Plaintiff Favorable
762 plaintiff favorable decisions from Delhi High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
762 cases | Page 16 of 26
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v.Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation filed a suit alleging that Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was planning to launch a generic version (ECOGLIPT) of its patented drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs argued this constituted patent infringement and sought a permanent injunction based on the apprehension of future market flooding. The court found the defendant's actions violated Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr.
Vifor (International) Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr. for infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers a novel water soluble iron carbohydrate complex used for intravenous treatment of iron deficiency. The court found that the defendants were violating the plaintiff's registered patent rights.
Praveen Kumar Maakar v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the trademark applicant, Praveen Kumar Maakar, setting aside an order that deemed his application for 'FRONTIER BAKERY' abandoned. The core issue was whether he received a Notice of Opposition filed by M/s Frontier Bakery Pvt. Ltd. Despite evidence showing dispatch to a related service, the Court accepted the petitioner's claim that he never received the notice. Consequently, the applicant was granted an eight-week window to file his counter-statement.
M/S Kamdhenu Limited v.M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd
M/S Kamdhenu Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd for infringing its registered design related to TMT steel bars. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant copied the unique double-rib surface pattern of their patented bar, which was protected under Design Act, 2000 (No. 250968). The defendant countered by arguing that the design was based on a public domain British Standard and lacked novelty. The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to Kamdhenu Limited, finding a prima facie case for infringement.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Mr. Munish Thakur
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Munish Thakur for infringing Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin. The court found that the defendant's product, GLIPSIT-M1, contained Sitagliptin and thus infringed the patent.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.HRCN Cable Network
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited filed a suit against HRCN Cable Network alleging unauthorized use and infringement of its vast repertoire of copyrighted music, sound recordings, and cinematographic films. The plaintiff demonstrated ownership through assignment deeds and copyright certificates, proving that the defendant was illegally broadcasting their content on cable television networks. Consequently, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions against further infringement and awarding the plaintiff compensation amounting to Rs. 16,20,000/-.
M/S Xegent Consultants Pvt Ltd v.Ea Water Pvt Ltd & Ors
M/S Xegent Consultants Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging that Ea Water Pvt Ltd was illegally copying and misusing its proprietary literary work, 'India Water Review' (IWR), which covers water sector news. The plaintiff demonstrated that IWR is a recognized source of information in the Indian water industry. Despite initial legal notices, the defendants failed to cease the infringement or appear before the court. Consequently, the Delhi High Court found prima facie violation and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
Ahuja Radios v.H K Sound Electronics & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ahuja Radios, finding that the defendants were engaged in trademark infringement and passing off by selling counterfeit Public Address Systems (PAS) under a deceptively similar mark. The court emphasized that the defendants' deliberate evasion of court proceedings warranted punitive damages. Consequently, the suit was decreed with permanent injunctions and an award of ₹3,00,000/- in damages.
Drs Logistics (P) Ltd & Anr v.Sandeep Chohan Alias Sandeep Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Drs Logistics regarding the infringement and passing off of its registered trademark 'AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS' and associated domain names. The court granted a mandatory injunction directing the deletion or transfer of an offending domain name to the plaintiff. Furthermore, due to the defendants evading court proceedings while continuing their infringing activities, the court awarded punitive damages of ₹3,00,000/- plus interest.
M/S Instapower Ltd. v.M/S Alpha Interiors Pvt Ltd & Ors.
M/S Instapower Ltd., a company specializing in energy-efficient lighting systems, filed a suit alleging that M/S Alpha Interiors Pvt Ltd and others were infringing its registered design patents for aviation warning lights. The plaintiff demonstrated extensive market presence and proved that the defendants were manufacturing and selling similar products. Despite the defendants failing to contest the case effectively, the court found infringement.
Optimus Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Rishabh Lohia & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Optimus Pharma Pvt Ltd in a passing off suit against Rishabh Lohia & Anr. The court found that the defendants dishonestly adopted the trade name 'Optimus' for pharmaceutical products, causing confusion in the market. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions and awarded punitive damages of ₹3,00,000/- due to the defendant's evasion of court proceedings.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Glaxo Group Limited against Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors for trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement. The court found that the defendants were infringing on registered trademarks (ZINACEF, FORTAM) and common law rights (FORTAZ), as well as passing off the plaintiff's goods using similar packaging (trade dress/copyright). Given the multiple violations, the court granted permanent injunctions and awarded compensatory and punitive damages of ₹20 lakhs to Glaxo Group.
Pepsico Inc & Ors. v.Dugar Spices & Eatables (P) Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pepsico Inc, granting a permanent injunction against Dugar Spices & Eatables for the illegal use and sale of counterfeit and look-alike snack products. The court found that the defendants were violating Pepsico's rights through deceptive similarity in trademarks (KURMURE, CRACKURE), logos, packaging design, and overall trade dress associated with the 'KURKURE' brand. Furthermore, the judgment included directions to customs departments to prevent the import of these infringing goods.
Tryton Medical Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Tryton Medical Inc. challenged the refusal by the Controller of Patents to examine its National Phase Patent Application, which had been rejected due to a minor delay in filing. The petitioner argued that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had previously allowed the appeal and directed the Controller to proceed with examination. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, mandating compliance with the IPAB's orders.
