Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 30 of 56
Showing 871–899Tata Sky Limited v.National Internet Exchange Of India (NIXI)
Tata Sky Limited filed suit seeking permanent injunction against an individual (D-3) for passing off the 'TATA SKY' trade mark, and mandatory injunctions against NIXI (D-1) and GoDaddy (D-2) to prevent or extinguish deceptively similar domain names. The court granted decrees in favor of Tata Sky Limited against D-3, ordering permanent injunction, and against D-1 and D-2, directing the extinguishment of specific listed domain names.
Supreme Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India
Supreme Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd. sought judicial direction from the Delhi High Court to compel the Union of India (Trademark Registry) to accept the renewal and/or restoration of its registered trademark, No. 1235463. The court disposed of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner a four-week window to submit the necessary renewal request along with the required restoration fee. This order clarifies that once submitted, the Trademark Registry will consider the application according to law.
Surya Food And Agro Limited v.Om Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Surya Food And Agro Limited's suit against Om Traders and others, which alleged passing off based on similar packaging trade dress. The court found that despite the plaintiff's claims regarding distinctive packaging for 'BUTTER DELITE,' there was no sufficient similarity or likelihood of confusion with the defendant's product, 'BUTTER KRUNCH.' The judgment emphasized consumer perception principles (Gestalt Psychology), concluding that consumers recall products holistically rather than focusing on minute details of the packaging.
Achla Sabharwal v.A. Saptrishi Films & Ors.
This appeal challenged an order directing the plaintiff's plaint back to be filed in a competent jurisdiction. The core dispute revolved around the exclusive ownership and jurisdiction rights concerning the film 'BETI No.1'. While the appellant claimed sole copyright ownership based on an agreement, the respondents relied heavily on a clause stipulating that all disputes must be heard exclusively by courts in Mumbai. The Delhi High Court ultimately upheld the trial court's order.
Roopak Stores Pvt. Ltd. v.Roopaks Pik-N-Pay
The Delhi High Court addressed an injunction application filed by Roopak Stores Pvt. Ltd. against Roopaks Pik-N-Pay regarding alleged trademark infringement of 'ROOPAK'. While the plaintiffs sought a complete restraint, the court acknowledged the defendants' long-standing use of the mark since 1994 and noted unexplained delay in filing the suit (2017). Consequently, instead of granting an outright injunction, the Court ordered the defendants to cease using variants of the mark while simultaneously mandating them to file detailed accounts from 1993-94 to facilitate a fair trial.
Gopal Ji Gupta v.Union Of India & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gopal Ji Gupta regarding the renewal of his trademark 'BINACA'. The court held that since the Registrar failed to issue mandatory notice (Form O-3) before the mark was removed from the register, the rejection of the renewal application as time-barred was legally flawed. Consequently, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's renewal request, provided late fees are paid.
Lalit Kumar Arya & Anr. / Chaya Devi v.M/S Prabhat Zarda Factory International (Noida) / Family Members
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses complex disputes over several family-owned trademarks, including 'RATNA' and 'PRABHAT ZARDA'. The core conflict revolves around the ownership of these marks following the death of the original proprietor, Sh. Lalit Kumar Arya, and subsequent assignment to his daughter-in-law, Smt. Chaya Devi. The court has directed that the validity of the trademark assignments and the enforcement of existing injunctions must be adjudicated during the trial, acknowledging the intricate family succession issues.
Filex Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Deepika File Products
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Filex Systems Pvt. Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Deepika File Products for passing off the plaintiff's trade name 'FILEX'. The court found that despite the defendant's arguments regarding prior use or lack of registration, the extensive and long-standing use of 'FILEX' by the plaintiff had established significant goodwill and reputation in the stationery market. This judgment underscores the protection afforded to unregistered marks when passing off is involved.
