Delhi High Court
1664 cases · page 21 of 56
Showing 601–629Sonya Kapur v.Controller General Of Patent, Designs And Trademark and Ors
Sonya Kapur challenged the grant of Patent No. 363697 by the Patent Office, arguing that the pre-grant opposition filed by her was ignored. The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the patent application to the Patent Office for re-consideration, ensuring the petitioner's opposition is taken into account.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Intas Pharmaceutical Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Sun Pharma's appeal against the denial of an interim injunction concerning pharmaceutical trademarks. The court held that since both parties are generic drug manufacturers launching products after patent expiry, and given the similarity of the marks is based on active ingredients, there were no strong equities in favor of either party at this preliminary stage. Furthermore, the appellant's registered mark had not been used for over twenty-four years, which weighed against granting immediate protection.
Hadiklaim Central Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd. v.Ms Dharamraj And Sons And Ors & Ors.
The Delhi High Court judgment confirms the resolution of a trademark dispute concerning the 'KING SOLOMON DATES' brand. The plaintiff successfully reached comprehensive settlement agreements with multiple defendants, including Defendant No. 1. These settlements legally bind the defendants to cease all use of similar or deceptively related marks and acknowledge the plaintiff's exclusive ownership rights over the trademark.
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Mark
The Delhi High Court remanded an appeal filed by Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd regarding the rejection of its trademark application 'Modern Namkeen Karare Lal'. The core issue was whether the appellant could proceed with the appeal despite a previous rejection order from 2018. Recognizing the merits of the case, the court ordered the matter to be sent back to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the original review application. However, this remand is conditional: Modern Snacks must first prove that the prior rejection order was never properly communicated to them.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation appealed an order that rejected its application for a permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited. FMC alleged that Natco's process for manufacturing Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR) infringed their patented method IN 298645, claiming equivalence between the processes. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no infringement because the use of thionyl chloride by Natco was not equivalent to sulfonyl chloride in the suit patent.
Plusplus Lifesciences Llp & Anr. v.Dr. Shiwani Singh & Ors.
Plaintiffs sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with medicines bearing marks like 'NUTRIEPIC' and 'UTTERCARE', alleging misuse of confidential information related to their multi-micronutrient supplement, 'TRIMACARE'. The court examined claims of passing off and similarity between the marks. Ultimately, the ex-parte order was vacated, but the defendants were directed to disclose sales data.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendants for alleged infringement and passing off of its medicinal goods under the marks 'SITARED' and 'SETARET', claiming similarity with the defendant's mark 'SITARA-D'. The court found that prima facie, the two marks were not phonetically or visually similar, and dismissed the application for an interim injunction.
H.S. Sahni, Sole Proprietorm/S M. K. Auto Sales Corporation v.Saic Motor Corporation Limited & Ors
This Delhi High Court order initiates a trademark infringement suit filed by H.S. Sahni against Saic Motor Corporation Limited concerning the use of the marks 'M.G' and 'M.G.I' in the automotive sector. The Plaintiff claims rights based on continuous use since 1989 and registered trademarks from 1998, alleging that the Defendant is infringing upon these established marks. While procedural applications were disposed of, the Court formally registered the suit and directed the Defendants to file a detailed affidavit regarding their sales figures and product launches under the disputed mark.
Ds Confectionery Products Limited v.Nirmala Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Limited against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off related to confectionery products. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated that its marks (PULSE/) were being deceptively used by the defendants' goods (PELSE/ and PLUS++/). Furthermore, given the defendants' failure to appear despite service, the court awarded the plaintiff damages of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for dealing in generic APIXABAN infringing Indian Patent No. IN'247381. The dispute centered on whether the defendants' continued activities, such as participating in tenders and authorizing distributors post-injunction, constituted willful disobedience or contempt of court.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd
Nokia, holding several patents deemed Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) for cellular technologies (2G-5G), filed an application seeking directions against Oppo. The dispute centered on whether Oppo's use of these patented standards required licensing under FRAND terms. The court dismissed Nokia's application, finding insufficient evidence to establish liability or justify the interim relief sought.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.S.Sura & Ors
The Delhi High Court delivered a mixed verdict in the trademark infringement suit filed by Aktiebolaget Volvo. While the court found that Defendants 6 and 7 were infringing the 'VOLVO' mark through deceptive similarity and dilution, leading to permanent injunctions and costs being awarded to Volvo, it ultimately dismissed the suit against other defendants (4, 5, and 9). The judgment highlights the critical importance of evidence regarding trademark usage and ownership in determining liability.
Vintage Distillers Limited v.Ramesh Chand Parekh
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Vintage Distillers Limited against Ramesh Chand Parekh regarding their alcoholic beverage brands. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'DHOLA THARU' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established trademark 'DHOLA MAARU'. Furthermore, the court recognized infringement not only under trademark law but also under copyright law due to the slavish imitation of the Plaintiff's artistic label design and trade dress. This interim order protects the Plaintiff's goodwill while the main suit proceeds.
Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. filed an application seeking permission to file additional documents in a commercial suit against Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which concerned alleged infringement of its software 'HealthBuzz' and misuse of trade secrets. The Plaintiffs sought to introduce various financial statements, correspondence, and domain details related to the Defendants' competing entities. However, the Delhi High Court scrutinized the request under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, emphasizing the need for speedy disposal.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.GSP Crop Science Private Limited
FMC Corporation filed a suit seeking an injunction against GSP Crop Science Private Limited for allegedly infringing Indian Patent No. IN 252004, which covers a method for preparing intermediates used in manufacturing the insecticide CTPR. The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendant's process was identical to the patented method. However, the Court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the balance of convenience favored the Defendant and raising doubts about the patent's industrial applicability due to its age.
