Amit Bansal
342 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
342 cases indexed | Page 6 of 12
Societe Des Produits Nestle S A v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Nestle appealed a trademark refusal order from the Trademark Registry to the Delhi High Court. The original rejection was based on the mark being non-distinctive and similar to existing registered marks. Due to procedural issues following the dissolution of the IPAB, Nestle had to file a fresh appeal in the High Court. The court accepted notice and scheduled further proceedings.
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Largan Precision Co Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd for infringing its Indian Patent No. 363203, which relates to light blocking sheets in camera systems. The court addressed applications related to interrogatories and the need for confidentiality, ultimately directing the formation of a confidential club.
Draka Comteq B.V v.The Controller Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Draka Comteq B.V challenged the refusal of its patent application for 'Multimode Fiber' by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and inventive step under the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the original order lacked proper reasoning regarding how a person skilled in the art would move from existing knowledge to the subject invention. Consequently, the court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.
Jay Switches India Pvt Ltd v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its patented 'Air Tight Fuel Cap' and registered design 'Fuel Tank Cap for Vehicle'. The court examined the infringement claims, noting ambiguities in the patent claims. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the balance of convenience favored the defendants.
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh appealed a rejection order passed by The Controller of Patents, which refused their application for "Containers for Compositions Comprising Meloxicam." The initial refusal was based on lack of novelty and inventive step in light of cited prior art. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to address their detailed written submissions distinguishing the invention from the prior arts. The Delhi High Court agreed, noting the Controller's order merely reproduced objections without proper consideration of the arguments, and consequently set aside the rejection, remanding the matter for fresh, reasoned consideration.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.S.A Medline Private Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited and S.A Medline Private Limited reached a joint settlement in the Delhi High Court regarding a trademark dispute. As part of the compromise, the defendant agreed to withdraw its contested trademark registration (No. 5328362) within seven days. The court accepted the terms, decreeing the suit against the defendant and allowing for a refund of court fees.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Mr Arvind Kumar & Anr.
Dcm Shriram Limited successfully secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Mr. Arvind Kumar & Anr. in the Delhi High Court. The court found that the defendants' use of identical packaging and trade dress for their product was a slavish imitation of the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'SHRIRAM 303'. Given the likelihood of market confusion and irreparable injury to Dcm Shriram Limited, the court granted immediate relief restraining the defendants from using any deceptively similar marks or designs.
Castrol Limited v.Vivek Sen, Trading As Tridev Auto Parts & Anr.
In a suit concerning trademark and copyright infringement, Castrol Limited successfully secured several critical interim orders from the Delhi High Court. The court granted exemptions allowing the Plaintiff to proceed urgently without pre-litigation mediation or prior notice to the defendants. Crucially, the court authorized the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation against the Defendants for counterfeit products bearing deceptively similar marks and packaging.
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag challenged the refusal of its patent application, which covered methods for controlling rice plant infestations using a specific compound. The initial rejection was based on the argument that these methods constituted 'methods of agriculture' and were thus unpatentable under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court overturned this decision, holding that a method of treating plants is distinct from fundamental agricultural practices. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Controller for fresh examination.
Gautam Bhatia v.Vinayak Enterprises
Gautam Bhatia filed an application seeking permission to amend the claims of his Indian Patent No.410993, which relates to a method for preparing an adhesive. The plaintiff sought to narrow the scope of the process and product claims by defining the ratio of modified starch to various powders within a specific range (1:1 to 1:5). Despite the defendant opposing the amendment, the court allowed it, finding that the proposed changes were clarificatory, narrowing the scope, and supported by the original complete specification.
Ganesh Grains Ltd. v.Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Ganesh Grains Ltd., leading to the removal of the 'GANESH HARA MATAR' trademark registered by Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s long-standing and well-established 'GANESH' brand, which has been in use since 1936. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to provide evidence of actual user of the mark, leading the Court to cancel the registration under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
Prakash Pipes Limited v.Jai Ambay Industries And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Prakash Pipes Limited against Jai Ambay Industries. The court found that the respondent's registration of the mark 'KIRANPARKASH' was obtained fraudulently and dishonestly, as it was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established mark 'PRAKASH'. Furthermore, the court noted discrepancies in the respondent's claimed turnover versus its micro-enterprise status. Consequently, the Court directed the Trade Mark Registry to remove the impugned trademark from the register.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Pranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences & Anr.
Mankind Pharma Limited and Pranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences reached a full settlement regarding trademark disputes concerning the 'ALL OK+' product. The defendant acknowledged Mankind's exclusive rights to its trade dress and agreed not to use any confusingly similar marks. In exchange, the plaintiff dropped claims for damages, allowing the defendant to continue using the mark provided the trade dress was distinct.
M/S ILU A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF MRS VIDUSHI CHAWLA v.ASIAN HOBBY CRAFTS LLP AND ANR
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by M/S ILU against Asian Hobby Crafts LLP, successfully challenging the validity of the 'DREAMCATCHER' trademark. The court ruled that since 'DREAMCATCHER' is a generic and descriptive term for a specific type of decorative product, its registration violated Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This decision reinforces the principle that no party can claim an exclusive monopoly over common or descriptive terms defining a product.
Comviva Technologies Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents & Design
Comviva Technologies Limited appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to refuse grant for its patent application concerning methods and devices for authenticating electronic payment cards using an electronic token. The Controller had rejected the application, citing that the claims fell under Section 3(k) as being a 'business method' or 'computer programme per se'. However, the Delhi High Court overturned this refusal, holding that the invention addresses a technical problem—enhancing security in contactless payments—rather than merely automating a business process. The court affirmed that the technical contribution makes the subject matter patentable.
