Delhi High Court
1664 cases · page 28 of 56
Showing 811–839Ifrs Foundation v.Rammohan Bhave & Ors
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of IFRS Foundation against Rammohan Bhave & Ors following a comprehensive settlement. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights over the 'IFRS' trademark and its copyrighted standards. Key terms included the payment of ₹11 lakhs, the surrender of multiple domain names, the withdrawal of related trademark applications, and an undertaking to cease unauthorized use of the IFRS mark in training materials or goods.
Asianet Star Communications Pvt Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over the alleged abandonment of a registered trademark due to non-renewal. The petitioner argued that the mandatory O-3 notice for renewal was improperly backdated and uploaded using an outdated form (RG-3), making it invalid. The court recognized serious inconsistencies in the Trademark Registry's process, directing senior officials and the concerned Examiner to appear in court with explanations and documentation regarding the improper uploading of notices. Crucially, the court granted interim relief, ensuring the trademark would not be treated as abandoned pending a full inquiry.
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v.Mr. Akshay Singhal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited, declaring its candy brand 'PULSE' a well-known trademark. The court found that the plaintiff had established extensive goodwill and reputation both domestically and internationally through significant promotion and unique trade dress. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from manufacturing or selling similar products under deceptively similar marks like 'PLUSS', protecting the integrity of the PULSE brand.
Intellectual Property Attorneys Association v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Anr
The petitioner challenged the refusal of trade mark registration applications due to non-speaking orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court held that Section 18(5) mandates the Registrar to record and communicate the grounds for refusal in writing. Consequently, Rule 36 of the Trade Marks Rules was deemed arbitrary and inconsistent with the statute.
Satish Kumar v.Khushboo Singh & Ors.
Satish Kumar filed a suit against Khushboo Singh and others, alleging the misappropriation of confidential information, trade secrets, and clientage belonging to his company, Plasma Impex Inc. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages, claiming that the defendants used proprietary data obtained during their employment. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as withdrawn by the plaintiff.
Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors v.Shogun Organics Ltd
The appeal was filed by the original defendants against a decree that found them infringing the plaintiff's patent for the process of manufacturing d-trans Allethrin. The appellants argued that the process was already known due to its registration under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that product registration does not equate to disclosure of the manufacturing process required for patentability.
Less Than Equals Three Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Paras Mehra & Ors
The dispute involves Less Than Equals Three Services Pvt. Ltd., which alleges that its founders and employees established a competing business using the source code and MySQL database of the petitioner's website, quickcompany.in. The core legal challenge raised by the defendants was whether the company could maintain a copyright infringement suit without clearly pleading the identity of the author and an agreement vesting the rights in the company. The court analyzed this issue against previous judgments, ultimately finding that the plaintiff's disclosures were sufficient to overcome the preliminary objection.
Mylan Laboratories Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Mylan Laboratories Limited challenged the Deputy Controller's order regarding a patent application, arguing that prior arts were not adequately considered. The court examined the matter and held that since there are efficacious alternative statutory remedies (post-grant opposition or revocation), the writ petition would not be entertained.
M/S Psychotropics India Ltd. v.M/S Syncom Healthcare Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Psychotropics India Ltd. to appoint Local Commissioners in the execution phase of a trademark infringement suit against M/S Syncom Healthcare Ltd. Despite initial rejection by the Trial Court, the High Court emphasized that permanent injunctions related to pharmaceutical products require strict enforcement due to public interest and consumer safety. The appointed commissioners were directed to seize infringing goods bearing the mark CTZ-10 and inspect sales accounts.
Onyx Therapeutics Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors
Onyx Therapeutics Inc. challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents' orders that restricted its right to cross-examine expert witnesses during a post-grant opposition filed by Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether the patentee, having filed objections under Rule 58, was entitled to challenge the veracity of the opponent's experts through cross-examination. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Onyx, quashing the restrictive orders and allowing the cross-examination without imposing any condition regarding the filing of evidence by the patentee.
