Bench:Jyoti Singh
231 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
231 cases indexed | Page 5 of 8
United Biotech Private Limited v.Cipla Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition seeking cancellation of an impugned trademark. Respondent No. 1 (Cipla Limited) assured the court that it was not using the mark, leading to the petitioner's success. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trademark and rectify the register accordingly.
FMC Corporation v.Insecticides India Limited
The Plaintiffs filed an application seeking a permanent injunction against Insecticides India Limited, alleging that the Defendant was infringing their patent (IN'645) by using a patented method for preparing the insecticide CTPR. The court examined whether the Defendant's process was equivalent to the claimed invention.
Imberatek Llc v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court passed an order in CS(COMM) 763/2022 addressing several interlocutory applications filed by Imberatek Llc against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowed the plaintiff to file confidential documents related to the suit patent under strict confidentiality terms.
Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. v.Jaipur Steeltech India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark disputes concerning the use of the 'RATHI' mark in steel manufacturing. The Plaintiffs challenged the Defendants' compliance with previous undertakings regarding the cessation of unauthorized use of the trademark. While the Defendants submitted an affidavit, the court found it inconsistent with their prior assurances. Consequently, the court directed the Defendant to file a fresh, compliant affidavit within one week.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Vifor (International) Ltd filed a suit against Hetero Healthcare Limited concerning an impugned product. The Defendants stated they would not launch the product until the expiry of the suit patent. Based on this statement, the court decreed the suit in favour of Vifor.
S. Bir Pal Singh v.Pawandeep Singh Walia Trading As M/S. Pawandeep Singh & Company and Ors.
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, S. Bir Pal Singh sought interim protection against Pawandeep Singh Walia Trading As M/S. Pawandeep Singh & Company. The court issued a crucial order directing Respondent No. 1 not to create any third-party rights in four specific registered trademarks associated with 'AKALI PATRIKA.' This protective measure ensures the status quo is maintained while the main litigation proceeds, setting a key date for further hearing.
Dfm Foods Ltd. v.Ms Nenimemi Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court granted a one-week extension to Defendant No. 1 to file its required affidavit. Crucially, the court also issued an assurance that the defendant would refrain from selling the disputed product under the 'CORN CURLS' trademark until the next hearing date. This interim order maintains the status quo while allowing procedural compliance in the ongoing infringement litigation.
Guillermo Horacio Pino v.Blissbury Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Guillermo Horacio Pino against Blissbury Care Pvt. Ltd. and others. The Plaintiff, who owns significant goodwill associated with the children's content brand 'PLIM PLIM,' successfully argued that the Defendants were using an identical mark for baby diaper products. The Court found a prima facie case, noting the likelihood of irreparable harm to the Plaintiff's reputation due to consumer confusion.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited through a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court mandated that the defendants clear all existing stock of the disputed drugs within 90 days, ensuring no further sales under the impugned mark. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 committed to withdrawing several trademark applications and initiating the cancellation of the core registration (No. 5054226) within four weeks.
Dfm Foods Limited v.Ms Nenimemi Foods Private Limited & Anr.
In this intellectual property dispute concerning the 'CORN CURLS' brand, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order allowing Defendant No. 1 to continue selling its existing stock while agreeing to a complete rebranding. The defendant was directed to file an affidavit committing to changing both the product packaging and the trademark from 'CORN CURLS' to 'CORN CURVES'. This decision balances the need for brand protection with practical commercial realities.
Bry-Air Prokon Sagl & Ors. v.Union Of India & Anr.
Bry-Air Prokon Sagl & Ors. challenged the Controller of Patents' orders that deemed several of their patent applications abandoned and caused a granted patent to lapse, citing failure to file timely responses or renewal fees. The Petitioners argued that delays were due to issues with their Patent Agent and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Delhi High Court acknowledged these facts, quashing the abandonment orders and directing the restoration of all relevant applications and patents.
Entrepreneur Media Inc v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks Delhi
Entrepreneur Media Inc challenged the refusal of its trademark application 'ENTREPRENEUR' by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks Delhi, arguing that the mark was distinctive and had acquired local reputation. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the examiner's order. Crucially, the court did not decide the merits but remanded the case back to the Registrar, directing a fresh review based on specific evidence provided by the appellant regarding cited marks.
M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Ltd. v.Essencia Beverages Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Ltd. against Essencia Beverages Private Limited. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was infringing its registered trademarks ('Officer's Choice') and copyrighted trade dress by using a deceptively similar label for 'True Blu Reserve Whisky'. Citing the established reputation and well-known status of the Plaintiff's brand, the Court found a prima facie case existed, leading to the immediate restraint on the Defendants' activities until further hearing.
Seal For Life Industries Us Llc v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Seal For Life Industries Us Llc against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'ANODEFLEX'. The court held that the rejection, based solely on the ground that the mark was descriptive or had a dictionary meaning, was erroneous. Given extensive evidence of long-term international and domestic use, the High Court quashed the refusal order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.
