Defendant Favorable
507 defendant favorable decisions from Delhi High Court.
Defendant Favorable Decisions
507 cases | Page 8 of 17
M/S Ever Bake v.M/S Everbake Bakers Private Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/S Ever Bake's petition challenging the rejection of its application to dismiss a trademark infringement suit. The respondent, M/S Everbake Bakers Private Ltd., had filed a suit claiming violation of their registered 'EVER BAKE' trademark. Although the petitioner argued lack of territorial jurisdiction because they operated in Assam, the Court upheld the trial court's decision. Citing Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the High Court found that since the respondent's registered office was in Delhi, the suit was correctly filed within the proper jurisdiction.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for its patented drug, Ceritinib. Natco Pharma challenged this by relying on an order from the Controller revoking the patent due to lack of novelty. The Court ultimately held that since the patent was revoked, the infringement action could not be maintained, suspending the existing interim manufacturing restraint.
Astrazeneca Ab v.P Kumar & Anr
Astrazeneca filed suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for marketing generic versions of TICAGRELOR, claiming infringement of three Indian Patents (IN 907, IN 984, IN 674). The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff could secure an interim injunction while the patents faced credible challenges to their validity. The court ultimately found that since the defendants raised strong questions rendering the patent vulnerable, the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction.
Superon Schweisstechnik India Limited v.D & H India Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging an order that allowed a plaintiff's application to amend their plaint. The plaintiff sought to introduce facts regarding the earlier use of the trademark SUPERON by its parent group, Stanvac Chemicals India Limited, dating back to 1994. Despite arguments from the defendant claiming grave prejudice due to the change in user date, the court upheld the amendment order. The judgment emphasized that at the stage of considering an amendment, the court must not delve into the merits or correctness of the claims, provided the amendment is necessary for proper adjudication and is bona fide.
Mrf Limited. v.Metro Tyres Limited.
Mrf Limited filed a suit alleging that Metro Tyres Limited infringed its copyright by producing a similar advertisement for their tyres. The plaintiff claimed the defendant's ad was a substantial and material copy of their original cinematic work. However, the Delhi High Court found that after applying the R.G. Anand test, the two advertisements were neither substantially nor materially similar in substance or kernel. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Aqualite India Ltd.
Relaxo Footwears Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Aqualite India Ltd. for allegedly infringing its registered footwear design No.294938. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's product was an obvious or fraudulent imitation of the plaintiff's protected design. During the interim application, the court directed a market survey which revealed numerous third-party products with near identical designs available in the market.
Elder Projects Ltd. & Anr. v.Elder Pharmacia Llp & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit filed by Elder Projects Ltd. against Elder Pharmacia LLP, finding that the claim of passing off lacked a genuine cause of action. The court relied heavily on evidence provided by the plaintiff's Managing Director, which revealed that the plaintiff had previously claimed rights over the 'ELDER' trademark based on mistaken advice and was not the registered proprietor. Consequently, the interim ex-parte injunction granted to the plaintiff was vacated, marking a significant setback for Elder Projects Ltd.
Surya Food And Agro Limited v.Om Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Surya Food And Agro Limited's suit against Om Traders and others, which alleged passing off based on similar packaging trade dress. The court found that despite the plaintiff's claims regarding distinctive packaging for 'BUTTER DELITE,' there was no sufficient similarity or likelihood of confusion with the defendant's product, 'BUTTER KRUNCH.' The judgment emphasized consumer perception principles (Gestalt Psychology), concluding that consumers recall products holistically rather than focusing on minute details of the packaging.
Achla Sabharwal v.A. Saptrishi Films & Ors.
This appeal challenged an order directing the plaintiff's plaint back to be filed in a competent jurisdiction. The core dispute revolved around the exclusive ownership and jurisdiction rights concerning the film 'BETI No.1'. While the appellant claimed sole copyright ownership based on an agreement, the respondents relied heavily on a clause stipulating that all disputes must be heard exclusively by courts in Mumbai. The Delhi High Court ultimately upheld the trial court's order.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh And Anr v.Symed Laboratories Ltd
The execution petition sought to enforce a consent decree from 2015, which restricted Symed Laboratories Ltd from commercially exploiting RIVAROXABAN. The plaintiff later learned that the defendant had obtained a commercial license and made exports. The court addressed jurisdictional objections before disposing of the petition.
