Bench:Rajiv Shakdher
89 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
89 cases indexed | Page 3 of 3
Yanka Industries Inc. v.Starnet Masterschool Pvt. Ltd.
In a settlement order issued by the Delhi High Court, Yanka Industries Inc. and Starnet Masterschool Pvt. Ltd. reached an agreement regarding trademark infringement concerns. The defendant agreed to change its trademark and logo from 'Master School' to 'Celebrity School' within two weeks. Furthermore, Starnet Masterschool committed to transferring the domain name www.masterschool.in to Yanka Industries, disclosing subscriber details, and removing infringing content from social media platforms.
Ds Confectionery Products Limited v.Mehul Bhai Kachhadiya And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Limited against Mehul Bhai Kachhadiya and others. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling fruit candies under a phonetically similar mark ('PULLS') and using deceptively similar packaging to the registered trademark 'PULSE'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, and granted relief to prevent consumer confusion while the suit proceeds.
Ds Confectionery Products Limited v.Nirmala Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Limited against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off related to confectionery products. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated that its marks (PULSE/) were being deceptively used by the defendants' goods (PELSE/ and PLUS++/). Furthermore, given the defendants' failure to appear despite service, the court awarded the plaintiff damages of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The plaintiff sought the discovery of two sets of documents from the defendant: those concerning the manufacturing process of optical fibre and sales data. The court allowed the discovery of sales documents, requiring the defendant to file its audited balance sheet. However, the court denied the immediate necessity of discovering the manufacturing process documents, stating that the initial burden of proof remains with the plaintiff.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt. Ltd. v.Mega Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a copyright infringement suit filed by Triumphant Institute of Management against Mega Limited. The court acknowledged the plaintiff's claims regarding its registered trademark 'TIME' and copyrighted study materials. However, recognizing the intermediary status of the defendant, the court issued an interim order stipulating that the defendant must take down infringing content only upon receiving specific notice (URLs) from the plaintiff, aligning with safe harbor provisions under the IT Act.
Yanka Industries Inc. v.Starnet Masterschool Pvt. Ltd.
In a settlement order issued by the Delhi High Court, Yanka Industries Inc. and Starnet Masterschool Pvt. Ltd. reached an agreement regarding trademark infringement concerns. The defendant agreed to change its trademark and logo from 'Master School' to 'Celebrity School' within two weeks. Furthermore, Starnet Masterschool committed to transferring the domain name www.masterschool.in to Yanka Industries, disclosing subscriber details, and removing infringing content from social media platforms.
Ds Confectionery Products Ltd v.Chetan Gupta
In a trademark infringement suit concerning confectionery products, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('PLUSS+') and trade dress for their fruit candies, causing consumer confusion with the registered 'PULSE' brand. Citing a prima facie case and balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendant from continuing the infringing activities until further hearing.
Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. v.Jayesh Pahilajrai Ramani &Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. against Jayesh Pahilajrai Ramani &Anr. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a phonetically and visually similar mark ('PLUSS') and trade dress to sell fruit candies, causing consumer confusion with the plaintiff's registered trademark 'PULSE'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that granting relief was necessary to protect its commercial interests.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Angels Pharma India Private Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit alleging that Angels Pharma India Private Limited was attempting to manufacture and infringe its Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers the drug SITAGLIPTIN. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and granted interim relief.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Healing Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an infringement suit filed by Alkem Laboratories against Healing Pharma India. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's trademark and trade dress were deceptively similar, specifically mimicking the plaintiff's 'rising sun' motif. While the court allowed procedural applications for document filing and curing deficiencies, it also moved forward with the litigation by ordering summons to be issued in the main suit.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.M/S. Mobil House
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Exxon Mobil Corporation against M/S. Mobil House, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court noted that the plaintiff owns the registered trademark 'Mobil' for lubricant oils, while the defendant was using it in their trade name, causing market confusion. Consequently, the defendant was immediately restrained from using the disputed mark across all platforms until further hearing.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh & Anr v.Morepen Laboratories Ltd
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh filed a suit against Morepen Laboratories Ltd alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 211300, which covers Rivaroxaban. The defendant admitted to making commercial use before expiry due to a miscommunication regarding the patent's expiration date. Both parties agreed that the suit could be decreed in terms of permanent injunction, leading to the final disposal of the case.
fdc limited v.zodley pharmaceuticals pvt ltd
FDC Limited sued Zodley Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. for infringement of its registered trademark ZIPOD (Class 5 - pharmaceuticals) alleging that Zodley was using the deceptively similar mark ZOPOD. FDC claimed ZOPOD had been in use since 2007 and achieved significant sales, while Zodley applied to register ZOPOD later.
Vidya Mandir Classes Limited v.Swastik Classes Private Ltd &Others
In this intellectual property dispute concerning educational services, the Delhi High Court issued an order addressing interim relief. The defendants committed to ceasing the use of the plaintiff's registered trademark and returning existing course materials. Furthermore, both parties indicated a willingness to refer the ongoing disputes to sole arbitration, while also agreeing to provide a list of affected students to determine their future enrollment.
Snapdeal Private Limited v.M/S Futuretimes Technologies Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Snapdeal Private Limited against M/S Futuretimes Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The court found a prima facie case that the defendant was infringing and tarnishing Snapdeal's registered trademark, not only through its use but also through false advertising claims. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the phrase "everything cheaper than Snapdeal" across all social media platforms pending further hearings.
Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex dispute involving trademark and copyright infringement concerning the brand SANDHI SUDHA. The court framed multiple issues, including whether the plaintiff owns the mark and packaging, and whether the defendants' use constitutes passing off or infringement. Crucially, recognizing the defendants held a registered trade mark (MEDSEA SANDHI SUDHA), the Court granted the plaintiff liberty to approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) for rectification within 30 days. This decision sets a clear timeline, allowing the IPAB to potentially dispose of the matter quickly while protecting the rights of both parties.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Harish Chaudhary & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Inter Ikea Systems Bv against Harish Chaudhary & Anr. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of its 'IKEA' trademark, along with its trade dress. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or any deceptively similar marks, and were also ordered to suspend specific domain names and social media accounts until further orders.
Snecma v.Union Of India And Anr.
Snecma challenged two communications from the Union of India's Patent Office, which rejected its request for patent examination. The initial rejection cited incorrect fee payment methods (cheque instead of demand draft), while the second communication claimed the request was filed beyond the 48-month statutory limit. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Snecma, quashing both communications and directing the Patent Office to process the request for examination.
Sanjeev Goel v.Neelkanth Polytech Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sanjeev Goel against a trial court's rejection of his injunction request concerning trademark infringement and passing off. Although the appellant argued that the trial court failed to consider his claim of passing off, both parties agreed on a path forward: expediting the suit. The court disposed of the appeal by issuing strict directions for the timely filing of evidence and witness testimonies, ensuring the matter could be concluded quickly.
M/S Ganesh Tea Centre v.The Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning an impugned search certificate issued under the Copyrights Act, which was challenged by M/S Ganesh Tea Centre due to alleged prior rights in an identical mark. The court directed the Registrar to continue the underlying trademark proceedings while simultaneously staying the issuance of any registration certificate related to the disputed mark. This interim order protects the petitioner's interests pending a full determination of the conflicting IP claims.
M/S. Jai Durga Electricals v.Mex Switchgears Pvt Tld.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing specific directions to expedite the trademark matter. The court mandated that the Deputy Registrar re-hear the parties and allow them to lead fresh evidence. Furthermore, strict timelines were set for both petitioner and respondent to file their respective evidence in reply and rebuttal, ensuring a structured path toward final adjudication.
Gilead Pharmasset, Llc v.Union Of India & Anr
Gilead Pharmasset challenged an order passed by the Patent Office, arguing that it violated natural justice because the decision considered grounds and material from pre-grant oppositions (filed under Section 25) without giving the petitioner a hearing. The court found that the availability of this opposition material created a potential for bias, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Rajesh Jain v.Amit Jain & Another
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal challenging the refusal to grant discovery of documents. The suit involves trademark infringement and passing off, where defendants raised a defense of distinctiveness. The court ruled that since the sought-after documents were primarily intended to rebut an earlier application (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC) which was decided nearly ten years prior, they lacked relevance at the current stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the plaintiff must rely on other evidence to prove their case.
Manmohan Plastic Pvt. Ltd. v.Ganpati Plastic Industries & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed an interlocutory application seeking injunctive relief regarding the use of the 'MONICA' trademark. The court found that despite the petitioner holding a registered mark ('MONICA GOLD'), the respondents could demonstrate prior and continuous user of similar marks ('MONIKA') dating back to 1986, predating the plaintiff's claimed usage date. Consequently, the court declined to grant an injunction but mandated the defendants to maintain and submit quarterly sales accounts for all products sold under the disputed trademark.
National Research Development Corporation v.M/S Industrial Carbon And Ors.
The dispute arose from a license granted by NRDC (a public sector enterprise) to M/S Industrial Carbon for manufacturing SIG contacts. The parties contested an arbitration award dated 28.05.2009 regarding royalty payments and damages. The Delhi High Court partially sustained the award, while setting aside the portion that denied NRDC's claim for royalty during the initial production period, remitting those claims back to the arbitrator.
Vivek Kochher And Another v.M/S Kyk Corporation Limited And Others
The dispute involved a claim by Vivek Kochher and others that they were the rightful proprietors of the trade mark 'KYK' for automobile parts, which was being deceptively used by M/S Kyk Corporation Limited. The defendants claimed prior user rights dating back to 1952. The court issued an interim order to prevent confusion.
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v.Hamar Television Network Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., sought an injunction against the defendants for infringing its copyright in a large repertoire of musical works and sound recordings. The defendants raised defenses including lack of substantiality and fair use/fair dealing under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
M/S Eureka Forbes Limited v.Kent Ro Systems
The plaintiff, M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, challenged an advertisement by Kent Ro Systems, alleging that it disparaged the plaintiff's water purifier products which utilize UV and RO technology. The defendant argued there was no disparagement and that UV technology is not exclusive to the plaintiff. The court found that while the suit would proceed on merits, the defendant must amend its advertisement to clearly state all attributes of its UV and RO based machines.
Marico Limited v.Agro Tech Foods Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed Marico Limited's appeal against an order that rejected its injunction application regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court held that the respondent's use of 'LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY' did not constitute deceptive similarity or passing off, primarily because the expression is descriptive in nature. This ruling emphasizes that registration alone does not guarantee a prima facie case for infringement if statutory defenses are validly raised.
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.