Amit Bansal
342 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
342 cases indexed | Page 10 of 12
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Chardikla Accessories & Ors.
In the ongoing trademark dispute between Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Chardikla Accessories, the Delhi High Court issued an order on February 24, 2023. The court noted that Defendant No. 4 expressed a willingness to settle the matter, similar to Defendants No. 1 through 3. Consequently, the case was listed for further proceedings and settlement discussions on April 6, 2023.
Astral Ltd v.Ashirvad Pipes Pvt Ltd
Astral Ltd filed a suit against Ashirvad Pipes Pvt Ltd, alleging that the defendant's use of the mark 'CPVC FLOWPRO' infringed upon Astral's reputation associated with its trademark 'CPVC PRO'. The core dispute centered on whether the similarity between the marks created a likelihood of confusion in the market. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for granting an interim injunction.
Toasha Agencies And Another v.Siddhant Choudharyand Anr.
The Delhi High Court framed a comprehensive set of issues in the trademark passing-off suit filed by Toasha Agencies against Siddhant Choudhary and others. The core disputes revolve around whether the plaintiffs are lawful proprietors of the 'TOASHA' trade name, if they possess distinctive goodwill, and crucially, whether the defendants have engaged in passing off or unfair competition. The court directed both parties to file their lists of witnesses and evidence, setting the stage for a full trial.
Dabur India Limited v.Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited
Dabur India Limited successfully secured a decree against Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited regarding the infringement and passing off of its trademark 'HONITUS.' The dispute was amicably resolved through mediation, leading to a Settlement Agreement. Under this agreement, the Defendant acknowledged Dabur's rights, agreed to cease using the infringing packaging/label/trade dress, modified their product presentation, and paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Plaintiff.
Ttk Prestige Ltd v.K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors
Ttk Prestige Ltd filed a suit against K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors alleging trademark infringement and passing off concerning its registered brand 'PRESTIGE'. The court granted temporary relief, restraining Defendants No. 2 and 3 from manufacturing or selling products using the disputed mark until the next hearing date. This interim order protects the plaintiff's established market reputation while the full merits of the case are examined.
American International School Chennai v.American International School Greater Noida & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of American International School Chennai against American International School Greater Noida. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant's use of the name 'American International School' was likely to deceive the public. This crucial early ruling protects the plaintiff's registered trademarks while the full litigation proceeds.
Usha International Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr.
Usha International Limited filed a petition seeking the removal/cancellation of the mark 'WSHA' from the Trade Marks Register, arguing that it is deceptively similar to their long-standing mark 'USHA'. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and issued notice to the respondents. The matter was subsequently listed for further arguments on April 4, 2022.
Winzo Games Private Limited v.Google Llc
The Delhi High Court framed several key issues in the dispute between Winzo Games Private Limited and Google LLC regarding a warning displayed on Chrome Mobile Browser. The core questions revolve around whether this warning constitutes disparagement of WinZO's trademarks, amounts to trademark use under the Trade Marks Act, or violates contractual obligations. Both parties have been directed to file a joint schedule for recording evidence, signaling that the matter is moving into the substantive trial phase.
Gopika Industries v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the renewal of Trademark No. 1039952, which was originally registered under Dayal Industries Limited but subsequently renewed in the name of its sister concern. The court heard arguments regarding whether this change constituted a bona fide mistake or an improper transfer. To clarify the complex factual matrix, the Court issued directions requiring all relevant respondents to file detailed affidavits and produce supporting documentation within three weeks.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Media Private Limited
In a matter concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued an order on April 2, 2024. The court addressed the Plaintiff's concerns regarding ongoing trademark filings by the Defendant through 'VISTARA PRAKASHANA LLP'. Upon receiving notice, the Defendant stated its intention to dissolve the LLP and withdraw all related trademark applications. Consequently, the court determined that no immediate directions were necessary for the Plaintiff at this juncture.
Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v.The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr.
