Bench:Asha Menon
41 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
41 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
T. V. Today Network Limited v.News Laundry Media Private Limited
T. V. Today Network Limited, a major media group operating channels like AajTak and India Today Television, filed a suit seeking relief against News Laundry Media Private Limited for alleged infringement of its content. The plaintiff sought an interim mandatory injunction to prevent further dissemination of allegedly defamatory and infringing material. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that since the plaintiff could be compensated with damages (quantified at Rs. 2 crores), there was no irreparable loss warranting immediate injunctive relief.
M/S Drs Logistics (P) Ltd & Another v.Google India Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by Drs Logistics against Google regarding trademark infringement via search engine advertising. The court recognized that using a registered trademark as a keyword could lead to consumer confusion, diverting traffic from the plaintiff's site to competitors. Consequently, the court granted interim injunctions requiring Google and other defendants to investigate any complaints of misuse and remove or block advertisements found to be infringing or causing passing off.
Saisons Trade And Industry Private Limited v.Maithri Aquatech Private Limited
Saisons Trade And Industry Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against Maithri Aquatech Private Limited and others for alleged patent infringement. The defendants challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither party was located in Delhi. However, the Court found that since the defendant No.1 operated an interactive website accessible globally, and Defendants No.2 & 3 were marketing agents based in Delhi, Delhi courts possessed sufficient jurisdiction to hear the matter. Consequently, the application for leave to file the suit was allowed.
Black Diamond Trackparts Private Limited v.Black Diamond Motors Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Black Diamond Trackparts Private Limited challenging an order from the Commercial Court. The court upheld the necessity of protecting the registered trademark 'BLACK DIAMOND' during pending litigation, despite previous rulings that allowed both parties to use the mark under specific conditions. The judgment emphasized the limited scope of Article 227 jurisdiction and affirmed the court's power to issue protective directions regarding goods release and security deposits.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited v.Mr. Nitish Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited against the defendants. The court found that the defendants were fraudulently adopting and misusing Hero's registered trademarks ('Hero Electric', 'Hero Motocrop') and identity materials to set up fake dealerships, thereby deceiving the public. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using these marks or offering services under the plaintiff's name, and associated domain names and bank accounts were ordered to be frozen pending the final disposal of the suit.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.M/S Moosa Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court formally registered the lawsuit filed by Relaxo Footwears Limited against M/S Moosa Enterprises & Anr. The suit alleges infringement of the 'SPARX' trademark, along with claims of passing off and copyright infringement. During the initial proceedings, the defendant acknowledged receiving summons and stated that they had ceased online sales of the goods in question following objections from the plaintiff.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
This case involves a Review Petition filed by Defendants No. 1 & 2 against an earlier order passed by the Delhi High Court. The defendants challenged the court's directions requiring them to produce third-party agreements, arguing that these documents were irrelevant to determining the essentiality of the suit patents and constituted an erroneous understanding of the facts.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited v.Mr. Nitish Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited against the defendants. The court found that the defendants were fraudulently adopting and misusing Hero's registered trademarks ('Hero Electric', 'Hero Motocrop') and identity materials to set up fake dealerships, thereby deceiving the public. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using these marks or offering services under the plaintiff's name, and associated domain names and bank accounts were ordered to be frozen pending the final disposal of the suit.
Anil Kumar Sole Proprietor Of M/S Anil Kumar Ramesh Kumar v.Jyoti Sales House & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Anil Kumar, seeking permanent injunctions against the alleged infringement of his registered trademark 'DHANI' used for edible oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's mark, 'DHANIBABA', was deceptively similar in the same business sector. Recognizing the potential for resolution, the court referred the matter to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, allowing both parties an opportunity to settle their trademark dispute outside of litigation.
Dr Ashim Kumar Biswas v.A To Z Pharmaceuticals And Laboratory & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dr. Ashim Kumar Biswas against A To Z Pharmaceuticals for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's product was an exact copy of the plaintiff's Ayurvedic medicine, using a deceptively similar mark ('DR. BISWASH') while also naming the plaintiff as the manufacturer. Given the clear prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation, the court restrained the defendants from continuing the infringing activities until further hearing.
Dfm Foods Limited v.ITC Limited
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in the trademark dispute between Dfm Foods Limited and ITC Limited. While the suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, the court immediately directed both parties toward mandatory mediation. This order sets the stage for amicable resolution while allowing procedural steps like filing additional documents and exemptions from pre-institution mediation.
Moonshine Technology Private Limited v.Tictok Skill Games Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Moonshine Technology Private Limited (Baazi Group) against Tictok Skill Games Private Limited. The court found that the defendant was attempting to piggyback on the goodwill and reputation of Baazi by using confusingly similar marks, such as 'WinZo Baazi'. Given the plaintiff's established presence and registered trademarks in the gaming industry, the court ruled that this usage amounted to infringement and passing off, directing the defendants to immediately cease all use of the infringing brand.
KLEENOIL FILTRATION INDIA PVT LTD v.UDIT KHATRI & ORS.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of KLEENOIL FILTRATION INDIA PVT LTD against Udit Khatri & Ors. The court found that the defendants were engaging in blatant trademark infringement by selling spurious, sub-standard oil filters using names and get-ups deceptively similar to KLEENOIL's registered trademarks. Citing prima facie evidence, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendants from marketing or supplying products under 'KLEENOIL' or 'CLEANOIL' until further hearing.
Emaar Properties Pjsc v.Emaar Farm Technik Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Emaar Properties Pjsc against Emaar Farm Technik Private Limited. The plaintiff, a well-established global brand, alleged that the defendant was deceptively using the registered trademark 'EMAAR' for farm equipment to benefit from the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation. The court recognized the clear case of infringement and passing off, temporarily restraining the defendants from using the mark on any products or e-commerce platforms until further proceedings.
