Bench:J.R. Midha
22 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent, design matters.
Cases Presided Over
22 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.Vaishali Travels & Anr.
In a case concerning the use of the 'VOLVO' trademark, the Delhi High Court facilitated a settlement between the plaintiffs (Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors) and defendant No. 2. The court ordered that the settlement, wherein the defendant agrees not to use the registered trademark 'VOLVO', must be placed on record within two weeks. This order confirms an earlier interim decision and keeps the litigation moving toward resolution.
Anil Rathi v.Shree Sidhbali Steels Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark dispute concerning the use of 'Rathi' in manufacturing steel items. The plaintiff, Anil Rathi, challenged the defendants' use of the mark, alleging that a lease agreement was merely a camouflage for unauthorized production. While the defendants claimed they were operating under a valid license, the court allowed the plaintiff to file an additional affidavit and documents regarding a guarantee provided by Defendant No.1 to secure loans for Defendant No.2. The interim injunction remains in place pending further arguments.
Aap Ki Pasand & Anr v.New Direction Exports & Crafts
In this trademark dispute, the defendant sought to establish a prior right by claiming they purchased the 'ANDEES' trademark and logo from a third party in 2018. The court accepted the defendant's temporary commitment to cease using the disputed packaging pending further proceedings. This order indicates that the matter is still actively litigating, with both parties encouraged to attempt an out-of-court resolution.
Snapdeal Private Limited v.Snapdealluckydraws.Org.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Snapdeal Private Limited's application to implead numerous rogue websites as defendants in its ongoing infringement suit. The court extended existing interim orders, restraining these newly added parties from passing off the 'SNAPDEAL' trademark. Furthermore, it issued specific directions compelling certain defendants and registrars to suspend domain name registrations and notify internet service providers to block access to the infringing sites.
Johnson & Johnson v.Pritamdas Arora T/A M/S Medserve & Anr
In a trademark infringement dispute, Johnson & Johnson sought permission from the Delhi High Court to amend its original plaint. The plaintiff argued that evidence gathered by a Local Commissioner revealed additional trademark infringements by the defendant concerning 'LIGACLIP,' which needed to be incorporated into the suit. Satisfied that these amendments were necessary for determining the real issues between the parties, the court allowed the application, allowing J&J to update its claims and proceed with the litigation.
Exphar S.A. v.Atlanta Biological Pvt. Ltd
In this trademark infringement matter, the defendant agreed not to contest the permanent injunction against them, provided the plaintiffs waived their claims for damages and costs. While both parties settled on the injunctive relief, the core dispute regarding whether the plaintiff's mark, VERZOL, qualifies as a well-known trademark remains unresolved. The court has scheduled further proceedings specifically to determine this crucial aspect of the case.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Woodol International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court partially ruled in favor of Volvo, granting a preliminary decree against Woodol International regarding the unauthorized use of the 'VOLVO' trademark on lubricants. Despite initial defenses by the defendants claiming no infringement and non-compliance with mediation requirements, the court accepted the affidavits stating that the defendants had ceased or were not manufacturing under the mark. The suit will now proceed to trial to determine the final quantum of damages and rendition of accounts.
Intellectual Property Attorneys Association v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Anr
The petitioner challenged the refusal of trade mark registration applications due to non-speaking orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court held that Section 18(5) mandates the Registrar to record and communicate the grounds for refusal in writing. Consequently, Rule 36 of the Trade Marks Rules was deemed arbitrary and inconsistent with the statute.
Mylan Laboratories Limited v.Union Of India & Ors
Mylan Laboratories Limited challenged an order that granted a patent for 'Methods of Evaluating Peptide Mixtures' after dismissing their pre-grant opposition. The petitioner sought urgent relief as the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was non-functional due to long-standing vacancies in its Technical Member positions, leading to a logjam of appeals. The Delhi High Court addressed this systemic issue by invoking the doctrine of necessity, ruling that IPAB can continue hearing urgent matters related to Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights even with vacant technical posts.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Aqualite India Ltd.
Relaxo Footwears Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Aqualite India Ltd. for allegedly infringing its registered footwear design No.294938. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's product was an obvious or fraudulent imitation of the plaintiff's protected design. During the interim application, the court directed a market survey which revealed numerous third-party products with near identical designs available in the market.
Eisai Co. Ltd. v.Satish Reddy
The plaintiffs, holding exclusive rights to Indian Patent No. 215528 for Lorcaserin, filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against the defendants who were planning to commercialize an infringing drug (LHH). The court found that there was a prima facie case of infringement in favor of the plaintiff.
