Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 26 of 56
Showing 751–779Inter Ikea Systems B V v.Italica Floor Tiles Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed applications filed by the defendants (Italica Floor Tiles) seeking to set aside an earlier ex parte decree passed against them for trademark infringement. The court acknowledged that while the plaintiffs had a strong case regarding their established brand, the procedural lapse and lack of opportunity for the defendants to present their defense warranted reconsideration. Consequently, the ex parte order was set aside, and the main suit has been revived, allowing both parties to proceed on the merits.
Roland Corporation v.Hi Tone Electronics
The Delhi High Court resolved the dispute between Roland Corporation and Hi Tone Electronics through successful mediation. The parties agreed to a comprehensive settlement that involved mutual withdrawals of cancellation petitions and opposition proceedings related to their respective trademarks. Crucially, HiTone agreed to change its mark and use it in combination with Roland's 'BOSS' trademark for specific products, while Roland also consented to certain changes regarding HiTone's marks.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis sought an interlocutory injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for allegedly infringing its suit patent (IN 233161) covering the drug Eltrombopag Olamine, marketed as REVOLADE. The defendant contested by questioning the patent's validity under Section 64 of the Patents Act. The court found that infringement was established and there was no prima facie case of vulnerability to revocation, thus granting the injunction.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The appeal challenged a single judge's judgment that invalidated the Appellant's patent IN240893 under Sections 64(1)(h) and (k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court held that since no issues were framed regarding these specific grounds for revocation, the learned Single Judge could not have entertained them.
Eli Lilly And Company & Ors. v.Bryan Pharmaceuticals Through Its Proprietor Mr. Laxmi Kand Pal / Navneet Kand Pal & Ors.
In this pharmaceutical dispute, Eli Lilly sued several companies for marketing its patented compound Baricitinib under a brand name ('Barinat') for rheumatoid arthritis, allegedly breaching licensing agreements that restricted use solely to COVID-19 treatment. The court addressed an application by one defendant (Defendant No. 11), who claimed the marketing was an inadvertent error and no sales had occurred. After the defendant provided undertakings not to market or sell the drug for any ailment other than COVID-19, the plaintiff agreed that no cause of action survived against this specific defendant, leading to its removal from the suit.
Bacardi And Company Limited v.Bahety Overseas Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a suit concerning trademark infringement where the plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendants. The court reviewed an application filed by the defendant seeking vacation of the existing interim injunction, which was granted previously. The judge directed the defendant to place on record the memorandum of appeal and produce evidence regarding similar bottle shapes, while also addressing a counter-application by the plaintiff alleging non-compliance with the original injunction.
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited filed an application seeking injunction against Hindustan Unilever Limited, alleging that a campaign of advertisements by HUL was designed to vilify and denigrate its popular toilet cleaner brand, HARPIC. The plaintiff argued that these ads disparaged the product's effectiveness and sought to divert market share to HUL's DOMEX. The court examined whether the defendant's advertising amounted to passing off or defamation of goodwill.
Ampm Fashions Private Limited v.Mr. Akash Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application concerning the use of the 'AMPM' trademark. While the plaintiff asserted its mark was well-known and infringed upon by the defendant's stylized version, the court declined to grant the requested injunction. However, in a compromise, the defendants agreed to prominently display a specific subtitle ('Interior design by Akash Mehta and Poonam Mehta') alongside their impugned mark and submit quarterly turnover accounts to the court.
Novartis AG v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 229051, which covers a pharmaceutical composition combining Valsartan and Sacubitril. The dispute centered on whether Natco Pharma Limited's product, described as a supra molecular complex, infringed the patented combination.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Aqualite Industries Pvt Limited
Relaxo Footwears Limited filed an application seeking an ex parte injunction against Aqualite Industries Pvt Limited, alleging that the latter was unlawfully imitating and pirating its distinctive footwear designs. The plaintiff highlighted that two specific slipper designs were duly registered under the Designs Act, 2000. After considering the prima facie evidence presented by both parties, the court found that the defendant had copied the plaintiff's designs. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing designs.
