Bench:Jyoti Singh
231 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
231 cases indexed | Page 6 of 8
Kent Ro Systems Limited v.Kent Cables Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed Kent Ro Systems Limited to seek exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of their trademark infringement and passing off claims against Kent Cables Private Limited. The court noted that Kent's 'KENT' mark is a registered and well-known trademark in relation to water purifiers. Consequently, the plaint was formally registered as a suit, and the matter proceeded toward filing written statements and considering an interim injunction.
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd. v.Kothari Products Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a cancellation petition concerning the trademark 'GOLDIE'. The court accepted an affidavit of undertaking from Respondent No. 1, which stated that they had never used the impugned mark in trade and that the claimed user date was incorrect. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel/expunge Registration No. 490303 within six weeks.
Pandrol Limited & Anr. v.Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Pandrol Limited, who filed a suit alleging infringement of its copyright and trademark. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction by appointing a Local Commissioner with broad powers to seize infringing products and gather evidence from the defendants' premises.
Intex Enterprises Private Limited v.Sandeep Kumar
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Intex Enterprises Private Limited against a trial court order that partially vacated an interim injunction. The court found that the trial court had failed to address crucial legal arguments regarding trademark infringement under Section 29(4) and claims of passing off and copyright infringement, despite them being part of the composite suit. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for a comprehensive review of all issues.
Sanjay Mehra v.Sharad Mehra & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed competing claims regarding the maintainability of a trademark infringement suit versus an arbitration clause contained in a family settlement agreement. The court acknowledged the arguments from both sides, particularly concerning the scope of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Instead of immediately granting or denying interim relief, the judge directed both parties to file replies to the pending applications (I.A. 12874/2022 and I.A. 13127/2022) before listing them for a final hearing.
Dhyeya Educational Services Private Limited v.Dhyeya Ias Patna E Classes Centre & Ors
The Delhi High Court referred the trademark dispute between Dhyeya Educational Services Private Limited and Dhyeya Ias Patna E Classes Centre & Ors to mediation. The defendants indicated a willingness to settle the matter, stating they would cease using the impugned trademark in the future. This move signals an attempt by both parties to resolve the conflict outside of court through conciliation.
M/S Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Mr. Amit Kumar Sultania Proprietor Of Amit Agencies & Anr.
In a case concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court formalized a comprehensive settlement between M/S Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited (Plaintiff) and Mr. Amit Kumar Sultania (Defendant). The parties amicably resolved their disputes, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms. Key outcomes include the Defendant acknowledging infringement of 'JK/JKLC/JK Lakshmi' trademarks, undertaking not to use similar marks, withdrawing specific trademark applications, and destroying all infringing materials.
New India Biri Factory v.Mohd Saleem & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in favor of the Plaintiff, New India Biri Factory, while addressing various procedural applications. The court dispensed with pre-institution mediation and granted leave to file additional documents, streamlining the litigation process. Crucially, the court also granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, allowing the Plaintiff to proceed with a search and seizure operation via Local Commissioners against the Defendants' premises to prevent further infringement of their registered trademarks and copyrighted artistic works.
Starbucks Corporation v.Star Bucks Café & Anr.
Starbucks Corporation successfully sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Star Bucks Café & Anr. in the Delhi High Court, asserting that its globally recognized trademarks and logos are being infringed upon. The court granted the interim relief, allowing Starbucks to proceed with a local commission to seize infringing materials such as packaging, uniforms, and menus from the defendants' premises. This order sets the stage for aggressive enforcement action against unauthorized use of the brand.
Hanmi Pharm. Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The appellant, Hanmi Pharm. Co. Ltd., filed two interlocutory applications before the Delhi High Court. The court disposed of I.A. 12819/2022 as infructuous based on the counsel's submission. Furthermore, the application seeking leave to file additional documents (I.A. 12818/2022) was allowed.
General Electric Company v.Union Of India And Anr.
General Electric Company challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents that rejected its patent application. The Petitioner argued that the Controller arbitrarily revisited the non-patentability objection under Section 3(k) without providing a proper opportunity for defense or written submissions. The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter, directing the Patent Office to provide a hearing on all objections.
M/S Torque Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.M/S Conset Pharma Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Torque Pharmaceuticals against Conset Pharma. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off related to the pharmaceutical product HEMOPLUS. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting the deceptive similarity between 'HEMOPLUS' and the Defendants' trademark 'CONSET HEEMOPULS,' particularly given the low threshold for confusion in the pharmaceutical sector. This immediate relief prevents the Defendants from continuing to manufacture or sell similar products until the final hearing.
Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v.Celebrities Management Private Limited
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiffs, Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited, to amend their plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Celebrities Management Private Limited. The amendment sought to elaborate on the grounds for territorial jurisdiction under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, specifically by adding details about the defendant's online presence and targeting of Delhi consumers. The court allowed the amendment, noting that it was intended only to buttress the jurisdictional plea, and directed that the challenge regarding lack of jurisdiction would be considered on merits after the amendment.
Mother Diary Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited v.Nalgonda Rangareddy District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses ongoing trademark infringement litigation between Mother Diary Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited and Nalgonda Rangareddy District Milk Producers. The court noted arguments regarding the alleged violation of a Settlement Agreement, with both parties presenting their positions—the respondent denying any misuse of the 'Mother Dairy' trademark, while the petitioner asserted contempt of court. The court directed further action, including filing rejoinders and listing the case for subsequent proceedings.
Sanjeev Juneja & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar Bhatia
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the Plaintiffs sought to withdraw their suit after making changes to their trademark, label, and packaging/trade dress. Despite the intention to withdraw, counsel requested an adjournment due to scheduling conflicts in another court. The Court granted the request, listing the matter for further hearing on August 24, 2022.
