Plaintiff Favorable
762 plaintiff favorable decisions from Delhi High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
762 cases | Page 9 of 26
M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd v.Sh. Gopal Shinghal & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd's petition seeking the cancellation of the registered trademark 'GMT' held by Sh. Gopal Shinghal. The court found that 'GMT' is deceptively similar to the Petitioner's established mark 'GM', which has been in continuous use since 1999 for electrical goods. Given the prior adoption and substantial goodwill of 'GM', the registration of 'GMT' was deemed contrary to Sections 9 and 11 of the Trademarks Act, leading to its removal from the register.
Acko Technology And Services Pvt Ltd v.Bal Kishan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted relief to Acko Technology And Services Pvt Ltd, directing the cancellation of a conflicting trademark (No. 5320418) registered by Bal Kishan. The petitioner argued that its established mark 'ACKO' for insurance services was being infringed upon by the respondent's mark 'ACKOLITE' in Class 11 (household appliances). Given the likelihood of confusion and Acko's strong prior rights, the Court cancelled the impugned registration, reinforcing the principle against conflicting marks.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Neptune Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and distributing generic versions of Sitagliptin under the trade name 'HAPPY JAAN M', infringing Indian Patent No. 209816. Although the suit patent had expired, the court decreed the suit against Defendant 2 based on its failure to file a response, directing it to pay damages.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Others
Qualcomm appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents which rejected their patent application (No. 5159/DELNP/2007) primarily citing Section 3(k) and lack of definitiveness. The High Court found that the rejection order suffered from manifest non-application of mind as it failed to address the appellant's submissions, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Canva Pty Ltd, alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. IN 360726, which covers a system and method for creating and sharing interactive content. The Plaintiff argued that Canva's 'Present and Record' feature directly infringes the patented technology used in their product, 'My Show & Tell'. After analyzing the claims and evidence, the Delhi High Court found prima facie merit in the Plaintiff's case.
Pfizer Inc v.West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited for infringing four patents covering Palbociclib and Crizotinib. The dispute centered on the Defendant's listing of these products for manufacture and sale, despite the existence of valid patents held by the Plaintiffs.
Paragon Cable India & Anr. v.Essee Networks Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit filed by Paragon Cable India against Essee Networks Private Limited, upholding a settlement agreement reached between the parties. The core dispute involved the infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'ELEKTRON'. Crucially, the court directed the Trademark Registry to expeditiously transfer the rights of the 'ELEKTRON' mark into the name of the plaintiffs, formalizing the assignment made by the defendants.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
Nokia appealed a single judge's order that dismissed its application for a pro-tem security deposit. Nokia claimed infringement based on its extensive portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) used by Oppo in smartphones. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, finding that a prima facie case of infringement was made out and directing Oppo to deposit the last paid amount attributable to India.
Microsoft Corporation v.Zoai Founder
Microsoft Corporation challenged an arbitral award rendered under the INDRP concerning the domain name zoai.in, which had denied Microsoft's claim for transfer. The petitioner argued that the arbitrator was biased and that the decision was vitiated by procedural unfairness due to independent research conducted without providing materials to Microsoft. The Delhi High Court agreed with the petitioner on both grounds of bias and natural justice violation.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd
Nokia appealed a single judge's order that dismissed its application for a pro-tem security deposit related to Nokia's Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). Nokia argued that infringement was prima facie established, and the balance of convenience favored granting interim relief. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
Agfa Nv & Anr. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Agfa Nv appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused grant for its patent application concerning 'MANUFACTURING OF DECORATIVE LAMINATES BY INKJET'. The refusal was based on objections regarding lack of clarity, succinctness, and inventive step. The Delhi High Court examined these grounds, particularly focusing on whether vague terms like 'thermosetting resin' were adequately defined in the complete specification. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned order, directing the Patent Office to proceed with granting the patent.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Br Retail India Private Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Inter Ikea Systems Bv, finding that the defendants were likely infringing on IKEA's registered trademarks. The court ordered the defendant to immediately cease using the deceptively similar 'TIKEA/' mark across all goods and services. Furthermore, the judgment mandated the removal of any infringing material from the website www.tikea.in and directed the defendants to take steps to get such content taken down from third-party websites.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Buildtech Llp & Anr.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Vistara Buildtech LLP and others in the Delhi High Court. The court found a clear prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given that Tata Sia is the proprietor of the well-known mark 'VISTARA' used in commercial aviation. The order restrained the defendants from using the infringing mark while the main suit proceeds.
Huhtamaki Oyj And Anr v.Controller Of Patents
Huhtamaki Oyj appealed a patent application rejection (Application No. 6727/DELNP/2014) based on lack of inventive step. The High Court examined the prior art references and found that the initial rejection was flawed, particularly regarding the procedural aspects. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Fybros Electric Private Limited v.Hira Lal Jain Trading As Vikram Cable Industries and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Fybros Electric Private Limited's petition, directing the removal of the rival trademark 'NEBROS' from the trade mark register. The court found that NEBROS was deceptively similar to the petitioner's earlier marks and covered identical goods (wires and cables) in Class 9. Given the likelihood of public confusion, the High Court ruled that the registration of NEBROS should not be upheld.
Fybros Electric Pvt Ltd v.Mukesh Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Fybros Electric Pvt Ltd's petition seeking rectification of the trademark register. The court found that the respondent's registered mark was deceptively and phonetically similar to the petitioner's earlier mark, despite both being registered for identical goods in Class 11. Crucially, the judgment established that a challenge under Section 57 does not require the petitioner to prove actual damage, only that the mark is improperly maintained on the register.
