Delhi High Court
1635 cases · page 36 of 55
Showing 1051–1079Stephen Koeing v.Arbitrator Nixi And Anr.
This case involved a dispute over the domain name 'internet.in', which was registered by Koening, while Purohit held a trade mark for 'internet'. The core issue revolved around whether the domain name registration infringed upon the existing trademark rights. The Delhi High Court examined the arbitral award concerning this matter. Ultimately, the court upheld the arbitration finding, emphasizing that the registrant has an obligation to ensure their domain name does not violate third-party rights.
M/S Mirza International Ltd v.M/S Pauls Foot Prints
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between M/S Mirza International Ltd and M/S Pauls Foot Prints based on a comprehensive settlement reached through court-annexed mediation. The defendant agreed to cease using the disputed mark 'RED TAPE,' deliver seized goods, and pay Rs. 65,000/- to the plaintiff. The Court formally accepted the terms of the Settlement Agreement dated October 14, 2015, thereby decreeing the suit.
Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited v.Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited
The suit was filed by Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited against Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringing Indian Patent No. 189089 related to transformer explosion prevention. The defendant challenged the plaintiff's standing, arguing that their exclusive license agreement was unregistered and therefore invalid under Section 109 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation filed a suit against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin, a key drug for Type II diabetes. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from manufacturing and selling generic versions like Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate under brands such as ZITA. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted infringement of the plaintiff's patent rights.
M/S Relianc Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.M/S Reliance Life Sciences & Anr
This Delhi High Court order confirms the settlement reached between M/S Relianc Life Sciences Pvt Ltd and M/S Reliance Life Sciences & Anr. The parties successfully mediated their dispute, leading to a decree that acknowledges the plaintiff's proprietary trademark rights. While the plaintiff agreed to waive damages, the defendants formally acknowledged the validity of the plaintiff's trademarks, resolving the litigation amicably.
Shoppers Stop Ltd v.Shoppers Shop
In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit between Shoppers Stop Ltd and Shoppers Shop following a successful mediation process. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement where the defendant acknowledged Shoppers Stop's exclusive ownership of the 'SHOPPERS STOP' trademark and 'SS LOGO'. As part of the agreement, the defendant agreed to cease using the marks and pay a sum of Rs. 6.00 lacs to the plaintiff.
Retail Royalty Company v.Pantaloons Fashion & Retail Limited
The Delhi High Court partially allowed the appeal concerning trademark infringement between Retail Royalty Company and Pantaloons Fashion & Retail Limited. While the court found that the word marks ('AMERICAN EAGLE' vs 'URBAN EAGLE') were not deceptively similar, preventing a full injunction on the name, it did find that the associated 'Eagle Devices' were deceptively similar. Consequently, the respondents were restrained from using the infringing devices and limited to using only the mark 'URBAN EAGLE', without adding qualifiers like 'AUTHENTIC'.
Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v.Italian Edibles Pvt. Ltd.
Nestle filed a suit against Italian Edibles alleging passing off and misuse of its well-known trademark, "MAGGI HUNGROOO." The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that their business was conducted outside Delhi. However, the High Court ruled in favor of Nestle, holding that since the plaintiff had an office in Delhi, the goods were advertised on a website accessible in Delhi, and there was an imminent threat of market entry in Delhi, the court possessed the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
Microsoft Corporation & Anr v.Piyush Somani & Anr
In a significant settlement order, the Delhi High Court allowed Microsoft Corporation to secure its intellectual property rights against Piyush Somani. The parties reached an out-of-court agreement where the defendants formally recognized Microsoft as the proprietor of the 'MICROSOFT' trademark. Furthermore, the court directed NIXI to facilitate the transfer of the domain name www.microsoft.co.in to Microsoft, effectively resolving a complex dispute involving both trademark infringement and cybersquatting.
Bestochem Formulations(I) Limited v.Mr.Nitin Blaggan & Ors.
