Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 35 of 56
Showing 1021–1049Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd v.Haridwar Cables Network
The plaintiff, Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Haridwar Cables Network, was infringing its copyrights by broadcasting T-Series' repertoire (sound recordings, films) on its cable network without obtaining a license. The court found the defendant guilty of copyright infringement and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Sanjay Jain
The plaintiffs, Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and its subsidiary, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for the infringement of their patent (IN 203937) covering the anti-cancer molecule DASATINIB. The defendants were proceeded ex parte due to non-appearance in court.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.Fun Cable Network
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Fun Cable Network for infringing its extensive repertoire of copyrighted music and films. The plaintiff alleged that the cable operator used T-Series content without obtaining necessary licenses, despite prior communication and legal notices. Given the defendant's failure to enter an appearance or file a written statement, the court proceeded ex parte.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.Gurgaon Cable Tv Series
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited filed a suit against Gurgaon Cable TV Series alleging widespread infringement of its vast repertoire of copyrighted music and film content. The plaintiff, one of India's largest music companies, claimed that the defendant cable operator was using T-Series works without obtaining necessary public performance licenses. Despite the defendant failing to appear in court, the Delhi High Court proceeded ex parte. Ultimately, the court decreed the suit in favor of Super Cassettes Industries and awarded damages along with punitive damages.
Abro Industries, Inc v.Dhirish Nimbawat & Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Abro Industries, Inc., finding that Defendant No. 3 had engaged in the offense of passing off by using deceptively similar marks and packaging to mislead the public. Despite the plaintiff waiving the claim for damages, the court decreed the suit against Defendant No. 3 under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC due to the defendant's failure to file a written statement after being served through publication. The judgment confirms the existing interim injunction.
M/S P K Overseas Pvt.Ltd. v.M/S Bhagwati Lecto Vegetarians Exports
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, overturning a single judge's decision that had vacated an interim injunction. The court ruled in favor of M/S P K Overseas Pvt.Ltd., confirming the initial injunction against M/S Bhagwati Lecto Vegetarians Exports. The judgment emphasized that for passing off claims involving composite marks like 'India Salaam', both components must be considered, and established sales figures justified a prima facie case of reputation.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.Shekhawati Ab Tak Cable Network
The plaintiff, Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited (T-Series), filed a suit against Shekhawati Ab Tak Cable Network for infringing its copyrights in cinematographic films and sound recordings. The court found that the defendant was broadcasting the plaintiff's copyrighted works without obtaining necessary licenses.
3M Innovative Properties Ltd v.Venus Safety & Health Pvt Ltd
The appellant filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondent for infringing their patent related to flat folded personal respiratory protection devices. The lower court had vacated an interim injunction based on prior art cited by the respondents, but the High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appellants established a strong prima facie case and overturning the order.
DLF Limited v.G Webbook And Anr
DLF Limited successfully concluded its trademark dispute against G Webbook And Anr through an out-of-court settlement. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on this compromise, where the defendants acknowledged DLF as the prior adopter and registered proprietor of 'CAMELLIA' and 'CAMELLIAS'. Furthermore, the defendants committed to refraining from using similar marks like 'GRAND CAMELLIA', effectively resolving the infringement claims.
Eneroil Offshore Drilling Ltd v.Centek Limited
The suit concerning patent infringement was pending between Eneroil Offshore Drilling Ltd and Centek Limited. The parties subsequently reached an out-of-court settlement, which involved the plaintiff undertaking not to use Boron steel or its equivalent for manufacturing single piece centralizers.
Seven Towns Ltd v.M/S Kiddiland
Seven Towns Ltd, a global manufacturer of the Rubik's Cube, filed a suit against M/S Kiddiland alleging infringement of copyright and passing off. The plaintiffs claimed proprietary rights in the distinctive trade dress and artistic elements of their product's label and packaging. Despite initial challenges from the defendants regarding variations in detail, the Delhi High Court granted interim injunctions, finding that the plaintiffs had made a prima facie good case and that the balance of convenience lay in their favor.
