Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 15 of 56
Showing 421–449Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd.
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. filed an injunction seeking to prevent Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd. from unauthorizedly using its proprietary Fantasy Sports Mobile Application (EXCHANGE22). The Plaintiffs claimed that their unique game structure, components, and user interface were protected under copyright law. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately found no prima facie evidence of copyright infringement by the Defendants. Consequently, the court vacated the ex parte injunction previously granted to the Plaintiffs.
Dharampal Satyapal Limited v.Mr Basant Kumar Makhija & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that since the defendants raised a defense based on their registered mark (Section 30(2)(e)), and the plaintiff pleaded the invalidity of that registration, the plea was deemed prima facie tenable. Consequently, the Court framed an issue challenging the validity of the defendant's trademark and adjourned the suit for three months to allow the plaintiff to file a rectification petition.
Raj Kumar Sharma v.Sandeep Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interconnected trademark disputes concerning the 'Pizza Galleria' brand between Raj Kumar Sharma and Sandeep Kumar & Anr. The court first resolved a factual contradiction regarding an MoU, accepting that the date should be 25th March 2018 instead of 9th June 2021. Furthermore, all applications seeking a stay on trademark registrations were dismissed as withdrawn by the Petitioner. Despite these procedural steps, the Court noted significant gaps in documentation and directed Respondent No.1 to file a comprehensive additional affidavit within six weeks.
Ayur United Care LLP v.Union Of India & Anr.
This judgment addresses a procedural challenge concerning the jurisdiction for hearing writ petitions filed against decisions made by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner, Ayur United Care LLP, challenged an order passed by the IPAB that allowed rectification petitions against its trademark registration. The core legal question was whether these appeals required a Single Judge or a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
Syngenta Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Syngenta Limited appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs which refused its Divisional Application, arguing that the parent application lacked claims relating to multiple distinct inventions. The High Court addressed the legal questions regarding the maintainability of divisional applications under Section 16 of the Patents Act.
Britannia Industries Limited v.Amar Biscuit Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Britannia Industries Limited against Amar Biscuit Private Limited. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'GOOD TIME' with a deceptively similar color combination and trade dress to Britannia's established 'GOOD DAY' butter cookies was likely to cause consumer confusion. Given the enormous goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's brand, the court ruled that immediate action was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
Sancheti Applicance Pvt Ltd. v.C.Lal Marketing Pvt Ltd. & Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of two petitions filed by Sancheti Applicance Pvt Ltd. against C.Lal Marketing Pvt Ltd. The challenge to the respondent's marks, which were under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, was rendered moot because the impugned trademarks had expired and subsequently been removed from the Register due to non-renewal. Consequently, the petitioner sought and received permission to withdraw the proceedings.
ITC Limited Of Virginia House v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks And Ors.
The Delhi High Court overturned a previous Registrar's decision that had treated ITC's opposition to the mark 'LUCKY NINE' as abandoned due to delayed filing of evidence. The court held that since ITC had clearly stated its willingness to rely on the grounds of opposition within the prescribed period, the abandonment was unjustified. Following this ruling and citing precedent, the High Court ultimately cancelled the registration of 'LUCKY NINE', restoring ITC's rights.
Crocs Inc.Usa v.Aquallite India Limited And Anr.
The plaintiff alleged infringement of the design of its footwear, known as the 'CROCS DESIGN'. The design registration was cancelled due to lack of novelty and prior publication.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The dispute concerning the infringement of Patent IN 247381 related to Apixaban was settled through mediation. The settlement agreement required the defendant to confirm it did not distribute 'Apixaban' in India during the patent term and agreed not to challenge its validity.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The dispute involved allegations of patent infringement concerning the drug 'Apixaban'. The parties reached separate settlement agreements with Defendants 1 & 2 and Defendant 3, mediated by the Delhi High Court. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on these terms.
Theobroma Foods Private Limited v.Karan Narula And Ors (Theos Food Pvt. Ltd.)
The Delhi High Court finalized a complex trademark dispute between Theobroma Foods and Theos Food Pvt. Ltd., leading to a comprehensive decree based on an amicable settlement. The judgment clarified the usage rights for both 'THEOBROMA' and 'THEOS' in the confectionery market. Key terms include mutual non-opposition, allowing Theobroma nationwide expansion while restricting Theos to the Delhi-NCR region for its mark use.
