Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 29 of 56
Showing 841–869Facebook 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 The Court ultimately held that since the patent was revoked, the infringement action could not be maintained, suspending the existing interim manufacturing restraint.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.
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/s Arora Stationers
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha filed suit against M/s Arora Stationers alleging fraudulent imitation of its registered pen design (Design No. 263172). The respondents challenged the validity and novelty of Pentel's design, claiming it was a combination of known designs. However, the High Court ruled in favor of Pentel, emphasizing that since the respondents themselves had applied for registration of a similar design, they could not simultaneously argue against its originality. Consequently, the court found a prima facie case of piracy and granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from marketing the infringing product.
M/S Teleecare Network India Pvt Ltd v.M/S Asus Technology Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Teleecare Network India Pvt Ltd, finding that Asus Technology and others had infringed upon its trademark rights through passing off. The court determined that the defendant's adoption of 'ZENFONE' was deceptive because it incorporated the plaintiff's dominant mark 'ZEN' for identical goods (mobile phones). Given the plaintiff's prior use, significant market reputation, and large advertising expenditure, the court granted a permanent injunction to prevent further misuse of similar marks.
The Regents Of The University Of California v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application for 'Enzalutamide', citing lack of inventive steps. The petitioner further argued that the rejection was vitiated because the Controller failed to address or refer to crucial expert affidavits and scientific documents presented during the proceedings.
Unilin Beheer B.V. v.Balaji Action Buildwell
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement of Patent No.193247, but since the patent had lapsed, the suit was pursued only for damages. The defendant filed a Counter Claim seeking revocation of the subject patent. The core legal issue addressed by the court was whether the written statement to the Counter Claim could be taken on record despite not being accompanied by an affidavit of admission/denial within the stipulated time.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Aqualite India Ltd.
Relaxo Footwears Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Aqualite India Ltd. for allegedly infringing its registered footwear design No.294938. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's product was an obvious or fraudulent imitation of the plaintiff's protected design. During the interim application, the court directed a market survey which revealed numerous third-party products with near identical designs available in the market.
Eisai Co. Ltd. v.Satish Reddy
The plaintiffs, holding exclusive rights to Indian Patent No. 215528 for Lorcaserin, filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against the defendants who were planning to commercialize an infringing drug (LHH). The court found that there was a prima facie case of infringement in favor of the plaintiff.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors.
This judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970, commonly known as the Bolar provision. The court examined whether patented products could be exported for clinical trials and regulatory submissions outside India without constituting patent infringement. The bench affirmed that sale or use under Section 107A is legal both domestically and abroad, provided the end purpose is reasonably related to research and development for regulatory compliance. Furthermore, the judgment clarified that disputes regarding the legitimate scope of this exemption should be adjudicated in civil suits rather than public law proceedings like writ petitions.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt Ltd v.Time Plus Institute & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Triumphant Institute Of Management (T.I.M.E.) against Time Plus Institute, recognizing the strong likelihood of trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the respondent's use of similar marks was likely to deceive the public and dilute T.I.M.E.'s established goodwill in the coaching industry. Furthermore, a local commissioner was appointed to seize infringing materials, reinforcing the protection of T.I.M.E.'s statutory and common law rights.
Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited v.Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited, which was seeking relief for trademark infringement and passing off. The court dismissed the defendants' application to vacate the order, primarily based on the principle that the defendants themselves had applied for registration of a similar mark (CONCRETA). This ruling reinforces the legal doctrine against 'approbation and reprobation,' preventing parties from contradicting their own prior actions in litigation.
Utv Software Communication Ltd. v.1337X.To and others
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple suits concerning the unauthorized streaming and distribution of copyrighted cinematograph works on various websites. The court found that the defendant-websites were infringing upon the plaintiffs' copyrights.
Pharmacosmos Holding A/S v.La Renon Healthcare Private Limited & Anr
Pharmacosmos Holding A/S filed a suit for infringement against La Renon Healthcare Private Limited and others regarding Patent No. 291100 ('RAPIFER'). The court granted permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1 based purely on the defendant's binding statement, despite disputes over the plaint's merits. Similarly, the suit against Defendant No. 2 (Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.) was disposed of by binding them to their reply stating they were not infringing.
J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd v.Union Of India And Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order that revoked Patent No. 251037, citing lack of disclosure regarding ongoing civil suit and a PCT application in Australia. The court found the revocation unjustified, noting that the civil dispute had settled and the respondent had withdrawn the post-grant opposition.
Elder Projects Ltd. & Anr. v.Elder Pharmacia Llp & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit filed by Elder Projects Ltd. against Elder Pharmacia LLP, finding that the claim of passing off lacked a genuine cause of action. The court relied heavily on evidence provided by the plaintiff's Managing Director, which revealed that the plaintiff had previously claimed rights over the 'ELDER' trademark based on mistaken advice and was not the registered proprietor. Consequently, the interim ex-parte injunction granted to the plaintiff was vacated, marking a significant setback for Elder Projects Ltd.
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.