Reliance Life Sciences Private Limited v.M/S Genentech Inc And Ors.
This case involves a dispute between Reliance Life Sciences (the appellant) and Genentech/Roche (the respondents) concerning the launch of the biosimilar drug TrastuRel. The respondents sought an injunction against TrastuRel, alleging inadequate testing under Indian regulatory guidelines despite the original patent having lapsed. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, granting an interim stay on the restrictive order, thereby allowing Reliance to continue its manufacturing and marketing operations.
M/S Ever Bake v.M/S Everbake Bakers Private Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/S Ever Bake's petition challenging the rejection of its application to dismiss a trademark infringement suit. The respondent, M/S Everbake Bakers Private Ltd., had filed a suit claiming violation of their registered 'EVER BAKE' trademark. Although the petitioner argued lack of territorial jurisdiction because they operated in Assam, the Court upheld the trial court's decision. Citing Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the High Court found that since the respondent's registered office was in Delhi, the suit was correctly filed within the proper jurisdiction.
Cargill India Pvt Ltd v.Gati Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed Cargill India Pvt Ltd's application to frame an issue concerning the validity of Gati Ltd's registered trademark, 'GATI Nature Fresh Apples.' Despite Gati Ltd arguing that Cargill was barred by limitation due to prior knowledge of the registration, the court rejected these objections. The judgment clarified the procedural mechanism under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, allowing the plaintiff time to pursue rectification proceedings before the IPAB, thereby keeping the core validity question alive in the litigation.
Facebook Inc. v.Surinder Malik & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the trademark owner, Surinder Malik, against Facebook and Instagram regarding the unauthorized use of the 'DA MILANO' mark. The court clarified that while these platforms are intermediaries protected under Section 79 of the IT Act, they have a duty to take down infringing content once notified by the rights holder. This judgment sets clear operational guidelines for social media platforms concerning trademark infringement in India.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for its patented drug, Ceritinib. Natco Pharma challenged this by relying on an order from the Controller revoking the patent due to lack of novelty. The Court ultimately held that since the patent was revoked, the infringement action could not be maintained, suspending the existing interim manufacturing restraint.
Shogun Organics Ltd. v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors.
Shogun Organics Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patent (IN-236630) related to the manufacturing process of d-trans Allethrin, an active ingredient in mosquito repellents. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were using the patented process despite having different licenses. The court found the patent valid and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.
Astrazeneca Ab v.P Kumar & Anr
Astrazeneca filed suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for marketing generic versions of TICAGRELOR, claiming infringement of three Indian Patents (IN 907, IN 984, IN 674). The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff could secure an interim injunction while the patents faced credible challenges to their validity. The court ultimately found that since the defendants raised strong questions rendering the patent vulnerable, the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction.
Dart Industries Inc v.Vijay Kumar Bansal
Dart Industries Inc. filed a suit against several defendants alleging infringement of their registered design (casserole lid) and passing off related to their Tupperware products. The court examined the scope of protection, noting that while the lid is independently registered, the plaintiffs claimed passing off for the entire casserole set. The court ultimately issued an interim order directing the defendants to furnish detailed sales particulars.
Transformative Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Pawajot Kaur Baweja
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, former employees, from disclosing confidential information, using proprietary content (including copyright), and competing in Ayurveda. The dispute centered on whether the plaintiffs could refuse to share the list of customers with the defendants, despite claiming rights over that data.
Vinay Aggarwal v.Rims Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing interim injunction, ruling in favor of the plaintiff regarding passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'ELEPHANT JINLI' was phonetically and structurally similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'ELEPHANT,' creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Despite arguments regarding conflicting agreements from the manufacturer, the court upheld the plaintiff's prior rights and dismissed the defendant's application to vacate the injunction.
