Bench:C.Hari Shankar
124 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark, design matters.
Cases Presided Over
124 cases indexed | Page 1 of 5
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited seeking permanent injunction against the exploitation of its patent (IN 276026) covering Ceritinib. The dispute centered on whether the patent was invalid due to prior art and obviousness, which Natco argued. The court dismissed Natco's application to vacate the existing interim injunction.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) v.Girdhar Industries And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) seeking an interim injunction against Girdhar Industries regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. Despite KVIC asserting immense goodwill associated with its 'KHADI' mark, the court found that the balance of convenience did not favor granting a restraining order at this interlocutory stage. Consequently, the application for an injunction was dismissed, though the defendants were mandated to maintain and periodically file detailed accounts of their product sales.
V Guard Industries Ltd v.Ms Mahavir Home Appliances And Anr. & Anr.
The dispute concerning the registered design for ceiling fans was amicably resolved by both parties. The Defendants recognized the Plaintiff's exclusive rights and agreed to cease production/distribution of similar designs, while also undertaking to withdraw pending cancellation petitions against the design. However, the court noted a separate legal issue regarding the refund of court fees in private settlements.
Paul Components Private Limited v.Hi Tech Arai Private Limited
This matter before the Delhi High Court concerned an application by Paul Components Private Limited seeking permission to inspect the original, unredacted versions of technical drawings filed by Hi Tech Arai Private Limited. The defendant had initially placed redacted copies on record, citing that the removed portions contained commercially sensitive trade secrets related to manufacturing specifications. Despite the plaintiff's initial 'no objection' to the redactions, the court rejected the application, holding that once a party agrees to documents being placed on record in a redacted format due to confidentiality concerns, they are not entitled to inspect the unredacted originals.
International Foodstuffs Co. Llc v.Vijay Kumar Mittal And Pawan Kumar And ...
The dispute between International Foodstuffs Co. Llc and Vijay Kumar Mittal was resolved through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement, acknowledging each other's proprietary rights in the trademark 'ALLEGRO' across different product categories and jurisdictions. This resolution required both parties to withdraw existing legal actions and abide by specific usage restrictions for the mark.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Naresh Kumar Goyal, Trading As Maiden Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex interplay between an infringement suit and concurrent rectification petitions concerning pharmaceutical trademarks. The court clarified that while the statute requires rectification to be decided first, the simultaneous filing by the plaintiff preempted the need for a mandatory adjournment. Consequently, the court framed multiple issues covering trademark validity, infringement, passing-off, and defenses like adoption from APIs, setting the case for trial.
Mhg Ip Holding (Singapore) Pte. Ltd v.Anantara Greens & Ors
This Delhi High Court order marks the initial procedural steps in a trademark infringement suit filed by MHG IP Holding against Anantara Greens. The court registered the plaint and set out the schedule for pleadings, while simultaneously addressing several interlocutory applications. Key decisions included condoning the plaintiff's delay in refiling the suit and granting exemptions necessary to proceed with the claim of continuing trademark infringement.
M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited v.M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court approved an amicable settlement between the Plaintiff, M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited, and Defendant No. 1, M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited. Under the settlement, Defendant No. 1 acknowledged the exclusive rights to the 'SALLAKI' trademark and agreed to permanently cease using any similar marks or packaging. Furthermore, the court granted the Plaintiff permission to delete Defendants 2 and 3 from the suit, allowing them to pursue separate legal actions against those parties.
Intercontinental Great Brands Llc v.Parle Product Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed by Intercontinental Great Brands Llc seeking a stay of infringement proceedings. The plaintiff sought to challenge the validity of the defendant's registered trademark, FABIO, under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to raise any prima facie tenable grounds challenging the registration in its pleadings (plaint or replication). Consequently, the application for stay was rejected, allowing the main infringement suit to proceed.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the defendants, inspect their Preconditioned Air Units (PCAs), and audit related accounts to demonstrate infringement of Patent IN 330145. The court dismissed the application, holding that the prayers were misconceived and did not meet the strict criteria required for appointing a commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC.
Sabhyasachi Gorai v.Aveenshi International Private Limited Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to modify a prior decree based on an amended settlement agreement. The core of the dispute involved the transfer of two key trademarks, LAVAASH and LAVAASH BY SABY, from Aveenshi International Private Limited to Sabhyasachi Gorai. The court formally accepted the terms of the new agreement, which finalized the assignment of the brands and stipulated mutual non-infringement and cooperation for registration.
Raj Kumar Sharma v.Sandeep Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interconnected trademark disputes concerning the 'Pizza Galleria' brand between Raj Kumar Sharma and Sandeep Kumar & Anr. The court first resolved a factual contradiction regarding an MoU, accepting that the date should be 25th March 2018 instead of 9th June 2021. Furthermore, all applications seeking a stay on trademark registrations were dismissed as withdrawn by the Petitioner. Despite these procedural steps, the Court noted significant gaps in documentation and directed Respondent No.1 to file a comprehensive additional affidavit within six weeks.
Ayur United Care LLP v.Union Of India & Anr.
This judgment addresses a procedural challenge concerning the jurisdiction for hearing writ petitions filed against decisions made by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner, Ayur United Care LLP, challenged an order passed by the IPAB that allowed rectification petitions against its trademark registration. The core legal question was whether these appeals required a Single Judge or a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
UPL Limited v.Triveni Chemicals And Industries Ltd. & Anr.
UPL Limited filed a suit alleging that Triveni Chemicals And Industries Ltd. was manufacturing and selling a product containing the composition protected by UPL's Indian Patent No. IN 428514. The court registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons to the defendants, and directed parties to file pleadings and respond to the interlocutory injunction application.
