Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 33 of 56
Showing 961–989Maja Cosmetics & Anr v.Oasis Commercial Pvt. Ltd.
Maja Cosmetics filed a suit alleging that Oasis Commercial Pvt. Ltd. was infringing its registered trademark 'VI-JOHN' in relation to alcoholic beverages. The court ultimately found that the defendant's use of 'V-JOHN' was deceptive and infringed upon the plaintiff's mark, passing a decree in favor of Maja Cosmetics.
Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Raj Kumar Prasad & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by the plaintiff seeking a stay of infringement proceedings while rectification/cancellation proceedings against the defendant's trademark were pending. The court ruled that Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act requires the issue of invalidity to be formally raised and framed in the suit before a stay can be granted. Since the plaintiff failed to press this issue during the framing of issues, the application was dismissed, emphasizing procedural adherence over subsequent actions.
Munish Kumar Singla Trading As: Chakshu Food Products v.Jollibee Foods Corporation
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Chakshu Food Products, setting aside a restrictive ex-parte injunction granted against it by the trial court. The core issue was whether Jollibee Foods Corporation could enforce its trademark and copyright rights over a bee image when it had not commenced business in India despite having registered the marks since 2005. The Court ruled that without actual use or entry into the Indian market, an ex-parte injunction against a local competitor is unwarranted, emphasizing principles from cases like Milmet Oftho Industries.
Ramesh Mardia & Anr v.M/S Koxan India & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Ramesh Mardia, setting aside a previous single judge's order that had granted an injunction against him. The court recognized the complexity of the trademark ownership dispute concerning 'Mardia Cables,' which involves multiple assignments and prior registrations. To expedite the lengthy litigation, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to record evidence on a day-to-day basis, allowing the trial process to move forward.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v.Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation filed a suit alleging that Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was planning to launch a generic version (ECOGLIPT) of its patented drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs argued this constituted patent infringement and sought a permanent injunction based on the apprehension of future market flooding. The court found the defendant's actions violated Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr.
Vifor (International) Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr. for infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers a novel water soluble iron carbohydrate complex used for intravenous treatment of iron deficiency. The court found that the defendants were violating the plaintiff's registered patent rights.
Praveen Kumar Maakar v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the trademark applicant, Praveen Kumar Maakar, setting aside an order that deemed his application for 'FRONTIER BAKERY' abandoned. The core issue was whether he received a Notice of Opposition filed by M/s Frontier Bakery Pvt. Ltd. Despite evidence showing dispatch to a related service, the Court accepted the petitioner's claim that he never received the notice. Consequently, the applicant was granted an eight-week window to file his counter-statement.
M/S Kamdhenu Limited v.M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd
M/S Kamdhenu Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd for infringing its registered design related to TMT steel bars. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant copied the unique double-rib surface pattern of their patented bar, which was protected under Design Act, 2000 (No. 250968). The defendant countered by arguing that the design was based on a public domain British Standard and lacked novelty. The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to Kamdhenu Limited, finding a prima facie case for infringement.
Vivek Kochher & Anr v.M/S Kyk Corporation Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Vivek Kochher & Anr challenging an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that rectified the trademark 'KYK'. The court upheld the finding that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating continuous commercial use of the mark since the dates claimed in their registration applications. Consequently, the court affirmed the IPAB's conclusion that the original registration was obtained based on a false statement and fraud, favoring the respondent, KYK Corp.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Mr. Munish Thakur
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Munish Thakur for infringing Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin. The court found that the defendant's product, GLIPSIT-M1, contained Sitagliptin and thus infringed the patent.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Xiaomi Technology & Ors
The plaintiff, Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for patent infringement against Xiaomi Technology. The current application sought the constitution of a confidential club to allow filing of highly sensitive patent licensing agreements necessary for determining FRAND issues.
Saregama India Limited v.Eros Digital Fz Llc
Saregama India Limited filed an application seeking an ad-interim injunction against Eros Digital Fz Llc, alleging copyright infringement and default payments following the expiry of a content license agreement. The core legal battle revolved around whether the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court examined Clause 29 of the License Agreement, which explicitly mandated that disputes arising from the contract must be heard exclusively by the High Court of Calcutta.
Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co v.Dsm Sinochem Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
The appeal challenged a decree of permanent injunction granted in favor of Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co. The core dispute involved alleged infringement of Patent No. 247301 concerning the 'Process for Preparing Amoxicilin Trihydrate'. The court set aside the previous order, recognizing that questions regarding territorial jurisdiction and the scope of the injunction against foreign manufacturing needed further examination.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.HRCN Cable Network
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited filed a suit against HRCN Cable Network alleging unauthorized use and infringement of its vast repertoire of copyrighted music, sound recordings, and cinematographic films. The plaintiff demonstrated ownership through assignment deeds and copyright certificates, proving that the defendant was illegally broadcasting their content on cable television networks. Consequently, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions against further infringement and awarding the plaintiff compensation amounting to Rs. 16,20,000/-.
M/S Xegent Consultants Pvt Ltd v.Ea Water Pvt Ltd & Ors
M/S Xegent Consultants Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging that Ea Water Pvt Ltd was illegally copying and misusing its proprietary literary work, 'India Water Review' (IWR), which covers water sector news. The plaintiff demonstrated that IWR is a recognized source of information in the Indian water industry. Despite initial legal notices, the defendants failed to cease the infringement or appear before the court. Consequently, the Delhi High Court found prima facie violation and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
Michele Caboni v.Union Of India And Anr.
