Plaintiff Favorable
683 plaintiff favorable decisions from Delhi High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
683 cases | Page 10 of 23
Avery Dennison Corporation v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Avery Dennison Corporation appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs which refused to grant a patent for 'Notched Fastener' due to lack of inventive step. The Appellant argued that the specific features (notch creation, position, shape, direction) provided a technical advancement over prior art documents D2 and D3. The Court ultimately allowed the appeal, finding that the invention satisfied the test of inventive step.
Jindal Industries Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Mark
The Delhi High Court allowed Jindal Industries Private Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its trademark application. The court held that the rejection, based on non-distinctiveness or prohibition under Section 9 of the Act (specifically regarding the use of India's map outline), was unsustainable. Citing previous rulings and the 'No Objection' from the Survey of India, the High Court directed the Registrar to proceed with the registration of the mark.
Visage Beauty And Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed Visage Beauty And Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of their mark 'GLOW-GETTER'. The court held that while the component word 'GLOW' might be descriptive in cosmetics, the combination forms a composite mark that does not inherently describe the product's quality or kind. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed for registration, provided the appellant accepts a disclaimer ensuring no exclusive rights vest solely in the word 'GLOW'.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Vifor (International) Ltd filed a suit against Hetero Healthcare Limited concerning an impugned product. The Defendants stated they would not launch the product until the expiry of the suit patent. Based on this statement, the court decreed the suit in favour of Vifor.
Relaxo Footwears Ltd v.Aqualite India Ltd
Relaxo Footwears Ltd challenged a single judge's decision that had allowed Aqualite India Ltd to challenge an interim injunction protecting Relaxo's registered footwear design. The core dispute revolved around whether Relaxo's design, bearing registration no. 294938, possessed sufficient novelty and originality to warrant protection against infringement. The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the impugned judgment, finding that the single judge's conclusion lacked a proper foundation, particularly its reliance on mere market availability rather than established prior art.
Bry-Air Prokon Sagl & Ors. v.Union Of India & Anr.
Bry-Air Prokon Sagl & Ors. challenged the Controller of Patents' orders that deemed several of their patent applications abandoned and caused a granted patent to lapse, citing failure to file timely responses or renewal fees. The Petitioners argued that delays were due to issues with their Patent Agent and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Delhi High Court acknowledged these facts, quashing the abandonment orders and directing the restoration of all relevant applications and patents.
BASF SE v.GSP CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit seeking enforcement of its patent (IN 271338) covering a crystalline complex used in agriculture, which is commercially sold under the mark 'XELORA'. The dispute arose because the Defendant obtained registration for a similar combination product. After considering the parties' submissions and undertakings, the court decreed the suit based on the defendant's commitment not to launch the infringing product until the patent expires or is invalidated.
Intel Corporation v.S.P. Gupta And Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Intel Corporation in a long-pending trademark infringement suit against S.P. Gupta and others. The court granted permanent injunctions, recognizing the extensive goodwill and reputation of the 'INTEL' mark. Crucially, the judgment was reached after the Defendants indicated they were willing to cease using the infringing marks, leading the court to decree the suit based on this mutual understanding.
Nirma Limited v.Purnima Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Nirma Limited's rectification petition, successfully removing the deceptively similar trademark 'NIMA' registered in favor of Purnima Gupta. The court held that because Nirma's primary mark ('NIRMA') is a well-known trade mark and the marks are confusingly similar, allowing the registration would cause consumer deception and dilute Nirma's established goodwill. This judgment reinforces the protective scope afforded to well-known trademarks against subsequent registrations.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Sai Deepa Rock Drills Private Limited
The suit involved allegations of infringement against the subject matter of Plaintiff No. 1's registered Patents. The parties amicably resolved the dispute regarding legal costs, leading to a settlement.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. And Ors. v.Amazon Sellers Service Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court rejected a motion filed by Amazon Sellers Service Private Limited seeking rejection of the trademark infringement suit on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The court held that since the Plaintiffs alleged they have physical stores and their licensees' websites target consumers in Delhi, a valid cause of action exists within the territorial limits of India. This ruling allows the core litigation regarding the use of the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademarks to move forward.
M/S Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. v.Mr. Tazeen Farooqui & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the interim injunction in favor of M/S Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. against Mr. Tazeen Farooqui & Ors., finding that the defendant's mark 'SEABIRD' was deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s established trademark 'STEELBIRD'. The court emphasized the importance of common law rights derived from long, continuous use, ruling that registration alone does not supersede prior proprietary rights. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to well-known marks against potential dilution and confusion in the market.
Intex Enterprises Private Limited v.Sandeep Kumar
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Intex Enterprises Private Limited against a trial court order that partially vacated an interim injunction. The court found that the trial court had failed to address crucial legal arguments regarding trademark infringement under Section 29(4) and claims of passing off and copyright infringement, despite them being part of the composite suit. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for a comprehensive review of all issues.
Apnatime Tech Pvt. Ltd. v.Tmp Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Apnatime Tech Pvt. Ltd., permanently restraining Tmp Technologies Pvt. Ltd. from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to its trademark 'APNA'. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'APNA SHARE APP' constituted passing off, given the similarity of services offered (online learning/job search). Furthermore, the judgment ordered the cancellation of the infringing domain name and mandated the removal of all related references from social media platforms.
Gogoro Inc v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Gogoro Inc appealed a rejection order passed by the Asst. Controller of Patents regarding its application for an apparatus and method for authentication and control of power storage devices. The Appellant argued that the rejection was unreasoned, failed to consider all cited prior arts (D1, D2), and lacked clarity on which claims lacked inventive step. The High Court found the impugned order deficient in reasoning and set it aside.
