Bench:Amit Bansal
265 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, copyright, patent, design matters.
Cases Presided Over
265 cases indexed | Page 3 of 9
Glaxo Group Limited v.Qpharm Health Care Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple issues in the ongoing dispute between Glaxo Group Limited and Qpharm Health Care Limited. The court allowed a petition seeking the transfer and consolidation of trademark rectification proceedings against 'BETNOTREAT' into the main infringement suit, recognizing the interconnected nature of the disputes. Furthermore, after hearing arguments regarding trade dress similarity, the parties were referred to mediation, indicating a potential path toward settlement.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Dr. Mariya Parvez & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by Alkem Laboratories seeking to include a proposed defendant who had posted misleading content targeting its pharmaceutical products, PAN-D and PAN-40. Although the plaintiff initially sought to extend existing injunctions against this individual, the court noted that the impugned video had already been taken down. Consequently, the court dismissed the impleadment request but reaffirmed that the proposed defendant remains prohibited from using Alkem's 'PAN' family of marks in any videos, reserving the right for the plaintiff to seek further action if infringement recurs.
M/S. Rashik Soap Factory v.The Registrar Of Copyright & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S. Rashik Soap Factory to amend its ongoing petition by incorporating a subsequent trademark registration. The petitioner sought to update the court record, confirming that they had acquired ownership of Trademark No. 4176479 through an assignment deed during the pendency of the case. This order allows the petitioner to formally bring this change in IP ownership before the court, ensuring all relevant facts are on record for the ongoing litigation.
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd's suit against Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd., which sought permanent injunction and damages related to trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant had already filed an independent suit (CS(COMM) 460/2020) against the plaintiff on the same grounds of trademark infringement. Citing Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court held that the present suit could not proceed further, allowing the plaintiff to raise all contentions in the existing cross-suit.
SSAB TECHNOLOGY AB v.DEEPAK DINESH MEHTA AND OTHERS
The Delhi High Court issued a complex order in the trademark infringement suit, partially granting relief to SSAB Technology Ab. The court decreed the suit regarding specific permanent injunctions against the defendants concerning their use of infringing marks (HARDOX/Leomet-alloys). However, the court noted that the plaintiff declined an offer for full settlement and directed the suit to remain pending on remaining money claims, setting the stage for further litigation.
Abhi Traders v.Fashnear Technologies Private Limited & Ors.
Abhi Traders, a clothing manufacturer, filed a suit against various sellers operating on an e-commerce platform (Defendant No. 1) for infringing its copyrights and passing off its products. The plaintiff asserted ownership over the artistic designs and promotional photographs used to market its 'Ibrana' line of ethnic wear. After the defendants failed to file written statements despite being served, the court found that the defendants substantially reproduced the copyrighted images and took unfair advantage of the plaintiff's goodwill.
San Nutrition Private Limited v.Arpit Mangal And Others
The Delhi High Court addressed the tension between brand reputation and freedom of speech in influencer marketing. San Nutrition Private Limited sought an interim injunction against social media influencers, alleging trademark infringement, defamation, and unfair trade practices based on critical videos about its products. However, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement or disparagement. The judgment emphasized that the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) must be protected unless demonstrably false or malicious.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 1071/DEL/2007) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The refusal was based partly on objections related to amendments, which the appellant argued were merely corrections and explanations within the scope of Section 59. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasoning regarding the rejection of these amendments.
Bmi Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps) v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs And Another
Bmi Group Danmark Aps appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for a multi-layer sealing web. The core dispute centered on whether the invention possessed inventive step, specifically concerning the unique combination carrier insert featuring glass nonwoven and knitted glass reinforcement. The Delhi High Court examined the technical analysis and found that the Controller incorrectly interpreted the claim's features and relied improperly on non-analogous prior art. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and directed the grant of the patent.
M/S Zine Davidoff S.A. v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Zine Davidoff S.A., restoring its mark 'DAVIDOFF' (No. 454875) after it had been removed by the IPAB for alleged lapse. The court found that the petitioner had renewed the mark within statutory timelines, and crucially, noted that the Trade Mark Registry failed to issue a mandatory Form O3 notice before removal. Given the Registry's admission of lacking records regarding this notice, the High Court mandated the restoration of the trademark.
The Coca-Cola Company v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The Coca-Cola Company appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application for a superior beverage dispenser. The appeal argued that the rejection order failed to analyze the appellant's submissions distinguishing the invention from cited prior art. The High Court held that the Controller must pass a speaking order analyzing all elements, and consequently set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Abbvie Biotherapeutics Inc & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the refusal of an Indian patent application for 'ANTI-cMet ANTIBODY DRUG CONJUGATES AND METHODS FOR THEIR USE'. The appellant sought to amend claims from methods of treatment to product claims. The court upheld the Controller's decision, finding that the original specification focused on method-of-use and the proposed amendments were an impermissible broadening of scope.
Marelli Europe S.P.A. v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Marelli Europe S.P.A. appealed against the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of a patent application, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection was mechanical, merely copying prior art extracts without providing reasoned justification for why the invention lacked inventive step. The Court agreed, finding the impugned order lacked proper application of mind.
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents refusing to grant its patent application concerning microvesicles derived from adult stem cells for tumor treatment. The core legal dispute centered on whether the appellant could amend the claims at the appellate stage to overcome objections regarding novelty and inventive step. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the amendments, finding that they were merely explanatory or disclaimers and did not broaden the scope of the original claims. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Patent Office for fresh examination.
Epifi Technologies Private Limited v.Formula One Licensing Bv & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Epifi Technologies Private Limited against Formula One Licensing Bv & Anr., successfully arguing that the respondent's registered mark 'F1' should be removed from the register. The court found that the impugned mark had not been used in commerce for the required continuous period, and furthermore, the respondent failed to obtain necessary regulatory approvals despite its registration date. This decision reinforces the principle that trademark registrations must reflect genuine commercial use.
