Delhi High Court
1664 cases · page 7 of 56
Showing 181–209Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors. v.Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of appeals filed by Sammaan Capital Ltd and Sammaan Finserv Ltd against an injunction restraining them from using marks similar to Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd's registered trademarks. While the court stayed the operation of the restrictive judgment, allowing the appellants to continue their use in the interim, it imposed strict conditions. The appellants must prominently display 'Formerly known as Indiabulls' and include a clear disclaimer stating they have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd.
Sammaan Finserv Limited v.Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed appeals challenging an injunction restraining Sammaan Finserv and Sammaan Capital from using names similar to Svamaan Financial Services' registered trademarks. The court disposed of the interim applications by staying the operation of the restrictive judgment, allowing the appellants time to continue their current advertising campaigns. However, it mandated that the appellants must include clear disclaimers in all future advertisements, such as 'Formerly known as Indiabulls' and 'We have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd,' to prevent consumer confusion.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Shabina Kundial & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited successfully petitioned for the rectification and removal of a deceptively similar trade mark registered by Shabina Kundial & Anr. The petitioner, which operates under the renowned FACES brand in beauty and wellness, demonstrated extensive prior use, goodwill, and reputation associated with its marks. The court found that the impugned mark was confusingly similar to the established FACES marks and was adopted dishonestly to ride over the petitioner's reputation, leading to the cancellation of the infringing registration.
Mr Abhishek Sharma & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellants appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing their patent application (No. 202111053480). The subject matter related to 'black coloured wearing' and its alleged effects on human health, which the Controller rejected as non-technical and an abstract theory lacking scientific evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal both on merits and due to the inordinate delay in filing.
Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited v.Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited against Sammaan Capital Limited and others. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement because the competing mark 'SAMMAAN' is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'SVAMAAN' marks, and both parties operate in identical financial services sectors (granting loans). Despite initial challenges regarding the authenticity of the plaintiff's registration certificates, the court confirmed their validity through a status report from the Trade Marks Registry, thus upholding the injunction.
Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited v.Friends Inc & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited, granting permanent injunctions against Friends Inc for infringing the 'PETER ENGLAND' trademark. Furthermore, the court declared 'PETER ENGLAND' as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The judgment emphasized that compliance with initial restraining orders was sufficient to proceed toward final decree and recognition of brand reputation.
Anshul Vaish, Partner Rohit Wrapers v.Hari Om And Co. And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Anshul Vaish, Partner Rohit Wrapers, against Hari Om And Co. The court cancelled Respondent No. 1's registered mark because the petitioner demonstrated prior and continuous use of the dominant feature 'ROHIT' since 2000, predating the respondent's claim of use in 2005. Given the identical nature of the marks (despite language differences) and the commonality of goods, the court found that allowing the registration would inevitably cause confusion among consumers.
Star India Pvt. Ltd. v.Ashar Nisar & Ors.
Star India Pvt. Ltd., an entertainment media company, filed a suit against various individuals and entities for the unauthorized dissemination and broadcasting of its copyrighted content through rogue mobile applications and illicit websites. The plaintiffs asserted their exclusive rights over content streamed via STAR Channels and Disney+ Hotstar. Given that the defendants failed to contest the suit by filing a written statement despite being served, the Delhi High Court found them liable for copyright piracy.
Oracle America, Inc. v.Mr. Sandeep Khandelwal And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Oracle America's petition seeking rectification and cancellation of a rival trademark, JAVATPOINT/. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to Oracle's well-established 'JAVA' mark, which has been used since the 1990s. Given the identical target consumer base in educational services (Class 41), the court ruled that the respondent had dishonestly adopted the mark to ride on Oracle's goodwill and reputation, leading to its removal from the Trade Marks Register.
