Bench:Mukta Gupta
89 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
89 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
Ascot Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v.Prashant Sharma & Dikshant Sharma
The Delhi High Court addressed an execution petition concerning a prior settlement where the judgment debtor had agreed to cease using the trademarks 'SAVOY SUITES' and 'SAVOY'. The court found that the judgment debtor was violating this undertaking by advertising their property in Mumbai under the same name, thereby leveraging the goodwill of the decree holder. Consequently, the Court issued strict directions compelling the defendant to immediately remove all references to the trademark from websites and third-party platforms, including major booking sites.
Mrs. Anugya Gupta v.Mr. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute concerning the use of the trademark 'SARKARI RESULT' and associated domain names. The core issue revolves around establishing who is the prior adopter and user of the mark by comparing the actions of the Plaintiff and Defendants. The court has listed the matter for further hearing, indicating that the substantive determination of rights remains pending.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Uniza Healthcare Llp. & Anr.
Cadila Healthcare Limited sought an ad-interim injunction against Uniza Healthcare LLP, alleging that the defendant's trademark 'ZACLEAR' was deceptively similar to Cadila's mark 'ZYCLEAR'. The Delhi High Court declined to grant the immediate injunction, primarily noting discrepancies in the plaintiff's claim regarding the date of adoption and registration of 'ZYCLEAR'. Instead, the court directed both parties to complete their pleadings, file written statements, and proceed with the suit for a final determination.
M/S Asugar Engineering Services & Anr. v.Weld Trade Pvt. Ltd. and M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to implead M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd. as a defendant in the trademark infringement suit, recognizing that this new party was also infringing the 'AZUCAR' mark. The court found it necessary for the cause of action against them. Furthermore, the court extended existing interim orders to include the newly added defendant. This procedural step ensures all parties involved in the alleged trademark violation are properly before the court.
Worknest Business Centre Llp & Anr. v.M/S Worknests Through Rajesh Goyal
Worknest Business Centre LLP filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement against M/S Worknests, claiming that the defendant's use of 'WORKNESTS' in the co-working space business infringed upon its established mark 'WORKNEST'. While the plaintiff presented evidence of prior domain registration and trademarks, the court found no immediate grounds to grant an interim injunction. The matter was directed to proceed as a full suit for detailed examination.
Bharat Bhushan Gupta Prop. Bharat Light Machines v.Nitin Mittal Prop. M/S G.K. Trading Co.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Bharat Light Machines regarding its trademark OZOMAX. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was deceptively using a similar mark, OZOWAX, and copying the artistic packaging for body massagers. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting the phonetic and visual similarity between the marks and the clear imitation of the product packaging.
Capital Food Pvt. Ltd. v.Radiant Indus Chem. Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim relief in a trademark infringement suit concerning 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. While the court found that 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' is likely a descriptive and common term, thus denying the injunction against the mark itself, it granted protection for the plaintiff's trade dress/packaging and marketing content. This mixed ruling highlights the distinction between protecting generic product descriptors versus unique visual branding elements in IP law.
Exide Industries Limited v.Krishna International & Ors.
Exide Industries Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction in the Delhi High Court against Krishna International and others. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dishonestly adopting its well-known 'EXIDE' trademark to manufacture and sell various products, including bulbs and power banks. Given the prima facie case made out by Exide regarding the unauthorized use of its mark, the court granted the injunction to prevent irreparable loss until the final hearing.
BASF SE v.UPL LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit against UPL Limited seeking permanent injunction for infringing its India Patent No. 262428, which covers Boscalid anhydrous Form-II. The court considered affidavits from both parties regarding infringement and R&D activities. Ultimately, the court decreed the suit in favor of BASF SE, granting a permanent injunction.
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc
The Delhi High Court disposed of cross-appeals between Designarch Consultants and Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The settlement mandates that Designarch must cease using certain 'BURJ' formative marks (other than BURJNOIDA) and refrain from designing buildings resembling Jumeirah’s pictorial references. In return, Jumeirah agrees to withdraw several cancellation petitions filed against Designarch's trademarks, while Designarch acknowledges Jumeirah's ownership of its key brands.
Astrazeneca AB & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The plaintiffs presented an overview of their case. Since the defendant challenged the validity of the suit patent (IN-235625), the court directed the defendant to present arguments on that matter.
VELCRO BVBA v.VEILCRO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
In this Delhi High Court matter concerning the 'VELCRO' brand, VELCRO BVBA filed an application seeking an urgent hearing due to allegations that the defendant continued infringing its trademark despite existing interim injunctions. The court noted the plaintiff's evidence was concluded and directed notice to be issued to the defendants for a returnable appearance on November 23, 2020.
FMC Corporation v.Modern Insecticides Limited
FMC Corporation filed a suit alleging that Modern Insecticides Limited was infringing its valid Indian Patent (IN 201307) related to the insecticide Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The plaintiffs, who are co-owners of the patent, claimed that the defendant was manufacturing and exporting the compound, thereby violating their intellectual property rights. Based on the prima facie case presented by FMC Corporation, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
Harjit Kaur & Ors. v.Jaywantjit Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the trademark 'CAMPA,' which is registered to Plaintiff No. 2 (Campa Beverages Pvt. Ltd.). The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No. 1, despite not being a shareholder or director, was filing numerous new trademark applications using the CAMPA prefix and managing brand operations. While the court allowed an exemption from filing original documents, it primarily focused on procedural steps for the main suit. Crucially, the court established that Defendant No. 1 is bound by his statement that he has not commenced use of the mark until a final decision is rendered in the ongoing litigation.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v.Amul Franchise.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. against various parties operating fraudulent websites using the 'AMUL' trademark. The court found that these entities were impersonating and deceiving the public by offering fake dealerships, jobs, and distributorships, thereby causing irreparable harm to the brand. Furthermore, the registrars of the infringing domains were directed to immediately suspend or block the sites, while banks holding accounts related to the fraudulent operations were ordered to disclose account holder details.
