Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 20 of 56
Showing 571–599Dorco Co Ltd v.Durga Enterprises And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Dorco Co Ltd against Durga Enterprises And Anr, successfully removing the infringing 'DORCO' trademark (Registration No. 1252224) from the register. The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate genuine use of the mark for five years and that its registration was obtained dishonestly to ride on Dorco’s established goodwill. This ruling reinforces the principle that trademarks must be used genuinely, and prior users with strong reputation have superior rights.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Br Agrotech Limited And Anr
The dispute involved Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd asserting its exclusive patent rights over a specific suspo-emulsion formulation. The parties reached a settlement regarding Defendant No. 1 (BR Agrotech), acknowledging the Plaintiff's patent validity and granting a permanent injunction against infringement.
Google Llc v.Google Enterprises Pvt Tld & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Google LLC against several defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were colluding to misuse the globally recognized 'GOOGLE' mark on various websites, falsely suggesting an association with the multinational tech giant. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting Google a permanent injunction, awarding damages of INR 10 lakhs, and directing the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to block the infringing domain name.
Ticona Polymers, Inc. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Ticona Polymers against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the word mark 'COOLPOLY'. The court held that a trade mark cannot be dissected into its component parts (like COOL and POLY) when assessing inherent distinctiveness. Finding that 'COOLPOLY' as a whole was not descriptive, the High Court quashed the rejection order and remanded the application for further processing.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v.The Registrar
The Delhi High Court allowed Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation's appeal, overturning the Trade Marks Registry's refusal to register a proposed mark. The court held that despite some phonetic similarity, the marks were not similar when viewed as a whole because the cited mark was a composite device containing unique visual elements (a sketch and bilingual text) absent in the appellant's mark. This ruling emphasizes that for trademark opposition under Section 11(1), the comparison must be holistic, preventing mere phonetic resemblance from leading to rejection.
Astral Ltd v.Ashirvad Pipes Pvt Ltd
Astral Ltd filed a suit against Ashirvad Pipes Pvt Ltd, alleging that the defendant's use of the mark 'CPVC FLOWPRO' infringed upon Astral's reputation associated with its trademark 'CPVC PRO'. The core dispute centered on whether the similarity between the marks created a likelihood of confusion in the market. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for granting an interim injunction.
Sunit Shah v.Sunshine Food Products
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a lower court's decision regarding the trademark 'HOT MIX'. While the appellant argued that the mark had acquired distinctiveness, the High Court agreed with the trial court's initial finding that 'HOT MIX' is descriptive of the namkeen product. However, recognizing the need for justice, the Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the remaining proceedings and decide the suit promptly.
Dr. Sapna Nangia v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dr. Sapna Nangia appealed the rejection of her patent application for a device and process related to tactile feedback replicating breath hold. The Assistant Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D1 and D2. The High Court found the impugned order perfunctory and unreasoned, quashing it and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Jainsons Lights Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trade Marks Registry's decision to refuse registration for 'Jainsons Lights,' finding it deceptively similar to an earlier mark, 'M/s Jainsons Lites.' The court determined that despite the appellant claiming historical use of the name 'Jainson' since 1978, their specific claim of user for the complete subject mark was only from 2014. Since this date is subsequent to the prior mark's established usage in 2005, the appellant could not invoke Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act to overcome the likelihood of public confusion.
Ttk Prestige Ltd v.K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors
Ttk Prestige Ltd filed a suit against K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors alleging trademark infringement and passing off concerning its registered brand 'PRESTIGE'. The court granted temporary relief, restraining Defendants No. 2 and 3 from manufacturing or selling products using the disputed mark until the next hearing date. This interim order protects the plaintiff's established market reputation while the full merits of the case are examined.
Laboratoires Expanscience v.Seagull Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Laboratoires Expanscience seeking the rectification of the trademark register. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's registration of the word mark 'MUSTELA' in Class 5 (pharmaceutical preparations) infringed upon its own prior, registered rights in Class 3 (non-medicated skin care). Crucially, the respondent agreed to relinquish the mark and cooperate with its deletion. Consequently, the Court directed the removal of the impugned registration, rectifying the register accordingly.
Vending Updates (India) Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Vending Updates (India) Private Limited against the refusal of its device mark registration. The initial objection, based on similarity to Amazon's registered trademark, was overcome when Amazon Technologies, Inc. provided a Letter of Consent. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection order and directed the application to proceed towards publication and registration.
Winzo Games Private Limited v.Google Llc
The Delhi High Court framed several key issues in the dispute between Winzo Games Private Limited and Google LLC regarding a warning displayed on Chrome Mobile Browser. The core questions revolve around whether this warning constitutes disparagement of WinZO's trademarks, amounts to trademark use under the Trade Marks Act, or violates contractual obligations. Both parties have been directed to file a joint schedule for recording evidence, signaling that the matter is moving into the substantive trial phase.
Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt Ltd v.V-Guard Industries Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging piracy of registered designs (switch plates). The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation and expunction of these same designs. The plaintiff objected to the maintainability of this counterclaim, arguing that only the Controller of Designs could handle such petitions under the 2000 Designs Act. The court rejected the objection, citing a Supreme Court judgment which reversed the view that cancellation pleas must be filed solely before the Controller.
Anubhav Jain v.Satish Kumar Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking cancellation of the 'Jain Shikanji' trademark registration. While dismissing the petitioner's initial arguments regarding lack of distinctiveness under Section 9, the court found technical deficiencies in the grant. Consequently, it directed the Registrar to re-examine two critical issues: the objections raised in the First Examination Report (FER) concerning prior marks (Section 11), and the validity of the claimed date of user. This interim order allows the respondent to continue using the mark while a de novo review is conducted.
