Bench:Sanjeev Narula
439 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
439 cases indexed | Page 11 of 15
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Pvt Ltd v.Sudhir Kumar & Ors.
The petitioner sought the revocation of Indian Patent No. 301322 (Impugned Patent) registered in favour of Respondents No. 1 and 2, arguing that it was liable to be revoked under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an exemption for filing annexures and directed notice to be issued to the respondents.
Aviral Education Welfare and Cultural Society v.Delhi Public School Society
This case involved a dispute arising from the termination of a Joint Venture Agreement between Aviral Education Welfare and Cultural Society (AEWCS) and Delhi Public School Society (DPSS). Following the termination, AEWCS continued operating as 'Delhi Public School, Sahibabad,' leading to concurrent litigation regarding trademark and copyright infringement. The court addressed both the contractual dispute and the IP misuse, ultimately finding that while the termination clause was binding, the public needed clarity regarding the school's affiliation status.
Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Ramesh Kumar & Anr.
In a series of rectification petitions, Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited sought the cancellation of several trademarks owned by Ramesh Kumar and others. The court noted that the respondents had entered into a settlement with the petitioner and subsequently filed applications with the Trade Marks Registry to voluntarily withdraw or cancel the disputed marks. Consequently, the Delhi High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to expedite the processing of these withdrawal applications within three weeks, effectively disposing of the rectification petitions pending compliance.
Patanjali Ayurved Limited v.Yog Guru Ayurveda & Ors.
The Delhi High Court permitted Patanjali Ayurved Limited to amend its plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Yog Guru Ayurveda & Ors. The court found that the proposed amendments were procedural, correcting inadvertent errors and clarifying the scope of the claims without altering the substance or prejudice to the defendants. This allows the core dispute regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off to proceed with more precise pleadings.
Fontaine Limited v.Vinod Mahadik & Anr.
Fontaine Limited successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court for the cancellation of a conflicting trademark, 'impugned mark,' registered by Vinod Mahadik & Anr. The Petitioner demonstrated that the Respondent had failed to use the mark continuously for over five years, providing evidence of non-use through investigator reports and online searches showing inactivity. Given the Respondent's failure to appear despite substituted service, the Court allowed the petition, directing the cancellation of the conflicting registration.
Astral Limited & Anr. v.Astralglee & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the suit between Astral Limited and Astralglee following a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs against specific defendants (No. 1, 2, and 3) according to the terms of the settlement dated February 21, 2023. Notably, the judgment confirmed that one clause within the settlement—where Defendants admitted 'ASTRAL' is a well-known trademark—would legally bind them.
Google Llc v.Google Enterprises Pvt Tld & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Google LLC against several defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were colluding to misuse the globally recognized 'GOOGLE' mark on various websites, falsely suggesting an association with the multinational tech giant. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting Google a permanent injunction, awarding damages of INR 10 lakhs, and directing the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to block the infringing domain name.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust & Anr. v.M/S. R.J Enterprises & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit brought by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S. R.J Enterprises, the Delhi High Court facilitated a potential settlement pathway. The court noted that Defendant No. 1 offered an undertaking to cease using the disputed marks if the Plaintiff waived their claim for damages. The Plaintiff agreed to this condition provided the Defendant paid INR 75,000/- towards local commission charges. This order sets the stage for further negotiation and resolution of the dispute.
Element Six Technologies Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Design
The appellant challenged the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of a patent application (No. 10030/DELNP/2011) under Section 3(d). The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal and remanding the application for fresh consideration of the remaining claims.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Sandip @ Sandeep Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated trademark opposition proceedings where Petitioners, established users of a mark in the Plaster of Paris (POP) business since 2004, sought cancellation of a registered mark held by Respondent No. 1. The court allowed an initial application for exemption regarding document filing while setting out the procedural framework for the dispute. Notice was issued to the respondents, and the parties were directed to file detailed submissions before further hearings.
