Defendant Favorable
494 defendant favorable decisions from Delhi High Court.
Defendant Favorable Decisions
494 cases | Page 6 of 17
M/S Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.M/S Mindwave Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/S Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd.'s appeal, upholding a Commercial Court order that restrained Maan from using the trademark 'BUPROEX'. The court found that Mindwave Healthcare was the registered proprietor of the mark and that evidence suggested Maan acted as a third-party manufacturer or contract manufacturer. This ruling reinforces the principle that registration rights hold significant weight against claims of prior use by manufacturers, especially when correspondence supports the relationship.
Apaar Homez Mart Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Century World
The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court's order restraining Apaar Homez Mart from using its trademark 'SEPAL' combined with 'Century'. The court found that M/S. Century World had successfully established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting the significant increase in the respondent's turnover and the appellant's recent adoption of the mark. This judgment reinforces the principle that if an appellant cannot provide a plausible reason for using a potentially common term like 'Century,' they risk being found to be capitalizing on the goodwill of an established competitor.
M/S Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v.Union Of India & Others
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals challenging an IPAB order that directed the cancellation of its registered trademark 'VEGA ASIA'. The court upheld the IPAB's finding regarding prior use by the respondent, noting that while the petitioner argued for earlier adoption and assignment rights, the evidence presented by the respondent was sufficient to establish their claim of user since 2001. This ruling underscores the strict adherence required when challenging rectification orders before a High Court.
Kamdhenu Limited v.Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd
Kamdhenu Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design for surface patterns on steel rods. The core dispute revolved around whether this design was novel, as Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd contended that the pattern was derived from an existing British Standard (BS4449-2005). The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed Kamdhenu's appeal, holding that since the standard prescribed the specific surface pattern for identifying a steel grade, the design lacked originality and was incapable of registration.
T. V. Today Network Limited v.News Laundry Media Private Limited
T. V. Today Network Limited, a major media group operating channels like AajTak and India Today Television, filed a suit seeking relief against News Laundry Media Private Limited for alleged infringement of its content. The plaintiff sought an interim mandatory injunction to prevent further dissemination of allegedly defamatory and infringing material. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that since the plaintiff could be compensated with damages (quantified at Rs. 2 crores), there was no irreparable loss warranting immediate injunctive relief.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This judgment addresses applications filed by Respondent No.2 (Patentee) seeking dismissal of revocation petitions on the grounds of being time-barred. The court held that since no specific limitation is prescribed for revocation under Section 64, a three-year limitation period cannot be read into the provision. Furthermore, interim stay applications were dismissed as the patent was already granted and injunctions had been granted elsewhere.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This judgment addresses applications filed by Respondent No.2 seeking dismissal of revocation petitions concerning patent IN 243301 (Linagliptin) on the grounds that they were time-barred. The Court held that since no specific limitation period is prescribed for revocation under Section 64, a three-year limitation period cannot be read into the provision.
Provident Housing Ltd v.Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed Provident Housing Ltd's appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order that restrained its use of 'Provident Central Park'. The court found that the appellant's mark was deceptively similar to the respondents' registered trademarks, particularly because 'CENTRAL PARK' is a prominent feature in the respondent's marks. While clarifying that no exclusive right exists over the generic words 'CENTRAL PARK', the judgment affirmed that copying this prominent portion of a device mark constitutes infringement.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Hetero Labs Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound Alectinib used in cancer treatment. The dispute centered on whether the Defendant's import and use of Alectinib Hydrochloride were commercial infringements or activities permitted under Section 107A (Bolar provision) for research and regulatory purposes.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim appealed the Controller's rejection of a divisional patent application related to DPP-IV inhibitors. The core dispute centered on whether the parent application contained a 'plurality of inventions' sufficient to support the new product claims sought in the divisional filing. The Delhi High Court ultimately rejected the appeal, holding that since the original application only contained method or use claims and not distinct product claims, the subsequent introduction of such products was considered disclaimed. Consequently, the divisional application could not proceed.
Shakthi Fashion & Anr. v.Burberry Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to reject a plaint based on territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement suit. The court examined whether the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction, considering both past incidents in Bangalore and ongoing activities in New Delhi. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claims regarding online sales (IndiaMart) and local solicitation in Delhi, the High Court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, stating that the question of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence at trial.
Sudhir Bhatia Trading As V.Bhatia International v.Central Government Of India & Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a challenge to the registration of the trademark 'LAXMAN REKHA' by arguing that the initial advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal was illegible. The petitioner sought to quash the advertisement and compel re-advertisement, claiming this error prejudiced their ability to file an opposition. However, the court ultimately dismissed the petition, emphasizing that while the Registrar has a duty to ensure proper advertising, the petitioner's significant delay in challenging the registration—despite learning of the issue years earlier—precluded the High Court from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Jagran Prakashan Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
Jagran Prakashan Limited appealed the abandonment of its trademark application for 'JAGRAN' in Class 12, which was initiated due to non-filing of a reply to the Examination Report (FER). The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had approached the court too belatedly. Despite acknowledging the appellant's existing rights in related marks, the court held that the delay in responding to the FER and filing the present appeal was too long to be condoned.
Elcom Innovation Pvt Ltd v.Harish Sharma & Ors.
Elcom Innovation Pvt. Ltd. filed suit seeking permanent injunction against its erstwhile employee and shareholder, Harish Sharma, alleging misuse and disclosure of proprietary sensitive and highly confidential information/data. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent further leakage of this IP. However, the court dismissed both applications, finding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction due to the vagueness of the claimed confidential information.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
This judgment addressed an application seeking dismissal of a patent revocation petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The court examined Section 64 of the Patents Act and the concept of a 'person interested'.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Controller Of Patents And Design
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201617023236) for a solid preparation containing Tofogliflozin in monohydrate crystal form. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and falling under Section 3(d) because it was merely a new use/form of a known drug without enhanced efficacy.
