Delhi High Court
1664 cases · page 8 of 56
Showing 211–239Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals v.Sana Herbals Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals against a lower court's decision concerning the consolidation of connected trademark rectification proceedings. The appellant argued that a prior transfer of a rectification petition involving the mark 'DEHLVI' should necessitate consolidating all related matters. However, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order, thereby maintaining the status quo regarding the procedural handling of the cases.
Fena Private Ltd v.Balwinder Kumar & Anr.
Fena Private Ltd successfully petitioned for the cancellation of a similar trademark, 'NIPPU,' registered by Balwinder Kumar in Class 3 goods. The Delhi High Court found that Fena had established prior rights and extensive goodwill with its mark 'NIP' since 1976. Given the identical nature of the goods (detergents/cleaning preparations) and the deceptive similarity between the marks, the court ruled that the impugned registration was obtained dishonestly to trade upon Fena's reputation, leading to its removal from the Register.
Societe Des Produits Nestle S A v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Nestle appealed a trademark refusal order from the Trademark Registry to the Delhi High Court. The original rejection was based on the mark being non-distinctive and similar to existing registered marks. Due to procedural issues following the dissolution of the IPAB, Nestle had to file a fresh appeal in the High Court. The court accepted notice and scheduled further proceedings.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc v.Union Of India & Anr.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc filed a petition seeking to set aside a deemed abandonment notice concerning its Indian Patent Application (No. 202017037539). The petitioner argued that they never received the communication regarding the First Examination Report (FER) due to coordination issues between patent agents in Canada and India. The Court found that since the deadline was missed due to non-receipt of the FER, it set aside the abandonment order and revived the application.
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Largan Precision Co Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd for infringing its Indian Patent No. 363203, which relates to light blocking sheets in camera systems. The court addressed applications related to interrogatories and the need for confidentiality, ultimately directing the formation of a confidential club.
Draka Comteq B.V v.The Controller Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Draka Comteq B.V challenged the refusal of its patent application for 'Multimode Fiber' by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and inventive step under the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the original order lacked proper reasoning regarding how a person skilled in the art would move from existing knowledge to the subject invention. Consequently, the court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.
Jay Switches India Pvt Ltd v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its patented 'Air Tight Fuel Cap' and registered design 'Fuel Tank Cap for Vehicle'. The court examined the infringement claims, noting ambiguities in the patent claims. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the balance of convenience favored the defendants.
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh appealed a rejection order passed by The Controller of Patents, which refused their application for "Containers for Compositions Comprising Meloxicam." The initial refusal was based on lack of novelty and inventive step in light of cited prior art. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to address their detailed written submissions distinguishing the invention from the prior arts. The Delhi High Court agreed, noting the Controller's order merely reproduced objections without proper consideration of the arguments, and consequently set aside the rejection, remanding the matter for fresh, reasoned consideration.
Sharad Mehra v.Sanjay Mehra
In a dispute stemming from a prior settlement between two brothers, Sharad Mehra filed an application alleging that Sanjay Mehra was violating the terms of their agreement by misusing the trade name 'Superon' and interlinking group companies. The Delhi High Court found prima facie evidence suggesting a violation of the Settlement Terms regarding the use of promotional materials at an International Trade Fair. Consequently, the court issued interim directions compelling the Respondent to immediately remove all banners and stop using any promotional material that conjunctively uses their company names.
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag challenged the refusal of its patent application, which covered methods for controlling rice plant infestations using a specific compound. The initial rejection was based on the argument that these methods constituted 'methods of agriculture' and were thus unpatentable under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court overturned this decision, holding that a method of treating plants is distinct from fundamental agricultural practices. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Controller for fresh examination.
Gautam Bhatia v.Vinayak Enterprises
Gautam Bhatia filed an application seeking permission to amend the claims of his Indian Patent No.410993, which relates to a method for preparing an adhesive. The plaintiff sought to narrow the scope of the process and product claims by defining the ratio of modified starch to various powders within a specific range (1:1 to 1:5). Despite the defendant opposing the amendment, the court allowed it, finding that the proposed changes were clarificatory, narrowing the scope, and supported by the original complete specification.
Ganesh Grains Ltd. v.Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Ganesh Grains Ltd., leading to the removal of the 'GANESH HARA MATAR' trademark registered by Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s long-standing and well-established 'GANESH' brand, which has been in use since 1936. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to provide evidence of actual user of the mark, leading the Court to cancel the registration under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
Prakash Pipes Limited v.Jai Ambay Industries And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Prakash Pipes Limited against Jai Ambay Industries. The court found that the respondent's registration of the mark 'KIRANPARKASH' was obtained fraudulently and dishonestly, as it was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established mark 'PRAKASH'. Furthermore, the court noted discrepancies in the respondent's claimed turnover versus its micro-enterprise status. Consequently, the Court directed the Trade Mark Registry to remove the impugned trademark from the register.