ITC Ltd v.Britannia Industries Ltd
ITC Ltd successfully obtained an interim injunction against Britannia Industries Ltd in the Delhi High Court. The court found that Britannia's Nutri Choice Digestive Zero biscuit packaging was deceptively and confusingly similar to ITC's Sunfeast Farmlite Digestive - All Good packaging, leading to a prima facie case of passing off. While granting the injunction, the court provided flexibility, allowing Britannia to adopt its international packaging or change the blue color scheme to another distinctive color, ensuring business continuity while protecting ITC's trade dress.
M/S Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. v.H.E. Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Johnson Appliances, finding that the defendants infringed upon the registered trademark 'JOHNSON' in relation to electric water heaters. The court extensively reviewed the historical chain of title, confirming the plaintiff's continuous ownership and rights over the mark since 1960. Despite the defendant's reliance on an alleged license agreement, the court held that the defendants lacked any valid rights to use the mark for these specific goods, granting a permanent injunction.
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Medi Pharma & Another
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. in a trademark infringement suit concerning the brand name 'POLYCAP'. The court granted a permanent injunction, preventing the defendants from manufacturing or marketing products under the disputed mark or any deceptively similar variation. This decision underscores the importance of protecting established pharmaceutical trademarks and maintaining consumer trust regarding product efficacy.
M/S Stellar Information Technology Private Ltd v.Mr Rakesh Kumar & Ors
The Plaintiff, a data recovery company, filed an application seeking an interim injunction against its former employees (Defendants) for allegedly using confidential information, trade secrets, and client lists to compete with the Plaintiff. The Defendants argued that any restrictive covenants in their employment agreements were void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, leading the court to dismiss the application.
Times Publishing House Ltd. v.Financial Times Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Times Publishing House Ltd. against Financial Times Ltd, addressing challenges related to the validity and rectification of the 'FT' trademark. The judgment clarified the interplay between civil suit proceedings and IPAB rectification petitions under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. Crucially, the court noted that since the IPAB had already ruled in favor of the respondent regarding the mark's validity, the issues raised by the appellant became academic, leading to the dismissal of both appeals.
M/S R G Oswal Hosiety Industries & Anr. v.Dindayal Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S R G Oswal Hosiety Industries regarding its trademark 'Dollar' in hosiery goods. The court found that the appellant failed to establish prima facie evidence of prior user or market dominance compared to the respondent. Despite citing previous case law, the appellants could not demonstrate sufficient sales figures or continuous use before 1989, leading the court to uphold the denial of interim relief.
M/S Bright Enterprises Private Limited & Anr v.Mj Bizcraft LLP & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by M/S Bright Enterprises Private Limited against MJ Bizcraft LLP. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the use of 'PRIVEE' due to similarity with their mark 'MBD PRIVE'. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the generic word had acquired a secondary meaning specific to them in the hotel industry. Given the lack of evidence supporting distinctiveness and the principles allowing for summary dismissal of doomed suits, the suit was dismissed.
M/S Rspl Limited v.Mukesh Sharma & Anr
This appeal challenged a single judge's decision that dismissed an IP suit based on lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant, M/S Rspl Limited, had filed the suit under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act seeking injunction against alleged infringement and passing off by the respondents using the name 'GHARI TRADEMARK COMPANY'. The High Court Division Bench overturned the single judge's ruling, affirming that the court has jurisdiction given the plaintiff's corporate office and business activities within Delhi.
Mip Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG v.Westfield Retail Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court partially allowed this application, rejecting the plaintiff's claim regarding 'passing off.' However, it declined to reject the suit entirely concerning trademark infringement, allowing the matter to proceed to trial. This decision sets up key issues regarding both jurisdiction and locus standi for the plaintiff.
Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v.Essar Industries
In this trademark infringement suit concerning the 'MAGGI' brand, the Delhi High Court addressed applications regarding evidence submission. While rejecting a major application by the defendants to introduce extensive new documentation due to concerns over trial delay and adherence to Commercial Courts Act principles, the court did allow the defendants to summon witnesses for documents that had previously been shared with the plaintiffs. This ruling emphasizes judicial caution against late-stage document filing in commercial disputes.
