Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 5 of 56
Showing 121–149Oncquest Laboratories Limited v.Manish Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Oncquest Laboratories Limited, successfully challenging the registration of the identical mark 'ONCQUEST' held by the respondent. The court found that the petitioner was the prior user and adopter of the trademark since 2007, while the respondent failed to provide evidence of use for their registered mark. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondent had adopted the mark dishonestly to trade upon the established goodwill of the petitioner, leading to the cancellation of the impugned registration.
Mold Tek Packaging Limited v.Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.
Mold Tek Packaging Limited challenged a Commercial Court order that had vacated an ad-interim injunction restraining Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. from manufacturing and selling products infringing Mold Tek's patents (IN 4014173 and IN 2987244). The suit patents relate to tamper-evident lid closure systems used for food containers. The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Commercial Court had erred in its application of legal principles regarding infringement. Consequently, the original injunction was restored to remain in operation pending a fresh consideration by the lower court.
Dolby International Ab v.Lava International Limited
Dolby filed a suit claiming infringement of its SEPs related to AAC technology against Lava. During negotiations, which failed, Dolby sought interim relief and the court directed Lava to provide security. The court subsequently ordered Lava to deposit or guarantee INR 20,08,06,293.92 covering past sales (2019-2024) as a pro tem measure.
M/S Sita Ram Iron Foundry And Engineering Works v.Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by M/S Sita Ram Iron Foundry against Hindustan Technocast regarding the trademark 'BADAL'. The petitioner alleged that the respondent's registration was obtained through fraud and fabricated documents. However, the court held that while anomalies in the respondent's documentation were noted, the petitioner failed to establish the veracity of their claims on the face of it. Consequently, the cancellation of the long-standing mark could not be granted without a thorough evidentiary test before the Trial Court.
Albemarle Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Albemarle Corporation appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 2897/DELNP/2012) by the Controller of Patents, which cited lack of novelty and inventive step. During the appeal, the appellant sought to file an auxiliary claim set restricting the scope to a process aspect for cleaning polyurethane foam. The Court allowed this amendment and remanded the matter for fresh examination.
Pawan Kumar Mittal Proprietor, Salasar Dev Basmati House v.Vijay Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court overturned a District Judge's refusal to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction in a trademark infringement case. The court held that the lower court failed to provide any reasoning for its disinclination, which is legally unsustainable when addressing such urgent relief. Citing precedent regarding passing off and infringement, the High Court emphasized the necessity of immediate action, including appointing a Local Commissioner, if a prima facie case exists.
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against Xiaomi for allegedly infringing their patented technology, 'A Communication Device Finder System', which is listed as a Standard Essential Patent (SEP). The court dismissed both applications for interim injunction, citing the plaintiff's failure to establish a prima facie case of infringement and noting an inordinate delay in filing the suit.
Dabur India Limited v.Patanjali Ayurved Limited And Anr.
Dabur India Limited filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, alleging that Patanjali Ayurved Limited disparaged Dabur Chyawanprash and the entire market class through its advertisements (TVC and Print Advertisements) for 'Patanjali Special Chyawanprash'. The court heard interim applications regarding these ads.
Bhalla Sports Pvt Ltd. v.Ashutosh Bhalla M/S Vinex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Bhalla Sports Pvt Ltd. against Ashutosh Bhalla M/S Vinex Enterprises, directing the cancellation of an infringing trademark registration. The court found that the petitioner was the 'prior user' of the mark 'SOFT TOUCH' since 2001, which predated the respondent's application and use claims. Given the identical nature of the goods (sports goods) and the deceptive similarity of the marks, the court ruled that the subsequent registration was invalid and must be removed from the register.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp.
The plaintiff, Communication Components Antenna Inc., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ace Technologies Corp. for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893 related to cellular base station components. Despite previous orders requiring deposits/bank guarantees from the defendants, the court found that the defendants' financial position was precarious and their non-compliance undermined the plaintiff's rights. Consequently, the court directed the defendant to deposit a substantial amount as security.
Kroll Information Assurance, Llc v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Ors
Kroll Information Assurance, LLC appealed the refusal of its patent application concerning a Peer-to-Peer Network search system. The Controller had rejected the application primarily on grounds that it fell under the excluded subject matter of 'computer program per se' and 'algorithm' as defined by Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court upheld this rejection, concluding that the invention merely performs conventional search functions without demonstrating a demonstrable technical advancement to the hardware. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
M/S Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India & Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses multiple appeals filed by Crocs Inc USA against various footwear manufacturers, including Bata India. The core issue revolved around the maintainability of Crocs' suits for passing off, which had previously been dismissed by a Single Judge. The court found that dismissing the suits outright was an error, as the claim for passing off extends beyond merely copying a registered design and requires factual examination.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki v.Lmw Limited
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendant for using products allegedly infringing Indian Patents IN2447593 and IN3948834. The court focused only on IN2447593 (Spinpact) and found that since this patent had already expired on May 24, 2025, it could not grant an effective restraining order.
Dong Yang Pc, Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dong Yang Pc, Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2554/DEL/2013) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step in view of prior art D-5. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
VIP Industries Ltd v.Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision granting an interim injunction to Carlton Shoes Ltd. against Vip Industries Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether Vip's adoption of the 'CARLTON' mark for travel luggage constituted passing off, despite both parties possessing registrations in Class 18. The court found that VIP undertook the risk by adopting a non-ordinary word mark without sufficient prior knowledge of Carlton's established use and goodwill, thus upholding the injunction.
products and ideas india pvt ltd v.nilkamal limited
M/S Products And Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd. sued Nilkamal Limited and others for trademark infringement, alleging unauthorized use of the 'STELLA' mark on induction cooktops, despite having a license to use 'STELLADEXIN'. The plaintiff claimed prior registration and significant sales under the 'STELLADEXIN' mark.
