Bench:Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
186 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
186 cases indexed | Page 5 of 7
Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr v.Mr. Jaideep Singh Gusain & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Dominos Ip Holder Llc, restraining certain online entities (Defendants 9 and 10) from using marks deceptively similar to 'Domino's Pizza'. Furthermore, the court directed major aggregators, Zomato and Swiggy, to immediately take down specific listings containing infringing variations. This order establishes a strong preliminary stance against trademark infringement in the digital marketplace, while simultaneously setting out procedural steps for the full trial.
Sanjeev Juneja & Ors. v.Haridwar International Ayurveda & Ors.
In a suit concerning the alleged infringement of its trademark and copyright, Sanjeev Juneja & Ors. successfully secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction from the Delhi High Court. The court also permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect and potentially seize infringing stock bearing the 'PET SAFFA' mark. This order allows the plaintiffs to proceed urgently with their infringement claims while setting out procedural timelines for filing pleadings.
3Sk Innovations Private Ltd v.Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd Esfbl
The parties appeared before the Delhi High Court for case management proceedings. The court framed several issues concerning territorial jurisdiction, patent infringement, ownership rights, and the validity/revocation of two specific patents (IN'627 and IN'730). Furthermore, the Confidentiality Club was constituted to manage the exchange of sealed data between the parties.
Ms. Drools Pet Food Private Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued procedural directions in the trademark opposition case filed by Ms. Drools Pet Food Private Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks. Despite ongoing mediation efforts, the court set a timeline for the respondents to file their replies within six weeks, followed by rejoinders. The matter is scheduled for further hearing and completion of pleadings.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural matters in the trademark dispute between Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/S Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt. Ltd. The court disposed of an interlocutory application seeking records from the Trademark Registry, noting that the record had been received by the parties. Furthermore, the court set a schedule for both sides to file written submissions on the main case before listing it again in January 2026.
Hardwyn India Limited And Anr v.Rajenndra Engitech Llp
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark dispute between Hardwyn India Limited and Rajenndra Engitech LLP, focusing on the use of the mark 'HARDVIN' which was deemed deceptively similar to 'HARDWYN'. The court accepted a comprehensive undertaking from the defendant, requiring them to cease using the impugned mark and initiate its withdrawal from the Trademark Registry. Consequently, an ad interim injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff. Furthermore, recognizing the mutual interest in resolution, both parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.Marc Sanitation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted the petition filed by Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., directing the rectification of Trademark Registration No. 5849026 held by Marc Sanitation Pvt. Ltd. The court ordered that the goods and service details in Class 11 be amended to specifically reflect 'Bathroom and Sanitary fittings and accessories,' thereby limiting the scope of the trademark registration. This decision allows the petitioner to achieve a more precise definition of the registered goods, aligning with prior agreements.
M/S Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd v.Rikesh Tiwari Trading As All In One Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, M/S Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd, interim relief in its suit against Rikesh Tiwari Trading As All In One Traders. The court recognized the strength of the 'BLUE HEAVEN' brand, noting its long history since 1972 and extensive portfolio of registered trademarks and copyrights across various cosmetic product lines. Crucially, the court directed the defendants to immediately take down listings of impugned products on major e-commerce platforms like Meesho and Amazon, affirming the plaintiff's rights against online infringement.
Hitesh Rastogi v.M/S. Adl Orbit Cable (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed several connected trademark infringement matters involving Hitesh Rastogi and M/S. Adl Orbit Cable (India) Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner had filed these petitions without obtaining prior leave from the Civil Court under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. Consequently, the matter was listed for a future date, pending the adjudication of the petitioner's application seeking such leave.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Novarise Pharmachem Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Novartis against Novarise Pharmachem Private Limited, addressing a trademark infringement dispute. The court found that the Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case regarding their registered trade mark 'NOVARTIS,' noting its extensive use and high goodwill in the pharmaceutical sector. Given the likelihood of consumer confusion between 'NOVARTIS' and 'NOVARISE,' the court restrained the defendant from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned mark until further hearing.
Akums Drugs An Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Medivinc Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Akums Drugs against Medivinc Healthcare. The court granted exemptions for various procedural requirements, including pre-institution mediation and advance service to defendants. Crucially, the court allowed the plaintiffs' application for an ex parte ad-interim injunction, directing the appointment of Local Commissioners to secure evidence and prevent further infringement.
Super-Max Ipr Holdings Ag Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Chirag Haresh Shah v.Suresh Kumar Garg And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a non-compliance issue where defendants failed to adhere to an earlier undertaking regarding the withdrawal of a specific trade mark application. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process the withdrawal of trademark no. 4336864 in respect of 'SUPERMAC' within two weeks, provided all legal formalities are met. This order sets clear compliance timelines and mandates status reporting by the Trademark Registrar.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Oura Health Oy & Anr.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Oura Health Oy for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 549915, which covers an electronic ring for health monitoring. The court dismissed the suit because the Plaintiff willfully failed to disclose crucial orders from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) dated 18.04.2025 and 21.08.2025, which found infringement by the Plaintiff's products in the US market.
Frimline Private Limited v.K-Smatco Lifesciences Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the Defendants are infringing upon their patented pharmaceutical composition, IN 382949, and also copying content from the Plaintiffs' website. The Suit Patent covers a synergistic combination of Lactoferrin and Guanosine Nucleotide for treating anaemia. Based on the prima facie evidence presented, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from marketing or selling the infringing product 'FERROTOK PLUS', while also allowing interim protection for the Plaintiffs' copyright.
