Amit Bansal
342 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
342 cases indexed | Page 11 of 12
Metis Eduventures Private Limited v.Career Power Coaching Centre Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Metis Eduventures Private Limited against Career Power Coaching Centre Private Limited & Ors. The court found a prima facie case based on the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation associated with the 'CAREER POWER' trademark in the education sector. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing marks across e-commerce websites and directed to remove specific content featuring the mark.
Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v.Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. and Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for listing before the appropriate bench on December 6, 2022, to continue the ongoing litigation.
Ds Intellectual Properties Llp & Anr v.Abhinav Singh & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Ds Intellectual Properties Llp & Anr against Abhinav Singh & Ors. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were operating a fraudulent website using the 'Rajnigandha' trademark and DS Group trademarks to lure the public into fake distributorship schemes, while also infringing on copyright by copying the label layout. The court found a prima facie case was made out, leading to immediate restraining orders against the use of the marks and domain name, along with directives to suspend the domain and freeze associated bank accounts.
M/S RPG Enterprises Limited v.RPG Developers Private Limited & Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S RPG Enterprises Limited, granting a permanent injunction against RPG Developers Private Limited and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were deliberately using the 'RPG' mark to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's well-known trademarks. Furthermore, due to the dishonest conduct of the defendants in attempting to deceive the public, the court awarded damages and costs to the plaintiff.
Shree Ganesh Rollings Mills (India) Ltd. v.Jindal Rollings Milla Ltd.
In a significant procedural order, the Delhi High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to transfer two pending rectification applications filed by the respondents against the petitioner's trademarks. This move ensures that all related intellectual property proceedings are heard together in the High Court, aligning with established IP Division rules. The court set a timeline for the transmission and digitization of these records, paving the way for consolidated pleadings.
Burger King Corporation v.Swapnil Patil & Ors.
In a significant move protecting its brand integrity, Burger King Corporation successfully secured an ad interim injunction from the Delhi High Court. The court recognized that defendants were attempting to circumvent previous orders by opening new bank accounts and registering highly similar domain names (www.burgerkingfranchise.co.in). Consequently, the court ordered the immediate suspension of these domains, freezing the associated bank accounts, and mandating the takedown of all infringing online listings.
M/S Sana Herbals Pvt Ltd v.Mohsin Dehlvi
The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant's application to frame additional issues in a trademark infringement suit. The court recognized that despite previous procedural hurdles, the pleadings raised valid questions concerning the invalidity of the plaintiff's 'DEHLVI' trademarks and the legal standing of an alleged Assignment Deed. Crucially, the judgment noted that under the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, rectification petitions can now be clubbed with civil suits, eliminating the need for a stay on the main litigation.
Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v.The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr.
Nestle appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents and Design regarding its patent application for a composition comprising DGLA. The initial objection was related to Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, which Nestle addressed by amending the claims. However, the subsequent amendment was rejected under Section 59 on grounds of expanding the original claim scope.
Aditya Infotech Limited v.Dipankar Mandal
Aditya Infotech Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Dipankar Mandal in a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant was falsely printing the plaintiff's registered 'CP Plus' logo on unbranded CCTV cameras, leading to potential consumer confusion. Given the market reputation of 'CP Plus' and the risk of irreparable harm, the court granted immediate relief to protect the brand's goodwill.
M/S Tejram Dharampaul v.M/S Ganesh Tobacco Company
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Tejram Dharampaul against M/S Ganesh Tobacco Company. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'GANESH CHHAP TOBACCO' was likely to cause confusion with the Plaintiff's long-established mark, despite the Plaintiff lacking a formal word mark registration for the specific phrase. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inventory and seize goods bearing the infringing mark.
Ds Intellectual Properties Llp & Anr v.Ashutosh Kumar Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ds Intellectual Properties Llp against Ashutosh Kumar Singh and others. The plaintiffs, owners of the 'Rajnigandha' trademark and associated copyrights, alleged that defendants were using a deceptive website ('www.rajnigandhadealership.online') to lure the public into fake distributorships under their brand name. Consequently, the court restrained the defendants from using the trademarks or the domain name and directed the domain registrar and bank to take immediate action.
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.
V-Guard Industries Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks and Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in V-Guard Industries Ltd. vs The Registrar of Trademarks and Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd., directing that the present appeal be listed along with another case for a final hearing on January 6, 2023. This interim order manages the procedural timeline of the ongoing trademark dispute between the parties.
EDUSPARK INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED v.LAXMI PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court issued an order directing the defendant, Laxmi Publications Private Limited, to take proactive measures regarding the disputed mark 'VIBGYOR'. The court noted that the defendant had taken down references to the trademark from its website and Facebook page and communicated with distributors to cease sales. The defendant was subsequently directed to file a detailed affidavit within three weeks outlining all compliance steps taken.
Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v.Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. and Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for listing before the appropriate bench on December 6, 2022, to continue the ongoing litigation.
Abhishek Gupta v.Vipin Jain
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Abhishek Gupta, who was seeking restraint against trademark and copyright infringement related to his 'BOL' sports publication. Despite initial resistance based on delayed approach, the court found a prima facie case for the appellant. The judgment specifically restrained Vipin Jain from passing off or associating their goods with the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and copyrights, recognizing the likelihood of consumer confusion due to similar get-up and use.
Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. v.The Controller Of Patents And Anr
Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its Indian Patent Application no. 4805/DELNP/2007 by the Controller of Patents and Anr. The application was rejected on grounds of lacking inventive step (Section 2(1)(j)) and insufficient disclosure (Section 10) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited v.E1 Entertainment Television , Llc Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the respondent's applications seeking to introduce a specific YouTube video into the rectification proceedings. The respondent argued that this video was crucial evidence supporting their claim of continuous use of the mark since the early 1990s, which directly counters the petitioner's request for trademark cancellation/rectification. The court ruled that since the link had been previously cited in the written statement, the video clip was not an 'additional document,' thereby allowing its admission to ensure a fair trial.
Phillips 66 Company v.Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited
This judgment addresses two key applications filed within a commercial suit concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The court first dismissed the defendant's application to reclassify the suit as an ordinary dispute, holding that since the cause of action stemmed from foreign infringement of IP rights, it qualified as a 'commercial dispute.' Subsequently, the court condoned the delay in filing the written statement by the defendant, permitting its admission subject to payment of costs.
Phillips 66 Company v.Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited
This case involves a suit filed by Phillips 66 Company seeking recovery of damages awarded by a US District Court for intellectual property infringement against Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited. The court first addressed an application to reclassify the suit, ultimately holding that since the cause of action was based on IP infringement in the USA, it qualified as a 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act. Subsequently, the court considered an application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement and allowed it, subject to the defendant paying costs.
Elcom Innovation Pvt Ltd v.Harish Sharma & Ors.
Elcom Innovation Pvt. Ltd. filed suit seeking permanent injunction against its erstwhile employee and shareholder, Harish Sharma, alleging misuse and disclosure of proprietary sensitive and highly confidential information/data. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent further leakage of this IP. However, the court dismissed both applications, finding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction due to the vagueness of the claimed confidential information.
Red Bull Ag v.Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Red Bull's application for an interim injunction against Pepsico India Holdings regarding the use of the tagline 'STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY.' by their product STING. The court found that both taglines are descriptive and laudatory in nature, meaning the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case at this stage. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favored the defendants given their long-standing market presence with the tagline.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.Tata Motors Limited
The dispute between Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited and Tata Motors Limited regarding the use of 'T-Series' marks was amicably settled in the Delhi High Court. The settlement requires Tata Motors to acknowledge the statutory and common law rights of Super Cassettes in 'T-Series', undertake not to use the mark on automobile products, and remove all related content from its websites and social media platforms. In return, Super Cassettes acknowledged the rights of Tata Motors in marks like 'Tata' and agreed to drop claims for damages.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Beaukev Pharma International Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 209816) concerning Sitagliptin. The court closed the defendant's right to file a written statement and passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling the patented drug until the final disposal of the suit.
Novartis Ag v.Windlas Biotech Pvt. Ltd.
The cases involve Novartis AG against Windlas Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and Eris Lifesciences Limited regarding commercial disputes. The hearings are scheduled for further directions.
Usha International Limited v.Tarun Arora Trading As Krishan Enterprises
Usha International Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Tarun Arora for trademark infringement concerning sewing machines. The Delhi High Court examined the plaintiff's claim, noting Usha's long-standing use of the mark 'USHA' since 1936 and its status as a well-known mark. Finding that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'WSHA', the court granted an interim restraint order, preventing the defendant from using the infringing marks until further proceedings.
Mr. Sanjay Chadha Trading As Eveready Tools Emporium and Another v.Union Of India And Another
The Delhi High Court upheld the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to cancel a registered trademark. The petitioners, who owned the 'EVEREADY' word mark for hand tools, challenged its removal by the respondent, Eveready Industries India Limited. However, the court found that the IPAB had thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that the petitioners' adoption and use of the mark were dishonest and lacked continuous user. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the importance of maintaining the purity of the trademark register.
Capital Food Private Limited v.Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement of 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY,' the Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to introduce crucial subsequent evidence. The court ruled that the take-down notices and market surveys were necessary for a fair adjudication, despite the defendant's objections regarding late filing. This order allows the case to proceed with expanded evidentiary material.
Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v.Karan Holiday Inn Private Limited & Anr
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court noted that while the defendant had largely removed the disputed mark from various sources, some instances persisted on third-party websites. The court allowed the plaintiff to issue notices to these specific sites demanding the takedown of the infringing trademarks and associated photographs. Furthermore, the parties were directed to continue mediation proceedings, indicating a potential path toward an amicable settlement.
Medal Electronics Private Limited v.M/S Goldmedal Electricals Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Medal Electronics challenging an ex parte interim injunction granted against them in a trademark dispute. Despite arguments regarding prior use and alleged acquiescence, the appellants chose to withdraw their appeal. The court dismissed the appeal but granted liberty for the appellants to file appropriate applications before the Trial Court, urging the lower court to expedite the decision on the interim injunction application.
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.