Tarun Sethi v. Vikas Budhiraja

Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. LtdvsThe Controller Of Patents And Designs & Another

The appellant filed an appeal challenging the Controller's dismissal of its application to cancel several registered toothbrush designs. The appellant argued that these designs lacked novelty, were prior published, or were merely functional/trade variants. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that design 176343 was original and new based on its unique combination of shape, configuration, ribs, and etchings.

M/s Anondita HealthcarevsSware Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

The dispute arose from an injunction decree concerning the unauthorized use and fabrication of machines designed for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders (Anondita Healthcare) sought to maintain attachment of a second machine during execution proceedings, alleging violation of their design rights. The High Court ruled that the executing court cannot undertake fresh substantive inquiry into IP infringement, setting aside the order maintaining the attachment.

Aqualite Industries Private LimitedvsRelaxo Footwears Limited

This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned allegations that Aqualite Industries was infringing on Relaxo Footwears' registered designs for hawai slippers. Relaxo had secured an interim injunction against Aqualite, which challenged this order. The court examined whether Aqualite's products were identical to the protected designs and whether the registrations themselves were invalid due to prior art or lack of novelty. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that the suit designs possessed novelty and that Aqualite was infringing Relaxo's registered design.

Dharmaj TechnologiesvsMac Swin Technologies

Dharmaj Technologies filed a suit against Mac Swin Technologies alleging infringement and passing off related to its Registered Design No. 253469, which pertains to a diamond processing machine. The dispute centered on the defendant's manufacturing and sale of machines bearing identical or obvious imitations of the plaintiff's design. Following an undertaking by the defendant discontinuing the use of the impugned design, the court allowed the suit to the extent of granting permanent injunctions against future infringement.

Kent Ro Systems Ltd.vsVarun Sood

Kent Ro Systems Ltd. filed a suit against Varun Sood and others alleging infringement of their design rights and passing off related to water purifier products. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages concerning the use of deceptively similar designs (ESSENCIA/SPARKLE) compared to their registered designs (KENT WONDER/EKNT SUPREME). Ultimately, both parties reached a mutual settlement, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit in terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise.