Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 22 of 56
Showing 631–659Eicore 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.