H-D U. S. A., Llc v.Vijaypal Dhayal Owner/ Proprietor Of Red Rose Industries
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of H-D U. S. A., LLC against Vijaypal Dhayal Owner/ Proprietor Of Red Rose Industries. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off because the defendant's mark replicated the plaintiff's registered 'Eagle Logo/ Device mark.' Furthermore, the court dismissed the defendant's preliminary objection regarding the authority to file the suit, confirming that the Power of Attorney granted omnibus powers covering all intellectual property rights. The injunction mandates that the defendant cease dealing in infringing goods pending the final disposal of the suit.
The Delhi Public School Society v.Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society
This case revolves around a dispute between The Delhi Public School Society (DPSS) and Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society (AEWCS) concerning the termination of a Joint Venture Agreement. DPSS had permitted AEWCS to use the 'Delhi Public School' name and logo for its school, but this usage was explicitly limited by the agreement. Upon termination of the JVA, DPSS sought an injunction against AEWCS for continued use of the brand identity. The High Court upheld the lower court's finding that once the agreement ended, AEWCS lost all rights to use the IP, thus constituting infringement and passing off.
Rana Steels v.Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications filed by Rana Steels concerning the alleged infringement of its registered trademark RANA. The core dispute revolved around the defendant's continued use of similar marks (RANATOR/RAN INDIA) in relation to steel products, despite existing injunction orders. Recognizing the need for factual verification regarding ongoing usage and the disposal of old stock, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises and examine account books.
Vifor International Ltd. v.Biological E Limited
Vifor International Ltd., the patentee, filed a suit against Biological E Limited regarding alleged infringement of its patent (IN 221536) covering water-soluble iron carbohydrate complexes. The dispute centers on the use and manufacture of FCM for intravenous iron deficiency therapy. Given the impending expiry of the patent tenure in October 2023, the court issued interim directions. These directions mandate that the defendants maintain detailed accounts of their manufacturing and sales of FCM until the patent expires, while simultaneously prohibiting them from using the specific process claimed by Vifor.
Raytheon Company v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Raytheon Company appealed the refusal of its patent application, 'Scheduling in a High-Performance Computing System,' which was rejected by the Controller under Section 15 for lack of inventive step and non-patentability (Section 3(k)). The core argument centered on the Controller incorrectly applying outdated Computer Related Invention Guidelines. Raytheon contended that their invention provided a technical solution to HPC scalability issues, specifically reducing job scheduling time. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal order and directing a fresh examination without mandating novel hardware.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc v.Sanjeev Gupta & Ors
The commercial suit for patent infringement (CS(COMM) 823/2018) between Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc and Sanjeev Gupta & Ors was settled. The parties agreed that the suit would be decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs, acknowledging the validity of Patent IN'816 and the Defendants' infringing activities.
M/S Vajiram & Ravi Ias Study Centre Llp v.M/S Vajirao & Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction against passing off. The dispute involved two coaching institutes, 'Vajiram & Ravi' and 'Vajirao & Reddy,' both using names rooted in proper nouns. Despite the plaintiff claiming prior use and phonetic similarity between 'VAJIRAM' and 'VAJIRAO', the court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a strong likelihood of confusion at this preliminary stage. The balance of convenience tilted in favor of the defendant, allowing them to continue operating under their mark pending final trial.
STP Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, New Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed STP Limited's appeal against the refusal of its trademark application 'SHALIMARK'. The initial rejection was based on similarity to earlier marks. However, the court permitted the application to proceed by restricting the scope of goods, specifically removing 'building material (non-metallic)' from the list. This decision allows the mark to be advertised in the trade mark journal for further opposition proceedings.
Manju Singal Proprietor Singla Food Products v.Deepak Kumar, Deepak Manocha, Sara Sales and Anr.
Manju Singal Proprietor Singla Food Products filed a petition seeking rectification of a conflicting copyright registration held by Deepak Kumar. The petitioner claimed ownership over their artistic packaging design for 'Gulchhare' since 2009, asserting that the respondent's subsequent registration was based on an identical and slavish imitation. After examining the works, the Delhi High Court found that the respondent's work lacked originality compared to the petitioner's earlier creation.
