Bench:Prathiba M. Singh
448 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
448 cases indexed | Page 3 of 15
Rishabh Jain v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Rishabh Jain against The Registrar of Trade Marks. Despite multiple notices and previous hearings, key procedural steps remained incomplete, notably the service report and the required affidavit from the Respondent regarding notice of opposition. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner's counsel to inform the opponent of the orders and scheduled the matter for July 5, 2022, pending the filing of the necessary affidavit.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Km Swarnalatha & Ors
The plaintiffs, Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland, sought an interim injunction regarding their patented anti-cancer molecule 'dasatinib' (SPRYCEL). The court disposed of the application for interim injunction as the patent term had expired. However, the court allowed amendments to the plaint to include new manufacturers and directed further proceedings.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Batra Brewries And Disttilleries Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the trademark infringement suit between Allied Blenders and Batra Brewries. The court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction against the defendants, noting their adoption of the mark 'PRINCIPAL PREMIUM.' However, permission for the defendants to exhaust existing stock was recalled due to non-compliance with providing a stock statement. Furthermore, the court condoned the delay in filing the written statement and dismissed an application seeking the deletion of one defendant.
Harbans Lal Wadhwa Trading As Uttam Chemicals v.Subhash Chand Trading As Subhash Chand And Sons & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings regarding the cancellation of a registered trademark ('UTTAM') held by the Respondent. The Petitioner, claiming prior use since 1999 for various cleaning products, sought cancellation based on their earlier market presence. Recognizing that the dispute required detailed proof of goodwill and sales figures beyond mere pleadings, the court framed specific issues and directed both parties to file lists of witnesses and lead evidence.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter & Gamble challenged the Controller's order refusing its 'Detergent Compositions' patent application due to lack of inventive step. The appeal argued that the rejection was arbitrary, citing a four-year delay in processing and the Patent Office failing to grant adequate time for responding to objections raised under Section 8(2) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court agreed with the appellant, finding the process contrary to natural justice and statutory timelines.
University Of Guelph v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
The University of Guelph filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated July 26, 2019, which refused to grant Indian patent application no. 642/DELNP/2011. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and statutory exclusions under the Patents Act, 1970.
Sintex Industries Ltd. v.Acme Tale Power Ltd And Anr (now Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited)
Sintex Industries Ltd filed a rectification petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 2137154, titled "Phase Change Material," which was granted to Acme Tele Power Limited (now Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited). The court considered an affidavit from the respondent confirming that while they were previously in the telecom industry, their current focus is renewable energy and solar power projects. Crucially, the respondent stated they had no objection to the patent being revoked prospectively.
E. I. Dupont De Nemours And Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
E. I. Dupont De Nemours And Company filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated December 16, 2019, which refused to grant Indian patent application no. 1845/DELNP/2011. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and objections under Sections 3(e) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
M/S Ralson (India) Limited v.Shri. Surinder Singla
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/s Ralson's appeal challenging the Trade Marks Registry's decision to dismiss their opposition against the 'RANCHO' trademark. The core issue revolved around whether service of documents via email constituted valid notice, especially when no explicit email ID was provided in the initial opposition filing. The court held that while general rules allow for electronic service, specific statutory requirements must be met, distinguishing this case from prior precedents. However, recognizing Ralson's substantive claims, the Court granted them liberty to file a cancellation petition against the registered mark.
The Himalaya Durg Company & Ors v.Himalya International Ltd
In this ongoing trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed an application by the defendant seeking permission to file fresh evidence. Despite objections from the plaintiffs that the new defense went beyond pleadings, the court permitted the filing of the affidavit in evidence (DW-1). The court also reminded both parties about the long pendency of the case and directed a day-to-day trial to expedite proceedings.
Ralson India Limited v.Sham Lal M/S Ramesh Lal And Sons And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ralson India Limited against the Trade Marks Registry's decision that had allowed the registration of 'R RALSON'. The core issue revolved around whether service of documents via email, facilitated through an agent's filing (Form TM-M), constituted valid service under the Trade Marks Act. The Court held that while general court practice allows for email service, in this specific trade mark opposition context, the validity of service depended on clear provisions within the application or notice itself; however, it granted Ralson liberty to pursue a cancellation petition based on the mark's registered status.
M/S F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. v.M/S Modern Machinery Stores G.T. Road
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the ongoing trademark dispute between M/S F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. and M/S Modern Machinery Stores G.T. Road. The court noted that the matter was pending before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Consequently, the judge requested the mediator to expedite the proceedings and listed the case for further hearing on December 7, 2023.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its divisional patent application (8584/DELNP/2007). The appeal was filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. However, the court disposed of the appeal because the term of the parent patent application had expired during the pendency of the appeal.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v.Sudpita Dey Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Ors.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated January 11, 2022, which refused to grant a patent for 'Insecticidal Composition'. The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and listed the matter for final hearing.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter & Gamble Company appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs which refused its patent application for 'A DETERGENT COMPOSITION COMPRISING LIPASE VARIANT'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art. P&G argued that the refusal violated natural justice principles due to procedural delays.
