Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 25 of 56
Showing 721–749Makind 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.
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.
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.
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.
Sanofi India Limited v.Ridley Life Science Private Limited
Sanofi India Limited filed a suit against Ridley Life Science Private Limited alleging continuous violation of an earlier injunction order, specifically regarding the sale of products under the marks 'CONCIFLAM' and 'CORIFLAM'. The Plaintiff claimed that these infringing products were being sold despite the May 2021 restraint on using marks similar to its registered trademark 'COMBIFLAM'. The court noted the defendant's history of alleged habitual infringement in pharmaceutical preparations. Consequently, the court directed the defendant to submit detailed sales figures and imposed a significant deposit amount due to the persistent violations.
Government E Marketplace v.Unilex Consultants & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Government E Marketplace (GeM) against various parties for misusing its brand name. The plaintiff alleged that several defendants were registering or using 'GeM' as a domain name or URL extension, misleading the public into believing they were associated with the official portal. The court granted permanent injunctions and ordered the suspension of multiple infringing domains, reinforcing the protection of government digital brands against unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
This judgment addressed an application seeking dismissal of a patent revocation petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The court examined Section 64 of the Patents Act and the concept of a 'person interested'.
Novartis AG v.Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
Novartis AG filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd and Metrochem Api Private Limited for infringing its patent (No. 233161) covering 'Eltrombopag Olamine', the API in Revolade. The court found that both defendants acknowledged the validity of the patent and admitted they had not manufactured or commercially sold the patented product, leading to a decree granting permanent injunction during the patent's term.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Controller Of Patents And Design
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201617023236) for a solid preparation containing Tofogliflozin in monohydrate crystal form. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and falling under Section 3(d) because it was merely a new use/form of a known drug without enhanced efficacy.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited. v.Deepak Arora & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics, ordering the cancellation and rectification of a conflicting trademark registered by Deepak Arora ('MARC HEAVEN'). The court found that 'MARC HEAVEN' was deceptively similar to the Petitioner's established mark 'BLUE HEAVEN,' particularly due to the appropriation of the dominant feature 'Heaven.' Citing Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, the judgment held that the Respondent's registration lacked distinctive character and caused public confusion.
Red Bull Ag v.Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Red Bull's application for an interim injunction against Pepsico India Holdings regarding the use of the tagline 'STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY.' by their product STING. The court found that both taglines are descriptive and laudatory in nature, meaning the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case at this stage. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favored the defendants given their long-standing market presence with the tagline.
Agriboard International Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Agriboard International LLC appealed the Deputy Controller's order refusing its patent application for 'Efficient Method and Apparatus for Producing Compressed Structural Fiberboard' on grounds of lack of inventive step. The petitioner argued that the refusal was cryptic and lacked proper reasoning regarding the differences between the subject invention and the cited prior art (D1).
Novartis Ag v.Windlas Biotech Pvt Ltd
Novartis initiated multiple suits against various defendants, including Windlas Biotech and Eris Lifesciences, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. IN229051, which covers a combination drug (Valsartan + Sacubitril) used to treat cardiovascular disease. The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions and access to distribution details. While the court maintained an interim injunction against manufacturing and selling the patented composition, it also directed Eris Lifesciences Limited to deposit Rs. 5 crores due to the marketing of stock post-infringement.
Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha v.Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha & Anr.
This appeal challenged an order from the Commercial Court which held that a suit seeking protection for the mark 'Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha' was not a commercial dispute. The petitioner argued that since the dispute related to their intellectual property rights—specifically, an unregistered trademark/name—it must fall under Section 2(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Delhi High Court agreed with this contention, setting aside the lower court's order.
Kamdhenu Limited v.Raghunath Virdharam Bishnoi And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued stringent directions in favor of Kamdhenu Limited regarding the illegal use of its trademark 'Kamdhenu' by various defendants. The court recognized that the defendants were using infringing domains and bank accounts to impersonate the plaintiff and defraud customers. Consequently, the court ordered domain registrars (GoDaddy), telecom providers, and banks to disclose KYC details of the involved parties. Furthermore, it mandated investigations into the identified individuals and mobile numbers to curb ongoing trademark infringement.
