Delhi High Court
1672 cases · page 6 of 56
Showing 151–179Vineet Kapur v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Vineet Kapur's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the numerical mark '2929' for cosmetics. The court held that a combination of numbers can function as an inherently distinctive and arbitrary trademark, provided it is not descriptive or common in trade. By setting aside the rejection, the Court directed the application to proceed to advertisement, reinforcing the principle that numerals are capable of serving as effective source identifiers.
M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited v.Kamran Ghani And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited against Kamran Ghani, leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark 'MARDEM'. The petitioner successfully argued that their established mark 'MODERN' was deceptively and identically similar to 'MARDEM', causing likelihood of confusion in Class 30 (snacks). This judgment reinforces the principle that prior use and strong goodwill can be grounds for cancelling a later registration if it is confusingly similar.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 1071/DEL/2007) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The refusal was based partly on objections related to amendments, which the appellant argued were merely corrections and explanations within the scope of Section 59. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasoning regarding the rejection of these amendments.
Bmi Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps) v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs And Another
Bmi Group Danmark Aps appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for a multi-layer sealing web. The core dispute centered on whether the invention possessed inventive step, specifically concerning the unique combination carrier insert featuring glass nonwoven and knitted glass reinforcement. The Delhi High Court examined the technical analysis and found that the Controller incorrectly interpreted the claim's features and relied improperly on non-analogous prior art. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and directed the grant of the patent.
M/S Zine Davidoff S.A. v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Zine Davidoff S.A., restoring its mark 'DAVIDOFF' (No. 454875) after it had been removed by the IPAB for alleged lapse. The court found that the petitioner had renewed the mark within statutory timelines, and crucially, noted that the Trade Mark Registry failed to issue a mandatory Form O3 notice before removal. Given the Registry's admission of lacking records regarding this notice, the High Court mandated the restoration of the trademark.
The Coca-Cola Company v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The Coca-Cola Company appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application for a superior beverage dispenser. The appeal argued that the rejection order failed to analyze the appellant's submissions distinguishing the invention from cited prior art. The High Court held that the Controller must pass a speaking order analyzing all elements, and consequently set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Abbvie Biotherapeutics Inc & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the refusal of an Indian patent application for 'ANTI-cMet ANTIBODY DRUG CONJUGATES AND METHODS FOR THEIR USE'. The appellant sought to amend claims from methods of treatment to product claims. The court upheld the Controller's decision, finding that the original specification focused on method-of-use and the proposed amendments were an impermissible broadening of scope.
Marelli Europe S.P.A. v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Marelli Europe S.P.A. appealed against the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of a patent application, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection was mechanical, merely copying prior art extracts without providing reasoned justification for why the invention lacked inventive step. The Court agreed, finding the impugned order lacked proper application of mind.
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents refusing to grant its patent application concerning microvesicles derived from adult stem cells for tumor treatment. The core legal dispute centered on whether the appellant could amend the claims at the appellate stage to overcome objections regarding novelty and inventive step. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the amendments, finding that they were merely explanatory or disclaimers and did not broaden the scope of the original claims. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Patent Office for fresh examination.
Grey Swift Private Limited Through Mr. Shivam Singla v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Grey Swift Private Limited has appealed a rejection order from the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks regarding its wordmark 'BharatStamp' in Class 9. The examiner rejected the mark, citing lack of distinctive character under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. The Delhi High Court accepted the appeal and issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, setting a date for arguments on August 28, 2024.
Diageo Scotland Limited v.Prachi Varma & Anr.
Diageo Scotland Limited successfully appealed against the rejection of its opposition to a new trademark registration, 'CAPTAIN BLUE'. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Diageo, finding that 'CAPTAIN BLUE' was deceptively similar and constituted an imitation of Diageo's established family of marks, particularly 'CAPTAIN MORGAN'. The court set aside the previous order and directed the removal of the infringing mark from the Register, reinforcing the protection afforded to well-known brands.
Epifi Technologies Private Limited v.Formula One Licensing Bv & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Epifi Technologies Private Limited against Formula One Licensing Bv & Anr., successfully arguing that the respondent's registered mark 'F1' should be removed from the register. The court found that the impugned mark had not been used in commerce for the required continuous period, and furthermore, the respondent failed to obtain necessary regulatory approvals despite its registration date. This decision reinforces the principle that trademark registrations must reflect genuine commercial use.
Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) v.Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA)
This appeal before the Delhi High Court involved Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) challenging an order that dismissed its applications for interim injunction. The core dispute centered on the use of the 'HAMDARD' trademark and associated products, particularly in relation to the Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA). Hamdard alleged misleading claims by UDMA regarding market share and product categorization. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that the matter fundamentally involved a commercial dispute requiring adjudication by a specialized Commercial Court.
Hamdard Laboratories India Medicine Division v.Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA)
Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) appealed against an order dismissing its applications, alleging that UDMA was misleading the public by claiming market dominance and associating Hamdard Food Division products with medicinal claims. The core dispute revolved around the scope of a Family Settlement Deed which divided the HAMDARD Group into Medicine and Food divisions, restricting their respective product lines. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that the matter fundamentally involved commercial disputes concerning IP rights and required adjudication by a competent Commercial Court.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Preet Kamal Grewal And Anr.
Mankind Pharma Limited successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court for the removal of a conflicting trademark, 'KINDPAN,' registered by Respondent No. 1 in Class 5. The court ruled that the registration was unsustainable because Mankind is the prior adopter and well-known proprietor of the 'KIND' family of marks in the pharmaceutical sector. By allowing the petition, the High Court reinforced the principle that established goodwill and extensive use grant heightened protection to a trademark owner against confusingly similar registrations.
