Asha Menon
43 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
43 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
Mr. Anil Rathi v.Shri Sharma Steeltech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Mr. Anil Rathi concerning the unauthorized use of his trademark 'RATHI'. The plaintiff alleged that a proposed defendant was using the mark in violation of a prior court injunction order. The court issued notice to the alleged contemnors and scheduled the matter for service and completion of pleadings, keeping the litigation active.
Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
In this matter concerning a petition before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed several procedural applications. While certain motions were disposed of, the bench issued a critical direction requiring the petitioner to implead the actual registered proprietors of the trademark in question. This step is necessary because a favorable ruling could lead to the cancellation of their registered mark, ensuring all stakeholders are heard before proceeding with the core dispute.
RICA S.P.A. v.JATIN HEMENDRABHAI VORA TRADING AS M/S PARUL MARKETING & ANR.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, RICA S.P.A., to file a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages related to trademark infringement and passing off. The core dispute involves the defendant's attempt to register the similar mark "REAL RICA Wax" for identical cosmetic products used by the plaintiff under the registered trademark RICA. Crucially, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed trademark until the suit is fully adjudicated.
STANLEY BLACK AND DECKER, INC. v.STANLEY SWITCHGEAR PRODUCTS
The Delhi High Court addressed the initial proceedings in the trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Stanley Black and Decker against Stanley Switchgear Products. While allowing procedural applications for filing additional documents, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit seeking permanent injunction based on an alleged violation of a 1975 undertaking regarding the use of the 'Stanley' trademark. Crucially, the court denied the plaintiff's request for an immediate ex-parte interim injunction, noting that there was no apparent evidence of goods being marketed beyond the scope of the original agreement.
Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. v.Mr Ishant Kashiwal Trading As The Hogwarts Kafe & Ors.
Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. successfully secured an interim injunction against Mr Ishant Kashiwal Trading As The Hogwarts Kafe in a suit for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court recognized Warner Bros' status as a global leader and prior proprietor of the well-known 'Hogwarts' trademarks. Crucially, the defendant was immediately restrained from using the infringing mark 'The Hogwarts Kafe' at their restaurant premises and directed to remove all related advertisements and listings online.
Wako India Kickboxing Federation v.Wako India Kickboxing Federation & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application seeking exemption from certain procedural requirements, while simultaneously registering the main plaint as a formal civil suit. The suit was filed under Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking the removal and rectification of specific trademarks registered in the defendant's name. The court issued detailed directions for serving summons and ensuring timely filing of written statements and rejoinders by both parties.
V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD v.SUKAN RAJ JAIN & ANR.
In a trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, both parties expressed interest in reaching an amicable resolution. Consequently, the court referred the matter to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre for settlement discussions. The court also listed the case for reporting any settlement on November 9, 2021, while maintaining existing interim orders.
HT MEDIA LIMITED v.BRAINLINK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple interlocutory applications in a trademark infringement suit between HT Media Limited and Brainlink International, Inc. The court provided procedural directions regarding the continuation of interim orders, setting deadlines for parties to file replies to various applications (including those seeking anti-suit injunctions and condonation of delay), and scheduled further hearings for pleading completion.
Arun Kumar Murarka v.Rajesh Sultania & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by Arun Kumar Murarka concerning the trademark dispute against Rajesh Sultania & Anr. The core issue involves a petition seeking rectification/cancellation of the 'KAILASA' trademark (Reg. No. 4701472) due to its alleged deceptive similarity to the petitioner's mark, 'KAILASHA'. While an exemption application was allowed, the court proceeded by issuing notice to the defendant and listing the matter for further hearing on October 12, 2021.
KAIRA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD & ANR. v.REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ORS.
The Delhi High Court issued several directions in this trademark dispute involving the 'AMUL' brand. The court allowed an application seeking to implead a specific applicant as a respondent, while simultaneously directing the Registrar of Trademarks to file an affidavit detailing the current status of advertisements related to the mark. This ongoing litigation focuses on clarifying the scope and validity of the registered trademark.
Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited v.M/S Frankfinn Creations & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., restraining M/s Frankfinn Creations from using the trademark 'FRANKFINN'. The court found a prima facie case, noting that the plaintiff has long-standing goodwill associated with its registered mark for aviation and training services. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises, inventory infringing materials, and examine their financial records.
Diva Enterprises (P) Ltd v.Institute Of Medico Legal Publication (P) Ltd.
The appeal challenged the dismissal of the appellant's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The appellant argued that the contractual dispute, seeking damages and injunction, was arbitrable. However, the High Court held that since the reliefs sought were primarily based upon Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), the dispute was non-arbitrable.
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited v.Competition Commission Of India
This appeal challenges a single judge's decision that appellants (Monsanto) were governed by both the Competition Act, 2002, and the Patents Act, 1970. The core dispute revolves around whether competition law proceedings are applicable when patented seeds are involved. The court allowed several applications and issued an interim restraint on the CCI from finalizing its report pending further hearing.
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.