Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 36 of 56
Showing 1051–1079Teva Api India Pvt. Ltd. v.Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp
The respondents sued the appellants alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 209816 for Sitagliptin. The appellants challenged the interim injunction, claiming their manufacturing and exports were solely for Research & Development (R&D) and obtaining global regulatory approvals before the patent expiry in 2022. The court dismissed the appeal but directed the parties to complete pleadings.
Skechers Usa Inc & Ors v.Pure Play Sports
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Skechers against Pure Play Sports, finding prima facie evidence of passing off. The court noted that the defendant's footwear was a substantial imitation of the plaintiffs' GOwalk 3 series, specifically citing copied trade dress elements like the unique outsole design and 'Goga Mat' technology features. This preliminary ruling suggests that the defendants were consciously imitating Skechers' distinctive look to mislead consumers about the source of their products.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
The plaintiff (Ericsson) filed a suit for infringement of registered patents against the defendant (Lava International). The court, following directions from the Supreme Court to expedite the trial, addressed an application by the defendant seeking to amend the witness list and change the trial schedule due to the unavailability of expert witnesses. The court granted a conditional adjournment.
Genentech Inc And Others v.Drugs Controller General Of India And Others
Genentech Inc. and its affiliates filed suit against the Drugs Controller General of India and others, challenging the approval granted for TrastuRel, a purported biosimilar version of their drug Trastuzumab. The plaintiffs contended that TrastuRel had not undergone adequate testing as required under Indian law before being launched. The Delhi High Court issued an interim order, restraining the defendant from marketing the product without proper trials while setting conditions for future regulatory approval.
Roche Products (India) Pvt Ltd v.Drugs Controller General Of India
Roche Products, the originator of the biological drug Trastuzumab (marketed globally under HERCEPTIN®), filed a suit seeking injunction against competitors launching purported biosimilars like CANMAb and HERTRAZ. The plaintiffs contended that these drugs were being misrepresented as 'Trastuzumab' or similar to HERCEPTIN®, without following proper regulatory guidelines for biologics. The court issued an interim order, restraining the defendants from making misleading claims and using proprietary data until the final decision on bio-similarity is reached.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Xiaomi Technology & Ors
Ericsson sued Xiaomi for infringing several patents related to AMR, 3G, and EDGE technology used in mobile devices. The defendants filed an application seeking vacation of a prior interim injunction by alleging concealment of material facts. The court found that Ericsson failed to disclose its agreement with Qualcomm regarding CDMA applications, leading to the vacation of the interim order concerning two specific patents.
M/S Saurabh Agrotech Private Limited v.Radhey Shyam Agencies
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S Saurabh Agrotech Private Limited, who is the registered proprietor of the 'ASHOKA' trademark. The plaintiff sought protection against defendants for alleged infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to their edible oil products. Given that the plaintiff holds a valid registration and has established a strong prima facie case regarding market confusion, the court restrained the defendants from using the disputed mark pending the final outcome of the suit.
Delhi Public School Society v.Dps World Foundation And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Delhi Public School Society against Dps World Foundation And Anr. The court restrained the defendants from using the registered trade mark 'DPS' or any deceptively similar mark, citing infringement and passing off. While the plaintiff sought protection for its crest logo under copyright, the court denied this specific relief due to lack of evidence regarding continuous use. This ruling sets a precedent for protecting established educational brand identities in litigation.
M/S Symphony Ltd v.M/S Summer Cool Home Appliances Pvt Ltd
M/S Symphony Ltd filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a dispute concerning air cooler designs against M/S Summer Cool Home Appliances Pvt Ltd. The plaintiff sought to clarify discrepancies regarding the dates of use and registration for various registered design models, such as 'Sumo' and 'Winter'. The court examined whether these amendments were necessary for proper adjudication or merely an attempt to resile from previous admissions. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, finding that it served only to clarify existing pleadings without fundamentally altering the nature of the suit.