Nestle appealed the refusal of its patent application, titled 'Composition for use in the Prophylaxis of Allergic Disease,' which had been rejected by the Patent Office on grounds including being a method of treatment and lack of inventive step. The High Court examined arguments regarding claim scope, permissible amendments under Section 59, and the demonstration of synergy. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, finding that the subject matter satisfied the criteria for inventive step and directing the application to proceed for grant.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha M/S Toyota Motor Corporation v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petitions filed by Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha against Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd regarding the trademark 'ALPHARD'. Toyota sought to remove registrations held by the respondent in Classes 9, 12, and 27. The court found that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or reputation for 'ALPHARD' within India, particularly in the specific classes of goods where the respondent was registered. Consequently, the petitions seeking cancellation were dismissed.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha / Toyota Motor Corporation v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petitions filed by Toyota Motor Corporation against Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd. regarding the trademark 'ALPHARD'. Toyota sought to remove registrations held by the respondent in Classes 9, 12, and 27, arguing its global reputation. However, the court found that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or transborder reputation for 'ALPHARD' specifically within India, particularly concerning the goods registered by the respondent. The judgment emphasizes that mere foreign sales are insufficient without evidence of extensive local use and advertising.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha / Toyota Motor Corporation v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petitions filed by Toyota Motor Corporation against Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd. regarding the trademark 'ALPHARD'. Toyota sought to remove registrations held by the respondent in Classes 9, 12, and 27, arguing its global reputation. However, the court found that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or transborder reputation for 'ALPHARD' specifically within India, particularly concerning the goods registered by the respondent. The judgment emphasizes that mere foreign sales are insufficient without evidence of extensive local use and advertising.
Seagull Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Uni-Pex Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the Defendants successfully moved an application to expedite the proceedings. The court allowed the request for early hearing on applications concerning interim injunctions and the preliminary issue regarding the invalidity of the Plaintiff's trademark registration. Consequently, the next hearing date was rescheduled.
Global Car Group Ltd. v.Vienna It Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Global Car Group Ltd. successfully secured an ex parte ad interim injunction against Vienna It Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant registered the domain name 'www.cars24.in' and used a deceptively similar mark, infringing upon their well-known trademark 'Cars24'. Given the prima facie case made out, the court granted immediate relief, restraining the defendant from using the mark and ordering the takedown of the associated dummy website.
Shrinath Travel Agency & Anr. v.Maventech Labs Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Shrinath Travel Agency against Maventech Labs Private Limited and others. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were deceptively adopting their registered trademarks ('SHRINATH') and associated marks in the tour and travel industry, including through identical domain names. The court found a prima facie case was made out, noting that balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, leading to immediate restraint on the use of infringing marks and websites until the final hearing.
G4S Limited & Anr. v.Groupon 3 Security Services India Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of G4S Limited against Groupon 3 Security Services India Private Limited. The court found that the defendants were adopting marks ('G3S', etc.) that were structurally, phonetically, and visually similar to G4S's registered trademarks. Given the identical nature of the security services offered, the court held that a prima facie case was made out for infringement, granting immediate relief to prevent irreparable harm.
Krbl Limited v.Vikram Roller Flour Mills Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the denial of interim injunction regarding the trademark 'INDIA GATE'. The court analyzed a prior consent order between the parties, which restricted usage based on product type and packaging size. While acknowledging the Appellant's claim as a well-known mark, the court ruled that if the Respondent's right to use 'dalia' flows from its existing rights for wheat products (atta, suji, etc.), it must adhere to the B2B/bulk sales restriction of 20 kgs and above. This interim order maintains the status quo while the core dispute over prior user rights remains sub-judice.