Ravinder Singhania v.Union Of India & Anr.
Ravinder Singhania filed a writ petition challenging the validity of certain provisions related to patents. Since one of the reliefs sought involved questioning the legal validity (vires) of Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Rule 24B(2)(i) of the Patents Rules, 2003, the court ordered the matter to be listed before a Division Bench.
Disposafe Health And Life Care Ltd & Hindustan Syringes & Medical Devices Limited v.Rajiv Nath & Anr.
The Delhi High Court consolidated two related commercial suits concerning trademark disputes involving the 'DISPOSAFE' and other 'DISPO' formative marks. The court framed detailed issues covering questions of mark proprietorship, alleged infringement, passing off, and prior user rights. This consolidation paves the way for a comprehensive trial to determine the validity and scope of the trademarks in the medical device sector.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Jimsun Life Sciences P. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'JIMSUN' held by Jimsun Life Sciences P. Ltd. The court granted the relief based on a settlement reached between the parties, where Respondent No. 1 agreed to have no objection to the cancellation. This order effectively cleared the path for the Petitioner to remove the disputed mark from the registry.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Sanjeev Gupta
The commercial suit for patent infringement concerning Sitagliptin (protected by IN 209816) was settled between Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. The Defendants acknowledged the validity of the patent and agreed to cease all infringing activities, including manufacturing generic versions, until the patent expires.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Chougle Salt Works Private Limited
Tata Sons Private Limited successfully resolved its intellectual property dispute against Chougle Salt Works Private Limited through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties executed a comprehensive settlement agreement acknowledging that the defendant had inadvertently infringed upon Tata's registered copyrights (TATASALT packaging) and trademarks (TATA SALT). Under the terms, the defendant agreed to cease using similar marks, destroy infringing materials, and permanently refrain from applying for or using any confusingly similar IP rights. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on this settlement.
Astrazeneca Ab v.MSN Laboratories Limited
Astrazeneca filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringing Indian Patent IN 297581 related to cancer treatment. The dispute centered on whether a Public Notice issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals constituted Government Authorization allowing generic manufacturing. The Court clarified that the notice was merely for collating local manufacturer details, not an authorization to infringe.
Best Agrolife Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller's decision granting Patent No. IN 394568, arguing that the grant was flawed because the pre-grant opposition raised on grounds like lack of novelty and non-patentability under Section 3(d) was ignored. The court found that the impugned order was non-speaking, failed to address key objections, and did not consider expert affidavits. Consequently, the matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Sehgal Auto House Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sunil Sehgal
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited against Sehgal Auto House. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was engaged in the wholesale business of counterfeit spare parts using the HERO trademark and logo, infringing both trademark rights and copyright associated with packaging. The court authorized a Local Commissioner to search and seize all infringing products and related materials from the Defendant's premises.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.Mr. Bijender Kumar Trading As M/S Shri Balaji Enterprises
In a significant move to protect its brand integrity, Exxon Mobil Corporation sought an interim injunction against Mr. Bijender Kumar Trading As M/S Shri Balaji Enterprises for selling counterfeit products bearing the 'MOBIL' trademark. The Delhi High Court granted the ex-parte ad-interim injunction and authorized a Local Commissioner to search and seize the infringing goods at the defendant's premises. This order underscores the court's willingness to provide swift, robust remedies against trademark infringement and counterfeiting in the commercial sector.
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. v.Powereye Electronics
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. filed a fresh suit against Powereye Electronics under the Trademark and Copyright Act, seeking permanent injunction and relief for passing off. The petitioners challenged an earlier court order that merely adjourned the matter. While the High Court clarified it was not adjudicating the merits of the case, it supported the petitioner's request to expedite the proceedings. Consequently, the Trial Court was directed to take up the matter on 04.07.2022.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitions were filed seeking directions to expedite the hearing and adjudication of a post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN 257402, which was facing significant delays by the Respondents (Controller/UOI). The Petitioner also challenged the validity of the Opposition Board's constitution and recommendation.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Union of India
The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking directions to the respondents (Controller/UOI) to expedite the hearing and adjudication of a post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN 257402. The petitioner also challenged the validity of the Opposition Board's recommendation, alleging procedural flaws. The Court directed the Competent Authority to decide the pending representation and scheduled the patent proceedings.
Ambuja Cements Limited v.Shiv Kripa Steels & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ambuja Cements Limited against Shiv Kripa Steels & Anr. The court found that the defendants' use of marks was a slavish imitation of Ambuja's registered trademarks 'AMBUJA' and 'VIRAT'. Given the likelihood of customer confusion in the common building materials trade, the injunction prevents the defendants from using deceptively similar marks or devices related to cement and allied goods.
Amazon Seller Services Private Limited v.Amazonbuys.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Amazon Seller Services Private Limited to implead a new infringing website, 'storeamazon.co.in,' in its ongoing suit against rogue sellers. Citing precedent regarding mirror websites, the court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining this new defendant from infringing Amazon's trademarks and copyrights. Furthermore, the court directed various internet service providers (ISPs) and domain registrars to block access to the site and disclose registrant details, reinforcing judicial control over online piracy.
Kamla Kant And Company Llp v.Sanjay Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit filed by Kamla Kant & Company LLP against Sanjay Gupta & Anr. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of similar marks ('RAJ', 'KG') for tobacco and allied products, infringing upon the Plaintiff's established trademarks 'RAJSHREE' and 'KP'. Through a settlement agreement, the court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from using confusingly similar marks while allowing them to use 'KANTHA RAJA' under strict conditions. The parties also agreed on financial compensation and the destruction of infringing materials.
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.