Synthes Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Synthes Gmbh challenged an impugned order from the Assistant Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, arguing that the rejection lacked due process. The court found that the original order was a 'total mockery' as it merely cut and pasted objections without providing any reasoned analysis or considering the appellant's replies. Recognizing the severe procedural lapses, the Delhi High Court quashed the decision and remanded the application for fresh consideration by a different officer.
Infiniti Retail Limited v.M/S Croma Through Its Proprietor & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Infiniti Retail Limited, granting a permanent injunction against trademark infringement and ordering the transfer of the domain name www.croma.in. The court found that the plaintiff's mark 'CROMA,' which is registered and declared well-known, was being illegally used by a third party who was profiting from its reputation through website squatting. This judgment reinforces the strong legal protection afforded to established, well-known trademarks in the digital space.
Hamdard National Foundation India v.Government Of Nct Delhi
Hamdard National Foundation India challenged the unrestricted use of 'Rogan Badam Shirin' by Ayurvedic manufacturers for almond oil, arguing it was reserved for Unani medicine. The petition sought directions to prevent unauthorized usage of this terminology. The court noted that the Ministry of Ayush had communicated to State licensing authorities that Raughan-E-Badam Shireen requires a Unani Drug License, thereby satisfying the petitioner's primary relief.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application for a filtering user interface. The Controller rejected the application under Section 3(k) as being a 'computer program per se'. The High Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that software can be patentable if it demonstrates a technical contribution and applying the updated CRI 2017 Guidelines.
Sony Group Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sony Group Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (4334/DELNP/2013) on the grounds that subsequent amendments were beyond the scope of as filed claims. The Controller rejected the application because the amended claims corresponded to an EP divisional application rather than the main European Patent application. The High Court set aside this rejection, finding that the amendments merely limited the scope and were supported by the specification.
Holyland Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Vijay Pal Vineet Kumar And Co. And Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, striking down a competitor's registration. The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent's mark and trade dress were deceptively similar to its own, despite minor differences in the names ('Golden Crown' vs 'Golden Queen'). Furthermore, the court noted that the respondent's application was ineligible for registration under Section 11(1)(b) due to the petitioner's prior priority of user and registration. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to established trade dress and marks against confusingly similar imitations.
M/S Arvind Medicare Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Arvind Medicare Pvt. Ltd. against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of their word mark 'MIRACLES' for medical services (Class 44). The court recognized that due to continuous use since 2012, the mark had acquired distinctiveness and goodwill in the market. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to the advertisement stage, allowing further scrutiny against existing marks.
Arvind Medicare Pvt Ltd. v.Registrar Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Arvind Medicare Pvt Ltd. against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of its device mark registration for medical services (Class 44). The court found that despite objections based on similarity to an earlier mark, the appellant had established significant goodwill and continuous use since 2012. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to advertisement, allowing the matter to be decided on its merits against any potential opposition.
Titan Umreifungstechnik Gmbh And Co. Kg v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of their patent application for a plastic strapping band. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of inventive step and vagueness in claims (Section 10(4)). The High Court found the rejection unreasoned, particularly regarding Section 10(4), and allowed the appeal.
Pepsico Inc. v.Jagpin Breweries Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pepsico Inc., granting an absolute ad interim injunction against Jagpin Breweries Limited. The court found that the unauthorized use of 'MIRINDA' and its Hindi transliteration by the defendant, particularly in connection with country-made liquor, constituted trademark infringement and dilution. This decision underscores the strong protection afforded to well-known marks under Indian IP law, even when goods or trade channels differ.
Khilender Gupta Trading As M/S Bobby Enterprises v.Rakesh Kumar Trading As M/S Sai Birbal Das Foods
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Khilender Gupta (the defendant in the original suit) challenging a lower court's refusal to permit amendments to their written statement. The core issue was whether changing the claimed date of trademark use constituted an impermissible 'U-turn.' The Court ruled that since the petitioner was entitled to claim user from any date, and the amendment merely reflected newly discovered material, it was correctional in nature and should be allowed in the interest of justice.
Vexim v.The Controller Of Patents
Vexim appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent application, 'Methods and Apparatuses for Bone Restoration,' which was initially denied due to lack of inventive step. The core issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the Patent Office had provided adequate reasoning for this refusal. The court found that the impugned order was cryptic, failing to analyze existing knowledge against the subject invention as required by law. Consequently, the rejection was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Patent Office for a fresh, reasoned consideration.
Sugen, Inc. v.Mr. K Vijaya Prakash
Sugen, Inc. filed applications alleging that Mr. K Vijaya Prakash and associated defendants willfully violated an injunction order passed by the Delhi High Court in 2016. The original suit concerned the infringement of three patents covering the drug Crizotinib (marketed as Xalkori®). Plaintiffs presented evidence, including photographs and investigator reports, suggesting the manufacturing and sale of the generic product 'CRIZO SPL™' after the injunction was issued. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had control over the infringing entities, leading to a finding of wilful contempt against him.
Ankit Aggarwal Proprietor Of M/S Vepson Engineers v.Gupta Casting Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed petitions filed by Ankit Aggarwal to cancel two trademark registrations held by Gupta Casting Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the respondent's marks were confusingly similar to the petitioner's prior and well-established mark, 'JAI KISAN,' used since 1985 in agricultural implements. Furthermore, the respondent failed to demonstrate genuine use of their registered marks for a continuous period of five years, leading the court to remove them from the Register under Section 47 of the Trade Mark Act.
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.