Bench:Hima Kohli
20 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
20 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
DLF Limited v.G Webbook And Anr
DLF Limited successfully concluded its trademark dispute against G Webbook And Anr through an out-of-court settlement. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on this compromise, where the defendants acknowledged DLF as the prior adopter and registered proprietor of 'CAMELLIA' and 'CAMELLIAS'. Furthermore, the defendants committed to refraining from using similar marks like 'GRAND CAMELLIA', effectively resolving the infringement claims.
Eneroil Offshore Drilling Ltd v.Centek Limited
The suit concerning patent infringement was pending between Eneroil Offshore Drilling Ltd and Centek Limited. The parties subsequently reached an out-of-court settlement, which involved the plaintiff undertaking not to use Boron steel or its equivalent for manufacturing single piece centralizers.
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Medi Pharma & Another
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. in a trademark infringement suit concerning the brand name 'POLYCAP'. The court granted a permanent injunction, preventing the defendants from manufacturing or marketing products under the disputed mark or any deceptively similar variation. This decision underscores the importance of protecting established pharmaceutical trademarks and maintaining consumer trust regarding product efficacy.
Gurnam Singh Trading As M/S G. C. Laboratories v.M/S Little Profit Trading Company
The Delhi High Court formally accepted an out-of-court settlement between the trademark proprietor, Gurnam Singh Trading As M/S G. C. Laboratories, and M/S Little Profit Trading Company. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the 'BLUE HEAVEN' trademark and agreed to pay Rs. 3.00 lacs as damages. Furthermore, the defendant committed to surrendering all rights in the infringing mark and disposing of existing stock by a specified date, leading to the suit being decreed based on these terms.
Sanofi Aventis v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Sanofi Aventis filed a suit against Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to blood thinning medicines. The plaintiff sought permission to amend the plaint to reflect significantly increased damages, as the losses mounted over the seven years the suit was pending. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that procedural rules should not obstruct the cause of justice, especially when correcting valuation based on evolving market realities.
M/S Entertainment Network India Ltd. v.Mr.Jonathan Brady & Anr.
In a significant development for trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court allowed a suit to be settled out of court. M/S Entertainment Network India Ltd. successfully convinced the court to enforce an agreement with Defendant No. 1, Mr. Jonathan Brady. The settlement confirmed that 'ULTA PULTA' is the intellectual property of the plaintiff and resulted in the decreeing of the original suit based on the agreed-upon terms.
M/S Mirza International Ltd v.M/S Pauls Foot Prints
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between M/S Mirza International Ltd and M/S Pauls Foot Prints based on a comprehensive settlement reached through court-annexed mediation. The defendant agreed to cease using the disputed mark 'RED TAPE,' deliver seized goods, and pay Rs. 65,000/- to the plaintiff. The Court formally accepted the terms of the Settlement Agreement dated October 14, 2015, thereby decreeing the suit.
M/S Relianc Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.M/S Reliance Life Sciences & Anr
This Delhi High Court order confirms the settlement reached between M/S Relianc Life Sciences Pvt Ltd and M/S Reliance Life Sciences & Anr. The parties successfully mediated their dispute, leading to a decree that acknowledges the plaintiff's proprietary trademark rights. While the plaintiff agreed to waive damages, the defendants formally acknowledged the validity of the plaintiff's trademarks, resolving the litigation amicably.
Shoppers Stop Ltd v.Shoppers Shop
In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit between Shoppers Stop Ltd and Shoppers Shop following a successful mediation process. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement where the defendant acknowledged Shoppers Stop's exclusive ownership of the 'SHOPPERS STOP' trademark and 'SS LOGO'. As part of the agreement, the defendant agreed to cease using the marks and pay a sum of Rs. 6.00 lacs to the plaintiff.
Microsoft Corporation & Anr v.Piyush Somani & Anr
In a significant settlement order, the Delhi High Court allowed Microsoft Corporation to secure its intellectual property rights against Piyush Somani. The parties reached an out-of-court agreement where the defendants formally recognized Microsoft as the proprietor of the 'MICROSOFT' trademark. Furthermore, the court directed NIXI to facilitate the transfer of the domain name www.microsoft.co.in to Microsoft, effectively resolving a complex dispute involving both trademark infringement and cybersquatting.
Bestochem Formulations(I) Limited v.Mr.Nitin Blaggan & Ors.
