Bench:C.Hari Shankar
124 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent, copyright, design matters.
Cases Presided Over
124 cases indexed | Page 2 of 5
Fybros Electric Private Limited v.Hira Lal Jain Trading As Vikram Cable Industries and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Fybros Electric Private Limited's petition, directing the removal of the rival trademark 'NEBROS' from the trade mark register. The court found that NEBROS was deceptively similar to the petitioner's earlier marks and covered identical goods (wires and cables) in Class 9. Given the likelihood of public confusion, the High Court ruled that the registration of NEBROS should not be upheld.
Modern Doordevices Pvt. Ltd. v.Jai Maa Vaishno Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the trademark dispute between Modern Doordevices Pvt. Ltd. and Jai Maa Vaishno Traders Pvt. Ltd. The court directed the Registry of Trade Marks to provide the complete record related to the impugned trademark 'INDO GARV' (Registration No. 5361272) for review by the parties. Furthermore, procedural applications regarding document exemptions were disposed of, while notice was issued in the main proceedings.
Ms Lightbook & Anr. v.Mr Pravin Shriram Kadam & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for interim injunctive relief, despite arguments regarding priority of registration and deceptive similarity. The court found that the plaintiffs were disentitled to immediate relief due to their failure to disclose a material fact—a previous admission made by them in response to a Section 57 rectification application filed by the defendants. This omission was deemed a clear case of misrepresentation and concealment, preventing the court from granting an injunction at this preliminary stage.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Angle Bio Pharma & Ors.
The dispute involved allegations of patent infringement concerning the drug 'Apixaban' (Patent IN 247381). The parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement with all defendants. The court accepted the terms, decreeing the suit subject to the agreed-upon conditions.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Cipla Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Cipla Limited regarding the commercialization of Apixaban was amicably settled. The defendant confirmed that it did not commercialize the drug under the brand name APIGY until after the expiry of the suit patent.
Amit Jain v.Vikas Gupta
The Delhi High Court rejected the defendant's application seeking dismissal of the trademark infringement suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The court held that since the plaintiff explicitly pleaded in the plaint that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to his own, a clear cause of action existed. The judgment affirmed the principle that an application for rejection must be decided solely on the averments made in the plaint, treating them as correct.
Synthes Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
Synthes Gmbh challenged an earlier decision by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks before the Delhi High Court. The appellant raised objections concerning the drafting and procedural lapses in the impugned order, specifically noting abrupt conclusions regarding non-compliance with Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act. The court issued this order to clarify these points, treating it as a corrigendum to the original judgment.
The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. v.Abhinav Mehta And Anr.
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed procedural matters concerning an undertaking filed by the respondent. Since the crucial undertaking was not placed on record and the petitioner had not received a copy, the judge directed the parties to coordinate documentation. Consequently, the hearing was re-notified for June 1, 2023, allowing both sides time to ensure all necessary documents are properly presented.
Voiceage Evs Llc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobie Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff, Voiceage Evs Llc, filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon four specific Indian patents related to EVS Standards in their mobile handsets. The court registered the plaint and issued summons, while also addressing several interlocutory applications concerning document filing and seeking temporary injunctions.
Holyland Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Vijay Pal Vineet Kumar And Co. And Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, striking down a competitor's registration. The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent's mark and trade dress were deceptively similar to its own, despite minor differences in the names ('Golden Crown' vs 'Golden Queen'). Furthermore, the court noted that the respondent's application was ineligible for registration under Section 11(1)(b) due to the petitioner's prior priority of user and registration. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to established trade dress and marks against confusingly similar imitations.
M/S S. S. Hospitality v.M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd
This revision petition challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Commercial Court regarding a trademark infringement suit filed by M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd against M/S S. S. Hospitality. The petitioner argued that since the cause of action arose in Chandigarh, and the respondent had subordinate offices there, the suit should have been filed in Chandigarh. However, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent-plaintiff did not possess a subordinate office in Chandigarh, thus validating the original court's decision to allow the suit to proceed in Delhi.
Gea Refrigeration Netherlands Nv v.Metalex Cryogenics Limited
The dispute between Gea Refrigeration Netherlands Nv and Metalex Cryogenics Limited regarding the GEA Patent was settled. Both parties executed a settlement agreement on April 13, 2023, acknowledging the patent's validity and agreeing to specific undertakings.
Fmc Corporation v.Adama India Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit alleging that the defendants infringed their process patent (IN'645) related to the manufacture of Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The court registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons, and set timelines for filing written statements and pleadings.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v.Amul Electromech Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued interim orders in favor of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited (Amul) against several defendants regarding trademark infringement. The court directed specific defendants to immediately suspend access to infringing domain names (like www.amulfans.com), block social media accounts, and remove product listings on e-commerce platforms like Amazon. For other intermediaries, the court mandated a 'notice and takedown' mechanism, requiring them to promptly remove any content bearing Amul's trademarks upon receiving notification from the plaintiff.
Khilender Gupta Trading As M/S Bobby Enterprises v.Rakesh Kumar Trading As M/S Sai Birbal Das Foods
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Khilender Gupta (the defendant in the original suit) challenging a lower court's refusal to permit amendments to their written statement. The core issue was whether changing the claimed date of trademark use constituted an impermissible 'U-turn.' The Court ruled that since the petitioner was entitled to claim user from any date, and the amendment merely reflected newly discovered material, it was correctional in nature and should be allowed in the interest of justice.
