Limited Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to modify a prior decree based on an amended settlement agreement. The core of the dispute involved the transfer of two key trademarks, LAVAASH and LAVAASH BY SABY, from Aveenshi International Private Limited to Sabhyasachi Gorai. The court formally accepted the terms of the new agreement, which finalized the assignment of the brands and stipulated mutual non-infringement and cooperation for registration.
Sachdeva And Sons Industries Private Limited v.Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court dismissed two appeals filed by Sachdeva And Sons Industries Private Limited challenging the Deputy Registrar's decision to allow TM-16 applications. These applications permitted the substitution of the trademark applicant's name in pending opposition proceedings, citing that allowing the change would not prejudice the opponents' rights. The court noted the Appellant's lack of appearance and concluded that since the impugned order only related to the name change and did not affect the merits of the final opposition, the appeals were dismissed.
Strix Ltd v.Maharaja Appliances Limited
Strix Ltd filed a suit against Maharaja Appliances Limited alleging infringement of its patent (IN 192511/95) related to thermally sensitive overheat controls used in liquid heating vessels, specifically electric kettles. The defendant counter-claimed challenging the validity of the patent. Although the life of the patent had expired by the time of final judgment, the court found infringement and decreed the suit for damages and costs.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Intex Technologies(India) Limited
The court heard an application filed by the defendant (Intex) seeking modification of existing interim royalty rates. The court dismissed this application, noting that the defendant was straining to avoid complying with prior directions for royalty payments. Separately, the court disposed of an application concerning the reconstitution of a confidentiality club.
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.