Bench:Manmohan
150 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
150 cases indexed | Page 1 of 5
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
Nokia appealed a single judge's order that dismissed its application for a pro-tem security deposit. Nokia claimed infringement based on its extensive portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) used by Oppo in smartphones. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, finding that a prima facie case of infringement was made out and directing Oppo to deposit the last paid amount attributable to India.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd
Nokia appealed a single judge's order that dismissed its application for a pro-tem security deposit related to Nokia's Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). Nokia argued that infringement was prima facie established, and the balance of convenience favored granting interim relief. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
Carlsberg Breweries A/S v.Tensberg Breweries And Industries Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an application regarding the alleged expansion of business by Tensberg Breweries despite a prior injunction order. Carlsberg contended that Tensberg was willfully violating the court's restraint by applying for fresh excise licenses in new states using the restrained marks. The court found merit in Carlsberg's contention, leading to notice being issued to Tensberg and setting the matter for further arguments.
Trex India Pvt. Ltd. v.Cde Asia Limited
The dispute originated from a suit for permanent injunction filed by Cde Asia Limited against Trex India Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged infringement of its Patent No. 3072491 and Design No. 2626292 concerning the product 'FM 120 CONEXUS'. The present appeal challenged the Single Judge's order, but the High Court dismissed the appeal on a preliminary objection regarding its maintainability under the Commercial Courts Act.
Intex Technologies (India) Ltd v.Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Pub)
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed cross-appeals concerning the validity and infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to telecom technology. The court affirmed that Ericsson's patents were prima facie essential and infringed, finding Intex to be an unwilling licensee. Despite arguments regarding SEPs being unknown in Indian law, the court upheld the necessity of FRAND compliance to ensure parity with global implementers.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a complex dispute involving Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) between Ericsson and Intex. The court examined whether the patents were essential, if Intex was infringing them, and if Intex had acted as an unwilling licensee despite Ericsson's FRAND commitments. Ultimately, the court found that the patents were prima facie valid and infringed, compelling Intex to pay the full royalty amount.
Ht Media Limited v.Entertainment Network (India) Ltd
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark infringement suit between Ht Media Limited and Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. The original dispute centered on the use of trademarks identical or deceptively similar to 'PEHLA NASHA.' Crucially, both parties successfully reached a settlement through the court's mediation center. Consequently, the High Court decreed the underlying suit based on the terms of the executed Settlement Agreement, effectively concluding the litigation.
Aska Equipments Private Limited v.Ramanlal Kishandas Kothari & Ors.
The appellant, Aska Equipments Private Limited, sought to withdraw its appeal and related applications. The counsel requested liberty to file an application seeking revocation of a patent in the Trial Court, which could then be transferred to the High Court under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Fdc India (Franchise Development Consulting India) v.FDC Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order that allowed the amendment of a plaint. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff was correcting a mere factual error—mistakenly stating pending trademarks as registered—or making a substantive change. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court upheld the legality of allowing the amendment but simultaneously balanced the equities by directing that the specific details provided in the amended plaint regarding the nature and status of the marks must be considered when deciding related applications like perjury pleas or stay vacation.
Bolt Technology Ou v.Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court found the defendants guilty of contumacious and willful disobedience regarding a previous court order dated November 23, 2022. The original order had clearly prohibited the defendants from using their standalone mark 'BOLT' and an earlier logo, allowing only for future expansion under a modified mark ('BOLT.EARTH'). Despite this categorical direction, the defendants continued to use the proscribed marks. Consequently, the court held them in contempt and scheduled a hearing to determine the appropriate sentence.
Krbl Limited v.Vikram Roller Flour Mills Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the denial of interim injunction regarding the trademark 'INDIA GATE'. The court analyzed a prior consent order between the parties, which restricted usage based on product type and packaging size. While acknowledging the Appellant's claim as a well-known mark, the court ruled that if the Respondent's right to use 'dalia' flows from its existing rights for wheat products (atta, suji, etc.), it must adhere to the B2B/bulk sales restriction of 20 kgs and above. This interim order maintains the status quo while the core dispute over prior user rights remains sub-judice.
