Bench:Amit Bansal
265 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
265 cases indexed | Page 2 of 9
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk filed a commercial suit against Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited regarding the manufacture and sale of an 'impugned drug'. The court addressed various interlocutory applications related to filing documents and pre-institution mediation. In relation to the main suit, the defendants stated they had a license to manufacture but not sell in India, while the plaintiff argued that export of infringing products also constitutes infringement.
MKU LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. VAIBHAV GUPTA v.ASHISH KANSAL & ANR.
The petitioner filed petitions seeking revocation of two patents (No. 332770 and No. 332684) related to protective ballistic helmets under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice to all respondents and set dates for further proceedings.
BPTP Limited v.Confido Landbase Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of BPTP Limited against Confido Landbase Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the defendants were unauthorizedly using the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BPTP' to promote a non-existent project, causing potential market confusion and irreparable harm. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from advertising or dealing in services under the disputed marks and directed to immediately take down all infringing online content.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Varav Biogenesis Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals against Varav Biogenesis Private Limited. The court permitted the plaintiff to file additional documents, including sales figures for its 'COBADEX' mark, in a sealed cover. Crucially, the court also initiated proceedings regarding the core dispute, noting that the plaintiff alleges the defendants are using the deceptively similar mark 'CODODEX' for medicinal products, seeking permanent injunction against trademark infringement and passing off.
Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in a rectification petition filed by Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills. The petitioner sought the removal of the registered trademark 'DOUBLE KABOOTAR BRAND' (Registration No. 5574981) from the Trade Marks Register, which was held by respondent no.2. The court accepted notice on behalf of one respondent and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties, setting a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders before listing the matter for further hearing.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd & Ors. v.M/S Jai Maa Vaishnao Brick Field & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against Jai Maa Vaishnao Brick Field. The court found a prima facie case for trademark and copyright infringement, noting that the defendant continued using protected marks ('Moti Mahal') and associated artistic elements despite the termination of a franchise agreement. Consequently, the court issued a strong injunction directing the defendant to immediately cease use of the impugned marks across all platforms, including menus, invoices, and social media websites.
Energeo Works India Private Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Energeo Works India Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 17, 2025, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The original order refused to grant a patent in respect of Indian Patent Application No. 202211052563.
Junglee Games India Private Limited v.John Doe & Ors.
Junglee Games India Private Limited filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement against unknown parties operating deceptive websites. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications related to the service of process, granting exemptions for advanced service due to the defendants' anonymous nature or the urgency of the relief sought. The court subsequently registered the plaint as a suit, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with seeking permanent injunctions against online infringers.
Tecniqua India Private Limited v.Shree Ji Industries & Anr.
Tecniqua India Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the removal of the trademark '/ TENDA SPORTS' (Application No. 4417483) registered in the name of Respondent No. 1. The court accepted notice and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties. Both sides were given specific timelines—six weeks for a reply and three weeks thereafter for a rejoinder—setting the stage for substantive arguments on trademark cancellation.
Skechers South Asia Private Limited v.Delhi Polymer & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs, Skechers South Asia Private Limited, to amend their plaint following the successful impleadment of new defendants. Crucially, the court also granted an interim injunction against these newly added parties (Defendants 20 and 21). This order recognizes a prima facie case of trademark infringement based on goods discovered during local commission proceedings, immediately restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling counterfeit products bearing Skechers' trademarks.
M/S Ambika Industrial Corporation v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an order by the Trade Marks Registry that had allowed a change in the registered address for the 'AMBIKA' trademark. The petitioner firm argued that the change, filed by a former partner (Respondent No. 2), lacked justification and was detrimental to the established proprietor. The court ruled that since the petitioner remains the undisputed registered owner, the registry could not unilaterally alter the address based on an unsupported application, thereby restoring the original details.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Wockhardt Limited And Anr.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation of the trademark registration 'PACTYON' held by Wockhardt Limited. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the mark was registered in Mumbai. The court accepted notice and set procedural timelines for filing replies and rejoinders, indicating that the matter will proceed through standard litigation steps.
Harpal Singh Gulati v.Registrar Of Trademarks
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Harpal Singh Gulati challenging the rejection of his trademark application for 'Martban -MAA KE HAATH SA'. The core dispute revolves around the appellant's claim of prior use. Crucially, M/s Martbaan, proprietor of similar marks, was impleaded as a respondent to participate in the proceedings. The Court set out a detailed schedule for filing pleadings and listing the matter before the Joint Registrar.
Mohammed Azam Trading As M/S Noor Ahmed v.Paramjeet Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of the plaintiff, Mohammed Azam Trading As M/S Noor Ahmed. The court granted an immediate interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark 'NURY/' while the main suit proceeds. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation, setting a clear path for the litigation's progression.
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Taiho Pharmaceutical appealed a refusal order by the Controller of Patents regarding its application for a novel piperidine compound. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d), citing prior art D1. The High Court found that the Controller failed to identify a specific 'known substance' from the Markush structure in D1, making the rejection unsustainable.
Ayka Tech And Systems Pvt Ltd v.Yash Tiwari & Anr.
