Bench:C.Hari Shankar
124 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark, copyright, design matters.
Cases Presided Over
124 cases indexed | Page 4 of 5
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Toshiba appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its process patent application (No. 5817/DELNP/2013). The High Court found the original rejection order completely unreasoned and unsustainable in law. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for a fresh decision.
Wockhardt Limited v.Zymes Bioscience Private Limited & Anr.
Wockhardt Limited filed a suit alleging that Zymes Bioscience Private Limited infringed its Indian Patent No. IN 318858, which covers the formulation of a new generation antibiotic combination (2 grams cefepime and 2 grams tazobactam). The court registered the plaint and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or marketing products containing this specific combination.
AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v.VICKY AGGARWAL & ORS.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute regarding the scope of an undertaking provided by defendants concerning the use of the trademark 'TOWER'. The court ruled that the undertaking could not be extended to specific goods (Monosodium Glutamate, Citric Acid, Tartaric Acid, Camphor, Hexamine tablets in Class 1, and green raisins in Class 29) because the plaintiff had explicitly acknowledged the defendants' right to use the mark for those categories in their plaint. Consequently, the court modified the undertaking, limiting its restriction only to other goods.
Anita Agarwal v.Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Anita Agarwal, who owns the registered trademark 'VENSOR'. The court found prima facie that the defendant, Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd., was circulating notices that were defamatory and disparaging towards the plaintiff's mark and goods. This preliminary order aims to protect the plaintiff's goodwill while the main suit proceeds, addressing both alleged trade mark infringement and passing off.
Entertainment Network (India) Limited v.Https//Tuneincom/Podcasts/Arts--Culture- Podcasts/Bangla-Sunday-Suspense-P2082186/ and Ors
In this copyright infringement case, Entertainment Network (India) Limited sought to protect its audio content, 'Sunday Suspense,' which is based on literary works. The court issued an ex-parte order directing intermediary platforms (like Tuneincom) to immediately take down the infringing URLs and compelling Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to disclose server details used by the infringers. This ruling highlights the proactive role of courts in enforcing IP rights against digital infringement.
Diageo Brands B.V. v.Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt Ltd
Diageo Brands B.V. filed an application seeking injunction against Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt Ltd, alleging piracy of their registered Design No. 306577. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's product design was a fraudulent imitation of Diageo's protected design. The court examined complex issues regarding the scope of novelty analysis versus infringement analysis and the appropriate 'eye' (instructed vs. ordinary purchaser) for comparison. Ultimately, the court found that the distinguishing features used to establish the suit design's originality also differentiated it from the defendant's impugned design, leading to the dismissal of the injunction application.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr. v.Yms Laboratories Private Limited
The commercial suit filed by Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp against Yms Laboratories Private Limited for Patent Infringement concerning Sitagliptin was settled mutually. The court decreed the suit in terms of this settlement agreement, which included the Defendant acknowledging the patent's validity and agreeing to cease all infringing activities.
Art Screw Co., Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Art Screw Co., Ltd. appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller denying its patent application for 'Fastener and Fastening Structure' on grounds of lack of inventive step over prior art. The High Court found that the original order lacked proper reasoning and comprehension, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Sonya Kapur v.Controller General Of Patent, Designs And Trademark and Ors
Sonya Kapur challenged the grant of Patent No. 363697 by the Patent Office, arguing that the pre-grant opposition filed by her was ignored. The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the patent application to the Patent Office for re-consideration, ensuring the petitioner's opposition is taken into account.
Hadiklaim Central Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd. v.Ms Dharamraj And Sons And Ors & Ors.
The Delhi High Court judgment confirms the resolution of a trademark dispute concerning the 'KING SOLOMON DATES' brand. The plaintiff successfully reached comprehensive settlement agreements with multiple defendants, including Defendant No. 1. These settlements legally bind the defendants to cease all use of similar or deceptively related marks and acknowledge the plaintiff's exclusive ownership rights over the trademark.