Red Bull Ag v.Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Red Bull's application for an interim injunction against Pepsico India Holdings regarding the use of the tagline 'STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY.' by their product STING. The court found that both taglines are descriptive and laudatory in nature, meaning the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case at this stage. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favored the defendants given their long-standing market presence with the tagline.
Kores (India) Limited v.Doms Industries Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging an order that rejected the request to frame additional issues in a trademark infringement suit. The core dispute involved whether Kores' product infringed Doms' registered trademarks for 'DOMS NEON' pencils. While acknowledging the defendant's need to challenge the validity of the registrations, the court ultimately upheld the Commercial Court's decision regarding the immediate framing of additional issues, noting that all issues related to trademark validity must be dealt with by a specialized Tribunal (under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act) and not the civil court.
Black Diamond Trackparts Private Limited v.Black Diamond Motors Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Black Diamond Trackparts Private Limited challenging an order from the Commercial Court. The court upheld the necessity of protecting the registered trademark 'BLACK DIAMOND' during pending litigation, despite previous rulings that allowed both parties to use the mark under specific conditions. The judgment emphasized the limited scope of Article 227 jurisdiction and affirmed the court's power to issue protective directions regarding goods release and security deposits.
Mr. Sanjay Chadha Trading As Eveready Tools Emporium and Another v.Union Of India And Another
The Delhi High Court upheld the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to cancel a registered trademark. The petitioners, who owned the 'EVEREADY' word mark for hand tools, challenged its removal by the respondent, Eveready Industries India Limited. However, the court found that the IPAB had thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that the petitioners' adoption and use of the mark were dishonest and lacked continuous user. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the importance of maintaining the purity of the trademark register.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
This case involves a Review Petition filed by Defendants No. 1 & 2 against an earlier order passed by the Delhi High Court. The defendants challenged the court's directions requiring them to produce third-party agreements, arguing that these documents were irrelevant to determining the essentiality of the suit patents and constituted an erroneous understanding of the facts.
Hamdard National Foundation (India) v.Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an ad interim injunction against Sadar Laboratories, which was seeking protection for its well-known trademark 'Rooh Afza'. The court found that while 'Rooh Afza' may be a strong mark, the defendant's use of 'Dil Afza' did not necessarily cause consumer confusion, especially given the long history and peaceful co-existence of similar marks in the pharmaceutical market. However, the defendant was directed to maintain detailed sales accounts during the pendency of the suit.
Eli Lilly And Company & Ors. v.Bryan Pharmaceuticals Through Its Proprietor Mr. Laxmi Kand Pal / Navneet Kand Pal & Ors.
In this pharmaceutical dispute, Eli Lilly sued several companies for marketing its patented compound Baricitinib under a brand name ('Barinat') for rheumatoid arthritis, allegedly breaching licensing agreements that restricted use solely to COVID-19 treatment. The court addressed an application by one defendant (Defendant No. 11), who claimed the marketing was an inadvertent error and no sales had occurred. After the defendant provided undertakings not to market or sell the drug for any ailment other than COVID-19, the plaintiff agreed that no cause of action survived against this specific defendant, leading to its removal from the suit.
Vikas Gupta & Anr v.M/S Sahni Cosmetics
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's decision, confirming an injunction that allowed M/S Sahni Cosmetics to continue using the trademark 'NEHA' for face cream. The court prioritized the defendant's established prior use of the mark dating back to 2003 over the plaintiff's claims, despite arguments regarding regulatory compliance under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating long-standing market presence in trademark disputes.
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.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Sms Pharmaceuticals Limited
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking an injunction against Sms Pharmaceuticals Limited for infringing its patent on Sitagliptin, an anti-diabetic drug. The court initially granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Merck. However, upon considering the defendant's request under Section 107A (Bolar exemption), the court modified the injunction to allow limited export of the API for research and development purposes.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Zydus Healthcare Limited & Anr., Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, Micro Labs Limited, MSN Laboratories Private Limited, Eris Lifesciences Limited, USV Private Limited, Ajanta Pharma Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses multiple appeals filed by AstraZeneca seeking interim relief to restrain various pharmaceutical companies from infringing its patents. The core issue revolved around whether AstraZeneca was entitled to an immediate injunction while the underlying suits for permanent injunction were pending. The court ultimately dismissed all nine appeals, finding no merit in the appellants' claims.
Willowood Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Indo-Swiss Chemicals Ltd & Anr.
The defendants filed an application seeking permission from the court to sell their existing stock of a fungicidal composition, which was previously restrained by an ex-parte injunction. The plaintiff strongly opposed this request, arguing that the defendants had continued manufacturing and selling the infringing product despite being aware of the patent rights and prior objections. The court dismissed the application.
M/S. Golden Tobie Private Limited v.M/S. Golden Tobacco Limited
M/S. Golden Tobie Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against M/S. Golden Tobacco Limited, alleging wrongful cancellation of an exclusive trademark license agreement. The core dispute revolved around the interpretation and validity of the termination notices issued by the defendant. However, the court ultimately ruled that since the controversy primarily arose from contractual terms rather than statutory infringement, the matter was subject to arbitration as per the existing clause in the agreements.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Apple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute concerning the trademarks 'UNOCAL' and related products. The plaintiff, Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited, had previously obtained an ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with litigation in the United States. However, the court ultimately allowed the vacation of this injunction. The ruling emphasized that Indian courts should not restrain parties from seeking protection against perceived infringement in foreign jurisdictions unless those proceedings are oppressive or vexatious to the domestic case.
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.