ASTRAZENECA AB & ANR. v.MICRO LABS LIMITED
The plaintiff, AstraZeneca, filed a suit alleging infringement of its genus (IN 147) and species (IN 625) patents for the drug DAPAGLIFLOZIN (brand name FORXIGA). The defendant, Micro Labs Limited, was accused of manufacturing, selling, and seeking approval for generic versions. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
Astrazenca Ab v.West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.
Astrazenca filed a suit alleging that West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. was manufacturing the drug Dapagliflozin, which is protected by Astrazenca's patents (IN '147 and IN '625). The defendant entered an undertaking acknowledging the validity of the patents and agreeing not to infringe them.
M/S Bhagyalaxmi Industries v.Pramod Kumar & Anr.
In a significant resolution for brand owners, M/S Bhagyalaxmi Industries successfully secured a decree against Pramod Kumar & Anr. through a comprehensive mutual settlement. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights over the 'ROBOTOUCH' trademarks and agreed to cease all use of the mark or deceptively similar marks in relation to wellness products. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 committed to withdrawing existing trademark registrations and opposition filings related to ROBOTOUCH, ensuring peaceful conduct of the plaintiff's business.
Fk Bearing Group Co Ltd. v.M/S Kunal Trading Corp & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction favoring Fk Bearing Group Co Ltd. against M/S Kunal Trading Corp & Anr. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of the plaintiff's distinctive trademark (FK/) and associated artistic logo/trade dress for manufacturing and selling bearings. Given that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience in its favor, the court issued a restraining order against all defendants from dealing in the infringing goods until further hearing.
Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp & Anr. v.Cleanchem Laboratories Llp
The plaintiffs, owners of Indian Suit Patent IN 209816 for SITAGLIPTIN, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was selling and dealing in SITAGLIPTIN without a license. The court found prima facie evidence of violation and granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd. v.Alexi Pharmicia & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd. against Alexi Pharmicia & Anr. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of Danone's proprietary rights, including its registered trademark 'PROTINEX,' trade dress, and associated copyrights, by the defendants who were selling a deceptively similar product under the mark 'PROTILEX.' The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss.
Havells India Limited v.Ratheesh Govindan & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against the defendants, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The dispute centers on the unauthorized use of deceptively similar marks and logos (like STANDARD, STANGUARD, and HOMESAFE) by the respondents for electrical products. The court recognized that the plaintiffs possess common law rights in these brands due to long-term usage. Consequently, the defendants were directed to suspend exports and disclose their manufacturing sources pending further hearings.
Nutricia International Pvt. Ltd. v.Hexalac Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Nutricia International Pvt. Ltd. successfully secured an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in the Delhi High Court against Hexalac Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others regarding the use of a similar mark for infant food products. The plaintiff, owner of the registered trademark DEXOLAC, alleged that former employees were manufacturing and selling competing products under the name HEXALAC. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and granted the injunction to prevent irreparable loss while the suit proceeds.
M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash v.Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a settlement reached between M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash and Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co. regarding the trademark 'POOJA RAKHI'. The parties, who had previously sought mediation, agreed that the defendant would cease using the mark in Class 25 Wrist Band items. In exchange for this undertaking, the plaintiff waived claims for damages or profits, leading to the suit being decreed based on the settlement terms.
M/S Babu Ram Om Prakash v.Mr. Roger Aoun
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Babu Ram Om Prakash against Mr. Roger Aoun regarding the use of the trademark 'BLACK DIAMOND'. The plaintiff, a long-standing manufacturer of cosmetics and mehandi products, alleged that the defendant was deceptively adopting their registered mark. Citing prima facie evidence and irreparable loss, the court restrained the defendant from using the disputed mark until further hearing.
BASF SE v.UPL LIMITED
The plaintiff, BASF SE, filed a suit claiming infringement of its patent (IN-262428) covering the superior anhydrous-II form of the fungicide BOSCALID. The defendant, UPL Limited, appeared and submitted that no valid patent existed for the specific anhydrous-II form at the time they applied for licenses, asserting their use was limited to R&D.
Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH & Anr. v.Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and its associates filed a suit alleging that Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. was infringing on their patented compound, Rivaroxaban (IN 211300). The plaintiff contended that the defendant was exporting finished pharmaceutical products containing Rivaroxaban to foreign entities in commercial quantities. Despite the lack of domestic launch by the defendant, the court held that such exports constituted 'use in India' under the Patents Act. Consequently, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Bayer.
Sunstar Joint Stock Company & Anr. v.Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court settled a trademark dispute between Sunstar Joint Stock Company and Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal. The parties reached an amicable agreement, leading the court to decree the suit based on specific prayers in favor of the plaintiff. Crucially, Defendant No. 1 was directed to assign its registered Trademark (No. 3750648) for 'Thai Duong' to Sunstar Joint Stock Company, resolving the core ownership conflict.
Astrazenca Ab v.Ajanta Pharma Ltd.
The court heard an application seeking condonation of a 6-day delay by the defendant, which was granted. The court also directed the parties regarding the filing of written statements and clarified the validity dates of the two patents (IN '147 and IN '625) held by Astrazenca Ab.
Astrazenca Ab & Anr v.West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.
The Delhi High Court heard the matter concerning suit patents held by Astrazenca Ab & Anr against West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. The court addressed the validity dates of the two patents (IN '147 and IN '625) and accepted an undertaking from the defendant that they do not manufacture or sell infringing products related to Dapagliflozin.
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.