Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 56 of 56
Showing 1651–1679National Research Development Corporation of India v.The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff, National Research Development Corporation of India, sought a temporary injunction against the defendants for infringing its Patent No. 138571 concerning TSIA. The defendants challenged the patent's validity and denied infringement. The court found that the plaintiff was the rightful assignee and that the defendants were aware of the patent and had negotiated for a license, thus confirming the injunction.
J.N. Electricals (India) v.President Electricals
J.N. Electricals sued President Electricals for infringing their registered design of an electric toaster, passing off, and copyright piracy of their promotional pamphlets. The court found that the defendant's toaster was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered design, and the defendants had outrightly copied the plaintiffs' pamphlet word-for-word.
The Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v.Hansa Chemical Pharmacy
The plaintiff sued the defendant for infringing its registered copyright on the 'OK Washing Soap Wrapper' and for passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant used a colorable imitation to deceive consumers. The court, while noting conflicting dates of use, disposed of the interim application by directing the defendants to file their sales accounts.
R. Prakash v.Chowdhary Plastic Works
The plaintiff held Patent No. 125113 of 1970 for a method of producing printed film discs and viewers. The suit was filed alleging infringement, leading to an injunction being granted against the defendant. The court found that the defendant willfully disobeyed this injunction by continuing to manufacture and sell infringing goods.
R. Prakash v.Chowdri Plastic Works
The plaintiff held Patent No. 125113 of 1970 for a method of producing a printed film disc and viewer. The plaintiff filed suit alleging infringement, leading to an injunction being granted against the defendant. Despite this order, the defendant continued manufacturing and selling infringing goods, leading to proceedings for disobedience.
K. Gian Chand Jain & Co. v.Girdhari Lal Gupta
The dispute involved two appeals challenging an order regarding the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to entertain applications for cancellation of design registrations. The respondents argued that only the Calcutta High Court had exclusive jurisdiction because the register was maintained there. The Full Bench held that any High Court in India could entertain such an application.
Telerad Private Ltd. v.Jugmug Electric & Radio Co.
The Delhi High Court upheld the cancellation of the 'Telerad' trademark registered by Jugmug Electric & Radio Co. The court found that despite the goods being in different classes (Class 9 vs Class II), the likelihood of deception and confusion was high because both types of electrical goods were sold through common trade channels, and customers generally associate these products with the same type of manufacturer. This ruling emphasizes that contextual factors, such as shared markets, are critical when assessing trademark conflicts under Section 11(a).
Raj Parkash v.Mangat Ram Chowdhry And Ors.
The plaintiff held a patent for a viewer using a medially cut positive 35mm film. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were infringing this patent by manufacturing and selling identical film strip viewers. Although the initial suit was dismissed, the appeal court upheld the validity of the patent and found infringement.
Brighto Auto Industries v.Raj Chawla (Messrs B.Chawla & Sons)
Brighto Auto Industries filed a petition to cancel the design registration (No. 139585) held by Raj Chawla's firm for rear view mirrors, arguing that the design lacked novelty and originality as it was common in the market. The court examined whether the minor modification made by the respondent constituted a new or original design.
L.D. Malhotra Industries v.Ropi Industries
The dispute involved two industries manufacturing dress hooks, Ropi Industries (prior user) and L.D. Malhotra Industries (earlier registrant). After Ropis successfully obtained the rectification of Malhotras' mark, Malhotras appealed to the Delhi High Court. The court ultimately allowed the appeal but granted an injunction in favor of Ropis.
Ram Narain Kher v.Ambassador Industries New Delhi And ...
The plaintiff sought an ad interim injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing his patent related to air coolers. The defendants contested the application by challenging the validity of the patent, arguing that it lacked novelty and was not adequately described in the claims. The court ultimately vacated the temporary injunction due to the dispute over the patent's validity.
Rawal Industries P. Ltd. v.Duke Enterprise
Rawal Industries successfully sought a temporary injunction against Duke Enterprise for using the confusingly similar trade mark 'DUKE' on insulated automobile cables. The court found that despite the goods being different, there was a sufficient trade connection between the plaintiffs' automobile parts and the defendants' cables. Given the close resemblance of the marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the court granted the injunction to protect Rawal Industries' goodwill during the pendency of the suit.
Jagan Nath Prem Nath v.Bhartiya Dhoop Karyalaya
The appeal concerned a suit for permanent injunction filed by Jagan Nath Prem Nath against Bhartiya Dhoop Karyalaya alleging infringement and passing off regarding his registered trade mark for agarbatis. The single judge had vacated an interim ex parte injunction, holding that the numerals 555 were not distinctive features of the appellant's mark. The High Court confirmed the interim injunction, finding that the numerals '555' had acquired a distinctive meaning in the trade and the respondent's use was prima facie infringing.
Khemraj Shrikrishandas v.Garg & Co.
The plaintiffs, publishers of 'Pt. Shrivallabh Maniram Panchang' since 1894 A.D., filed a suit alleging that the defendants were passing off their goods by printing and selling deceptively similar almanacs. The appeal was heard regarding the refusal of an ad interim injunction by the lower court. The High Court reversed the order, granting the injunction based on the principles of passing off.
Bawa Masala Company v.Gulzari Lal Lajpat Rai
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute over the alleged infringement of Bawa Masala Company's registered trademark for 'Meat Masala' and claims of passing off. The court examined the visual identity (get up) of both parties' packaging, finding that despite some similarities in script usage, the overall design, color scheme, and distinctive features were dissimilar. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, ruling that no consumer would be deceived into mistaking the respondent's product for the appellant's.
