Bench:A. J. Bhambhani
22 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
22 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan And Anr v.Bollywood Time & Ors
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a set of connected commercial suits involving Bollywood celebrities seeking protection of their personality and publicity rights. The order records that the amicus curiae in CS(COMM) 868/2026 (Janhvi Kapoor vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.) has concluded submissions, while the amicus curiae in CS(COMM) 105/2026 (Vivek Anand Oberoi vs Collector Bazar & Ors.) has handed up extracts from McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. The matter was re-notified for further hearing on 9th October 2026.
Abbvie Inc. v.Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks and Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a procedural order in a patent appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 37/2026) filed by Abbvie Inc. before the Delhi High Court against the Controller General of Patents and others. The court addressed issues of service upon respondents and granted time for filing replies and rejoinders, while also directing requisitioning of the Controller General of Patents' records.
Gufic Biosciences Limited & Anr v.Niraj S Sahuji & Anr
This is a rectification petition filed by Gufic Biosciences Limited and another petitioner before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the trademark 'SHREE SAMPANNA SHALLAKI' (Registration No. 4739384) registered under Class 5 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court allowed the petitioners' applications for exemption, condonation of 109 days' delay in re-filing the petition, and leave to file additional documents. Notice was issued to the respondents, with directions to file replies within six weeks and rejoinders within four weeks thereafter.
Petals IVF and Women Care Centre LLP v.RPCI Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
This case concerns a rectification petition filed by Petals IVF and Women Care Centre LLP against RPCI Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. regarding the trade mark/device mark 'MAAERI'. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking to restrain the petitioner from misrepresenting an earlier order dated 30.03.2026 to the Chief Medical Officer of Uttar Pradesh, implying that respondents had been restrained from using the 'MAAERI' mark. The court clarified that the earlier order only directed respondents not to create third-party proprietary rights in the mark, and did not restrain them from using it.
Modicare Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in two connected trademark matters filed by Modicare Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks and another party. The court, finding no time left to hear the matters on the scheduled date, adjourned both cases and directed them to be re-notified for hearing on 11th January 2027.
Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a procedural directions order in a commercial appeal concerning patents before the Delhi High Court. The appellant's counsel submitted that the matter had already been heard at length by the predecessor bench of Justice Jyoti Singh and that he was concluding his rejoinder arguments before that bench. The court directed the matter to be relisted before Justice Jyoti Singh's bench on 29th September 2026.
M/S Raj Abhushan Bhandar v.Deputy Registrar, Trademark & Anr
This is a non-substantive procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 36/2023). Because the presiding judge was on leave, the matter was not taken up and was re-notified for hearing on 11th January 2027.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Martin and Brown Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (in suit); Mr. Vineet Maini & Ors. (in rectification petition)
The Delhi High Court disposed of a rectification petition and a connected commercial suit after the parties settled their disputes through mediation. A Settlement Agreement dated 27.07.2026 was placed on record, pursuant to which the commercial suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the rectification petition was allowed by mutual consent. The Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to cancel and expunge the impugned trademark 'SOMI-MB' (application No. 5982177 in Class 5), and the plaintiff was granted a refund of the entire court fee.
Ever Resource Ltd & Anr v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a patent appeal. The matter was adjourned and re-notified for 20th January 2027 at the request of the respondent's counsel, who was stated to be unavailable on the date of hearing, with no objection from the appellants' side.
Kitty Industries Private Limited v.Kumar Audyogik Vikas Private Limited
This is an interim order in a commercial suit concerning alleged infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'KITTY'. The defendant, who claims to hold a registered copyright in 'KITTI' and a registered trademark in 'KITTIKA', raised objections including that the plaintiff does not manufacture noodles and that the Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff contended that cause of action arose within Delhi because the defendant's product was ordered online. The defendant was granted leave to file an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC for return of the plaint.
Jetharam Nemaram Gehlot v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
This is an intra-court appeal before the Delhi High Court arising from a trade mark proceeding. The appellant, Jetharam Nemaram Gehlot, challenged the appointment of the Hearing Officer who heard his trade mark application, contending that the officer was not duly appointed as required under Section 3(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The Court allowed the condonation of approximately 206 days' delay by Respondent No. 1 in filing an affidavit of compliance, took the affidavit on record, and adjourned the matter to 15 December 2026 for further hearing.
Pstgems Private Limited v.Ronit Kumar Trading As M/S Pliza Gems & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dealt with two interlocutory applications in a commercial suit. Defendant No.6 sought condonation of a 72-day delay in filing its written statement, while the plaintiff sought leave to bring on record Legal Proceeding Certificates pertaining to its trademarks. The Court granted the plaintiff time to file a reply to the condonation application and issued notice on the plaintiff's application, with both matters re-notified before the Joint Registrar on 11 September 2026.
