Plaintiff Favorable
683 plaintiff favorable decisions from Delhi High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
683 cases | Page 6 of 23
Jabir Hussain Trading As M/S Hakeem Hotel v.Ali Asgar Trading As M/S. Hakeem Restaurant
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Jabir Hussain (M/S Hakeem Hotel) against a Commercial Court's decision to return its trademark infringement plaint. The appellant sought permanent injunction against the respondent for infringing and passing off their registered trademarks in North West Delhi. The High Court ruled that since the plaintiff pleaded both existing operations via e-commerce platforms within Delhi's jurisdiction, and an imminent threat of physical expansion into Delhi, a valid cause of action existed within the territorial limits. Consequently, the Commercial Court's order returning the plaint was set aside, and the suit was restored.
Mallcom (India) Limited v.Shanti Udyog Weldsafe Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mallcom (India) Limited, protecting its registered trademark 'TIGER' used for safety shoes. The court found that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar and violated both statutory and common law rights. While restraining further use, the defendants were allowed a grace period to deplete their existing stock and were ordered to take down the infringing website.
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. v.D N Bahri Trading As The Veldon Chemical And Food Product And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd against D N Bahri Trading As The Veldon Chemical, ordering the removal of the respondent's registered mark under Class 32. The petitioner successfully argued that the impugned trademark was either not used continuously for the required period or constituted an infringement/passing off risk given the established reputation and extensive use of the 'AMUL' brand. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to well-known marks against unauthorized registrations.
M/S P.M. Diesels P. Ltd. v.M/S Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.
In a complex 40-year dispute over the 'FIELDMARSHAL' trademark, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd. The court set aside previous orders from the IPAB that had rejected P.M. Diesels' applications and cancelled a key registration held by Thukral Mechanical Works. This landmark decision allows P.M. Diesels to proceed with registering its mark, effectively resolving a long-standing conflict over brand ownership in the diesel engine sector.
Apl Apollo Tubes Limited v.M/S Steel Track & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Apl Apollo Tubes Limited against M/S Steel Track & Ors. regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'APOLLO/APOLLO TMT' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established marks, risking irreparable harm to their brand equity. While acknowledging the Plaintiff's delay in filing the suit, the Court issued a comprehensive restraint order covering all marketing and sales activities, though it exempted goods already manufactured by the Defendants.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Lava International Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute over Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) between Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Lava International Limited. The court examined the validity, novelty, and inventive step of several patents asserted by Ericsson against Lava. While the suit patent IN 203034 was subject to revocation proceedings, the judgment ultimately affirmed the validity of seven other key patents held by Ericsson. Consequently, the Court passed a decree in favor of Ericsson for substantial damages related to past infringement.
Visakha Chemicals v.Bindal Food Products
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Visakha Chemicals against Bindal Food Products for trademark infringement and passing off related to Ayurvedic products. The Plaintiff successfully demonstrated prior usage and established significant goodwill for their trademarks 'ROCHAK' and 'AM PACHAN,' as well as the associated trade dress/packaging, which were deceptively copied by the Defendant. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using these marks and awarded nominal damages.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Narender Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the existing interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited against Narender Kumar & Ors. The dispute centered on alleged passing off, where the defendant used the mark 'CAFTADAY' for an eye drop containing the compound ALCAFTADINE, deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark 'CAFTA'. Despite arguments from the defense regarding generic drug naming conventions and INNs, the Court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the triple test for passing off. Consequently, the injunction was maintained, preventing the defendants from using the impugned mark during the pendency of the suit.
Bayer Pharm Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Bayer appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 5818/DELNP/2006), which was rejected on grounds that the composition did not meet criteria under Sections 3(e) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the Controller failed to adhere to principles of natural justice by not clearly communicating all objections in the hearing notice, and ruled that the claimed composition was patentable.
Gm Modular Pvt Ltd. v.Mayur Electromeck Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the rectification petition filed by Gm Modular Pvt Ltd., successfully challenging the registration of a similar mark held by Mayur Electromeck Pvt Ltd. The court found that the Impugned Mark was not genuinely used in commerce, despite the respondent's claims. Based on the lack of substantial evidence of use and potential confusion with the established 'GM' brand, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the infringing trademark registration.
SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors. v.Mr Vishal Choudhary
The plaintiffs, SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors., filed an application seeking a permanent injunction against Mr. Vishal Choudhary for allegedly manufacturing and selling similar brick making machines that infringe on their patents (Nos. 353483, 359114, etc.) and copyrights in technical literature. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of infringement.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
Kudos Pharmaceuticals, the registered proprietor of Patent IN 228720 for 'Phthalazinone derivative' (Olaparib), filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement due to Natco manufacturing and selling its generic version under the brand name BRACANAT. Kudos sought a permanent injunction, which was supported by an interlocutory injunction application.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited, the registered proprietor of Indian Patent IN 228720 for 'Phthalazinone derivative' (Olaparib), filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement due to Natco manufacturing and selling its generic version under the brand name BRACANAT. Kudos sought a permanent injunction, and subsequently an interlocutory injunction.
A.K. Al Muhaidib And Sons v.Chaman Lal Sachdeva And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, removing the mark 'AL-WALIMAH' (TM No. 523217) from the register. The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent had failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark in relation to goods in Class 30 for a continuous period of five years. Given the lack of evidence of genuine commercial use, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the removal of the mark.
Vifor International Ltd v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Vifor International Ltd challenged an interim injunction order that restricted its patent claims to only the manufacturing process. The Delhi High Court addressed the critical issue of product-by-process claims, emphasizing that the scope of a patent monopoly cannot be limited solely by the process used to obtain the product. The court clarified that claim construction must define the full scope of the invention as disclosed in the complete specification, allowing for broader protection than merely the method.