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Mark
The Delhi High Court remanded an appeal filed by Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd regarding the rejection of its trademark application 'Modern Namkeen Karare Lal'. The core issue was whether the appellant could proceed with the appeal despite a previous rejection order from 2018. Recognizing the merits of the case, the court ordered the matter to be sent back to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the original review application. However, this remand is conditional: Modern Snacks must first prove that the prior rejection order was never properly communicated to them.
Nif Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
In this appeal concerning trademark registration, the Registrar of Trade Marks argued that Nif Private Limited was seeking repeated registrations for the same device mark. The court noted conflicting claims regarding prior and subsequent applications related to the brand 'Namaste India Creamy Delicious Dahi'. To properly adjudicate whether multiple registrations were being sought for the identical mark, the High Court directed the appellant to place both relevant trademark application documents on record.
Sai Shreeja Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Shree Amba Industries
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Sai Shreeja Industries seeking an injunction against Shree Amba Industries, alleging 'slander' and 'libel.' The court noted that the plaintiff's claim stemmed from the defendant opposing the registration of the plaintiff's trademark. Finding that opposition to trademark registration does not inherently constitute slander or libel, the judge indicated the suit might be dismissed for lack of cause of action. However, the Court granted a renotification date to allow the plaintiff to further convince the court of the suit's sustainable basis.
Sandisk Llc v.Patel Mobile Accessories And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Sandisk LLC's application to amend its suit, permitting the impleadment of three additional parties—Shree Mataji Mobiles, Target Telecom, and Paravathi Telecom. These entities were identified as selling and marketing counterfeit products bearing Sandisk's registered trademarks. The court granted the amendments sought by the plaintiff, allowing the case to proceed against a broader set of alleged infringers.
Gea Refrigeration Netherlands Nv v.Metalex Cryogenics Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon their Indian Patent (IN 296857) related to piston compressor crankcases. The court registered the plaint and issued summons, setting out procedural directions for filing written statements and addressing various interlocutory applications.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
The court heard an application filed by Defendant 7 seeking permission to place screenshots and a research paper on record to challenge the novelty of Design No. 263764 asserted by Sirona Hygiene Private Limited. The plaintiff opposed the application, citing delay. The Court allowed the documents but directed the plaintiff to file an affidavit of admission or denial.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
The plaintiffs, Astrazeneca Ab, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited, was infringing their Indian Patent IN 297581, which covers the anticancer drug Osimertinib (marketed as Tagrisso). The plaintiffs claimed the defendant was soliciting large orders to manufacture and sell the infringing product without authorization.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Sham Bansode
The dispute between Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Sham Bansode regarding the 'Dream11' trademarks was amicably settled through mediation. The parties agreed that the court would decree the infringement suit based on the settlement terms. Key provisions included the defendant acknowledging ownership of the plaintiff's listed trademarks, agreeing to cease all use of similar marks, transferring the domain name www.mydream11.in, and paying a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Elder Labs Limited & Anr.
The dispute between Himalaya Wellness Company and Elder Labs Limited was resolved through mediation, leading to a comprehensive settlement agreement accepted by the Delhi High Court. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiffs' rights in trademarks like 'Liv.52' and 'HIMALAYA', as well as their trade dress (orange and green color combination). In exchange for discontinuing infringing activities and paying damages of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the suit was decreed based on the settlement terms.
Eli Lilly And Company & Ors. v.Bryan Pharmaceuticals Through Its Proprietor Mr. Laxmi Kand Pal / Navneet Kand Pal & Ors.
In this pharmaceutical dispute, Eli Lilly sued several companies for marketing its patented compound Baricitinib under a brand name ('Barinat') for rheumatoid arthritis, allegedly breaching licensing agreements that restricted use solely to COVID-19 treatment. The court addressed an application by one defendant (Defendant No. 11), who claimed the marketing was an inadvertent error and no sales had occurred. After the defendant provided undertakings not to market or sell the drug for any ailment other than COVID-19, the plaintiff agreed that no cause of action survived against this specific defendant, leading to its removal from the suit.
