Bench:Manmohan
138 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
138 cases indexed | Page 2 of 5
Marico Limited v.Mahajan Group Of Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Marico Limited against Mahajan Group Of Industries & Ors. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off regarding the plaintiff's 'SAFFOLA Oats' brand. Given that the defendants were allegedly selling oats with packaging deceptively similar to SAFFOLA, the court restrained them from manufacturing or distributing the competing product, 'NUTRI DELITE OATS,' until further orders.
H & M Hennes & Mauritz Ab & Anr. v.Hnm Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hennes & Mauritz (H&M) against Hnm Traders. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendants' adoption of 'HnM' was nearly identical to H&M's distinctive style and color schemes. This order prevents the defendant from using any confusingly similar marks or applying for registration until further orders.
Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited & Anr. v.Mr. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited (Times Group) against the defendants for infringing their intellectual property rights. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were illegally making available electronic copies of 'The Times of India' and 'The Economic Times,' as well as using the plaintiff's logo on their website without authorization. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, leading to an order restraining the use of the trademarks and copyrighted works, and directing the locking of the infringing domain name.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Amit Apparels & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Under Armour, Inc. against Amit Apparels & Anr., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the defendants were allegedly adopting and using the identical trade mark 'UNDER ARMOUR' and copying its artistic features on apparel goods. Given the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in the infringing goods until further orders.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.Patanjali Ayurved Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Reckitt Benckiser against Patanjali Ayurved concerning alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair trade practices related to toilet cleaner advertisements. The core dispute centered on misleading claims made in both original and revised advertisements regarding the use of hydrochloric acid and product naturalness. While the plaintiff sought to challenge the defendant's revised advertisement, the Court permitted Reckitt Benckiser to amend its plaint, allowing the litigation to proceed while preserving the rights of Patanjali Ayurved.
Pankaj Sales Corporation v.Indra Jain Industries
The Delhi High Court dismissed an execution petition filed by Pankaj Sales Corporation against Indra Jain Industries. The dispute centered on whether the judgment debtor was violating a consensual decree related to trademark use. The court ruled that while the defendant was bound by the settlement agreement regarding specific registered trademarks (TRISHUL/TRIDENT and TRISHUL), the plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights over an unreferenced label design presented in the execution petition. Consequently, the attempt to enforce the alleged violation failed.
Star Television Productions Limited & Ors. v.Vaishali Saran & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Star Television Productions Limited, granting permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing on the 'HOTSTAR' brand through trademark misuse, copyright infringement of logos, and passing off. The court specifically ordered the transfer of deceptive domain names (hotstar.online and hotstarmovies.co) to the plaintiff, emphasizing that domain names function as commercial identifiers akin to trademarks in the digital age.
Dabur India Ltd. v.Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamria
Dabur India Ltd. filed a suit against Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamria alleging infringement of copyright, design rights, and passing off related to its popular brand HAJMOLA Anardana. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing 'KARORPATI Anardana' using packaging and trade dress deceptively similar to its own. After proceeding ex-parte due to the defendant's non-appearance, the court found that the plaintiff successfully proved a likelihood of confusion leading to passing off.
Maya Sharma v.Unique Law Publication House & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Maya Sharma, granting a permanent injunction against Unique Law Publication House & Ors for passing off. The court found that the defendants used deceptively similar trademarks ('UNIQUE' and 'UNIQUE 20') and copied the plaintiff's distinct trade dress on law books. Given the identical goods (law books) and channels of trade, the triple identity test was satisfied, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Ashoka Distillers & Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Ads Spirits Pvt Ltd
Ashoka Distillers & Chemicals Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Ads Spirits Pvt Ltd seeking permanent injunction and damages for trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off related to country liquor. The defendant argued that since the impugned product was restricted and sold only within Haryana, the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The court agreed with the defense, finding that both parties operated in Haryana, thus necessitating filing the suit in a competent court there.
M/S Okaya Power Ltd v.M/S Aqua Healer & Ors
M/S Okaya Power Ltd filed a suit against M/S Aqua Healer & Ors alleging infringement of its registered trademark, 'MINJET', along with claims of passing off and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from using similar names or designs. After reviewing the pleadings, the court found that there were no prospects for the defendants to successfully defend the claim. Consequently, the application for summary judgment was allowed, and the suit was decreed in favor of M/S Okaya Power Ltd.
M/S. Aero Club v.Mr. Sahibjeet & Anr.
M/S. Aero Club filed a suit alleging that Mr. Sahibjeet and others were selling counterfeit products bearing its trademarks, including WOODLAND, TREE DEVICE, and Woodland Label. The plaintiff claimed extensive use of these marks for over 25 years in manufacturing footwear and apparel. After the defendants failed to enter an appearance or file a written statement, the court found they had no real prospect of defending the claim.
M/S.Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Pureca Laboratories (P) Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd against Pureca Laboratories (P) Ltd & Ors, finding that the defendants infringed upon the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. The court held that the defendant's use of similar trademarks and packaging for liver tonic preparations amounted to both copyright infringement and passing off. Consequently, the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from continuing their infringing activities.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v.Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation filed a suit alleging that Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was planning to launch a generic version (ECOGLIPT) of its patented drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs argued this constituted patent infringement and sought a permanent injunction based on the apprehension of future market flooding. The court found the defendant's actions violated Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Mr. Munish Thakur
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Munish Thakur for infringing Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin. The court found that the defendant's product, GLIPSIT-M1, contained Sitagliptin and thus infringed the patent.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.HRCN Cable Network
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited filed a suit against HRCN Cable Network alleging unauthorized use and infringement of its vast repertoire of copyrighted music, sound recordings, and cinematographic films. The plaintiff demonstrated ownership through assignment deeds and copyright certificates, proving that the defendant was illegally broadcasting their content on cable television networks. Consequently, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions against further infringement and awarding the plaintiff compensation amounting to Rs. 16,20,000/-.
yahoo inc v.mr rinshad rinu ors
Yahoo Inc sued Mr Rinshad Rinu and others for infringement of its YAHOO trademark in Class 39, alleging deceptive use in a trading name (yahookochi.com) and business operations. The defendants used the Yahoo mark and logo, claiming they had invested significantly in promoting it.
