Bench:Sanjeev Narula
368 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
368 cases indexed | Page 12 of 13
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd
The dispute concerned the validity and potential revocation of Patent No. IN240893. Although the court had previously found the patent invalid under Section 64(1)(h) in an earlier judgment, the matter was carried out in appeal. The core issue before this bench was whether the patent could be revoked based on grounds like insufficient disclosure (Section 64(1)(h)).
Indian Oncology Foundation v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of the trade mark application 'Indian Oncology Foundation' by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court found that while the applicant claimed long-term use and reputation, they failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence—such as advertising expenditure or sales data—to prove that the descriptive mark had acquired secondary meaning. This ruling emphasizes that mere usage is insufficient; concrete proof of distinctiveness must be presented to overcome statutory objections.
Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co. Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr.
The appeal was filed challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated August 24, 2021, which rejected Indian Patent Application No. 201817006495. The appellants argued that the rejection based on multiplicity of inventive concepts violated principles of natural justice as no specific objection was raised in the examination report.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order rejecting Indian Patent Application No. 8198/DELNP/2013. The appellant argued that the notice of hearing failed to cite all relevant prior arts ('D2' and 'D3') which were used as grounds for rejection.
Db Corp Ltd v.Whatsapp Llc & Ors
Db Corp Ltd filed a suit against WhatsApp LLC alleging unauthorized circulation of its copyrighted e-newspapers within private messaging groups. The Delhi High Court granted an interim ex-parte injunction, directing WhatsApp to immediately take down and block the identified infringing groups. This order underscores the platform's responsibility in preventing copyright infringement when content is illegally shared on its services.
Aditya Infotech Limited v.Urmilla Jain
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Aditya Infotech Limited against Urmilla Jain. The Plaintiff, a leading security solutions provider, alleged that the Defendant was selling counterfeit CCTV cables using its registered trademark 'CP PLUS' and copying its trade dress. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, recognizing the potential harm to the Plaintiff's goodwill. This interim order immediately restrained the Defendant from further infringing activities until the final hearing.
M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v.Shivani Cosmetics Through Its Partners Vinod Monga and Nishant Monga
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. against Shivani Cosmetics. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting that the defendant was copying not only the registered trademark but also the trade dress, copyright, writing style, and overall packaging of the plaintiff's 'BLUE HEAVEN GsET BOLD' eyeliner product. This crucial order protects the plaintiff's goodwill while the full trial proceeds.
Ten Xc Wireless Inc & Anr v.Mobi Antenna Technologies(Shenzhen) Co Ltd
The Delhi High Court passed an order addressing an interim relief application and framing an additional issue regarding the validity of a patent. The core dispute involves whether Patent Number IN 240893 is liable for revocation under specific sections of the Patents Act, 1970.
Poly Medicure Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Poly Medicure Limited appealed the decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected its patent application (No. 2109/DEL/2011). The rejection was based on the claim subject not fulfilling the requirements of Section 2(1)(j) of the Act. The High Court granted certain exemptions but directed further proceedings, including the presence of the Assistant Controller.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.CG Power And Industrial Solutions Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking temporary injunction regarding alleged infringement and passing off related to the Crompton brand. The Plaintiff contended that Defendants were deceptively using the protected trade name 'Crompton' across their product lines, despite prior warnings. While the court noted the ongoing dispute over design piracy of pumps, it issued a specific interim direction compelling Defendant No. 1 to formally instruct its channel partners and distributors to cease all use of the Plaintiff's trademark on products and online platforms.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited & M/s. V.R. Holdings v.Mr. Guddu Ansari & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited, finding that Defendants were infringing upon its trademarks and copyrights by operating a nearly identical website and domain (www.heroelectro.in). The court found that the defendants were actively duping consumers by misrepresenting their affiliation with the renowned 'Hero Electric' brand to solicit dealership enquiries and collect large sums of money. Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions, awarded damages of Rs. 50 lakhs, and mandated the transfer of the infringing domain name to the Plaintiffs.
Allergan, Inc. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Allergan, Inc. challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark in the Delhi High Court. The court initiated proceedings by issuing notice to the Registrar, allowing the defendant two weeks to file a response. This order sets the stage for a substantive hearing on whether Allergan meets the criteria for trademark registration.
Toasha Agencies And Another v.Siddhant Choudharyand Anr.
The Delhi High Court framed a comprehensive set of issues in the trademark passing-off suit filed by Toasha Agencies against Siddhant Choudhary and others. The core disputes revolve around whether the plaintiffs are lawful proprietors of the 'TOASHA' trade name, if they possess distinctive goodwill, and crucially, whether the defendants have engaged in passing off or unfair competition. The court directed both parties to file their lists of witnesses and evidence, setting the stage for a full trial.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd And Anr. v.Roberta Gaming Pvt Ltd And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Sporta Technologies regarding the domain name 'www.fandream11.com'. Following disclosure from GoDaddy, the court removed Roberta Gaming Pvt Ltd from the suit and impleaded Mr. Bapi Das as Defendant No. 1. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their plaint to seek a declaration of their mark 'DREAM11' as a 'well-known' trademark, allowing the litigation to proceed against the actual domain owner.
