Plaintiff Favorable
683 plaintiff favorable decisions from Delhi High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
683 cases | Page 2 of 23
Bima Sugam India Federation v.A Range Gowda & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Bima Sugam India Federation against A Range Gowda & Ors., addressing a dispute over trademark infringement and domain name ownership. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had adopted the 'BIMA SUGAM' mark in bad faith, leading to deceptive similarity with the Plaintiff's established marketplace brand. Consequently, the Court directed the registrar (Defendant No. 2) to transfer the key domain names, www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in, to the Plaintiff, subject to the final outcome of the suit.
Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v.Wow Burger & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Wow Momo Foods Private Limited, quashing a single judge's order that had dismissed an application for an interlocutory injunction. The court found that the respondent's proposed mark, 'WOW BURGER', was highly likely to cause confusion with the appellant's established marks like 'WOW MOMO' and 'WOW DIMSUMS'. Despite arguments regarding common usage or descriptive nature of 'WOW', the court held that the combination of the exclamation with the food item created a distinctive association in the mind of the average consumer, thereby establishing a prima facie case of infringement.
Ardo Medical Ag v.Ms Sdb International And Anr.
Ardo Medical Ag successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court to rectify the Trade Marks Register, seeking cancellation of a conflicting trademark registered by Ms Sdb International. The court found that Respondent No. 1 engaged in bad faith and trade mark squatting by registering an identical mark despite Ardo's prior use and global registrations. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to remove the infringing trademark from the register.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which refused its patent application for 'Infrared (IR) Based Quantitation of Biomolecules.' The refusal was based on the grounds that the claimed method constituted an unpatentable diagnostic process under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, holding that the subject matter did not fall within the scope of this exclusion and that the amendments made were permissible refinements.
Mr. Ar Rahman v.Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar
This appeal addressed a dispute over the copyright ownership of the musical composition 'Shiva Stuti.' The plaintiff, Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, claimed authorship and sought recognition and injunctions against A.R. Rahman for using the composition in his song 'Veera Raja Veera.' The core legal challenge revolved around whether the plaintiff could establish prima facie evidence of copyright ownership based on family claims and performance history. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's judgment. The court held that mere evidence of rendering or performing a musical work is insufficient to prove authorship under Section 2(d)(ii) and Section 2(ffa), thereby dismissing the plaintiff's suit.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its mark PETKIND in Class 5, citing similarity to a prior application 'PETKIND PHARMA'. The Appellant argued that its extensive goodwill and established 'KIND Family of Marks' should prevail. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.Sauss Home Products Private Limited
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited sought an interim injunction against Sauss Home Products Private Limited, alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to its 'Robin' bird device mark used in FMCG products. The court first dismissed the defendant's challenge regarding territorial jurisdiction, finding that the cause of action arose within Delhi due to sales and online promotion there. Subsequently, the court found a prima facie case for passing off and copyright infringement, granting an interim injunction against the defendant.
Kubota Corporation v.Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Kubota Corporation, sued defendants for patent infringement concerning its self-propelled combine harvester (HARVES KING). Defendant No. 3 filed an application seeking return of plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff had established jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the CPC.
Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Impresario Entertainment, setting aside the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of its trademark application. The court found that the Registrar violated the principles of natural justice because the Appellant was prevented from participating in the scheduled virtual hearing due to technical impediments. Furthermore, the Impugned Order failed to consider crucial evidence, such as a Joint Memorandum of Compromise between the parties. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back for a fair and comprehensive hearing.
Aquestia Limited v.Automat Industries Private Limited
Aquestia Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Automat Industries Private Limited and its affiliates for infringing Aquestia's registered patent, 'A Fluid Control Valve' (IN 427050). The plaintiff argued that the defendants were imitating established industry products, including the Series 75 valve, and selling infringing products both domestically and internationally. After considering arguments regarding infringement, delay, and balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of Aquestia Limited.
