Plaintiff Favorable
683 plaintiff favorable decisions from Delhi High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
683 cases | Page 11 of 23
M/S Subros Educational Society v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Subros Educational Society against the refusal of registration for its trademark 'SBS World School'. The court found that the Registrar failed to properly consider the Appellant's existing registrations for similar marks under 'SBS' in Class 41. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trademarks for fresh consideration.
Makind Pharma Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Makind Pharma Limited's appeal against the rejection of its trade mark application for "DON'T WORRY" in Class 3. The court held that, given the Appellant's existing registrations of the mark across various classes, the refusal based solely on lack of distinctiveness was unwarranted. The application was permitted to proceed for advertisement before acceptance, provided it is associated with the registered trademark 'MANKIND'S DON'T WORRY', and no exclusive rights are granted in the words 'DON'T' or 'WORRY' alone.
Starbucks Corporation v.Teaquila A Fashion Cafe & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Starbucks Corporation, granting a permanent injunction against Teaquila A Fashion Cafe & Anr. for infringing the registered trademark 'FRAPPUCCINO' and engaging in passing off. Despite the defendants being proceeded ex parte, the court found them guilty of infringement based on the evidence presented by Starbucks. Furthermore, the court awarded damages to Starbucks, noting that while specific sales figures were lacking, notional damages could be granted given the established infringement.
The British School Society v.Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of The British School Society, confirming an existing interim injunction against the Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society. The court found that the unauthorized and continuous use of the identical mark 'The British School' by the Defendants constituted misrepresentation and caused irreparable prejudice to the Plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the Defendants were mandated to change their school names effective May 1, 2022, ensuring a smooth transition for enrolled students.
Government E Marketplace v.Unilex Consultants & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Government E Marketplace (GeM) against various parties for misusing its brand name. The plaintiff alleged that several defendants were registering or using 'GeM' as a domain name or URL extension, misleading the public into believing they were associated with the official portal. The court granted permanent injunctions and ordered the suspension of multiple infringing domains, reinforcing the protection of government digital brands against unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Novartis AG v.Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
Novartis AG filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd and Metrochem Api Private Limited for infringing its patent (No. 233161) covering 'Eltrombopag Olamine', the API in Revolade. The court found that both defendants acknowledged the validity of the patent and admitted they had not manufactured or commercially sold the patented product, leading to a decree granting permanent injunction during the patent's term.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited. v.Deepak Arora & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics, ordering the cancellation and rectification of a conflicting trademark registered by Deepak Arora ('MARC HEAVEN'). The court found that 'MARC HEAVEN' was deceptively similar to the Petitioner's established mark 'BLUE HEAVEN,' particularly due to the appropriation of the dominant feature 'Heaven.' Citing Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, the judgment held that the Respondent's registration lacked distinctive character and caused public confusion.
Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha v.Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha & Anr.
This appeal challenged an order from the Commercial Court which held that a suit seeking protection for the mark 'Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha' was not a commercial dispute. The petitioner argued that since the dispute related to their intellectual property rights—specifically, an unregistered trademark/name—it must fall under Section 2(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Delhi High Court agreed with this contention, setting aside the lower court's order.
Kamdhenu Limited v.Raghunath Virdharam Bishnoi And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued stringent directions in favor of Kamdhenu Limited regarding the illegal use of its trademark 'Kamdhenu' by various defendants. The court recognized that the defendants were using infringing domains and bank accounts to impersonate the plaintiff and defraud customers. Consequently, the court ordered domain registrars (GoDaddy), telecom providers, and banks to disclose KYC details of the involved parties. Furthermore, it mandated investigations into the identified individuals and mobile numbers to curb ongoing trademark infringement.
Sotefin Sa v.Indraprastha Cancer Society And Research Center
Sotefin Sa filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against Indraprastha Cancer Society and others for the alleged infringement of its Indian Patent 214088, which covers the 'Silomat Dolly' used in automatic car parks. The Plaintiff contended that Defendants were importing 'Smart Dollies' from China that closely resembled and infringed upon their patented technology. After considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, the Delhi High Court allowed the interim injunction.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd
The dispute concerned the validity and potential revocation of Patent No. IN240893. Although the court had previously found the patent invalid under Section 64(1)(h) in an earlier judgment, the matter was carried out in appeal. The core issue before this bench was whether the patent could be revoked based on grounds like insufficient disclosure (Section 64(1)(h)).
Astra Zeneca Ab And Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
The dispute concerns alleged infringement of Indian Patents IN 205147 and IN 235625 by Natco Pharma Limited regarding the drug Dapnat/Dapagliflozin. The present application sought to release the defendant from a bank guarantee obligation, but the court declined this prayer.
The Polo/Lauren Company L P v.Sandeep Arora & Anr.
The Polo/Lauren Company L P filed a rectification petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, challenging the copyright registration of 'SPORTS POLO' held by Sandeep Arora & Anr. The petitioner argued that the respondent's logo substantially reproduced its well-known trademarks and artistic marks. The court found that the respondent's artwork was an imitation of the petitioner's registered marks, lacking originality, and therefore wrongly registered. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the cancellation of the impugned copyright registration.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis sought an interlocutory injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for allegedly infringing its suit patent (IN 233161) covering the drug Eltrombopag Olamine, marketed as REVOLADE. The defendant contested by questioning the patent's validity under Section 64 of the Patents Act. The court found that infringement was established and there was no prima facie case of vulnerability to revocation, thus granting the injunction.