Promoshirt Sm Sa. v.Armasuisse And Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed by Promoshirt SM SA. challenging decisions related to its trademark registration applications, specifically against an opposition raised by Armasuisse. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the LPAs under Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that no further appeal should lie from a Single Judge's appellate order. The High Court ultimately negated this preliminary objection, holding that since the Trade Marks Act did not mandate adherence to the restrictive provisions of the CPC, the LPA remedy remained applicable.
Glaxo Group Limited And Anr. v.Manoj Kumar Jain And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Glaxo Group Limited against Manoj Kumar Jain and others. Although the matter was resolved amicably through a settlement, leading to the decreeing of specific terms, the court also independently declared the Plaintiffs' mark 'BETNESOL' as a well-known mark due to its long history and extensive market presence in the pharmaceutical sector. This judgment underscores the dual nature of IP disputes: resolution via negotiation alongside judicial recognition of brand status.
W R Grace And Co Conn v.The Controller Of Patents
W R Grace & Co Conn appealed the Patent Office's refusal of its patent application (201717030699), which related to a crystalline form of Nicotinamide Riboside. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and failure to meet requirements under Sections 3(d) and 3(e). The Appellant subsequently filed amended claims restricting the scope to the method aspect, leading the Court to remand the matter for fresh examination by the Patent Office.
Harsh Vardhan v.Alna Biotech Pvt Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Harsh Vardhan seeking rectification of the trademark register. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to forthwith cancel the 'GLAMROOT' mark, which was registered in favor of Respondent 1 (Alna Biotech Pvt Limited). This decision effectively removed the disputed mark from the registry.
SSG Pharma (P) Ltd v.Paras Pan Products Pvt Ltd
SSG Pharma (P) Ltd filed a petition seeking rectification of the copyright held by Paras Pan Products Pvt Ltd concerning the artistic work 'NAGRAJ HARFANMOLA'. The Petitioner argued that its own artistic work, 'SATMOLA', was the prior adopter and user. The court found that the Respondent's artistic work bore a striking resemblance to the Petitioner's, noting that the pouches were copied in terms of color scheme and images of children. Consequently, the court directed the rectification/expungement of the impugned copyright registration.
Saurav Chaudhary v.Union Of India & Anr.
Saurav Chaudhary filed a writ petition challenging the abandonment of his patent application, "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine and Method of Blind Stitching." The Petitioner sought restoration of the application, alleging that repeated follow-ups to their patent agent were ignored, leading to the deemed abandonment. The Court directed the Patent Agent firm to file an affidavit detailing all correspondence related to the abandonment process. Furthermore, the bench raised broader concerns regarding the lack of regulatory supervision over IP agents in India.
Abhishek Jain (Trading As M/S Trip Planners) v.Trip Planners Holidays Private Limited
The dispute between Abhishek Jain (M/S Trip Planners) and Trip Planners Holidays Private Limited was amicably settled through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The settlement mandates that the defendant must cease all use of the trademark 'Trip Planners' and its derivations in perpetuity, including removing it from business names, websites, social media handles, and closing associated domains/email suffixes by December 31, 2023. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to withdraw a pending trademark application for the disputed mark.
Transformative Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Pawajot Kaur Baweja & Ors.
The plaintiffs, who sell Ayurveda products, sued former employees (Defendants 1 and 2) for using confidential data, customer databases, marketing material, and copyrighted content to run a competing business under the brand 'Adya Ayurveda'. The core legal issue was whether the suit was maintainable given previous judicial precedents. The Court found that the plaint disclosed sufficient cause of action and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
Triology Solutions Private Limited v.Flipkart Internet Private L Imited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Triology Solutions Private Limited against various online sellers (Defendants 12-23) for trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized the distinctiveness of the 'Muuchstac' brand, which is used for cosmetic products, and restrained the defendants from using its registered device mark and trade dress/packaging. Furthermore, the court directed the major e-commerce platforms (Defendants 1-11) to ensure takedown actions are taken against counterfeit listings and mandated disclosure of sales revenue by the infringing sellers.
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.