Bench:Prathiba M. Singh
447 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
447 cases indexed | Page 12 of 15
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (l026/DEL/2012) by the Controller of Patents, Chennai. The rejection was based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court ordered a report to be filed regarding novelty and inventive step before further consideration.
Jitendra Kohli v.The Controller Of Patents
Jitendra Kohli appealed the rejection of his patent application concerning an electronic tendering system. The Assistant Controller rejected the application under Section 3(k) for being a business method, based on the original process claims. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller erred by not considering the later-filed amended 'system and process claims', leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Sequenom Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Sequenom Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 3139/DELNP/2012) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which held it non-patentable under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the invention was a screening test, not a diagnostic test, while the respondent relied on the broad definition of 'Pre-Natal Diagnostic Test' under the PCPNDT Act.
Sandisk Llc v.Jpy Mobile Phone Accessories & Anr.
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court addressed persistent violations by JPY Mobile Phone Accessories despite an existing interim injunction. The court found that the defendants continued to sell counterfeit 'SanDisk' products, even after large stocks were seized and returned on superdari. Consequently, the court issued bailable warrants against the promoters of the defendant and directed the police to take custody of all previously inventoried infringing goods for the plaintiff's safe keeping.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd v.Sujay Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (AMUL). The court condoned a delay in filing an amended plaint and allowed Defendant No.1 to participate fully in the proceedings, recalling an earlier ex-parte order. Crucially, the court reiterated previous directions requiring social media platforms like Meta and Google to take down content featuring AMUL's brand or mascot that targets the company in the context of animal cruelty within 36 hours of notification.
Jagran Prakashan Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
Jagran Prakashan Limited appealed the abandonment of its trademark application for 'JAGRAN' in Class 12, which was initiated due to non-filing of a reply to the Examination Report (FER). The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had approached the court too belatedly. Despite acknowledging the appellant's existing rights in related marks, the court held that the delay in responding to the FER and filing the present appeal was too long to be condoned.
M/S P.M. Diesels P. Ltd. v.M/S Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex matter involving the trademark 'FIELD MARSHAL,' which had been pending for decades across multiple forums, including the IPAB. The court set aside an earlier order dismissing the cancellation petition by default, finding that the dismissal was erroneous given the long-standing nature of the dispute and common evidence already led. Consequently, the High Court restored the cancellation petition and consolidated it with the original suit (Suit No. 2408/1985), directing the matter to be listed for final arguments.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 233161, which covers 'ELTROMBOPAG OLAMINE / REVOLADE'. The cause of action arose from an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals indicating that the defendant was included in a list for procuring the patented preparation.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Msn Laboratories Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 283133, which covers PYRROLOPYRIMIDINE (RIBOCICLIB). The cause of action arose from an Office Memorandum indicating the government's intent to procure RIBOCICLIB TAB/CAP, and Novartis argued this posed a threat to its patent rights.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Msn Laboratories for alleged infringement of its patent (No. 237430) covering Inhibitors of Tyrosine Kinases, specifically related to the drug NILOTINIB/TASIGNA. The dispute arose from an Office Memorandum indicating that the Defendant was being considered by the Department of Pharmaceuticals for manufacturing this patented preparation.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis Ag filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 229051, which covers pharmaceutical compositions comprising Valsartan and NEP Inhibitors. The cause of action arose from an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, listing the defendant for procurement of 'SACUBITRIL + VALSARTAN'.
Getaround, Inc. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenges the rejection of a patent application for "VEHICLE ACCESS CONTROL SERVICES AND PLATFORM" by the Patent Office, which cited two US patents (D5 and D6) on grounds of lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that their invention differs significantly from the prior arts, particularly regarding communication flow.
Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. successfully appealed a trademark rejection by The Registrar of Trademarks in the Delhi High Court. The court overturned the Senior Examiner's decision, which had cited lack of distinctiveness and descriptive nature. Recognizing the extensive goodwill and long-standing use of the 'KARIM/KARIM'S' mark since 1913, the court allowed the application to proceed for registration, subject only to association with existing registrations regarding specific descriptive terms.
BASF SE v.SEEDLINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR
BASF SE filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Seedlings India Private Limited and others for infringing its Patent No. IN 271338, which covers crystalline complexes used in fungicides/insecticides. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants' products were approved under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, despite previous undertakings by related group companies not to infringe the patent.
BASF SE v.GSP CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit seeking protection of its patent No. IN 271338, which covers crystalline complexes containing thiophanate-methyl and pyraclostrobin used as a fungicide. The court addressed several procedural applications before granting an interim order regarding the injunction request.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing their patent on Lactam-Containing Compounds (Apixaban API). The Defendant submitted an affidavit stating that it had not supplied commercial quantities and agreed to manufacture/sell the drug solely under Section 107A(a) of the Patents Act, leading the Court to pass an interim restraint order.
Satnam Brush Industry v.Kori Brush Industries
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Satnam Brush Industry, decreeing the suit against Kori Brush Industries for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant deliberately imitated the plaintiff's complete range of products, trade dress, packaging, and product codes, causing consumer confusion. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from further misuse and ordered to pay costs to the plaintiff.
Parmesh Construction Company Limited v.Mahinder Bhutani & Anr.