Wonderful Developers Private Ltd. v.Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Private Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a conflict regarding when a trade mark infringement suit must be stayed pending rectification proceedings before the IPAB. The court clarified that merely filing a rectification application after an infringement suit has commenced does not automatically mandate a stay. Instead, the trial court must assess whether the plea of invalidity is prima facie tenable; if so, it should stay the suit to allow time for the IPAB decision. This ruling provides clarity on the procedural interplay between civil suits and IPAB rectification actions.
M/S Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd v.R.K. Distilleries Pvt Ltd
M/S Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd filed a suit against R.K. Distilleries Pvt Ltd seeking permanent injunction and damages for alleged infringement and passing off of its trademark 'Officer's Choice'. The plaintiff asserted extensive goodwill, registered trademarks across multiple classes, and proprietary rights in the associated trade dress. However, the court ultimately dismissed the application on jurisdictional grounds, noting that the cause of action arose primarily outside Delhi (e.g., Andhra Pradesh), despite the plaintiff having a branch office there.
Dart Industries Inc & Anr. v.Techno Plast & Ors.
Dart Industries Inc, through its licensee Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging infringement of their proprietary designs and copyrights related to the popular 'Tupperware' storage containers. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants were copying these unique designs, leading to confusion in the market. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead and prove the distinctiveness of the product shape for trademark purposes, thereby lacking prima facie strength in their claims regarding design protection, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Staar Surgical Company v.Polymer Technologies International & Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed Staar Surgical Company's suit against Polymer Technologies International, which alleged passing off of intraocular lenses. The court found that the defendant's current trademark, 'EYEPCL,' was entirely distinct and not deceptively similar to the plaintiff's brand name, 'VISIAN ICL.' Despite previous interim injunctions granted on a different mark used by the defendants, the court ruled that the new mark failed to meet the test of confusion, especially considering the specialized nature of the medical goods.
Ok Play India Limited v.Mayank Aggarwal & Ors
Ok Play India Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its intellectual property rights—including trademark 'OK PLAY', copyrights in drawings, and common law design rights—against several defendants for manufacturing and selling deceptively similar toys. The core legal dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff could assert IP rights over their toy designs without formal registration under the Designs Act. The court ultimately ruled that since the plaintiff had not obtained design registration, they were unable to secure interim injunctions against the alleged infringement.
Gurnam Singh Trading As M/S G. C. Laboratories v.M/S Little Profit Trading Company
The Delhi High Court formally accepted an out-of-court settlement between the trademark proprietor, Gurnam Singh Trading As M/S G. C. Laboratories, and M/S Little Profit Trading Company. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the 'BLUE HEAVEN' trademark and agreed to pay Rs. 3.00 lacs as damages. Furthermore, the defendant committed to surrendering all rights in the infringing mark and disposing of existing stock by a specified date, leading to the suit being decreed based on these terms.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
The court addressed an application filed by the defendant seeking procedural reliefs, including a fresh trial schedule and permission to examine additional witnesses. The case involves patent infringement allegations concerning mobile radio communication technology and questions regarding the FRAND status of the patents.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Lava International Ltd for alleged infringement of its patented technologies. The core dispute revolved around Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 2G, EDGE, and 3G telecommunications standards used in mobile devices. The court found prima facie evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim of infringement. Consequently, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Lava from manufacturing or selling the infringing products, while dismissing a counter-application filed by the defendant.
Vardhman Properties Ltd v.M/S Vardhman Realtech Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted temporary injunctive relief in favor of Vardhman Properties Ltd against M/S Vardhman Realtech Pvt Ltd & Ors. The court found that the defendants' use of the mark 'VARDHMAN' was phonetically and visually identical to the plaintiff's registered trademark, leading to a prima facie case for infringement and passing off. This interim order restrains the defendants from using the name in a manner that suggests an association with the plaintiff's established brand, allowing the main suits to proceed.
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.