Delhi High Court
1664 cases · page 52 of 56
Showing 1531–1559Structural Waterproofing & Ors. v.Mr. Amit Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court vacated an ex-parte injunction restraining defendants from using the trademark CICO. The court found that since both parties had acted upon a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which governed the use of the brand, the plaintiff could not seek injunctive relief based on mere challenge to the MOU's validity or non-registration of assignment. Furthermore, the pendency of a related suit under Section 10 CPC barred the grant of interim injunction.
M/S Rajni Industries v.Bhartiya Dhoop Karyalaya And Others
The Delhi High Court addressed conflicting claims between M/S Rajni Industries and Bhartiya Dhoop Karyalaya concerning the use of 'Gopal' in dhoop products. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's suit could not bar the defendant's prior civil infringement suit (Suit No. 112/99), the latter was transferred to be tried alongside the present matter. Crucially, the interim injunction granted against the defendants' criminal complaints was maintained, ensuring a structured resolution of conflicting claims in the appropriate forum.
Acqua Minerals Limited v.Mr. Pramod Borse & Anr.
Acqua Minerals Limited successfully sued Mr. Pramod Borse & Anr. for infringing its registered trademark 'BISLERI' and related copyright, specifically concerning the illegal registration of the domain name BISLERI.com. The court found that the defendants had registered the domain in bad faith, intending to profit from the plaintiff's goodwill rather than genuinely use it for mineral-related information. Consequently, the High Court granted a permanent injunction against the defendants and allowed the plaintiff the liberty to transfer the domain name.
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v.Rainforest Cafe And Ors.
The plaintiff, Rainforest Cafe, Inc., sought an interim injunction against defendants operating a restaurant under the name 'RAINFOREST CAFE', alleging that the defendant was copying its globally recognized trade mark and style. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case based on its worldwide reputation and noted that passing off applies to services as well as goods, thus confirming the interim order.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v.Manu Kosuri And Anr.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories successfully sued defendants for cybersquatting and trademark infringement related to the domain name 'drreddyslab.com'. The court ruled that a domain name functions similarly to a trademark on the internet, granting it equal protection against passing off. Given the high similarity between the marks, the court found there was a clear likelihood of confusion among consumers. Consequently, the defendants were permanently restrained from using the infringing domain and were ordered to transfer 'drreddyslab.com' to Dr. Reddy's.
M/S Vrajlal Manilal & Co. v.M/S Bansal Tobacco Co.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking confirmation of a prior ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant from using the '22' trademark for chewing tobacco. The court found prima facie evidence supporting the defendant's claim of honest concurrent user since at least 1975, based on excise records and sales data. Consequently, the existing interim injunction was vacated, but the defendant's use of the mark was restricted geographically to Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Bihar, and they were mandated to file quarterly accounts.
Schneider Electric Industries S.A. v.Telemecacique & Controls (India) Ltd.
The plaintiff filed an application for interim injunction alleging infringement of its registered patents and designs related to 'D2' range electric contactors by the defendant. The dispute centered on whether the defendant's products were merely modifications of earlier technology or constituted a new, infringing invention.
Hiroo Khushalani & Anr. v.Baker Hughes Ltd., Uk & Anr.
This appeal addressed an interim injunction sought by Baker Hughes Ltd. to prevent the use of its corporate name 'Baker' by an Indian company (second appellant). The core dispute revolved around a contractual clause stipulating that the Indian company must drop the name if the plaintiff's shareholding fell below 40%. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, finding that the restrictive clause was likely violative of government approval conditions and public policy, thereby dismissing the interim relief.
Fritco-Lay India & Anr. v.Uncle Chipps Private Limited
The plaintiffs, owners of the patented TAZO collectible disc used in their Lays and Cheeto Chips promotion, sued Uncle Chipps Private Limited for passing off and unfair competition due to the respondent distributing similar discs marked AMAZZO. The court examined whether the public would be confused by the promotional campaign or if the respondents were illegally appropriating the plaintiffs' goodwill.