Avient Switzerland Gmbh v.Treadfast Ventures & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Avient Switzerland Gmbh, setting aside the previous rejection of its trademark application 'RENOL'. The court found that the original Trade Marks Registry failed to holistically consider all evidence presented by the appellant during the opposition proceedings. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the Registrar for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the applicant a second chance to prove their claim.
Major League Baseball Properties Inc v.Manish Vijay & Ors.
Major League Baseball Properties Inc successfully petitioned for the rectification (cancellation) of the trademark 'BLUE-JAY' registered in favor of Manish Vijay & Ors. The court recognized that MLB is the prior adopter and user of the mark, having used it since 1976 globally. Despite procedural hurdles regarding previous opposition attempts, the Delhi High Court ruled that the similarity between the marks constituted an attempt to ride upon MLB's established goodwill, thereby directing the Registrar to cancel the infringing registration.
Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application for 'HIGH PERFORMANCE ZIEFLERNATTA CATALYST SYSTEMS.' The core dispute centered on whether the claimed process involved an inventive step, specifically regarding the use of diether compounds as internal donors in catalyst production. The High Court ultimately upheld the rejection, finding that the invention was obvious in view of existing prior art documents.
Selle Royal Group S.P.A. v.Ace Footmark (P) Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Selle Royal Group S.P.A., directing the cancellation of the respondent's trademark, FIZIFREAK. The court found that FIZIFREAK was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established and well-known trademarks, fi'zi:k and FREE:K. Given the identical goods (footwear) and the clear attempt by the respondent to exploit the petitioner's goodwill, the registration of FIZIFREAK was deemed invalid.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.Bali Ram Trading As Bali Kitchenware Industries and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited's application to rectify and remove the trademark 'CROMPTON' registered by Bali Ram Trading. The court found that Crompton Greaves was the prior adopter, user, and well-known proprietor of the mark in Class 21 since 1943. Given the identical nature of the marks and the respondent's failure to contest the claims, the court ruled that the registration was contrary to the TM Act and liable for cancellation.
Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Zeria Pharmaceutical appealed the refusal of its patent application for a novel intermediate compound (formula 5a). The Controller refused the grant, citing lack of novelty and inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), and falling within the scope of Section 3(d) due to prior art disclosures. The High Court upheld the Controller's decision.
Rakesh Kumar Mittal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Rakesh Kumar Mittal, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore his trademark 'MILTON/'. The core issue was the removal of the mark due to non-renewal. The court held that the removal was illegal because the Registrar failed to comply with the mandatory statutory procedure—specifically, issuing a Form O-3 Notice as required under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural compliance is a prerequisite for administrative action in trademark law.
M/S Ambika Industrial Corporation v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an order by the Trade Marks Registry that had allowed a change in the registered address for the 'AMBIKA' trademark. The petitioner firm argued that the change, filed by a former partner (Respondent No. 2), lacked justification and was detrimental to the established proprietor. The court ruled that since the petitioner remains the undisputed registered owner, the registry could not unilaterally alter the address based on an unsupported application, thereby restoring the original details.
Trodat Gmbh v.Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd
Trodat Gmbh appealed a single judge's order that allowed Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd to manufacture and sell a self-inking stamp design without infringing Trodat's registered designs. The core issue revolved around whether the respondent's new design produced a different overall impression on an 'informed user.' The Delhi High Court, while extensively discussing established principles of design infringement, ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's finding that no piracy had occurred.
Dura-Line India Pvt Ltd v.Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.
Dura-Line India Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., alleging infringement of its patent and design related to non-metallic pipes embedded with tracer cables for leak detection. The defendant challenged both the infringement and the validity of the patent itself. After extensive proceedings, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dura-Line, upholding the validity of the Suit Patent and decreeing the suit.
Vikas Gupta / Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. v.Inder Raj Sahni Proprietor M/S Sahni Cosmetics
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark dispute over the common name 'NEHA' used in the personal care sector. The Plaintiffs, Neha Herbals, claimed infringement and passing off against Sahni Cosmetics, which uses the mark for creams. While the court acknowledged the Defendant's prior use of the mark for creams, it ultimately found that the Plaintiffs had established continuous use and valid registrations for their goods (Mehandi). Consequently, the suit seeking damages was dismissed, but the cancellation petitions filed by the Defendant were also rejected.
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Taiho Pharmaceutical appealed a refusal order by the Controller of Patents regarding its application for a novel piperidine compound. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d), citing prior art D1. The High Court found that the Controller failed to identify a specific 'known substance' from the Markush structure in D1, making the rejection unsustainable.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Indorbit Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court rejected Torrent Pharmaceuticals' oral request to pass a permanent injunction and decree against Indorbit Pharmaceuticals based on passing off and copyright infringement. Although the defendants failed to file written statements, the court found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently established its prior adoption and usage of the new trade dress (SHELCAL-500) since September 2022. The judgment emphasizes that while a party's failure to respond can lead to a default decree, the threshold for such an order is high, especially in complex IP matters like pharmaceutical products, necessitating full evidence and trial.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co Ltd
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed a decision by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks regarding an opposition filed against the trademark 'FLORASIS'. The Delhi High Court granted condonation of a 7-day delay in filing the appeal, allowing the matter to proceed. Notice has been issued to all parties, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on the merits of the trademark dispute.
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.