Delhi High Court
1635 cases · page 30 of 55
Showing 871–899Dart Industries Inc & Anr v.Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd & Ors
Dart Industries Inc filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered designs for bottles and caps. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was selling products identical or obvious imitations of their protected designs, including the Aqua Safe bottle and Eco Flip Top bottle. The court examined the prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience before deciding on the interim relief. Consequently, the court allowed the injunction application for the plaintiff while dismissing other related applications.
Dart Industries Inc & Anr v.Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd & Ors
Dart Industries Inc filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered designs for bottles and caps (Aqua Safe and Eco Flip Top) against Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd. The plaintiff demonstrated that their unique and popular product designs were being imitated by the defendant. The court examined the prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience before deciding on interim relief.
Galderma S.A And Anr v.Medsea Healthcare Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application seeking a summary dismissal of the trademark infringement suit. The court noted that while the plaintiffs had assigned their rights to the mark Q-MED, the timing and effect of this assignment were complex and required full trial evidence. Given the ongoing dispute over ownership changes and alleged concealment, the court ruled that the core issues could not be resolved summarily, allowing the main litigation to proceed.
Praneet Singh Davar v.L S Davar & Co & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a previous interim order that restricted the appellant's association with the respondent firm. While acknowledging the initial prohibition, the court clarified that the single judge's recorded 'prima facie' opinion regarding trademark rectification was not a final determination. The judgment directs the Registrar of Trademarks to proceed with the rectification proceedings based on merits, independent of the prior preliminary view.
Citicorp Business & Financial Services Pvt Ltd v.Citi Group Inc & Anr
This appeal challenged a single judge's order that had attached the bank accounts of Citicorp Business & Financial Services Pvt Ltd due to non-compliance with previous injunction orders regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no statutory provision for an appeal against such an order under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's subsequent failure to comply with a one-month compliance statement made before the judge demonstrated bad faith.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v.Rajesh Bansal, Sole Proprietor
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. filed two suits alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 184753, which covers channel decoding technology used in DVD video players. The plaintiff claimed this patent was essential for the industry. Although the suit patent had expired by the time of judgment, the Delhi High Court found that the defendants were infringing the patent and liable to pay royalties at FRAND rates. Furthermore, due to the defendant's conduct as a former employee, punitive damages were awarded against Rajesh Bansal.
The Gillette Company Llc v.Tigaksha Metallics Private Ltd. & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, The Gillette Company Llc, to continue its existing interim injunction against the defendants regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff due to their prior use of the mark compared to the defendants' recent adoption. This decision maintains the status quo while the main suit proceeds, though the plaintiff must compensate the defendant for any losses incurred if they ultimately fail in the litigation.
Insecticides (India) Limited v.Parijat Industries (India) Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Insecticides (India) Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Parijat Industries (India) Pvt Ltd for passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'VICTOR 80' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'VICTOR', despite arguments regarding prior use and registration complexities. This judgment reinforces the principle that prior user rights can prevail over subsequent adoption, even if the latter is claimed in good faith.
Eih Ltd. v.Sahana Realty Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed challenges to the court's territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement dispute brought by EIH Ltd. against Sahana Realty Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' use of 'THREE SIXTY WEST' and 'OBEROI' infringed their established luxury brand rights. The court ultimately dismissed the applications challenging its jurisdiction, affirming that the cause of action arose within Delhi due to consumer confusion and business activities in the region.
Rohit Singh & Anr v.Apple Inc.
The Delhi High Court addressed the trade mark dispute between Rohit Singh and Apple Inc. concerning the term 'SPLITVIEW.' The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against Apple, alleging passing off due to the use of a deceptively similar feature name in its operating systems. While the court dismissed an interim injunction request, it proceeded to frame six detailed issues for trial, focusing heavily on whether the term is merely descriptive, who has prior usage rights, and if the plaintiffs' mark has acquired distinctiveness.
Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt Ltd v.Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt Ltd challenging a prior order that confirmed an ex parte interim injunction. The court upheld the injunction, finding that the respondent's registered trademark 'Doctor Brand Phenyle' had acquired distinctiveness and was associated with its phenyl disinfectant product. Despite the appellants' claims of rights via assignment deeds, the court found their use of 'Doctor Hazel' to be infringing, while allowing them to continue using 'Chemist brand germ troll.'