Ngk Spark Plug Co. Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ngk Spark Plug Co. Ltd. sought to rectify the corporate name of NTK Bearings Private Limited, arguing that the company's use of 'NTK' infringed upon Ngk's registered trademark. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, upholding the Regional Director's rejection. The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory limitations, finding that the petitioner failed to act diligently and waited too long after becoming aware of the opposition and subsequent rejections.
M/S Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India Ltd & Ors
Crocs Inc filed multiple suits alleging infringement of its registered designs (No.197685 and No.197686) by various defendants, including Bata India Ltd. Crocs claimed exclusive rights over the unique shape and pattern of its footwear designs, supported by extensive global trade and goodwill. The present appeal challenged the dismissal of Crocs' applications in these pending suits. However, the High Court dismissed the appeals, directing that all related suits be listed together for further proceedings.
Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente v.Uoi & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs' decision to refuse examination and treat his patent application as withdrawn due to a delay in filing Form-18 (request for examination). The court examined the relevant sections of the Patents Act, 1970, and held that since the request was made outside the prescribed time limit based on the earlier date (priority date), the petition lacked merit.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie v.Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie filed a suit alleging that Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd. was infringing his registered copyright in the artistic work titled 'HIMLAYAN HELI SERVICES'. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was illegally using his pictorial representation on various business materials. However, the court examined the history of the company and its logo design, finding evidence suggesting the defendant's original creation and use of the insignia, particularly incorporating the symbol of 'Dorje', leading to the dismissal of the application against the plaintiff.
Kama Ayurveda Private Limited v.Rwl Healthworld Ltd. & Ors
Kama Ayurveda sought an interim injunction against Rwl Healthworld, alleging that the defendant's product packaging was deceptively similar to its own 'Eladi Hydrating Ayurvedic Face Cream,' thereby constituting passing off. The Delhi High Court examined both products and found material distinctions in shape, color scheme (gold/cream vs. white/off-white), and floral patterns. Ultimately, the court concluded that a common purchaser would not be misled, dismissing the plaintiff's application for an interim order.
Biofarma v.Bal Pharma Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed Biofarma's suit against Bal Pharma Limited concerning passing off and trade dress infringement. The court found that the plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights over the term 'MEX' because it was an acronym ('Metformin Extended Release') derived from the principal drug ingredient, rendering it descriptive and publici juris in the pharmaceutical trade. Consequently, the defendant was permitted to continue using the mark without infringing on the plaintiff’s established brand.
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/S Arora Sationers
This case involves a dispute over design rights concerning a pen. The defendants filed an application seeking to amend their written statement, claiming that they had subsequently received a Certificate of Registration for Design No. 282909 in Class 19-06. The plaintiffs opposed the amendment, arguing it was mutually destructive and that the trial had already commenced. However, the court allowed the amendment, finding that the registration was a subsequent development and not fundamentally contradictory to the earlier pleas.
Pankaj Sales Corporation v.Indra Jain Industries
The Delhi High Court dismissed an execution petition filed by Pankaj Sales Corporation against Indra Jain Industries. The dispute centered on whether the judgment debtor was violating a consensual decree related to trademark use. The court ruled that while the defendant was bound by the settlement agreement regarding specific registered trademarks (TRISHUL/TRIDENT and TRISHUL), the plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights over an unreferenced label design presented in the execution petition. Consequently, the attempt to enforce the alleged violation failed.
M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd v.M/S Kamdhenu Ltd
This appeal addressed an interim injunction sought by Kamdhenu Ltd against M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd for alleged infringement of a registered design on TMT steel bars. Kamdhenu claimed its unique surface pattern was protected, while Aashiana argued that the design merely replicated a widely accepted British Standard (BS 4449:2005). The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the injunction, finding that Kamdhenu's registration was suspect because it relied on a commonly applicable standard available in the public domain.
Global Car Group Pte. Limited & Anr v.Droom Technology Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute over alleged disparagement between Cars24 (Plaintiffs) and Droom Technology (Defendants). Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant's advertising campaign, which used similar catchphrases and visual elements, was designed to denigrate their brand. However, the court found that the defendant had sufficiently modified its advertisement and that the phrase 'DON’T BE A BAKRA' was an integral part of the defendant's registered trademark, not a disparaging reference to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court allowed the defendant to continue using the revised advertisement during the pendency of the suit.