Universal City Studios Llc v.M/S Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
In a series of related trademark appeals, the Delhi High Court allowed applications filed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC for substitution of the respondent's name. The court permitted the change of Respondent No. 1 from 'Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.' to its assignee, 'Select Citywalk Retail Pvt. Ltd.', following an Assignment Deed executed on August 17, 2022. This procedural order ensures that all ongoing litigation concerning the assigned trademarks is correctly addressed by the new legal entity.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Bristol Myers Squibb Company And Anr
The court consolidated a rectification petition and a suit related to the same patent. An additional issue was framed regarding whether Indian Patent IN 247381 is liable for revocation under specific sections of the Patents Act, 1970.
Jack In The Box Inc. v.Marching Ants Hospitality Pvt Ltd.
In a dispute concerning the Jack In The Box trademark, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order restraining one of the respondents from assigning the disputed trademark rights to any third party. This protective measure was granted after the petitioner expressed concern that such an assignment could render the ongoing litigation infructuous. The court has scheduled the matter for further hearing in February 2023.
Aiwa Co Ltd. v.Aivva Enterprises Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Aiwa Co Ltd. against Aivva Enterprises Private Limited. The court found that the defendants were using marks ('AIVVA') visually and phonetically similar to the well-known 'AIWA' trademark, leading to a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. Despite arguments regarding prior knowledge and lack of disclosure by the plaintiff, the court held that the balance of convenience favored Aiwa, thus maintaining the injunction until the final trial.
M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Ltd. v.Rajasthan Liquors Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Ltd. against Rajasthan Liquors Limited & Ors. The court found that the Plaintiff, owner of the well-known trademark 'Officer's Choice,' had made out a prima facie case for infringement and passing off due to the Defendants' use of deceptively similar marks like 'High Choice.' This interim order immediately restrains the Defendants from manufacturing or selling goods using the impugned mark until further proceedings.
Sunil Mittal & Anr. v.M/S Darzi On Call
The Delhi High Court proceeded with the trademark infringement suit filed by Sunil Mittal & Anr. against M/S Darzi On Call. The court framed five key issues, including whether the defendant's use of 'DARZI ON CALL' constitutes trademark infringement or passing off, and whether the term 'DARZI' is distinctive to the plaintiffs. This order sets the stage for the trial by directing both parties to file their lists of witnesses and affidavits within specified timelines.
Ved Prakash Soni v.Vidya Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute between Ved Prakash Soni and Vidya Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. The court allowed an exemption application while simultaneously issuing notice to the respondents regarding the main suit. Both parties were directed to exchange necessary documentation, with a timeline set for filing replies and rejoinders, indicating that the substantive litigation is proceeding.
Auckland Uniservices Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Auckland Uniservices Limited appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of a patent application for 'Magnetic Field Shaping for Inductive Power Transfer'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step over prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Respondent failed to provide reasoned analysis regarding how a person skilled in the art would move from existing knowledge to the claimed invention.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Mr X Trading As Messrs Amar Medical Store & Ors.
Boehringer Ingelheim International sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a suit concerning its pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiff asserted rights over its trademarks and distinctive trade dress, which it claimed constituted original artistic works under the Copyright Act. While the court allowed the application for interim relief, it mandated that notice be issued to the Defendants before execution of the order, setting the stage for further litigation regarding brand protection.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Otsuka Pharmaceutical appealed the Controller's order refusing a patent application for a medicament combination involving Brexpiprazole, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection was non-reasoned and procedurally flawed, particularly because the Respondent introduced new prior art documents (D2 and D3) without giving the Appellant an opportunity to respond. The High Court found the impugned order vitiated due to procedural infirmities and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court passed an order on September 22, 2022, addressing several interlocutory applications in a suit concerning antenna technology. The court listed one application for hearing regarding the certificate of validity under Section 113 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Sai Deepa Rock Drills Private Limited
The suit involved allegations of infringement against the subject matter of Plaintiff No. 1's registered Patents. The parties amicably resolved the dispute regarding legal costs, leading to a settlement.
Fmc Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit sought a permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing FMC Corporation's patent IN'645, which covers a method for preparing the insecticide CTPR. The court examined the processes used by both parties and relied on scientific advisor reports. Ultimately, the court found that the competing processes were distinct and not 'equivalent', allowing Natco to launch CTPR.
M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd v.Pan Parag India Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the cancellation petition filed by M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd against Pan Parag India Limited & Anr. The court granted the relief based on an undertaking from Respondent No. 1, which stated they had no intention to use the impugned registered trademark 'GOLDIE' in their trade business of PAN MASALA. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to cancel and expunge the registration within six weeks.
Dharampal Satyapal Limited v.Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a settlement reached between Dharampal Satyapal Limited (Plaintiff) and Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Defendants). The parties amicably resolved the dispute over trademark infringement concerning flavored pan-masala products. Key terms include the Defendants acknowledging the Plaintiff's sole proprietary rights in 'TANSEN' and 'TANSEN BLUES,' agreeing to immediately cease using the infringing mark 'TENSION FREE,' and undertaking to destroy all related materials and withdraw associated IP registrations.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. And Ors. v.Amazon Sellers Service Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court rejected a motion filed by Amazon Sellers Service Private Limited seeking rejection of the trademark infringement suit on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The court held that since the Plaintiffs alleged they have physical stores and their licensees' websites target consumers in Delhi, a valid cause of action exists within the territorial limits of India. This ruling allows the core litigation regarding the use of the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademarks to move forward.
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.