Delhi High Court
1635 cases · page 15 of 55
Showing 421–449Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. v.Union Of India Through Its Secretary Department For Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the advertisement of 'KENT' as a well-known trademark by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The core dispute centered on jurisdictional issues, with the Respondent arguing that such challenges must be filed in the Bombay High Court. However, the Court also clarified procedural requirements for the Registrar, emphasizing that when an applicant relies on court orders to establish well-known status, the Registrar must scrutinize whether those orders constitute a specific declaration or merely preliminary observations.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft appealed the refusal of its divisional patent application, which was rejected on grounds including lack of distinct invention (Section 16) and non-patentability as a computer program per se (Section 3(k)). The court set aside the impugned order regarding Section 16 but remanded the matter to the Respondent for fresh examination specifically concerning the objections under Section 3(k).
Akebia Therapeutics Inc. v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications
Akebia Therapeutics Inc. challenged the procedures followed by the Controller General regarding a post-grant opposition filed against its granted patent (IN 287720) for HIF-1α prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor compounds. The Delhi High Court found that the Opposition Board's recommendations were unsustainable due to procedural irregularities in how evidence was presented and processed. Consequently, the court quashed the previous findings, allowed Akebia to lead additional evidence, and remanded the matter back to the Opposition Board for a fresh decision de novo.
Dow Agrosciences Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Dow Agrosciences LLC challenged the refusal of its patent application, 'Stabilized Agricultural Oil Dispersions,' citing errors and inaccuracies in the Controller's objections. The appellant argued that key prior art documents were wrongly cited or misinterpreted, particularly regarding thermal stability claims. Recognizing significant procedural flaws and incorrect references in the impugned order, the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh examination.
Roxtec Ab & Anr v.Sukant Chakravarty & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Roxtec Ab & Anr seeking permission to file rectification petitions against registered trademarks, which the defendants argued were monopolizing common industry terms. The court examined the claims related to a 'Bulls Eye' device mark and the slogan 'We Seal Your World'. While addressing the scope of trademark rights, the Court ultimately disposed of the application but framed an issue regarding whether Roxtec India Private Limited (Plaintiff No. 2) was a necessary party in the ongoing suit.
V. R. Holdings v.Hero Investocorp Limited & Anr.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court questioned the correctness of a single judge's decision that dismissed an appellant's petition for rectification under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act. The core legal debate centered on whether the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable, particularly in light of restrictions imposed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Given the serious dispute and potential impact on pending cancellation proceedings, the Court granted an interim stay on the impugned judgment to balance the interests of both parties.
Enconcore N.V. v.Anjani Technoplast Ltd. & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Enconcore N.V., a Belgium-based company, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing its patented technology related to folded honeycomb sandwich panels (Therm-Hex technology). The court held an interim hearing, modifying existing injunctions and imposing conditions on the defendants regarding sales reporting and security deposit.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
The petitioner sought a stay of proceedings in the patent revocation petition (CO (Comm. IPD-PAT) 3/2021) under Section 10 of the CPC, citing a previously instituted suit filed by Respondent 2 (Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH) before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The court analyzed whether a revocation petition and an infringement suit have identical issues and causes of action.
Acko Technology And Services Pvt Ltd v.Bal Kishan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted relief to Acko Technology And Services Pvt Ltd, directing the cancellation of a conflicting trademark (No. 5320418) registered by Bal Kishan. The petitioner argued that its established mark 'ACKO' for insurance services was being infringed upon by the respondent's mark 'ACKOLITE' in Class 11 (household appliances). Given the likelihood of confusion and Acko's strong prior rights, the Court cancelled the impugned registration, reinforcing the principle against conflicting marks.
Syngenta Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Syngenta Limited appealed an order rejecting its divisional patent application (No. 7059/DELNP/2011). The dispute centered on whether the parent application (No. 6114/DELNP/2005) truly disclosed multiple inventive concepts, which is a prerequisite for filing a valid divisional application under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Neptune Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and distributing generic versions of Sitagliptin under the trade name 'HAPPY JAAN M', infringing Indian Patent No. 209816. Although the suit patent had expired, the court decreed the suit against Defendant 2 based on its failure to file a response, directing it to pay damages.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Others
Qualcomm appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents which rejected their patent application (No. 5159/DELNP/2007) primarily citing Section 3(k) and lack of definitiveness. The High Court found that the rejection order suffered from manifest non-application of mind as it failed to address the appellant's submissions, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Ttk Prestige Ltd. v.Gupta Light House
Ttk Prestige Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Gupta Light House infringed its registered cooker design (Registration No. 197906). The court found the plaintiff's design valid and maintainable, rejecting the defendant's claims regarding lack of novelty or prior publication. However, the court ruled against granting permanent injunction or delivery up of goods because the design had expired on September 13, 2019. Ultimately, the suit was decreed in favor of Ttk Prestige Ltd., directing the defendant to render accounts of earnings and awarding costs.
Vifor International Ltd & Anr. v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited
Vifor International Ltd., a patentee, filed suit against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited regarding the alleged infringement of its patent (IN'536) covering the manufacturing process of Ferric Carboxylmaltose (FCM). The court examined whether the defendants' processes infringed upon Vifor's patented method for producing this intravenous iron complex. The judgment ultimately found that the impugned processes used by the defendants were non-infringing, allowing them to proceed with launching their product.
Humanity Life Extension Llc v.Union Of India And Anr.