Sunit Shah v.Sunshine Food Products
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a lower court's decision regarding the trademark 'HOT MIX'. While the appellant argued that the mark had acquired distinctiveness, the High Court agreed with the trial court's initial finding that 'HOT MIX' is descriptive of the namkeen product. However, recognizing the need for justice, the Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the remaining proceedings and decide the suit promptly.
Subway Ip Llc v.Infinity Food & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff Subway IP LLC's request for an interim injunction against Infinity Food & Ors. The court found that despite initial allegations of trademark infringement and passing off (using similar names like 'VEGGIE DELICIOUS'), there was no likelihood of confusion among consumers, especially given the reputation of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court clarified that similarity in restaurant décor or layout alone does not grant a monopoly under Indian law, leading to the dismissal of the injunction request.
Shamrock Geoscience Ltd & Anr. v.Timab NL B.V. / Kaba Infratech Pvt Ltd
In a significant settlement, the Delhi High Court accepted assurances from Shamrock Geoscience Ltd. that they would cease using the disputed mark 'GeoCrete,' replacing it with 'Alpave.' The company agreed to withdraw its existing trademark registration (TM No.3392787) and all related pending applications within four weeks. This resolution effectively settled the core trademark dispute between Shamrock Geoscience and Timab NL B.V./Kaba Infratech, allowing both parties to move forward while leaving technical know-how claims open for separate litigation.
Shamrock Geoscience Ltd & Anr. v.Timab NL B.V. / Kaba Infratech Pvt Ltd
In a significant settlement, the Delhi High Court accepted assurances from Shamrock Geoscience Ltd. that they would cease using the disputed mark 'GeoCrete,' replacing it with 'Alpave.' The company agreed to withdraw its existing trademark registration (TM No.3392787) and all related pending applications within four weeks. This resolution effectively settled the core trademark dispute between Shamrock Geoscience and Timab NL B.V./Kaba Infratech, allowing both parties to move forward while leaving technical know-how claims open for separate litigation.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal challenging a single judge's refusal to grant an interim injunction against the use of the mark 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting that the respondent copied not only the registered trademark but also the stylization, color combination, get-up, and trade dress from the appellant. Despite arguments regarding descriptiveness and genericness, the High Court concluded that the appellant's mark had acquired secondary significance due to substantial sales and promotional investment, leading it to issue notice and stay the lower court's adverse findings.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited & Anr.
Novartis Ag appealed against an order that set aside a patent grant (IN'414518) on the ground of procedural lapses. Novartis argued that the Single Judge misinterpreted Rule 55, which pertains only to pre-grant opposition procedures, not application examination under Sections 13, 14, and 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court found issues regarding the merging of proceedings and directed notice to be issued.
Apar Industries Limited v.Sh Rummy Chhabra
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark infringement dispute involving the mark "VELLO." Although initially facing an ex-parte injunction against using the mark, Apar Industries Limited voluntarily acknowledged that 'VELO' belonged exclusively to Sh Rummy Chhabra. The court accepted detailed undertakings from Apar, which included ceasing all use of the mark, withdrawing its pending trademark application, and selling off existing stock within a year. Consequently, the underlying suit was decreed based on these mutual commitments.
Corza International And Ors v.Future Bath Products Pvt Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring the plaintiff in a trademark dispute concerning the marks 'CORZA' and 'CORSA'. Despite arguments from the appellants regarding geographical limitations and product differences, the court found prima facie phonetic, structural, and visual similarity between the two marks. The judgment reinforces that registered proprietors can sue other registered proprietors for deceptive similarity, even if they are both registered owners.