M/S M.H. One Tv Network Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Mh 7 News And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S M.H. One Tv Network Pvt. Ltd., cancelling the trademark registration 'MH7' held by the respondents. The court found that the mark 'MH7' was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established and prior trademark 'MH1'. Given the similarity and the fact that both parties operate in the same media/entertainment sector, the court determined that the respondent's registration was illegal and liable for removal.
M/S ILU A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF MRS VIDUSHI CHAWLA v.ASIAN HOBBY CRAFTS LLP AND ANR
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by M/S ILU against Asian Hobby Crafts LLP, successfully challenging the validity of the 'DREAMCATCHER' trademark. The court ruled that since 'DREAMCATCHER' is a generic and descriptive term for a specific type of decorative product, its registration violated Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This decision reinforces the principle that no party can claim an exclusive monopoly over common or descriptive terms defining a product.
Puma Se v.Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills (Regd) and Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Puma Se, ordering the cancellation and removal of two trademarks ('and/PUMAXE (Label)') registered by Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills. The court found that the impugned marks were deceptively similar to Puma's prior and well-known 'PUMA' trademark, which is associated with identical goods (clothing, footwear). Furthermore, the court noted a lack of continuous use by the respondent for one of the marks, reinforcing the grounds for rectification under the Trade Marks Act.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.Win Health Pharma Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to challenge the validity of the defendant's registered trademarks, 'WIN HEALTH PHARMA,' under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The core dispute revolves around prior use rights, as the plaintiff claims established goodwill with marks like 'WIN-HEALTHCARE' since 2005, while the defendant holds registrations for similar names. Given that both parties presented substantial arguments regarding priority and similarity, the court found prima facie merit in the plaintiffs' plea of invalidity.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
Astrazeneca filed suit against Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited alleging infringement of its patent (IN 297581) covering the cancer drug Osimertinib. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages, asserting that the defendant's offer to contractually manufacture and sell the patented compound constituted infringement. Despite initial defenses by the defendant regarding regulatory approval issues, the court found that due to the defendant's failure to file a written statement within the statutory period, the suit was decreed in favor of AstraZeneca, granting them relief and substantial costs.
Comviva Technologies Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents & Design
Comviva Technologies Limited appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to refuse grant for its patent application concerning methods and devices for authenticating electronic payment cards using an electronic token. The Controller had rejected the application, citing that the claims fell under Section 3(k) as being a 'business method' or 'computer programme per se'. However, the Delhi High Court overturned this refusal, holding that the invention addresses a technical problem—enhancing security in contactless payments—rather than merely automating a business process. The court affirmed that the technical contribution makes the subject matter patentable.
Opella Healthcare Group v.Vaibhav Vohra & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Opella Healthcare Group, ordering the cancellation of a competing trademark and copyright held by Vaibhav Vohra & Anr. The court found that the respondent's mark 'PHENSERYL' was phonetically and visually deceptively similar to the petitioner’s long-established mark 'PHENSEDYL,' leading to potential consumer confusion in the pharmaceutical sector. Furthermore, the court cancelled the associated copyright registration due to substantial imitation of the petitioner's original artistic packaging.
Panchhi Petha Store v.Union Of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by the Regional Director which rejected a trademark rectification application. The petitioner argued that the RD exceeded its jurisdiction by making a finding on the ownership of the 'Panchhi' trademark, a matter reserved for IP courts. The court agreed, stating that while the RD can examine name similarity to prevent consumer confusion, it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of trademark ownership between parties involved in ongoing litigation.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of a registered patent for a self-locking glazing system. The present application sought permission to take on record additional invoices and bank statements, which were needed to respond to objections raised by the defendant regarding discrepancies in earlier filings. The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) CPC.
UNILIN BEHEER B.V. v.BALAJI ACTION BUILDWELL
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing its registered patent related to flooring technology. The case involves the plaintiff's licensing program and the confidentiality of third-party license agreements.
Pravesh Narula Trading As M/S. Capital Enterprises v.Raj Kumar Jain Trading As M/S. Bholaram Puranmall And Anr.
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff to amend their plaint, allowing them to incorporate facts regarding the subsequent registration of their trademark. The court emphasized that amendments are necessary for the proper adjudication of a case and should not be rejected on hypertechnical grounds, especially when avoiding multiplicity of litigation is at stake. This ruling reinforces the liberal approach courts must take when considering pleadings amendments in IP disputes.
Promoshirt Sm. S.A. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. S.A., directing The Registrar of Trade Marks to renew and restore a trademark application (No. 1355453). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the registration certificate, which occurred two years after the validity expired, prevented timely renewal. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry, mandating the issuance of the renewal certificate and necessary database corrections.
Promoshirt Sm. Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. Pvt. Ltd., directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore and renew a trademark registration (No. 1150198). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the certificate, coupled with failure to serve mandatory renewal notices (O-3 Notice), prevented them from renewing their mark despite its initial validity period expiring. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for administrative lapses by the Registry, mandating the restoration and subsequent renewal of the trademark.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
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.