Intelligent Packaging Pty Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patents
Intelligent Packaging Pty Ltd filed an appeal challenging the Controller General of Patents' refusal to grant Indian Patent Application Number No. 156/DELNP/2014. The court issued several interim orders regarding procedural matters such as condonation of delay, exemption from filing documents, and granted time for the respondent to file a reply.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt Ltd v.M/S T.R.N. Corporation Through: Its Proprietor Sh. Deepak Nimesh
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Blue Heaven Cosmetics against T.R.N. Corporation regarding trademark infringement and passing off. Although the Defendant held a registered mark, the court found that their use of trade dress, writing style, and overall packaging was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's well-known marks. The order restrained the Defendant from selling products with the infringing trade dress and mandated the removal of all such listings from e-commerce portals.
Loreal S.A. v.Ashok Kumar And Others & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Loreal S.A., a global beauty brand, against defendants accused of trademark infringement and passing-off. The court found that the defendants were operating a 'rogue website' (www.lorealglobal.in) and using email addresses mimicking L'OREAL's domain to deceive the public. Crucially, the court issued specific directions compelling the domain registrar and telecom service provider to disclose user details and block access to the infringing online assets, establishing a strong precedent for digital IP enforcement.
Sotefin Sa v.Indraprastha Cancer Society And Research Center & Ors.
Sotefin Sa filed a suit for patent infringement against Indraprastha Cancer Society and others, alleging that the 'smart dollies' installed by Defendant No. 4 infringed Plaintiff's Patent No. 4214088. Both parties agreed to the appointment of a Scientific Advisor from IIT Delhi to conduct an expert examination and report on whether the Defendants' product falls within the scope of the patent claims.
Wheelseye Technology India Pvt. Ltd. v.Zinka Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Wheelseye Technology filed a suit alleging that its competitor, Zinka Logistics Solutions, along with several former WheelsEye employees, conspired to disrupt the business. The Defendants allegedly misappropriated Confidential Information, solicited employees through en masse poaching, and induced breaches of contractual obligations.
Kake Di Hatti v.Shree Foods & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kake Di Hatti, who owns registered trademarks 'Kake Di Hatti' and 'KDH'. The case stemmed from a terminated franchise agreement where the Respondents allegedly breached terms, including non-payment of royalties. Given the breach and the risk of irreparable harm to the Petitioner's goodwill, the court ordered Shree Foods & Ors. to immediately cease operating the business and stop using the Petitioner's trademarks until further hearing.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd filed a writ petition seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of opposition proceedings against Patent No. 257402, which was granted to Novo Nordisk A/S. The court addressed the procedural delay and directed the respondents to furnish the Opposition Board's recommendations within one week, subsequently rescheduling the hearing.
Novo Nordisk A/S v.Union Of India & Ors.
Novo Nordisk A/S filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Respondent Authorities (No. 1 through No. 3) to decide on its request for the cross-examination of witnesses in a pending post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN 257402. The court, after considering arguments from both sides, directed that Respondent No. 2 fix the date for the cross-examination and complete it expeditiously.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Novartis Ag & Anr. filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant their Indian Patent Application No. 10611/DELNP/2015. The court allowed an interlocutory application regarding document filing and issued notice to the Defendant, setting the matter for further hearing.
Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp v.P Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp against P Singh & Ors. The Plaintiff, a prior user of the Ayurvedic joint pain relief oil 'SANDHI SUDHA', successfully argued that the Defendants' use of similar marks and imitation of packaging constituted passing off and copyright infringement. The court recognized the Plaintiff's established market presence and sales history to protect consumers from potential confusion.
Anuj Singhal v.Anupreet Kaur
This Delhi High Court case involving a trademark dispute between Anuj Singhal and Anupreet Kaur was successfully settled through mediation. The settlement agreement mandates that the respondent cease using specific trademarks, including 'NANDINI BLACK SALT,' and refrain from copying the petitioner's packaging and color schemes. Furthermore, the respondent agreed to withdraw all related trademark applications, leading the court to dispose of the suit in terms of the binding agreement.
M/S Copenhagen Hospitality And Retails & Ors. v.M/S. A.R. Impex & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of M/S Copenhagen Hospitality And Retails & Ors. against M/S. A.R. Impex & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendant from using deceptively similar pizza names, proprietary products, and controlling the plaintiff's official social media accounts while the main suit proceeds. This order protects the brand integrity of LA PINO'Z PIZZA against unauthorized commercial use by the franchisee.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.M/S Jbmr Enterprises
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Khadi And Village Industries Commission against M/S JBMR Enterprises. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant was using identical marks ('KHADI PRAKRITIK PAINT') and copying the entire trade dress and packaging of the plaintiff's eco-friendly paints. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from manufacturing or selling infringing products and directed to take down associated online presence.
El Baik Food Systems Co. S.A. v.Arsalan Wahid Gilkar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of El Baik Food Systems Co. S.A., a popular restaurant chain, against defendants accused of trademark infringement and copyright violation. The court found that the defendants were using the 'ALBAIK' trademarks and logos to fraudulently offer unauthorized franchises across India. Recognizing both the trademark rights and the artistic nature of the logos, the judge restrained the defendants from using any deceptively similar marks or offering fake franchise opportunities until the final hearing.
UPL Limited v.Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd & Anr.
UPL Limited filed a suit alleging that Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd was manufacturing and intending to launch a product comprising Acephate 50% + Imidacloprid 1.8% SP, infringing UPL's registered patents (IN 194211 and IN 211250). The court decreed the suit in favor of UPL Limited, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant for the validity period of the patents.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Innovation Meditech Private Limited
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the Plaintiffs (Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors.) and the Defendant (Innovation Meditech Private Limited) have reached a mutual understanding. The court noted that the parties were actively engaged in drawing up a settlement agreement to resolve the ongoing litigation. This indicates a cooperative approach toward resolving commercial disputes outside of full trial.
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.