In a significant resolution, Bestochem Formulations(I) Limited successfully concluded its dispute against Mr. Nitin Blaggan & Ors. by reaching an amicable out-of-court settlement. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on this agreement, which confirmed that Bestochem is the rightful owner of the trademark 'FLUWEL' for pharmaceutical preparations. In exchange for this confirmation, the plaintiff agreed to forgo claims for damages and costs, bringing a long-pending infringement case to a definitive close.
Gap(Itm) Inc And Anr v.D.K. Srinivas
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between Gap(Itm) Inc and D.K. Srinivas based on an out-of-court negotiated settlement. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiffs' exclusive proprietary rights in the 'GAP' trademark and agreed to specific undertakings. Furthermore, the defendant committed to paying Rs. 25 lacs in damages should they breach these future agreements, effectively resolving the dispute.
Aktiebolaget Skf And Ors v.Zakir And Ors
In this Delhi High Court judgment, the dispute between Aktiebolaget Skf and Zakir was resolved through a negotiated settlement involving Defendant No. 5. The court accepted the mutual agreement, which included Defendant No. 5 providing undertakings to the plaintiffs regarding the delivery of goods and acknowledging their trademark ownership. Consequently, the suit was decreed based on the settlement terms, allowing the plaintiffs to take possession of the infringing goods for destruction.
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc And Anr v.M/S Just Lifestyle Pvt Ltd
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction against M/S Just Lifestyle Pvt Ltd for trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution. However, following a decision by the Supreme Court, it was held that the Delhi Courts lacked territorial jurisdiction because the plaintiff's principal place of business and the cause of action both arose in Mumbai. Consequently, the court disposed of the suit and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for filing before the Bombay High Court.
Mw Eat Ltd v.New Masala Zone & Anr
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit filed by Mw Eat Ltd against New Masala Zone & Anr, resolving a dispute over trademark infringement. Although the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement where the defendants agreed to cease using their name, the court formally granted the decree. The judgment specifically restrained the defendants from using 'New Masala Zone' or any deceptively similar mark in relation to restaurants and hospitality services, thereby protecting the plaintiff's trademark 'MASALA ZONE'.
The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group Plc v.Sharekhand Limited
The Delhi High Court formally accepted a settlement agreement reached between The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group Plc and Sharekhand Limited. The core dispute involved the alleged infringement of the trademark 'MAXTRAD'. Under the settlement, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's exclusive rights and agreed not to use the deceptively similar mark 'MAXTRADE'. Consequently, the court decreed the suit based on these terms, concluding the litigation.
M/S Today Tea Ltd v.M/S Aggarwal Tea Co.& Anr
The Delhi High Court decreed the trademark infringement suit between M/S Today Tea Ltd and M/S Aggarwal Tea Co. based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The defendants agreed to pay a balance sum, cease using the disputed trademarks ('T-STAR' vs 'TODAY/TODAY STAR'), and further committed to destroying all infringing tea and coffee packaging material at a designated premises under court supervision. This judgment underscores the effectiveness of mediation in resolving complex IP disputes.
Gsm (Operations) Pty Ltd v.Jai Kumar Sethia And Ors
In a case concerning trademark infringement, Gsm (Operations) Pty Ltd successfully reached an out-of-court settlement with Jai Kumar Sethia And Ors. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's ownership of the 'BILLABONG' trademark and agreed to cease using the infringing mark 'BILLABANGS'. Furthermore, they paid a sum of ₹2 lacs as damages in full and final settlement. The court formally decreed the suit based on these mutually accepted terms.
Societe Des Produits Nestle, .S.A. v.Sapan Kumar Bhatia & Ors
In this Delhi High Court case involving Nestle and Sapan Kumar Bhatia, the parties reached an amicable out-of-court settlement during the pendency of the litigation. The defendants acknowledged Nestle's ownership rights over the 'MAGGI' trademark, domain name (www.maggi.in), and copyright in the logo and label. Consequently, the court allowed a compromise application, decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms, which included a final payment of ₹2,00,000/- from the defendants to the plaintiffs.
Babu Ram Om Prakash v.Pradhan Herbal Company
This case involved a dispute between Babu Ram Om Prakash and Pradhan Herbal Company concerning the use of the trademark 'Diamond/Black Diamond' in relation to Henna Power (Mehandi). Following mandatory mediation, the parties reached a comprehensive Settlement Agreement. The court accepted this agreement, decreeing the suit based on its terms, which prohibited the defendant from using the plaintiff's mark or similar labels.
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.