Under Armour Inc. v.Ashwani & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark litigation, the Delhi High Court issued procedural orders to advance the case. The court directed that notice be served on all parties and set a returnable date for July 2023. Crucially, the court allowed an application seeking access to the official records of Trademark Registration No. 5372621 in Class 25, ensuring these documents would be placed before the court for consideration.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Parulben Navnath Chothani Trading As Shiv Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court recorded a settlement between the Plaintiff, Sirona Hygiene Private Limited, and Defendant No. 1 in a trademark infringement suit concerning its 'SIRONA' brand. The settlement acknowledged Sirona's rights in both its registered mark and product packaging copyright. As part of the agreement, the infringing party agreed to cease using similar marks like 'SIROMA' and paid Rs. 65,000/-. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1, who was then deleted from the array of parties.
Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan And Anr. v.Bollywood Time & Ors.
Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan filed a civil suit alleging that various parties were circulating misleading videos on YouTube claiming she was critically ill or deceased, often using morphed pictures. The plaintiffs argued this violated her right to privacy and infringed upon the family's intellectual property rights, specifically copyright in their images. The court examined the role of social media intermediaries like Google LLC (YouTube) under the IT Rules, 2021, while setting procedural timelines for the parties to proceed with the infringement claim.
Ttk Prestige Ltd v.Kcm Appliances Private Limited
Ttk Prestige Ltd filed a suit alleging piracy of its registered design for a pressure cooker. The core dispute centered on whether the unique, anti-spillage lid design was protectable and if Kcm Appliances Private Limited had copied this feature. The court found that the challenge to the registration's validity lacked substance and concluded that the defendant's product prima facie infringed the plaintiff's registered design.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Verizon Trade Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order on April 12, 2023, in the matter of Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. versus Verizon Trade Services & Ors. The court directed that the case be re-notified for a hearing on April 13, 2023. This procedural step indicates ongoing litigation concerning trademark matters between the two related entities.
Vaibhav Chaurasia v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Vaibhav Chaurasia seeking directions against the Union of India regarding the status of Trade Mark No. 2650542. The petitioner had applied for the substitution of his name as the proprietor following an assignment from M/s Delicious Food Products Pvt Ltd. Recognizing the limited nature of the grievance, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process and decide the application within a period of six weeks.
Beiersdorf Ag v.Rsh Global Private Limited & Anr.
This order addressed an application by Beiersdorf Ag alleging that Rsh Global Private Limited was disobeying previous court injunctions regarding the use of deceptively similar cosmetic packaging. The plaintiff pointed out that the defendant's product remained available on various e-commerce websites despite the existing restraint orders. The defendants countered, stating they were actively contacting these third-party sites to have the products removed. Given the complexity of enforcement across multiple online platforms, the court granted a short adjournment to allow further submissions on this critical issue.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Indoco Remedies Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Indoco Remedies Limited regarding the validity and infringement of patent IN 247381 for Apixaban was amicably resolved through mediation. The defendant acknowledged the patent's validity until its expiry date (September 17, 2022) and confirmed discontinuing all related activities.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Metrochem Api Private Limited regarding patent infringement of Apixaban was amicably resolved through court-mediated conciliation. The parties executed a Settlement Agreement, leading to the suit being decreed in terms of that agreement.
Rspl Health Private Limited v.Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Ltd.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an infringement suit filed by Rspl Health Private Limited against Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's use of 'XPERT' in its registered word mark, 'HARPIC DRAIN XPERT,' infringed upon the plaintiff's device mark registration. While the court acknowledged the merits of the dispute, it primarily issued procedural directions, allowing the suit to proceed and setting timelines for filing written statements and interim replies.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co Kg v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma challenged the rejection of its application seeking to quash a pre-grant opposition filed against its patent application. The petitioner argued that the opposition lacked reasonable justification, while the court addressed the issue of abuse of process under Section 25(1).
Ischemix Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Ischemix Llc appealed the Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 4380/DELNP/2013) concerning pharmaceutical products for treating ischemia. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on prior art D-5/D-6 and Section 3(d), was flawed because these documents were not cited during the initial hearing. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for de novo consideration.
Mirza Ahmed Baig Alias Asad v.Mirza Afser Baig & Anr.
The Delhi High Court heard petitions challenging the registration of several marks held by the respondent, focusing on issues of user claim and proprietorship. The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of continuous use and ownership, particularly regarding the mark 'MIDLAND'. The court noted these submissions but reserved judgment, scheduling a further hearing to allow the respondents to respond to the detailed challenges raised by the petitioner.
Dolby International Ab v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dolby International Ab appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 6570/DELNP/2009) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was arbitrary, incomprehensible, and lacked any proper reasoning or due application of mind. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design, 'PEE BUDDY', by Defendant 7, which was manufacturing an identical device under the name 'NAMYAA'. The core dispute centered on whether the defendant's product constituted piracy of the plaintiff's certified design. While the court found the designs to be identical, subsequent proceedings led to a settlement with one key defendant (Defendant 2), resulting in a decree sheet being drawn up for that party.
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.