Vikas Gupta & Anr v.M/S Sahni Cosmetics
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's decision, confirming an injunction that allowed M/S Sahni Cosmetics to continue using the trademark 'NEHA' for face cream. The court prioritized the defendant's established prior use of the mark dating back to 2003 over the plaintiff's claims, despite arguments regarding regulatory compliance under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating long-standing market presence in trademark disputes.
M/S Gulab Oil And Food (Ahmedabad) Pvt. Ltd. v.Smt. Madhu Gupta
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S Gulab Oil And Food, upholding the District Judge's interim order that prohibited the appellant from trading and selling 'Gulab' Namkeen products. The court found a prima facie case for confusion between the marks, noting that consumers identify the plaintiff's products solely by asking for 'Gulab.' Furthermore, it held that since namkeen is an allied product to the registered goods (Gajak/Rewari), Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act was attracted, thus justifying the interim protection.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Ireland Unlimited Company v.Micro Labs Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Micro Labs Limited for infringing their registered patent (No. 247381) related to Apixaban, an anticoagulant drug. The court considered the prior history of similar cases and granted an ex-parte ad- interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling generic Apixaban under any brand name, including 'APIVAS'.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.
This litigation involves Communication Components Antenna Inc. challenging Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.'s alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. IN240893, which relates to 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency' in wireless communication systems. The core dispute revolves around the validity of this patent, as raised by the defendant through a counterclaim. While the court analyzed grounds of revocation under Sections 64(d), (e), and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970, it ultimately decided to list the suit for further consideration, indicating that the matter remains unresolved.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited & Anr.
The suit alleged infringement of Plaintiff's patent (IN'429) related to a novel agricultural composition used as a fertilizer. The Plaintiff claimed that Defendant No.1 was manufacturing and selling infringing products under brand names 'SUFFAR 90' and 'COZY WET 90 WDG'.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Sms Pharmaceuticals Limited
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking an injunction against Sms Pharmaceuticals Limited for infringing its patent on Sitagliptin, an anti-diabetic drug. The court initially granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Merck. However, upon considering the defendant's request under Section 107A (Bolar exemption), the court modified the injunction to allow limited export of the API for research and development purposes.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Zydus Healthcare Limited & Anr., Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, Micro Labs Limited, MSN Laboratories Private Limited, Eris Lifesciences Limited, USV Private Limited, Ajanta Pharma Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses multiple appeals filed by AstraZeneca seeking interim relief to restrain various pharmaceutical companies from infringing its patents. The core issue revolved around whether AstraZeneca was entitled to an immediate injunction while the underlying suits for permanent injunction were pending. The court ultimately dismissed all nine appeals, finding no merit in the appellants' claims.
FMC Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation filed applications seeking interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited and Best Crop Science LLP for allegedly infringing its patents related to Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The court examined claims of infringement and challenges to the validity of the patents. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court allowed the interim injunctions, emphasizing that in patent infringement cases involving agrochemicals, public interest dictates preventing the perpetuation of an invention that is prima facie infringing.
Willowood Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Indo-Swiss Chemicals Ltd & Anr.
The defendants filed an application seeking permission from the court to sell their existing stock of a fungicidal composition, which was previously restrained by an ex-parte injunction. The plaintiff strongly opposed this request, arguing that the defendants had continued manufacturing and selling the infringing product despite being aware of the patent rights and prior objections. The court dismissed the application.
H. Lundbeck A/S v.Symed Labs Limited
The dispute concerned the alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 227963 by Symed Labs Limited regarding Vortioxetine/Vortioxetine Hydrobromide. The parties amicably resolved the matter, leading to a decree in terms of the settlement agreement.
