Defendant Favorable
498 defendant favorable decisions from Delhi High Court.
Defendant Favorable Decisions
498 cases | Page 1 of 17
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. filed an intra-court appeal (LPA) challenging the Single Judge's order that had set aside the Registrar's rejection of its trademark application for 'OFFER' in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The appellant contended that the Single Judge erred in not directing publication of the mark under Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Division Bench held that since the application had not reached the stage of acceptance, advertisement under Section 20 could not be directed, and the authorities under the statute were better equipped to examine the application at the initial stage. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Registrar to reconsider the application afresh.
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
This appeal challenged the Single Judge's dismissal of the appellants' applications for interim injunction in a patent infringement suit. The appellants alleged that Xiaomi's smartphones, tablets, and other devices infringed their registered Indian Patent No. 244963 titled 'A Communication Device Finder System.' The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's findings that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, as the respondent's 'Find Device' feature did not read onto the essential elements of the suit patent's independent claim. The court further held that the balance of convenience favored the respondent due to the appellants' unexplained nine-year delay in approaching the court, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the counsel on record for the respondent in his personal capacity, seeking review of paragraphs 45-53 and the last two sentences of paragraph 56 of the judgment dated 20.08.2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026. The court found no merit in the counsel's contentions regarding the findings of suppression of documents in other cases, noting that the interim orders and subsequent judgments cited had already been duly considered. The court held that the counsel, appearing in his personal capacity, had no locus to seek review of the direction imposing costs on the respondent.
ASR Market Ventures Private Limited v.Fitship Private Limited & Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)
The Delhi High Court disposed of a rectification petition and connected interlocutory injunction application filed by ASR Market Ventures Private Limited against Fitship Private Limited concerning the trademark 'FITSHIP' (Registration No. 5154387 in Class 30). ASR, engaged in the fitness and lifestyle business, claimed prior adoption and use of the mark 'FITFEAST' since 2017 for nutrition and healthy food services, and sought cancellation of Fitship's registration along with an interim injunction. The Court held that ASR failed to establish a prima facie case for passing off and was not entitled to the interlocutory injunction, dismissing the application.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal was filed by Parle Products Pvt Ltd challenging the order dated 10.03.2026 of the Single Judge, which had dismissed the appellant's challenge to the Registrar of Trade Marks' order dated 29.04.2025 allowing respondent no.2's application for registration of the trademark '20-20' in Class 30. The appellant claimed to be the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the marks '20-20', 'TWENTY-20' and 'T20' and alleged deceptive similarity with respondent no.2's mark. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was guilty of approbation and reprobation since it had obtained its own registrations by asserting its marks were distinct from respondent no.2's mark, and could not now claim deceptive similarity to challenge the latter's registration.
Jagdish Dahyalal Patel v.Anchor Consumer Products Private Limited
This appeal challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 26.05.2026 restraining the Appellant from using the mark 'DYNAFRESH' for air fresheners, on the ground that it was deceptively similar to the Respondent's registered trademark 'DYNA' used for soaps and personal care products since 1999. The Appellant contended that the Respondent suppressed material facts, namely 45 GST paid tax invoices evidencing use of 'DYNAFRESH' since June 2021. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no suppression of material facts and that the Appellant's earlier trademark application for 'DYNAFRESH' had already been refused by the Registrar on 29.07.2024 on grounds of conflict with the Respondent's mark and lack of bona fide adoption.
Dabur India Limited v.Emami Limited
The Delhi High Court has upheld an injunction against Dabur India Limited's product 'COOL KING THANDA TAEL' due to its deceptively similar trade dress to Emami Limited's Navratna Oil. The court found that the trade dress of Dabur's product was likely to mislead consumers and constitute passing off. The appeal by Dabur India Limited was dismissed, and the pending application was also dismissed. The court's findings are prima facie and subject to the final decision in the suit post-trial.
Ms Anuradha Sharma & Anr v.Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an order granting an interlocutory injunction to Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited, allowing Ms Anuradha Sharma to continue using the mark 'SHATAM JEEVA'. The court found no deceptive similarity between the rival marks and no misrepresentation. The appeal was allowed, and the observations made were prima facie in nature. The court's decision will not influence the consideration of the merits of the suit pending before the Commercial Court.
Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc v.Brewholik Private Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application by Brewholik Private Limited to sell existing stock of whiskey bearing the trademark 'OLD FORESTER', which is registered by Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc. The court held that the sale of the seized goods would be violative of the provisions of the Excise Act, 2009 and the Act. The court also noted that the plaintiff had vehemently disputed the quality of the seized goods, alleging them to be counterfeit.
Nec Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nec Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application concerning a video coding device and method. The refusal was based on the lack of inventive step in light of existing prior art disclosures. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the invention was rendered obvious by D1 to D3.
Geron Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Geron Corporation appealed the Controller's refusal to grant a patent for its application concerning telomerase inhibitors. The core dispute was whether the claimed 'in vitro screening method' was, in substance, a diagnostic process that falls under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. The Court ultimately held that despite being drafted as a screening method, the claims covered a diagnostic process essential to medical decision-making and were therefore not patentable.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against defendants for infringing their Indian Patent No. 330145 related to PCA units, which were allegedly used at various airports. Defendant No. 3 sought its deletion from the array of parties, arguing it was not involved in the infringement activities or liable for the actions of other entities.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.Geonix International Private Limited
The appellants (Western Digital and Seagate) manufacture Hard Disk Drives (HDDs) bearing their registered trademarks. The respondents purchase these HDDs after they reach an 'end-of-life' stage, are extracted from equipment abroad, and imported into India. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that neither trademark infringement nor reverse passing off was established.