Symphony Ltd. v.Thermo King India Pvt Ltd
Symphony Ltd. filed a suit against Thermo King India Pvt Ltd alleging that its air cooler model, 'Thermoking Typhoon,' substantially imitated Symphony's registered design for the 'Symphony Storm 70i.' The court found that the Defendant's product was a substantial imitation of the protected design. Despite the Defendant initially raising defenses regarding prior publication and difference in designs, the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Symphony Ltd. v.Life Plus Appliances
Symphony Ltd. filed a suit against Life Plus Appliances alleging infringement of its registered designs for air coolers. The Plaintiff demonstrated that the Defendant's models, 'Tower' and 'Tycoon', were substantial imitations of Symphony's protected designs (Storm 70i, Sumo, and Winter). Despite the Defendant raising defenses regarding prior publication based on advertisements and trademark applications, the court found these claims unsubstantiated. Consequently, the court decreed the suit in favor of Symphony Ltd., granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Living Media India Limited v.Lallantop Media And Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Living Media India Limited, finding that Lallantop Media and Anr. infringed upon its trademark rights by registering and using the similar domain name 'THELALLANTOP.NET'. The court granted a permanent injunction against the defendant's use of the domain and directed the registrar to facilitate the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff. This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting established online brand identities in the digital media space.
Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd. v.Fiit Jee Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd., a well-known aerospace and defense entity, against Fiit Jee Limited & Anr. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dishonestly adopting the prestigious 'BRAHMOS' trademark for educational services, causing confusion among students who believed their tests were affiliated with the renowned company. Citing the strong prima facie case, the court ruled that allowing continued use by the defendants would cause irreparable loss to Brahmos’s goodwill and reputation.
Onyx Therapeutics, Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors
Onyx Therapeutics, Inc. challenged procedural orders issued by the Controller General of Patents concerning a post-grant opposition filed against their Indian Patent No. 255964. The petitioner argued that denying them the opportunity to cross-examine expert witnesses relied upon by the opponent violated principles of natural justice. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding that the denial vitiated the proceedings and set aside the impugned orders.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr
Hindustan Unilever Limited sued Eureka Forbes Limited for infringement of its water purifier patent (IN 198316). The defendants challenged the suit by arguing that an infringement suit is not maintainable against another registered patentee. The court ultimately held that a patentee is entitled to maintain such a suit, deciding the preliminary issue in favor of the plaintiff.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh And Anr v.Symed Laboratories Ltd
The execution petition sought to enforce a consent decree from 2015, which restricted Symed Laboratories Ltd from commercially exploiting RIVAROXABAN. The plaintiff later learned that the defendant had obtained a commercial license and made exports. The court addressed jurisdictional objections before disposing of the petition.
Ngk Spark Plug Co. Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ngk Spark Plug Co. Ltd. sought to rectify the corporate name of NTK Bearings Private Limited, arguing that the company's use of 'NTK' infringed upon Ngk's registered trademark. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, upholding the Regional Director's rejection. The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory limitations, finding that the petitioner failed to act diligently and waited too long after becoming aware of the opposition and subsequent rejections.
Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v.Celebrities Management Private Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute over territorial jurisdiction concerning a suit for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant challenged the court's authority, arguing that since both parties had connections to Mumbai, the case should have been filed there based on precedents like Sanjay Dalia. However, the court ultimately held that the interpretation of Sections 62 and 134 of the Trademarks Act, conferring 'additional jurisdiction,' is distinct from the general provisions of Section 20 of the CPC, thereby upholding the court's territorial competence.
M/S Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India Ltd & Ors
Crocs Inc filed multiple suits alleging infringement of its registered designs (No.197685 and No.197686) by various defendants, including Bata India Ltd. Crocs claimed exclusive rights over the unique shape and pattern of its footwear designs, supported by extensive global trade and goodwill. The present appeal challenged the dismissal of Crocs' applications in these pending suits. However, the High Court dismissed the appeals, directing that all related suits be listed together for further proceedings.
DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V & Anr. v.Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co (WQD) & Anr.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of a process patent related to 'Amoxicillin Trihydrate'. The application before the court sought contempt proceedings due to alleged violation of an earlier interim order. The court found that the defendant's manufacturing process was virtually identical to the patented process, thus violating the interim restraint.
M/S Khushi Ram Behari Lal (later M/s. KRBL Ltd.) v.M/S Jaswant Singh Balwant Singh
The Delhi High Court set aside a previous decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, favoring the petitioner in a trademark dispute over the 'TRAIN BRAND.' The court found that the respondent failed to prove prior use of the mark, particularly noting discrepancies and alleged forgery in the invoices presented. Consequently, the application for registration of the 'TRAIN' brand for basmati rice was allowed to proceed.
Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente v.Uoi & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs' decision to refuse examination and treat his patent application as withdrawn due to a delay in filing Form-18 (request for examination). The court examined the relevant sections of the Patents Act, 1970, and held that since the request was made outside the prescribed time limit based on the earlier date (priority date), the petition lacked merit.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie v.Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie filed a suit alleging that Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd. was infringing his registered copyright in the artistic work titled 'HIMLAYAN HELI SERVICES'. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was illegally using his pictorial representation on various business materials. However, the court examined the history of the company and its logo design, finding evidence suggesting the defendant's original creation and use of the insignia, particularly incorporating the symbol of 'Dorje', leading to the dismissal of the application against the plaintiff.
dharampal satyapal sons pvt ltd v.mr satish kumar
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Pvt Ltd (Plaintiff) sued Mr. Satish Kumar & Ors (Defendants) for infringement of their registered trademark 'PULSE' on candies, alleging deceptive similarity to the Defendants’ brand ‘PLUS’ and trade dress. Both parties were selling candies in class 30, with the Plaintiff claiming significant market share and goodwill.
Red Bull Ag v.C. Eswari & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Red Bull Ag, declaring its 'Double Bull Device' and 'Single Bull Device' trademarks as well-known marks in India. The court found that Red Bull's extensive global presence, massive sales figures (controlling 97.3% of the Indian energy drink market), and widespread promotion satisfied the criteria for a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This declaration provides strong legal backing to prevent unauthorized use by defendants in related goods.
Luxembourg Brands S.A R.L & Anr v.G.M Pens International Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court partially decreed the suit for trademark infringement and passing off. Despite previous settlements where the defendant agreed to cease using certain marks, the court found that the defendant continued manufacturing and selling products under the mark 'TERAMAX'. Consequently, the court imposed a penalty of ₹5 lakh on the company's directors and mandated a detailed accounting and independent audit of all net revenue earned from the infringing sales.
Kama Ayurveda Private Limited v.Rwl Healthworld Ltd. & Ors
Kama Ayurveda sought an interim injunction against Rwl Healthworld, alleging that the defendant's product packaging was deceptively similar to its own 'Eladi Hydrating Ayurvedic Face Cream,' thereby constituting passing off. The Delhi High Court examined both products and found material distinctions in shape, color scheme (gold/cream vs. white/off-white), and floral patterns. Ultimately, the court concluded that a common purchaser would not be misled, dismissing the plaintiff's application for an interim order.
Biofarma v.Bal Pharma Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed Biofarma's suit against Bal Pharma Limited concerning passing off and trade dress infringement. The court found that the plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights over the term 'MEX' because it was an acronym ('Metformin Extended Release') derived from the principal drug ingredient, rendering it descriptive and publici juris in the pharmaceutical trade. Consequently, the defendant was permitted to continue using the mark without infringing on the plaintiff’s established brand.
Skullcandy Inc v.Shri Shyam Telecom & Ors
Skullcandy Inc filed a suit against Shri Shyam Telecom and other entities, including the e-commerce platform Shopclues.com, alleging infringement of its 'SKULLCANDY' trademark through the sale of counterfeit products. The core legal dispute centered on whether the online marketplace could claim immunity as an intermediary under the IT Act. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Skullcandy, finding that the website's operational features—such as guaranteeing 100% genuine products and maintaining a 'Replica' category—demonstrated a role beyond that of a passive intermediary.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Systopic Laboratories Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited to frame a new issue in its ongoing suit against Systopic Laboratories Limited. The core dispute involves the similarity between the trademarks 'STORVAS' and 'ORVAS'. Crucially, the court permitted the framing of an additional issue questioning the validity and potential cancellation of the defendant's trademark registration (No. 1328403). This decision was influenced by recent Supreme Court dicta emphasizing the necessity of addressing pleas of invalidity.
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/S Arora Sationers
This case involves a dispute over design rights concerning a pen. The defendants filed an application seeking to amend their written statement, claiming that they had subsequently received a Certificate of Registration for Design No. 282909 in Class 19-06. The plaintiffs opposed the amendment, arguing it was mutually destructive and that the trial had already commenced. However, the court allowed the amendment, finding that the registration was a subsequent development and not fundamentally contradictory to the earlier pleas.
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.