Pstgems Private Limited v.Active Ayurvedic Life Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, Pstgems Private Limited, an ex parte ad-interim injunction in a suit alleging infringement and passing off related to its trademark 'BRAMPIUM' and associated copyrights. The court recognized the urgency of the matter concerning counterfeit products and ordered the appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with accessing Defendant No. 1's premises, reviewing CCTV footage, and examining account books and stock registers to gather evidence of infringement.
Hero Motocorp Limited v.Tarbolin Lubricants Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Motocorp Limited in its suit against Tarbolin Lubricants Private Limited. The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, leading to the appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with inspecting and ascertaining the value of infringing products bearing similar designs and trade-dress of Hero Engine Oil, allowing for their seizure on Superdari. This order reinforces the court's willingness to grant immediate protective measures against alleged design and trademark infringement.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Chembott Chemicals And Pharmaceutical Private Limited and Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals against Chembott Chemicals. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case regarding the infringement of its registered trademark, 'COBADEX', by the defendants' mark, 'COZIDEX'. Given the nature of pharmaceutical products and the potential for irreparable harm to both parties and the public, the injunction was granted immediately until the next hearing date.
Urban Money Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Urban Money Private Limited appealed a trademark opposition decision before the Delhi High Court, challenging the Registrar's rejection of its 'URBAN MONEY' application. The appellant argued that the opposing party's claim of prior use was unsubstantiated by external evidence. While the case proceeds toward mediation and further arguments, the court granted an interim stay on the impugned order, providing immediate protection to the trademark applicant.
Zepto Private Limited & Anr. v.Owner Of Domain Name Zeptonowindia.Com & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Zepto Private Limited sought an interim injunction against domain name holders. The court proceeded with the initial stages of litigation, granting several procedural reliefs to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. While the core dispute over trademark rights and domain squatting remains pending, the court has set out a detailed schedule for service of summons and filing pleadings.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Dainik Jagran News Papers Pvt Ltd & Ors
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking to bring new parties into the suit. The court dismissed two separate applications for impleadment, finding that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to defend against the use of the impugned mark by Defendant No. 1. Crucially, the court clarified that these dismissals do not prejudice the underlying claims regarding proprietary rights in the 'Dainik Jagran' trademark, which remain sub judice in other proceedings.
Xx And Anr v.Yy
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by Xx And Anr against Yy concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the mark 'HARDWYN'. While a prima facie case was established, the court opted not to grant an immediate ad-interim injunction due to the defendant's existing registration. The court issued notice to the defendant for reply and granted several procedural reliefs to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Jagran Infra Projects Pvt Ltd & Ors
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking impleadment of third parties claiming proprietary rights in 'Dainik Jagran'. The court dismissed these applications, finding them not to be necessary or proper parties to the current dispute concerning Defendant No. 1's use of the mark. However, the court clarified that the applicants' claims regarding their ownership rights will remain sub judice and subject to separate proceedings.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Jagran Entertainment Media Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking to bring new parties into the ongoing trademark dispute concerning 'Dainik Jagran'. The court dismissed two separate applications for impleadment, finding that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Crucially, the court clarified that this dismissal does not prejudice the rights of these applicants in the trademark, which will be determined in related proceedings. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Shilpa Medicare Limited
The suit was filed by Pharmacyclics Llc seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of Registered Patent No. 262968 by Shilpa Medicare Limited. The parties subsequently entered into a successful settlement agreement through mediation.
Cipla Limited v.Union Of India Through Department Of Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Cipla Limited, directing the Trademark Registry to allow the renewal of its 'TRIEXER' trademark. The core finding was that the Registry failed to serve the mandatory statutory 'O3 notice' required under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Despite the trademark having lapsed and the petitioner failing to file timely renewals, the court emphasized this procedural lapse by the Respondent, granting Cipla a chance to regularize its mark.
Officine Maccaferri S. P. A. v.Techfab India Industries Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an injunction and account of profits against the defendant alleging patent infringement. The court also addressed applications regarding exemption from pre-institution mediation and condonation of delay in filing replies.
Dabur India Limited v.Marico Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court permitted Dabur India Limited to amend its trademark cancellation petition against Marico Limited. The amendment corrected an inadvertent error where the petitioner had mistakenly stated that their mark was 'deceptively similar' to the respondent's mark, contrary to their actual legal stand. The court allowed the correction, emphasizing that the change did not alter the cause of action or prejudice the respondent, thereby upholding the principle of rectifying clerical errors in pleadings.
Finesse International Design Pvt. Ltd v.Jaspinder Singh Trading As M/S Studio
The Delhi High Court issued an order in Finesse International Design Pvt. Ltd vs Jaspinder Singh Trading As M/S Studio, registering the civil suit and setting out procedural timelines for pleadings. Crucially, the court disposed of the Plaintiff's interim injunction application based on a specific undertaking by the Defendant, who assured the court that they had removed all infringing listings from their social media platforms and would not infringe the trademarks. The matter is now set to proceed towards trial.
Caterpillar Inc. v.Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Caterpillar Inc. filed a suit against Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. alleging infringement of its patented and designed fluid filter systems used in construction and mining machinery. The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing these rights. Furthermore, the court permitted the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect premises, seize infringing goods, and take samples for analysis.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
The defendants filed an application seeking the appointment of a scientific expert to determine their alleged infringement of the suit patent. The plaintiff objected, stating that the application was filed after evidence had concluded and the matter was nearing final arguments.
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.