Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 16 of 56
Showing 451–479Sintex Industries Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr
Sintex Industries Limited appealed against an order revoking Indian Patent No. 197086 on the ground of insufficiency of disclosure. The court noted that the subject patent had already been revoked by the Controller, satisfying the main prayer of the appellant for revocation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Ramada International, Inc v.La-Ramada World Private Limited & Anr
The Delhi High Court reinforced the existing ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ramada International, Inc against La-Ramada World Private Limited. Finding that the defendants continued unauthorized use of the 'RAMADA' mark across various digital platforms and domains despite prior court orders, the court made the injunction absolute during the pendency of the suit. Furthermore, to ensure compliance, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner with extensive powers to seize evidence, including pamphlets and server data, and mandate the shutdown of infringing social media accounts.
M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd v.Sh. Gopal Shinghal & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd's petition seeking the cancellation of the registered trademark 'GMT' held by Sh. Gopal Shinghal. The court found that 'GMT' is deceptively similar to the Petitioner's established mark 'GM', which has been in continuous use since 1999 for electrical goods. Given the prior adoption and substantial goodwill of 'GM', the registration of 'GMT' was deemed contrary to Sections 9 and 11 of the Trademarks Act, leading to its removal from the register.
Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v.Sun Pictures A Division Of Sun Tv Network Ltd.
The Delhi High Court settled a trademark infringement suit filed by Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited against Sun Pictures. The dispute centered on the use of the RCB team jersey in a derogatory manner within the film 'Jailer.' Through mutual agreement, the court decreed that the defendants must digitally alter all depictions of the RCB jersey and sponsor branding to ensure it is not identifiable before further release, effectively resolving the brand dilution concerns.
M/S.Rspl Health Private Limited v.Reckitt And Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions filed by M/S.Rspl Health Private Limited, which sought to have the trademark 'HARPIC DRAINXPERT' removed from the register. The court found that despite the petitioner's earlier marks, there was no likelihood of confusion among the average consumer when comparing 'XPERT' and 'HARPIC DRAINXPERT'. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's plea regarding bad faith under Section 11(10)(ii), stating that such a claim requires cogent evidence beyond mere similarity.
Dolphin Mart Private Limited v.Avenue Supermarts Limited & Anr.
In this trademark infringement dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed two key applications. First, it permitted the defendants (Avenue Supermarts) to introduce crucial trademark registration certificates into evidence, noting that since these were issued post-filing of the written statement and are in the public domain, they should be admissible. Second, regarding the plaintiff's request for an interim injunction against infringement, the Court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate that the balance of convenience favored them.
Venus Worldwide Entertainment Private Limited v.Popular Entertainment Network (Pen) Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, which sought to prevent Defendants from releasing a film titled 'Khiladi'. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and determined that the balance of convenience favored the Defendants. Despite the Plaintiff claiming extensive goodwill and secondary meaning for its trademark 'KHILADI', the Court held that movie titles alone do not warrant an injunction without content similarity, ultimately allowing the disputed film's release.
Hero Motocorp Limited v.Shree Amba Industries
Hero Motocorp Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Shree Amba Industries, alleging that the latter was infringing Hero's registered design (No. 271199) of a motorcycle front fender used on the HERO HF DELUXE model. The plaintiff claimed the defendant's product was a copy and constituted piracy. However, while examining the prima facie case for an interim injunction, the court found that the balance of convenience favored the defendant, noting that consumers could make informed choices between OEM and third-party parts. Consequently, the application for interim injunction was dismissed.
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).
Kent 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.
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.
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.