Galderma S.A And Anr v.Medsea Healthcare Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application seeking a summary dismissal of the trademark infringement suit. The court noted that while the plaintiffs had assigned their rights to the mark Q-MED, the timing and effect of this assignment were complex and required full trial evidence. Given the ongoing dispute over ownership changes and alleged concealment, the court ruled that the core issues could not be resolved summarily, allowing the main litigation to proceed.
Citicorp Business & Financial Services Pvt Ltd v.Citi Group Inc & Anr
This appeal challenged a single judge's order that had attached the bank accounts of Citicorp Business & Financial Services Pvt Ltd due to non-compliance with previous injunction orders regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no statutory provision for an appeal against such an order under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's subsequent failure to comply with a one-month compliance statement made before the judge demonstrated bad faith.
Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt Ltd v.Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt Ltd challenging a prior order that confirmed an ex parte interim injunction. The court upheld the injunction, finding that the respondent's registered trademark 'Doctor Brand Phenyle' had acquired distinctiveness and was associated with its phenyl disinfectant product. Despite the appellants' claims of rights via assignment deeds, the court found their use of 'Doctor Hazel' to be infringing, while allowing them to continue using 'Chemist brand germ troll.'
Rajesh Kalra v.Safeops. Surgical Care & Anr
Rajesh Kalra filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Safeops. Surgical Care and others for infringing his registered design of 'Pre-Cut Eye Drape'. The plaintiff claimed novelty in the unique shape and configuration, which included a pre-cut aperture for surgical use. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, finding that the core feature—the pre-cut aperture—was purely functional and dictated by utility rather than aesthetic appeal.
Christian Louboutin Sas v.Abubaker & Ors.
Christian Louboutin Sas filed a suit against Abubaker & Ors., alleging trademark infringement and passing off based on its registered mark 'RED SOLE,' which refers to the red color applied to ladies footwear soles. The core dispute centered on whether this specific color shade could be protected as a trademark, especially when the defendants were using their own wordmark 'VERONICA.' The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that the use of a single color does not qualify as a trademark under relevant provisions and that Section 30(2)(a) disentitled the plaintiff from claiming infringement or passing off.
Balbir Singh & Company v.Mex Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of a district court in New Delhi. The petitioner challenged the suit filed by the respondent on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction. However, the court held that the plaint's averment that the defendant was clandestinely selling infringing goods within Delhi was sufficient to confer jurisdiction under both the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act. Consequently, the petition seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed.
Pradeep Sharma & Anr v.UPL Ltd
The petitioner challenged an order restraining him from infringing the respondent's patents related to synergistic herbicidal compositions (Metsulfuron Methyl and Sulfosulfuron). The dispute centered on whether the composition used by the appellant fell within the scope of the plaintiff's patented claims. The court ultimately upheld the Single Judge's finding that prima facie, the defendant's product was covered by the suit patent.
Superon Schweisstechnik India Limited v.Modi Hitech India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by Superon Schweisstechnik India Limited against Modi Hitech India Ltd. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the trademark VAC-PAC for welding electrodes, arguing it was an arbitrary and fanciful mark. However, the court found that the abbreviation 'VAC-PAC' derived from descriptive terms (Vacuum Packaging) could not be protected as a trademark. Citing settled law, the court ruled that the suit constituted an abuse of process of law and dismissed it with significant costs imposed on the plaintiff.
Ashoka Distillers & Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Ads Spirits Pvt Ltd
Ashoka Distillers & Chemicals Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Ads Spirits Pvt Ltd seeking permanent injunction and damages for trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off related to country liquor. The defendant argued that since the impugned product was restricted and sold only within Haryana, the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The court agreed with the defense, finding that both parties operated in Haryana, thus necessitating filing the suit in a competent court there.
M/S. Epsilon Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v.Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the renewal of the trademark 'LOKPRIYA EASY NOTES.' The court held that despite procedural lapses, such as a delay in payment of surcharge, the Trademark Registry was entitled to grant the renewal because the application was filed within the statutory six-month grace period. This judgment emphasizes that strict adherence to procedure should not automatically invalidate a registration when the core requirements are met.
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.