Syrma Sgs Electronic Pvt Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 483156, which relates to a backpack with an avalanche safety system. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications concerning the submission and exemption of documents. Notice was issued to all respondents for further proceedings.
Fashnear Technologies Private Limited v.John Doe/S And Ors
In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction reliefs sought by Fashnear Technologies Private Limited against John Doe and others. The court issued sweeping directives requiring entities like NPCI, telecom service providers, and Meta Platforms to take immediate action—including blocking UPI IDs, suspending phone numbers, and removing infringing social media content—to protect the plaintiff's trademarks ('MEESHO') and copyrights. This order sets a strong precedent for how IP holders can leverage court intervention against digital infringement across multiple platforms.
Glanbia Performance Nutrition Limited v.Hercules Nutra Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a cancellation petition filed by Glanbia Performance Nutrition Limited against Hercules Nutra Pvt. Ltd., directing the removal of an identical trademark registration from the register. The court found that Glanbia was a prior user and adopter of the 'ON' mark for nutritional supplements, possessing immense goodwill in India since 2003. Given the deceptive similarity of the respondent's mark (including copying the swoosh arrow) and the identity of the goods, the registration was deemed dishonest and liable to be cancelled.
Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. v.Satyendra Kumar Singh And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. against an infringing trademark registration. The petitioner, a major online travel platform operating under 'GOIBIBO', successfully argued that the respondent's registered mark was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among consumers. Given the petitioner's extensive goodwill and prior use since 2009, the Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the conflicting registration.
Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Lakha Ram Sharma Proprietor Of Kundan Cable India
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an order that had stayed several ongoing trademark suits. The stay was granted by the Trial Court based on observations from a Division Bench judgment regarding rectification petitions. However, the High Court held that the reference to 'passing off' in the cited precedent was merely obiter dicta and not binding law. Consequently, all the consolidated suits were directed to proceed expeditiously for trial.
M/S. Mocemsa Care v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S. Mocemsa Care against the Registrar's refusal of a device mark registration. The court held that even if the mark comprises common English words, its composite and stylized arrangement makes it distinctive when viewed as a whole. Furthermore, the court dismissed the objection regarding insufficient invoices, noting that this issue was never raised in the initial examination report. Consequently, the application is now directed to proceed with advertisement.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The review petition was filed by Respondent No. 2 challenging the original judgment dated January 15, 2025. The core dispute revolved around whether raising a defense of invalidity in an infringement suit (Section 107) prevents the patentee from filing a separate revocation petition (Section 64).
Anand Sarup Sachdeva M/S Diachi International v.Rex Sewing Machine Co. Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking correction of clerical errors in a previous order related to a trademark dispute. The Court found that certain discrepancies, including the petitioner's name and the scope of cancellation, were inadvertent mistakes. Consequently, the court corrected the relevant paragraphs, ensuring the restoration of M/s Daichi International's trademark registration (No. 696905) while confirming the cancellation of the respondent's mark (No. 1573729). This order clarifies the legal standing of both parties in the ongoing dispute.
Gurpal Singh v.Bhim Sain Wadhwa
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to introduce historical letters and recent Income Tax Returns (ITRs) into a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'KHUSHDIL'. The court allowed the plaintiff to place on record old letters, which lend credence to the origin of the name through state functionaries. However, the request to admit ITRs spanning 2010 to 2025 was rejected due to the belated nature of the filing and adherence to commercial suit procedures. This decision allows the case to proceed with a mix of historical evidence and existing records.
Play Games 24X7 Private Limited v.R Y Easy Shop Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Play Games 24X7 Private Limited. The plaintiff informed the court that they had identified additional entities infringing their intellectual property rights and would seek impleadment of these parties. The court directed the matter to be listed before the Joint Registrar on April 23, 2025, while continuing the existing interim order.
Milliken And Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Milliken And Company appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant an Indian patent application. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider a crucial expert statement by Dr. Nathan A Mehl. The High Court found merit in the appeal, holding that foreign decisions are not binding and directing the matter back for fresh consideration.
Neeraj Jain v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademark & Anr.
Neeraj Jain challenged the rejection of his design application (No. 393302-001), which was deemed abandoned due to a delay in filing the Power of Attorney (POA) and subsequent reply to the FER. The Controller had rejected the application because the response was filed beyond the stipulated six-month period. The Delhi High Court, recognizing a bona fide mistake by the petitioner's agent, intervened.
Ciena Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ciena Corporation challenged the deemed abandonment of its Indian patent application, which was issued by the Patent Office due to failure to respond to a First Examination Report (FER). The petitioner argued that this lapse was solely attributable to an inadvertent mistake made by their patent agent. The Delhi High Court agreed with Ciena, holding that an applicant should not suffer consequences for the bona fide errors of their legal representatives or agents. Consequently, the court set aside the abandonment letter and restored the application, granting a final opportunity to prosecute the patent.
Fresenius Kabi Ipsum Srl v.The Asst Controller Of Patent And Designs & Anr.
Fresenius Kabi Ipsum Srl filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated November 21, 2024, which refused Patent Application No. IN201611009993. The court issued notices and set dates for further submissions.
Jay Switches India Pvt. Ltd. v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd.
The suit was filed by Jay Switches India Pvt. Ltd. against Sandhar Technologies Ltd. & Ors for alleged infringement of a patented 'Air Tight Fuel Cap' and a registered design 'Fuel Tank Cap', along with claims of passing off. The court proceeded to frame issues based on the pleadings, including counterclaims regarding the novelty and inventive step of the Plaintiff's IP rights.
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.