Plaintiff Favorable
762 plaintiff favorable decisions from Delhi High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
762 cases | Page 2 of 26
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Mantis Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Volvo, granting permanent injunctions against several defendants for infringing and passing off the 'VOLVO' trademark. The court also ordered the transfer of specific domain names held by other defendants to Volvo. Furthermore, substantial damages were awarded to Volvo against those who willfully used the mark while evading legal proceedings, reinforcing the principle that evasion does not shield commercial gain.
Goethe-Institut E.V. v.Abhishek Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Goethe-Institut E.V., a well-known cultural institute, against Abhishek Yadav and others. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant's use of similar marks like 'MAX MUELLER INSTITUTE' was likely to cause confusion among the public regarding their association with the established brand. The court found that the plaintiff had prima facie established its prior goodwill and reputation in the market for German language courses, warranting immediate protective relief pending the final trial.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals challenged notices and orders issued by the Controller General regarding its patent application for a cystic fibrosis treatment compound. The core legal question was whether a pre-grant opposition could be entertained after the patent had already been granted by the Controller. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Vertex, holding that once the Controller grants the patent, they become functus officio and cannot legally entertain subsequent oppositions.
Abhi Traders v.Fashnear Technologies Private Limited & Ors.
Abhi Traders, a clothing manufacturer, filed a suit against various sellers operating on an e-commerce platform (Defendant No. 1) for infringing its copyrights and passing off its products. The plaintiff asserted ownership over the artistic designs and promotional photographs used to market its 'Ibrana' line of ethnic wear. After the defendants failed to file written statements despite being served, the court found that the defendants substantially reproduced the copyrighted images and took unfair advantage of the plaintiff's goodwill.
Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v.Mr. A.R. Rahman & Ors.
Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar filed a suit seeking recognition of copyright and injunction against Mr. A.R. Rahman and others regarding the musical composition 'Shiva Stuti'. The plaintiff alleged that his ancestral work was being used in the song 'Veera Raja Veera' without proper attribution or authorization. The Delhi High Court, while addressing an interim application, found prima facie evidence of copyright infringement. Consequently, the court directed mandatory changes to credit slides on online platforms and ordered a substantial deposit from the defendants.
Vineet Kapur v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Vineet Kapur's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the numerical mark '2929' for cosmetics. The court held that a combination of numbers can function as an inherently distinctive and arbitrary trademark, provided it is not descriptive or common in trade. By setting aside the rejection, the Court directed the application to proceed to advertisement, reinforcing the principle that numerals are capable of serving as effective source identifiers.
M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited v.Kamran Ghani And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited against Kamran Ghani, leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark 'MARDEM'. The petitioner successfully argued that their established mark 'MODERN' was deceptively and identically similar to 'MARDEM', causing likelihood of confusion in Class 30 (snacks). This judgment reinforces the principle that prior use and strong goodwill can be grounds for cancelling a later registration if it is confusingly similar.
Bmi Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps) v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs And Another
Bmi Group Danmark Aps appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for a multi-layer sealing web. The core dispute centered on whether the invention possessed inventive step, specifically concerning the unique combination carrier insert featuring glass nonwoven and knitted glass reinforcement. The Delhi High Court examined the technical analysis and found that the Controller incorrectly interpreted the claim's features and relied improperly on non-analogous prior art. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and directed the grant of the patent.
M/S Zine Davidoff S.A. v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Zine Davidoff S.A., restoring its mark 'DAVIDOFF' (No. 454875) after it had been removed by the IPAB for alleged lapse. The court found that the petitioner had renewed the mark within statutory timelines, and crucially, noted that the Trade Mark Registry failed to issue a mandatory Form O3 notice before removal. Given the Registry's admission of lacking records regarding this notice, the High Court mandated the restoration of the trademark.
The Coca-Cola Company v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The Coca-Cola Company appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application for a superior beverage dispenser. The appeal argued that the rejection order failed to analyze the appellant's submissions distinguishing the invention from cited prior art. The High Court held that the Controller must pass a speaking order analyzing all elements, and consequently set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Diageo Scotland Limited v.Prachi Varma & Anr.
Diageo Scotland Limited successfully appealed against the rejection of its opposition to a new trademark registration, 'CAPTAIN BLUE'. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Diageo, finding that 'CAPTAIN BLUE' was deceptively similar and constituted an imitation of Diageo's established family of marks, particularly 'CAPTAIN MORGAN'. The court set aside the previous order and directed the removal of the infringing mark from the Register, reinforcing the protection afforded to well-known brands.
Epifi Technologies Private Limited v.Formula One Licensing Bv & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Epifi Technologies Private Limited against Formula One Licensing Bv & Anr., successfully arguing that the respondent's registered mark 'F1' should be removed from the register. The court found that the impugned mark had not been used in commerce for the required continuous period, and furthermore, the respondent failed to obtain necessary regulatory approvals despite its registration date. This decision reinforces the principle that trademark registrations must reflect genuine commercial use.
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.