Delhi High Court
1635 cases · page 23 of 55
Showing 661–689Mrs. Anugya Gupta v.Mr. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mrs. Anugya Gupta against Mr. Ajay Kumar and others, finding that the defendants' use of domain names like 'SARKARIRESULT.INFO' was likely to cause confusion with her established trademark and website, 'SARKARIRESULT'. The court emphasized that the similarity between the marks/domains, coupled with evidence of dishonest adoption by the defendants, warranted immediate protection for the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Novo Nordisk A S v.Union Of India
Novo Nordisk challenged an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents, arguing that the decision did not address the substantive grounds raised in its representation regarding a pending post-grant opposition. The case involves Patent IN257402, which relates to pharmaceutical preparations. Despite years of delays and procedural complexities in the Opposition Board proceedings, the High Court intervened to ensure that the Deputy Controller would consider all arguments presented by the patentee before rendering a final decision.
Nippon A&L Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents
Nippon A&L Inc. appealed a rejection order by the Deputy Controller of Patents regarding its application for a copolymer latex process and product. The Patent Office had raised objections concerning inventive step, non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), and lack of clarity in claims. The High Court focused specifically on the objection related to claim amendments. The court ruled that since the Appellant was narrowing the scope of the claims and the process sought was disclosed in the specification, the amendments were valid under Section 59.
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. v.Powereye Electronics
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. filed a fresh suit against Powereye Electronics under the Trademark and Copyright Act, seeking permanent injunction and relief for passing off. The petitioners challenged an earlier court order that merely adjourned the matter. While the High Court clarified it was not adjudicating the merits of the case, it supported the petitioner's request to expedite the proceedings. Consequently, the Trial Court was directed to take up the matter on 04.07.2022.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitions were filed seeking directions to expedite the hearing and adjudication of a post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN 257402, which was facing significant delays by the Respondents (Controller/UOI). The Petitioner also challenged the validity of the Opposition Board's constitution and recommendation.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
Plaintiffs (Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr.) filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound Alectinib (Alecensa®). The dispute centered on the Defendant's alleged export and potential commercial launch of generic Alectinib products. The matter was amicably resolved.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Union of India
The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking directions to the respondents (Controller/UOI) to expedite the hearing and adjudication of a post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN 257402. The petitioner also challenged the validity of the Opposition Board's recommendation, alleging procedural flaws. The Court directed the Competent Authority to decide the pending representation and scheduled the patent proceedings.
Kiran Jain & Ors. v.Kangaro Industries (Regd.) & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a long-standing dispute between two families regarding the use of the 'KANGARO' trademark for stationery products. Despite the Plaintiffs seeking permanent injunctions against foreign litigation, the Court recognized the complex history and the familial nature of the conflict. Consequently, the court mandated mediation while issuing interim directions allowing both parties to continue their respective trademark applications and statutory proceedings globally, provided they notify the opposing party if new civil or criminal actions are initiated.
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v.Www.Indiabullsdhanifinance.Co & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., finding that the defendant's website and domain name were engaged in trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court found that the use of deceptively similar marks ('Indiabulls', 'Dhani') and identical get-up was designed to mislead customers into believing the fraudulent site was affiliated with the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the defendant was permanently restrained from using the infringing marks and their website operation was suspended.
Havells India Limited v.Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt Ltd
Havells India Limited filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt Ltd, alleging that the latter's VENICE PRIME series of ceiling fans was a blatant imitation and substantial reproduction of Havells' registered ENTICER/ENTICER ART designs. The Plaintiff asserted its market dominance and unique design features protected under the Designs Act, 2000. The Delhi High Court found that the Plaintiff had successfully made out a prima facie case for infringement and balance of convenience in its favor.
The European Union Represented By The European Commission v.Union Of India & Ors.
The European Union challenged the deeming abandonment of two patent applications (11123/DELNP/2012 and 3466/DELNP/2013) filed under the Indian Patents Act. The Petitioner argued that delays, stemming from changes in legal counsel and communication issues with the initial patent agent, led to the abandonment orders. Citing exceptional circumstances and observations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee regarding the inflexibility of the Patent Act, the Delhi High Court set aside the abandonment orders.
The European Union Represented By The European Commission v.Union Of India & Ors.
The European Union challenged the deemed abandonment of two patent applications (11123/DELNP/2012 and 3466/DELNP/2013) filed under Indian law. The Petitioner argued that despite procedural delays involving multiple patent agents, they had taken steps to respond to the First Examination Reports (FERs). Citing exceptional circumstances and observations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee regarding the inflexibility of abandonment rules, the Delhi High Court set aside the abandonment orders.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 233161. The court examined the defendant's affidavit, which claimed no commercial activity related to the patented drug ELTROMBOPAG OLAMINE/ REVOLADE. Furthermore, the Department of Pharmaceuticals clarified that its public notice was merely for collating local manufacturers and did not constitute government authorization under Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 229051 concerning pharmaceutical compositions comprising Valsartan and NEP Inhibitors. The court clarified that the Department's Public Notice was merely to collate local manufacturers and did not constitute Government Authorization under Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970. Consequently, the suit was decreed granting a permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Msn Laboratories Private Limited for alleged infringement of Patent No. 237430 (Inhibitors of Tyrosine Kinases). The dispute centered on whether the Department of Pharmaceuticals' public notice constituted government authorization to manufacture the drug Nilotinib. The court, without considering the merits of infringement or validity, directed that Msn Laboratories must provide four weeks' advance notice before commencing commercial production.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against MSN Laboratories for alleged infringement of Patent No. 283133 concerning Pyrrolopyrimidine compounds. The dispute also involved whether a public notice issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals constituted government authorization to manufacture the patented drug, Ribociclib.