Visage Beauty & Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.Herbal Carts & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several crucial interim orders in the trademark infringement suit, Visage Beauty & Healthcare vs Herbal Carts & Ors. The court directed Fashnear Technologies Pvt. Ltd., an e-commerce intermediary, to provide contact details of sellers listing infringing products on its platform. Furthermore, the court allowed the impleadment of a proposed defendant involved in alleged collusion and deferred the request by Facebook Inc. to modify existing interim injunction terms regarding 'similar' vs. 'identical' URLs.
Umang Dairies Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Umang Dairies Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their device mark 'WHITE MAGIK'. The court found that while the word 'WHITE' might relate to milk products, the composite mark is suggestive rather than descriptive. Furthermore, the court determined that the subject mark was prima facie dissimilar from cited marks and noted that evidence of use had been on record but overlooked by the Examiner. Consequently, the refusal was set aside, and the registration process was directed to proceed.
Surender Kumar v.The Registrar Of Trademakrs
The Delhi High Court allowed Surender Kumar's appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' decision to refuse registration for the mark 'CANON'. The court found that the Senior Examiner erred by disregarding a prior settlement decree, which explicitly permitted the use and registration of 'CANON' for the services applied for. Furthermore, the court dismissed objections regarding user date requirements as they were introduced after the application was filed. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the Registry was directed to proceed with the mark's advertisement and registration.
Travelodge Hotels India(Ip) Pte Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Travelodge Hotels India(Ip) Pte Ltd against the Trademark Registry's refusal of its application for 'TRAVELODGE SKYE'. Despite concerns regarding similarity with prior marks, the court directed that the subject mark be permitted to be advertised without acceptance. This decision allows the applicant to proceed with the registration process while any underlying disputes over the core 'TRAVELODGE' mark remain pending.
Saurav Chaudhary v.Union Of India & Anr.
Saurav Chaudhary filed a writ petition seeking mandamus from the Delhi High Court to compel the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks to restore his patent application. The application, for a "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine," had been deemed abandoned under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. Chaudhary contended that the abandonment was an error caused by his erstwhile Patent Agent and that he never intended to abandon the invention.
Pb Fintech Limited v.Policy Bazar Finance & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted significant interim relief in favor of Pb Fintech Limited against various parties accused of trademark infringement. The court impleaded new defendants and issued strict injunctions restraining them from using deceptively similar marks like 'POLICYBAZAAR' or 'PAISABAZAAR'. Furthermore, the judgment directed domain registrars (DNRs) to immediately suspend and block infringing domains, and mandated ISPs to prevent access to these websites. The court also ordered the temporary suspension of a bank account linked to one of the alleged infringers.
Desert Friendly Camps Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Desert Friendly Camps Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of its trademark application, 'THE SERAI JAISALMER.' The court found that the mark was not descriptive for Class 43 services, especially given the existence of a nearly identical registered mark in the same classes. Furthermore, considering the lapse or refusal status of most cited prior marks, the Court directed the Trademark Registry to process and advertise the application, subject to an explicit disclaimer regarding the word 'JAISALMER.'
Prem Raj Parekh (Deceased) / Abhishek Parakh v.Shah Food Products And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the substitution of the deceased Plaintiff, Prem Raj Parekh, with his legal representative, Abhishek Parakh. This order facilitated the continuation of the trademark suit, allowing the applicant to formally assign ownership of Trademark No. 543474 in his name. While the procedural hurdle was cleared, the court explicitly left open the substantive objections raised by the Defendant regarding the Plaintiff's actual ownership of the trademark, setting the stage for further litigation.
Les Ateliers Louis Moinet Sa v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Les Ateliers Louis Moinet Sa against the rejection of its trademark application 'LOUIS MOINET' for horological instruments and jewellery. The court recognized that the mark, being the founder's name used for luxury timepieces, possessed inherent distinctiveness. Despite objections regarding similarity to a cited mark ('LOUIS MONT'), the Court allowed the application to proceed to advertisement without acceptance, directing that any subsequent opposition must be decided on its own merits.