Dharam Chand Ladha Mal v.Subhash Sabun Udyog & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Dharam Chand Ladha Mal, finding clear similarity between the trade dress of the defendants' products (NIROKHA) and the plaintiff's registered trademark (NAULAKHA). The court granted permanent injunctions to prevent further infringement and passing off. Furthermore, it directed each defendant to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff.
Ferrero Spa & Anr. v.Shri Maa Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ferrero Group against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off related to its iconic 'Ferrero Rocher' brand. The court found that the defendant had copied not only the registered word mark but also the unique trade dress, including the crushed gold wrapper and fluted cupcake holder. Given the well-known status of the Ferrero Rocher trademark, the adoption by the defendants was deemed fraudulent, leading to a permanent injunction against all infringing activities.
McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi
This batch of cases addressed the tax implications of franchise agreements under various state sales tax laws. The core dispute centered on whether the royalties received by franchisors for allowing franchisees to use their brand system constituted a 'transfer of the right to use goods' (trademark). The Delhi High Court ultimately held that the franchise agreements only grant a limited right to use, and do not constitute an outright transfer of IP rights. Consequently, the tax demands levied on these transactions were quashed.
M/S. Iritech Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The petitioner sought to quash the 'deemed to be withdrawn' status of its Indian National Phase Patent Application (No. 5272/DELNP/2008) due to a clerical error in the application number being typed as 6272/DELNP/2008 in Form No. 18 and supporting documents. The respondents argued that the correction was sought after the statutory period expired, making it impossible for the Controller to act. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding the error clerical and restoring the application.
Intex Technologies (India) Ltd v.M/S Az Tech (India)
The Delhi High Court set aside an earlier single judge's order that had restrained Intex Technologies from using the mark 'AQUA' for mobile phones. The court found that the respondent, M/S Az Tech, failed to establish a prima facie case of passing off. Crucially, the court noted the dishonest conduct of Az Tech in copying Intex's logo font and style during the pendency of the suit, which disentitled them from obtaining an injunction.
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.
Qrg Enterprises & Anr. v.Hpl (India) Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark dispute between Qrg Enterprises and HPL (India) Limited based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court upheld the plaintiffs' proprietary rights in the 'HAVELLS/HAVELL'S' mark, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants. Crucially, the judgment clarified that since the defendant's name change was mandated by the decree and not voluntary, they would not be bound by the proviso to Section 12(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, ensuring the settlement's enforceability.
Tata Sons Limited v.Ram Niwas & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Limited, granting permanent injunctions against Ram Niwas & Ors for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were deceptively using the mark 'TATA' and the domain name 'www.tatapackers.com' to associate themselves with the well-known TATA brand in the transport and logistics sector. Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to transfer the infringing domain name to Tata Sons Limited.
Mehra Cosmetics v.Ram Kumar Gulati & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Mehra Cosmetics against Ram Kumar Gulati & Ors. The court found that the defendants were attempting to pass off their goods as those of the plaintiff by using a deceptively similar mark ('BLUE CHEF' vs 'BLUE CLIFF'). Despite arguments regarding the unregistered status of the plaintiff's trademark and procedural issues, the court ruled that the similarity in sound and appearance constituted passing off. The defendants were ordered to cease using the infringing mark and change labels on their existing stock.
Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd. v.Registrar Of Plant Varieties And Ors.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed challenges against the validity of Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers' Rights Act. The petitioners, including Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd., argued that this section allowed for abusive practices by enabling competitors to challenge genuine proprietary plant varieties. The court found that the unguided nature of the power in Section 24(5) posed a significant danger of abuse, potentially harming innocent breeders and farmers. Consequently, the High Court declared Section 24(5) void.
Flamagas, Sa v.Sunder & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Flamagas, Sa, finding that the defendants were infringing upon its trademarks and designs related to 'Clipper' lighters. The court noted that the defendants failed to participate in the proceedings despite being served, leading to them being proceeded ex parte. Consequently, the suit was decreed for permanent injunction and punitive damages, emphasizing that non-participation by infringers should not allow them to escape liability.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.Hari Satya Lubricants & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors, finding that the defendant's use of the mark 'VALVO' for lubricating oil products constituted trademark infringement and passing off against the well-known mark 'VOLVO'. The court issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the similar mark. Furthermore, nominal damages were awarded to one of the plaintiffs, reinforcing the protection afforded to famous trademarks in India.
Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd v.Haridwar Cables Network
The plaintiff, Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Haridwar Cables Network, was infringing its copyrights by broadcasting T-Series' repertoire (sound recordings, films) on its cable network without obtaining a license. The court found the defendant guilty of copyright infringement and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd v.Param Hans City Cable Network
The plaintiff, Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Param Hans City Cable Network, infringed its copyrights by broadcasting copyrighted works (songs and films) without obtaining a license. The court found the unlicensed broadcasts to be an infringement and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd v.Sbn Network
Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Sbn Network for infringing its copyrighted works. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, a ground cable operator, was broadcasting T-Series' films and music without obtaining necessary licenses.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Sanjay Jain
The plaintiffs, Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and its subsidiary, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for the infringement of their patent (IN 203937) covering the anti-cancer molecule DASATINIB. The defendants were proceeded ex parte due to non-appearance in court.
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.