Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 43 of 56
Showing 1261–1289Shrinivas Suggandhalaya v.P.S.Lakshmi Kalavathi And Anr
Shrinivas Suggandhalaya filed a suit against P.S.Lakshmi Kalavathi and others alleging infringement of its intellectual property rights related to scented agarbatti. The plaintiff claimed ownership over the distinctive packaging design, which was registered under the Copyright Act, 1957, as well as the trademark 'NAGCHAMPA'. The court found that the defendants were manufacturing and selling spurious goods by copying both the unique label/packaging and using the identical trademark. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of Shrinivas Suggandhalaya.
Gilead Sciences Inc v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Gilead Sciences Inc challenged the IPAB's order rejecting its application for condonation of delay in appealing a patent rejection. The core dispute revolved around whether an appeal against a pre-grant opposition was maintainable under Section 117A of the Patents Act, and whether the Board had the power to relax the limitation period despite initial reluctance.
Suresh Kumar Jain v.Union Of India & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Suresh Kumar Jain challenging the rectification order passed by the IPAB against his trademark 'Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL)'. The court upheld the finding that the registration was obtained on a false basis because the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence supporting his claim of using the mark since 1995. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the name is descriptive and lacks distinctiveness, reinforcing the principle that trademark registrations must be based on truthful representations.
M/S Abhipra Capital Ltd. v.Abhipray Securities Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing interim injunction, ruling in favor of M/S Abhipra Capital Ltd. against Abhipray Securities Private Limited and others. The court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off due to the deceptive similarity between 'ABHIPRA' and 'ABHIPRAY'. Despite the defendants arguing lack of jurisdiction or non-similarity, the court upheld the injunction, emphasizing that confusion in business warrants protection even if adopted innocently.
Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. v.Radico Khaitan Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute between Carlsberg and Radico Khaitan regarding the use of the numeral '8' in their respective alcoholic beverage trademarks. Radico claimed infringement and passing off, arguing that Carlsberg's use of 'PALONE 8' was confusingly similar to its registered mark '8 PM'. However, the Court ultimately ruled in favor of Carlsberg, finding no prima facie evidence of consumer confusion or actionable similarity between the two labels. The court emphasized that mere use of a common numeral or color combination is insufficient for an injunction.
M/S Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged a tender requirement stipulating that all participants must obtain Transfer of Technology (TOT) from DRDO to supply DEPA 20% Spray and DEPA 50% lotion. The Division Bench upheld this condition, finding that the petitioner's formulation was distinct from the DRDO technology. The review petition sought to overturn this decision.
Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v.Bharat Bhogilal Patel & Others
LG Electronics filed a suit challenging actions taken by Customs officials (Defendants No. 2 and 3) who were restricting the clearance of its goods based on a patent infringement complaint filed by Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff argued that the impugned patent lacked novelty and inventive step, and that Customs action was contrary to government circulars regarding border measures for patents.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd v.Uoi And Aors
The petitioner challenged an order directing the Registry to furnish certified copies of its plant variety registration applications to a competitor (Respondent No. 3) upon request under Form PV-33. The petitioner argued that the application contained confidential information and disclosure would harm its competitive position. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the provisions of the Act mandate public disclosure of such documents.
Malhotra Book Depot v.Union Of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Malhotra Book Depot, mandating the Union of India to restore and renew its trademark registration. The court found that the removal of the mark was illegal because the Registrar failed to issue the mandatory 'O-3' notice required under Rule 67 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959. Furthermore, the court held that restoration should not be viewed as a penal measure and that procedural lapses by the government do not bar the petitioner's right to renewal.
Federation Of Industries Of India v.Mr. G. Kesavalu Naidu @ Kesavan
The plaintiffs, representing manufacturers of steel pipes, filed a suit against the defendants who had obtained copyright registrations for drawings of these pipes. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using these registrations to threaten and extract money from them. The court ultimately ruled that no valid copyright subsisted in the mere concept or idea of the pipe drawing.
Rohit Khattar & Anr. v.Cookie Singh
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Rohit Khattar & Anr., finding that the defendant's use of 'CHOR BIZZARE' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against their established brand, CHOR BIZARRE. The court noted that despite a mere misspelling, the similarity was sufficient to create confusion among consumers regarding the origin of the restaurant services. Consequently, the plaintiffs were granted permanent injunctions and awarded damages.
