Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 47 of 56
Showing 1381–1409M/S Bright Electricals v.Mr. Ramesh Kumar Patel
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Bright Electricals' application to amend its plaint in a trademark infringement suit. The plaintiff sought to correct an inadvertent mistake regarding the date of use for their 'GOLD MEDAL LABEL' trademark, changing the claimed start date from 1987 to 1979-80. Citing Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that amendments should be allowed liberally to avoid multiplicity of litigation and ensure justice, the court permitted the correction, noting that no serious prejudice would be caused to the defendants.
Chemtura Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors.
Chemtura Corporation filed an application seeking to continue an ad-interim ex parte injunction restraining defendants from infringing its patent on a side bearing pad assembly. The court examined the prima facie case and the balance of convenience, ultimately finding that the balance favored the defendants.
krbl limited v.ramesh bansal
M/S. Krbl Limited (Krbl) sued Ramesh Bansal for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that Bansal was soliciting trade and intending to use the 'INDIA GATE' mark (with device) on iodized salt, a product category where Krbl has established significant goodwill and reputation in relation to Basmati rice.
Bayer Corporation v.Union of India
Bayer Corporation, holding a patent for the drug Sorafenib tosylate, challenged the licensing process of its competitor, Cipla, arguing that Cipla's application for 'Soranib' constituted an infringement. Bayer contended that granting the license would violate Section 48 of the Patents Act and contravene the definition of a 'spurious drug' under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, holding that unpatented drugs cannot be deemed 'spurious drugs,' thereby upholding the procedural integrity of the licensing process.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd v.Wyeth Limited
The dispute concerned an interim injunction sought by Reckitt Benckiser against Wyeth Limited for alleged infringement of their registered design for a 'perfect touch' spatula used with Veet hair removal cream. The court examined whether the design was novel, finding prima facie evidence that the design had been published abroad prior to its Indian registration date.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd v.Wyeth Limited
The suit concerned the infringement of Reckitt Benckiser's registered design for an S-shaped spatula used with its Veet hair removal cream. The defendant challenged the validity of this registration, arguing that the design was published abroad prior to the Indian filing date. The court found prima facie evidence that the design had been publicly available before 05.12.2003.
Mahesh Gupta & Anr. v.Tej Singh Yadav & Anr.
The plaintiffs, who developed the 'Mineral RO' water purifier technology under Patent No. 199716 and marketed it under the brand KENT Mineral RO, filed a suit against the defendants for infringing their patent, copyright, and goodwill. The court found that the defendant's product fully adopted and copied the patented technology, leading to a settlement where the defendants agreed to pay damages and cease infringement.
B.Barun Melsungen Ag v.Mr.Mohinder Paul
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants, alleging that the defendant's product, MEDIFLON SAFETY, infringed on their Patent No. 210062 for an IV catheter assembly with a safety guard. The court examined the claims of both parties and found that the plaintiff's invention lacked inventive step and there was no prima facie case of infringement.
Goenka Institute Of Education & Research v.Anjani Kumar Goenka & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute over the exclusive right to use the surname 'Goenka' as a trademark in educational institutions. The court ultimately allowed the appeal filed by the appellant (Goenka Institute), vacating the injunction granted by the Single Judge. While acknowledging the respondents' registered trademark, the court found prima facie grounds for the appellant's continued use of the name, emphasizing that prior use and lack of deceptive similarity were key factors. This decision allows the parties to proceed with a full trial on the merits.
Gufic Pvt. Ltd. v.Clinique Laboratories, Llc
The Delhi High Court stayed a previous injunction that had restrained Gufic Pvt. Ltd. from using the word 'Cliniq' in its trademark, citing issues of deceptive similarity and balance of convenience. The court found substantial differences between the two trademarks ('Clinique' vs. 'Skin Cliniq Stretch Nil'), including price disparity (4-8 times difference), product type (Ayurvedic cream vs. non-Ayurvedic product), and distinct packaging styles. Furthermore, considering Gufic's long operational history since 1998/2001, the court ruled that a running business should not be stopped at this stage.
Microfibers Inc. v.Girdhar & Co. & Anr.
