Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 32 of 56
Showing 931–959Pradeep 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.
Ashoka Distillers & Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Ads Spirits Pvt Ltd
Ashoka Distillers & Chemicals Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Ads Spirits Pvt Ltd seeking permanent injunction and damages for trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off related to country liquor. The defendant argued that since the impugned product was restricted and sold only within Haryana, the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The court agreed with the defense, finding that both parties operated in Haryana, thus necessitating filing the suit in a competent court there.
M/S Okaya Power Ltd v.M/S Aqua Healer & Ors
M/S Okaya Power Ltd filed a suit against M/S Aqua Healer & Ors alleging infringement of its registered trademark, 'MINJET', along with claims of passing off and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from using similar names or designs. After reviewing the pleadings, the court found that there were no prospects for the defendants to successfully defend the claim. Consequently, the application for summary judgment was allowed, and the suit was decreed in favor of M/S Okaya Power Ltd.
M/S. Epsilon Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v.Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the renewal of the trademark 'LOKPRIYA EASY NOTES.' The court held that despite procedural lapses, such as a delay in payment of surcharge, the Trademark Registry was entitled to grant the renewal because the application was filed within the statutory six-month grace period. This judgment emphasizes that strict adherence to procedure should not automatically invalidate a registration when the core requirements are met.
Dolby International Ab v.Das Telecom Private Limited
The suit concerns patent infringement related to High Efficiency Advanced Audio Coding Technology. The defendants sought to amend their written statement to introduce a defense claiming that they were authorized users because the plaintiffs had licensed the technology to M/s Google INC, from whom the defendants obtained licenses. The court dismissed this amendment application.
Upl Limited v.Pradeep Sharma & Anr
Upl Limited filed a suit claiming infringement of three patents related to a stable synergistic herbicidal composition (Sulfosulfuron + Metsulfuron Methyl WG). The defendants challenged the validity of these patents. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and granted an interim injunction.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Lupin Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd against Lupin Ltd and others. The court found that the defendant's trade mark, TRI-VOBIT, was structurally and phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark, TRIVOLIB. Despite arguments regarding prior use of 'VOBIT,' the court ruled that the full marks must be compared, establishing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off.
Sphaera Pharma, Pte. Ltd And Anr. v.Union Of India And Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking directions to restore its Indian Patent Application (No. 3584/DELNP/2015) for examination, which had been treated as abandoned due to failure to file the request within the prescribed time limit. The court examined the mandatory nature of the statutory deadlines and ruled against the petitioner's plea for restoration.
M/s Crocs Inc.Usa v.M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s Crocs Inc.Usa, filed suits seeking permanent injunction against various defendants for infringing its registered designs (Nos. 197685 and 197686) related to footwear. The court heard and disposed of the interim injunction applications in favor of the defendants.
M/S. Aero Club v.Mr. Sahibjeet & Anr.
M/S. Aero Club filed a suit alleging that Mr. Sahibjeet and others were selling counterfeit products bearing its trademarks, including WOODLAND, TREE DEVICE, and Woodland Label. The plaintiff claimed extensive use of these marks for over 25 years in manufacturing footwear and apparel. After the defendants failed to enter an appearance or file a written statement, the court found they had no real prospect of defending the claim.
Unilin Beheer B.V. v.Balaji Action Buildwell
The dispute involved a suit for patent infringement filed by Unilin Beheer B.V. against Balaji Action Buildwell. The defendant sought a stay of proceedings, arguing that they had initiated revocation proceedings before the IPAB under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court addressed the issue of concurrent jurisdiction and granted liberty to the defendant to withdraw the IPAB proceedings and file a Counter-Claim in the suit.
Lens. Com, Inc. v.Ju J Friend International
The Delhi High Court reviewed an arbitration award concerning a domain name dispute under NIXI's INDRP. The court struck down the arbitrary direction to confiscate the disputed domain name, ruling that such power was outside the scope of the policy. However, the court clarified that merely cancelling the registration does not automatically grant ownership to the petitioner; the complainant must independently prove their rights in the generic term 'lens'.
