Bench:Sanjeev Narula
368 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
368 cases indexed | Page 13 of 13
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. v.Musky Couture
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. to proceed with its suit against Musky Couture, which alleges infringement of the 'GAURAV GUPTA' trademark and copyright in unique artistic garments. The Plaintiff detailed how the Defendant was allegedly manufacturing and selling identical, low-budget imitations while falsely claiming association with the original designer. Crucially, the Court issued a significant interim order allowing a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure of the Defendant's premises in Mumbai to gather evidence of infringement.
Monsanto Technology Llc v.Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd
The parties, Monsanto Technology Llc and Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd, filed joint applications to withdraw the suit and counter claim. They stated that they had amicably resolved their disputes through a Settlement Agreement dated March 26, 2021.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Indilina Pharmaceuticals
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (Plaintiff) filed a suit seeking an injunction against Indilina Pharmaceuticals (Defendant) for infringing their patent (IN'816) covering the compound Sitagliptin. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was offering tablets of Sitagliptin for sale in tenders. The Court granted interim relief restraining the Defendant from any infringing activities and directed disclosure of profits.
Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Eros International Media Limited And Anr.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories sought an urgent interim injunction to prevent the release of a feature film, 'Haathi Mere Saathi,' alleging that its brand mark 'DRL' was being used in a derogatory manner within the movie plot. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's application, finding that Dr. Reddy's failed to meet the three-pronged test for granting an injunction. The court held that the balance of convenience favored the defendants due to their substantial investment in the film production.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr v.Actis Generics Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiffs, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., filed a suit seeking an injunction against Actis Generics Pvt Ltd for infringing Patent No. IN'816, which covers the compound Sitagliptin. The court examined the prima facie case and found that the Defendant was distributing and selling infringing Sitagliptin API without authorization.
Cargill India Pvt Ltd v.Gati Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed Cargill India Pvt Ltd's application to frame an issue concerning the validity of Gati Ltd's registered trademark, 'GATI Nature Fresh Apples.' Despite Gati Ltd arguing that Cargill was barred by limitation due to prior knowledge of the registration, the court rejected these objections. The judgment clarified the procedural mechanism under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, allowing the plaintiff time to pursue rectification proceedings before the IPAB, thereby keeping the core validity question alive in the litigation.
Elder Projects Ltd. & Anr. v.Elder Pharmacia Llp & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit filed by Elder Projects Ltd. against Elder Pharmacia LLP, finding that the claim of passing off lacked a genuine cause of action. The court relied heavily on evidence provided by the plaintiff's Managing Director, which revealed that the plaintiff had previously claimed rights over the 'ELDER' trademark based on mistaken advice and was not the registered proprietor. Consequently, the interim ex-parte injunction granted to the plaintiff was vacated, marking a significant setback for Elder Projects Ltd.
Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors v.Darshanam Life Space Private Limited
The Delhi High Court stayed an adverse interim order that had vacated the appellants' ex-parte injunction, which was related to trademark infringement concerning 'Central Park'. The court acknowledged the strong goodwill and reputation of the appellant's registered mark. While keeping the core dispute in abeyance, the court granted permission for the respondent to sell remaining unsold flats, balancing the need to protect IP rights with commercial realities.
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.