Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 38 of 56
Showing 1111–1139Bristol-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.
Amit Jain v.Ayurveda Herbal & Ors
Amit Jain filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ayurveda Herbal and others for infringing his registered designs used on plastic bottles and tubes for cosmetic products. The plaintiff claimed ownership through assignment of several design registrations. However, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the designs were not novel or protectable under Section 30 of the Act. Furthermore, the plaintiff was penalized for failing to disclose details of a prior withdrawn suit.
Mw Eat Ltd v.New Masala Zone & Anr
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit filed by Mw Eat Ltd against New Masala Zone & Anr, resolving a dispute over trademark infringement. Although the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement where the defendants agreed to cease using their name, the court formally granted the decree. The judgment specifically restrained the defendants from using 'New Masala Zone' or any deceptively similar mark in relation to restaurants and hospitality services, thereby protecting the plaintiff's trademark 'MASALA ZONE'.
The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group Plc v.Sharekhand Limited
The Delhi High Court formally accepted a settlement agreement reached between The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group Plc and Sharekhand Limited. The core dispute involved the alleged infringement of the trademark 'MAXTRAD'. Under the settlement, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's exclusive rights and agreed not to use the deceptively similar mark 'MAXTRADE'. Consequently, the court decreed the suit based on these terms, concluding the litigation.
Ashim Ghosh v.The Controller Of Patents
The petitioner challenged the Controller's action of treating his patent application (No. 1350/DEL/2007) as 'Deemed to be Withdrawn'. The withdrawal was based on the assumption that the request for examination was not made within the prescribed period, despite the petitioner having filed Form-18 correctly and within the time limit. The court found that the clerical error in the covering letter did not invalidate the timely filing of the substantive examination request.
M/S Today Tea Ltd v.M/S Aggarwal Tea Co.& Anr
The Delhi High Court decreed the trademark infringement suit between M/S Today Tea Ltd and M/S Aggarwal Tea Co. based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The defendants agreed to pay a balance sum, cease using the disputed trademarks ('T-STAR' vs 'TODAY/TODAY STAR'), and further committed to destroying all infringing tea and coffee packaging material at a designated premises under court supervision. This judgment underscores the effectiveness of mediation in resolving complex IP disputes.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation appealed the dismissal of its application for an ad interim injunction against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals regarding the patented drug Sitagliptin. MSD alleged that Glenmark's products, marketed as Zita and Zitamet, infringed upon its patent (Indian Patent No. 209816), which covers a key molecule used to treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, granting an interim injunction in favor of MSD, thereby restraining Glenmark from further selling or distributing the infringing products while the main suit proceeds.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Intex Technologies (India) Limited for infringing eight patents related to advanced telecommunication technologies, specifically AMR, 3G, and EDGE. The Delhi High Court addressed an interim application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The court granted several stringent interim orders, including restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling infringing devices and directing Customs authorities not to allow the import of such products.
Tata Sons Ltd v.Neil Sombuntham & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Ltd, granting a permanent injunction against Neil Sombuntham and others for infringing on the well-known 'TATA' trademark. The court found that the defendant's use of the domain name 'www.tatamassage.com' constituted misappropriation and an attempt to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the Tata brand in the global market. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or domain name, and the court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name to the plaintiff.
Gsm (Operations) Pty Ltd v.Jai Kumar Sethia And Ors
In a case concerning trademark infringement, Gsm (Operations) Pty Ltd successfully reached an out-of-court settlement with Jai Kumar Sethia And Ors. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's ownership of the 'BILLABONG' trademark and agreed to cease using the infringing mark 'BILLABANGS'. Furthermore, they paid a sum of ₹2 lacs as damages in full and final settlement. The court formally decreed the suit based on these mutually accepted terms.
Societe Des Produits Nestle, .S.A. v.Sapan Kumar Bhatia & Ors
In this Delhi High Court case involving Nestle and Sapan Kumar Bhatia, the parties reached an amicable out-of-court settlement during the pendency of the litigation. The defendants acknowledged Nestle's ownership rights over the 'MAGGI' trademark, domain name (www.maggi.in), and copyright in the logo and label. Consequently, the court allowed a compromise application, decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms, which included a final payment of ₹2,00,000/- from the defendants to the plaintiffs.
Gilead Pharmasset, Llc v.Union Of India & Anr
Gilead Pharmasset challenged an order passed by the Patent Office, arguing that it violated natural justice because the decision considered grounds and material from pre-grant oppositions (filed under Section 25) without giving the petitioner a hearing. The court found that the availability of this opposition material created a potential for bias, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Times Internet Ltd. v.Time Broadband Services Pvt.Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Times Internet Ltd., finding that the defendant's use of 'timebroadbandindia.com' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's established brand, 'indiatimes'. The court emphasized the priority of adoption and the extensive reputation built by the plaintiff over its digital assets. Consequently, a permanent injunction was granted, along with punitive damages.
Babu Ram Om Prakash v.Pradhan Herbal Company
This case involved a dispute between Babu Ram Om Prakash and Pradhan Herbal Company concerning the use of the trademark 'Diamond/Black Diamond' in relation to Henna Power (Mehandi). Following mandatory mediation, the parties reached a comprehensive Settlement Agreement. The court accepted this agreement, decreeing the suit based on its terms, which prohibited the defendant from using the plaintiff's mark or similar labels.
Symed Labs Ltd. v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Symed Labs Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. was manufacturing and selling Linezolid using processes that infringed upon Symed's registered patents (IN '062 and IN '063). The Plaintiff argued that its patented methods were more economical, safer, and commercially viable than the prior art processes. The court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing the infringing activities.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar of PPVFR Authority which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether these parent lines retained novelty despite the commercial use and sale of resulting hybrid seeds.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPV&FR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether the development and sale of hybrid seeds from these parent lines invalidated the novelty claim for the original parental lines.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.
Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd
Novartis AG filed a suit against Cipla Ltd alleging infringement of its patented drug, INDACATEROL Maleate, used for treating COPD. Novartis sought a permanent injunction to restrain the use and sale of the infringing product. The Delhi High Court addressed the interim application, noting that while the defendant had not applied for compulsory licensing, the grounds under the Patents Act were relevant. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining Cipla from manufacturing or selling INDACATEROL Maleate until the final outcome of the suit.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PVPFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether these parent lines retained novelty despite the commercial use and sale of resulting hybrid seeds.
Sushma Berlia & Ors. v.Kamal Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who owned the registered trademark 'APEEJAY' used by an educational society. The suit was filed against a parents' association that had adopted the same name. The court held that even though the defendants were non-trading and non-profit, their use of the mark created a likelihood of public confusion, suggesting patronage or affiliation with the plaintiffs' school. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction preventing the unauthorized use of 'APEEJAY' by the association.
sandisk corporation v.ms shivji electronics
Sandisk Corporation sued M/S Shivji Electronics for trademark infringement of its 'SanDisk' mark and logo, alleging the defendants were selling counterfeit SanDisk memory cards at significantly lower prices than authorized retailers. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction and damages against the defendants’ counterfeiting activities in Lajpat Rai Market, New Delhi.
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.