Lt Foods Limited v.Heritage Foods (India) Limited
The Delhi High Court stayed a trademark infringement suit filed by Lt Foods Limited against Heritage Foods (India) Limited. The stay was granted because both parties had pending cancellation/rectification applications concerning their respective 'HERITAGE' trademarks before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. Crucially, the court clarified that while the main suit is stayed under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, this does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing urgent interlocutory relief, such as an injunction.
Vega Auto Accessories (P) Ltd. v.S.K. Jain Bros. Helmet (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Vega Auto Accessories filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against S.K. Jain Bros. Helmet for infringing its registered design related to helmets. The court examined whether the features of the defendant's helmet were substantially similar to the plaintiff's protected design. After detailed comparison, the High Court found that the defendant's product was an obvious imitation, thus confirming the ad-interim injunction in favor of Vega Auto Accessories.
Star Television Productions Limited & Ors. v.Vaishali Saran & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Star Television Productions Limited, granting permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing on the 'HOTSTAR' brand through trademark misuse, copyright infringement of logos, and passing off. The court specifically ordered the transfer of deceptive domain names (hotstar.online and hotstarmovies.co) to the plaintiff, emphasizing that domain names function as commercial identifiers akin to trademarks in the digital age.
Dabur India Ltd. v.Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamria
Dabur India Ltd. filed a suit against Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamria alleging infringement of copyright, design rights, and passing off related to its popular brand HAJMOLA Anardana. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing 'KARORPATI Anardana' using packaging and trade dress deceptively similar to its own. After proceeding ex-parte due to the defendant's non-appearance, the court found that the plaintiff successfully proved a likelihood of confusion leading to passing off.
M/S.J.K.Oil Industries v.M/S. Adani Wilmar Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to stay a composite suit involving both trademark infringement and passing off, contingent on a pending trade mark rectification application. The court ruled that while Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act applies specifically to infringement suits, allowing the stay there, it does not apply to claims of 'passing off.' Consequently, the suit for infringement was stayed until the final decision of the rectification petition, but the parallel suit for passing off must continue and be decided on its own merits.
Rajesh Kalra v.Safeops. Surgical Care & Anr
Rajesh Kalra filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Safeops. Surgical Care and others for infringing his registered design of 'Pre-Cut Eye Drape'. The plaintiff claimed novelty in the unique shape and configuration, which included a pre-cut aperture for surgical use. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, finding that the core feature—the pre-cut aperture—was purely functional and dictated by utility rather than aesthetic appeal.
Christian Louboutin Sas v.Abubaker & Ors.
Christian Louboutin Sas filed a suit against Abubaker & Ors., alleging trademark infringement and passing off based on its registered mark 'RED SOLE,' which refers to the red color applied to ladies footwear soles. The core dispute centered on whether this specific color shade could be protected as a trademark, especially when the defendants were using their own wordmark 'VERONICA.' The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that the use of a single color does not qualify as a trademark under relevant provisions and that Section 30(2)(a) disentitled the plaintiff from claiming infringement or passing off.
Balbir Singh & Company v.Mex Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of a district court in New Delhi. The petitioner challenged the suit filed by the respondent on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction. However, the court held that the plaint's averment that the defendant was clandestinely selling infringing goods within Delhi was sufficient to confer jurisdiction under both the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act. Consequently, the petition seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed.
Shamnad Basheer v.Union Of India
This writ petition challenged the process and implementation timeline concerning changes to the Patents Act, 1970. The court examined issues related to Section 146 and Section 122 of the Act, which govern patent working. After reviewing an affidavit from the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, the High Court accepted the detailed sequential timelines proposed by the Union of India for completing the necessary stakeholder consultation and legislative amendments.
Country Inn Private Limited v.Country Inns And Suites By Carlson, Inc.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed by Country Inns And Suites By Carlson, Inc. seeking permission to proceed with a trademark rectification petition aimed at cancelling the plaintiff's 'COUNTRY INN' registrations. The court found the defendant's attempt to derail the ongoing infringement suit frivolous and an abuse of process. Consequently, the application was dismissed with significant costs awarded against the defendant.
