Defendant Favorable
507 defendant favorable decisions from Delhi High Court.
Defendant Favorable Decisions
507 cases | Page 5 of 17
Sona Mandhira Pvt. Ltd. v.Sona Blw Precision Forgings Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications related to a trademark dispute involving the 'SONA' mark. While one application seeking to introduce public record documents was allowed, another crucial application filed by Sona Mandhira Pvt. Ltd. (the appellants) was dismissed. The court found no merit in the appeal against the interim injunction granted to the respondents, citing factors such as the non-perishability of goods and potential grave prejudice to the successful respondent if the injunction were lifted.
Trex India Pvt. Ltd. v.Cde Asia Limited
The dispute originated from a suit for permanent injunction filed by Cde Asia Limited against Trex India Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged infringement of its Patent No. 3072491 and Design No. 2626292 concerning the product 'FM 120 CONEXUS'. The present appeal challenged the Single Judge's order, but the High Court dismissed the appeal on a preliminary objection regarding its maintainability under the Commercial Courts Act.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co. v.Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma filed multiple suits seeking permanent injunction against generic drug manufacturers, including Vee Excel Drugs, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin compounds. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across all connected matters. The court found that the patent was vulnerable to revocation due to prior claiming and noted attempts at evergreening by the patentees. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, leading to the dismissal of all interim injunction applications.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co. v.Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd.
This judgment addresses multiple suits filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma against various Indian pharmaceutical companies, seeking permanent injunctions against infringing Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin tablets. The Delhi High Court examined the prima facie case and found that the patent was vulnerable to revocation due to prior claiming and attempts at evergreening by the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, allowing defendants to manufacture and sell products containing Linagliptin as the active pharmaceutical ingredient.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma sought permanent injunctions against various Indian pharmaceutical companies, alleging infringement of Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin tablets. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across multiple connected suits. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, noting concerns about potential patent vulnerability due to prior claiming and attempts at evergreening. Consequently, all interim injunction applications were dismissed, allowing defendants to continue manufacturing and selling the products.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Mankind Pharma Limited
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma filed multiple suits seeking permanent injunction against Indian pharmaceutical companies for allegedly infringing Patent No. IN 243301, which covers Linagliptin compounds. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across all connected matters. The court found that the suit patent was vulnerable to revocation due to prior claiming and noted attempts by the plaintiffs towards 'evergreening.' Consequently, the court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, allowing defendants to manufacture and sell products containing Linagliptin.
Intex Technologies (India) Ltd v.Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Pub)
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed cross-appeals concerning the validity and infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to telecom technology. The court affirmed that Ericsson's patents were prima facie essential and infringed, finding Intex to be an unwilling licensee. Despite arguments regarding SEPs being unknown in Indian law, the court upheld the necessity of FRAND compliance to ensure parity with global implementers.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited
This judgment addresses multiple suits filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma against various Indian pharmaceutical companies seeking permanent injunctions for infringing Patent No. IN 243301, which covers Linagliptin compounds. The Delhi High Court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for granting interim relief. Furthermore, the court expressed concern regarding the patent's vulnerability due to prior claiming and alleged attempts at 'evergreening.' Consequently, all applications for injunction were dismissed, allowing defendants to continue manufacturing and selling products containing Linagliptin.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited
This judgment addresses multiple suits filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma seeking permanent injunction against various Indian pharmaceutical companies for infringing Patent No. IN 243301, which covers Linagliptin compounds. The court examined the applications for interim injunction and found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. Furthermore, the judge expressed concerns regarding the patent's vulnerability due to prior claiming and alleged attempts at evergreening by the patentees. Consequently, all interim injunction applications were dismissed, allowing the defendants to continue manufacturing and selling products containing Linagliptin.
Loreal India Pvt Ltd v.Rajesh Kumar Taneja Trading As Innovative Derma Care and Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Loreal India Pvt Ltd seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'CLARIWASH' registered in favor of Rajesh Kumar Taneja. Loreal argued that its predecessor used formative marks like 'CLARI-FI' and 'CLARIMOIST' prior to the registration, claiming deceptive similarity and prior use. However, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the original judgment, noting that the application was filed over 14 years ago and procedural errors alone were insufficient basis for cancellation.
Ecomax Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Energeo Building Solutions Llp & Ors.
The dispute concerned alleged patent infringement regarding Ecomax Solutions' Automatic Tube Cleaning System (ATCS) against Energeo Building Solutions' AFCS. The court examined whether the defendants' system infringed the claims of IN 382118. The court found that the AFCS was prima facie dissimilar to the suit patent, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's injunction application.
Tapas Chatterjee v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The appellant challenged the refusal of their Indian Patent Application No. 201911036748 by the Controller on grounds of non-patentability under Section 3(d) and lack of inventive step. The appeal argued that the invention was novel, inventive, and not subject to the bar of Section 3(d). However, the High Court upheld the Controller's refusal.
Astral Ltd v.Ashirvad Pipes Pvt Ltd
Astral Ltd filed a suit against Ashirvad Pipes Pvt Ltd, alleging that the defendant's use of the mark 'CPVC FLOWPRO' infringed upon Astral's reputation associated with its trademark 'CPVC PRO'. The core dispute centered on whether the similarity between the marks created a likelihood of confusion in the market. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for granting an interim injunction.
Jainsons Lights Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trade Marks Registry's decision to refuse registration for 'Jainsons Lights,' finding it deceptively similar to an earlier mark, 'M/s Jainsons Lites.' The court determined that despite the appellant claiming historical use of the name 'Jainson' since 1978, their specific claim of user for the complete subject mark was only from 2014. Since this date is subsequent to the prior mark's established usage in 2005, the appellant could not invoke Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act to overcome the likelihood of public confusion.
Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt Ltd v.V-Guard Industries Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging piracy of registered designs (switch plates). The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation and expunction of these same designs. The plaintiff objected to the maintainability of this counterclaim, arguing that only the Controller of Designs could handle such petitions under the 2000 Designs Act. The court rejected the objection, citing a Supreme Court judgment which reversed the view that cancellation pleas must be filed solely before the Controller.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha M/S Toyota Motor Corporation v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petitions filed by Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha against Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd regarding the trademark 'ALPHARD'. Toyota sought to remove registrations held by the respondent in Classes 9, 12, and 27. The court found that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or reputation for 'ALPHARD' within India, particularly in the specific classes of goods where the respondent was registered. Consequently, the petitions seeking cancellation were dismissed.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha / Toyota Motor Corporation v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petitions filed by Toyota Motor Corporation against Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd. regarding the trademark 'ALPHARD'. Toyota sought to remove registrations held by the respondent in Classes 9, 12, and 27, arguing its global reputation. However, the court found that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or transborder reputation for 'ALPHARD' specifically within India, particularly concerning the goods registered by the respondent. The judgment emphasizes that mere foreign sales are insufficient without evidence of extensive local use and advertising.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha / Toyota Motor Corporation v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petitions filed by Toyota Motor Corporation against Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd. regarding the trademark 'ALPHARD'. Toyota sought to remove registrations held by the respondent in Classes 9, 12, and 27, arguing its global reputation. However, the court found that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or transborder reputation for 'ALPHARD' specifically within India, particularly concerning the goods registered by the respondent. The judgment emphasizes that mere foreign sales are insufficient without evidence of extensive local use and advertising.
Apar Industries Limited v.Sh Rummy Chhabra
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark infringement dispute involving the mark "VELLO." Although initially facing an ex-parte injunction against using the mark, Apar Industries Limited voluntarily acknowledged that 'VELO' belonged exclusively to Sh Rummy Chhabra. The court accepted detailed undertakings from Apar, which included ceasing all use of the mark, withdrawing its pending trademark application, and selling off existing stock within a year. Consequently, the underlying suit was decreed based on these mutual commitments.