Kores (India) Limited v.Doms Industries Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging an order that rejected the request to frame additional issues in a trademark infringement suit. The core dispute involved whether Kores' product infringed Doms' registered trademarks for 'DOMS NEON' pencils. While acknowledging the defendant's need to challenge the validity of the registrations, the court ultimately upheld the Commercial Court's decision regarding the immediate framing of additional issues, noting that all issues related to trademark validity must be dealt with by a specialized Tribunal (under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act) and not the civil court.
Saisons Trade And Industry Private Limited v.Maithri Aquatech Private Limited
Saisons Trade And Industry Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against Maithri Aquatech Private Limited and others for alleged patent infringement. The defendants challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither party was located in Delhi. However, the Court found that since the defendant No.1 operated an interactive website accessible globally, and Defendants No.2 & 3 were marketing agents based in Delhi, Delhi courts possessed sufficient jurisdiction to hear the matter. Consequently, the application for leave to file the suit was allowed.
Black Diamond Trackparts Private Limited v.Black Diamond Motors Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Black Diamond Trackparts Private Limited challenging an order from the Commercial Court. The court upheld the necessity of protecting the registered trademark 'BLACK DIAMOND' during pending litigation, despite previous rulings that allowed both parties to use the mark under specific conditions. The judgment emphasized the limited scope of Article 227 jurisdiction and affirmed the court's power to issue protective directions regarding goods release and security deposits.
Sotefin Sa v.Indraprastha Cancer Society And Research Center
Sotefin Sa filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against Indraprastha Cancer Society and others for the alleged infringement of its Indian Patent 214088, which covers the 'Silomat Dolly' used in automatic car parks. The Plaintiff contended that Defendants were importing 'Smart Dollies' from China that closely resembled and infringed upon their patented technology. After considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, the Delhi High Court allowed the interim injunction.
Mr. Sanjay Chadha Trading As Eveready Tools Emporium and Another v.Union Of India And Another
The Delhi High Court upheld the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to cancel a registered trademark. The petitioners, who owned the 'EVEREADY' word mark for hand tools, challenged its removal by the respondent, Eveready Industries India Limited. However, the court found that the IPAB had thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that the petitioners' adoption and use of the mark were dishonest and lacked continuous user. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the importance of maintaining the purity of the trademark register.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
This case involves a Review Petition filed by Defendants No. 1 & 2 against an earlier order passed by the Delhi High Court. The defendants challenged the court's directions requiring them to produce third-party agreements, arguing that these documents were irrelevant to determining the essentiality of the suit patents and constituted an erroneous understanding of the facts.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd
The dispute concerned the validity and potential revocation of Patent No. IN240893. Although the court had previously found the patent invalid under Section 64(1)(h) in an earlier judgment, the matter was carried out in appeal. The core issue before this bench was whether the patent could be revoked based on grounds like insufficient disclosure (Section 64(1)(h)).
Astra Zeneca Ab And Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
The dispute concerns alleged infringement of Indian Patents IN 205147 and IN 235625 by Natco Pharma Limited regarding the drug Dapnat/Dapagliflozin. The present application sought to release the defendant from a bank guarantee obligation, but the court declined this prayer.
The Polo/Lauren Company L P v.Sandeep Arora & Anr.
The Polo/Lauren Company L P filed a rectification petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, challenging the copyright registration of 'SPORTS POLO' held by Sandeep Arora & Anr. The petitioner argued that the respondent's logo substantially reproduced its well-known trademarks and artistic marks. The court found that the respondent's artwork was an imitation of the petitioner's registered marks, lacking originality, and therefore wrongly registered. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the cancellation of the impugned copyright registration.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a suit alleging that Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd was infringing five of its patents related to telecommunication standards (UMTS, LTE, etc.). The current application sought discovery through interrogatories and production of license agreements with chipset providers like Qualcomm and MediaTek. The court partly allowed the application, directing the defendants to answer specific questions and provide relevant third-party agreements in a sealed cover.
Hamdard National Foundation (India) v.Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an ad interim injunction against Sadar Laboratories, which was seeking protection for its well-known trademark 'Rooh Afza'. The court found that while 'Rooh Afza' may be a strong mark, the defendant's use of 'Dil Afza' did not necessarily cause consumer confusion, especially given the long history and peaceful co-existence of similar marks in the pharmaceutical market. However, the defendant was directed to maintain detailed sales accounts during the pendency of the suit.
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.