Novartis Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Novartis appealed the rejection of its divisional patent application, which was held by the Controller to be non-maintainable because it belonged to the same broad class as the granted parent application. The appeal challenged the ground that the subject matter formed a single inventive concept.
Ruptech Educational India v.Registrar Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court set aside a previous rejection of Ruptech Educational India's trademark application ('SCOTTISH HIGH EARLY YEARS') under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act. The rejection was based on cited marks owned by Ms. Mansi Aggarwal, but subsequent to the initial order, these conflicting applications were withdrawn following a settlement agreement reached in a related commercial suit. The Court held that since the objections no longer existed, the application should proceed to advertisement.
Star India Pvt Ltd v.Extramovies.Click & Ors.
Star India Pvt Ltd filed suit seeking permanent injunction against various rogue websites, ISPs, and government bodies for the unauthorized hosting and streaming of its film 'Tadap'. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over the cinematograph work. Throughout the proceedings, numerous additional infringing URLs were identified and blocking orders were issued by MEITY and DoT. Given that the film's theatrical run had concluded and no defense was raised by the rogue websites, the court confirmed the existing injunction and decreed the suit in favor of Star India.
General Electric Company v.Union Of India And Anr.
General Electric Company challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents that rejected its patent application. The Petitioner argued that the Controller arbitrarily revisited the non-patentability objection under Section 3(k) without providing a proper opportunity for defense or written submissions. The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter, directing the Patent Office to provide a hearing on all objections.
Excitel Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court overturned the rejection of the trade mark application 'REELTIME' by the Senior Examiner. The court held that website printouts could constitute valid evidence of use, provided they are accompanied by a Section 65B certificate under the IT Act. Furthermore, the court found that prior registrations and a settlement agreement with Google LLC were sufficient to establish the Appellant's rights, allowing the mark to proceed for advertisement.
Disruptive Health Solutions Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court overturned a rejection of the trademark 'HEALTHSKOOL' by the Registrar, which had deemed it descriptive under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act. The court recognized that despite some indicia related to health, the mark was sufficiently distinctive given its long-standing use since 2015 and existing registrations in various classes. Consequently, the application was allowed to proceed for advertisement, albeit with a caveat preventing exclusive rights over the generic term 'Health'.
Nippon A&L Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents
Nippon A&L Inc. appealed a rejection order by the Deputy Controller of Patents regarding its application for a copolymer latex process and product. The Patent Office had raised objections concerning inventive step, non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), and lack of clarity in claims. The High Court focused specifically on the objection related to claim amendments. The court ruled that since the Appellant was narrowing the scope of the claims and the process sought was disclosed in the specification, the amendments were valid under Section 59.
Mrs. Anugya Gupta v.Mr. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mrs. Anugya Gupta against Mr. Ajay Kumar and others, finding that the defendants' use of domain names like 'SARKARIRESULT.INFO' was likely to cause confusion with her established trademark and website, 'SARKARIRESULT'. The court emphasized that the similarity between the marks/domains, coupled with evidence of dishonest adoption by the defendants, warranted immediate protection for the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Havells India Limited v.Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt Ltd
Havells India Limited filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt Ltd, alleging that the latter's VENICE PRIME series of ceiling fans was a blatant imitation and substantial reproduction of Havells' registered ENTICER/ENTICER ART designs. The Plaintiff asserted its market dominance and unique design features protected under the Designs Act, 2000. The Delhi High Court found that the Plaintiff had successfully made out a prima facie case for infringement and balance of convenience in its favor.
The European Union Represented By The European Commission v.Union Of India & Ors.
The European Union challenged the deemed abandonment of two patent applications (11123/DELNP/2012 and 3466/DELNP/2013) filed under Indian law. The Petitioner argued that despite procedural delays involving multiple patent agents, they had taken steps to respond to the First Examination Reports (FERs). Citing exceptional circumstances and observations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee regarding the inflexibility of abandonment rules, the Delhi High Court set aside the abandonment orders.
The European Union Represented By The European Commission v.Union Of India & Ors.
The European Union challenged the deeming abandonment of two patent applications (11123/DELNP/2012 and 3466/DELNP/2013) filed under the Indian Patents Act. The Petitioner argued that delays, stemming from changes in legal counsel and communication issues with the initial patent agent, led to the abandonment orders. Citing exceptional circumstances and observations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee regarding the inflexibility of the Patent Act, the Delhi High Court set aside the abandonment orders.
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v.Www.Indiabullsdhanifinance.Co & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., finding that the defendant's website and domain name were engaged in trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court found that the use of deceptively similar marks ('Indiabulls', 'Dhani') and identical get-up was designed to mislead customers into believing the fraudulent site was affiliated with the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the defendant was permanently restrained from using the infringing marks and their website operation was suspended.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Msn Laboratories Private Limited for alleged infringement of Patent No. 237430 (Inhibitors of Tyrosine Kinases). The dispute centered on whether the Department of Pharmaceuticals' public notice constituted government authorization to manufacture the drug Nilotinib. The court, without considering the merits of infringement or validity, directed that Msn Laboratories must provide four weeks' advance notice before commencing commercial production.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 229051 concerning pharmaceutical compositions comprising Valsartan and NEP Inhibitors. The court clarified that the Department's Public Notice was merely to collate local manufacturers and did not constitute Government Authorization under Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970. Consequently, the suit was decreed granting a permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 233161. The court examined the defendant's affidavit, which claimed no commercial activity related to the patented drug ELTROMBOPAG OLAMINE/ REVOLADE. Furthermore, the Department of Pharmaceuticals clarified that its public notice was merely for collating local manufacturers and did not constitute government authorization under Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970.
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.