Bench:Mukta Gupta
79 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent, design, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
79 cases indexed | Page 3 of 3
Vishnu Kant & Ors v.Eduvision Traders And Printers Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark infringement suit, Vishnu Kant & Ors vs Eduvision Traders And Printers Private Limited & Ors. The court settled several key issues, including whether the plaintiffs are registered proprietors of the trademark 'CURRIMAKERS' and their entitlement to injunctions and rendition of accounts. The parties were directed to file witness lists and affidavits within specified timelines, setting the stage for the commencement of the trial.
Tulsyan Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. v.R.R. Enterprises & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement related to rice products, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders. The court directed the defendants (D1 and D2) to provide a detailed reply affidavit within three weeks regarding the supply chain of the impugned goods. Additionally, an application by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 seeking permission to sell non-infringing packaging was dismissed as withdrawn. The suit remains listed for issue settlement on April 28, 2020.
Cde Asia Limited v.Jaideep Shekhar & Anr.
Cde Asia Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Jaideep Shekhar and others for infringing its patent (No. 307249) and registered design (No. 262629) related to material classification systems used in mining and sand aggregate production. The defendant challenged the plaint, arguing that the suit was premature as it was filed before the one-year period required for post-grant opposition under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act had lapsed. Additionally, the defense contested the court's territorial jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the application challenging the plaint, allowing the infringement suit to proceed.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The plaintiffs, owners of Patent IN-381 covering the molecule APIXABAN (Eliquis®), filed a suit against Bdr Pharmaceuticals for allegedly manufacturing and intending to supply generic versions of this patented drug. The court considered arguments regarding infringement and the validity of the patent based on prior art documents submitted by the defendant.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
Astrazeneca sued Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited and MSN Laboratories Limited for infringing their patents related to the pharmaceutical compound TICAGRELOR, marketed as BRILINTA. The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction against the defendants' generic versions (TICAPLAT and TIARE).
Ifrs Foundation v.Rammohan Bhave & Ors
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of IFRS Foundation against Rammohan Bhave & Ors following a comprehensive settlement. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights over the 'IFRS' trademark and its copyrighted standards. Key terms included the payment of ₹11 lakhs, the surrender of multiple domain names, the withdrawal of related trademark applications, and an undertaking to cease unauthorized use of the IFRS mark in training materials or goods.
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v.Mr. Akshay Singhal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited, declaring its candy brand 'PULSE' a well-known trademark. The court found that the plaintiff had established extensive goodwill and reputation both domestically and internationally through significant promotion and unique trade dress. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from manufacturing or selling similar products under deceptively similar marks like 'PLUSS', protecting the integrity of the PULSE brand.
Pfizer Inc v.Actiza Pharmaceutical Private Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit against Actiza Pharmaceutical Private Limited alleging infringement of its patents covering Sunitinib and Axitinib. The parties subsequently reached a settlement through mediation before the Delhi High Court.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie v.Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie filed a suit alleging that Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd. was infringing his registered copyright in the artistic work titled 'HIMLAYAN HELI SERVICES'. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was illegally using his pictorial representation on various business materials. However, the court examined the history of the company and its logo design, finding evidence suggesting the defendant's original creation and use of the insignia, particularly incorporating the symbol of 'Dorje', leading to the dismissal of the application against the plaintiff.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v.Rajesh Bansal, Sole Proprietor
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. filed two suits alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 184753, which covers channel decoding technology used in DVD video players. The plaintiff claimed this patent was essential for the industry. Although the suit patent had expired by the time of judgment, the Delhi High Court found that the defendants were infringing the patent and liable to pay royalties at FRAND rates. Furthermore, due to the defendant's conduct as a former employee, punitive damages were awarded against Rajesh Bansal.
Upl Limited v.Pradeep Sharma & Anr
Upl Limited filed a suit claiming infringement of three patents related to a stable synergistic herbicidal composition (Sulfosulfuron + Metsulfuron Methyl WG). The defendants challenged the validity of these patents. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and granted an interim injunction.
M/S Instapower Ltd. v.M/S Alpha Interiors Pvt Ltd & Ors.
M/S Instapower Ltd., a company specializing in energy-efficient lighting systems, filed a suit alleging that M/S Alpha Interiors Pvt Ltd and others were infringing its registered design patents for aviation warning lights. The plaintiff demonstrated extensive market presence and proved that the defendants were manufacturing and selling similar products. Despite the defendants failing to contest the case effectively, the court found infringement.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Glaxo Group Limited against Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors for trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement. The court found that the defendants were infringing on registered trademarks (ZINACEF, FORTAM) and common law rights (FORTAZ), as well as passing off the plaintiff's goods using similar packaging (trade dress/copyright). Given the multiple violations, the court granted permanent injunctions and awarded compensatory and punitive damages of ₹20 lakhs to Glaxo Group.
Pepsico Inc & Ors. v.Dugar Spices & Eatables (P) Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pepsico Inc, granting a permanent injunction against Dugar Spices & Eatables for the illegal use and sale of counterfeit and look-alike snack products. The court found that the defendants were violating Pepsico's rights through deceptive similarity in trademarks (KURMURE, CRACKURE), logos, packaging design, and overall trade dress associated with the 'KURKURE' brand. Furthermore, the judgment included directions to customs departments to prevent the import of these infringing goods.
Dabur India Ltd v.M/S Mughals Herbal Products & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dabur India Ltd in a passing off suit against M/S Mughals Herbal Products. The court found that the defendant's rose water packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established 'DABUR GULABARI' trade dress, specifically noting similarities in color combination and overall configuration. Given Dabur's long-standing reputation, extensive advertising spend, and market presence, the court granted a permanent injunction, affirming the protection of distinctive trade dress under common law.
New Hariom Industries & Anr v.Dandi Salt P. Ltd.
New Hariom Industries challenged the registration of an FIR, alleging that the search warrants were improperly obtained against unknown individuals despite knowing the Petitioners' business presence. The Respondent, Dandi Salt P. Ltd., maintained that the goods were unidentified at a railway yard and that they held valid copyright over their unique packaging/label since 2000. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that because the goods were lying unidentified, the search warrants were justified, and furthermore, evidence collected during an illegal search remains admissible in trial.
M/S Phonographic Performance Ltd. v.M/S Radio Mid Day (West) India Ltd.
The Appellant (PPL), a non-profit organization administering broadcasting rights, challenged orders passed by the Copyright Board regarding compulsory licensing fees payable by the Respondent (Radio Mid Day). The appeal primarily focused on procedural grievances related to evidence and documentation before the Board. The High Court upheld the preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable but partially set aside the Copyright Board's order concerning the admissibility of documents.
Mukesh Khadaria (Trading as M/s Aggarwal Udyog) and Ram Plaster v.DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants, confirming the injunction granted against them. The court found that the appellants were passing off their plaster of Paris as belonging to DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited because they used the prominent trademark 'Shriram' on their packaging. Applying the test of overall visual impression and likelihood of confusion among consumers, the court ruled in favor of DCM, emphasizing that mere dissimilarities do not negate the deceptive nature of the trade practice.
M/S P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S P.P. Prime Properties & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. / M/S P.P. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals filed by P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., which sought injunctions against competitors for alleged trademark infringement and passing off of the mark "PP". The court noted that while the appellants claimed extensive goodwill associated with their brand, the respondents provided vague or contradictory explanations for using the mark in their respective businesses (real estate/construction). Ultimately, the High Court found no infirmity in the lower court's decision regarding the interim relief sought, allowing the suits to proceed on their merits.
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.