Bench:Prathiba M. Singh
447 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
447 cases indexed | Page 14 of 15
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Jigs Chemical Limited & Anr.
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking an injunction against Defendant No.1, alleging that the defendant was advertising and selling 'APIXABAN' (a patented pharmaceutical preparation) as an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API). The court found a prima facie case for infringement and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the manufacturing and sale of APIXABAN.
Mitsubishi Power Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mitsubishi Power Ltd appealed against the rejection of its patent application by The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court disposed of the stay application (I.A. 11537/2021), noting that since the patent had been rejected, no interim order could be granted.
Glaxosmithkline Intellectual Property Development Limited v.The Controller of Patents
Glaxosmithkline Intellectual Property Development Limited filed an appeal against the rejection of its patent application (No. 201617034934) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Ram Trading Co. v.Amar Singh Chawal Wala And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging the cancellation of the Petitioner's registered trademark 'RAJQILLA'. The court noted that since the mark had already been cancelled by the IPAB, an interim stay could not be granted without examining the merits of the challenge. After initial procedural delays and requests for adjournment due to connectivity issues, the matter was listed for further hearing.
Central Park Estates Private Limited v.M I Builders Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Central Park Estates Private Limited against M I Builders Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the Plaintiff, who holds registered rights in 'CENTRAL PARK' for real estate, had made out a prima facie case. The Defendant was restrained from using the mark 'CENTRAL PARK' either standalone or combined with its group name 'M.I.' to prevent consumer confusion in the ongoing construction projects.
Victoria Foods Private Limited v.Rajdhani Masala Co. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed allegations of trademark infringement concerning the 'RAJDHANI' mark used for spices. While initially granting an interim injunction favoring Victoria Foods based on registration and prima facie evidence, the court subsequently heard a contempt application alleging continued violation by the defendants. Following a Local Commissioner's report detailing ongoing production post-injunction, the Court sealed the defendant's factory and ordered detailed inspections to assess compliance and potential misuse of goods.
Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha v.Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha & Anr.
This appeal challenged an order from the Commercial Court which held that a suit seeking protection for the mark 'Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha' was not a commercial dispute. The petitioner argued that since the dispute related to their intellectual property rights—specifically, an unregistered trademark/name—it must fall under Section 2(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Delhi High Court agreed with this contention, setting aside the lower court's order.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Actis Generics Pvt Ltd
The suit involved a dispute over Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin for diabetes treatment. The parties amicably resolved their disputes through a settlement agreement dated March 15, 2022.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Angle Bio Pharma
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an injunction against Defendant No.1 for infringing their patented pharmaceutical preparation 'APIXABAN'. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No.1 was advertising and selling the product through various platforms including Indiamart and Tradeindia. The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Angle Bio Pharma from manufacturing or selling APIXABAN without authorization, and directed the intermediary websites to take down the listings.
Kamdhenu Limited v.Raghunath Virdharam Bishnoi And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued stringent directions in favor of Kamdhenu Limited regarding the illegal use of its trademark 'Kamdhenu' by various defendants. The court recognized that the defendants were using infringing domains and bank accounts to impersonate the plaintiff and defraud customers. Consequently, the court ordered domain registrars (GoDaddy), telecom providers, and banks to disclose KYC details of the involved parties. Furthermore, it mandated investigations into the identified individuals and mobile numbers to curb ongoing trademark infringement.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd v.Mr Jitendra Kumar Tiwari Trading As Maa Vaishnavi Chemicals
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd against Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tiwari Trading As Maa Vaishnavi Chemicals. The court found that the use of the 'VIVO' mark by the defendant, especially in similar logo forms, would cause confusion and dilution given Vivo's extensive global and domestic use of the trademark. Furthermore, the court allowed Vivo to file evidence supporting its claim that the VIVO marks are well-known trademarks in India.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff, Nokia Technologies Oy, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants (Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd & Ors.) for infringement of Patent No. 259932 ("ARRANGING HANDOVER") by various mobile devices. The court addressed applications regarding adding new claims and devices during the pendency of the suit.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents, Chennai, which rejected its patent application (No. 1026/DEL/2012). The High Court first condoned the delay in filing the appeal and subsequently listed the matter for further hearing to determine if the invention has been put to commercial use.
M/S Ayush Aqua System v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Ayush Aqua System against the rejection of its trademark 'ZENKO' in Class 11. The court found that despite a cited mark ('ZENCO') existing for related goods, the goods applied for were sufficiently distinct. Consequently, the application was directed to be advertised before acceptance, provided the appellant restricts itself to the applied-for goods and does not manufacture products covered by the cited mark.
Octave Apparels v.Nirmal Kumar Trading As Apricot Fashion Alloy & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration ('METTLE') and simultaneously considered a related injunction suit. Recognizing the identical issues and parties, the court exercised its power under Section 24 CPC to transfer the pending commercial suit from the District Court to be tried alongside the present rectification petition in the High Court. This consolidation streamlines the legal process for both parties involved.
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.