Infiniti Retail Limited v.M/S Croma Through Its Proprietor & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Infiniti Retail Limited, granting a permanent injunction against trademark infringement and ordering the transfer of the domain name www.croma.in. The court found that the plaintiff's mark 'CROMA,' which is registered and declared well-known, was being illegally used by a third party who was profiting from its reputation through website squatting. This judgment reinforces the strong legal protection afforded to established, well-known trademarks in the digital space.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha filed an appeal challenging a decision by the Senior Examiner regarding its trademark application for 'ALPHARD' in Class 12. The Delhi High Court, while allowing the appellant to cure procedural delays and admitting the appeal, set the matter down for further hearing. Toyota argued that as a prior user of the mark since 2008, the examiner erred in declining registration.
MARRIOTT WORLDWIDE CORPORATION v.COURTYARD HOLIDAYS WORLD PRIVATE LIMITED
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Marriott Worldwide Corporation against Courtyard Holidays World Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant was misleading consumers by using marks and domain names identical or similar to Marriott's registered 'COURTYARD' brand. Despite the defendant having a registration, the court noted that this registration was obtained through false representation, leading to the restraint order.
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.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a suit alleging that Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd was infringing five of its patents related to telecommunication standards (UMTS, LTE, etc.). The current application sought discovery through interrogatories and production of license agreements with chipset providers like Qualcomm and MediaTek. The court partly allowed the application, directing the defendants to answer specific questions and provide relevant third-party agreements in a sealed cover.
Hamdard National Foundation (India) v.Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an ad interim injunction against Sadar Laboratories, which was seeking protection for its well-known trademark 'Rooh Afza'. The court found that while 'Rooh Afza' may be a strong mark, the defendant's use of 'Dil Afza' did not necessarily cause consumer confusion, especially given the long history and peaceful co-existence of similar marks in the pharmaceutical market. However, the defendant was directed to maintain detailed sales accounts during the pendency of the suit.
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v.CIAN HEALTHCARE LIMITED
The Delhi High Court formally decreed the suit between Glaxo Group Limited and Cian Healthcare Limited based on a settlement agreement reached through mediation. The defendant agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000 towards the plaintiff's claim and costs, and crucially, consented not to use the trademark 'BETASOL' for their products. This resolution allowed both parties to conclude the litigation amicably.
Yuvi Aspiring Pvt. Ltd. v.Manish Sharma And Anr
The Delhi High Court formally accepted a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Yuvi Aspiring Pvt. Ltd., Manish Sharma, and Unifique Hospitality International Pvt. Ltd. The court decreed the suit based on this settlement, which involved the transfer of the registered trademark 'The Drunken Botanist' from Manish Sharma to the third party for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Crucially, the settlement also included a waiver by the first party of all future claims related to the trademark.
Tictok Skill Games Pvt Ltd v.Head Digital Works Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tictok Skill Games Pvt Ltd against Head Digital Works Private Limited. The court found that the defendant was leveraging the plaintiff's established reputation by using the trademark 'WinZo' as a meta/title tag on its competing website, thereby causing consumer confusion and benefiting from the plaintiff's goodwill. Despite receiving a Cease and Desist notice, the defendant only made minor alterations to the mark, prompting the court to issue an immediate restraint order.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
The case involved patent infringement concerning Vivo mobile phones. A specific application was filed by defendant No. 3 (Xihi Technology Private Limited) seeking deletion from the parties array, claiming they only manufacture mobile chargers. The court accepted the undertaking given by D-3 not to infringe and passed an interim injunction against them.
Delhi Public School Society v.Deepak Kumar Pal & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction suspending the use of the respondent's registered trademark 'Delhi Public Secondary School.' The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent violated a previous consent decree by registering similar trademarks, leading to public confusion. This order reinforces the court's power to maintain the status quo and protect established goodwill against deceptive practices.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited filed a suit against Canva Pty Ltd seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing its patented technology, titled 'Present and Record Feature of Canva'. The court allowed the plaint to be registered as a suit and set out directions for issuing summons and filing written statements.
Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v.Phonepe Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed multiple petitions filed by Resilient Innovations seeking the removal/rectification of several PhonePe trademarks. The court held that because the petitioner had previously raised objections regarding the descriptive nature and invalidity of the marks in a separate civil suit (CS(COMM) 292/2019), they were bound by Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. This section mandates that challenges to trademark validity must be addressed within the original civil proceeding before the court can allow rectification proceedings.
Cerveceria Modelo Demexico S De R L De Cv v.The Origin Ventures & Ors
In a significant ruling for global beverage giants, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Cerveceria Modelo Demexico S De R L De Cv. The court found that the defendants were using the well-known 'CORONA' and 'BUDWEISER' trademarks and logos in a derogatory manner on their clothing line products. Recognizing the prima facie case, the court restrained the defendants from selling or marketing these disparaging products until further hearing, protecting the goodwill of the established brands.
Vinod Snacks and Confectioners Private Limited v.Vinod Multifood Products Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Vinod Snacks & Confectioners Pvt. Ltd. against Vinod Multifood Products Pvt. Ltd., concerning the use of the trademarks 'POOJA' and 'SHIV'. While the court allowed the main suit to proceed, it granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from independently selling products under these marks. However, the defendants were permitted to continue supplying these products to the plaintiff, provided separate sales accounts are maintained.
PFIZER INC v.NATCO PHARMA LIMITED
The plaintiffs (Pfizer Inc) informed the court that the present matter relates to Patent No. 218291 and is connected to several other pending cases involving the same patent. The court directed that the present matter be listed along with these related matters before the Judge In-charge on September 30, 2021.
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.