Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 17 of 56
Showing 481–509Pfizer 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.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd
Nokia appealed a single judge's order that dismissed its application for a pro-tem security deposit related to Nokia's Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). Nokia argued that infringement was prima facie established, and the balance of convenience favored granting interim relief. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
Nokia appealed a single judge's order that dismissed its application for a pro-tem security deposit. Nokia claimed infringement based on its extensive portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) used by Oppo in smartphones. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, finding that a prima facie case of infringement was made out and directing Oppo to deposit the last paid amount attributable to India.
M/S Crest Educations (P) Ltd v.M/S Career Launcher (I) Ltd
This case involves a dispute arising from a licensing contract between M/S Crest Educations (P) Ltd and M/S Career Launcher (I) Ltd. The respondent alleged that the petitioner violated the non-compete clause by operating a competing business under the brand name 'Team Satyam' at the licensed premises. The matter was adjudicated through arbitration, leading to an award of damages in favor of the respondent. The Delhi High Court upheld this arbitral award, finding no ground to interfere with the arbitrator's findings regarding the breach and the calculation of loss.
Jayson Industries And Anr. v.Crown Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Jayson Industries filed a suit alleging that Crown Craft was pirating their registered designs for household items like buckets, mugs, and tubs. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's products were fraudulent imitations of the plaintiffs' unique shapes and surface patterns. However, the court found credible prior art, including various published designs from 2019, which challenged the novelty and originality of the suit designs. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an interlocutory injunction, vacating the earlier restraining order.
Microsoft Corporation v.Zoai Founder
Microsoft Corporation challenged an arbitral award rendered under the INDRP concerning the domain name zoai.in, which had denied Microsoft's claim for transfer. The petitioner argued that the arbitrator was biased and that the decision was vitiated by procedural unfairness due to independent research conducted without providing materials to Microsoft. The Delhi High Court agreed with the petitioner on both grounds of bias and natural justice violation.
Sachin Gupta Trading As Gcmc Masala Co. v.Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sachin Gupta Trading As Gcmc Masala Co. against an interim injunction granted to Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. The court found that there was a high likelihood of confusion between the two parties' spice labels, particularly due to the use of similar marks and 'COW' devices. Despite the appellant's claims regarding prior use and copyright protection for their artwork, the court upheld the original order, finding that Kbm Foods had established a strong prima facie case for passing off.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Avighna Medicare Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a comprehensive settlement between Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited (Plaintiff) and Avighna Medicare Private Limited & Ors. (Defendants). The parties resolved their trademark infringement dispute regarding the brands 'DOSELA' and 'ATENTRUE' versus 'DUZELA' and 'ATTENTROL'. Under the agreement, Defendant No. 1 agreed to cease all use of the infringing marks, destroy existing stock within specified timelines, and waive its own pending trademark applications for those names. The suit was subsequently disposed of based on these mutual undertakings.
Agfa Nv & Anr. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Agfa Nv appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused grant for its patent application concerning 'MANUFACTURING OF DECORATIVE LAMINATES BY INKJET'. The refusal was based on objections regarding lack of clarity, succinctness, and inventive step. The Delhi High Court examined these grounds, particularly focusing on whether vague terms like 'thermosetting resin' were adequately defined in the complete specification. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned order, directing the Patent Office to proceed with granting the patent.
Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Hab Pharmaceuticals And Research Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Vee Excel Drugs challenging the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to cancel two pharmaceutical trademarks: 'VEGA ASIA' and 'VEGAH TABLETS'. The core issue revolved around determining prior use, particularly when one mark was registered on a 'proposed to be used basis.' The Court upheld the IPAB's finding that the subsequent user had the better right, emphasizing that the High Court should not re-appreciate evidence while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Br Retail India Private Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Inter Ikea Systems Bv, finding that the defendants were likely infringing on IKEA's registered trademarks. The court ordered the defendant to immediately cease using the deceptively similar 'TIKEA/' mark across all goods and services. Furthermore, the judgment mandated the removal of any infringing material from the website www.tikea.in and directed the defendants to take steps to get such content taken down from third-party websites.
Lt Foods Limited v.Dawat Biryani & Anr.
