Bench:Jyoti Singh
220 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
220 cases indexed | Page 2 of 8
Enviro Ambient Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents
Enviro Ambient Corporation appealed against the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. IN201917020705 for a 'Carbon Dioxide Capture Device and Method' by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The Patent Controller had rejected the application on grounds of lack of novelty under Section 2(1)(j) and lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order as non-speaking and unreasoned, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with directions to decide within three months.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Visuteq Lifesciences Private Limited and Anr.
Glaxo Group Limited, the proprietor of the trademark ZENTEL, sued Visuteq Lifesciences Private Limited and another party for trademark infringement and passing off arising from the Defendant's use of the mark ZENTEQ GEL. During the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and recorded settlement terms before the Delhi High Court. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff against Defendant No. 1 in terms of the settlement, with the Plaintiff foregoing its claims for damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, and legal costs.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of a patent infringement suit (CS(COMM) 410/2020) filed by Astrazeneca AB & Anr against Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, based on a joint application recording an amicable settlement between the parties. The suit concerned alleged infringement of Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. The court decreed the suit in terms of the Settlement Agreement, which formed part of the decree, and directed refund of the entire court fees to the Plaintiffs.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.USV Private Limited
This was a patent infringement suit filed by Astrazeneca AB and another plaintiff against USV Private Limited seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application, decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the registry to draw up the decree sheet.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Wella International Operations Switzerland SARL & Anr.
The petitioner, Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of the trademark ULTIME REPAIR registered in favour of Respondent No. 1 in Class 03 under registration No. 5918380. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 17.07.2026, and the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC to take the settlement on record and direct removal of the trademark entry. The Delhi High Court allowed the application, took the settlement on record, and directed Respondent No. 2 to remove the trademark from the Register of Trade Marks within four weeks.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of three connected revocation petitions filed by Asustek Computer Inc against Nokia Technologies Oy, pertaining to Indian Patent Nos. 381056, 320467, and 356246. The petitions were withdrawn by Asustek following the parties' entry into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their pending disputes. The court allowed withdrawal with liberty to reinstitute revocation or other legal proceedings in respect of the subject patents if required.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a suit against Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in pharmaceutical products containing the patented compound Dabrafenib, allegedly infringing Indian Patent No. 275655 (IN'655). The defendant, through its counsel, gave an undertaking to the court not to commercially manufacture or launch any product containing Dabrafenib during the validity of the patent, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research purposes. The court accepted the undertaking, decreed the suit in terms of the undertaking, and directed the defendant to file an affidavit of undertaking within two weeks.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Wella International Operations Switzerland Sarl & Anr.
The Petitioner, Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking to place on record a Settlement Agreement dated 17.07.2026 executed with Respondent No. 1, and to direct Respondent No. 2 to remove the trademark 'ULTIME SMOOTH' (Registration No. 6343131 in Class 03) from the Register of Trade Marks. The Court found the settlement terms to be lawful and allowed the application. Consequently, the petition filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was allowed, and the registration of the trademark 'ULTIME SMOOTH' in favour of Respondent No. 1 was cancelled, with Respondent No. 2 directed to remove the entry from the Register within four weeks.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The plaintiffs, Incyte Holdings Corporation and others, filed a patent infringement suit against Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. concerning Indian Patent No. 269841 (IN'841), which protects the novel compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant intended to commercially launch Ruxolitinib-based products, which would infringe Claims 1, 17, and 21 of IN'841. The defendant undertook not to commercially manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any product containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity, and the suit was disposed of based on this undertaking, while preserving the defendant's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research use.
TVS Motor Company Limited v.Ram Chandra Maurya & Ors.
TVS Motor Company Limited, a leading manufacturer of two-wheelers and three-wheelers, filed a commercial suit seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction against Ram Chandra Maurya and others who had been issuing cease-and-desist notices alleging copyright infringement based on two copyright registrations for literary works titled 'Motion's Fourth and Fifth Law' and 'Motion's Sixth Law'. The Delhi High Court found that the Defendants had been unsuccessful in proving copyright violation before the Copyright Authority and up to the Supreme Court, and that patent applications for the same subject matter had been abandoned. The Court held that the impugned notice constituted groundless threats of legal proceedings under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from issuing such threats.
Nature Coatings Inc v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
Nature Coatings Inc filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 16.04.2026 refusing grant of patent under Application No. 202227024750. The Court allowed the appellant's application for exemption and granted three weeks' time to place on record the apostilled copy of the Power of Attorney. Notice was issued to the respondent, who accepted notice through counsel, with directions to file reply within six weeks and rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.
Opella Healthcare Group v.Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted a summary judgment in favor of Opella Healthcare Group, the registered proprietor of the trademark PHENSEDYL (used since 1954 and in India since 1995 for pharmaceutical products), against Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd, which had adopted the deceptively similar mark PHENSERYL along with a similar trade dress. The Defendant's trademark and copyright registrations had already been cancelled by the Court on 12.11.2024. Since the Defendant failed to appear and had no real prospect of defending the claim, the Court decreed the suit in terms of the reliefs sought in paragraphs 38(a) to (e) of the plaint.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a patent revocation petition filed by Asustek Computer Inc. against Nokia Technologies Oy's Indian Patent No. 387206 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. The Court permitted the Petitioners to withdraw the revocation petition with liberty to re-institute proceedings if so required.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks' order dated 30.10.2025 refusing registration of the trademark 'OFFER' in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Appellant contended that the impugned order was non-speaking, showed non-application of mind, and applied the wrong legal test by requiring uniqueness rather than assessing distinctiveness. The Delhi High Court quashed the impugned order, holding that the Respondent applied the incorrect test under Section 9(1)(a) and failed to properly examine whether the mark was arbitrary and capable of distinguishing alcoholic beverages, directing reconsideration within four months.