In a significant resolution, Bestochem Formulations(I) Limited successfully concluded its dispute against Mr. Nitin Blaggan & Ors. by reaching an amicable out-of-court settlement. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on this agreement, which confirmed that Bestochem is the rightful owner of the trademark 'FLUWEL' for pharmaceutical preparations. In exchange for this confirmation, the plaintiff agreed to forgo claims for damages and costs, bringing a long-pending infringement case to a definitive close.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.M/S Best It World (India) Private Limited (iBall)
Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against iBall for infringing its patents related to AMR, 3G, and EDGE technologies. The court considered arguments regarding the execution of a FRAND agreement and the alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents.
Ashiana Housing Ltd. v.M/S Total Property Solutions
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ashiana Housing Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against M/S Total Property Solutions for infringing its trademarks and copyrights. The court found that the defendant's use of deceptively similar marks and replication of proprietary content on their website caused confusion among the public. Furthermore, given the defendant's ex-parte conduct and deliberate infringement, the court awarded punitive damages of Rs. 3 lac and costs to the plaintiff.
Gap(Itm) Inc And Anr v.D.K. Srinivas
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between Gap(Itm) Inc and D.K. Srinivas based on an out-of-court negotiated settlement. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiffs' exclusive proprietary rights in the 'GAP' trademark and agreed to specific undertakings. Furthermore, the defendant committed to paying Rs. 25 lacs in damages should they breach these future agreements, effectively resolving the dispute.
Parul Homoeo Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. v.Royal Group
Parul Homoeo Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit for permanent injunction and passing off against Royal Group regarding the use of similar trade marks ('HAEMOFORTE' vs 'HAEMO FORTE') in pharmaceutical preparations. The plaintiff claimed prior user rights, but the defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that its operations were based outside Delhi. The Court ultimately found that since neither party had a presence or cause of action arising within Delhi, it lacked the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India And Others
Bayer Corporation appealed an order allowing Nacto Pharma Ltd. (NPL), a compulsory licensee, to export its product 'Sorafenat' outside India for clinical trials. Bayer alleged this violated the terms of the compulsory license granted under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court directed that instead of deciding the appeal on merits, the underlying writ petition be disposed of expeditiously by impleading relevant regulatory authorities.
Aktiebolaget Skf And Ors v.Zakir And Ors
In this Delhi High Court judgment, the dispute between Aktiebolaget Skf and Zakir was resolved through a negotiated settlement involving Defendant No. 5. The court accepted the mutual agreement, which included Defendant No. 5 providing undertakings to the plaintiffs regarding the delivery of goods and acknowledging their trademark ownership. Consequently, the suit was decreed based on the settlement terms, allowing the plaintiffs to take possession of the infringing goods for destruction.
Sanjeev Goel v.Neelkanth Polytech Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sanjeev Goel against a trial court's rejection of his injunction request concerning trademark infringement and passing off. Although the appellant argued that the trial court failed to consider his claim of passing off, both parties agreed on a path forward: expediting the suit. The court disposed of the appeal by issuing strict directions for the timely filing of evidence and witness testimonies, ensuring the matter could be concluded quickly.
Shilpa Medicare Limited v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company And Ors.
This appeal involved Shilpa Medicare Limited challenging the rejection of its application to dismiss a patent infringement suit filed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. The core dispute centered on whether the court had territorial jurisdiction, given that Shilpa's manufacturing unit was located outside Delhi. Bristol-Myers argued that the threat of infringing products being sold or offered for sale in Delhi, through generic partners like Natco, established sufficient cause of action within the court's jurisdiction. The High Court upheld the original order, finding no infirmity with the jurisdictional ruling.
Sap Aktiengesellschaft v.M/S Appsone Consulting India (P) Ltd.
Sap Aktiengesellschaft filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against M/S Appsone Consulting India for infringing its copyrights. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were illegally providing training programs using their proprietary SAP ERP software modules without authorization, despite having specific license agreements in place. The court found the defendants liable for unauthorized use and granted the plaintiffs permanent injunction along with punitive damages.