Robotics Today B.V. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Robotics Today B.V., setting aside the rejection of its trade mark application 'ROBOTICS TODAY' under Section 9(1)(b) and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the composite mark was suggestive rather than descriptive when used in the robotics industry, and determined that it was prima facie dissimilar to the cited conflicting mark. Crucially, the judgment mandated a disclaimer, ensuring the registered rights would only cover the combination 'ROBOTICS TODAY' and not the individual words.
M/S. Suparshva Swabs India v.Sh. Vipul Chhabra And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's request to cancel a registered trademark, finding no deceptive similarity between the marks. The court held that despite both marks starting with 'T' and ending with 'IP', the overall visual, phonetic, and structural differences were substantial enough to prevent consumer confusion. This ruling emphasizes that similarity must be assessed as a whole, not merely by common letters.
Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited v.Chotiwala & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited against Defendant No. 5, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that their registered mark 'CHOTIWALA,' which has acquired significant goodwill over decades, was being deceptively used by the defendant. This order provides immediate protection to the established brand while the main litigation proceeds.
Sk Geo Centric Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Sk Geo Centric Co Ltd appealed a refusal order passed by the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application. The appellant argued that the refusal order, which cited prior art D4, was bereft of any reasoning to support the conclusion of lacking inventive step. The High Court found the impugned order invalid due to lack of justification and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Kentucky Fried Chicken International Holdings LLC v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Kentucky Fried Chicken's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'CHICKEN ZINGER'. The court found that while the word 'CHICKEN' itself is generic, the combination with 'ZINGER' was suggestive rather than purely descriptive. Crucially, the court clarified that KFC would not acquire exclusive rights in the common term 'CHICKEN', ensuring a disclaimer would be reflected upon registration.
M/S Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers v.Bhagwan Das Khanna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Plaintiff sought to strike out two specific issues related to a partnership deed. The Plaintiff argued that since the Defendants had not raised any counterclaims or filed a declaration suit concerning the partnership structure, these issues were irrelevant to the core controversy of trademark infringement. The Court directed the Defendants to file a reply within four weeks and subsequently a rejoinder, keeping the litigation moving forward.
The Capital Group Companies, Inc v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a request by an intermediary (Defendant No. 11) seeking to modify its obligations under trademark infringement proceedings involving 'CAPITAL ONE.' The Court rejected the plea for extended compliance time, emphasizing that due to the nature of the case—which involves fraudulent ponzi/pyramid schemes proliferating on social media like Telegram—swift action is imperative. Consequently, the court reinforced the existing order, mandating Defendant No. 11 to take down infringing accounts within 72 working hours upon receiving a complaint from the Plaintiff.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The court disposed of several interlocutory applications (I.A.) in the patent dispute between Novartis Ag and Natco Pharma Limited. The defendant withdrew its counter claim seeking invalidity of the suit patent, and the court allowed the defendant to file additional documents after imposing conditions.
United Coffee House v.Raghav Kalra
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by United Coffee House, leading to the cancellation of a nearly identical mark registered by Raghav Kalra. The court found that the respondent's registration was ex-facie dishonest because it failed to disclose his partnership interest in the petitioner's firm during the application process. This decision reinforces the principle that prior use and established goodwill outweigh subsequent registrations made in bad faith.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust & Anr. v.M/S. R.J Enterprises & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit brought by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S. R.J Enterprises, the Delhi High Court facilitated a potential settlement pathway. The court noted that Defendant No. 1 offered an undertaking to cease using the disputed marks if the Plaintiff waived their claim for damages. The Plaintiff agreed to this condition provided the Defendant paid INR 75,000/- towards local commission charges. This order sets the stage for further negotiation and resolution of the dispute.
M/S Luxottica Group S.P.A & Anr v.M/S Deals Cracker & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex-parte injunction granted against the defendants in a trademark infringement suit brought by Luxottica Group S.P.A regarding its 'RAY-BAN' brand. The court proceeded to frame several key issues, including whether the defendant website (Shopclues) has infringed or committed passing off, and specifically addressed the defense of being merely an intermediary under the IT Act. This marks a significant step toward the trial phase of the dispute.
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.