V.K. Industries v.Shri V.H. Mehta, Asst. Registrar Of ...
The appellant challenged the refusal by the Assistant Registrar to register the trade mark 'PLATINUM' for yarns and threads. The refusal was based on the grounds that the word was descriptive of the goods (denoting platinum color) and lacked distinctiveness in the absence of evidence of use. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Madan Mohan Lal Garg v.Brijmohanlal Garg
The appellant challenged the Assistant Registrar's decision regarding an amendment to a trade mark application ('SHANKER') filed by the dissolved firm Meerut Engineering Works. The appellant sought judicial determination of rights before the registration process could proceed, but his applications were rejected as incompetent under Section 44. This appeal was ultimately dismissed.
Western Engineering Company v.America Lock Company
Western Engineering Company held a registered design for a horse-shoe shaped cycle lock. America Lock Company also obtained a similar design registration. Western Engineering Company sued America Lock Company for infringement, claiming the latter copied its design. The court analyzed both designs to determine if they were original or merely trade variants.
Hindustan Sanitaryware And Industries Limited v.Neiveli Ceramics And Refractories Ltd.
Hindustan Sanitaryware (petitioner) filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the revocation of Patent No. 103411 held by Neiveli Ceramics (respondent). The core dispute revolved around whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to hear the revocation petition, and whether the proceedings should be stayed due to an existing infringement suit in Madras.
Sukhdayal And Ors. v.Prina Chemical Works And Ors.
The defendants appealed against a trial court order that found them guilty of passing off goods using a similar trade mark ('Sun Brand No. 1919') to the plaintiffs' 'Sun Brand Hair Dye 929'. The appellate court ultimately allowed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs were estopped from suing due to laches and delay.
National Research Development ... v.Bhupal Mining Works Etc.
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of unpaid royalties related to the use of Patent No. 48667 (mica insulating bricks). The defendant filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking a stay of the suit, arguing that disputes regarding royalty calculation and patent rights should be referred to arbitration. The court dismissed the application, finding no prior dispute existed and noting the defendants' failure to invoke the arbitration clause earlier.
Metro Playing Card Co. v.Wazir Chand Kapoor
The dispute arose when the respondent, who held a registered trademark (tractor device and word 'tractor') for playing cards, sued the appellant for infringing this mark. The appellant argued that its own application for the 'Ferguson' trade mark was accepted for registration and that there was no infringement. The court found prima facie evidence of infringement.
Wearwell Cycle Co. (India) Limited v.Wearwell Industries And Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Wearwell Cycle Co. (India) Limited, granting a temporary injunction against Wearwell Industries and Anr. The court found that the defendant's use of the 'Wearwell' trademark on their cycles was likely to mislead the public into believing they were associated with the plaintiff. Despite the defendants claiming rights based on an agreement with the original English company, the court held that the plaintiff had established sufficient reputation and goodwill in India, making the defendant's continued use of the mark a tort of passing off.
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc appealed against the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting their opposition to the registration of the mark GHOST BUSTER. The appellant argued that the mark is similar to their well-known trademark GHOSTBUSTERS and that the respondent had applied for registration in bad faith. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The Registrar will now consider the appellant's contentions relating to alleged bad faith and the claim that the mark GHOSTBUSTERS is entitled to protection as a well-known trademark.
Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Controller of Patents to reject the patent application of Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. The application was rejected on the grounds of lack of novelty and non-patentability. The court held that the applicant failed to establish the novelty of the invention and that the invention did not meet the requirements of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The court also observed that the applicant had not provided sufficient data to support its claims of enhanced therapeutic efficacy.
Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India Ltd And Ors
The Delhi High Court awarded costs in favor of the defendant, M/S Bata India Ltd, in a design infringement suit filed by Crocs Inc Usa. The court directed the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 24,63,400/- to the defendant within three months. The suit was initially filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of Design Registration no. 197685, but the court had earlier dismissed the interim injunction applications and allowed the defendant's application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC.
More Than Water Private Limited v.Nesco Limited
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal against a single judge's order denying an absolute interim injunction in a trademark dispute between More Than Water Private Limited and Nesco Limited. The court imposed a territorial restraint, allowing both parties to continue manufacturing and selling their products within their respective states. The court also directed the Registrar of Trademarks to take note of the restraint and make an appropriate noting in its register.
Ashiana Ispat Limited v.Kamdhenu Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Ashiana Ispat Limited against a single judge's order granting an interim injunction in favor of Kamdhenu Limited. The court held that Ashiana Ispat Limited cannot use the mark 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' as it is deceptively similar to Kamdhenu Limited's registered marks. The court also issued directions to preserve the rights of both parties pending final determination of the suit.
Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd v.Exotic Mile
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application for interim injunction filed by Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd against Exotic Mile, seeking to restrain the defendant from using the trademark BOULT, which was deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks BOAT/boAt. The court found that the defendant had discontinued the use of the impugned marks and had transitioned to a new trademark, rendering the application without merit. The case highlights the importance of establishing undue hardship in seeking interim relief. The court's decision is significant as it demonstrates the application of trademark law principles in determining the similarity between marks and the potential for consumer confusion.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd filed an appeal against the refusal of interim injunction by the Single Judge in a trademark infringement case against Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Appellant claimed that the Respondent's mark 'PANTOPACID' is deceptively similar to their registered mark 'PANTOCID'. The Court allowed the appeal with directions, granting the Respondents liberty to dispose of their existing stock within a limited period.
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.