The petitioner, a US-based medical device manufacturer, challenged the amendment to Rule No. 138 of the Patents Rules, 2003, arguing that it removed the provision allowing extension of time for international patent applications and conflicted with the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The petitioner sought directions to entertain its National Phase Application despite missing the deadline.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioners filed revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondents sought to transfer these petitions to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh to consolidate them with ongoing infringement suits related to Patent IN243301 covering Linagliptin. The court dismissed the applications for transfer/consolidation.
Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt Ltd. v.Mohammad Akil And Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark infringement case following a comprehensive settlement between Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt Ltd. and Mohammad Akil And Anr. The respondent acknowledged the petitioner's exclusive rights in LIVFAST/ and agreed to cease using confusingly similar marks like LEFAST/. Crucially, the court directed the Trade Marks Registry to forthwith cancel two specific registrations (4059607 and 4380874) in favor of the respondent, finalizing the dispute while allowing a grace period for existing stock exhaustion.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Canva Pty Ltd, alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. IN 360726, which covers a system and method for creating and sharing interactive content. The Plaintiff argued that Canva's 'Present and Record' feature directly infringes the patented technology used in their product, 'My Show & Tell'. After analyzing the claims and evidence, the Delhi High Court found prima facie merit in the Plaintiff's case.
Mhg Ip Holdings (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Mhg Ip Holdings challenging the refusal of registration for its mark 'TIVOLI'. The Appellant argued that it had used the mark globally since 1933, establishing significant prior adoption. Recognizing this extensive global usage, the court invoked Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing for honest concurrent use. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar, directing a fresh review considering the Appellant's long-standing reputation.
Fisher And Paykel Healthcare Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Fisher And Paykel Healthcare Limited challenged a First Examination Report that deemed its Divisional Application No. 202118034146 defective. The Controller of Patents had issued an order based on Section 59 of the Patents Act, 2000. During the hearing, the respondent acknowledged the error and agreed to set aside the impugned order.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v.Competition Commission Of India & Anr.
This judgment addresses whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has the authority to investigate a patent holder's conduct under the Competition Act, 2002. The court held that while both statutes deal with anti-competitive behavior, the specific legislative intent and subject matter dictate that the Patents Act, particularly Chapter XVI, governs patent rights, limiting CCI's power.
new era cap co inc v.ms galaxy caps
New Era Cap Co. Inc. sued M/S Galaxy Caps for trademark infringement, alleging that Galaxy Caps manufactured and sold counterfeit caps bearing New Era's 'NEW ERA' mark and associated logos without authorization. The Plaintiff claimed significant global sales and brand recognition, including endorsements from Virat Kohli. Local Commissioners seized over 200 infringing products from Galaxy Cap’s premises.
Pfizer Inc v.West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited for infringing four patents covering Palbociclib and Crizotinib. The dispute centered on the Defendant's listing of these products for manufacture and sale, despite the existence of valid patents held by the Plaintiffs.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application for 'Non-Oriented Electrical Steel Excellent in Magnetic Properties'. The Appellant argued that the rejection order failed to provide a proper hearing and did not adequately discuss the novelty and inventive step objections. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order summarily rejected the application without due consideration of prior art, leading to its remand.
Tata Sky Limited (later Tata Play Limited) v.Linkedin Corporation And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Sky against LinkedIn concerning unauthorized use of the 'TATA SKY' brand on user profiles. Recognizing the recurring nature of fake and infringing profiles, the court issued specific directions to LinkedIn. These directions mandate that LinkedIn publicly disclose its Grievance Officer details, relevant policies, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) related to handling such grievances under the IT Rules, aiming to establish an effective framework for redressal without requiring constant litigation.
Communication Components Antena Inc. v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. Kg & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a patent infringement action against the defendants regarding patent IN240893, which relates to asymmetrical beams for spectrum efficiency. The defendants counter-claimed seeking revocation of the patent under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970. Given that the remaining term of the patent was less than five years, the court directed summary adjudication.
Bayer Healthcare Llc v.Natco Pharma Limited
Bayer Healthcare LLC sought an interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited regarding the patented anti-cancer drug, REGORAFENIB. The Delhi High Court examined the plaintiff's claim, noting that while the patent was validly granted, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction. Crucially, the court considered the public interest, highlighting the significant price disparity between Bayer's imported product and Natco's domestically manufactured, affordable version.
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ld. v.Kavitha Kuruganti
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ld. appealed a decision by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority (Authority) that revoked its registration for the potato variety FL 2027. The appellant challenged the revocation order, arguing it was based on incorrect information regarding the variety's category and assignment chain, and that the Authority exceeded its jurisdiction. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the challenge to the respondent's locus standi or the Authority's decision.
Jindal Industries Pvt Ltd v.Prawesh Agencies Through Its Partners Vikash Singh Ravindra Kumar Singh
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit where the defendant claimed a co-branding arrangement with an affiliate of the plaintiff's group. The court found that the plaintiff failed to disclose this vital co-branding agreement in their plaint, despite being required to attest to full disclosure under the Commercial Courts Act. Consequently, the court noted the breach of procedural rules and directed the plaintiff to place the relevant agreement on record before further proceedings.
Tv 18 Broadcast Limited v.Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction concerning trademark infringement. The dispute centered on the similarity between the marks "Bhaiyaji Kahin" and "Bhaiya Ji Superhit," used by two major media houses. The court found that, prima facie, there was no likelihood of confusion due to differences in show format (news debate vs. scripted infotainment) and the distinct channels on which they aired. Furthermore, the court held that the acquired distinctiveness of the plaintiff's mark could not be determined at this interlocutory stage.
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.