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of certain sections and rules of the Patents Act, 1970, primarily arguing that the rules did not provide an opportunity to be heard before rights were closed, and that no appeal was prescribed against orders under Rule 137. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge to the statutory provisions.
Mohd Anesur Rahaman v.Mosarraf Hossain And Ors
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff, Mohd Anesur Rahaman, to amend his plaint in a trademark dispute. The amendment was necessary because the plaintiff had successfully registered the 'ANDAZ BIRI NO.205 LABEL' trademark during the pendency of the suit. This allows the plaintiff to formally pursue infringement claims based on the newly secured registration. The court emphasized that such amendments are allowed under principles of justice and equity to ensure all rights are properly adjudicated.
Ahuja Radios v.H K Sound Electronics & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ahuja Radios, finding that the defendants were engaged in trademark infringement and passing off by selling counterfeit Public Address Systems (PAS) under a deceptively similar mark. The court emphasized that the defendants' deliberate evasion of court proceedings warranted punitive damages. Consequently, the suit was decreed with permanent injunctions and an award of ₹3,00,000/- in damages.
CBZ Chemicals Ltd v.Kee Pharma Ltd
CBZ Chemicals Ltd filed a petition against Kee Pharma Ltd claiming deprivation of USD 350,000 related to an agreement for the sale of a process design to manufacture Atorvastatin. The court admitted the petition but deferred the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator, giving the respondent one month to pay the due amount with interest.
Drs Logistics (P) Ltd & Anr v.Sandeep Chohan Alias Sandeep Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Drs Logistics regarding the infringement and passing off of its registered trademark 'AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS' and associated domain names. The court granted a mandatory injunction directing the deletion or transfer of an offending domain name to the plaintiff. Furthermore, due to the defendants evading court proceedings while continuing their infringing activities, the court awarded punitive damages of ₹3,00,000/- plus interest.
Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. v.Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd., upholding a limited interim injunction granted to Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd. The court found that while the appellants held registered rights in 'Central Park', the respondents demonstrated bona fide prior use and substantial investment in their project, balancing equities in favor of the defendants. Consequently, the court allowed the respondents to continue using 'Rustomjee Central Park' provided the prominence of 'Central Park' was maintained.
M/S Instapower Ltd. v.M/S Alpha Interiors Pvt Ltd & Ors.
M/S Instapower Ltd., a company specializing in energy-efficient lighting systems, filed a suit alleging that M/S Alpha Interiors Pvt Ltd and others were infringing its registered design patents for aviation warning lights. The plaintiff demonstrated extensive market presence and proved that the defendants were manufacturing and selling similar products. Despite the defendants failing to contest the case effectively, the court found infringement.
Optimus Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Rishabh Lohia & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Optimus Pharma Pvt Ltd in a passing off suit against Rishabh Lohia & Anr. The court found that the defendants dishonestly adopted the trade name 'Optimus' for pharmaceutical products, causing confusion in the market. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions and awarded punitive damages of ₹3,00,000/- due to the defendant's evasion of court proceedings.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt Ltd v.Www.Timeseducation.Co & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Triumphant Institute Of Management, to implead Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. (Byju's) as a necessary party in its trademark infringement suit concerning the domain name 'timeseducation.co'. The court found that the proposed defendant had an admitted association with the impugned domain via a telephone number linked to them, making their presence essential for a just decision. Furthermore, the plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint and subsequently deleted two original defendants from the array of parties.
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v.Bombay Rayon Fashions Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. against an order that vacated its ex-parte injunction. The dispute centered on the use of the trademark 'VOGUE' by the appellant and 'LINEN VOGUE' by the respondent in relation to magazines versus fabrics/apparel. The court held that the respondent's catalogues, which merely advertised their goods, did not constitute a commercial act of publishing for sale, thus finding no merit in the claim of infringement or passing off.
Holland Company Lp And Anr. v.S.P. Industries
The plaintiffs claimed ownership and copyright over the industrial drawings of the Automatic Twist Lock (ATL) system, alleging that the defendant copied these drawings to manufacture spare parts for ATL devices used by Indian Railways. The court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case, particularly given that the drawings were published and available in the public domain.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Glaxo Group Limited against Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors for trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement. The court found that the defendants were infringing on registered trademarks (ZINACEF, FORTAM) and common law rights (FORTAZ), as well as passing off the plaintiff's goods using similar packaging (trade dress/copyright). Given the multiple violations, the court granted permanent injunctions and awarded compensatory and punitive damages of ₹20 lakhs to Glaxo Group.
Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. v.Samsung Electronics Co Ltd.& Anr
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed an intra-Court appeal filed by Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. challenging an order that allowed amendments to a trademark infringement suit. The court first ruled on the technical issue of jurisdiction, confirming that since the original suit involved intellectual property rights (trademarks), it fell under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed because an order allowing an amendment of the plaint is not specifically enumerated as appealable under Order XLIII CPC.
Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.Omex Cables Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, despite the plaintiff claiming trademark infringement and passing off against 'OMEXGOLD.' The court found that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's use of the mark since 2006 when it filed a trademark opposition. Due to this significant delay in approaching the court (from 2006/2015 until 2017), the court held that the plaintiff was disentitled to discretionary relief, citing established legal precedents regarding laches and acquiescence.
Modi- Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to de-register the trademark 'FECONTIN' due to alleged non-use. The court found that the IPAB overlooked a crucial fact: 'FECONTIN' was registered as an associated mark of 'FECONTIN F'. Citing Section 55(1) of the Trade Marks Act, the High Court held that the use of an associated trade mark can be accepted as equivalent to the use of the primary mark. Consequently, the court set aside the IPAB's order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.
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.