Impact Selector International Llc v.Controller Of Patents
Impact Selector International Llc appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Field Adjustable Impact JAR' by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection order was cryptic and failed to address detailed submissions distinguishing the invention from prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, emphasizing that the Patent Office must pass a reasoned or 'speaking' order when rejecting an application based on lack of inventive step. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by another officer.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Anil Pendela
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies against Anil Pendela regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs, owners of the 'Dream11' brand, successfully argued that the defendant's use of 'Dreamz11 Sports' and the tagline 'Khelo Dil Se' was deceptively similar to their registered marks. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from using these infringing marks and ordered the suspension of the associated domain name and takedown of social media pages.
Virendra Kumar Gupta v.Burger King Corporation
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Virendra Kumar Gupta against Burger King Corporation. The petitioner sought to cancel or impose a disclaimer on the 'Burger' and 'King' marks registered under No. 927122. The court relied on prior judgments, including one from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court ruling in Patel Field Marshal Agencies vs P.M. Diesels Ltd., concluding that the petition was not maintainable.
Zippo Manufacturing Company v.Raja Bhai Traders & Anr
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Zippo Manufacturing Company, restraining Defendant No. 3 from manufacturing or selling counterfeit ZIPPO lighters and related goods bearing deceptively similar trademarks. Crucially, the court clarified that this order does not impede the defendant's sale of genuine products. Separately, the court initiated contempt proceedings against Defendants No. 1 and 2 for alleged violation of previous orders, keeping the litigation active.
Chasvinder Singh v.The Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors
This Delhi High Court order addressed a writ petition filed by Chasvinder Singh against The Registrar of Copyrights. During arguments, respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the appropriate legal remedy for challenging the copyright grant was through a rectification petition under Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court granted time to the petitioner to take further instructions before listing the matter for hearing.
Alfred Von Schukmann v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Alfred Von Schukmann appealed the rejection of his patent application, titled 'Step-Action Indexing Mechanism,' which was denied by the Patent Office on grounds of lacking inventive step. The appellant argued that the Patent Office's order was cryptic and failed to address detailed submissions distinguishing the invention from prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, emphasizing that a reasoned decision is mandatory when rejecting an application under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different officer.
Virendra Kumar Gupta Trading As M/S Burger King v.Union Of India Through The Secretary & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a Writ Petition filed by Burger King, challenging the registration of a trademark. The petitioner argued that the Registry ignored their prior Notices of Opposition when granting registration to Respondent No. 4. However, the court noted that since the registration occurred before a key precedent was set, counsel for the respondent suggested that rectification might be the appropriate remedy instead of continuing with the current writ petition. The matter has been listed for further arguments.
Aurorax Private Limited v.Bharatx Accelerator & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Aurorax Private Limited against Bharatx Accelerator & Ors. The plaintiff, a leading fintech start-up, sought protection for its registered trademark 'BHARATX' which it has used since 2019. The court found that the defendants were using similar marks and domain names, causing market confusion, and consequently restrained them from further use of the infringing trademarks until the final hearing.
Aiwa Co Ltd. v.Aivva Enterprises Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Aiwa Co Ltd. against Aivva Enterprises Private Limited. The court found that the defendants were using marks ('AIVVA') visually and phonetically similar to the well-known 'AIWA' trademark, leading to a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. Despite arguments regarding prior knowledge and lack of disclosure by the plaintiff, the court held that the balance of convenience favored Aiwa, thus maintaining the injunction until the final trial.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Media Private Limited
In a matter concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued an order on April 2, 2024. The court addressed the Plaintiff's concerns regarding ongoing trademark filings by the Defendant through 'VISTARA PRAKASHANA LLP'. Upon receiving notice, the Defendant stated its intention to dissolve the LLP and withdraw all related trademark applications. Consequently, the court determined that no immediate directions were necessary for the Plaintiff at this juncture.
N.V. Satheesh Madhav And Anr v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's refusal to grant a patent for an invention related to a bio-bed and method for growing Vigna radiata plants. The initial objections included lack of inventive step, non-patentable subject matter (Section 3(h)), and clarity issues. Although some objections were dropped, the final refusal was based on Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d).
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.