Dharam Chand Ladha Mal v.Subhash Sabun Udyog & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Dharam Chand Ladha Mal, finding clear similarity between the trade dress of the defendants' products (NIROKHA) and the plaintiff's registered trademark (NAULAKHA). The court granted permanent injunctions to prevent further infringement and passing off. Furthermore, it directed each defendant to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff.
Seven Towns Ltd v.M/S Kiddiland
Seven Towns Ltd, a global manufacturer of the Rubik's Cube, filed a suit against M/S Kiddiland alleging infringement of copyright and passing off. The plaintiffs claimed proprietary rights in the distinctive trade dress and artistic elements of their product's label and packaging. Despite initial challenges from the defendants regarding variations in detail, the Delhi High Court granted interim injunctions, finding that the plaintiffs had made a prima facie good case and that the balance of convenience lay in their favor.
M/S Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. v.H.E. Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Johnson Appliances, finding that the defendants infringed upon the registered trademark 'JOHNSON' in relation to electric water heaters. The court extensively reviewed the historical chain of title, confirming the plaintiff's continuous ownership and rights over the mark since 1960. Despite the defendant's reliance on an alleged license agreement, the court held that the defendants lacked any valid rights to use the mark for these specific goods, granting a permanent injunction.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
The court addressed an application filed by the defendant seeking procedural reliefs, including a fresh trial schedule and permission to examine additional witnesses. The case involves patent infringement allegations concerning mobile radio communication technology and questions regarding the FRAND status of the patents.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Lava International Ltd for alleged infringement of its patented technologies. The core dispute revolved around Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 2G, EDGE, and 3G telecommunications standards used in mobile devices. The court found prima facie evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim of infringement. Consequently, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Lava from manufacturing or selling the infringing products, while dismissing a counter-application filed by the defendant.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
The plaintiff (Ericsson) filed a suit for infringement of registered patents against the defendant (Lava International). The court, following directions from the Supreme Court to expedite the trial, addressed an application by the defendant seeking to amend the witness list and change the trial schedule due to the unavailability of expert witnesses. The court granted a conditional adjournment.
Genentech Inc And Others v.Drugs Controller General Of India And Others
Genentech Inc. and its affiliates filed suit against the Drugs Controller General of India and others, challenging the approval granted for TrastuRel, a purported biosimilar version of their drug Trastuzumab. The plaintiffs contended that TrastuRel had not undergone adequate testing as required under Indian law before being launched. The Delhi High Court issued an interim order, restraining the defendant from marketing the product without proper trials while setting conditions for future regulatory approval.
Roche Products (India) Pvt Ltd v.Drugs Controller General Of India
Roche Products, the originator of the biological drug Trastuzumab (marketed globally under HERCEPTIN®), filed a suit seeking injunction against competitors launching purported biosimilars like CANMAb and HERTRAZ. The plaintiffs contended that these drugs were being misrepresented as 'Trastuzumab' or similar to HERCEPTIN®, without following proper regulatory guidelines for biologics. The court issued an interim order, restraining the defendants from making misleading claims and using proprietary data until the final decision on bio-similarity is reached.
M/S Saurabh Agrotech Private Limited v.Radhey Shyam Agencies
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S Saurabh Agrotech Private Limited, who is the registered proprietor of the 'ASHOKA' trademark. The plaintiff sought protection against defendants for alleged infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to their edible oil products. Given that the plaintiff holds a valid registration and has established a strong prima facie case regarding market confusion, the court restrained the defendants from using the disputed mark pending the final outcome of the suit.
Jiva Institute Of Vedic Science & Culture v.Mr. Raymond Bickson, Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer
The Delhi High Court disposed of a contempt petition filed by Jiva Institute against Mr. Raymond Bickson regarding the alleged misuse of the 'JIVA' trademark. While acknowledging that the defendants had violated previous injunctions by using the mark on various goods, the court ultimately gave them the benefit of doubt. The judgment allowed the respondents to continue using the mark for their spa services and certain related items, provided they strictly avoid using it for soaps, cosmetics, ayurvedic products, or other allied/cognate goods, thereby balancing trademark protection with commercial reality.
Visakha Chemicals v.The Central Government Of India And Another
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an IPAB order regarding trademark invalidity. The judgment affirmed the Full Bench's ruling that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has exclusive jurisdiction to decide on pleas of trademark registration invalidity, even within the context of an infringement suit. Furthermore, the court clarified the conditions under which an infringement action may be stayed pending rectification proceedings, emphasizing that a civil court must find the plea prima facie tenable before staying the suit.
Adidas Ag v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court overturned an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decision that had dismissed a rectification application concerning the trademark 'RESPONSE'. The court held that the IPAB's interpretation of 'person aggrieved' was contrary to law, especially when marks and goods are identical. Furthermore, the High Court found factual inconsistencies in the IPAB's assessment regarding the petitioner's use of the mark. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the IPAB for a fresh hearing.
Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Guruji Enterprises' challenge against the removal of its trademark 'GURUJI'. The petitioner argued that the Registrar failed to issue a mandatory prior notice (Form O-3) before cancellation. However, the court found that since the Respondent stated the Form O-3 was sent by post in 2008, the law presumes service upon delivery, making the writ petition inappropriate for resolving factual disputes regarding receipt.
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.