Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 34 of 56
Showing 991–1019Pepsico 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.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd v.Amit Kotak
Kent Ro Systems Ltd filed a suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 was manufacturing and selling water purifiers whose design infringed upon their registered designs. The plaintiffs also sought relief against the online marketplace, eBay (Defendant No. 2), for facilitating this infringement. While the court granted an injunction in favor of Kent Ro Systems against the manufacturer, it ultimately declined to impose proactive screening or vigilance duties on the e-commerce intermediary, citing that such a requirement would be an unreasonable interference with its business rights.
Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd. v.Surya Roshni Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design for a Hollow Section Pipe. The defendant contested the claim, arguing that the design lacked novelty, was common to trade, and was based on pre-existing prior art. The court dismissed the interim application in favor of the defendant.
My Space Inc. v.Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute between MySpace Inc., an Internet Service Provider, and Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (SCIL), a major music company, regarding the unauthorized use of copyrighted works on the Myspace platform. SCIL sought permanent injunctions against alleged infringement, while MySpace argued for intermediary protection under relevant IT laws. The court balanced IP rights with freedom of expression, clarifying that safe harbor provisions apply if an intermediary acts upon specific notice.
Tata Sons Limited v.Ram Niwas & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Limited, granting permanent injunctions against Ram Niwas & Ors for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were deceptively using the mark 'TATA' and the domain name 'www.tatapackers.com' to associate themselves with the well-known TATA brand in the transport and logistics sector. Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to transfer the infringing domain name to Tata Sons Limited.
The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars Of University of Oxford v.Rameshwari Photocopy Services
The dispute concerned Rameshwari Photocopy Services copying and binding pages from copyrighted academic publications (Oxford/Cambridge University Press) for students at Delhi School of Economics. The High Court set aside the previous judgment, finding that triable issues of fact existed regarding the scope of permitted photocopying.
Mehra Cosmetics v.Ram Kumar Gulati & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Mehra Cosmetics against Ram Kumar Gulati & Ors. The court found that the defendants were attempting to pass off their goods as those of the plaintiff by using a deceptively similar mark ('BLUE CHEF' vs 'BLUE CLIFF'). Despite arguments regarding the unregistered status of the plaintiff's trademark and procedural issues, the court ruled that the similarity in sound and appearance constituted passing off. The defendants were ordered to cease using the infringing mark and change labels on their existing stock.
Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd. v.Registrar Of Plant Varieties And Ors.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed challenges against the validity of Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers' Rights Act. The petitioners, including Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd., argued that this section allowed for abusive practices by enabling competitors to challenge genuine proprietary plant varieties. The court found that the unguided nature of the power in Section 24(5) posed a significant danger of abuse, potentially harming innocent breeders and farmers. Consequently, the High Court declared Section 24(5) void.
Flamagas, Sa v.Sunder & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Flamagas, Sa, finding that the defendants were infringing upon its trademarks and designs related to 'Clipper' lighters. The court noted that the defendants failed to participate in the proceedings despite being served, leading to them being proceeded ex parte. Consequently, the suit was decreed for permanent injunction and punitive damages, emphasizing that non-participation by infringers should not allow them to escape liability.
Krbl Ltd. v.Pk Overseas Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court overturned a lower court's decision regarding an application for interim injunction in a passing off dispute concerning rice brands. The appeal focused on the deceptive similarity of color combinations, not just the marks themselves. The High Court found that the trial court failed to adequately address the crucial elements of reputation and consumer confusion before dismissing the injunction request. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the trial court for a fresh hearing after both parties submit necessary documentation.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.Hari Satya Lubricants & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors, finding that the defendant's use of the mark 'VALVO' for lubricating oil products constituted trademark infringement and passing off against the well-known mark 'VOLVO'. The court issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the similar mark. Furthermore, nominal damages were awarded to one of the plaintiffs, reinforcing the protection afforded to famous trademarks in India.
Nikitasha Home Appliances Pvt Ltd. v.Pradeep Kapahi
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction granted to the respondent, Pradeep Kapahi, regarding the use of the trademark 'Niki Tasha' for home appliances. The court found that while the appellant (Nikitasha Home Appliances) claimed prior usage, they failed to provide substantial documentary evidence proving use before 2007. Conversely, the respondent demonstrated continuous use since 2007. Consequently, the appeal challenging the injunction was dismissed.
Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd v.Param Hans City Cable Network
The plaintiff, Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Param Hans City Cable Network, infringed its copyrights by broadcasting copyrighted works (songs and films) without obtaining a license. The court found the unlicensed broadcasts to be an infringement and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd v.Sbn Network
Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Sbn Network for infringing its copyrighted works. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, a ground cable operator, was broadcasting T-Series' films and music without obtaining necessary licenses.
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.