Microfibers Inc. appealed a single judge's decision, arguing that its unique artistic designs used in upholstery fabrics were protected by copyright. The respondents claimed they reflected these designs. The court examined the interplay between the Copyright and Designs Acts.
Perfetti Van Melle S.P.A. v.Shankarlal Dhingra
Perfetti Van Melle S.P.A. filed a suit alleging infringement of its copyrighted trade dress and artistic work on its 'Center Fresh' chewing gum packaging by a competitor using the 'Super Mint' brand. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's wrapper was deceptively similar, constituting both copyright infringement and passing off. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the suit, finding no substantial similarity in the art or color scheme between the two wrappers.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Cipla Ltd.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (Roche) appealed a decision that denied an interim injunction against Cipla Ltd. regarding the manufacturing and sale of the generic drug Erlocip, which is based on the patented molecule Erlotinib (Tarceva). The plaintiffs claimed patent rights over this cancer treatment. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the defendant had raised credible challenges to both the validity of the patent and the prima facie case for infringement. Crucially, the court emphasized that public interest in greater access to life-saving drugs must outweigh the interest in granting an injunction.
B. Braun Melsungen Ag v.Rishi Baid
B. Braun Melsungen Ag filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against Rishi Baid and others, alleging infringement of their registered patent (No. 210062) related to safety I.V. catheters/cannulae. The plaintiffs also claimed misappropriation of trade secrets associated with the product 'VASOFIX® Safety™'. However, the Delhi High Court rejected the injunction application, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. The court noted significant doubts regarding the patent's validity due to prior art and procedural irregularities.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.Mr. Santosh V.G.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. filed a suit against Mr. Santosh V.G., proprietor of Cinema Paradiso, alleging infringement of their film copyrights. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was illegally renting Zone 1 DVDs (intended for US/Canada) in India without proper licensing. The court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction, recognizing the prima facie case of copyright violation under the Copyright Act, 1957, while reserving final judgment pending evidence regarding ownership claims.
M/s. Gandhi Scientific Company v.Mr. Gulshan Kumar
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Gandhi Scientific Company, upholding an interim injunction against Mr. Gulshan Kumar regarding the use of the 'DIAMOND' trademark and associated copyright. The court found sufficient material on record to establish the Plaintiff's prior user status, even if their initial claims were not fully proven at that stage. This decision reinforces the importance of early registration filings and established business records in defending against passing off claims.
Arihant Jain And Others (Arihant Group) v.Jaininder Jain And Others (Jaininder Group)
The Delhi High Court issued a crucial interim order in a complex family dispute concerning the use of the 'KANGARO' trademark. The court found that the Arihant Group had established a strong prima facie case and international reputation regarding the mark, warranting protection. Consequently, the Jaininder Group was restrained from using 'KANGARO' for specific stationery items covered by key trademarks until the final disposal of the suits.
National Research Development Corpn. v.M/s ABS Plastics Limited
The plaintiff sued the defendant for recovery of unpaid royalties under a 1975 license agreement covering two patents related to ABS Resigns. The defendant argued that the license was void because it lacked compulsory registration as required by the Patents Act, and further contended that the patent had expired before the suit was filed.
Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Hab Pharmaceuticals & Research Lim.
Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Hab Pharmaceuticals & Research Lim., alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Vega Asia' and associated copyrights in packaging designs. The defendant countered by asserting prior use, holding its own registrations (including the mark 'Vegah'), and crucially, arguing that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts regarding pending rectification applications and previous complaints. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction application, finding that the plaintiff's conduct disentitled them from relief at this stage.
M/S Koxan India v.Ramesh Mardia & Others
The Delhi High Court dismissed two competing applications for ad interim injunctions concerning the trademark 'MARDIA CABLES'. The dispute centered on who held exclusive rights to the mark in relation to electrical cables, with M/S Koxan India claiming ownership through assignment and subsequent business evolution, while Ramesh Mardia asserted his own rights. Given the conflicting claims regarding assignments and alleged fabrications of documents, the court found that neither party established a clear prima facie case, necessitating further evidence during trial.