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v.Maury Diginet Pvt Ltd
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Maury Diginet Pvt Ltd, an MSO operating in Bihar. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was extensively using its repertoire of copyrighted music and films on its cable network channel without obtaining necessary licenses. Despite repeated notices, the defendant continued the infringement, leading to the court proceeding ex-parte. The Delhi High Court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting punitive damages and costs due to the willful nature of the violation.
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc And Anr v.M/S Just Lifestyle Pvt Ltd
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction against M/S Just Lifestyle Pvt Ltd for trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution. However, following a decision by the Supreme Court, it was held that the Delhi Courts lacked territorial jurisdiction because the plaintiff's principal place of business and the cause of action both arose in Mumbai. Consequently, the court disposed of the suit and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for filing before the Bombay High Court.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Mercury Electronics & Anr
The dispute concerns the validity of several registered patents. The defendant challenged the validity of these patents in their counter-claim. The court addressed the legal issue of who must prove the patent's invalidity.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v.Mr.D. Shah
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company filed two suits seeking permanent injunctions and damages against Mr. D. Shah and others for infringing its Indian Patent No. 203937. The patent covers DASATINIB, an anti-cancer molecule used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Given the defendants' admission of infringement and the risk of irreparable harm, the Delhi High Court allowed the injunction applications, maintaining the status quo during the trial.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v.Mr. J.D. Joshi
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company filed two suits seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendants for infringing its Indian Patent No. 203937, which covers the anti-cancer drug DASATINIB. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants intended to launch generic products violating their exclusive patent rights. Given the prima facie evidence of infringement and the irreparable harm the plaintiff would suffer, the court granted an interim injunction to maintain the status quo during the trial.
Eicher Goodearth Pvt Ltd v.Krishna Mehta & Ors
Eicher Goodearth Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Krishna Mehta & Ors, alleging that the defendants were illegally imitating and selling products featuring motifs and designs similar to those owned by Eicher Goodearth. The plaintiff claimed ownership of various designer collections like Serai and Falcon, asserting their rights under copyright and design laws. The court examined the similarity between the parties' products and the alleged deceptive use of intellectual property.
United Phosphorus Limited v.Ajay Garg And Another
United Phosphorus Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patents Nos. 190476 and 202013, along with claims for damages. The defendants challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither party conducted business in Delhi. The Court ultimately ruled that since no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, the plaint was returned to be filed in the appropriate forum.
Sartaj Singh Pannu v.Gurbani Media Pvt Ltd & Anr
Sartaj Singh Pannu filed a petition seeking orders to restrain Gurbani Media Pvt. Ltd. from releasing the film 'Nanak Shah Fakir' without giving him credit as the sole Director. The court examined the service agreement and concluded that, at the present stage without further evidence, it was not possible to conclusively hold that Pannu was the sole director or that he had been coerced into waiving his rights.
The Delhi Network Of Positive People v.Union Of India
This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenged the practice of pharmaceutical companies abusing Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that filing identical divisional patent applications was used to keep patents alive and obstruct access to affordable medicines, particularly ARVs for HIV/AIDS patients. While acknowledging the merit in the grievance regarding process abuse, the court ultimately held that it could not issue directions requiring the Executive to amend statutory rules or interfere with the domain of administrative procedure, instead directing the respondents to consider rule amendments as a representation.
M/S Ganesh Tea Centre v.The Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning an impugned search certificate issued under the Copyrights Act, which was challenged by M/S Ganesh Tea Centre due to alleged prior rights in an identical mark. The court directed the Registrar to continue the underlying trademark proceedings while simultaneously staying the issuance of any registration certificate related to the disputed mark. This interim order protects the petitioner's interests pending a full determination of the conflicting IP claims.
M/S. Jai Durga Electricals v.Mex Switchgears Pvt Tld.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing specific directions to expedite the trademark matter. The court mandated that the Deputy Registrar re-hear the parties and allow them to lead fresh evidence. Furthermore, strict timelines were set for both petitioner and respondent to file their respective evidence in reply and rebuttal, ensuring a structured path toward final adjudication.
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.