Intervet International B.V. v.Reyaansh Healthcare
The plaintiffs, holders of Indian Patent 283279 for the veterinary product Fluralaner, filed a suit against Reyaansh Healthcare for manufacturing and selling Fluralaner tablets under the brand Flurashield without a license. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the product until further hearing.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The dispute involved allegations of patent infringement concerning the drug 'Apixaban'. The parties reached separate settlement agreements with Defendants 1 & 2 and Defendant 3, mediated by the Delhi High Court. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on these terms.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc v.Sanjeev Gupta & Ors
The commercial suit for patent infringement (CS(COMM) 823/2018) between Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc and Sanjeev Gupta & Ors was settled. The parties agreed that the suit would be decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs, acknowledging the validity of Patent IN'816 and the Defendants' infringing activities.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was infringing Indian Patent No. 426553, which covers a combination therapy (Netupitant and Palonosetron) used as an antiemetic for CINV. The court registered the plaint as a suit and directed both parties to file their respective written statements and pleadings.
Akebia Therapeutics Inc. v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications
Akebia Therapeutics Inc. challenged the procedures followed by the Controller General regarding a post-grant opposition filed against its granted patent (IN 287720) for HIF-1α prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor compounds. The Delhi High Court found that the Opposition Board's recommendations were unsustainable due to procedural irregularities in how evidence was presented and processed. Consequently, the court quashed the previous findings, allowed Akebia to lead additional evidence, and remanded the matter back to the Opposition Board for a fresh decision de novo.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
The petitioner sought a stay of proceedings in the patent revocation petition (CO (Comm. IPD-PAT) 3/2021) under Section 10 of the CPC, citing a previously instituted suit filed by Respondent 2 (Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH) before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The court analyzed whether a revocation petition and an infringement suit have identical issues and causes of action.
Syngenta Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Syngenta Limited appealed an order rejecting its divisional patent application (No. 7059/DELNP/2011). The dispute centered on whether the parent application (No. 6114/DELNP/2005) truly disclosed multiple inventive concepts, which is a prerequisite for filing a valid divisional application under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Others
Qualcomm appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents which rejected their patent application (No. 5159/DELNP/2007) primarily citing Section 3(k) and lack of definitiveness. The High Court found that the rejection order suffered from manifest non-application of mind as it failed to address the appellant's submissions, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Ttk Prestige Ltd. v.Gupta Light House
Ttk Prestige Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Gupta Light House infringed its registered cooker design (Registration No. 197906). The court found the plaintiff's design valid and maintainable, rejecting the defendant's claims regarding lack of novelty or prior publication. However, the court ruled against granting permanent injunction or delivery up of goods because the design had expired on September 13, 2019. Ultimately, the suit was decreed in favor of Ttk Prestige Ltd., directing the defendant to render accounts of earnings and awarding costs.
Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt Ltd. v.Mohammad Akil And Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark infringement case following a comprehensive settlement between Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt Ltd. and Mohammad Akil And Anr. The respondent acknowledged the petitioner's exclusive rights in LIVFAST/ and agreed to cease using confusingly similar marks like LEFAST/. Crucially, the court directed the Trade Marks Registry to forthwith cancel two specific registrations (4059607 and 4380874) in favor of the respondent, finalizing the dispute while allowing a grace period for existing stock exhaustion.
Fisher And Paykel Healthcare Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Fisher And Paykel Healthcare Limited challenged a First Examination Report that deemed its Divisional Application No. 202118034146 defective. The Controller of Patents had issued an order based on Section 59 of the Patents Act, 2000. During the hearing, the respondent acknowledged the error and agreed to set aside the impugned order.
Jindal Industries Pvt Ltd v.Prawesh Agencies Through Its Partners Vikash Singh Ravindra Kumar Singh
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit where the defendant claimed a co-branding arrangement with an affiliate of the plaintiff's group. The court found that the plaintiff failed to disclose this vital co-branding agreement in their plaint, despite being required to attest to full disclosure under the Commercial Courts Act. Consequently, the court noted the breach of procedural rules and directed the plaintiff to place the relevant agreement on record before further proceedings.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Avighna Medicare Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a comprehensive settlement between Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited (Plaintiff) and Avighna Medicare Private Limited & Ors. (Defendants). The parties resolved their trademark infringement dispute regarding the brands 'DOSELA' and 'ATENTRUE' versus 'DUZELA' and 'ATTENTROL'. Under the agreement, Defendant No. 1 agreed to cease all use of the infringing marks, destroy existing stock within specified timelines, and waive its own pending trademark applications for those names. The suit was subsequently disposed of based on these mutual undertakings.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Br Retail India Private Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Inter Ikea Systems Bv, finding that the defendants were likely infringing on IKEA's registered trademarks. The court ordered the defendant to immediately cease using the deceptively similar 'TIKEA/' mark across all goods and services. Furthermore, the judgment mandated the removal of any infringing material from the website www.tikea.in and directed the defendants to take steps to get such content taken down from third-party websites.
Lt Foods Limited v.Dawat Biryani & Anr.
The Delhi High Court formally decreed the suit between Lt Foods Limited and Dawat Biryani & Anr. based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached through court mediation. The defendants acknowledged Lt Foods as the proprietor of the well-known 'DAWAT' trademark and committed not to use any deceptively similar marks, such as 'Dawat Biryani,' in a manner that suggests affiliation or causes infringement or passing off. This resolution provides clear legal certainty regarding the protection of the Plaintiff's intellectual property rights.
Huhtamaki Oyj And Anr v.Controller Of Patents
Huhtamaki Oyj appealed a patent application rejection (Application No. 6727/DELNP/2014) based on lack of inventive step. The High Court examined the prior art references and found that the initial rejection was flawed, particularly regarding the procedural aspects. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
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.