Jiva Institute Of Vedic Science & Culture v.Mr. Raymond Bickson, Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer
The Delhi High Court disposed of a contempt petition filed by Jiva Institute against Mr. Raymond Bickson regarding the alleged misuse of the 'JIVA' trademark. While acknowledging that the defendants had violated previous injunctions by using the mark on various goods, the court ultimately gave them the benefit of doubt. The judgment allowed the respondents to continue using the mark for their spa services and certain related items, provided they strictly avoid using it for soaps, cosmetics, ayurvedic products, or other allied/cognate goods, thereby balancing trademark protection with commercial reality.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v.Competition Commission Of India
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson challenged the orders passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which had initiated investigations based on complaints from Micromax and Intex. The core dispute revolved around whether the CCI possessed jurisdiction to examine claims related to royalty payments for Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). Ericsson argued that patent-related royalty issues fall exclusively under the Patents Act, 1970, not the Competition Act, 2002. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the jurisdictional boundaries of the CCI in this context.
Ritika Private Limited v.Biba Apparels Private Limited
Ritika Private Limited filed a suit against Biba Apparels Private Limited claiming infringement of copyright and violation of trade secrets related to its garment designs sold under the RITU KUMAR brand. The plaintiff asserted originality in its sketches and drawings, which were adapted for various garments. However, the court found that the suit was barred by Section 15(2) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, as the designs were capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000, but had not been so registered.
Pfizer Products, Inc & Anr v.Platinum Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pfizer Products, Inc. in a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Platinum Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. The court found that the defendant was illegally selling a drug under the deceptively similar trademark BEQSULE against the plaintiff's registered mark BECOSULES. Furthermore, the court noted that the defendant adopted an identical trade dress (white and reddish orange color combination) to mislead consumers, leading to a decree of injunction.
Qarshi Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Abdul Mueed & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Qarshi Industries challenging the denial of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Hamdard in a passing off suit. The court found that given the complexity of the arguments—including issues regarding the descriptive nature of the Urdu words 'JAM-E-SHIRIN' and potential suppression of facts related to Pakistani trademark disclaimers—the prima facie case was not strong enough for an immediate injunction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, requiring both parties to complete their pleadings before further relief could be considered.
Visakha Chemicals v.The Central Government Of India And Another
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an IPAB order regarding trademark invalidity. The judgment affirmed the Full Bench's ruling that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has exclusive jurisdiction to decide on pleas of trademark registration invalidity, even within the context of an infringement suit. Furthermore, the court clarified the conditions under which an infringement action may be stayed pending rectification proceedings, emphasizing that a civil court must find the plea prima facie tenable before staying the suit.
Aura Synergy India Ltd. v.M/S New Age False Ceiling Co Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction request filed by Aura Synergy India Ltd. against M/S New Age False Ceiling Co Pvt. Ltd., concerning the use of the trade name 'AURA' for metallic false ceiling products. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' application. The judgment highlighted that the plaintiffs had suppressed material facts and made misstatements regarding their business history and relationship with the defendants, leading to the vacation of the ex-parte injunction.
Adidas Ag v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court overturned an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decision that had dismissed a rectification application concerning the trademark 'RESPONSE'. The court held that the IPAB's interpretation of 'person aggrieved' was contrary to law, especially when marks and goods are identical. Furthermore, the High Court found factual inconsistencies in the IPAB's assessment regarding the petitioner's use of the mark. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the IPAB for a fresh hearing.
Devagiri Farms Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr Sanjay Kapur & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the tea seller, Mr. Sanjay Kapur & Anr., finding that Devagiri Farms Pvt. Ltd. had infringed upon their trade dress. The court held that despite minor variations, the overall get-up and striking similarity between the packaging—specifically the fabric sleeve used over a rectangular cuboid packet—was likely to deceive an ordinary purchaser. This judgment reinforces that the overall visual impression of a product's packaging is a critical factor in assessing trade dress infringement, even when trademarks are displayed.
Mac Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v.Lavera Gmbh And Co.Kg
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction in favor of Lavera Gmbh, affirming that Mac Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. was a dishonest adopter of the trademark 'LAVERA'. Despite initial contradictions regarding trans-border reputation, the court found that Lavera's international registration and intent to market in India entitled it to protection. The judgment emphasizes that dishonesty at the inception of mark adoption is fatal, even if subsequent use by the alleged infringer continues.
Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Guruji Enterprises' challenge against the removal of its trademark 'GURUJI'. The petitioner argued that the Registrar failed to issue a mandatory prior notice (Form O-3) before cancellation. However, the court found that since the Respondent stated the Form O-3 was sent by post in 2008, the law presumes service upon delivery, making the writ petition inappropriate for resolving factual disputes regarding receipt.
M/S. Bhatia Enterprises v.Sh. Subhash Arora
M/S. Bhatia Enterprises filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design for a water jug (No. 235010). The court considered an application for a preliminary injunction, noting that the defendant had previously failed in its attempt to cancel the registration based on prior publication. Given that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and irreparable loss would occur without protection, the court granted the interim injunction.
Sanofi Aventis v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Sanofi Aventis filed a suit against Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to blood thinning medicines. The plaintiff sought permission to amend the plaint to reflect significantly increased damages, as the losses mounted over the seven years the suit was pending. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that procedural rules should not obstruct the cause of justice, especially when correcting valuation based on evolving market realities.
J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited & Anr v.Bull Machines Pvt Ltd
J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a suit against Bull Machines Pvt Ltd, aiming to enhance the suit's valuation and the quantum of damages claimed due to ongoing copyright and design infringement. The plaintiffs argued that despite previous arrangements, the defendant continued manufacturing and selling infringing backhoe loaders. The court ultimately allowed the amendment, emphasizing that commercial disputes require a flexible approach to ensure justice.
Societe Des Products Nestle, S.A. v.Essar Industries
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application filed by Nestle (Plaintiffs) seeking to amend their plaint to enhance the suit's pecuniary valuation. The plaintiffs, who had initially valued their passing off suit at a lower amount, sought to reflect the actual high market value of their intellectual property rights. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should adopt a commercial angle when considering such applications, provided a valid case for correction is made out.
Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd v.Deepak Anand & Ors
Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a passing off/disparagement suit against Deepak Anand & Ors. The plaintiff sought to enhance the valuation of the suit from Rs.21,00,800/- to Rs.2,00,00,800/- based on reassessed damages and goodwill attached to its brand 'Snapdeal'. The Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should examine such applications from a commercial angle, provided a valid case for amendment is made out.
Societe Des Products Nestle, S.A. v.Essar Industries
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application filed by Nestle (the plaintiff) seeking to amend its plaint to enhance the valuation of a commercial dispute. The suit, originally concerning passing off, was valued low, but due to re-assessment of potential damages and profits, the plaintiffs sought to increase the value significantly. The court ultimately allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should adopt a commercial angle when considering such applications, provided a valid case for amendment is made out.
M/S Entertainment Network India Ltd. v.Mr.Jonathan Brady & Anr.
In a significant development for trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court allowed a suit to be settled out of court. M/S Entertainment Network India Ltd. successfully convinced the court to enforce an agreement with Defendant No. 1, Mr. Jonathan Brady. The settlement confirmed that 'ULTA PULTA' is the intellectual property of the plaintiff and resulted in the decreeing of the original suit based on the agreed-upon terms.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Saurabh Katar And Others
Eicher Motors Limited filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Saurabh Katar and others. The plaintiff sought to significantly enhance the claimed damages from Rs. 21 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore, citing fresh listings of counterfeit products found on the defendants' website. The Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, noting that it did not alter the nature of the suit and was supported by cogent material available during the pendency of the litigation.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors
Shogun Organics Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of its patent No. 236630, which covers the product D-TRANS ALLETHRIN. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to enhance the valuation of the suit due to market evidence showing widespread infringement by the defendants. Given that the defendants had challenged the validity and filed a revocation counter-claim, the court allowed the amendment, thereby enabling the continuation of the litigation.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Bharat Rasayan Ltd & Anr.
Shogun Organics Ltd filed a suit against Bharat Rasayan Ltd alleging infringement of Patent No. 225306 concerning the product TRANSFLUTHRIN. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint, primarily to enhance the valuation for court fee and jurisdiction, citing market evidence of widespread infringement by the defendants. Given that the defendants had already challenged the patent's validity through a revocation counter-claim, the Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, thereby enabling the suit to proceed with enhanced claims.
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.