The Delhi High Court framed key issues in the trademark infringement suit filed by Ayka Tech And Systems Pvt Ltd against Yash Tiwari & Anr. The core dispute revolves around whether the defendants breached an MoU and infringed upon the 'Salestown' trademark used for a CRM software. Crucially, the court clarified that while injunctions are sought regarding 'Salestown,' the defendants remain free to use any other CRM software in their business.
Raj Kumar Proprietor Of Ms Royal Pets Cart v.Pooja Ahirwar Proprietor Of Ms Aselfy Enterprises
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Raj Kumar Proprietor Of Ms Royal Pets Cart, against Pooja Ahirwar Proprietor Of Ms Aselfy Enterprises. The court found that the defendant's pending trademark application for 'ROYAL PETS CART/' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark and constituted a prima facie case of infringement. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the impugned mark in relation to identical goods until the final hearing.
Signatureglobal (India) Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Signatureglobal (India) Limited, a leading real estate developer. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off by various online entities imitating its brand 'SIGNATUREGLOBAL'. Consequently, the defendants were directed to immediately take down or block all infringing websites and were restrained from registering similar domains, protecting the company's digital presence and consumer trust.
Microtex Energy Private Limited v.Microtek International Private Limited and Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 116/2025, where the petitioner sought the cancellation of the trademark 'MICROTEK TECHNOLOGY WE LIVE' (No. 3482800). The court issued notice to all respondents and set a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders. Several ancillary applications regarding document submission and procedural matters were also disposed of by the court.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Novo Nordisk A/S
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 262697 before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the respondents (Novo Nordisk A/S) and set timelines for filing replies, while also disposing of several interlocutory applications related to procedural matters.
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd v.Jeena Sikho Lifecare Limited
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd against Jeena Sikho Lifecare Limited. The court permitted the plaintiffs to file additional documentation and, crucially, addressed the request for an ad interim injunction. While noting concerns over mark similarity and color combination usage, the court granted conditional relief, requiring the defendant (D-1) to change its packaging colors within two weeks while allowing it to exhaust existing stock.
Rieter Ag And Anr. v.Kavassery Narayanaswamy Venkatesubramanian
The Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge by the defendant regarding territorial jurisdiction over an infringement suit involving designs, trademarks, and patents. The plaintiffs successfully argued that despite the defendant being based elsewhere, the cause of action arose in Delhi because goods were delivered to an address there following an order placed from Delhi. The court rejected the defense's claim that the transaction was merely a 'trap purchase,' affirming that the physical delivery of goods and invoicing in Delhi established the court's jurisdiction.
Pc Laminations v.Sk Microworks Co Ltd & Ors.
The petitioner, Pc Laminations, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN437049. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications related to procedural matters like exemption from certified copies and permission to file additional documents.
Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. v.M/S Italian Shoes Co. & Ors.
In this ongoing intellectual property dispute, Christian Louboutin SAS sought various procedural reliefs in the Delhi High Court against M/S Italian Shoes Co. The court granted several applications, including allowing the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granting exemption from pre-institution mediation due to the suit's urgent nature. Crucially, the order also addressed the core infringement claim, setting up the case for permanent injunctions related to trademark infringement, copyright violation of shoe images, and passing off concerning the signature 'RED SOLE' style.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ashok Kumar (John Doe)
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd in its suit against an unidentified entity manufacturing and selling counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts. The court recognized the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and trade dress associated with 'HERO GENUINE PRODUCTS.' Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to execute a search and seizure commission at the Defendant's premises to recover infringing goods, setting the stage for further litigation.
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies filed an application seeking to amend and file an auxiliary claim set in their patent appeal. The core legal question was whether such amendments were permissible at the appellate stage and if they complied with Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court analyzed precedents regarding amendment powers and found that the proposed changes narrowed the scope of the original claims by adding specific agents. Consequently, the court allowed the amendments and took the auxiliary claims on record.
Abbott Product Operations Ag & Anr. v.Medinox Pharmaceuticals & Ors.
In a significant development concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court issued an order compelling Defendants No. 1 and 2 (pharmaceutical distributors) to immediately cease manufacturing medicines bearing the impugned trademark 'DUPHAMED' or any variation using 'DUPHA'. This interim relief was granted in the context of urgent proceedings, while also allowing time for existing stock disposal. The court further streamlined procedural requirements by granting exemptions related to document filing and pre-institution mediation.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v.Safex Chemicals India Limited
Crystal Crop Protection Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Safex Chemicals India Limited for infringing its registered patent no. 417213, which covers a novel weedicidal formulation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's product 'RACER' had an identical composition to the patented invention. However, while considering the interim injunction application, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because the element of 'dyeing agent or pigment' was not proven to be non-essential in the patent claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the injunction request.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Wipro Enterprises Private Limited
Himalaya Wellness Company initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking to challenge the validity of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited's trademark registration 'EVECARE.' The court allowed the plaintiffs' application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Consequently, the court framed a specific issue questioning whether the defendant's mark is invalid and liable for removal/cancellation from the Register of Trademarks, setting the stage for further substantive litigation.
Mohammed Azam Trading As Noor Ahmed Mohd Azam v.Paramjeet Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters: first, it condoned a minor delay in the petitioner's rectification petition. Second, the court initiated proceedings to cancel the trademark 'SARDARJI MASALE WALE NURY'. The court ordered notice to be served on all parties and directed the summoning of the complete registration record from the Trademark Registry for review.
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.