Parmesh Construction Company Limited filed a petition seeking the cancellation and rectification of Mahinder Bhutani's registered mark 'BHUTANI'. The court noted that while the petitioner argued 'BHUTANI' is a common surname, they also use it in their own trademark 'BHUTANI INFRA'. The court directed notice to be issued to the respondents and scheduled further hearings, indicating the matter will proceed through litigation.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.M S Sunmarker Pharmaceuticals & Anr
In a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. successfully reached a comprehensive settlement with M S Sunmarker Pharmaceuticals & Anr before the Delhi High Court. The parties jointly filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, leading to a decree that formally acknowledged Sun Pharma's rights in 'SUN' and 'SUN PHARMA'. Under the terms of the agreement, the Defendants agreed to cease using the infringing mark, destroy related materials, and withdraw their trademark application.
Amritsar Rice Land v.Sumit Bansal & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark dispute concerning rice products, the Delhi High Court issued a critical interim order regarding seized inventory. Recognizing that rice is a perishable commodity, the court permitted the Defendants to dispose of the substantial stock (30,000-35,000 kgs) held under local commissioner's supervision. This relief was contingent upon the Defendants depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- with the court and strictly adhering to a complete cessation of further manufacture or sale under the disputed brands.
Valent Biosciences Llc v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Valent Biosciences Llc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201717025151). The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step under relevant sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed applications for additional documents and exempted filing fees, and listed the appeal for further hearing.
The British School Society v.Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of The British School Society, confirming an existing interim injunction against the Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society. The court found that the unauthorized and continuous use of the identical mark 'The British School' by the Defendants constituted misrepresentation and caused irreparable prejudice to the Plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the Defendants were mandated to change their school names effective May 1, 2022, ensuring a smooth transition for enrolled students.
Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Orangebelly Food And Beverages Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Defendants sought to return the plaint due to a lack of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the Plaintiff's principal place of business was in Mumbai while the Defendant operated only one restaurant in Patna. The Delhi High Court rejected the immediate request for return of the plaint, noting the Plaintiff's successful history of obtaining injunctions across various jurisdictions. Consequently, the court ordered that the status quo be maintained by the Defendant until further orders, allowing the litigation to proceed.
Dr Ramesh Chander Munjal & Ors. v.Dr Suraj Munjal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed two connected suits, one concerning the infringement of the registered trademark 'SPECTRA EYE' and the other dealing with immovable property partition. The court noted that the trademark issue was complex and had been extensively heard by another bench. Consequently, the matter was listed for further adjudication before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal on May 11, 2022.
Pb Fintech Pvt Ltd v.Policy Bazar Finance & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Pb Fintech Pvt Ltd's application to implead additional defendants (No. 18 to 22) in its trademark infringement suit against Policy Bazar Finance & Ors. Crucially, the court modified existing interim injunction orders to extend protection against these newly added parties. The order reinforces the plaintiff's rights by restraining all named parties from using deceptively similar marks and mandates domain registrars and ISPs to block access to infringing websites.
Saga Lifesciences Limited v.Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the brand 'ULTRAMOL', the Delhi High Court recognized Saga Lifesciences Limited as the prior adopter and user of the mark for pharmaceutical preparations. Despite initial procedural applications being disposed of, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises of Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The commissioner is tasked with inventorying products bearing both 'ULTRAMOL' and 'ARISTO ULTRAMOL', and critically, examining the sales accounts of the defendant to assess the scope of alleged infringement.
Osram Gmbh & Anr. v.Tejmeet Singh Sethi & Anr.
In this Delhi High Court matter, the court addressed the ongoing suit concerning the 'OSRAM' trademark. The defendants voluntarily expressed their intent to abandon two specific trademark applications for the mark. Consequently, the court confirmed the existing interim injunction granted in favor of Osram Gmbh & Anr., while also directing the parties to list all relevant trademark filings for future consideration.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The court heard various interlocutory applications in a patent infringement suit concerning standards essential patents related to 3G, 4G, and 5G communications. The primary focus was on allowing the Plaintiffs (Interdigital) to reserve rights to add future infringing devices and additional patents from their large portfolio.
Sanofi India Limited v.Ridley Life Science Private Limited
Sanofi India Limited filed a suit against Ridley Life Science Private Limited alleging continuous violation of an earlier injunction order, specifically regarding the sale of products under the marks 'CONCIFLAM' and 'CORIFLAM'. The Plaintiff claimed that these infringing products were being sold despite the May 2021 restraint on using marks similar to its registered trademark 'COMBIFLAM'. The court noted the defendant's history of alleged habitual infringement in pharmaceutical preparations. Consequently, the court directed the defendant to submit detailed sales figures and imposed a significant deposit amount due to the persistent violations.
The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company and Goodyear India Ltd. v.Deva Nand Sukhia
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark dispute where Goodyear sought an injunction against Deva Nand Sukhia for using the 'GOOD YEAR' mark in relation to lubricants and greases. The court affirmed that 'GOOD YEAR' is a well-known mark, granting an interim injunction restraining its use across various goods. Although the Plaintiff initially sought damages, they agreed not to press this relief after the Defendant tendered an apology, resulting in the decree being passed with costs imposed on the defendant.
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.