Mixed Decisions
312 cases | Page 4 of 11
Ttk Prestige Ltd. v.Gupta Light House
Ttk Prestige Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Gupta Light House infringed its registered cooker design (Registration No. 197906). The court found the plaintiff's design valid and maintainable, rejecting the defendant's claims regarding lack of novelty or prior publication. However, the court ruled against granting permanent injunction or delivery up of goods because the design had expired on September 13, 2019. Ultimately, the suit was decreed in favor of Ttk Prestige Ltd., directing the defendant to render accounts of earnings and awarding costs.
Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt Ltd. v.Mohammad Akil And Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark infringement case following a comprehensive settlement between Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt Ltd. and Mohammad Akil And Anr. The respondent acknowledged the petitioner's exclusive rights in LIVFAST/ and agreed to cease using confusingly similar marks like LEFAST/. Crucially, the court directed the Trade Marks Registry to forthwith cancel two specific registrations (4059607 and 4380874) in favor of the respondent, finalizing the dispute while allowing a grace period for existing stock exhaustion.
Mhg Ip Holdings (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Mhg Ip Holdings challenging the refusal of registration for its mark 'TIVOLI'. The Appellant argued that it had used the mark globally since 1933, establishing significant prior adoption. Recognizing this extensive global usage, the court invoked Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing for honest concurrent use. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar, directing a fresh review considering the Appellant's long-standing reputation.
Tata Sky Limited (later Tata Play Limited) v.Linkedin Corporation And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Sky against LinkedIn concerning unauthorized use of the 'TATA SKY' brand on user profiles. Recognizing the recurring nature of fake and infringing profiles, the court issued specific directions to LinkedIn. These directions mandate that LinkedIn publicly disclose its Grievance Officer details, relevant policies, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) related to handling such grievances under the IT Rules, aiming to establish an effective framework for redressal without requiring constant litigation.
Jindal Industries Pvt Ltd v.Prawesh Agencies Through Its Partners Vikash Singh Ravindra Kumar Singh
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit where the defendant claimed a co-branding arrangement with an affiliate of the plaintiff's group. The court found that the plaintiff failed to disclose this vital co-branding agreement in their plaint, despite being required to attest to full disclosure under the Commercial Courts Act. Consequently, the court noted the breach of procedural rules and directed the plaintiff to place the relevant agreement on record before further proceedings.
Modern Foods Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed cross-suits concerning the identical mark 'MODERN' used in the FMCG sector. While acknowledging that the plaintiff (Modern Foods) was a prior adopter of the mark, the court granted an interim injunction with significant caveats. The defendant (Modern Snacks) is restrained from expanding its product range using 'MODERN', but is allowed to continue using it on existing labels and registered goods. This decision balances the rights of both parties while preserving the status quo pending final determination.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft challenged the Assistant Controller's decision rejecting its patent application for a network authentication system under Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, arguing that the invention provided a genuine technical solution to security problems. The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection based on the flawed interpretation of 'computer program per se,' emphasizing that an algorithm should not be automatically excluded if it offers a tangible technical contribution. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Controller for re-examination regarding novelty and inventive step.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors.
In this case concerning online trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court delivered a mixed judgment based on joint compromises and ex-parte proceedings. The court decreed the suit in favor of Sirona Hygiene Private Limited against Defendant No. 1 (Flipkart) based on agreed compromise terms. Furthermore, it mandated specific takedown procedures for Defendant No. 2 (Amazon) to address unauthorized use of Sirona's trademarks. Finally, an injunction was passed against other sellers (Defendants Nos. 3-13) who were found to be passing off counterfeit goods.
Rosemount Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Rosemount Inc appealed a rejection order passed by the Controller of Patents regarding its application for a 'Process Device with Density Measurement.' The Controller had rejected the patent citing lack of inventive steps based on prior art. However, the Delhi High Court found that the Controller's impugned order was cryptic and failed to provide adequate reasoning or analyze the three essential elements required to determine inventive step. Consequently, the High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration with a mandate for a reasoned decision.
Bpi Sports Llc v.Saurabh Gulati & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark opposition case involving Bpi Sports Llc and Saurabh Gulati. Despite initial claims of non-service, the court found that Respondent No.1 had been served through multiple modes (speed post, email, mobile), leading to him being proceeded against ex parte. Crucially, the court mandated that a status quo be maintained regarding Trademark Registration No. 4422891 for the mark 'BPI SPORTS', preventing any assignment or license during the pendency of the matter.