Havells India Ltd v.Mohit Talwar & Ors.
Havells India Ltd filed a suit against Mohit Talwar & Ors. concerning alleged infringement of its registered designs and trademark on Distribution Boards. The current order addresses an application seeking modification of the interim injunction, which required the Commissioner of Customs to stop the export of infringing products. To facilitate compliance with this suspension order, the court directed the defendants (No. 1, 2, and 3) to provide their Importer Exporter Code (IEC) details to enable effective enforcement.
M/S. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Chetan Singh Rajpurohit Trading As Kaveri Electricals & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., finding a prima facie case of infringement against Chetan Singh Rajpurohit Trading As Kaveri Electricals & Ors. The court recognized that the defendants' use of deceptively similar marks was likely to cause market confusion and irreparable injury to the plaintiff, who holds registered trademarks and copyrights in 'GOLDMEDAL'. This order temporarily halts the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods bearing infringing labels until the final hearing.
Tecniqua India Private Limited v.Abdullah Proprietor Of Azam And Company & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Tecniqua India Private Limited seeking permission to introduce additional legal proceedings certificates related to registered trademark applications of both parties. The court granted the request, subject to issuing proper notice to Respondent No. 1, setting a return date for January 15, 2025. This order indicates ongoing procedural steps in the trademark dispute.
Tecniqua India Private Limited v.Abdullah Proprietor Of Azam And Company & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Tecniqua India Private Limited seeking permission to introduce additional legal proceedings certificates related to registered trademark applications of both parties. The court granted the request, subject to issuing proper notice to Respondent No. 1, setting a return date for January 15, 2025. This order indicates ongoing procedural steps in the trademark dispute.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of a registered patent for a self-locking glazing system. The present application sought permission to take on record additional invoices and bank statements, which were needed to respond to objections raised by the defendant regarding discrepancies in earlier filings. The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) CPC.
UNILIN BEHEER B.V. v.BALAJI ACTION BUILDWELL
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing its registered patent related to flooring technology. The case involves the plaintiff's licensing program and the confidentiality of third-party license agreements.
Promoshirt Sm. S.A. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. S.A., directing The Registrar of Trade Marks to renew and restore a trademark application (No. 1355453). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the registration certificate, which occurred two years after the validity expired, prevented timely renewal. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry, mandating the issuance of the renewal certificate and necessary database corrections.
Promoshirt Sm. S.A. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. S.A., directing The Registrar of Trade Marks to renew and restore a trademark application (No. 1355453). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the registration certificate, which occurred two years after the validity expired, prevented timely renewal. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry, mandating the issuance of the renewal certificate and necessary database corrections.
Promoshirt Sm. S.A. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. S.A., directing The Registrar of Trade Marks to renew and restore a trademark application (No. 1355453). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the registration certificate, which occurred two years after the validity expired, prevented timely renewal. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry, mandating the issuance of the renewal certificate and necessary database corrections.
Promoshirt Sm. Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. Pvt. Ltd., directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore and renew a trademark registration (No. 1150198). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the certificate, coupled with failure to serve mandatory renewal notices (O-3 Notice), prevented them from renewing their mark despite its initial validity period expiring. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for administrative lapses by the Registry, mandating the restoration and subsequent renewal of the trademark.
Thijs, Roeland Michel Mathieu v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the refusal by the Assistant Controller to restore Patent No. 408932, which had been ceased due to non-payment of renewal fees. The appellant argued that the failure was caused because the patent grant notification was sent to an erroneous email address instead of the registered service address. The court allowed the appeal, finding that the cessation was not the fault of the appellant.
Ashok Bhutani v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Ashok Bhutani successfully challenged the Trademark Registry in the Delhi High Court regarding the non-renewal of his word mark 'SNOWPEAK'. The petitioner argued that the failure to receive mandatory O-3 notices prevented him from filing timely renewal applications. Recognizing the registry's lapse, the court directed the respondents to issue all pending renewal certificates and subsequently restore and renew the trademarks for a further ten-year period.
Sterlite Technologies Ltd v.Hfcl Limited
The Delhi High Court passed an order in a commercial suit and counterclaim concerning two patents held by Sterlite Technologies Ltd against Hfcl Limited. The court completed pleadings and framed detailed issues regarding alleged infringement of the patents (IN 241433 and IN 280211) and potential revocation of these patents.
Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc v.Designarch Consultants Private Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment resolves a complex trademark dispute between Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC and Designarch Consultants Private Ltd through a comprehensive settlement. The parties mutually agreed to acknowledge each other's core trademarks, such as 'BURJ AL ARAB' and 'BURJNOIDA'. Crucially, the agreement mandates the withdrawal of numerous pending cancellation petitions and oppositions filed by both sides, effectively clearing the path for continued use while establishing clear boundaries on brand usage.
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc
The Delhi High Court disposed of cross-appeals between Designarch Consultants and Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The settlement mandates that Designarch must cease using certain 'BURJ' formative marks (other than BURJNOIDA) and refrain from designing buildings resembling Jumeirah’s pictorial references. In return, Jumeirah agrees to withdraw several cancellation petitions filed against Designarch's trademarks, while Designarch acknowledges Jumeirah's ownership of its key brands.
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.