Bench:Rajiv Shakdher
71 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
71 cases indexed | Page 3 of 3
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.
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.