Ramesh Chand v.T.T.Industries
This is a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 465/2018) before the Delhi High Court where the defendant, T.T.Industries, filed I.A. 5608/2026 seeking permission under Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC read with Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 to place additional documents on record. The defendant sought to introduce an abstract from the Trade Marks Journal recognizing its 'TT' trademark as a 'well-known' mark, along with a certified copy of a 2004 order of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The plaintiff objected on the ground of delay, noting that proceedings had been pending since 2002 and the matter was at the stage of defendant's witness examination, and sought time to cite legal precedents. The court re-notified the matter for further consideration before the Joint Registrar and the court on future dates.
Jyothy Labs Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Jyothy Labs Limited filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking restoration of its opposition (bearing No.1179106) to a trademark application filed by respondent No.2, which had allegedly been allowed while the opposition was still pending. Respondent No.2 accepted notice and raised no objection to the prayer that the opposition be considered before the Registrar decided on registration. The Delhi High Court set aside the registration of respondent No.2's trademark (registration No.5345163) and remanded the matter to the Registrar to reconsider the application after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
Indiejewel Fashions Private Limited v.Demifine Fashion Private Limited & Anr.
The petitioner, Indiejewel Fashions Private Limited, filed a petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the registration of the trademark 'DEMIFINE' (Registration No. 6264164 in Class 14) held by the respondents. The court allowed the petitioner's application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking summoning of the complete record of the impugned trademark from the Registrar of Trade Marks. Notice was issued to the respondents, with timelines set for filing replies and rejoinders.
Flu Jeans Private Limited v.Mr. Manish Jain & Anr.
Flu Jeans Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court under sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of the impugned trademark 'BIGFLU'. The court disposed of two interlocutory applications—one for exemption and another seeking leave to file additional documents—and issued notice to the respondents. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on 23rd November 2026 for further proceedings.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.Vikash Garg Trading As Royal Cable Industries & Anr.
This is an interlocutory order in a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 921/2026) filed by Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. against Vikash Garg Trading As Royal Cable Industries & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff sought exemption from pre-litigation mediation, leave to file additional documents, and an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned trademark. The court granted the exemption and leave applications, directed registration of the plaint, issued summons, and issued notice on the stay application with directions for filing reply and rejoinder.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.Vikash Garg Trading As Royal Cable Industries & Ors.
The petitioner, Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under sections 47, 57 and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking removal, cancellation, or expungement of the impugned trademark registration bearing No. 1320709 in Class 09. The matter was received on transfer from the Co-ordinate IPD Bench as connected matters were pending before the court. The court allowed the application for summoning electronic records from the Registrar of Trademarks, granted exemption subject to just exceptions, and issued notice to the respondents with directions to file reply within 30 days.
Hahnemann Scientific Laboratory India v.Registrar Of Trademarks
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by Hahnemann Scientific Laboratory India against the Registrar of Trademarks. The matter could not be taken up on the scheduled date because the Supreme Court had directed the presiding judge to hear a certain batch of matters on a day-to-day basis. The court re-notified the matter for hearing on 18th December 2026.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a commercial suit against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning Indian Patent No. IN'655 covering the compound 'Dabrafenib'. The defendant, through counsel, undertook before the court not to manufacture for commercial purposes or launch any product containing the patented compound during the validity of the patent, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research purposes. The suit was disposed of and decreed in terms of the defendant's undertaking, with the plaintiffs not pressing their monetary reliefs.
Stanley Black and Decker, Inc. v.Stanley Switchgear Products
The defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to amend its written statement to add formal paragraphs relating to additional documents already taken on record, specifically the withdrawal of its trade mark applications in Classes 7 and 9. The court allowed the amendment, observing that the documents served to abide by and perform an undertaking dated 25.01.1975 given by the defendant to the plaintiff's alleged predecessor, and that the amendment was formal in nature. The court directed that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the plaintiff's claims, and re-notified the matter to allow parties to take instructions on the plaintiff's request for further undertakings and withdrawal of opposition.
Rakesh Jain v.Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP
The plaintiff, Rakesh Jain, filed a commercial suit against Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP alleging trademark infringement and passing off of the registered word mark 'RANI SAHIBA' in respect of basmati rice (Class 30). The defendant was alleged to have dishonestly appropriated the plaintiff's mark while selling rice under its house brand 'GA SE GAANV'. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation, allowed filing of additional documents, registered the plaint, and issued summons, while also granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark.
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.