Dwarka Matlani v.Jay Daryani
Dwarka Matlani filed a rectification petition challenging the copyright registration granted to Jay Daryani for the label and packaging titled 'ROYAL'. The petitioner argued that the registered artwork was a slavish imitation of their own established trademark/label, which they had used since 1997. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the registration process concealed material facts regarding the true ownership of the artistic work. The court found that the respondent's label was an imitation and lacked originality, making it ineligible for copyright protection. Given these findings, the High Court allowed the petition, directing the removal of the impugned copyright from the Register.
Goodai Global Inc v.Shahnawaz Siddiqu & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Goodai Global Inc against Shahnawaz Siddiqu & Anr., directing the removal of an identical device mark registration (No. 5635163) in Class 3. The court found that the respondent obtained the mark dishonestly and in bad faith, attempting to trade upon the petitioner's established goodwill associated with its 'Beauty of Joseon' brand. Given the clear intent to appropriate the petitioner's reputation, the registration was deemed liable for cancellation under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr v.Goyal Herbals Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiffs, Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr, to amend their original plaint in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court held that introducing subsequent trade mark registrations, evidence of enhanced goodwill, and relevant judicial records did not change the nature or character of the existing dispute. This decision allows the plaintiffs to strengthen their case by incorporating new statutory rights acquired after the suit's inception.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Mr Amreek Singh Chawla & Ors.
The defendants filed an application seeking vacation of an ex-parte ad interim injunction order granted to the plaintiff. The court considered arguments that the plaintiff had suppressed facts, specifically claiming they only discovered the infringing product on 30th October 2024, when in fact they were aware of the defendant's mark since 2018. Consequently, the court vacated the injunction and referred the matter to mediation.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a revocation petition against Indian Patent IN 243301, held by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Respondent No. 2), concerning the anti-diabetic drug LINAGLIPTIN. The Respondent challenged the maintainability of the petition on grounds that it was filed after the patent expired and because invalidity had already been raised in an ongoing infringement suit. The Court dismissed these objections, holding that a revocation petition can be sustained even after the patent term expires.
Krbl Limited v.Praveen Kumar Buyyani & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Krbl Limited's appeal, overturning a Commercial Court decision that had vacated an existing injunction. The court found that the respondent's use of 'Bharat Gate' for rice constituted clear infringement of the appellant's registered trademark 'India Gate.' Citing established legal precedents, the High Court held that prima facie evidence of infringement necessitates the continuation of the injunction to protect the goodwill and reputation of the original mark.
Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction request concerning alleged trademark infringement. Gensol Electric Vehicles sought to restrain Mahindra Last Mile Mobility from using 'eZEO,' claiming prior rights over 'EZIO.' However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for confusion, noting that the defendant had already launched its product while the plaintiff was yet to market theirs. The judgment emphasizes the importance of actual market presence and use when assessing likelihood of confusion.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit was filed by Novartis seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patent IN'026. Natco Pharma sought leave to file an additional written statement, arguing that plaintiffs suppressed documents relating to a prior Divisional Application which led to the grant of the patent. The Court allowed the application, holding that Order VIII Rule 9 CPC grants wide discretion to allow such pleadings in the interest of justice.
Syngenta Limited And Anr. v.Gsp Crop Science Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking a direction to the defendant to comply with the mutually agreed Terms of Reference (ToR) and provide access to specific documents shared under the ToR. The defendant opposed this, citing concerns over leakage of proprietary information and violation of Section 104A of the Patents Act. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the defendant to supply the requested information while allowing redaction of supplier names.
Diamond Modular Pvt Ltd. v.Yash Arora As Trading As Siddhi Vinayak Traders And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Diamond Modular Pvt Ltd., leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark, 'GREEN DIAMOND.' The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar and identical to the petitioner's established trademark 'DIAMOND,' which had significant goodwill and reputation in the electrical goods market since 1975. Crucially, the judgment highlighted the dishonest adoption by the respondent, who was an ex-distributor of the petitioner, thereby reinforcing the principle against riding on a competitor's reputation.