Treibacher Industrie Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Treibacher Industrie Ag appealed a rejection of its patent application concerning 'USE OF VANADATES AS OXIDATION CATALYSTS'. The Controller had refused the grant, citing lack of inventive step and issues with amended claims. However, the Delhi High Court set aside the Impugned Order, holding that it failed to adhere to principles of natural justice because it lacked a proper reasoned decision (speaking order). Furthermore, the court found that the Controller neglected to consider the detailed written submissions filed by the Appellant.
Shri Ved Prakash Garg Trading As M/S Parul Food Products v.Mr. Dhruv Singh And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the rectification petitions filed by M/s Parul Food Products against Mr. Dhruv Singh, cancelling two registered trade marks ('FUNSHINE' and a Device Mark) in Class 30. The court found that these Impugned Marks were deceptively and identically similar to the Petitioner's established mark 'FUNFINE'. Given the Petitioner's prior use since 2005 compared to the Respondent's registration date of 2017, the judgment reinforced the principle that a prior user's rights supersede subsequent registrations when likelihood of confusion exists.
Proprietect L P v.The Controller Of Patents
Proprietect L P appealed a rejection order passed by the Controller of Patents concerning its application for a foam laminate product used in vehicle interiors. The appellant argued that the rejection was non-speaking, failed to consider their submissions, and introduced new grounds (Section 10(5)) at the final stage, violating natural justice. The High Court agreed, setting aside the order and remanding the matter.
Ferrero Spa & Ors. v.M. B. Enterprises
Ferrero Spa filed a suit against M. B. Enterprises alleging infringement, passing off, and unfair competition related to its globally recognized brand, NUTELLA. Following reports of counterfeit products being manufactured under the same name in Thane, Maharashtra, Ferrero sought immediate protection. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendant from continuing the alleged infringing activities until further proceedings.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Br Agrotech Limited And Anr
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its Indian Patent No. 3945681, which covers a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The court allowed an application for judgment on admission against Defendant No. 2 after finding inescapable liability due to admissions made by the defendant.
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Zydus Lifesciences Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 340060, which covers the monoclonal antibody Nivolumab used in cancer treatment. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was planning to launch a bio-similar version (ZRC-3276) during the patent's term. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and irreparable loss would occur without immediate relief.
Oncquest Laboratories Limited v.Manish Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Oncquest Laboratories Limited, successfully challenging the registration of the identical mark 'ONCQUEST' held by the respondent. The court found that the petitioner was the prior user and adopter of the trademark since 2007, while the respondent failed to provide evidence of use for their registered mark. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondent had adopted the mark dishonestly to trade upon the established goodwill of the petitioner, leading to the cancellation of the impugned registration.
Albemarle Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Albemarle Corporation appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 2897/DELNP/2012) by the Controller of Patents, which cited lack of novelty and inventive step. During the appeal, the appellant sought to file an auxiliary claim set restricting the scope to a process aspect for cleaning polyurethane foam. The Court allowed this amendment and remanded the matter for fresh examination.
Pawan Kumar Mittal Proprietor, Salasar Dev Basmati House v.Vijay Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court overturned a District Judge's refusal to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction in a trademark infringement case. The court held that the lower court failed to provide any reasoning for its disinclination, which is legally unsustainable when addressing such urgent relief. Citing precedent regarding passing off and infringement, the High Court emphasized the necessity of immediate action, including appointing a Local Commissioner, if a prima facie case exists.
Bhalla Sports Pvt Ltd. v.Ashutosh Bhalla M/S Vinex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Bhalla Sports Pvt Ltd. against Ashutosh Bhalla M/S Vinex Enterprises, directing the cancellation of an infringing trademark registration. The court found that the petitioner was the 'prior user' of the mark 'SOFT TOUCH' since 2001, which predated the respondent's application and use claims. Given the identical nature of the goods (sports goods) and the deceptive similarity of the marks, the court ruled that the subsequent registration was invalid and must be removed from the register.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp.
