Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 39 of 56
Showing 1141–1169Educare Limited v.S.K. Sachdev
Educare Limited filed a suit against S.K. Sachdev alleging trademark infringement concerning its well-established school brand, 'SHRI RAM'. The core dispute revolved around the defendant's use of 'ShreeRam World School' and the domain name www.shreeram.in, which the plaintiffs argued was phonetically and conceptually identical to their mark. After considering the plaintiff's extensive reputation in the education sector, the court confirmed the interim injunction, finding that the defendants' adoption of the name lacked bona fide intent.
M/S Dabur India Ltd. v.M/S Alka Ayurvedic Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court denied the interim injunction sought by Dabur India Ltd. against Alka Ayurvedic Pvt. Ltd. regarding the use of the mark 'PACHMOLA'. The court found that, based on prima facie examination of trade dress and product features, there was no immediate possibility of consumer deception or confusion between 'HAJMOLA' and 'PACHMOLA'. While not ruling on the merits of the full suit, the court directed the defendant to maintain and file quarterly sales accounts, allowing the litigation to proceed.
Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v.Jamshyad Sethna And Anr
The Delhi High Court permitted Banyan Tree Holding to amend its original suit for passing off and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought to incorporate claims for trademark infringement based on new registrations that occurred during the pendency of the case. The court held that since the registration happened subsequently, and allowing the amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy without causing prejudice to the defendants, the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed.
Rspl Health Private Limited v.M/S. Deep Industry
The Delhi High Court confirmed an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Rspl Health Private Limited against M/S. Deep Industry. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated a strong prima facie case, asserting that the defendant's use of the 'POSH' label was deceptively similar to its registered trademark and artistic work, 'XPERT.' Despite the defendant raising objections regarding jurisdiction and delay, the court found both arguments untenable, upholding the initial order against infringement and passing off.
Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v.Koninklijke Phillips Electronics
The respondent (Koninklijke Phillips Electronics) sued for permanent injunction against the appellants (Maj. Sukesh Behl & Anr.) regarding infringement of Patent No. 218255. The defendants filed a counter-claim seeking revocation based on the plaintiff's failure to disclose foreign patent applications as required by Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the omission was not an unequivocal admission of deliberate suppression and thus revocation is not automatic.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors
The application sought permission to export 1 kg of API Sorafenib (Sorafenat), which was manufactured under a compulsory license granted to NPL. Bayer challenged this export, arguing it constituted a commercial transaction and violated the terms of the compulsory license. The Court ultimately held that the export for regulatory approval purposes falls within the exception provided by Section 107A.
M/S Radico Khaitan Limited v.M/S Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd
M/S Radico Khaitan Limited filed a suit against M/S Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd alleging infringement of several trademarks related to alcoholic beverages. The court addressed multiple interim applications, including those seeking liberty to sue for other unregistered marks and enlargement of time. Ultimately, the court partly allowed the applications, granting an interim injunction that restricts the Defendant from using identical or deceptively similar labels for specific products while permitting the use of generic terms without the protected prefix.
Tech Plus Media Private Ltd v.Jyoti Janda & Ors
Tech Plus Media Private Ltd filed a suit alleging that its former employees infringed upon its copyrights, passing off rights, and trade secrets by copying proprietary IT industry databases. The plaintiff claimed these detailed electronic databases constituted original literary works and confidential information developed over nine years. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit against the plaintiff, finding that it had failed to plead the material propositions of fact essential for succeeding in an action for copyright infringement.
Merck Serono S.A. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Merck Serono S.A. challenged the Controller of Patents & Design's decision to declare its patent application abandoned under Section 21(1) of the Patent Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that it had actively pursued the application by responding to both the First and Second Examination Reports. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that active pursuit negates abandonment.
V2 Corp & Anr. v.Innovative Techpack Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and delivery for infringement of their registered JAR designs. The defendant challenged an ex-parte interim order restraining it from manufacturing or selling products with identical or obvious imitations of the plaintiff's designs. The court modified the existing interim order to allow the defendant limited use of certain features while maintaining the rest of the injunction.