J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd v.Union Of India And Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order that revoked Patent No. 251037, citing lack of disclosure regarding ongoing civil suit and a PCT application in Australia. The court found the revocation unjustified, noting that the civil dispute had settled and the respondent had withdrawn the post-grant opposition.
Supreme Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India
Supreme Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd. sought judicial direction from the Delhi High Court to compel the Union of India (Trademark Registry) to accept the renewal and/or restoration of its registered trademark, No. 1235463. The court disposed of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner a four-week window to submit the necessary renewal request along with the required restoration fee. This order clarifies that once submitted, the Trademark Registry will consider the application according to law.
Living Media India Limited v.Lallantop Media And Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Living Media India Limited, finding that Lallantop Media and Anr. infringed upon its trademark rights by registering and using the similar domain name 'THELALLANTOP.NET'. The court granted a permanent injunction against the defendant's use of the domain and directed the registrar to facilitate the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff. This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting established online brand identities in the digital media space.
Elder Projects Ltd. v.Elder Labs Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addressed a trademark dispute concerning the use of 'Elder' on pharmaceutical products. The court heard statements from key executives of both parties, including those from Elder Projects Ltd. and Elder Labs Limited. While the plaintiff raised claims regarding unauthorized use, the court noted that it was of a prima facie view that the plaintiff had made false claims, reserving judgment on this matter for future hearings.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Nk Singh & Ors.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. sought an ad interim injunction against Nk Singh & Ors., alleging that the defendants were openly offering for sale a patented anti-hyperglycemic agent, REMOGLIFLOZIN ETABONATE. The court found that the plaintiff held exclusive rights and granted the injunction.
Institute For Inner Studies & Ors v.Charlotte Anderson & Ors
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute concerning the exclusive rights over the name and practices of 'Pranic Healing'. The defendants argued that these terms and concepts were pre-existing since 1904, forming part of traditional knowledge available in the public domain, and thus incapable of protection under existing IP laws. The court directed specific defendants to file an affidavit detailing their position before further arguments.
patanjali ayurved ltd v.axiom ayurveda
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. sued Axiom Ayurveda for trademark infringement, alleging that Axiom was using the terms 'endorsed by Maharishi Patanjali Ayurved Foundation Trust' and 'endorsed by Maharishi Patanjali Yogpeeth Foundation Trust' on their products, creating a deceptive association with Patanjali’s trademarks PATANJALI and PATANJALI AYURVED. The plaintiff claimed significant revenue (approximately Rs. 9,000 crores) and widespread distribution of its products under the contested marks.
Jasper Infotech Private Limited v.Aadi Sins & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Jasper Infotech Private Limited regarding its SNAPDEAL trademarks. The court restrained the newly impleaded defendants from infringing the trademarks or passing off their business as affiliated with the plaintiff. Crucially, the court directed several domain registrars to immediately suspend numerous domains that were allegedly used for fraudulent activities related to the brand, and also ordered a freeze on specific bank accounts.
Global Car Group Pte. Limited & Anr v.Droom Technology Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute over alleged disparagement between Cars24 (Plaintiffs) and Droom Technology (Defendants). Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant's advertising campaign, which used similar catchphrases and visual elements, was designed to denigrate their brand. However, the court found that the defendant had sufficiently modified its advertisement and that the phrase 'DON’T BE A BAKRA' was an integral part of the defendant's registered trademark, not a disparaging reference to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court allowed the defendant to continue using the revised advertisement during the pendency of the suit.
Ten Xc Wireless Inc v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen)
Ten Xc Wireless Inc filed two suits seeking permanent injunctions and damages against various defendants, alleging infringement of its registered patent (IN 240893) related to 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency' used in Bi-Sector Array Antennas. The core dispute revolves around the use of asymmetric beam patterns in wireless communication systems. Although the plaintiffs sought interim injunctions, the court deferred a decision on costs because the defendants had raised credible challenges regarding the patent's validity, which must be examined during the trial.
krizm hotels private limited v.vaishnavi estatesp ltd
M/S Krizm Hotels Private Limited (Lemon Tree hotels) sued M/S Vaishnavi Estates(P) Ltd for trademark infringement, alleging the defendant's use of 'Lemon Tree Apartments' for residential apartments created confusion and diluted the plaintiff’s hotel brand. The plaintiff claimed significant investment in their Lemon Tree hotel chain and sought an injunction to prevent further use of the mark.
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.