Vifor (International) Limited v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Vifor (International) Limited appealed an interim injunction order that restricted its claims to only the process aspect, arguing against the narrow interpretation of product-by-process patents. The Delhi High Court addressed the significant issue of how such claims should be construed under the Patent Act, 1970. The court clarified that a patent's scope cannot be limited solely by the process used, emphasizing that claim construction must define the full extent of the monopoly granted to the patentee. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the restrictive judgment was set aside.
The Regents Of The University Of California v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
The Regents of the University of California appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding their patent application for 'Blockade of Inflammatory Proteases with Theta Defensins'. The rejection primarily hinged on objections related to novelty and inventive step, compounded by concerns over the permissibility of claim amendments under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the amendments served only as explanations or incorporated facts already disclosed, thereby allowing the application to be remanded for fresh examination.
Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (Uab) Baltijos Mineraliniu Vandenu Kompanija v.Mr. Sahil Tandon Trading As A And Z Exports International & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (UAB) against Mr. Sahil Tandon, leading to the cancellation of a registered trademark for 'TICHE' in Class 32. The court found that UAB was the prior and legitimate adopter of the mark since 1998, citing extensive international use and evidence of trans-border reputation spilling over into India. The judgment underscores the importance of proving prior usage and bona fide adoption when challenging a trademark registration.
Smt. Harbans Kaur / Gurmarg Appliances Pvt Ltd v.Ascent Electronics / Gurmarg Appliances Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court ruled decisively in favor of the original proprietor regarding the trademark 'TANASHI'. The court found that the plaintiff had established prior rights through long-standing use dating back to 1993, despite subsequent registrations by the defendant. Crucially, the court held that a distributor is merely a permissive user and cannot claim proprietary rights over a mark belonging to the original owner. Consequently, the suit for infringement was decreed, and the defendant's conflicting trademark registration was cancelled.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited & Anr.
Novartis appealed an order that allowed certain amendments in its Indian Patent Application (IN'518) based on a finding that pre-grant opponents should be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The core dispute centered on whether the examination process and opposition proceedings are independent or merged under the Patents Act, 1970.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Kavitha Kuruganti
This appeal challenged the revocation of a plant variety registration (FL 2027) granted to PepsiCo. The initial Single Judge affirmed the revocation primarily due to incorrect information regarding the date of first commercial sale and failure to submit requisite documentation. The High Court allowed PepsiCo's appeal, setting aside the revocation order while noting that the mistake in styling as 'new' was remediable.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Kavitha Kuruganti
PepsiCo appealed the revocation of registration for its plant variety FL 2027. The original revocation was based on PepsiCo furnishing incorrect information about the date of first commercial sale and alleged non-compliance with documentation requirements. The High Court allowed PepsiCo's appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment regarding the eligibility to apply for registration.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors. v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited
The suit alleged infringement of several patents held by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Olaparib (LYNPARZA). The Plaintiffs contended that Dr. Reddy's Laboratories was manufacturing and exporting Olaparib API, violating their patent rights. The court decreed the suit, permanently restraining the Defendant from commercially launching the product before the patent expiry date, subject to Section 107A provisions.
Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited v.Fashion One Television Llc and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited, quashing the trademark registrations held by Fashion One Television Llc. The court found that the respondent's mark infringed upon the petitioner's established 'NOW'-centric family of marks (such as TIMES NOW and ET NOW) because both operate within the same Class 38 for broadcasting services. The judgment emphasized that a viewer would likely associate the impugned mark with the petitioner’s repertoire, establishing a subsisting interest in the common element 'NOW'.
V Guard Industries Ltd v.Ms Mahavir Home Appliances And Anr. & Anr.
The dispute concerning the registered design for ceiling fans was amicably resolved by both parties. The Defendants recognized the Plaintiff's exclusive rights and agreed to cease production/distribution of similar designs, while also undertaking to withdraw pending cancellation petitions against the design. However, the court noted a separate legal issue regarding the refund of court fees in private settlements.
Emerson Process Mangement Power And Water Solutions Inc v.Controller Of Patents
Emerson Process Management filed appeals challenging the rejection of its patent applications (Nos. 1253/DEL/2006 and 4197/DEL/2015) relating to computer software. The court noted that the main ground for rejection—the lack of novelty and inventiveness in associated hardware—no longer aligns with current Patent Office guidelines.
Emerson Process Management Power And Water Solutions Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emerson Process Management appealed the rejection of its patent applications (Nos. 1253/DEL/2006 and 4197/DEL/2015) for computer software patents. The court noted that the main ground for rejection—the novelty and inventiveness of associated hardware—no longer applied under current Patent Office guidelines.
Indarmal M Solanki v.Rakesh Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Indarmal M Solanki against Rakesh Gupta, leading to the cancellation of the contested trademark 'EL PASO'. The court found that the impugned mark was identical to the Petitioner's prior registered and used marks for readymade garments (Class 25). Furthermore, the Respondent failed to renew the registration since April 2017, making it liable for removal under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the court ordered the cancellation and deletion of the mark from the register.
Bolt Technology Ou v.Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court found the defendants guilty of contumacious and willful disobedience regarding a previous court order dated November 23, 2022. The original order had clearly prohibited the defendants from using their standalone mark 'BOLT' and an earlier logo, allowing only for future expansion under a modified mark ('BOLT.EARTH'). Despite this categorical direction, the defendants continued to use the proscribed marks. Consequently, the court held them in contempt and scheduled a hearing to determine the appropriate sentence.
Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited v.Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a review petition filed by Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited against an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB had previously allowed a rectification petition, effectively invalidating the petitioner's registered trademark. The court found that the original order violated the principles of natural justice because service of notice was not properly effected on the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and directed that the rectification petition be heard afresh before the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) of the 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.