Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 23 of 56
Showing 661–689Fmc 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.
Intex Enterprises Private Limited v.Sandeep Kumar
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Intex Enterprises Private Limited against a trial court order that partially vacated an interim injunction. The court found that the trial court had failed to address crucial legal arguments regarding trademark infringement under Section 29(4) and claims of passing off and copyright infringement, despite them being part of the composite suit. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for a comprehensive review of all issues.
Neetu Singh v.Telegram Fz Llc
Neetu Singh and K.D. Campus Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging that their copyrighted course materials, lectures, and books were being illegally disseminated through various Telegram channels. Despite initial takedown requests to Telegram Fz Llc, the infringement continued with new channels appearing daily. The plaintiffs subsequently sought discovery of the identity of the operators running these infringing channels. The Delhi High Court addressed this application by directing Telegram to disclose detailed information regarding the devices, IP addresses, and operators responsible for uploading the copyrighted material.
Ds Biopharma Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Ds Biopharma Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application by the Assistant Controller. The Appellant argued that the grounds for rejection, particularly under Section 3(d), were not properly specified in the hearing notice, violating natural justice. The Court found that the Appellant lacked adequate opportunity to respond to the specific objection under Section 3(d).
Apnatime Tech Pvt. Ltd. v.Tmp Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Apnatime Tech Pvt. Ltd., permanently restraining Tmp Technologies Pvt. Ltd. from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to its trademark 'APNA'. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'APNA SHARE APP' constituted passing off, given the similarity of services offered (online learning/job search). Furthermore, the judgment ordered the cancellation of the infringing domain name and mandated the removal of all related references from social media platforms.
Gogoro Inc v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Gogoro Inc appealed a rejection order passed by the Asst. Controller of Patents regarding its application for an apparatus and method for authentication and control of power storage devices. The Appellant argued that the rejection was unreasoned, failed to consider all cited prior arts (D1, D2), and lacked clarity on which claims lacked inventive step. The High Court found the impugned order deficient in reasoning and set it aside.
Novartis Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Novartis appealed the rejection of its divisional patent application, which was held by the Controller to be non-maintainable because it belonged to the same broad class as the granted parent application. The appeal challenged the ground that the subject matter formed a single inventive concept.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co Ltd & Anr
The defendant filed an application seeking production of various documents, including global license agreements, declarations of essentiality to ETSI, and statements of working related to Ericsson's patents. The court observed that while some documents were relevant for FRAND determination, the burden lay on the defendant to prove comparability in trial, and thus dismissed the application.
Ruptech Educational India v.Registrar Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court set aside a previous rejection of Ruptech Educational India's trademark application ('SCOTTISH HIGH EARLY YEARS') under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act. The rejection was based on cited marks owned by Ms. Mansi Aggarwal, but subsequent to the initial order, these conflicting applications were withdrawn following a settlement agreement reached in a related commercial suit. The Court held that since the objections no longer existed, the application should proceed to advertisement.
M/S Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v.Union Of India & Others
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals challenging an IPAB order that directed the cancellation of its registered trademark 'VEGA ASIA'. The court upheld the IPAB's finding regarding prior use by the respondent, noting that while the petitioner argued for earlier adoption and assignment rights, the evidence presented by the respondent was sufficient to establish their claim of user since 2001. This ruling underscores the strict adherence required when challenging rectification orders before a High Court.
Kamdhenu Limited v.Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd
Kamdhenu Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design for surface patterns on steel rods. The core dispute revolved around whether this design was novel, as Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd contended that the pattern was derived from an existing British Standard (BS4449-2005). The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed Kamdhenu's appeal, holding that since the standard prescribed the specific surface pattern for identifying a steel grade, the design lacked originality and was incapable of registration.
Star India Pvt Ltd v.Extramovies.Click & Ors.
Star India Pvt Ltd filed suit seeking permanent injunction against various rogue websites, ISPs, and government bodies for the unauthorized hosting and streaming of its film 'Tadap'. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over the cinematograph work. Throughout the proceedings, numerous additional infringing URLs were identified and blocking orders were issued by MEITY and DoT. Given that the film's theatrical run had concluded and no defense was raised by the rogue websites, the court confirmed the existing injunction and decreed the suit in favor of Star India.
General Electric Company v.Union Of India And Anr.