Hermes International & Anr. v.Crimzon Fashion Accessories Private Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Hermes International, declaring its 'H' trade mark as a well-known trademark. The court meticulously examined five factors outlined in Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, including global promotion, extensive use since 1997, international registrations across numerous countries, and successful enforcement actions abroad. This judgment solidifies the legal standing of globally recognized luxury brands within India.
Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v.The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr.
Nestle appealed the refusal of its patent application, titled 'Composition for use in the Prophylaxis of Allergic Disease,' which had been rejected by the Patent Office on grounds including being a method of treatment and lack of inventive step. The High Court examined arguments regarding claim scope, permissible amendments under Section 59, and the demonstration of synergy. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, finding that the subject matter satisfied the criteria for inventive step and directing the application to proceed for grant.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha M/S Toyota Motor Corporation v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petitions filed by Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha against Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd regarding the trademark 'ALPHARD'. Toyota sought to remove registrations held by the respondent in Classes 9, 12, and 27. The court found that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or reputation for 'ALPHARD' within India, particularly in the specific classes of goods where the respondent was registered. Consequently, the petitions seeking cancellation were dismissed.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha / Toyota Motor Corporation v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petitions filed by Toyota Motor Corporation against Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd. regarding the trademark 'ALPHARD'. Toyota sought to remove registrations held by the respondent in Classes 9, 12, and 27, arguing its global reputation. However, the court found that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or transborder reputation for 'ALPHARD' specifically within India, particularly concerning the goods registered by the respondent. The judgment emphasizes that mere foreign sales are insufficient without evidence of extensive local use and advertising.
Shamrock Geoscience Ltd & Anr. v.Timab NL B.V. / Kaba Infratech Pvt Ltd
In a significant settlement, the Delhi High Court accepted assurances from Shamrock Geoscience Ltd. that they would cease using the disputed mark 'GeoCrete,' replacing it with 'Alpave.' The company agreed to withdraw its existing trademark registration (TM No.3392787) and all related pending applications within four weeks. This resolution effectively settled the core trademark dispute between Shamrock Geoscience and Timab NL B.V./Kaba Infratech, allowing both parties to move forward while leaving technical know-how claims open for separate litigation.
Western Smart Bins (J.V.) v.Sotkon Sp Slu
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its registered patent and copyright. The court upheld the injunction against the defendants for continuing their infringing activities.
Novartis Ag v.Synokem Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis filed a suit alleging that Synokem infringed Indian Patent IN 229051, which covered a pharmaceutical composition of Valsartan and Sacubitril. The court noted that the patent had expired on January 16, 2023, rendering the dispute infructuous.
Allergan Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Allergan Inc appealed an order by the Controller of Patents that rejected its claims for 'INTRACAMERAL SUSTAINED RELEASE THERAPEUTIC AGENT IMPLANTS' based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court held that since the amendment was sought at a pre-grant stage and merely related to the same implants, the Controller ought to have allowed the amendments and examined them on merits.
Surya Food & Agro Ltd v.Om Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Surya Food & Agro Ltd against a single judge's dismissal of its infringement suit. The court overturned the previous ruling, finding that the lower court had erred in basing its decision on recollections of facts not present in the record. This sets the case back for trial, allowing the appellant to prove claims related to copyright and passing off concerning their 'Butter Delite' packaging versus the respondent's 'Butter Crunch'.
Impact Selector International Llc v.Controller Of Patents
Impact Selector International Llc appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Field Adjustable Impact JAR' by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection order was cryptic and failed to address detailed submissions distinguishing the invention from prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, emphasizing that the Patent Office must pass a reasoned or 'speaking' order when rejecting an application based on lack of inventive step. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by another officer.
Apar Industries Limited v.Sh Rummy Chhabra
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark infringement dispute involving the mark "VELLO." Although initially facing an ex-parte injunction against using the mark, Apar Industries Limited voluntarily acknowledged that 'VELO' belonged exclusively to Sh Rummy Chhabra. The court accepted detailed undertakings from Apar, which included ceasing all use of the mark, withdrawing its pending trademark application, and selling off existing stock within a year. Consequently, the underlying suit was decreed based on these mutual commitments.
M/S Eureka Forbes Limited v.Vaibhav Agro Industries
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Eureka Forbes Limited, granting a permanent and mandatory injunction against Vaibhav Agro Industries for trademark infringement. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'AquaSure' on packaged drinking water was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. While the claim for copyright infringement failed due to lack of similarity in artistic works, the core trademark infringement suit was successfully decreed.
Alfred Von Schukmann v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Alfred Von Schukmann appealed the rejection of his patent application, titled 'Step-Action Indexing Mechanism,' which was denied by the Patent Office on grounds of lacking inventive step. The appellant argued that the Patent Office's order was cryptic and failed to address detailed submissions distinguishing the invention from prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, emphasizing that a reasoned decision is mandatory when rejecting an application under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different officer.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs Anr.
Natco Pharma challenged the Assistant Controller's order granting a patent to Novartis for pharmaceutical compositions, arguing that the order was passed with procedural irregularities and violated principles of natural justice. The court held that the writ petition was maintainable and quashed the impugned order, remanding the application back to the Controller for fresh consideration based on due process.
Corza International And Ors v.Future Bath Products Pvt Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring the plaintiff in a trademark dispute concerning the marks 'CORZA' and 'CORSA'. Despite arguments from the appellants regarding geographical limitations and product differences, the court found prima facie phonetic, structural, and visual similarity between the two marks. The judgment reinforces that registered proprietors can sue other registered proprietors for deceptive similarity, even if they are both registered owners.
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.