Mrs X v.Union Of India And Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a writ petition filed by 'Mrs. X' seeking the removal of her non-consensual intimate images (NCII) from various online platforms. The case details how Mrs. X was victimized after being coerced into paying money, leading to the leakage of explicit photos and videos on pornographic websites. Despite complaints to social media giants like Google and Microsoft, the content remained online. The Court emphasized the need for robust mechanisms to protect victims' privacy and dignity in a patriarchal society. While acknowledging existing legal frameworks under the IT Act, the judgment highlighted the reluctance of intermediaries in implementing these laws effectively. The court issued directions urging all concerned entities to comply with the stipulated provisions.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Parulben Navnath Chothani Trading As Shiv Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court recorded a settlement between the Plaintiff, Sirona Hygiene Private Limited, and Defendant No. 1 in a trademark infringement suit concerning its 'SIRONA' brand. The settlement acknowledged Sirona's rights in both its registered mark and product packaging copyright. As part of the agreement, the infringing party agreed to cease using similar marks like 'SIROMA' and paid Rs. 65,000/-. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1, who was then deleted from the array of parties.
Vaibhav Chaurasia v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Vaibhav Chaurasia seeking directions against the Union of India regarding the status of Trade Mark No. 2650542. The petitioner had applied for the substitution of his name as the proprietor following an assignment from M/s Delicious Food Products Pvt Ltd. Recognizing the limited nature of the grievance, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process and decide the application within a period of six weeks.
Sanjay Mehra v.Sharad Mehra & Ors.
This suit was filed by Sanjay Mehra seeking permanent injunction against Sharad Mehra & Ors. for alleged infringement and passing off related to the 'SUPERON' trademark and associated intellectual property rights. The core dispute revolved around the division of business assets, including IP, between two groups (SM Group and SDM Group) as per a Memorandum of Family Settlement (MOFS). Although the Plaintiff argued jurisdiction over the matter, the Court ultimately found that arbitration was the intended forum for resolving disputes arising from the MOFS and Sale Deed.
Ace Technologies Corp & Ors. v.Communication Components Antenna Inc.
This appeal challenged an interim injunction granted by the Delhi High Court, which restrained Ace Technologies Corp from manufacturing and selling antennae due to alleged infringement of Patent IN240893. The respondent claimed its patent covered a novel asymmetrical beam pattern for fixed antennas used in cellular networks. While the court found no grounds to interfere with the core interim relief, it modified the financial compliance terms, allowing the respondents to deposit a bank guarantee instead of cash.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim injunctive relief regarding trademark infringement in the pharmaceutical sector. The court found prima facie substance in Glaxo Group Limited's claim against Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning the marks BETNOMAID and MEDNOVATE, ruling that these were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks (BETNESOL/BETNOVATE). Consequently, an injunction was granted restraining the defendant from using these specific marks pending the final suit. However, the court declined to grant an injunction against the mark BETASON.
Fdc India (Franchise Development Consulting India) v.FDC Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order that allowed the amendment of a plaint. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff was correcting a mere factual error—mistakenly stating pending trademarks as registered—or making a substantive change. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court upheld the legality of allowing the amendment but simultaneously balanced the equities by directing that the specific details provided in the amended plaint regarding the nature and status of the marks must be considered when deciding related applications like perjury pleas or stay vacation.
Purushottam Singhal Proprietor Ms. Prime Cable Industries v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the proper service of an objection notice related to a trademark application. The core issue was whether the appellant (Purushottam Singhal Proprietor Ms. Prime Cable Industries) actually received the notice sent by the Registrar of Trade Marks, who claimed it was delivered to their agent. Given the conflicting claims regarding service, the Court decided not to rule immediately.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design, 'PEE BUDDY', by Defendant 7, which was manufacturing an identical device under the name 'NAMYAA'. The core dispute centered on whether the defendant's product constituted piracy of the plaintiff's certified design. While the court found the designs to be identical, subsequent proceedings led to a settlement with one key defendant (Defendant 2), resulting in a decree sheet being drawn up for that party.
Pandrol Limited & Anr. v.Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Pandrol Limited, who filed a suit alleging infringement of its copyright and trademark. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction by appointing a Local Commissioner with broad powers to seize infringing products and gather evidence from the defendants' premises.
Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society v.Delhi Public School Society
This case involved a dispute between Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society (AEWCS) and Delhi Public School Society (DPSS) following the termination of their Joint Venture Agreement (JVA). The core issues revolved around whether AEWCS could continue operating as 'Delhi Public School, Sahibabad' using DPSS's name and logos after the JVA ended. While AEWCS challenged the arbitrary nature of the termination, the court found the contractual clause binding. However, addressing public interest, the Court issued a directive requiring DPSS to issue public notices clarifying that students enrolled at DPS Sahibabad would be entitled to admissions in other regional schools.
Aviral Education Welfare and Cultural Society v.Delhi Public School Society
This case involved a dispute arising from the termination of a Joint Venture Agreement between Aviral Education Welfare and Cultural Society (AEWCS) and Delhi Public School Society (DPSS). Following the termination, AEWCS continued operating as 'Delhi Public School, Sahibabad,' leading to concurrent litigation regarding trademark and copyright infringement. The court addressed both the contractual dispute and the IP misuse, ultimately finding that while the termination clause was binding, the public needed clarity regarding the school's affiliation status.
Sunit Shah v.Sunshine Food Products
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a lower court's decision regarding the trademark 'HOT MIX'. While the appellant argued that the mark had acquired distinctiveness, the High Court agreed with the trial court's initial finding that 'HOT MIX' is descriptive of the namkeen product. However, recognizing the need for justice, the Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the remaining proceedings and decide the suit promptly.
Ttk Prestige Ltd v.K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors
Ttk Prestige Ltd filed a suit against K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors alleging trademark infringement and passing off concerning its registered brand 'PRESTIGE'. The court granted temporary relief, restraining Defendants No. 2 and 3 from manufacturing or selling products using the disputed mark until the next hearing date. This interim order protects the plaintiff's established market reputation while the full merits of the case are examined.
Winzo Games Private Limited v.Google Llc
The Delhi High Court framed several key issues in the dispute between Winzo Games Private Limited and Google LLC regarding a warning displayed on Chrome Mobile Browser. The core questions revolve around whether this warning constitutes disparagement of WinZO's trademarks, amounts to trademark use under the Trade Marks Act, or violates contractual obligations. Both parties have been directed to file a joint schedule for recording evidence, signaling that the matter is moving into the substantive trial phase.
Anubhav Jain v.Satish Kumar Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking cancellation of the 'Jain Shikanji' trademark registration. While dismissing the petitioner's initial arguments regarding lack of distinctiveness under Section 9, the court found technical deficiencies in the grant. Consequently, it directed the Registrar to re-examine two critical issues: the objections raised in the First Examination Report (FER) concerning prior marks (Section 11), and the validity of the claimed date of user. This interim order allows the respondent to continue using the mark while a de novo review is conducted.
Raj Kumar Sharma v.Sandeep Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interconnected trademark disputes concerning the 'Pizza Galleria' brand between Raj Kumar Sharma and Sandeep Kumar & Anr. The court first resolved a factual contradiction regarding an MoU, accepting that the date should be 25th March 2018 instead of 9th June 2021. Furthermore, all applications seeking a stay on trademark registrations were dismissed as withdrawn by the Petitioner. Despite these procedural steps, the Court noted significant gaps in documentation and directed Respondent No.1 to file a comprehensive additional affidavit within six weeks.
Krbl Limited v.Vikram Roller Flour Mills Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the denial of interim injunction regarding the trademark 'INDIA GATE'. The court analyzed a prior consent order between the parties, which restricted usage based on product type and packaging size. While acknowledging the Appellant's claim as a well-known mark, the court ruled that if the Respondent's right to use 'dalia' flows from its existing rights for wheat products (atta, suji, etc.), it must adhere to the B2B/bulk sales restriction of 20 kgs and above. This interim order maintains the status quo while the core dispute over prior user rights remains sub-judice.
Capital Food Private Limited v.Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement of 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY,' the Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to introduce crucial subsequent evidence. The court ruled that the take-down notices and market surveys were necessary for a fair adjudication, despite the defendant's objections regarding late filing. This order allows the case to proceed with expanded evidentiary material.
M/S Liberty Footwear Company v.M/S Liberty International
This case involved a suit filed by M/S Liberty Footwear Company against M/S Liberty International, alleging unauthorized use and infringement of the registered trademark 'LIBERTY' in the footwear sector. The core dispute centered on whether the claims of trademark infringement could be subjected to arbitration as stipulated in an underlying Partnership Deed. The court ultimately allowed the defendant's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, referring the parties to arbitration.
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.