The Delhi High Court formally decreed the suit between Lt Foods Limited and Dawat Biryani & Anr. based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached through court mediation. The defendants acknowledged Lt Foods as the proprietor of the well-known 'DAWAT' trademark and committed not to use any deceptively similar marks, such as 'Dawat Biryani,' in a manner that suggests affiliation or causes infringement or passing off. This resolution provides clear legal certainty regarding the protection of the Plaintiff's intellectual property rights.
Huhtamaki Oyj And Anr v.Controller Of Patents
Huhtamaki Oyj appealed a patent application rejection (Application No. 6727/DELNP/2014) based on lack of inventive step. The High Court examined the prior art references and found that the initial rejection was flawed, particularly regarding the procedural aspects. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Fybros Electric Private Limited v.Hira Lal Jain Trading As Vikram Cable Industries and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Fybros Electric Private Limited's petition, directing the removal of the rival trademark 'NEBROS' from the trade mark register. The court found that NEBROS was deceptively similar to the petitioner's earlier marks and covered identical goods (wires and cables) in Class 9. Given the likelihood of public confusion, the High Court ruled that the registration of NEBROS should not be upheld.
Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v.Phonepe Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed multiple petitions filed by Resilient Innovations seeking the removal/rectification of several PhonePe trademarks. The court held that because the petitioner had previously raised objections regarding the descriptive nature and invalidity of the marks in a separate civil suit (CS(COMM) 292/2019), they were bound by Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. This section mandates that challenges to trademark validity must be addressed within the original civil proceeding before the court can allow rectification proceedings.
Fybros Electric Pvt Ltd v.Mukesh Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Fybros Electric Pvt Ltd's petition seeking rectification of the trademark register. The court found that the respondent's registered mark was deceptively and phonetically similar to the petitioner's earlier mark, despite both being registered for identical goods in Class 11. Crucially, the judgment established that a challenge under Section 57 does not require the petitioner to prove actual damage, only that the mark is improperly maintained on the register.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Angle Bio Pharma & Ors.
The dispute involved allegations of patent infringement concerning the drug 'Apixaban' (Patent IN 247381). The parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement with all defendants. The court accepted the terms, decreeing the suit subject to the agreed-upon conditions.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Cipla Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Cipla Limited regarding the commercialization of Apixaban was amicably settled. The defendant confirmed that it did not commercialize the drug under the brand name APIGY until after the expiry of the suit patent.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed the defendant's application to reject the plaintiff's patent infringement suit. The court rejected arguments regarding lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, clarifying that specific allegations of ongoing sales negate the 'mere apprehension' standard used in previous cases. Furthermore, the court dismissed the contention based on the Aloys Wobben controversy, holding that pending post-grant opposition proceedings do not automatically preclude the institution of an infringement suit.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft challenged the Assistant Controller's decision rejecting its patent application for a network authentication system under Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, arguing that the invention provided a genuine technical solution to security problems. The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection based on the flawed interpretation of 'computer program per se,' emphasizing that an algorithm should not be automatically excluded if it offers a tangible technical contribution. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Controller for re-examination regarding novelty and inventive step.
Hamdard National Foundation India v.Government Of Nct Delhi
Hamdard National Foundation India challenged the unrestricted use of 'Rogan Badam Shirin' by Ayurvedic manufacturers for almond oil, arguing it was reserved for Unani medicine. The petition sought directions to prevent unauthorized usage of this terminology. The court noted that the Ministry of Ayush had communicated to State licensing authorities that Raughan-E-Badam Shireen requires a Unani Drug License, thereby satisfying the petitioner's primary relief.
Ten Events And Entertainment v.Novex Communications Private Limited & Ors.
Ten Events And Entertainment filed a declaratory suit challenging the requirement to obtain licenses or NOCs from Defendants, who claimed copyright over songs played during wedding events. The plaintiff argued that such usage falls under 'fair dealing' as per Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act. However, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary material facts—such as the nature and bona fides of the ceremony—required by law to establish a cause of action for this specific declaration. Consequently, the court dismissed the interim application and directed the plaintiff to show cause why the entire suit should not be dismissed.
Synthes Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Synthes Gmbh challenged an impugned order from the Assistant Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, arguing that the rejection lacked due process. The court found that the original order was a 'total mockery' as it merely cut and pasted objections without providing any reasoned analysis or considering the appellant's replies. Recognizing the severe procedural lapses, the Delhi High Court quashed the decision and remanded the application for fresh consideration by a different officer.
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.