Plaintiff Favorable
683 plaintiff favorable decisions from Delhi High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
683 cases | Page 12 of 23
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v.Mr. Akshay Singhal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited, declaring its candy brand 'PULSE' a well-known trademark. The court found that the plaintiff had established extensive goodwill and reputation both domestically and internationally through significant promotion and unique trade dress. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from manufacturing or selling similar products under deceptively similar marks like 'PLUSS', protecting the integrity of the PULSE brand.
Intellectual Property Attorneys Association v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Anr
The petitioner challenged the refusal of trade mark registration applications due to non-speaking orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court held that Section 18(5) mandates the Registrar to record and communicate the grounds for refusal in writing. Consequently, Rule 36 of the Trade Marks Rules was deemed arbitrary and inconsistent with the statute.
M/S Psychotropics India Ltd. v.M/S Syncom Healthcare Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Psychotropics India Ltd. to appoint Local Commissioners in the execution phase of a trademark infringement suit against M/S Syncom Healthcare Ltd. Despite initial rejection by the Trial Court, the High Court emphasized that permanent injunctions related to pharmaceutical products require strict enforcement due to public interest and consumer safety. The appointed commissioners were directed to seize infringing goods bearing the mark CTZ-10 and inspect sales accounts.
Onyx Therapeutics Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors
Onyx Therapeutics Inc. challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents' orders that restricted its right to cross-examine expert witnesses during a post-grant opposition filed by Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether the patentee, having filed objections under Rule 58, was entitled to challenge the veracity of the opponent's experts through cross-examination. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Onyx, quashing the restrictive orders and allowing the cross-examination without imposing any condition regarding the filing of evidence by the patentee.
Reliance Life Sciences Private Limited v.M/S Genentech Inc And Ors.
This case involves a dispute between Reliance Life Sciences (the appellant) and Genentech/Roche (the respondents) concerning the launch of the biosimilar drug TrastuRel. The respondents sought an injunction against TrastuRel, alleging inadequate testing under Indian regulatory guidelines despite the original patent having lapsed. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, granting an interim stay on the restrictive order, thereby allowing Reliance to continue its manufacturing and marketing operations.
Cargill India Pvt Ltd v.Gati Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed Cargill India Pvt Ltd's application to frame an issue concerning the validity of Gati Ltd's registered trademark, 'GATI Nature Fresh Apples.' Despite Gati Ltd arguing that Cargill was barred by limitation due to prior knowledge of the registration, the court rejected these objections. The judgment clarified the procedural mechanism under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, allowing the plaintiff time to pursue rectification proceedings before the IPAB, thereby keeping the core validity question alive in the litigation.
Facebook Inc. v.Surinder Malik & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the trademark owner, Surinder Malik, against Facebook and Instagram regarding the unauthorized use of the 'DA MILANO' mark. The court clarified that while these platforms are intermediaries protected under Section 79 of the IT Act, they have a duty to take down infringing content once notified by the rights holder. This judgment sets clear operational guidelines for social media platforms concerning trademark infringement in India.
Shogun Organics Ltd. v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors.
Shogun Organics Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patent (IN-236630) related to the manufacturing process of d-trans Allethrin, an active ingredient in mosquito repellents. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were using the patented process despite having different licenses. The court found the patent valid and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.
Vinay Aggarwal v.Rims Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing interim injunction, ruling in favor of the plaintiff regarding passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'ELEPHANT JINLI' was phonetically and structurally similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'ELEPHANT,' creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Despite arguments regarding conflicting agreements from the manufacturer, the court upheld the plaintiff's prior rights and dismissed the defendant's application to vacate the injunction.
Pioneer Overseas Corporation v.Chairperson, Protection Of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights and Ors.
Pioneer Overseas Corporation challenged decisions made by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority regarding the registration of Kaveri Seeds Limited's maize variety KMH50. Pioneer claimed that KMH50 was identical to its own variety, 30V92, and alleged misappropriation of germplasm. The court set aside several impugned orders and restored Pioneer's application for a DNA profiling test.