NRB Bearings Limited v.Windsor Export
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of NRB Bearings Limited against Windsor Export, finding that the latter was infringing on its trademark and goodwill through deceptive use of a similar domain name. The court held that the defendant's minor spelling variant ('nrbearing.com') was intentionally chosen to attract customers associated with the plaintiff's well-known mark 'NRB'. Given the prima facie case and the risk of irreparable confusion, the injunction was granted during the pendency of the suit.
Symed Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Sharon Bio-Medicine Ltd. And Ors.
Symed Laboratories filed a suit for permanent injunction against Defendants, alleging infringement of their patents (IN 213062 and IN 213063) related to novel processes for preparing Linezolid. Defendant No. 3 moved an application seeking amendment of its written statement, arguing that it was merely purchasing the product from the market and not manufacturing it using the patented process. The Court partly allowed the amendment.
Ram Pal Chauhan v.M/S County Apparels And Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ram Pal Chauhan, proprietor of 'M/s. Classic Apparels,' who sued for passing off against M/S County Apparels and others regarding the trademark 'DEVIN.' The court found that the Plaintiff had established prior use and goodwill associated with the mark before the Defendants began using it to pass off their goods as those of the Plaintiff. Crucially, the judgment affirmed that a right of action for passing off exists even if the trade mark is unregistered, citing Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act.
Novartis Ag And Ors. v.Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
Novartis Ag filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 212815, which covers the compound Vildagliptin for treating Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Plaintiffs claimed that despite no immediate launch by the Defendant, its listing of Vildagliptin as an API on its website posed a significant threat to their market share. Considering the potential infringement and the balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Ranbaxy from manufacturing or selling products containing Vildagliptin.
Bharti Airtel Ltd v.Airtelasia & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Bharti Airtel, confirming a decree against Defendant No. 1 for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'AIRTELASIA' was identical and deceptively similar to Airtel's well-known mark 'AIRTEL,' leading to consumer confusion. Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to transfer the domain name www.airtelasia.com to Bharti Airtel.
Manmohan Plastic Pvt. Ltd. v.Ganpati Plastic Industries & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed an interlocutory application seeking injunctive relief regarding the use of the 'MONICA' trademark. The court found that despite the petitioner holding a registered mark ('MONICA GOLD'), the respondents could demonstrate prior and continuous user of similar marks ('MONIKA') dating back to 1986, predating the plaintiff's claimed usage date. Consequently, the court declined to grant an injunction but mandated the defendants to maintain and submit quarterly sales accounts for all products sold under the disputed trademark.
Diageo Brands B. v.Khoday Breweries Ltd
Diageo Brands successfully secured an ad interim injunction against Khoday Breweries Ltd in a trademark infringement and passing off case. The Delhi High Court found that the defendants were using deceptively or confusingly similar marks, such as KHODEY BLACK & WHITE and VAT 999, which infringed upon Diageo's globally recognized portfolio of alcohol brands like Johnnie Walker and Guinness. This interim order prevents the defendants from continuing to use these infringing trademarks until the final outcome of the suit.
sandisk corporation v.raju aka bilal
Sandisk Corporation sued Raju A.K.A Bilal for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, and delivery up concerning counterfeit SanDisk memory cards being sold in Delhi's Old Lajpat Rai Market. The defendant was selling inferior quality fake memory cards bearing the SanDisk trademark at significantly lower prices.
Vringo Infrastructure Inc. v.Indiamart Intermesh Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction alleging infringement of their patent (IN 200572) related to mobile communication handover decisions by the defendants, who manufacture and sell telecommunications equipment like Base Station Controllers. The court disposed of the application regarding the ad interim stay.
Microsoft Corporation v.Mr. Rajeev Trehan
Microsoft Corporation filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and damages against Mr. Rajeev Trehan and others for the alleged piracy of its software products. The court examined evidence establishing that the defendants were loading Microsoft's copyrighted software onto computers they sold without permission. Given the defendants' failure to appear in court, the plaintiffs successfully made out a case for infringement.