M/S Koxan India / Ramesh Mardia v.Ramesh Mardia / M/S Koxan India
The Delhi High Court dismissed two separate applications seeking ad interim injunctions regarding the use of the trademark 'MARDIA CABLES.' The core dispute centered on conflicting claims of exclusive rights over the mark, stemming from a chain of assignments and subsequent re-assignments. Given the complex factual matrix—including disputed assignment documents and competing registrations—the court found that neither party could establish a clear prima facie case for exclusivity at this preliminary stage.
The Singer Company Limited & Anr v.M/S Chetan Machine Tools And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge by the defendants seeking rejection of the trademark infringement suit on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court ruled that the initial filing was valid, considering documents filed alongside the plaint, including the defendant's own admission that their products were sold throughout India. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their plaint to explicitly state how the cause of action arose within Delhi's jurisdiction (via online sales), emphasizing that procedural law should facilitate justice rather than obstruct it.
Sap Aktiengesellschaft v.M/S Parginsys
Sap Aktiengesellschaft filed a suit seeking damages and rendition of accounts against M/S Parginsys for infringing its software copyright. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was providing training services using pirated software in Nagpur, Maharashtra. However, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient connection or 'place of business' within Delhi, concluding that the suit was filed merely as a tactic to harass the defendants.
M/S Shri Krishan Industries v.Kimti Lal Sharma
M/S Shri Krishan Industries filed a suit alleging passing off and trademark infringement against Kimti Lal Sharma, claiming that the defendants were tarnishing their goodwill by using similar trademarks. The plaintiff invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court based on the claim that the defendant's goods were being sold in Delhi. However, the court found that vague allegations of sales throughout the country, without specifying a shop or place of sale in Delhi, were insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction.
Syndicate Of The Press Of The University Of Cambridge v.B.D. Bhandari & Anr
This case involved a dispute where Syndicate Of The Press sought to restrain B.D. Bhandari and others from selling their guidebooks, alleging unauthorized reproduction of content from the plaintiff's textbook, "Advance English Grammar." Despite an earlier interim injunction against verbatim copying, the court ultimately found that since the plaintiff's book was prescribed by the university, its questions and answers fell into the public domain under Section 52(1)(h) of the Copyright Act. Consequently, the suit for infringement was dismissed.
Lowenbrau Ag & Another v.Jagpin Breweries Ltd & Another
The Delhi High Court vacated an ex parte interim injunction favoring Lowenbrau AG against Jagpin Breweries Ltd. The court found that the balance of convenience did not support granting the injunction, noting that both parties operate globally using the common mark 'LOWENBRAU'. Given that consumers could distinguish between the two beers through other features and considering the defendants' established market presence in India, the court ruled that there was no basis for a passing off claim at this preliminary stage.
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v.Mr. Wang Zhi Zhu Ce Yong Hu & Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against the defendants for using the deceptively similar domain name SUPERCASSETTES.COM. The court found that the registration of this domain name, which was created long after the plaintiff had established its brand identity, constituted an attempt to pass off their business and damage the plaintiff's goodwill. Furthermore, given the detrimental nature of the website's content (adult/pornographic), the court also awarded damages and directed the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff.
M/S Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing And Agencies Private Limited v.M/S Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, M/S Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing And Agencies Private Limited, against M/S Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on alleged infringement and passing off concerning rice products using similar trade marks ('Double Deer' vs 'Deer'). The court ruled that despite differences in artistic features or geographical scope, the similarity of the core mark and the nature of the goods (rice) create a high risk of consumer confusion, thus warranting immediate restraint.
Dabur India Ltd. v.Amit Jain & Anr.
Dabur India Ltd. appealed the dismissal of its application seeking interim injunction against Amit Jain and others who were manufacturing and selling hair oil products in bottles and caps deceptively similar to Dabur's registered designs. The core dispute revolved around infringement of registered industrial designs for packaging, specifically concerning whether foreign registrations could be used to challenge the novelty of the Indian design.
Bureau Of Indian Standards v.Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned whether Pepsico's use of specific terms ('PURE', 'PURITY GUARANTEED') and a pictorial device (snow-capped mountain) on its packaged drinking water label, Aquafina, was misleading. The Bureau of Indian Standards argued that these elements suggested the product was mineral water from mountains, which was untrue for standard packaged drinking water. After considering the statutory powers of BIS and consumer protection concerns, the court partially allowed the appeal.
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.