Shakthi Fashion & Anr. v.Burberry Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to reject a plaint based on territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement suit. The court examined whether the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction, considering both past incidents in Bangalore and ongoing activities in New Delhi. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claims regarding online sales (IndiaMart) and local solicitation in Delhi, the High Court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, stating that the question of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence at trial.
Sudhir Bhatia Trading As V.Bhatia International v.Central Government Of India & Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a challenge to the registration of the trademark 'LAXMAN REKHA' by arguing that the initial advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal was illegible. The petitioner sought to quash the advertisement and compel re-advertisement, claiming this error prejudiced their ability to file an opposition. However, the court ultimately dismissed the petition, emphasizing that while the Registrar has a duty to ensure proper advertising, the petitioner's significant delay in challenging the registration—despite learning of the issue years earlier—precluded the High Court from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Semco Infratech Pvt Ltd v.Simla Chemicals Pvt Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment resolves a trademark dispute between Simla Chemicals (owner of SIMCO) and Semco Infratech (using SEMCO). The parties reached an amicable settlement, leading the court to decree the original suit in terms of this agreement. Under the settlement, Simla retains ownership of 'SIMCO' but is permitted to expand its product range, while Semco can continue using 'SEMCO' for specific goods and services, provided they pursue necessary registrations. The ruling provides a clear path forward for both parties to operate without ongoing litigation.
M/S Subros Educational Society v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Subros Educational Society against the refusal of registration for its trademark 'SBS World School'. The court found that the Registrar failed to properly consider the Appellant's existing registrations for similar marks under 'SBS' in Class 41. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trademarks for fresh consideration.
Makind Pharma Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Makind Pharma Limited's appeal against the rejection of its trade mark application for "DON'T WORRY" in Class 3. The court held that, given the Appellant's existing registrations of the mark across various classes, the refusal based solely on lack of distinctiveness was unwarranted. The application was permitted to proceed for advertisement before acceptance, provided it is associated with the registered trademark 'MANKIND'S DON'T WORRY', and no exclusive rights are granted in the words 'DON'T' or 'WORRY' alone.
Radico Khaitan Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Radico Khaitan Ltd challenging the rejection of its trademark application for "EFKAY'S FIVE STAR MYSORE BRANDY." The court found that the Senior Examiner failed to properly consider the Appellant's existing assigned rights in 'EFKAY'S.' While this addressed the Section 11 objection, the court remanded the matter back to the Registrar. The examiner must now reconsider the application based on the remaining descriptive elements of the mark, ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. v.Registrar Trade Marks
Radico Khaitan Ltd. appealed the rejection of its trademark application 'EFKAY'S XXX RUM (DEVICE)' by the Registrar of Trademarks, citing conflicts with existing marks. The appellant argued that several related 'EFKAYS' series marks had been legally assigned to them. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the arguments and directed all related appeals concerning similar mark rejections to be listed together for a comprehensive hearing.
Jitendra Kohli v.The Controller Of Patents
Jitendra Kohli appealed the rejection of his patent application concerning an electronic tendering system. The Assistant Controller rejected the application under Section 3(k) for being a business method, based on the original process claims. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller erred by not considering the later-filed amended 'system and process claims', leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Jagran Prakashan Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
Jagran Prakashan Limited appealed the abandonment of its trademark application for 'JAGRAN' in Class 12, which was initiated due to non-filing of a reply to the Examination Report (FER). The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had approached the court too belatedly. Despite acknowledging the appellant's existing rights in related marks, the court held that the delay in responding to the FER and filing the present appeal was too long to be condoned.
Starbucks Corporation v.Teaquila A Fashion Cafe & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Starbucks Corporation, granting a permanent injunction against Teaquila A Fashion Cafe & Anr. for infringing the registered trademark 'FRAPPUCCINO' and engaging in passing off. Despite the defendants being proceeded ex parte, the court found them guilty of infringement based on the evidence presented by Starbucks. Furthermore, the court awarded damages to Starbucks, noting that while specific sales figures were lacking, notional damages could be granted given the established infringement.
The British School Society v.Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of The British School Society, confirming an existing interim injunction against the Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society. The court found that the unauthorized and continuous use of the identical mark 'The British School' by the Defendants constituted misrepresentation and caused irreparable prejudice to the Plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the Defendants were mandated to change their school names effective May 1, 2022, ensuring a smooth transition for enrolled students.
Saga Lifesciences Limited v.Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the brand 'ULTRAMOL', the Delhi High Court recognized Saga Lifesciences Limited as the prior adopter and user of the mark for pharmaceutical preparations. Despite initial procedural applications being disposed of, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises of Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The commissioner is tasked with inventorying products bearing both 'ULTRAMOL' and 'ARISTO ULTRAMOL', and critically, examining the sales accounts of the defendant to assess the scope of alleged infringement.
M/S Drs Logistics (P) Ltd & Another v.Google India Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by Drs Logistics against Google regarding trademark infringement via search engine advertising. The court recognized that using a registered trademark as a keyword could lead to consumer confusion, diverting traffic from the plaintiff's site to competitors. Consequently, the court granted interim injunctions requiring Google and other defendants to investigate any complaints of misuse and remove or block advertisements found to be infringing or causing passing off.
Elcom Innovation Pvt Ltd v.Harish Sharma & Ors.
Elcom Innovation Pvt. Ltd. filed suit seeking permanent injunction against its erstwhile employee and shareholder, Harish Sharma, alleging misuse and disclosure of proprietary sensitive and highly confidential information/data. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent further leakage of this IP. However, the court dismissed both applications, finding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction due to the vagueness of the claimed confidential information.
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.