Bench:Jyoti Singh
185 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
185 cases indexed | Page 6 of 7
Astra Zeneca Ab v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The dispute involved Astra Zeneca alleging infringement of its formulation patents (IN 247984 and IN 272674) by Torrent Pharmaceuticals' product, Ticagrelor. The parties amicably resolved their differences before the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Metrochem Api Pvt. Ltd
The parties amicably resolved their dispute concerning Patent Infringement (CS(COMM) No. 406 of 2019). The Settlement Agreement stipulated that the suit would be decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs, who hold exclusive rights over products containing Sitagliptin.
Lilly Icos Llc v.Vivek Pharmachem And Anr.
The dispute between Lilly Icos Llc and Vivek Pharmachem was amicably resolved through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties executed a settlement agreement where they mutually acknowledged each other's respective trademarks, 'CIALIS' and 'ZYDALIS'. Crucially, Defendant No. 2 agreed not to use any mark with the suffix 'ALIS' for erectile dysfunction drugs, while Plaintiff agreed to withdraw an opposition against ZYDALIS. The court subsequently decreed the suit against Defendant No. 2 based on these settlement terms.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed against an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected a post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN319780, thereby maintaining the patent. The Appellant argued that the impugned order was non-speaking and unreasoned. Both parties consented to the matter being remanded.
Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v.Akash S. Shah & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a suit filed by Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. against Akash S. Shah & Anr., which sought permanent injunctions for trademark and copyright infringement and passing off. The parties reached an out-of-court settlement, which the court incorporated into its decree. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff based on these terms, and the Plaintiff was granted a refund of the entire Court Fees.
SMC Foods Limited & Anr. v.Jyoti Devi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of SMC Foods Limited, recognizing the prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were deceptively imitating the Plaintiffs' established brand 'MADHUSUDAN,' including its unique packaging and trade dress. This interim order immediately restricts the defendants from manufacturing or selling products bearing similar marks or designs until the final hearing.
Sopariwala Exports & Ors. v.Mr Grijesh Kumar Garg & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Sopariwala Exports & Ors. against Mr Grijesh Kumar Garg & Ors. The court found that the Plaintiffs had established a strong prima facie case regarding their well-known trademark 'AFZAL' used for tobacco products. Given the potential irreparable harm to the Plaintiff's goodwill, the Court restrained the Defendants from manufacturing or selling any goods using deceptively similar marks like 'AFDHAAL' and 'ALAFDHAAL', pending further hearings.
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiffs, developers of the Fantasy Sports Mobile Application 'EXCHANGE22', filed a suit alleging that the Defendants operate a competing application named MYFAB11 which infringes upon their copyrighted works. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using or making available the infringing content and directed them to suspend domain name registration and remove the app.
Bajaj Finance Ltd & Anr. v.Niko Das & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Bajaj Finance Ltd against Niko Das & Anr. The court found that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case demonstrating that the Defendants were fraudulently using identical or deceptively similar marks, such as 'BAJAJ' and 'BAJAJ FINANCE,' to offer financial services. This unauthorized use was deemed to constitute trademark infringement and passing off, causing potential confusion among the public.
Minda Spectrum Advisory Limited & Ors. v.Ab Petrochem
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Minda Spectrum Advisory Limited & Ors. against Ab Petrochem, recognizing the Plaintiffs' established rights over the MINDA trademark and its variants. The court found that the Defendant was operating under infringing marks (AB MINDA) in the oil and grease sector. To enforce this interim relief, a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the Defendant's premises, seize infringing goods, and inventory relevant business records.
Ferring B.V. v.Precise Bio Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
Ferring B.V. filed a suit alleging infringement of Patent IN 387567, which covered RTS Carbetocin for preventing post-partum haemorrhage. The Plaintiffs argued that manufacturing occurred while the patent was validly granted in February 2022. However, the court found merit in the Defendants' contention that since the grant order was subsequently set aside by a writ petition, there was no valid patent to sustain the infringement suit.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Neeram Garg & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning the brand SAKRNI PLASTER, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders on April 7, 2022. The court granted exemptions to the Plaintiffs regarding document filing and advance notice service due to urgency. Crucially, the court allowed an application for ex-parte ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, leading to the appointment of Local Commissioners to seize infringing products and inspect the Defendants' premises.
Savelife Foundation v.Mr. Aslam Shaikh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Savelife Foundation against Mr. Aslam Shaikh and others. The court found that Defendants were fraudulently using deceptively similar trademarks ('Save LIFE' and 'Save LIFE Foundation') and associated domains to solicit funds, thereby infringing the Plaintiff's well-known trademark and committing passing off. This immediate relief aims to prevent irreparable harm while the main suit proceeds.
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v.Www.Dhanifinance.In & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., granting permanent injunctions against Www.Dhanifinance.In for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court found that the defendant was operating a fraudulent website using deceptively similar marks ('Indiabulls', 'Dhani') and domain names to mislead consumers into believing they were dealing with Indiabulls Group. Consequently, the defendant's website operation was suspended, and damages were awarded.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Vifor (International) Ltd filed suit against Hetero Healthcare Limited alleging infringement of its patented drug, FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE. Vifor contended that Hetero was preparing to launch a generic version under the brand HETROFER, which infringed upon their exclusive patent rights for treating iron deficiency anaemia. The Delhi High Court examined the prima facie case and balance of convenience presented by the Plaintiffs.
Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. v.Sai Krishna Foods
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. against Sai Krishna Foods regarding trademark infringement. The Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that their 'ROYAL' mark is well-known, enjoys significant goodwill, and the Defendant was using a similar mark to cause consumer confusion. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from selling infringing products and ordered a Local Commissioner to search and seize the counterfeit goods.
UPL Limited v.Agro King Pesticides Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute involved UPL Limited asserting its patent rights over the composition Clodinafop-Propargyl (15%) + Metsulfuron Methyl (1%) WP against Agro King Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. The matter was amicably settled before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Pioneer Corporation v.Gulab Goel & Ors.
In a suit involving claims of trademark and copyright infringement, Pioneer Corporation and Defendant No. 8 reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. As part of this resolution, Defendant No. 8 paid compensation to the Plaintiff. The Delhi High Court subsequently allowed the application, passing a decree of permanent injunction against Defendant No. 8 and disposing of the suit concerning that specific defendant.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Sai Deepa Rock Drills Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their registered patents related to Top Hammer Rock Drilling Tools. The court passed an interim order granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from commercializing the infringing products and directed the defendants to disclose specific financial and production details on affidavit.
Xiaomi Inc v.Dharama Mobitel Industries Private Limited & Anr.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed a request filed by Dharama Mobitel Industries Private Limited to cancel the trademark 'SHOMI.' The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the mark from the register after the respondent provided an affidavit confirming that they were not using the trademark and would not use it in the future for related goods. This decision highlights the importance of active use or intent to use when maintaining a registered trademark.
JK Cement Limited v.Anav Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of JK Cement Limited against Anav Industries & Anr. The court found that JK Cement had established a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of its well-known trademark 'JK' and associated trade dress on cement and wall putty products. This interim order immediately restrained the defendants from using the deceptively similar mark 'JK Premium' to prevent consumer confusion in the market.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Nisekind Pharma Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against Nisekind Pharma Private Limited. The court found that Mankind, a major player in the Indian pharmaceutical industry, had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement. The ruling specifically restrained the defendant from using the name 'NISEKIND PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED' and any similar mark containing the word element KIND for medicinal preparations, citing potential consumer confusion and dilution of Mankind's well-known marks.
Vifor International Ltd v.Unijules Life Sciences Limited
The dispute involved allegations of infringement regarding Ferric Carboxymaltose protected under Indian Patent No. 221536. The parties referred the matter to mediation, resulting in a Settlement Agreement dated 21.02.2022.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Daxia Healthcare & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the product SILODAX-8 D, the Delhi High Court directed both parties toward mediation. The defendants agreed not to manufacture or sell further stock of the infringing product while also committing to provide details of all products manufactured and sold to date. This order signals a judicial preference for alternative dispute resolution in complex IP disputes.
Tata Sons Private Limited v.Dinesh Kumar
The Delhi High Court disposed of the dispute between Tata Sons Private Limited and Dinesh Kumar after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The agreement confirmed Tata's ownership of the well-known 'TATA' mark and required the defendant to cease all use of the mark or any deceptively similar variations. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to assign his related trademark registration and pay a full and final settlement amount of INR 2,00,000/-.
Syngenta Participations Ag v.Gsp Crop Science Private Limited
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was using a process patented under IN 206995. The Defendant defended by claiming invalidity based on prior art (EP 1031566). This order addressed procedural applications, allowing the Defendant time to file the official translated copy of the cited prior art.
Deepak Kukreja v.Anil Kukreja
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Deepak Kukreja against Anil Kukreja, restraining the latter from using the deceptively similar trademark 'RIGALITE' in relation to electrical goods. The court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off concerning his registered trademarks RIGA and RIGGA. Furthermore, the Court allowed the appointment of Local Commissioners to visit the Defendant's premises, seize infringing materials, and inventory the goods.
Ani Media Pvt Ltd v.Vinay G David & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Ani Media Pvt Ltd alleging that Defendant No.1 was willfully disobeying a prior ad interim injunction order. The court found prima facie evidence of breach, as the defendant continued using the plaintiff's registered trademarks and domain name on his Facebook account despite the restraint order. Consequently, the court issued a show cause notice to initiate proceedings for disobedience and mandated that the defendant remove all offending content within 48 hours.
Whitehat Education Technology Private Limited v.Ms Kanishk Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Whitehat Education Technology Private Limited against Ms Kanishk Enterprises & Anr. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trademark entry bearing number 4786408 in Class 16. This decision effectively removed the contested mark from the register, favoring the petitioner's claim regarding the intellectual property rights.
WHITEHAT EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED v.MS KANISHK ENTERPRISES & ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addressed a petition for the rectification of a registered trademark. While the substantive issues were not decided on this date, the court focused on procedural matters. The court noted that the Vakalatnama for Defendant No. 1 was missing from the record and directed steps to be taken to place it on file. The matter has been listed for further 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.