T-Mobile Usa Inc v.Controller Of Patents
T-Mobile USA Inc appealed the Controller's refusal to grant a patent for 'Preferred Contact Group Centric Interface'. The Controller refused the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art and arguing that the invention was essentially a computer program per se, lacking technical effect beyond normal hardware interaction.
Vakzine Projekt Management Gmbh v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Vakzine Projekt Management Gmbh appealed against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its patent application. The rejection was based on the grounds that the composition fell within the scope of Section 3(d) and Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Abbvie Biotherapeutics Inc & Abbvie Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents Designs
Abbvie Biotherapeutics Inc & Abbvie Inc filed a fresh appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated July 31, 2023, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs refusing to grant patent application no. '201817047767'. The subject matter is related to ANTI-cMet Antibody Drug Conjugates.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
JFE Steel Corporation filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents' decision to refuse its patent application. The refusal was based on the grounds that the claims did not fulfill the criteria of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Rahul Sharma And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., recognizing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off against Rahul Sharma and others. The court found that the use of deceptively similar marks like 'Dream 11 onlinematka' creates a high chance of confusion, especially online. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing mark and directed to lock and suspend the associated website and domain name.
Indarmal M Solanki v.Rakesh Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Indarmal M Solanki against Rakesh Gupta, leading to the cancellation of the contested trademark 'EL PASO'. The court found that the impugned mark was identical to the Petitioner's prior registered and used marks for readymade garments (Class 25). Furthermore, the Respondent failed to renew the registration since April 2017, making it liable for removal under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the court ordered the cancellation and deletion of the mark from the register.
Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr. v.Ena Universal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking to enforce an existing injunction against trademark infringement related to 'BAJAJ ALMOND DROPS'. The Plaintiffs argued that Defendants were circumventing the court order by selling infringing products through e-commerce platforms under different names. Recognizing this evasion, the Court allowed the impleadment of new parties, including AMZ Venturz, VBRO Skin Care, and Flipkart itself, to ensure comprehensive enforcement against all involved entities.
Daicel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Daicel Corporation appealed a rejection order passed by the Joint Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application for a disintegrating tablet. The Patent Office rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v.Shree Sakshat Money Lenders And Exchange Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed petitions filed by Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. seeking cancellation of 'TIGER' device logos registered by Shree Sakshat Money Lenders. The court noted the near identity between the marks and directed that status quo be maintained concerning the registrations. This interim order prevents any transfer, license, or assignment of the disputed trademarks while the matter proceeds.
Himalayan Heli Services Private Limited v.Himachal Helicopter Skiing Pty Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex dispute involving the cancellation of a trademark registration (No. 1523434) held by Himachal Helicopter Skiing Pty Ltd, which was sought by Himalayan Heli Services Private Limited. Given the extensive overlap between the ongoing cancellation petition and an older passing-off suit, the court directed that both cases be consolidated for trial. This strategic move aims to streamline the litigation process, ensuring a unified determination of who holds the rightful rights in the 'Himalayan Heli Services' mark.
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v.Shree Sakshat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Heineken Asia Pacific filed cancellation petitions against trademarks registered by Shree Sakshat Infrastructure, alleging that the Respondent is a squatter who has registered an identical device mark. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the near identity between the marks in dispute. Consequently, the court directed that status quo be maintained concerning the registration and prohibited any transfer or assignment of the disputed trademark until further proceedings.
Burger King Company Llc v.Ranjan Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the strong standing of Burger King Company LLC, declaring its trademark 'BURGER KING' to be well-known in India. The court relied on extensive global usage, massive promotional investment, and local market presence (over 400 outlets) to establish secondary meaning. This ruling significantly strengthens the brand's protection against unauthorized use by defendants operating under similar names like 'Burger King Family Restaurant'.
Sunstar Overseas Ltd. v.Hello Minerals Waters Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Sunstar Overseas Ltd. seeking rectification of the trademark 'HELLO' (No. 666671). The court noted that despite repeated attempts to serve notice and ensure appearance, neither the petitioner nor the respondent appeared in court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Burger King Company Llc v.Virendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the strong protection afforded to the 'BURGER KING' trademark, declaring it a well-known mark under the Trade Marks Act. The court relied on Burger King's extensive global presence, long history (since 1954), massive promotional spending, and established secondary meaning in India. This judgment reinforces that globally recognized brands can secure enhanced legal protection against unauthorized use by local operators.
Insecticides (India) Limited v.Anu Products Limited
Insecticides (India) Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of its patent (IN 316801), which covers an insecticidal composition. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement via mediation, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms.
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.