Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 27 of 56
Showing 781–809Diva Enterprises (P) Ltd v.Institute Of Medico Legal Publication (P) Ltd.
The appeal challenged the dismissal of the appellant's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The appellant argued that the contractual dispute, seeking damages and injunction, was arbitrable. However, the High Court held that since the reliefs sought were primarily based upon Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), the dispute was non-arbitrable.
Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Eros International Media Limited And Anr.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories sought an urgent interim injunction to prevent the release of a feature film, 'Haathi Mere Saathi,' alleging that its brand mark 'DRL' was being used in a derogatory manner within the movie plot. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's application, finding that Dr. Reddy's failed to meet the three-pronged test for granting an injunction. The court held that the balance of convenience favored the defendants due to their substantial investment in the film production.
Jagmohan Ratra v.Ampa Cycles Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction in favor of Jagmohan Ratra against Ampa Cycles Pvt. Ltd., finding that the latter was engaging in passing off. The court determined that the defendant was illegally using the identical mark 'AMPA' and a deceptively similar logo to ride upon the plaintiff's established goodwill, which had been built over nearly three decades. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to unregistered trademarks under common law principles of passing off.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited v.Lectro E-Mobility Private Limited
This case involved a dispute between Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited and Lectro E-Mobility Private Limited concerning the alleged infringement of the 'Hero' trademark on electric bikes. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off and unauthorized use of similar marks. However, the core legal battle revolved around whether the contractual disputes arising from the Family Settlement Agreement (FSA) and Trade Mark and Name Agreement (TMNA) were subject to arbitration.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Uniza Healthcare Llp. & Anr.
Cadila Healthcare Limited sought an ad-interim injunction against Uniza Healthcare LLP, alleging that the defendant's trademark 'ZACLEAR' was deceptively similar to Cadila's mark 'ZYCLEAR'. The Delhi High Court declined to grant the immediate injunction, primarily noting discrepancies in the plaintiff's claim regarding the date of adoption and registration of 'ZYCLEAR'. Instead, the court directed both parties to complete their pleadings, file written statements, and proceed with the suit for a final determination.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Natco Pharma Limited
This case involved a suit for alleged patent infringement. The defendants filed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing their written statements, citing difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and general disruptions to legal processes. The court allowed these applications, condoning the delay.
Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited v.The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority & Ors.
Astrazeneca challenged several orders and notifications issued by NPPA regarding overcharging on its drug, OSIMERTINIB (TAGRISSO). The petitioner argued that the drug is patented and qualifies for a five-year exemption from price controls under DPCO, 2013. The Court directed NPPA to reconsider the matter afresh after taking into account the data supplied by the petitioner.
Centrient Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V. v.Dalas Biotech Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking discovery through interrogatories in a suit alleging infringement of their patent for Amoxicillin Trihydrate. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's process description was ambiguous and evasive, hiding the use of immobilized enzymes and specific acids. However, the court dismissed the application, finding it amounted to a roving inquiry and stating that the issues could be addressed through cross-examination.
Roland Corporation v.Sandeep Jain
Roland Corporation sued Sandeep Jain and others for passing off their trademark BOSS in relation to electronic musical instruments. Despite initially finding the plaintiff guilty of laches and acquiescence, the court ultimately balanced commercial interests against consumer protection. The judgment resulted in a decree restraining the defendant from using the mark 'BOSS' unless it was prefixed with 'Hi-Tone,' thereby limiting the scope of use while protecting consumers from confusion.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.
Interdigital Technology Corporation sued Xiaomi alleging infringement of several Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The current judgment addresses an interlocutory application regarding the establishment and structure of a Confidentiality Club necessary for handling commercially sensitive documents during the patent infringement proceedings. The Court constituted the club, accommodating Xiaomi's objection to a 'two-tier' system.
RB Health (Us) Llc v.Dabur India Limited
RB Health (US) LLC filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Dabur India Limited, alleging infringement of their registered soap bar design (No. 271671) and the tort of passing off through similar trade dress and taglines. The plaintiffs sought to prevent Dabur from manufacturing or selling a competing soap bar under the brand 'SANITIZE'. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the application for an injunction, noting that such cases heavily depend on specific facts rather than merely analogical precedents.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Micro Labs Limited, Zydus Healthcare Ltd., ERIS Lifesciences Ltd., USV Pvt. Ltd., MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought permanent and temporary injunctions against various defendants for infringing their patents related to Dapagliflozin. The court found that the defendants had laid a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent, leading the court to decline the grant of interim injunction.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Alkem Laboratories Limited
Astrazeneca sued Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited and Alkem Laboratories Limited regarding two patents, IN 147 (genus) and IN 625 (species), covering the SGLT2 inhibitor Dapagliflozin (DAPA). The core dispute was whether DAPA, which is used to treat type-II diabetes, falls within the scope of the genus patent. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' applications.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.
The plaintiffs filed an application before the Delhi High Court challenging an anti-suit injunction issued by the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court, which sought to restrain them from prosecuting their SEP royalty rate suit in India. The court found a clear case for granting ad interim relief.