Natco Pharma Ltd v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
Natco Pharma Ltd challenged an interim injunction restraining it from infringing Indian Patent IN No.247381, which was held by Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and its subsidiaries. The appeal focused on whether the Single Judge had properly considered the merits of the case before issuing a restrictive order. The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the impugned interim injunction, directing that the application for interim relief be heard again on merits.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ace Technologies Corp. and its subsidiaries for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893, titled "Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency." The Plaintiff alleged that two specific models of antennae manufactured by the Defendants infringed upon their patented technology used in telecommunications. Although the validity of the patent was challenged by the Defendants, the court directed them to deposit Bank Guarantees covering the value of infringing sales made both before and during the pendency of the suit. Failure to comply with these financial directions would result in a permanent restraint on manufacturing or selling the infringing antennae.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Bayer Healthcare Llc
This appeal challenged an interim injunction restraining Natco Pharma Limited from infringing Bayer Healthcare Llc's Indian Patent No. 240207, which covers the drug Regorafenib. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order lacked sufficient clarity and did not adequately consider the parties' submissions regarding infringement. Consequently, the court set aside the interim injunction and directed that the application for interim relief be heard afresh on its merits by the Single Judge.
Mylan Laboratories Limited v.Union Of India & Ors
Mylan Laboratories Limited challenged an order that granted a patent for 'Methods of Evaluating Peptide Mixtures' after dismissing their pre-grant opposition. The petitioner sought urgent relief as the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was non-functional due to long-standing vacancies in its Technical Member positions, leading to a logjam of appeals. The Delhi High Court addressed this systemic issue by invoking the doctrine of necessity, ruling that IPAB can continue hearing urgent matters related to Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights even with vacant technical posts.
Superon Schweisstechnik India Limited v.D & H India Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging an order that allowed a plaintiff's application to amend their plaint. The plaintiff sought to introduce facts regarding the earlier use of the trademark SUPERON by its parent group, Stanvac Chemicals India Limited, dating back to 1994. Despite arguments from the defendant claiming grave prejudice due to the change in user date, the court upheld the amendment order. The judgment emphasized that at the stage of considering an amendment, the court must not delve into the merits or correctness of the claims, provided the amendment is necessary for proper adjudication and is bona fide.
Pioneer Overseas Corporation v.Chairperson, Protection Of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights and Ors.
Pioneer Overseas Corporation challenged decisions made by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority regarding the registration of Kaveri Seeds Limited's maize variety KMH50. Pioneer claimed that KMH50 was identical to its own variety, 30V92, and alleged misappropriation of germplasm. The court set aside several impugned orders and restored Pioneer's application for a DNA profiling test.
Mrf Limited. v.Metro Tyres Limited.
Mrf Limited filed a suit alleging that Metro Tyres Limited infringed its copyright by producing a similar advertisement for their tyres. The plaintiff claimed the defendant's ad was a substantial and material copy of their original cinematic work. However, the Delhi High Court found that after applying the R.G. Anand test, the two advertisements were neither substantially nor materially similar in substance or kernel. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction.
Anurag Sanghi v.M/S Knitpro International
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a request by Anurag Sanghi to consolidate several related intellectual property suits. The petitioner sought to have three separate suits—one for design infringement (CS 867/2018), one for passing off (TM No.178/2017), and one for copyright infringement (TM No.179/2017)—tried together in a single court. The Court held that since the causes of action are based on the same facts—the sale or offer for sale of rival knitting needles—they must be tried jointly to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, citing precedents like Carlsberg Breweries A/S.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The plaintiff has sued for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its patents related to optical fibre technology. The court is considering interim arrangements to balance the rights of both parties until a final determination is made.
M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt Ltd v.Amit Dahanukar & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed the defendant's attempt to dismiss the trademark infringement suit by arguing that the cause of action was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The court found that since the alleged unauthorized use and infringement constituted a continuing cause of action, the earlier litigation did not bar the present suit. Consequently, the application for dismissal was dismissed, allowing the main IP dispute to proceed.
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.