M/S Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Veda Seed Sciences against an interim trademark infringement order. The court affirmed that Kohinoor Seed Fields was the prior adopter and registrant of the marks 'SADANAND', 'TADAAKHA', and 'BASANT'. Despite Veda's later registration, the court found their use was dishonest, stemming from a marketing agreement where they acknowledged ownership by Kohinoor. The injunction restraining Veda from using these trademarks remains in effect.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Intas Pharmaceutical Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Sun Pharma's appeal against the denial of an interim injunction concerning pharmaceutical trademarks. The court held that since both parties are generic drug manufacturers launching products after patent expiry, and given the similarity of the marks is based on active ingredients, there were no strong equities in favor of either party at this preliminary stage. Furthermore, the appellant's registered mark had not been used for over twenty-four years, which weighed against granting immediate protection.
Jaskaran Singh v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Jaskaran Singh against Flipkart regarding alleged trademark infringement and counterfeiting of goods under the 'ANMEX' brand. The appellant sought an interim injunction to stop unauthorized third parties from selling counterfeit goods on the platform. While acknowledging the severity of the issue, the court disposed of the appeal with a crucial direction: Flipkart must provide the names, addresses, and email IDs of the alleged infringing 'more sellers/latch on sellers' within one week. This move allows the litigation to proceed by identifying the specific parties responsible for the infringement.
Jaskaran Singh v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Jaskaran Singh against Flipkart regarding alleged trademark infringement and counterfeiting of goods under the 'ANMEX' brand. The appellant sought an interim injunction to stop unauthorized third parties from selling counterfeit goods on the platform. While acknowledging the severity of the issue, the court disposed of the appeal with a crucial direction: Flipkart must provide the names, addresses, and email IDs of the alleged infringing 'more sellers/latch on sellers' within one week. This move allows the litigation to proceed by identifying the specific parties responsible for the infringement.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The court found that the Defendant's use of the deceptively similar trademark 'FOLZEST' infringed upon the Plaintiff's registered mark 'FORZEST'. Recognizing the potential for irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendant from selling or manufacturing the infringing product until further hearing. Furthermore, a Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect and seize all medicines bearing the impugned mark.
Carlsberg Breweries A/S v.Tensberg Breweries And Industries Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an application regarding the alleged expansion of business by Tensberg Breweries despite a prior injunction order. Carlsberg contended that Tensberg was willfully violating the court's restraint by applying for fresh excise licenses in new states using the restrained marks. The court found merit in Carlsberg's contention, leading to notice being issued to Tensberg and setting the matter for further arguments.
Inter Ikea Systems B V v.Italica Floor Tiles Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed applications filed by the defendants (Italica Floor Tiles) seeking to set aside an earlier ex parte decree passed against them for trademark infringement. The court acknowledged that while the plaintiffs had a strong case regarding their established brand, the procedural lapse and lack of opportunity for the defendants to present their defense warranted reconsideration. Consequently, the ex parte order was set aside, and the main suit has been revived, allowing both parties to proceed on the merits.
M/S Thind Industries v.M/S Pankaj Sales Corporation
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed the dispute between M/S Thind Industries and M/S Pankaj Sales Corporation. Recognizing the appellant's willingness to modify its branding, the court granted permission for M/S Thind Industries to revise its trademark and label. This interim decision allows the parties to move forward with a resolution by allowing the appellant time to submit the revised materials.
Roland Corporation v.Hi Tone Electronics
The Delhi High Court resolved the dispute between Roland Corporation and Hi Tone Electronics through successful mediation. The parties agreed to a comprehensive settlement that involved mutual withdrawals of cancellation petitions and opposition proceedings related to their respective trademarks. Crucially, HiTone agreed to change its mark and use it in combination with Roland's 'BOSS' trademark for specific products, while Roland also consented to certain changes regarding HiTone's marks.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The appeal challenged a single judge's judgment that invalidated the Appellant's patent IN240893 under Sections 64(1)(h) and (k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court held that since no issues were framed regarding these specific grounds for revocation, the learned Single Judge could not have entertained them.
Carlsberg Breweries A/S v.Tensberg Breweries And Industries Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an application regarding the alleged expansion of business by Tensberg Breweries despite a prior injunction order. Carlsberg contended that Tensberg was willfully violating the court's restraint by applying for fresh excise licenses in new states using the restrained marks. The court found merit in Carlsberg's contention, leading to notice being issued to Tensberg and setting the matter for further 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.