Novo Nordisk A/S v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk appealed a rejection of its interlocutory injunction application regarding the import and sale of Semaglutide, claiming infringement of its patent. The court dismissed the appeal, noting that the suit patent was set to expire shortly, but also found prima facie evidence suggesting the suit patent could be challenged for obviousness based on prior art (Genus Patent IN'964).
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The appellant challenged an order concerning the patentability/inventive step. The respondent filed an application to place additional public domain documents on record. The court allowed the admission of these documents but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the original Impugned Order regarding lack of inventive step was well-reasoned.
Landmark Crafts Limited v.Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta & Anr.
The appellant sought rectification to cancel a registered device mark (No. 3986970) held by the respondent, alleging irregularities in its grant. The Deputy Registrar had previously cancelled the registration. The appeal before the High Court questioned whether the substitution of marks constituted a substantial alteration under the Trade Marks Act.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim appealed against a single judge's decision regarding the maintainability of a revocation petition (CO (COMM. IPD-PAT) 38/2022). The core issues were whether a revocation petition could survive after the patentee pleaded invalidity in an infringement suit, or if it could continue after the patent expired by efflux of time.
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for infringing Indian Patent 369150 related to extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The plaintiff later sought conditional withdrawal, arguing that the defendant was using a different plant species (Rauwolfia Vomitoria) and thus there was no current cause of action. However, the court found evidence suggesting the defendant was indeed using Rauwolfia tetraphylla, leading it to deny the permission for withdrawal.
Yangtze Memory Technologie Co Ltd v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner challenged the grant of its patent application, arguing that it was prevented from filing a necessary divisional application due to the timing of the grant. The petitioner claimed diligent efforts and intent to file the division before the grant. However, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the Petitioner attempted to file the divisional application after the grant date.
Canva Pty Ltd & Ors. v.Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited & Anr.
Canva appealed a single judge's decision that had granted an interim injunction against its 'Present and Record' feature, alleging infringement of Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited's Indian Patent No. 360726. The appeal challenged the finding of infringement and the direction to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs as security.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v.Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Rekin Pharma regarding trademark infringement, passing off, and domain name misuse. The core dispute revolved around the similarity between 'REXCIN' (Petitioner) and 'REKIN-SP' (Respondent), particularly concerning pharmaceutical goods in Class 5. The court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish continuous use of REXCIN as a source identifier for Class 5 products.
Hirotsu Bio Science Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Hirotsu Bio Science Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application for a cancer detection method using nematode olfaction. The Appellant argued that the invention was merely a detection method (in vitro) and not a diagnosis, despite descriptive language in the specification. However, the High Court upheld the original order, finding that the claimed method functioned as a diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Act.
Vishal Choudhary v.SNPC Machines Private Limited
Vishal Choudhary appealed an order that restrained him from manufacturing and selling subject brick-making machines, which were patented by SNPC Machines Pvt. Ltd. The appeal primarily raised issues of territorial jurisdiction and the merits of patent infringement. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the injunction in favor of the plaintiff (SNPC).
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN'697) covering Semaglutide, a GLP-1 analogue used for diabetes and obesity. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from importing or dealing in the compound. The Court ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of relief.
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Llc And Anr v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Amylin Pharmaceuticals appealed the Assistant Controller's rejection of its patent application for 'RELEASE FORMULATIONS USING NON-AQUEOUS CARRIERS'. The appeal challenged the finding that the invention lacked inventive step and fell under Section 3(d).
Aqualite Industries Private Limited v.Relaxo Footwears Limited
This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned allegations that Aqualite Industries was infringing on Relaxo Footwears' registered designs for hawai slippers. Relaxo had secured an interim injunction against Aqualite, which challenged this order. The court examined whether Aqualite's products were identical to the protected designs and whether the registrations themselves were invalid due to prior art or lack of novelty. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that the suit designs possessed novelty and that Aqualite was infringing Relaxo's registered design.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs, FMC Corporation & Ors., filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, alleging infringement of their patented Compound of Formula 3 (IN'645). The suit was a quia timet action concerning the product 'Cyantraniliprole 10.26% OD'. Despite the defendant having already launched the product, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application for an interim injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and noted that damages could be compensable at trial.
Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v.LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Commercial Court's decision to deny an interim injunction against LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement or passing off, particularly lacking evidence of market use and sufficient goodwill prior to the respondent's usage. Furthermore, the High Court noted the appellant's deliberate concealment of facts, leading it to decline interference in the appeal.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.M. Bathla & Anr.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a suit alleging that M. Bathla & Anr. infringed its Indian Patent No. 175971, which covered a 'Digital Transmission System,' through the manufacturing and sale of VCD systems and media. The court examined whether the defendants' replication process utilized the patented technology. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court found that the suit patent did not cover the resultant VCD product or the specific replication process employed by the defendants. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish infringement and the suit was dismissed.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche appealed a single judge's decision that dismissed its application for an injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, which was manufacturing and selling Risdiplam. The core dispute centered on whether the species patent (IN 3343971) covering compounds for Spinal Muscular Atrophy was infringed by Risdiplam, or if the claims were obvious based on prior art disclosures in a genus patent (WO'916/US'955).
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.