Abbvie Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Abbvie Inc has filed an appeal against the Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications, challenging an order dated 27.04.2026 related to Indian Patent Application No. 4759/DELNP/2012. The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the respondents and allowed the appellant to file a lengthy list of dates and the synopsis. The court has also directed the parties to file written submissions before the next date of hearing.
Opella Healthcare Group v.Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd
This is an order in a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 552/2024) before the Delhi High Court concerning an application (I.A. 4622/2025) filed under Order XIII-A of the CPC seeking summary judgment. The Plaintiff, Opella Healthcare Group, submitted that the Defendant's principal line of defence—its trademark and copyright registrations in the label mark and artistic work of PHENSERYL—had been cancelled by the Court vide judgment dated 12.11.2024 in C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 9/2024. The Defendant did not appear, and the Court deferred adverse orders, listing the matter for 20.07.2026 with a warning that if the Defendant remained unrepresented, the Court would proceed to hear the summary judgment application.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Havells India Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademarks 'HAVAI' and its device marks, which were found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' well-known 'HAVELLS' trademarks. The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the defendants had dishonestly adopted a mark by altering the letter 'I' to be read as 'L' to create confusion among consumers. The court found all three ingredients of passing off—goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage—were prima facie satisfied, and that balance of convenience and irreparable harm favoured the plaintiffs.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Astrazeneca Ab And Ors
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking revocation of Patent No. IN235625 (3573/DELNP/2004) held by AstraZeneca AB. The petitioner subsequently filed an application to withdraw the petition in light of a settlement reached between the parties in a related suit, CS(COMM) 323/2020. Respondent No. 1 raised no objection to the withdrawal, and the court allowed the application and disposed of the revocation petition as withdrawn along with all pending applications.
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr v.Awadh Bihari Badal Proprietor Of Aloe Care Arogya Life & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, restraining the defendant from using the mark 'Liv-22' which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Liv.52'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction and that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant's use of the mark 'Liv-22' was likely to cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a lawsuit against Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing and selling products under the impugned marks ORZIFER-XT, which are deceptively similar to Emcure's trademarks OROFER and OROFER-XT. The court found that Emcure has established a strong reputation and goodwill in its trademarks and that the Defendants' actions are likely to cause irreparable damage to Emcure's goodwill and reputation.
Fortune Marketing Private Limited v.Gujarat Pesticides & Ors.
The Delhi High Court revoked the impugned copyright registration of the artistic work/label/packaging titled ZOOOK in favor of Gujarat Pesticides & Ors. due to procedural flaws. The court found that the grant of copyright registration was procedurally flawed and deserved to be revoked. The original application filed by Respondent No.1 is revived for fresh consideration by Respondent No.2. The court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ks Agro Impex And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an injunction in favor of Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd, restraining Ks Agro Impex from selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice in packaging that is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade dress. The court found that the defendant's packaging was likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm the plaintiff's goodwill. The defendant is allowed to continue selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice using distinct and non-deceptive packaging. The case highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, particularly in the FMCG sector.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd v.Manju Kumari Wife Of Sudhir Suman & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd to cancel the registration of the trademark PROTRILEX, which was found to be deceptively similar to Danone's registered trademark PROTINEX. The court held that the registration of PROTRILEX was in violation of Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register within four weeks.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Walter Healthcare Private Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court declared the trademark CALPOL as a well-known trademark in terms of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to its long-standing reputation and extensive use in India. The court recognized the significant commercial presence and recognition of the mark CALPOL in the field of medicine and pharmaceutical products. The defendant was restrained from using the WALPOL mark, which was deemed deceptively similar to the CALPOL mark.
M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd v.Lakha Ram Sharma
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd challenging an order of the Trial Court that refused to allow the examination of an additional witness. The case involves a trademark dispute over the mark 'KUNDAN' used for electric goods. The petitioner had filed multiple suits against the respondent, including one for trademark infringement and another for passing off. The court held that the petitioner's application to examine the additional witness was inconsequential and did not warrant interference.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The petitioners, Asustek Computer Inc, filed petitions seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the patent register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications concerning exemptions and procedural matters.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The Delhi High Court heard petitions filed by Asustek Computer Inc seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding document division and exemptions.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Novartis Ag & Anr.
Alkem Laboratories Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN414518 and its removal from the Register of Patents. The respondent submitted that the patent in question had already been revoked, which was acknowledged by the petitioner's counsel.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed against an order that dismissed its post-grant opposition to Indian Patent No. 319780. The appeal challenged the dismissal on grounds that the impugned order was non-speaking and failed to consider crucial reply evidence and documents filed by ITC under Rule 59 of the Patents Rules, 2003. The Court found that the Controller had ignored categorical directions regarding these submissions.
Apriori Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Apriori Inc filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller's decision dated 15.12.2025, which refused to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 202017008435. The court issued notice to the respondent and set a date for returnable hearing.
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.