Delhi High Court
1635 cases · page 21 of 55
Showing 601–629Jindal 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FMC Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
FMC Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'HERBICIDAL MIXTURES' based on procedural grounds, primarily the failure to file timely written submissions. The High Court noted that while the applicant was responsible for delays, the original order lacked proper reasoning and considered the merits of the case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in terms of remanding the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Bry-Air Prokon Sagl & Ors. v.Union Of India & Anr.
Bry-Air Prokon Sagl & Ors. challenged the Controller of Patents' orders that deemed several of their patent applications abandoned and caused a granted patent to lapse, citing failure to file timely responses or renewal fees. The Petitioners argued that delays were due to issues with their Patent Agent and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Delhi High Court acknowledged these facts, quashing the abandonment orders and directing the restoration of all relevant applications and patents.
Entrepreneur Media Inc v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks Delhi
Entrepreneur Media Inc challenged the refusal of its trademark application 'ENTREPRENEUR' by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks Delhi, arguing that the mark was distinctive and had acquired local reputation. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the examiner's order. Crucially, the court did not decide the merits but remanded the case back to the Registrar, directing a fresh review based on specific evidence provided by the appellant regarding cited marks.
Seal For Life Industries Us Llc v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Seal For Life Industries Us Llc against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'ANODEFLEX'. The court held that the rejection, based solely on the ground that the mark was descriptive or had a dictionary meaning, was erroneous. Given extensive evidence of long-term international and domestic use, the High Court quashed the refusal order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.
Intel Corporation v.S.P. Gupta And Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Intel Corporation in a long-pending trademark infringement suit against S.P. Gupta and others. The court granted permanent injunctions, recognizing the extensive goodwill and reputation of the 'INTEL' mark. Crucially, the judgment was reached after the Defendants indicated they were willing to cease using the infringing marks, leading the court to decree the suit based on this mutual understanding.
BASF SE v.GSP CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit seeking enforcement of its patent (IN 271338) covering a crystalline complex used in agriculture, which is commercially sold under the mark 'XELORA'. The dispute arose because the Defendant obtained registration for a similar combination product. After considering the parties' submissions and undertakings, the court decreed the suit based on the defendant's commitment not to launch the infringing product until the patent expires or is invalidated.
Phillips 66 Company v.Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited
This judgment addresses two key applications filed within a commercial suit concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The court first dismissed the defendant's application to reclassify the suit as an ordinary dispute, holding that since the cause of action stemmed from foreign infringement of IP rights, it qualified as a 'commercial dispute.' Subsequently, the court condoned the delay in filing the written statement by the defendant, permitting its admission subject to payment of costs.
Phillips 66 Company v.Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited
This case involves a suit filed by Phillips 66 Company seeking recovery of damages awarded by a US District Court for intellectual property infringement against Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited. The court first addressed an application to reclassify the suit, ultimately holding that since the cause of action was based on IP infringement in the USA, it qualified as a 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act. Subsequently, the court considered an application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement and allowed it, subject to the defendant paying costs.
Nirma Limited v.Purnima Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Nirma Limited's rectification petition, successfully removing the deceptively similar trademark 'NIMA' registered in favor of Purnima Gupta. The court held that because Nirma's primary mark ('NIRMA') is a well-known trade mark and the marks are confusingly similar, allowing the registration would cause consumer deception and dilute Nirma's established goodwill. This judgment reinforces the protective scope afforded to well-known trademarks against subsequent registrations.
Auckland Uniservices Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Auckland Uniservices Limited appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of a patent application for 'Magnetic Field Shaping for Inductive Power Transfer'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step over prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Respondent failed to provide reasoned analysis regarding how a person skilled in the art would move from existing knowledge to the claimed invention.
Vivek Kochher & Anr v.Kyk Corporation Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a judgment that had partially allowed a counter-claim by Kyk Corporation, granting it permanent injunctions. The court found that while the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) findings were dispositive regarding trademark registration, they did not address Kyk Corporation's core claim of passing off. Consequently, the High Court set aside the granted injunctions and remanded the matter to the Single Judge to specifically consider Kyk Corporation's claim for passing off based on the existing evidence.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Sai Deepa Rock Drills Private Limited
The suit involved allegations of infringement against the subject matter of Plaintiff No. 1's registered Patents. The parties amicably resolved the dispute regarding legal costs, leading to a settlement.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Otsuka Pharmaceutical appealed the Controller's order refusing a patent application for a medicament combination involving Brexpiprazole, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection was non-reasoned and procedurally flawed, particularly because the Respondent introduced new prior art documents (D2 and D3) without giving the Appellant an opportunity to respond. The High Court found the impugned order vitiated due to procedural infirmities and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Fmc Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit sought a permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing FMC Corporation's patent IN'645, which covers a method for preparing the insecticide CTPR. The court examined the processes used by both parties and relied on scientific advisor reports. Ultimately, the court found that the competing processes were distinct and not 'equivalent', allowing Natco to launch CTPR.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Hfcl Limited
Sterlite Technologies Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Hfcl Limited for infringing its Indian Patent No. IN335369, which relates to optical fiber cables (OFCs). The defendant challenged the patent's validity and sought vacation of the ex-parte injunction. The court found serious doubt regarding the novelty and inventive nature of the suit patent.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. And Ors. v.Amazon Sellers Service Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court rejected a motion filed by Amazon Sellers Service Private Limited seeking rejection of the trademark infringement suit on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The court held that since the Plaintiffs alleged they have physical stores and their licensees' websites target consumers in Delhi, a valid cause of action exists within the territorial limits of India. This ruling allows the core litigation regarding the use of the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademarks to move forward.
M/S Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. v.Mr. Tazeen Farooqui & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the interim injunction in favor of M/S Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. against Mr. Tazeen Farooqui & Ors., finding that the defendant's mark 'SEABIRD' was deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s established trademark 'STEELBIRD'. The court emphasized the importance of common law rights derived from long, continuous use, ruling that registration alone does not supersede prior proprietary rights. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to well-known marks against potential dilution and confusion in the market.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association v.Willowood Chemicals Private Limited
The petitioner challenged an impugned order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, which granted a patent for 'Novel Fungicidal Composition'. The petitioner argued that the respondent made amendments to their claims without providing them an opportunity to be heard. However, the court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had already availed of alternative remedies.
M/S Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.M/S Mindwave Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/S Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd.'s appeal, upholding a Commercial Court order that restrained Maan from using the trademark 'BUPROEX'. The court found that Mindwave Healthcare was the registered proprietor of the mark and that evidence suggested Maan acted as a third-party manufacturer or contract manufacturer. This ruling reinforces the principle that registration rights hold significant weight against claims of prior use by manufacturers, especially when correspondence supports the relationship.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Anupam Singh & Ors.
Sterlite Technologies Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against former employees (Defendants No. 1 & 2) and their new employer, HFCL Ltd., alleging breach of confidence and misappropriation of trade secrets. The core dispute revolved around patent applications filed by HFCL that allegedly incorporated Sterlite's proprietary information. Although the original suit was not numbered as a commercial suit, the court observed that disputes involving trade secrets and confidential information related to patents fall under the broad definition of 'commercial dispute'.
Apaar Homez Mart Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Century World
The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court's order restraining Apaar Homez Mart from using its trademark 'SEPAL' combined with 'Century'. The court found that M/S. Century World had successfully established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting the significant increase in the respondent's turnover and the appellant's recent adoption of the mark. This judgment reinforces the principle that if an appellant cannot provide a plausible reason for using a potentially common term like 'Century,' they risk being found to be capitalizing on the goodwill of an established competitor.
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.