Pfizer Inc & Ors v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited & Ors
The plaintiffs, holding patent IN 218291 for Palbociclib, filed an application seeking interim relief against the defendants who were allegedly manufacturing, marketing, and selling infringing products online. The court found prima facie evidence of infringement and passed several ad interim injunctions restraining the parties from further dealing in the patented product.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Abony Healthcare Limited Through Its Directors & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company against Abony Healthcare Limited. The suit alleged trademark infringement, passing off, trade dress infringement, and copyright violation concerning the 'Liv' product line. The court found prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity based on identical packaging elements, color schemes (orange/green), and similar product names ('Liv.52' vs 'Liv.55 DS'). This interim order prevents the defendants from continuing their alleged infringing activities pending the final hearing.
Anil Rathi v.Barhi Concast Llp & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Anil Rathi against Barhi Concast LLP and others. The court found that the defendants were attempting to circumvent a previous injunction by adopting the deceptively similar mark 'BCLLPRATHI' while dealing in TMT bars and steel products, which are identical to the goods covered under Mr. Rathi's registered trademark 'RATHI'. This interim order restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under this contested mark until the final hearing of the suit.
Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited v.West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
In this trademark infringement suit concerning Omeprazole capsules, the Delhi High Court addressed a request for ex parte ad interim relief. While the plaintiff presented an arguable case regarding the deceptive similarity between 'OMEZ' and 'OMES', the court ultimately refused immediate injunction. The judge emphasized that mere prima facie evidence is insufficient; the balance of convenience, irreparable loss, and public interest must be weighed, leading to a decision to allow the defendant a chance to respond.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Apple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute concerning the trademarks 'UNOCAL' and related products. The plaintiff, Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited, had previously obtained an ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with litigation in the United States. However, the court ultimately allowed the vacation of this injunction. The ruling emphasized that Indian courts should not restrain parties from seeking protection against perceived infringement in foreign jurisdictions unless those proceedings are oppressive or vexatious to the domestic case.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Apple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited. The court restrained the defendants from pursuing a related civil action before the U.S. District Court at Southern District of Texas, as well as preventing them from manufacturing or selling goods using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to UNOCAL and UNOCAL 76 in India. This decision protected the plaintiff's established rights derived from its licensing agreement with UNOCAL.
Snapdeal Private Limited v.Godaddycom Llc And Ors
Snapdeal Private Limited filed an application seeking a temporary injunction against Godaddycom and others, alleging widespread infringement of its registered 'SNAPDEAL' trademark through the registration and offering of infringing domain names. The court examined the feasibility of granting such a broad injunction, particularly concerning the ability to prevent the registration of any domain name containing the mark. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claims of infringement, the judge required further clarification from the defendant regarding the practical implementability of the requested relief before making a final decision on the interim order.
The Himalaya Drug Company & Ors v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued interim protective orders in favor of The Himalaya Drug Company against Ashok Kumar & Ors regarding trademark infringement. The court restrained the defendants from using Himalaya's registered logos, trademarks (including 'Himalaya Pure Herbs'), specific domain names like <himalayawelness.com>, and associated email IDs. Furthermore, the court directed the freezing of certain websites and domain names to prevent further unauthorized capitalization on the plaintiff's goodwill.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Chiral Biosciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp, filed a suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. 209816 covering Sitagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor used to treat Diabetes Mellitus Type II. The court issued an order granting an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products until further hearing.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt Ltd v.Agribiotech Industries Limited (Abil)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt Ltd against Agribiotech Industries Limited. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was infringing on its registered trademarks ('Officers Choice') and copyrighted trade dress associated with its IMFL products, specifically by using a deceptively similar label for its 'Chetak Whisky'. The court found that there was a high likelihood of consumer confusion, satisfying both the 'average intelligence' test and the 'triple identity' test. This interim order protects the plaintiff's brand reputation pending final disposal of the suit.
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.