Super Cassettes Industries Limited v.Mr Chintamani Rao & Ors.
Super Cassettes Industries Limited and Yashraj Films Private Limited filed suits alleging that India TV (represented by Mr Chintamani Rao & Ors.) had unauthorizedly broadcasted and exploited their copyrighted cinematographic films and sound recordings. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions to restrain the defendants from further infringement.
Ten Xc Wireless Inc v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen)
Ten Xc Wireless Inc filed two suits seeking permanent injunctions and damages against various defendants, alleging infringement of its registered patent (IN 240893) related to 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency' used in Bi-Sector Array Antennas. The core dispute revolves around the use of asymmetric beam patterns in wireless communication systems. Although the plaintiffs sought interim injunctions, the court deferred a decision on costs because the defendants had raised credible challenges regarding the patent's validity, which must be examined during the trial.
Puma Aktiengesellschaft Rudolf Dassler Sport v.Bhatia Time
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Puma Aktiengesellschaft Rudolf Dassler Sport against Bhatia Time, who was selling products bearing the disputed 'PUMA' trademark. The court found that a prima facie case for passing off and trademark infringement had been made out by the plaintiff. Consequently, the court issued an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark and appointed a Local Commissioner to seize all infringing goods, packaging materials, and relevant business records.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Nizami Garments
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Levi Strauss & Company against Nizami Garments in a trademark infringement suit. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the deceptive similarity of the defendant's use of 'Levi's' marks on apparel. Consequently, the existing order denying an injunction was set aside, and a Local Commissioner was appointed to seize all infringing goods and relevant business records from the defendant's premises.
Glaverbel S.A. v.Dave Rose & Ors.
This case involves Glaverbel S.A., which filed a suit alleging infringement of its patented 'Mirox New Generation Ecological Mirrors' (MNGE mirrors). The plaintiff sought permission to introduce an amended version of Patent No. 190380, which had been allowed in a previous related suit. However, the court ruled against this request, emphasizing that while the amendment might be clarificatory, it cannot be relied upon in the current litigation unless formally recorded and notified by the Patent Office, as the pleadings in the present case relate only to the unamended patent.
M/S Marvel Tea Estate India Ltd. v.P.M. Batra (Prop) M/S Gurukripa Traders
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S Marvel Tea Estate India Ltd. against P.M. Batra (Prop) M/S Gurukripa Traders, finding that the defendant's use of 'MARVEL TOUCH' was likely to cause confusion and constitute trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized the extensive goodwill and reputation built by the plaintiff under its registered mark 'MARVEL' in Class-30 goods like tea and spices. This ruling underscores the protection afforded to established brands against deceptively similar marks, even during preliminary proceedings.
Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v.Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the use of the trademark 'KRISHNA' in dairy products. The court ruled that a common word, even if associated with a deity like Lord Krishna (who is linked to milk and butter), cannot be monopolized by a single entity. Furthermore, the court held that when a defendant uses a disputed mark prefixed by other words ('PARUL'S LORD KRISHNA'), confusion regarding the source of goods is unlikely, provided those prefix words are given equal prominence as the core trademark. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the interim relief granted to the respondent.
The Indian Express Limited v.Express Publications Madurai Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by The Indian Express Limited against Express Publications Madurai Limited. While the plaintiff alleged that the defendants' use of 'The New Indian Express Group' constituted illegal infringement and passing off, the court found no valid ground to grant an injunction. However, to prevent consumer confusion, the court imposed a condition requiring the defendants to append 'Madurai' and their place of publication when using the expression outside the territories permitted by prior agreements.
New Hariom Industries & Anr v.Dandi Salt P. Ltd.
New Hariom Industries challenged the registration of an FIR, alleging that the search warrants were improperly obtained against unknown individuals despite knowing the Petitioners' business presence. The Respondent, Dandi Salt P. Ltd., maintained that the goods were unidentified at a railway yard and that they held valid copyright over their unique packaging/label since 2000. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that because the goods were lying unidentified, the search warrants were justified, and furthermore, evidence collected during an illegal search remains admissible in trial.
Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente v.Union Of India And Ors
This petition challenged the Patent Office's refusal to accept Form 18, a request for examination under the Patents Act, citing that it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The core dispute revolved around an apparent conflict between Rule 24B of the Patents Rules and the guidelines set forth by WIPO/PCT regarding the commencement date for calculating the 48-month period. Given the ambiguity and potential impact on other applicants, the High Court found it expedient to remand the matter back to the Controller General of Patents for a reasoned consideration.
Champagne Moet & Chandon v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of Champagne Moet & Chandon's appeal against a trademark registration granted to M/s Moet’s. The court found that despite the similarity in marks, the goods were distinct (Class 33 wines vs Class 29 meat products), making confusion unlikely. Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish sufficient evidence of prior reputation or dishonest intent by the respondent, leading the court to conclude that the opposition was not within acceptable parameters.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v.M/S Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a passing off suit filed by Ranbaxy Laboratories against Intas Pharmaceuticals regarding the alleged similarity between their drug trademarks, 'NIFTRAN' and 'NIFTAS'. While the plaintiff sought an interim injunction, the court did not grant a blanket injunction. Instead, it directed the defendant to maintain complete accounts of sales and profits from the product sold under 'NIFTAS', and imposed specific restrictions on packaging types used by the defendant pending further proceedings.
Syndicate Of The Press Of The Universtiy of Cambridge / Chancellor Masters And Scholars of the University of Oxford v.B.D. Bhandari & Anr. / Narendra Publishing House and Ors.
This case involved appeals filed by Cambridge University Press and Oxford University against a single judge who had dismissed their suit. The universities alleged that local publishers were illegally reproducing verbatim literary content from their prescribed grammar textbooks in guidebooks. The core legal dispute centered on whether the reproduction constituted copyright infringement or if it was permissible under the doctrine of fair dealing, particularly given the educational context.
Pine Labs Pvt. Ltd. v.Gemalto Terminals India Pvt. Ltd.
Pine Labs, a software development company, developed an IOCL fleet card system for Gemalto Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. The dispute arose when Gemalto sub-contracted the project to a third party (QCI Technologies), leading Pine Labs to claim ownership and protection of its source code under the Copyright Act. The court set aside the lower court's order, reinstating the injunction in favor of Pine Labs during the pendency of the suit.
Emergent Genetics India Pvt. Ltd. v.Shailendra Shivam And Ors.
Emergent Genetics India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging infringement related to its seed varieties and associated data, claiming rights over databases and confidential information. The court examined whether the plaintiff could establish prima facie claims for copyright protection in these databases. Ultimately, the court held that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the claimed information was capable of protection or qualified as 'confidential information,' leading to the vacation of the ex-parte injunction.
Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd. v.Koninklijke Philips Electricity Nv
The Delhi High Court dismissed Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd.'s appeal, upholding the rejection of its trade mark application for 'Philips' in respect of non-electrical pressure cookers. The court found overwhelming evidence that Koninklijke Philips Electricity Nv had established extensive goodwill with the mark since 1950 across related goods like electrical appliances. Given the similarity of the product categories and the common consumer base, the court concluded that Kunj Aluminium was engaging in commercial dishonesty by trading upon Philips' established reputation.
krizm hotels private limited v.vaishnavi estatesp ltd
M/S Krizm Hotels Private Limited (Lemon Tree hotels) sued M/S Vaishnavi Estates(P) Ltd for trademark infringement, alleging the defendant's use of 'Lemon Tree Apartments' for residential apartments created confusion and diluted the plaintiff’s hotel brand. The plaintiff claimed significant investment in their Lemon Tree hotel chain and sought an injunction to prevent further use of the mark.
Super Cassetes Industries Ltd. v.Myspace Inc.
Super Cassetes Industries Ltd. filed a suit against Myspace Inc., alleging that the social networking platform was infringing its copyrights across thousands of songs and films. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' business model encouraged users to upload and share copyrighted material without authorization, causing significant royalty losses. The court addressed interim applications seeking injunctions to prevent further infringement.
Davinder Kumar Jain & Ors. v.Sanjeev Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who owned the 'LUXOR' trademark, finding that defendants were infringing upon their rights by using the mark on electric bulbs. The court established both trademark infringement and passing off, noting that allowing continued use would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and punitive 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.