The plaintiff, Communication Components Antenna Inc., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ace Technologies Corp. for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893 related to cellular base station components. Despite previous orders requiring deposits/bank guarantees from the defendants, the court found that the defendants' financial position was precarious and their non-compliance undermined the plaintiff's rights. Consequently, the court directed the defendant to deposit a substantial amount as security.
M/S Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India & Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses multiple appeals filed by Crocs Inc USA against various footwear manufacturers, including Bata India. The core issue revolved around the maintainability of Crocs' suits for passing off, which had previously been dismissed by a Single Judge. The court found that dismissing the suits outright was an error, as the claim for passing off extends beyond merely copying a registered design and requires factual examination.
Avient Switzerland Gmbh v.Treadfast Ventures & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Avient Switzerland Gmbh, setting aside the previous rejection of its trademark application 'RENOL'. The court found that the original Trade Marks Registry failed to holistically consider all evidence presented by the appellant during the opposition proceedings. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the Registrar for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the applicant a second chance to prove their claim.
Major League Baseball Properties Inc v.Manish Vijay & Ors.
Major League Baseball Properties Inc successfully petitioned for the rectification (cancellation) of the trademark 'BLUE-JAY' registered in favor of Manish Vijay & Ors. The court recognized that MLB is the prior adopter and user of the mark, having used it since 1976 globally. Despite procedural hurdles regarding previous opposition attempts, the Delhi High Court ruled that the similarity between the marks constituted an attempt to ride upon MLB's established goodwill, thereby directing the Registrar to cancel the infringing registration.
Selle Royal Group S.P.A. v.Ace Footmark (P) Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Selle Royal Group S.P.A., directing the cancellation of the respondent's trademark, FIZIFREAK. The court found that FIZIFREAK was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established and well-known trademarks, fi'zi:k and FREE:K. Given the identical goods (footwear) and the clear attempt by the respondent to exploit the petitioner's goodwill, the registration of FIZIFREAK was deemed invalid.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.Bali Ram Trading As Bali Kitchenware Industries and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited's application to rectify and remove the trademark 'CROMPTON' registered by Bali Ram Trading. The court found that Crompton Greaves was the prior adopter, user, and well-known proprietor of the mark in Class 21 since 1943. Given the identical nature of the marks and the respondent's failure to contest the claims, the court ruled that the registration was contrary to the TM Act and liable for cancellation.
Rakesh Kumar Mittal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Rakesh Kumar Mittal, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore his trademark 'MILTON/'. The core issue was the removal of the mark due to non-renewal. The court held that the removal was illegal because the Registrar failed to comply with the mandatory statutory procedure—specifically, issuing a Form O-3 Notice as required under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural compliance is a prerequisite for administrative action in trademark law.
M/S Ambika Industrial Corporation v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an order by the Trade Marks Registry that had allowed a change in the registered address for the 'AMBIKA' trademark. The petitioner firm argued that the change, filed by a former partner (Respondent No. 2), lacked justification and was detrimental to the established proprietor. The court ruled that since the petitioner remains the undisputed registered owner, the registry could not unilaterally alter the address based on an unsupported application, thereby restoring the original details.
Dura-Line India Pvt Ltd v.Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.
Dura-Line India Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., alleging infringement of its patent and design related to non-metallic pipes embedded with tracer cables for leak detection. The defendant challenged both the infringement and the validity of the patent itself. After extensive proceedings, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dura-Line, upholding the validity of the Suit Patent and decreeing the suit.
Rieter Ag And Anr. v.Kavassery Narayanaswamy Venkatesubramanian
The Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge by the defendant regarding territorial jurisdiction over an infringement suit involving designs, trademarks, and patents. The plaintiffs successfully argued that despite the defendant being based elsewhere, the cause of action arose in Delhi because goods were delivered to an address there following an order placed from Delhi. The court rejected the defense's claim that the transaction was merely a 'trap purchase,' affirming that the physical delivery of goods and invoicing in Delhi established the court's jurisdiction.
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.