Subway Ip Llc v.Infinity Food & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff Subway IP LLC's request for an interim injunction against Infinity Food & Ors. The court found that despite initial allegations of trademark infringement and passing off (using similar names like 'VEGGIE DELICIOUS'), there was no likelihood of confusion among consumers, especially given the reputation of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court clarified that similarity in restaurant décor or layout alone does not grant a monopoly under Indian law, leading to the dismissal of the injunction request.
Corza International And Ors v.Future Bath Products Pvt Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring the plaintiff in a trademark dispute concerning the marks 'CORZA' and 'CORSA'. Despite arguments from the appellants regarding geographical limitations and product differences, the court found prima facie phonetic, structural, and visual similarity between the two marks. The judgment reinforces that registered proprietors can sue other registered proprietors for deceptive similarity, even if they are both registered owners.
M/S Sana Herbals Pvt Ltd v.Mohsin Dehlvi
The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant's application to frame additional issues in a trademark infringement suit. The court recognized that despite previous procedural hurdles, the pleadings raised valid questions concerning the invalidity of the plaintiff's 'DEHLVI' trademarks and the legal standing of an alleged Assignment Deed. Crucially, the judgment noted that under the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, rectification petitions can now be clubbed with civil suits, eliminating the need for a stay on the main litigation.
Diageo Brands B.V. v.Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt Ltd
Diageo Brands B.V. filed an application seeking injunction against Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt Ltd, alleging piracy of their registered Design No. 306577. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's product design was a fraudulent imitation of Diageo's protected design. The court examined complex issues regarding the scope of novelty analysis versus infringement analysis and the appropriate 'eye' (instructed vs. ordinary purchaser) for comparison. Ultimately, the court found that the distinguishing features used to establish the suit design's originality also differentiated it from the defendant's impugned design, leading to the dismissal of the injunction application.
M/S Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Veda Seed Sciences against an interim trademark infringement order. The court affirmed that Kohinoor Seed Fields was the prior adopter and registrant of the marks 'SADANAND', 'TADAAKHA', and 'BASANT'. Despite Veda's later registration, the court found their use was dishonest, stemming from a marketing agreement where they acknowledged ownership by Kohinoor. The injunction restraining Veda from using these trademarks remains in effect.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Intas Pharmaceutical Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Sun Pharma's appeal against the denial of an interim injunction concerning pharmaceutical trademarks. The court held that since both parties are generic drug manufacturers launching products after patent expiry, and given the similarity of the marks is based on active ingredients, there were no strong equities in favor of either party at this preliminary stage. Furthermore, the appellant's registered mark had not been used for over twenty-four years, which weighed against granting immediate protection.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation appealed an order that rejected its application for a permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited. FMC alleged that Natco's process for manufacturing Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR) infringed their patented method IN 298645, claiming equivalence between the processes. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no infringement because the use of thionyl chloride by Natco was not equivalent to sulfonyl chloride in the suit patent.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendants for alleged infringement and passing off of its medicinal goods under the marks 'SITARED' and 'SETARET', claiming similarity with the defendant's mark 'SITARA-D'. The court found that prima facie, the two marks were not phonetically or visually similar, and dismissed the application for an interim injunction.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for dealing in generic APIXABAN infringing Indian Patent No. IN'247381. The dispute centered on whether the defendants' continued activities, such as participating in tenders and authorizing distributors post-injunction, constituted willful disobedience or contempt of court.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd
Nokia, holding several patents deemed Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) for cellular technologies (2G-5G), filed an application seeking directions against Oppo. The dispute centered on whether Oppo's use of these patented standards required licensing under FRAND terms. The court dismissed Nokia's application, finding insufficient evidence to establish liability or justify the interim relief sought.
M/S Gulab Oil And Food (Ahmedabad) Pvt. Ltd. v.Smt. Madhu Gupta
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S Gulab Oil And Food, upholding the District Judge's interim order that prohibited the appellant from trading and selling 'Gulab' Namkeen products. The court found a prima facie case for confusion between the marks, noting that consumers identify the plaintiff's products solely by asking for 'Gulab.' Furthermore, it held that since namkeen is an allied product to the registered goods (Gajak/Rewari), Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act was attracted, thus justifying the interim protection.
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.