Om Prakash Gupta v.Parveen Kumar And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Om Prakash Gupta against Parveen Kumar and others, which alleged infringement of the trademark 'SURAJ CHHAP' and copyright. The court found that the plaintiff had abandoned his trademark due to long periods of non-use (since 1979) without valid explanation. Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiff misrepresented material facts and practiced fraud on the court by suppressing information regarding the trademark's disclaimer, leading to the complete dismissal of the suit.
Metro Plastic Industries (Regd) v.M/S. Galaxy Footwear New Delhi
The Full Bench addressed the legal question of whether a registered design owner can obtain an injunction for infringement when a concurrent application challenging the validity of that registration under Section 51-A is pending. The court reviewed various precedents, noting conflicting views on the matter.
Smithkline Beecham Plc. v.Hindustan Lever Limited
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of exclusive ownership and permanent/temporary injunction against the defendants for infringing their distinctive tooth brush designs ('ACQUA FLEX' and 'ACQUAFRESH FLEX N' DIRECT) and for passing off. The court ultimately dismissed the application for temporary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish trans-border goodwill or reputation.
Frito-Lay India & Another v.Amit Goswamy & Another
The plaintiffs, Frito-Lay India (Pepsico subsidiary), launched a successful promotional campaign in India using collectible round discs (TAZO) with their Lays & Cheetos chips. The defendants started distributing similar discs (AMAZZO) with their Uncle Chipps product, leading to allegations of copyright infringement and passing off. The court examined the similarity between the packaging and the discs.
Hello Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd. v.Thermoking California Pure
The petitioner claimed that the respondent was infringing their registered design for water coolers. The defendant argued that the design lacked novelty as it was prevalent globally and that damages would be a sufficient remedy, thus opposing the injunction. The court allowed the use of the cylindrical shape but imposed strict conditions on the defendant to prevent consumer confusion.
Standipack Private Limited v.M/S. Oswal Trading Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction against the defendants for manufacturing and selling pouches that allegedly infringed upon the plaintiff's patented design. The defendants contended that the patent was illegally granted, subject to ongoing revocation proceedings, and that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts. The court ultimately found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the injunction.
P.L. Lamba & Ors. v.Avtar Kishan Ghai & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed an application seeking the substitution of trademark proprietors in a passing off and infringement suit concerning the mark 'KWALITY'. The court clarified that while pending rectification proceedings could be raised by defendants, they would not automatically bar the substitution itself. Furthermore, the court permitted the impleadment of the licensed user, M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd., under Order I Rule X CPC, recognizing their accruing rights during the suit's pendency. This decision allows the litigation to proceed with updated parties while preserving the defendants' right to raise objections regarding trademark trafficking.
Baldev Singh v.M/S Godran Rubber Plastic Industries
This case involved a suit for infringement under the Designs Act, 1911, where the plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions against the defendant for pirating their registered footwear design. The core legal dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff had a valid right to protection when evidence suggested that a prior entity (Liberty Footwear Company) possessed an identical or similar design registration dating back earlier than the plaintiff's. The court ultimately ruled that one 'pirator cannot injunct another pirator,' leading to the vacation of the interim injunction granted to the plaintiff.
Brawn Laboratories Ltd. v.Rhone Poulenc Rorer S.A.
The petitioner sought arbitration and an interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to restrain the respondents from marketing products like CLEXANE. The dispute centered on the termination of an exclusive license agreement and alleged breach of negative covenants.
Alfred Dunhill Limited v.Kartar Singh Makkar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Alfred Dunhill Limited against Kartar Singh Makkar & Ors. in a passing off suit concerning the 'DUNHILL' trademark. The court ruled that global reputation and awareness, disseminated through media like advertisements, are sufficient to establish goodwill even if products are restricted from local import. This decision protects consumers from potential deception and upholds the rights of established international brands.
Yahoo!, Inc. v.Akash Arora & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Yahoo!, Inc., preventing the defendants from operating under the domain name 'Yahooindia.Com'. The court recognized that despite 'Yahoo!' being a dictionary word, its extensive use and reputation had acquired distinctiveness and goodwill in the internet services sector. This ruling affirmed that passing off actions can be maintained even if the mark is not registered, provided it has achieved sufficient repute.