M/S Pornsricharoenpun Co Ltd & Anr. v.M/S L'Oreal India Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Pornsricharoenpun Co Ltd, setting aside a trial court order that had restrained them from using the phrase 'HAIR SPA'. The court ruled that since 'HAIR SPA' is a generic and descriptive term commonly used in the cosmetics industry to denote hair treatment, its use by the appellants under their registered trademark 'BERINA' did not constitute trademark infringement. This decision emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between proprietary marks and common trade language.
ITC Limited v.Central Park Private Limited & Anr.
ITC Limited successfully argued that its restaurant brand, 'BUKHARA,' qualifies as a well-known mark in India. The Delhi High Court recognized the extensive reputation, global acclaim, and long history of the brand, despite similar marks being used by defendants. This judgment reinforces the strong protection afforded to established brands under Indian IP law, particularly concerning transborder reputation.
Rms Fire And Safety Services Pvt Ltd v.Ispl Automation Pvt Ltd
The appellant challenged the revocation of their patent for a Motor Bike Fire Engine granted in 2019. The case was heard by the Delhi High Court to determine its territorial jurisdiction over an appeal originating from the Mumbai Patent Office. Ultimately, the court held that since the appropriate office was in Mumbai, it lacked jurisdiction.
FMC Corporation v.Insecticides India Limited
The Plaintiffs filed an application seeking a permanent injunction against Insecticides India Limited, alleging that the Defendant was infringing their patent (IN'645) by using a patented method for preparing the insecticide CTPR. The court examined whether the Defendant's process was equivalent to the claimed invention.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
This judgment addresses complex jurisdictional issues arising after the enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The court examined three proceedings: two revocation petitions and one appeal under the Patents Act, 1970. In C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2021, the court considered a petition to revoke Patent No. IN 268846. However, in other cases, the court ruled that jurisdiction was lacking because the appropriate office or another High Court already held the matter, preventing parties from pursuing parallel proceedings.
Avery Dennison Corporation v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Avery Dennison Corporation appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs which refused to grant a patent for 'Notched Fastener' due to lack of inventive step. The Appellant argued that the specific features (notch creation, position, shape, direction) provided a technical advancement over prior art documents D2 and D3. The Court ultimately allowed the appeal, finding that the invention satisfied the test of inventive step.
Jindal Industries Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Mark
The Delhi High Court allowed Jindal Industries Private Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its trademark application. The court held that the rejection, based on non-distinctiveness or prohibition under Section 9 of the Act (specifically regarding the use of India's map outline), was unsustainable. Citing previous rulings and the 'No Objection' from the Survey of India, the High Court directed the Registrar to proceed with the registration of the mark.
Visage Beauty And Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed Visage Beauty And Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of their mark 'GLOW-GETTER'. The court held that while the component word 'GLOW' might be descriptive in cosmetics, the combination forms a composite mark that does not inherently describe the product's quality or kind. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed for registration, provided the appellant accepts a disclaimer ensuring no exclusive rights vest solely in the word 'GLOW'.
Pm Franchise Brands, Llc v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of a trademark application, PRETZELMAKER. While the court found that the word mark was problematic under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act due to descriptiveness and similarity, it recognized the distinctiveness of the accompanying logo. Consequently, the court allowed the Appellant to proceed with registration by deleting the descriptive word 'PRETZELMAKER' from the application.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Zee Laboratories Limited & Ors.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against Zee Laboratories Limited and others for manufacturing and selling generic Apixaban products ('Apixaz' and 'Apiquis') that infringed Patent No. IN 247381. The court noted that the patent had expired on September 17, 2022. Consequently, the suit was disposed of, but directions were issued regarding the removal of listings from e-commerce platforms.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Vifor (International) Ltd filed a suit against Hetero Healthcare Limited concerning an impugned product. The Defendants stated they would not launch the product until the expiry of the suit patent. Based on this statement, the court decreed the suit in favour of Vifor.
Sotkon Sp Slu v.Western Imaginary Transcon Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves Sotkon Sp Slu alleging that Western Imaginary Transcon Pvt. Ltd.'s technical specifications and products for underground bins infringe upon its patented 'Subsurface System for the Collection of Refuse'. The Plaintiff had previously secured an interim injunction based on a prima facie comparison showing similarity between the parties' designs. During the hearing, the court addressed arguments regarding deviations in supplied goods versus bid documents. While noting that the Defendants were prima facie guilty of contempt due to non-compliance with the existing order, the Court granted them one last opportunity to present evidence upon depositing a substantial sum.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound Alectinib (Alecensa®). The dispute centered on the defendants' alleged activities including import/export and online listings of the product, leading to an amicable resolution.
Relaxo Footwears Ltd v.Aqualite India Ltd
Relaxo Footwears Ltd challenged a single judge's decision that had allowed Aqualite India Ltd to challenge an interim injunction protecting Relaxo's registered footwear design. The core dispute revolved around whether Relaxo's design, bearing registration no. 294938, possessed sufficient novelty and originality to warrant protection against infringement. The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the impugned judgment, finding that the single judge's conclusion lacked a proper foundation, particularly its reliance on mere market availability rather than established prior art.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited through a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court mandated that the defendants clear all existing stock of the disputed drugs within 90 days, ensuring no further sales under the impugned mark. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 committed to withdrawing several trademark applications and initiating the cancellation of the core registration (No. 5054226) within four weeks.
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.