The Chartered Institute Of Taxation v.Institute Of Chatered Tax Advisers Of India Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by The Chartered Institute Of Taxation against a lower court's dismissal of its interim injunction application regarding the trademark 'ADIT'. The Court found that the Respondent, Institute of Chartered Tax Advisers of India Ltd., was likely to cause enormous harm by using a similar name and mark. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the Defendant must refrain from launching any course under the name 'ADIT' while the main suit is pending.
SNPC Machines Private Limited v.Pankaj Rana
SNPC Machines Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patents, copyright, and misappropriation of trade secrets related to a brick-making machine. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was recorded by the Court.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of its Indian Patent No. 240893, titled 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The court issued directions regarding bank guarantees and continuous cash deposits from the defendants to secure the claims during the pendency of the suit. The matter remains pending trial.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Eris Lifesciences Limited filed a revocation petition challenging Patent No. IN 243301, arguing that it should be revoked because the claims were covered by an earlier genus patent (IN 227719). The Delhi High Court noted that another appeal concerning the same patent was already pending before the court. Consequently, the court directed both parties to serve notices upon each other and listed the matter together with the existing appeal for a hearing on April 6, 2022.
Thyssenkrupp Rothe Erde Germany Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN254458 before the Delhi High Court. The contesting respondent raised objections regarding the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the patent was granted in Chennai and an earlier revocation petition had already been filed before IPAB, Chennai.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Raman Gupta And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Khadi & Village Industries Commission against Raman Gupta and others. The court found that the defendants were illegally using the registered trademark 'KHADI' and associated logos, particularly for medical products like PPE kits and hand sanitizers under the trading style 'KHADI BY HERITAGE'. Given the potential risk to public health due to unauthorized quality control, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling any such products bearing the infringing marks.
Enlearn Education Pvt. Ltd. v.Indian Heritage School
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Enlearn Education Pvt. Ltd., who alleged that the defendant was infringing on their established use of the mark 'HERITAGE' in the education sector. The court found a prima facie case for confusion among students and parents due to the similarity of marks used by both parties. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from opening any new educational institutions using 'INDIAN HERITAGE' or 'HERITAGE', and were ordered to cease using the name 'Indian Heritage World School' for their existing pre-school starting May 1, 2022.
Kores (India) Limited v.Doms Industries Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging an order that rejected the request to frame additional issues in a trademark infringement suit. The core dispute involved whether Kores' product infringed Doms' registered trademarks for 'DOMS NEON' pencils. While acknowledging the defendant's need to challenge the validity of the registrations, the court ultimately upheld the Commercial Court's decision regarding the immediate framing of additional issues, noting that all issues related to trademark validity must be dealt with by a specialized Tribunal (under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act) and not the civil court.
Hamlai Industries Pvt Ltd. v.WD 40 Manufacturing Company
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Hamlai Industries challenging an ex parte injunction granted in a trademark dispute. The court noted the Appellants' claims regarding suppressed correspondence and prior international registrations, arguing that the initial injunction should be suspended. However, before deciding on the merits of the stay application, the court issued directions to both parties, requiring the Appellants to disclose detailed sales and import figures since 2010, and the Plaintiff to provide the complete records from the Trial Court.
Vishal Pipes Limited v.Bhavya Pipe Industry
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court addressed several procedural issues while advancing the main dispute between Vishal Pipes Limited and Bhavya Pipe Industry. The court allowed an application for a Local Commissioner, who was tasked with visiting the defendant's premises to inventory all products bearing the 'BPI' mark and obtain relevant sales accounts. Furthermore, the court issued notice to the defendant regarding the interim injunction request, reserving the final decision for a later date.
Cars24 Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Girnarsoft Automobiles Private Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses an ongoing dispute regarding the use of the 'Cars24' trademark in Google AdWords. The Plaintiffs sought to press applications for vacation of a previously granted interim injunction, which restrained Defendants from using or purchasing deceptively similar marks as keywords. The court noted that while cross-undertakings were in place, the core issues required a full hearing on merits. Consequently, the matter was listed for further arguments and case compilations.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited & Anr.
The suit alleged infringement of Plaintiff's patent (IN'429) related to a novel agricultural composition used as a fertilizer. The Plaintiff claimed that Defendant No.1 was manufacturing and selling infringing products under brand names 'SUFFAR 90' and 'COZY WET 90 WDG'.
Dharmendra Kumar Aggarwal v.Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through The Secretary & Anr.
This petition addressed the critical issue of supply and availability of the drug Tocilizumab 400 MG (Actemra) for COVID-19 patients in Delhi. The court examined submissions from Roche India, which indicated that global demand far exceeded current manufacturing capabilities. While Roche mentioned partnerships with other entities to meet demand, they provided no clear assurance regarding further supply to India. Consequently, the court issued detailed directions to both Roche and the Union of India to provide comprehensive affidavits on supply chain status, patent details, and potential alternatives.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors.
The suit was originally filed by Shogun Organics Ltd seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its process patent (IN236630) related to D-TRANS ALLETHRIN. The current application sought permission to sell existing manufactured stock prior to the final judgment. The court allowed the sale but directed the defendants to pay 5% of the sales value and deposit costs.
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.