Escorts Const. Equipment Ltd. v.Action Const. Equipment P. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for infringement of copyright and passing off related to their Pick-N-Carry Hydraulic Self Mobile Cranes. They also sought an ad interim injunction to stop the defendants from dealing in deceptively similar cranes, alleging that the defendants copied their industrial drawings and trade secrets.
Kitec Industries (India) Ltd. v.Unicor Gmbh Rahn Plastmaschinen & Anr.
Kitec Industries filed a suit seeking mandatory and prohibitory injunctions against Unicor Group, alleging breach of an agreement (Hamburg Agreement) regarding the use of Kitec's patent rights for manufacturing Multi-layered Composite Pipes (MLCP). The court dismissed the suit, holding that the Hamburg Agreement barred civil suits in Indian courts due to its arbitration clause.
Baker Hughes Limited v.Hiroo Khushalani
Baker Hughes Limited and its affiliates sought a temporary injunction to prevent Hiroo Khushalani and Baker Oil Tools (India) Private Limited from using the trademark 'BAKER' in their corporate name. The dispute arose from complex historical agreements related to a joint venture for manufacturing oil field equipment. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a strong prima facie case, overriding defenses of acquiescence and laches.
Mrf Limited v.Nr Faridabad Rubbers & Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex parte interim injunction, ruling in favor of Mrf Limited against Nr Faridabad Rubbers. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'NRF' was likely to mislead unwary purchasers into mistaking their goods for those of the established plaintiff, Mrf Limited. Given Mrf's long-standing reputation and the potential irreparable harm caused by consumer confusion, the injunction was upheld until the final disposal of the suit.
Metro Plastic Industries (Regd.) v.M/S. Galaxy Footwear
Metro Plastic Industries filed a suit against M/S. Galaxy Footwear seeking permanent injunction for infringement of its registered footwear design 'Scandal' (No. 169611) and action in passing off. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over the distinctive shape and pattern of the product. However, the court noted that the design was prior published by a sister concern of the plaintiff, raising serious doubts about its originality and novelty.
Ciba-Geigy Limited & Anr v.Surinder Singh & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ciba-Geigy Limited, granting a permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off. The court found that the defendants deliberately adopted the mark 'Cibaca' on automobile filters to create an association with the plaintiffs' established goodwill and reputation. Furthermore, the court rejected the defense of laches and acquiescence raised by the defendants, concluding that there was no undue delay in initiating legal action.
P.M. Diesels Ltd. v.M/S. Patel Field Marshal
The appeal challenged a single judge's order dismissing an application for temporary injunction due to lack of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. The plaintiff claimed jurisdiction based on copyright law (Section 62) and the sale/registration of trade marks in Delhi. The Division Bench held that the court had both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, setting aside the lower court's judgment.
Radhika Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Paawan Agro Foods Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Radhika Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., who was engaged in the business of edible oils under the trademark 'Jiwan Dhara'. The court found that the plaintiff had established prior use of the trade mark compared to the defendant, Paawan Agro Foods Ltd. Despite conflicting evidence regarding invoice authenticity, the judge concluded that the plaintiff met the prima facie requirements for an injunction, preventing the defendant from continuing to use the disputed mark until the final disposal of the suit.
Prayag Chand Agarwal v.M/S Mayur Plastics Industries
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendant for alleged infringement of their registered shoe design (No. 168908). The defendant argued that the design was not original, had been prior published by a sister concern, and that they were manufacturing similar goods earlier. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case due to evidence of prior publication.
Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. v.Kesar Enterprises Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. against Kesar Enterprises Ltd., finding that the defendant was infringing upon the plaintiff's established trade mark 'Chetek'. The court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for infringement and passing-off, noting the significant difference in the operational timelines—the plaintiff operating since 1983 versus the defendant starting recently. This ruling underscores the importance of prior use and reputation when assessing trademark rights.
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.