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/s Arora Stationers
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha filed suit against M/s Arora Stationers alleging fraudulent imitation of its registered pen design (Design No. 263172). The respondents challenged the validity and novelty of Pentel's design, claiming it was a combination of known designs. However, the High Court ruled in favor of Pentel, emphasizing that since the respondents themselves had applied for registration of a similar design, they could not simultaneously argue against its originality. Consequently, the court found a prima facie case of piracy and granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from marketing the infringing product.
M/S Teleecare Network India Pvt Ltd v.M/S Asus Technology Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Teleecare Network India Pvt Ltd, finding that Asus Technology and others had infringed upon its trademark rights through passing off. The court determined that the defendant's adoption of 'ZENFONE' was deceptive because it incorporated the plaintiff's dominant mark 'ZEN' for identical goods (mobile phones). Given the plaintiff's prior use, significant market reputation, and large advertising expenditure, the court granted a permanent injunction to prevent further misuse of similar marks.
Unilin Beheer B.V. v.Balaji Action Buildwell
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement of Patent No.193247, but since the patent had lapsed, the suit was pursued only for damages. The defendant filed a Counter Claim seeking revocation of the subject patent. The core legal issue addressed by the court was whether the written statement to the Counter Claim could be taken on record despite not being accompanied by an affidavit of admission/denial within the stipulated time.
Eisai Co. Ltd. v.Satish Reddy
The plaintiffs, holding exclusive rights to Indian Patent No. 215528 for Lorcaserin, filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against the defendants who were planning to commercialize an infringing drug (LHH). The court found that there was a prima facie case of infringement in favor of the plaintiff.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt Ltd v.Time Plus Institute & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Triumphant Institute Of Management (T.I.M.E.) against Time Plus Institute, recognizing the strong likelihood of trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the respondent's use of similar marks was likely to deceive the public and dilute T.I.M.E.'s established goodwill in the coaching industry. Furthermore, a local commissioner was appointed to seize infringing materials, reinforcing the protection of T.I.M.E.'s statutory and common law rights.
Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited v.Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited, which was seeking relief for trademark infringement and passing off. The court dismissed the defendants' application to vacate the order, primarily based on the principle that the defendants themselves had applied for registration of a similar mark (CONCRETA). This ruling reinforces the legal doctrine against 'approbation and reprobation,' preventing parties from contradicting their own prior actions in litigation.
Utv Software Communication Ltd. v.1337X.To and others
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple suits concerning the unauthorized streaming and distribution of copyrighted cinematograph works on various websites. The court found that the defendant-websites were infringing upon the plaintiffs' copyrights.
Pharmacosmos Holding A/S v.La Renon Healthcare Private Limited & Anr
Pharmacosmos Holding A/S filed a suit for infringement against La Renon Healthcare Private Limited and others regarding Patent No. 291100 ('RAPIFER'). The court granted permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1 based purely on the defendant's binding statement, despite disputes over the plaint's merits. Similarly, the suit against Defendant No. 2 (Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.) was disposed of by binding them to their reply stating they were not infringing.
J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd v.Union Of India And Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order that revoked Patent No. 251037, citing lack of disclosure regarding ongoing civil suit and a PCT application in Australia. The court found the revocation unjustified, noting that the civil dispute had settled and the respondent had withdrawn the post-grant opposition.
Tata Sky Limited v.National Internet Exchange Of India (NIXI)
Tata Sky Limited filed suit seeking permanent injunction against an individual (D-3) for passing off the 'TATA SKY' trade mark, and mandatory injunctions against NIXI (D-1) and GoDaddy (D-2) to prevent or extinguish deceptively similar domain names. The court granted decrees in favor of Tata Sky Limited against D-3, ordering permanent injunction, and against D-1 and D-2, directing the extinguishment of specific listed domain names.