RPG Enterprises Limited v.RPG Industrial Products Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by RPG Enterprises Limited against RPG Industrial Products Pvt Ltd., leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark registration (No. 2778255). The court found that the impugned mark wrongfully incorporated the petitioner’s well-known 'RPG' brand, which has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning through long-standing use across various industries. This decision reinforces the principle that a registered mark cannot be maintained if it is deceptively similar to an established, widely recognized trademark.
Evergreen Sweet House v.JV Evergreen Sweets And Treats & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Evergreen Sweet House against JV Evergreen Sweets And Treats. The court found a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the plaintiff has been operating under the 'Evergreen' mark since 1963, establishing significant goodwill and prior use. Given the defendant's recent entry into the market and the likelihood of customer confusion on food delivery platforms, the court restrained the defendants from using the infringing mark until the final suit adjudication.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Ms. Aparna Mallick And Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Khadi & Village Industries Commission, granting a permanent injunction against Ms. Aparna Mallick and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'KHADISAREE' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark 'KHADI'. Furthermore, the Court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name and awarded substantial damages and costs against the defendant due to their non-cooperation.
Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited v.Dream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited against Dream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd., directing the removal of the respondent's trademark (No. 3213226). The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior and well-reputed 'FREEDOM' marks, noting that the addition of a prefix did not differentiate it sufficiently. Given the identical nature of the goods and target consumers, the registration was deemed obtained dishonestly to trade upon the petitioner's goodwill.
Dabur India Limited v.Ms Usha Proprietor Of Rs Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Dabur India Limited's cancellation petition against a similar mark registered by Ms. Usha Proprietor Of Rs Industries. The court found that the impugned mark was confusingly and deceptively similar to Dabur's well-known trademark 'DABUR,' particularly given that both parties operate in the identical Class 3 goods (detergents, soaps, etc.). Citing prior use and established goodwill, the High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the infringing registration.
Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd v.Rspl Helathcare P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a District Judge's order that had granted an ex parte injunction against Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd, restraining it from using the trademark 'PRUEASE'. The court set aside this restrictive interim order. Instead, it directed the Trial Court to expedite the hearing of the original application filed by the respondents seeking injunctive relief, allowing both parties a chance to present their case.
Pfizer Inc. v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiaries, filed a suit alleging that the defendants unlawfully manufactured, sold, and exported the infringing product 'Tofaxen', which is a generic version of their patented drug Tofacitinib (Xeljanz®). The court found that the defendants collectively infringed the suit patents while they were valid and subsisting. However, since the patents had expired during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs did not press for permanent injunction but secured a decree in terms of prayer clause 57(e).
Candico (I) Limited v.T.R. Kohli, Trading As T.R. Kohli And Sons
The Delhi High Court set aside a previous order that had refused the registration of the mark 'JUMBO GUMBO' due to an opposition. The court found that the objection raised by the opponent did not survive because their prior trademark application for 'JUMBO' had been treated as abandoned years earlier. Given the changed circumstances and the opponent's failure to contest the appeal, the High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to proceed with the registration of 'JUMBO GUMBO'.
Puma Se v.Surender Singh And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Puma Se's petition seeking cancellation of a deceptively similar trademark, 'P11MA,' registered by Surender Singh in Class 25. The court found that the respondent had slavishly copied the petitioner's established and well-known mark, PUMA, leading to a high likelihood of consumer confusion. Furthermore, the respondent voluntarily agreed not to contest the petition, solidifying the decision for removal.
Spv Laboratories Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The appeal was filed challenging the refusal by the Assistant Controller to restore Patent No. 404239, which had lapsed due to non-payment of the renewal fee. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by an exigency in the attorney's family and that the restoration application was filed within the permissible period. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that a granted patent should not be refused solely on procedural lapse if the restoration application is timely.
Spv Laboratories Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the refusal by the Assistant Controller to restore Patent No. 403793, which had lapsed due to non-payment of the renewal fee. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by a family exigency involving its attorney and that the restoration application was filed within the prescribed period. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
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.