3M Innovative Properties Company v.M/S Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application challenging a prior ex-parte injunction restraining M/S Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd. from manufacturing and selling a respiratory protection device, which was claimed to infringe Patent No. 211175 held by 3M Innovative Properties Company. The court examined the prima facie case presented by the plaintiff regarding the infringement of their patented flat-folded personal respiratory device. Given that the defendant had been using the impugned device since April 2011 and had made considerable investments, the court found the balance of convenience favored the defendants.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Natco Pharma Limited
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries challenged an order that returned its patent infringement suit against Natco Pharma Limited, arguing that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The core dispute revolved around whether the process patent infringement claim was limited only to exports from Hyderabad or if it extended to the apprehension of marketing within Delhi. The court held that since the plaint pleaded an apprehension of sale/marketing in Delhi, the court possessed jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the suit was restored.
Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. v.Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Procter & Gamble against an interim injunction granted to Anchor Health & Beauty Care. The court upheld the protection of Anchor's trademark 'ALLROUND,' finding that the phrase 'ALL-AROUND PROTECTION' was not merely descriptive but indicated a peculiar quality and feature unique to Anchor's product. This ruling reinforces the principle that suggestive marks, even if related to general product characteristics, can be protected against imitation.
Nokia Corporation v.Bharat Bhogilal Patel
Nokia Corporation filed a suit seeking a declaration of non-infringement against Bharat Bhogilal Patel, who claimed that Nokia's use of laser marking technology infringed his patents. The court examined evidence showing that the laser engraving process is a known and available technology since 1957, and found that the defendant's actions were groundless threats.
Holland Company Lp & Anr v.S.P. Industries
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant, alleging infringement of their copyright over the industrial drawings and designs of 'Automatic Twist Locks' used by Indian Railways. The defendant contested the claim, arguing that engineering drawings are not artistic works under the Copyright Act and that applying for design registration invalidates any existing copyright.
Drs Logistics (P) Ltd. v.Sandeep Chohan @ Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit involving 'Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd.' The court noted the delay (40-50 days) between when the plaintiff became aware of the alleged misuse and when the suit was filed. Despite citing precedents that allow injunctions despite delay, the judge held that because the delay was relatively short, granting an immediate ex-parte order would cause greater mischief to the defendants than waiting for them to be served notice. Consequently, the court denied the interim injunction and directed proper service of summons.
Tekla Corporation v.Survo Ghosh
The plaintiffs, Tekla Corporation, sued the defendants for unauthorized installation and use of their copyrighted software, Tekla Structures. The defendants raised a defense of 'copyright misuse,' arguing that the plaintiffs' licensing terms were restrictive and anti-competitive. The court rejected this defense, holding that Indian law does not recognize copyright misuse as a valid statutory or equitable defence.
Sandeep Jaidka v.Mukesh Mittal & Anr.
Sandeep Jaidka filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mukesh Mittal & Anr. for infringing his registered patent (No. 231895) related to multi-sensory '4D' effects used in cinema halls. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were willfully using his patented technology, which combines hardware and software to synchronize heating, cooling, and aromatic effects with movie scenes. While the plaintiff asserted infringement, Defendant No. 2 filed a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity based on prior art. The court denied the interim injunction but expedited the trial, setting conditions for the defendants regarding financial disclosures and security deposits.
M/S. Jagdamba Impex v.M/S. Tristar Products Private Ltd.
M/S. Jagdamba Impex filed appeals challenging a trial court order that restrained them from manufacturing combs using a specific Teeth Cutting Machine, claiming the machine infringed upon their copyrighted industrial drawings. The plaintiff asserted that the drawings were original artistic works protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. However, the Delhi High Court set aside the injunction, holding that the suit was misconceived because it deliberately ignored the binding provision of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, which dictates when copyright is lost through industrial application.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education v.Time Coaching/Education & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Triumphant Institute Of Management Education (TIME) against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the use of the mark 'TIME' by the defendants was a blatant attempt to ride on TIME's hard-earned goodwill, especially given its extensive reputation in the coaching industry. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions, ordering the cancellation of the infringing domain name, and awarding damages.
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.