Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 37 of 56
Showing 1081–1109Jiva Institute Of Vedic Science & Culture v.The Indian Hotels Company Limited
This case involves a dispute over the trademark 'JIVA' between Jiva Institute Of Vedic Science & Culture and The Indian Hotels Company Limited. The plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction against infringement and passing off. In the present application, the plaintiffs sought to amend their plaint to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction for rendition of accounts/damages from Rs. 25 lac to Rs. 1 crore, based on re-assessed damages. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that commercial courts should adopt a flexible approach when correcting valuation errors.
Vifor (International) Limited v.The High Court Of Delhi
This writ petition challenged the mandatory transfer of commercial disputes related to five key statutes—Patents, Trademarks, Designs, Copyright, and Geographical Indications—to the Commercial Division of the High Court. The petitioners argued that suits under these specific IP Acts should remain in their original forum, even if the value is below Rs. 1 crore. The court provided an interim order, holding that these cases shall not be transferred, while also directing Single Judges to consider amendment applications as per law.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v.Mr Abhijeet And Anr
The case involves a dispute regarding the commercial launch of the product 'RIVAROXABAN' which is subject to the patent IN 211300 held by the plaintiffs. The defendants stated they are not proposing to launch the product during the patent's lifetime.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Cipla Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a complex patent dispute between F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Cipla Ltd. concerning Erlotinib Hydrochloride, a life-saving cancer drug. The court examined challenges to the validity of Roche's Indian Patent IN '774, particularly regarding inventive step over prior art (EP '226). While the court found that Cipla had raised credible doubts about the patent's validity, it ultimately restored Roche's suit for injunction but denied the immediate grant due to the approaching expiry date of the patent. Consequently, Cipla was directed to render accounts of its sales.
Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed the jurisdictional scope of an ongoing patent infringement suit (CS No.3812/2014) between Novartis Ag and Cipla Ltd. The core issue was whether the case, despite its low pecuniary valuation, should be transferred to a subordinate District Court under the Commercial Courts Ordinance, 2015. The court ruled that because the defendant had filed a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity, the matter must remain before the High Court's Commercial Division, irrespective of the suit's value.
Tata Sons Limited v.Aniket Singh
Tata Sons Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and relief against Aniket Singh for alleged infringement of its rights to privacy, publicity, and passing off. The plaintiffs argued that their established goodwill and reputation, associated with the TATA brand, were being harmed by the defendant's actions. Given the defendant's failure to appear in court, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a permanent injunction and awarding punitive damages.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company & Ors v.Dr.Bps Reddy & Ors
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants regarding infringement of Patent No. 203937 concerning DASATINIB API. The court addressed three applications: one to implead Hetero Labs Ltd., one to delete Dr. BPS Reddy, and one to implead Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland as the assignee. All three applications were allowed.
Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Sudhir Bhatia
Midas Hygiene Industries challenged the Copyright Board's order that cancelled its copyright registrations for packaging material used on insecticide chalks. The core dispute revolved around whether the artistic work, when applied to a product, qualified as a 'design' under the Designs Act, thereby triggering the automatic cessation of copyright under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. Midas argued that the label was merely an artistic work and not a design in the statutory sense. The Delhi High Court set aside the Board's finding regarding Section 15(2), but remanded the matter for fresh consideration on issues of originality, locus standi, and limitation.
Stephen 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.
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.