M/S. Golden Tobie Private Limited v.M/S. Golden Tobacco Limited
M/S. Golden Tobie Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against M/S. Golden Tobacco Limited, alleging wrongful cancellation of an exclusive trademark license agreement. The core dispute revolved around the interpretation and validity of the termination notices issued by the defendant. However, the court ultimately ruled that since the controversy primarily arose from contractual terms rather than statutory infringement, the matter was subject to arbitration as per the existing clause in the agreements.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Apple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute concerning the trademarks 'UNOCAL' and related products. The plaintiff, Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited, had previously obtained an ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with litigation in the United States. However, the court ultimately allowed the vacation of this injunction. The ruling emphasized that Indian courts should not restrain parties from seeking protection against perceived infringement in foreign jurisdictions unless those proceedings are oppressive or vexatious to the domestic case.
Fmc Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation filed suits alleging infringement by Natco Pharma Limited regarding the product Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR), protected under Indian Patents IN 307 and IN 332. The core dispute revolved around whether these specific patents remained valid, especially since CTPR was covered by an expired genus patent (IN 978). While FMC argued for a permanent injunction against the launch of CTPR, Natco contended that the validity of the suit patents was questionable due to the prior coverage by IN 978. The court disposed of the interim applications but scheduled further hearings to conclude the complex arguments on the merits.
Dharmendra Kumar Aggarwal v.Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through The Secretary & Anr.
This petition addressed the critical issue of supply and availability of the drug Tocilizumab 400 MG (Actemra) for COVID-19 patients in Delhi. The court examined submissions from Roche India, which indicated that global demand far exceeded current manufacturing capabilities. While Roche mentioned partnerships with other entities to meet demand, they provided no clear assurance regarding further supply to India. Consequently, the court issued detailed directions to both Roche and the Union of India to provide comprehensive affidavits on supply chain status, patent details, and potential alternatives.
M/S Kamdhenu Limited v.M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd.
Kamdhenu Limited sued Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd. alleging infringement of its registered design for steel bars featuring a double-ribbed surface pattern. The defendant challenged the validity of this registration, arguing that the design was merely a common feature found in industry standards and prior publications. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff's design lacked novelty because it reflected established industry practices and known standards.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Xiaomi Corporation
Interdigital Technology Corporation filed an application seeking an injunction against Xiaomi Corporation and others, restraining them from enforcing an anti-suit injunction order passed by the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court. The dispute centers on alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) used in cellular handsets. The court allowed the application, making the ad interim injunction absolute.
Machinenfabrik Rieter Ag & Anr. v.Tex Tech Industries (India) Private Limited
Machinenfabrik Rieter Ag & Anr. filed a suit seeking injunction against Tex Tech Industries for alleged infringement of its registered trademark and Patent No. IN 324406. The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither party had a principal place of business in Delhi and that the transaction was merely a one-time trap purchase. However, the High Court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, noting that since the goods were delivered and the contract completed in Delhi, the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd v.D S Foods & Ors.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd challenged an order that referred its trademark dispute against D S Foods & Ors. to arbitration. The petitioner asserted ownership of the trademarks "SAGAR," "RATNA," and "SAGAR RATNA" and alleged infringement by the respondents, who were franchisees. Despite arguments for arbitrability based on the franchise agreement, the Delhi High Court ultimately intervened, finding that the core dispute concerning trademark rights was not amenable to arbitration due to inherent jurisdictional limitations.
M/S Nutrica Pusti Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Morepen Laboratories Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Nutrica Pusti Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Commercial Court's interim injunction against Morepen Laboratories Ltd. The court found that the marks used by the appellants were deceptively similar to those of the respondents, particularly considering the pharmaceutical context and potential for consumer confusion. This judgment reinforces the strict application of trademark principles in the highly regulated pharma sector.
Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.Sachin Gupta
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. against Sachin Gupta, preventing the use of similar marks and trade dress for spices. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of passing off based on long-standing prior use (since 1969) and significant goodwill associated with the 'GAI CHAAP' mark and 'COW' device. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating continuous, bona fide usage when asserting trademark rights in the FMCG sector.
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.