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited filed an application seeking injunction against Hindustan Unilever Limited, alleging that a campaign of advertisements by HUL was designed to vilify and denigrate its popular toilet cleaner brand, HARPIC. The plaintiff argued that these ads disparaged the product's effectiveness and sought to divert market share to HUL's DOMEX. The court examined whether the defendant's advertising amounted to passing off or defamation of goodwill.
Novartis AG v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 229051, which covers a pharmaceutical composition combining Valsartan and Sacubitril. The dispute centered on whether Natco Pharma Limited's product, described as a supra molecular complex, infringed the patented combination.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Aqualite Industries Pvt Limited
Relaxo Footwears Limited filed an application seeking an ex parte injunction against Aqualite Industries Pvt Limited, alleging that the latter was unlawfully imitating and pirating its distinctive footwear designs. The plaintiff highlighted that two specific slipper designs were duly registered under the Designs Act, 2000. After considering the prima facie evidence presented by both parties, the court found that the defendant had copied the plaintiff's designs. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing designs.
FMC Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation filed applications seeking interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited and Best Crop Science LLP for allegedly infringing its patents related to Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The court examined claims of infringement and challenges to the validity of the patents. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court allowed the interim injunctions, emphasizing that in patent infringement cases involving agrochemicals, public interest dictates preventing the perpetuation of an invention that is prima facie infringing.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Xiaomi Corporation
Interdigital Technology Corporation filed an application seeking an injunction against Xiaomi Corporation and others, restraining them from enforcing an anti-suit injunction order passed by the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court. The dispute centers on alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) used in cellular handsets. The court allowed the application, making the ad interim injunction absolute.
Machinenfabrik Rieter Ag & Anr. v.Tex Tech Industries (India) Private Limited
Machinenfabrik Rieter Ag & Anr. filed a suit seeking injunction against Tex Tech Industries for alleged infringement of its registered trademark and Patent No. IN 324406. The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither party had a principal place of business in Delhi and that the transaction was merely a one-time trap purchase. However, the High Court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, noting that since the goods were delivered and the contract completed in Delhi, the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.Sachin Gupta
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. against Sachin Gupta, preventing the use of similar marks and trade dress for spices. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of passing off based on long-standing prior use (since 1969) and significant goodwill associated with the 'GAI CHAAP' mark and 'COW' device. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating continuous, bona fide usage when asserting trademark rights in the FMCG sector.
Jagmohan Ratra v.Ampa Cycles Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction in favor of Jagmohan Ratra against Ampa Cycles Pvt. Ltd., finding that the latter was engaging in passing off. The court determined that the defendant was illegally using the identical mark 'AMPA' and a deceptively similar logo to ride upon the plaintiff's established goodwill, which had been built over nearly three decades. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to unregistered trademarks under common law principles of passing off.
Pfizer Inc v.Kwality Pharmaceuticals Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit against Kwality Pharmaceuticals Limited alleging infringement of two Indian Patents, IN 209251 (Sunitinib) and IN 268331 (Tigecycline composition). The defendants agreed to the permanent injunction and offered compensation. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Jigs Chemicals Limited
Astrazeneca sued Jigs Chemicals Limited for infringing its patents covering the anti-platelet drug TICAGRELOR. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was commercially advertising and offering to sell API TICAGRELOR. Based on the defendant's admission regarding the exclusive rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Astrazeneca.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., finding that Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited infringed upon its registered trademarks and committed passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'EDREAM 11' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark, 'DREAM 11', especially given that both platforms offered identical paid fantasy sports services online. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark.
M/S Hi-Tech Products Private Limited v.Union Of India And Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside an erroneous order passed by the Trademark Registry that had treated trademark assignment applications as disposed of due to alleged non-response. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated, using online registry records, that their replies were indeed filed and uploaded within the stipulated time. The court emphasized the need for the Examiner to properly check digital records before making administrative decisions, directing the Registry to process the assignments afresh.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Natco Pharma
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma for infringing Indian Patent No.IN247381 (APIXABAN). The defendant sought a stay under Section 10 CPC, citing a previously instituted suit in the City Civil Court at Hyderabad concerning patent validity and infringement. The High Court dismissed the stay application.
Dubai Islamic Bank v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court overturned the refusal of trademark registration for 'Dubai Islamic Bank - The Better Way To Bank'. The court found that the Senior Examiner had incorrectly applied a foreign judgment, failing to consider the composite nature of the mark (including the slogan) and established Indian legal principles. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trade Marks for fresh consideration, ensuring the Petitioner's arguments regarding existing registrations and global use are properly evaluated.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Sanjeev Gupta
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816 for the drug Sitagliptin by manufacturing and selling a product named 'Swizglipt' containing Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate (SPM). The dispute centered on whether manufacture solely for export fell under patent infringement, and the court ultimately confirmed the injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
Ifrs Foundation v.Rammohan Bhave & Ors
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of IFRS Foundation against Rammohan Bhave & Ors following a comprehensive settlement. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights over the 'IFRS' trademark and its copyrighted standards. Key terms included the payment of ₹11 lakhs, the surrender of multiple domain names, the withdrawal of related trademark applications, and an undertaking to cease unauthorized use of the IFRS mark in training materials or goods.
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.