Delhi High Court
1664 cases · page 33 of 56
Showing 961–989Ahuja 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.
Pepsico Inc & Ors. v.Dugar Spices & Eatables (P) Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pepsico Inc, granting a permanent injunction against Dugar Spices & Eatables for the illegal use and sale of counterfeit and look-alike snack products. The court found that the defendants were violating Pepsico's rights through deceptive similarity in trademarks (KURMURE, CRACKURE), logos, packaging design, and overall trade dress associated with the 'KURKURE' brand. Furthermore, the judgment included directions to customs departments to prevent the import of these infringing goods.
Tryton Medical Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Tryton Medical Inc. challenged the refusal by the Controller of Patents to examine its National Phase Patent Application, which had been rejected due to a minor delay in filing. The petitioner argued that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had previously allowed the appeal and directed the Controller to proceed with examination. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, mandating compliance with the IPAB's orders.
yahoo inc v.mr rinshad rinu ors
Yahoo Inc sued Mr Rinshad Rinu and others for infringement of its YAHOO trademark in Class 39, alleging deceptive use in a trading name (yahookochi.com) and business operations. The defendants used the Yahoo mark and logo, claiming they had invested significantly in promoting it.
Paramount Surgimed Limited v.Paramount Bed India Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an earlier ex-parte injunction granted in favor of Paramount Surgimed Limited. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's use of the 'PARAMOUNT' mark since 2009 and had not adequately demonstrated its use in the hospital bed sector. Given the established business operations of the defendants, the balance of convenience lay in their favor, allowing them to continue their trade.
Dharam Chand Ladha Mal v.Subhash Sabun Udyog & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Dharam Chand Ladha Mal, finding clear similarity between the trade dress of the defendants' products (NIROKHA) and the plaintiff's registered trademark (NAULAKHA). The court granted permanent injunctions to prevent further infringement and passing off. Furthermore, it directed each defendant to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff.
Mr. Shammi Narang & Anr v.Pindrop Music App Private Limited
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte interim injunction favoring Mr. Shammi Narang & Anr against Pindrop Music App Private Limited. The court found that both parties held registered trademarks, but crucially, they operated in different classes (Class 41 for the plaintiff's studio services and Class 42 for the defendant's mobile application). Citing Section 28(3) of the Trademarks Act, the court ruled that since the marks were not used in the same class, infringement could not be established at this stage. The ruling prioritized the balance of convenience in favor of the growing startup.
McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi
This batch of cases addressed the tax implications of franchise agreements under various state sales tax laws. The core dispute centered on whether the royalties received by franchisors for allowing franchisees to use their brand system constituted a 'transfer of the right to use goods' (trademark). The Delhi High Court ultimately held that the franchise agreements only grant a limited right to use, and do not constitute an outright transfer of IP rights. Consequently, the tax demands levied on these transactions were quashed.
Holland L.P. v.A.D. Electro Stell Co. Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, owners of patented Automatic Twist Locks (ATLs), filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging infringement of their copyright in the proprietary drawings. The defendant challenged the claim, arguing that the specific design drawing used by the railways had become part of the public domain and was not exclusively owned by the plaintiff.
M/S. Iritech Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The petitioner sought to quash the 'deemed to be withdrawn' status of its Indian National Phase Patent Application (No. 5272/DELNP/2008) due to a clerical error in the application number being typed as 6272/DELNP/2008 in Form No. 18 and supporting documents. The respondents argued that the correction was sought after the statutory period expired, making it impossible for the Controller to act. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding the error clerical and restoring the application.
Monsanto Technology Llc And Ors. v.Nuziveedu Seeds Limited & Ors.
Monsanto Technology LLC and its affiliates filed a suit against Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, alleging infringement of their intellectual property rights. The core dispute revolved around the defendants continuing to market and sell Genetically Modified Hybrid Cotton Planting Seeds despite the termination of sub-license agreements. Plaintiffs claimed violation of both registered patent (No. 214436) and trademarks (BOLLGARD/BOLLGARD II). The court, while addressing interim applications, issued directions mandating the defendants to tender or pay a trait fee, render detailed sales accounts, and comply with licensing guidelines.
M/S Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd. v.Union Of India And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd. challenging the removal of its 'GURUJI' trademark. The core dispute centered on whether a mandatory prior notice (Form O-3) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, was properly served before the mark's cancellation. The Court upheld the Single Judge's finding that since the notice was sent by post and addressed to the proprietor, it was deemed legally served under Rule 15 of the Rules, thereby validating the removal.
Intex Technologies (India) Ltd v.M/S Az Tech (India)
The Delhi High Court set aside an earlier single judge's order that had restrained Intex Technologies from using the mark 'AQUA' for mobile phones. The court found that the respondent, M/S Az Tech, failed to establish a prima facie case of passing off. Crucially, the court noted the dishonest conduct of Az Tech in copying Intex's logo font and style during the pendency of the suit, which disentitled them from obtaining an injunction.
Cipla Limited v.Novartis Ag & Anr
Cipla Limited appealed an injunction granted against it by the Delhi High Court, which restrained Cipla from using or manufacturing products containing INDACATEROL. The dispute centered on Novartis Ag & Anr's patent (No. 222346) for the drug INDACATEROL, marketed as ONBREZ. While Cipla argued that the respondents did not manufacture the drug in India and thus were not working the patent locally, the court upheld the injunction.
Bayer Corporation v.Union of India
The dispute centered on whether Natco Pharma Limited (Natco) and Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. could export products covered by compulsory licenses, specifically SORAFENAT/SORAFENIB, for regulatory development purposes outside India. Bayer challenged these exports, arguing they infringed the patent or violated the terms of the Compulsory Licence. The court ultimately held that non-patentee companies cannot be deprived of exercising rights under Section 107A merely because a compulsory license was granted.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors
Bayer challenged Natco's (and Alembic's) exports of SORAFENIB/SORAFENAT, which were covered by a Compulsory Licence, arguing these exports infringed the patent. The core legal question was whether Section 107A allowed for such exports for regulatory purposes.
Aia Engineering Limited v.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (Bhel)
Aia Engineering Limited filed a civil suit alleging that the third defendant infringed its patent (IN'740) related to wear-resistant metal parts used in industrial applications. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, arguing that the substantial cause of action arose outside Delhi.
Abhoy Kumar Jain v.Vrajlal Manilal & Company And Others
The Delhi High Court intervened in a dispute over trademark rectification, setting aside an ex parte order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner successfully argued that the original decision failed to consider their statement of defense and material evidence. Consequently, the court restored the petitioner's mark 'Tufan' on the register and remitted the case back to the IPAB for a fair reconsideration, emphasizing procedural fairness over substantive merits.
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.