Gopal Ji Gupta v.Union Of India & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gopal Ji Gupta regarding the renewal of his trademark 'BINACA'. The court held that since the Registrar failed to issue mandatory notice (Form O-3) before the mark was removed from the register, the rejection of the renewal application as time-barred was legally flawed. Consequently, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's renewal request, provided late fees are paid.
Filex Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Deepika File Products
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Filex Systems Pvt. Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Deepika File Products for passing off the plaintiff's trade name 'FILEX'. The court found that despite the defendant's arguments regarding prior use or lack of registration, the extensive and long-standing use of 'FILEX' by the plaintiff had established significant goodwill and reputation in the stationery market. This judgment underscores the protection afforded to unregistered marks when passing off is involved.
Symphony Ltd. v.Thermo King India Pvt Ltd
Symphony Ltd. filed a suit against Thermo King India Pvt Ltd alleging that its air cooler model, 'Thermoking Typhoon,' substantially imitated Symphony's registered design for the 'Symphony Storm 70i.' The court found that the Defendant's product was a substantial imitation of the protected design. Despite the Defendant initially raising defenses regarding prior publication and difference in designs, the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Symphony Ltd. v.Life Plus Appliances
Symphony Ltd. filed a suit against Life Plus Appliances alleging infringement of its registered designs for air coolers. The Plaintiff demonstrated that the Defendant's models, 'Tower' and 'Tycoon', were substantial imitations of Symphony's protected designs (Storm 70i, Sumo, and Winter). Despite the Defendant raising defenses regarding prior publication based on advertisements and trademark applications, the court found these claims unsubstantiated. Consequently, the court decreed the suit in favor of Symphony Ltd., granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Living Media India Limited v.Lallantop Media And Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Living Media India Limited, finding that Lallantop Media and Anr. infringed upon its trademark rights by registering and using the similar domain name 'THELALLANTOP.NET'. The court granted a permanent injunction against the defendant's use of the domain and directed the registrar to facilitate the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff. This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting established online brand identities in the digital media space.
Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd. v.Fiit Jee Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd., a well-known aerospace and defense entity, against Fiit Jee Limited & Anr. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dishonestly adopting the prestigious 'BRAHMOS' trademark for educational services, causing confusion among students who believed their tests were affiliated with the renowned company. Citing the strong prima facie case, the court ruled that allowing continued use by the defendants would cause irreparable loss to Brahmos’s goodwill and reputation.
Onyx Therapeutics, Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors
Onyx Therapeutics, Inc. challenged procedural orders issued by the Controller General of Patents concerning a post-grant opposition filed against their Indian Patent No. 255964. The petitioner argued that denying them the opportunity to cross-examine expert witnesses relied upon by the opponent violated principles of natural justice. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding that the denial vitiated the proceedings and set aside the impugned orders.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr
Hindustan Unilever Limited sued Eureka Forbes Limited for infringement of its water purifier patent (IN 198316). The defendants challenged the suit by arguing that an infringement suit is not maintainable against another registered patentee. The court ultimately held that a patentee is entitled to maintain such a suit, deciding the preliminary issue in favor of the plaintiff.
DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V & Anr. v.Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co (WQD) & Anr.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of a process patent related to 'Amoxicillin Trihydrate'. The application before the court sought contempt proceedings due to alleged violation of an earlier interim order. The court found that the defendant's manufacturing process was virtually identical to the patented process, thus violating the interim restraint.
M/S Khushi Ram Behari Lal (later M/s. KRBL Ltd.) v.M/S Jaswant Singh Balwant Singh
The Delhi High Court set aside a previous decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, favoring the petitioner in a trademark dispute over the 'TRAIN BRAND.' The court found that the respondent failed to prove prior use of the mark, particularly noting discrepancies and alleged forgery in the invoices presented. Consequently, the application for registration of the 'TRAIN' brand for basmati rice was allowed to proceed.
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.