Zenner International Gmbh & Co Kg And Anr v.Anand Zenner Company Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement and passing off concerning the trade mark 'Zenner'. The defendant challenged the territorial jurisdiction and the applicability of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. Ultimately, the court dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence despite repeated opportunities.
M/S Mont Blanc Simplo Gmbh v.Gaurav Bhatia And Ors
In this contempt petition filed by Mont Blanc against Gaurav Bhatia and others, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues related to enforcement. The court upheld the maintainability of the contempt action despite the availability of execution remedies, citing Supreme Court precedent (Rama Narang). Furthermore, the court granted directions for a local commission, appointing several advocates to inspect premises, inventory counterfeit products sold on www.montblancwriting.com, and seize infringing goods in violation of prior injunctions.
Marina Food Products Private Limited v.Britannia Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld an ex-parte injunction granted by the Trial Court against Marina Food Products Private Limited for using the trademark 'MARIE' in relation to biscuits. The court found that the initial order met the legal requirements under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC, as sufficient reasons were recorded regarding potential public confusion and harm. Furthermore, the appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts was dismissed, confirming the trial court's authority to proceed with the trademark infringement suit.
M/S Ravinder Singh & Sons v.M/S Evergreen Publications (India) Ltd & Anr.
The appeal challenged an interim injunction restraining M/S Ravinder Singh & Sons from publishing ICSE Class-X Examination Question Papers. The respondent had purchased the copyrights for these papers, and the court found that the appellant's publication was a near reproduction of the copyrighted material, including answers, thus constituting infringement.
M/S Zihwa Foods Pvt Ltd v.M/S G D Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Zihwa Foods Pvt Ltd challenging a single judge's order. The appellant had sought to reject the original suit for permanent injunction on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked a registered trademark in Class 30, making the infringement claim unsustainable. The court upheld the initial decision, noting that when adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule II CPC (rejection of plaint), the court must rely solely on the averments made in the plaint.
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/S Arora Stationers
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit alleging piracy of its registered design (No. 263172) for ball point pens against M/S Arora Stationers, seeking permanent injunctions and damages. The court was asked to consider an interim injunction application based on the alleged infringement under the Designs Act, 2000. However, the Court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate substantial newness or originality in their design.
Kellogg Company v.Pops Food Products (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Kellogg Company's appeal against the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to remove its 'POPS' trademark from the register. The core issue was non-use, as the petitioner failed to provide evidence of bona fide use in India since 1989, despite claiming international adoption and goodwill. The court upheld the IPAB's finding that a prolonged lack of domestic commercial activity negates the right to maintain registration under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act.
Godfrey Phillips India Limited v.P.T.I Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit filed by Godfrey Phillips India Limited against P.T.I Private Limited & Ors., finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a valid cause of action for trademark infringement or passing off. The court specifically noted that an owner of a composite registered label cannot claim infringement based solely on the use of a minor part (like a color scheme) by a competitor, citing Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act. Furthermore, the judgment cautioned against using IP law to throttle competition and create monopolies.
J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited & Anr. v.Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sued the defendant alleging imminent infringement of copyrights in component drawings and registered designs related to their 3DX Backhoe Loader. The defendant filed applications seeking dismissal of the suit on the grounds that it lacked a cause of action, particularly after the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew an injunction order. The court dismissed the defendant's applications, noting that the issues required a full trial.
M/S.Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Pureca Laboratories (P) Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd against Pureca Laboratories (P) Ltd & Ors, finding that the defendants infringed upon the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. The court held that the defendant's use of similar trademarks and packaging for liver tonic preparations amounted to both copyright infringement and passing off. Consequently, the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from continuing their infringing activities.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Vinod Jadhav
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp sought confirmation of an existing ex parte ad interim injunction against Vinod Jadhav and others, alleging that they were infringing on their registered patent for the drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs established that they held a valid patent (No. 209816) and had previously secured a permanent injunction in a related suit. The court found that the plaintiffs clearly made out a prima facie case and confirmed the interim order, noting the defendants' attempts to delay the matter.
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.