General Electric Company challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents that rejected its patent application. The Petitioner argued that the Controller arbitrarily revisited the non-patentability objection under Section 3(k) without providing a proper opportunity for defense or written submissions. The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter, directing the Patent Office to provide a hearing on all objections.
Dabur India Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Ors
In a significant ruling concerning domain name disputes, the Delhi High Court directed various Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to appoint Grievance Officers in accordance with the IT Rules, 2021. This order was issued within the context of multiple connected suits involving trademark and cyber-related issues. The court emphasized the need for DNR compliance to protect intellectual property rights and ensure proper grievance redressal mechanisms are in place across the digital landscape.
Diageo Brands B.V. v.Great Galleon Ventures Limited
Diageo Brands B.V. filed suit against Great Galleon Ventures Limited alleging that the latter was fraudulently imitating its 'Hipster' bottle, which is protected by a Registered Design (No. 306577). The Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent further infringement and passing off of their distinctive trade dress. While the court found similarities in the overall get-up, it ultimately granted an interim injunction based solely on design infringement, but declined the claim related to passing off.
akash aggarwal v.flipkart internet private limited
Akash Aggarwal, owner of the 'V Tradition' trademark for women's clothing, sued Flipkart alleging that the platform’s ‘latching on’ feature allowed third-party sellers to use his brand name and product images without consent, constituting passing off. The Plaintiff claimed significant sales and consumer engagement through Flipkart before this unauthorized usage.
T. V. Today Network Limited v.News Laundry Media Private Limited
T. V. Today Network Limited, a major media group operating channels like AajTak and India Today Television, filed a suit seeking relief against News Laundry Media Private Limited for alleged infringement of its content. The plaintiff sought an interim mandatory injunction to prevent further dissemination of allegedly defamatory and infringing material. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that since the plaintiff could be compensated with damages (quantified at Rs. 2 crores), there was no irreparable loss warranting immediate injunctive relief.
Novartis A G v.Supermax Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Novartis A G filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Supermax Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited for infringing its patent (IN 237430) covering the drug molecule Nilotinib. The dispute arose after the Defendant submitted bids to a government tender using the patented substance. During the proceedings, the Defendants conceded that they had no intention to manufacture or sell the preparation during the patent's lifetime. Consequently, the court decreed the suit for permanent injunction, contingent upon the filing of an affidavit detailing existing stock and an undertaking to comply with the decree.
Delhi Public School Society v.Delhi Public International School
The Delhi Public School Society filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Delhi Public International School for alleged trademark infringement and passing off, claiming that the use of 'DPIS' was deceptively similar to their established brand 'DPS'. The court initially granted an interim injunction recognizing the plaintiff's prior rights. However, upon considering subsequent developments, particularly the change in name by the defendant school, the court concluded that the main cause of action no longer survived against all parties. Consequently, the suit was disposed of, allowing the plaintiff to pursue remedies regarding pending trademark applications.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This judgment addresses applications filed by Respondent No.2 (Patentee) seeking dismissal of revocation petitions on the grounds of being time-barred. The court held that since no specific limitation is prescribed for revocation under Section 64, a three-year limitation period cannot be read into the provision. Furthermore, interim stay applications were dismissed as the patent was already granted and injunctions had been granted elsewhere.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This judgment addresses applications filed by Respondent No.2 seeking dismissal of revocation petitions concerning patent IN 243301 (Linagliptin) on the grounds that they were time-barred. The Court held that since no specific limitation period is prescribed for revocation under Section 64, a three-year limitation period cannot be read into the provision.
RRR Motion Pictures And Ors v.Shahe Ali
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking to set aside an order that framed issues in a trademark infringement suit. The core issue was whether the Petitioners' request for permission to file a rectification petition under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had been properly considered. The Court clarified that while a civil court must examine the prima facie tenability of an invalidity plea, this process is not equivalent to granting 'permission.' It directed the Commercial Court to decide on the validity application before proceeding with the main infringement trial.
Essential Export Sociedad Anonima v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Essential Export Sociedad Anonima challenging the rejection of its multi-class trademark application (No. 3639686). While dismissing a request for stay, the court found prima facie grounds to reconsider the matter. The court noted that certain facts, including oppositions and COVID-19 related adjournments, had not been properly considered by the Registrar's Examiner. Consequently, the case was remanded back to allow for fresh consideration of the application.
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.