Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 24 of 56
Showing 691–719Provident Housing Ltd v.Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed Provident Housing Ltd's appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order that restrained its use of 'Provident Central Park'. The court found that the appellant's mark was deceptively similar to the respondents' registered trademarks, particularly because 'CENTRAL PARK' is a prominent feature in the respondent's marks. While clarifying that no exclusive right exists over the generic words 'CENTRAL PARK', the judgment affirmed that copying this prominent portion of a device mark constitutes infringement.
Excitel Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court overturned the rejection of the trade mark application 'REELTIME' by the Senior Examiner. The court held that website printouts could constitute valid evidence of use, provided they are accompanied by a Section 65B certificate under the IT Act. Furthermore, the court found that prior registrations and a settlement agreement with Google LLC were sufficient to establish the Appellant's rights, allowing the mark to proceed for advertisement.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Hetero Labs 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 used in cancer treatment. The dispute centered on whether the Defendant's import and use of Alectinib Hydrochloride were commercial infringements or activities permitted under Section 107A (Bolar provision) for research and regulatory purposes.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Assistant Controller that refused its application seeking cross-examination during pre-grant opposition proceedings against Novartis A.G.'s patent application (No. 4412/DELNP/2007). The court ultimately disposed of the petition, allowing for procedural steps to be taken in the underlying opposition.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim appealed the Controller's rejection of a divisional patent application related to DPP-IV inhibitors. The core dispute centered on whether the parent application contained a 'plurality of inventions' sufficient to support the new product claims sought in the divisional filing. The Delhi High Court ultimately rejected the appeal, holding that since the original application only contained method or use claims and not distinct product claims, the subsequent introduction of such products was considered disclaimed. Consequently, the divisional application could not proceed.
Disruptive Health Solutions Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court overturned a rejection of the trademark 'HEALTHSKOOL' by the Registrar, which had deemed it descriptive under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act. The court recognized that despite some indicia related to health, the mark was sufficiently distinctive given its long-standing use since 2015 and existing registrations in various classes. Consequently, the application was allowed to proceed for advertisement, albeit with a caveat preventing exclusive rights over the generic term 'Health'.
Best Agrolife Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller's decision granting Patent No. IN 394568, arguing that the grant was flawed because the pre-grant opposition raised on grounds like lack of novelty and non-patentability under Section 3(d) was ignored. The court found that the impugned order was non-speaking, failed to address key objections, and did not consider expert affidavits. Consequently, the matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned 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.
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.
Philips Lighting Holding B.V./Signify Holding BV v.Jai Prakash Agarwal And Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses applications concerning the infringement of registered designs related to LED lighting products. The court considered claims regarding Design Registration No. 299147 (T-Bulb) and others, where the plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendants. While the court noted the existence of similar products in the market, it denied the ad-interim injunction due to the lack of action against other competitors. However, for Design Registration No. 247723, the defendant was directed to file regular sales accounts.
Mrs. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.