Marico Ltd. v.Mrs. Jagit Kaur
Marico Ltd. appealed against the Copyright Board's dismissal of its rectification petition, challenging Mrs. Jagit Kaur's copyright registration for the 'NIHAL UTTAM' label. The court found that the Respondent's artistic work was not original but a substantial and colorful imitation of Marico's established 'NIHAR COCONUT OIL' label. Given this clear infringement and lack of originality, the High Court set aside the Board's judgment.
Pradeep Sharma & Anr v.UPL Ltd
The petitioner challenged an order restraining him from infringing the respondent's patents related to synergistic herbicidal compositions (Metsulfuron Methyl and Sulfosulfuron). The dispute centered on whether the composition used by the appellant fell within the scope of the plaintiff's patented claims. The court ultimately upheld the Single Judge's finding that prima facie, the defendant's product was covered by the suit patent.
Vior(International) Ltd v.Maxycon Health Care Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking injunctions, damages, and rendition of accounts against the defendants for infringing an Indian patent (IN No. 221536) related to Ferric Carboxymaltose, as well as for copyright infringement and dilution of their brand image. The court found that the defendants were engaging in infringing activities despite being treated ex parte and violating interim orders.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v.Monsanto Technology Llc
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed complex disputes surrounding Monsanto's patented Bt Cotton technology. Nuziveedu Seeds challenged the patent's validity, arguing it fell under Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, which excludes plant varieties and essentially biological processes from patentability. The court ultimately held that the subject patent was unpatentable, allowing Nuziveedu's counter claim to succeed. However, while dismissing Monsanto's suit for patent enforcement, the court upheld existing contractual obligations regarding trait fee payments under the sub-license agreements.
Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A & Anr v.Shree Shankeshwar Utensils & Appliances Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed Nestle's application seeking a stay of its trademark infringement suit against Shree Shankeshwar Utensils. The core issue was whether filing a rectification petition before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) regarding the validity of the 'MAGGISUN' mark required prior permission from the Civil Court, even while the main suit was pending. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court held that approaching the IPAB for rectification is an independent statutory right and does not require leave from the civil court. Consequently, the infringement proceedings were stayed until the IPAB decides on the validity of 'MAGGISUN'.
Superon Schweisstechnik India Limited v.Modi Hitech India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by Superon Schweisstechnik India Limited against Modi Hitech India Ltd. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the trademark VAC-PAC for welding electrodes, arguing it was an arbitrary and fanciful mark. However, the court found that the abbreviation 'VAC-PAC' derived from descriptive terms (Vacuum Packaging) could not be protected as a trademark. Citing settled law, the court ruled that the suit constituted an abuse of process of law and dismissed it with significant costs imposed on the plaintiff.
Ferrero Spa & Nr v.M/S Ruchi International & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ferrero Spa & Nr, finding that the defendants were infringing upon the well-known 'Ferrero Rocher' trademark and trade dress by selling look-alike chocolates under the brand 'Golden Passion.' Despite being aware of previous injunctions, Defendant No.2 continued to sell these infringing products. The Court awarded damages of ₹10.00 Lac against Defendant No.2, emphasizing that parties who evade court proceedings cannot benefit from their non-participation.
Maya Sharma v.Unique Law Publication House & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Maya Sharma, granting a permanent injunction against Unique Law Publication House & Ors for passing off. The court found that the defendants used deceptively similar trademarks ('UNIQUE' and 'UNIQUE 20') and copied the plaintiff's distinct trade dress on law books. Given the identical goods (law books) and channels of trade, the triple identity test was satisfied, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Snecma v.Union Of India And Anr.
Snecma challenged two communications from the Union of India's Patent Office, which rejected its request for patent examination. The initial rejection cited incorrect fee payment methods (cheque instead of demand draft), while the second communication claimed the request was filed beyond the 48-month statutory limit. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Snecma, quashing both communications and directing the Patent Office to process the request for examination.
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.