Glanbia Performance Nutrition Limited v.Hercules Nutra Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a cancellation petition filed by Glanbia Performance Nutrition Limited against Hercules Nutra Pvt. Ltd., directing the removal of an identical trademark registration from the register. The court found that Glanbia was a prior user and adopter of the 'ON' mark for nutritional supplements, possessing immense goodwill in India since 2003. Given the deceptive similarity of the respondent's mark (including copying the swoosh arrow) and the identity of the goods, the registration was deemed dishonest and liable to be cancelled.
Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. v.Satyendra Kumar Singh And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. against an infringing trademark registration. The petitioner, a major online travel platform operating under 'GOIBIBO', successfully argued that the respondent's registered mark was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among consumers. Given the petitioner's extensive goodwill and prior use since 2009, the Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the conflicting registration.
Psychotropic India Limited v.Meridian Medicare Ltd And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Psychotropic India Limited against Meridian Medicare Ltd. The court found that Respondent No. 1 adopted the mark 'TROMA' with malafide intent, capitalizing on the goodwill established by the petitioner in the pharmaceutical sector. Given the prior use and distinctiveness of the petitioner's marks (TROMANIL, TROMA), the court ruled that the registration held by the respondent was contrary to the Trade Marks Act, leading to its cancellation.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Viraj Harjai & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted rectification to Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, a major online beauty retailer operating under the mark 'PURPLLE'. The court cancelled two registrations held by the respondent for similar marks ('PURPLLE TREE/'), finding that the petitioner was the prior and continuous user. This decision underscores the importance of establishing genuine, long-standing market presence over mere application dates when challenging trademark validity.
Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Lakha Ram Sharma Proprietor Of Kundan Cable India
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an order that had stayed several ongoing trademark suits. The stay was granted by the Trial Court based on observations from a Division Bench judgment regarding rectification petitions. However, the High Court held that the reference to 'passing off' in the cited precedent was merely obiter dicta and not binding law. Consequently, all the consolidated suits were directed to proceed expeditiously for trial.
M/S. Mocemsa Care v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S. Mocemsa Care against the Registrar's refusal of a device mark registration. The court held that even if the mark comprises common English words, its composite and stylized arrangement makes it distinctive when viewed as a whole. Furthermore, the court dismissed the objection regarding insufficient invoices, noting that this issue was never raised in the initial examination report. Consequently, the application is now directed to proceed with advertisement.
Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr. v.Max Healthcare Institute Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the Commercial Court's handling of an interlocutory injunction request concerning trademark infringement. The court found that the lower court failed to consider the merits of the respondent's application, merely granting the injunction to implement a prior judgment. Consequently, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Commercial Court for a fresh, de novo decision on the interim injunction, ensuring all legal aspects are properly considered.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche filed a suit alleging infringement of its species patent (IN 334397) for the drug Risdiplam, marketed as EVRYSDI®, by Natco Pharma Limited. The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling the API. However, the court found that the defendant had raised a credible challenge regarding the validity of the patent. Considering the public interest in affordable medicine for rare diseases like SMA, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, though it clarified that damages would be payable if the plaintiffs ultimately succeed in the trial.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The review petition was filed by Respondent No. 2 challenging the original judgment dated January 15, 2025. The core dispute revolved around whether raising a defense of invalidity in an infringement suit (Section 107) prevents the patentee from filing a separate revocation petition (Section 64).
Milliken And Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Milliken And Company appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant an Indian patent application. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider a crucial expert statement by Dr. Nathan A Mehl. The High Court found merit in the appeal, holding that foreign decisions are not binding and directing the matter back for fresh consideration.
Ciena Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ciena Corporation challenged the deemed abandonment of its Indian patent application, which was issued by the Patent Office due to failure to respond to a First Examination Report (FER). The petitioner argued that this lapse was solely attributable to an inadvertent mistake made by their patent agent. The Delhi High Court agreed with Ciena, holding that an applicant should not suffer consequences for the bona fide errors of their legal representatives or agents. Consequently, the court set aside the abandonment letter and restored the application, granting a final opportunity to prosecute the patent.
Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited v.Mohammad Arshad & Anr.
Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited filed a suit seeking the removal of an identical word mark, 'ZEPTO,' registered by Respondent No. 1 under Section 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Petitioner uses 'ZEPTO' for instant grocery delivery services, while the Respondent holds the mark in Class 35 relating to mobile phone marketing. The court has initiated proceedings by issuing notices to all parties, setting the stage for a detailed examination of trademark conflict and consumer confusion.
Ds Drinks And Beverages Private Limited v.Hector Beverages Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ds Drinks And Beverages Private Limited, upholding the interim injunction granted to Hector Beverages Private Limited. The court found that despite differences in surrounding words and product types (energy drink vs. juice), the core mark 'SWING' is predominant and highly similar. Given that both products are allied and sold across the same counter, the court ruled that there is a clear likelihood of customer confusion, favoring the established goodwill of Hector Beverages.
Cellectis v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Cellectis appealed a refusal order by the Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for a method involving T-Cells. The appeal sought permission to file amended claims and complete specification. The court examined whether these amendments were permissible under Section 59 of the Patents Act.
Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd. v.Kamal Bansal
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd. against Kamal Bansal, directing the removal of the registered trademark 'VKG'. The court found that 'VKG' was confusingly similar to the petitioner's prior and well-established mark 'VKC', which had been used since 1985 in respect of footwear. Crucially, the court noted that the respondent failed to demonstrate actual use of the impugned mark, leading it to conclude that the registration was obtained dishonestly to trade upon the petitioner's goodwill.
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.