Pm Diesels Pvt Ltd v.Thukral Mechanical Works And Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an IPAB order that rejected its request to implead the original trademark assignor. The court held that since the petitioner was questioning both the initial registration and the subsequent assignment as potentially fraudulent, the assignor (M/s Jain Industries) should have been included from the outset. Given the passage of time, the High Court found it inappropriate to allow impleadment at this late stage, thereby upholding the IPAB's decision.
Indoco Remedies Ltd. v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
Indoco Remedies Ltd. filed an application seeking permission to sell approximately 58,000 strips of its generic product APIXABID (Apixaban), which had been manufactured prior to a restrictive injunction being passed by the Single Judge. The court dismissed the application, holding that without a decision on the merits, it could not reverse the findings of the learned Single Judge.
Fmc Corporation & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit alleging infringement by Natco Pharma Limited of their Indian Patents IN 201307 and IN 213332, covering the molecule Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The defendant challenged the plaint through various applications. This order addressed these interim applications.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where the Plaintiff was granted a permanent injunction and compensation for loss of profits. The Defendants were directed to render accounts of profits and pay a specified amount to the Plaintiff.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors.
The suit was originally filed by Shogun Organics Ltd seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its process patent (IN236630) related to D-TRANS ALLETHRIN. The current application sought permission to sell existing manufactured stock prior to the final judgment. The court allowed the sale but directed the defendants to pay 5% of the sales value and deposit costs.
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited v.Competition Commission Of India
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited challenged several orders issued by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) concerning allegations of unfair trade practices related to the 'trait fee' charged for using Bt. Cotton technology. The core dispute revolved around the licensing terms and recurring fees imposed by MMBL, a subsidiary in India. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions, finding no reason to interfere with the CCI's administrative orders, provided they were not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Pfizer Inc v.Kwality Pharmaceuticals Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit against Kwality Pharmaceuticals Limited alleging infringement of two Indian Patents, IN 209251 (Sunitinib) and IN 268331 (Tigecycline composition). The defendants agreed to the permanent injunction and offered compensation. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Sungro Seeds Ltd v.Sk Tripathi & Ors
Sungro Seeds Ltd filed a suit alleging that its ex-employees misappropriated confidential information, including parent lines and breeding strategies for its hybrid cauliflower 'Katreena', which was then used by a competitor to market an identical variety named 'Riya'. The core dispute centered on the unauthorized use of trade secrets and unfair competition. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that without prior registration under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act), the plaintiff could not maintain a suit to restrain infringement.
Prof. Dr. Claudio De Simone & Next Gen Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. v.Actial Farmaceutica Srl. (Formerly known as CD Investment Srl.) & Ors.
The plaintiffs, claiming ownership over the 'De Simone Formulation' through patent rights and subsequent Know-How agreements, filed suit against CD Group entities. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff retained proprietary rights (trade secrets) after the initial patent expired in 2015. The court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that without a valid patent right in India, the plaintiffs lacked a personal cause of action to restrain the defendants from working or selling the formulation.
D & H India Ltd v.Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd
This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned a suit filed by Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd against D & H India Ltd, alleging infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'SUPERON'. The core legal dispute revolved around whether the respondent could amend its plaint to establish prior user rights for 'SUPERON' since 1994. The court ultimately upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the appellant, who had ample opportunity to contest the claim.
Bharat Bhogilal Patel v.Nokia Corporations & Ors
The appellant filed a Regular First Appeal against a judgment decreeing the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff. The original suit declared that the processes and machinery used by the plaintiff did not infringe the appellant's patents (189027 and 188787) and granted permanent injunction restraining the appellant from threatening infringement proceedings. The appeal was dismissed primarily due to the failure of the appellant to prove sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Jigs Chemicals Limited
Astrazeneca sued Jigs Chemicals Limited for infringing its patents covering the anti-platelet drug TICAGRELOR. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was commercially advertising and offering to sell API TICAGRELOR. Based on the defendant's admission regarding the exclusive rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Astrazeneca.
Genentech Inc And Others v.Drugs Controller General Of India And Others
This case involves an application by Defendant No. 3 seeking to restrict the participation of the plaintiffs' internal expert, Dr. Samir Sagitrao, in the inspection of confidential clinical and pre-clinical test data related to a biosimilar drug. The court ultimately dismissed the applicant's request, emphasizing that defendants have a right to defend the suit without being deprived of opportunity due to non-disclosure.
Radico Khaitan Limited v.Union Of India & Anr
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over the exclusive use of the geographical name 'GOA' in relation to gin. Following a partial rectification by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which limited exclusivity only to the label mark, Radico Khaitan Limited challenged this decision. The court issued an interim order staying the IPAB's judgment, clarifying that the partial rectification does not grant public domain status to the word 'GOA,' thereby protecting the petitioner's statutory rights against third-party misuse.
Lupin Ltd. v.Union Of India And Ors.
Lupin Ltd. challenged the NPPA's stance that it should have sought prior permission before launching an FDC drug (Empagliflozin and Metformin Hydrochloride), relying on a product patent exemption under Para 32(i) of DPCO, 2013. The court recognized the legal ambiguity regarding whether prior approval or mere intimation is required to avail this exemption.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., finding that Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited infringed upon its registered trademarks and committed passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'EDREAM 11' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark, 'DREAM 11', especially given that both platforms offered identical paid fantasy sports services online. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark.
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.