Bench:Sanjeev Narula
439 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
439 cases indexed | Page 2 of 15
Anand Sarup Sachdeva M/S Diachi International v.Rex Sewing Machine Co. Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking correction of clerical errors in a previous order related to a trademark dispute. The Court found that certain discrepancies, including the petitioner's name and the scope of cancellation, were inadvertent mistakes. Consequently, the court corrected the relevant paragraphs, ensuring the restoration of M/s Daichi International's trademark registration (No. 696905) while confirming the cancellation of the respondent's mark (No. 1573729). This order clarifies the legal standing of both parties in the ongoing dispute.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited v.M/S R.M. Foods & Ors.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited filed a suit alleging that M/S R.M. Foods & Ors. adopted a deceptively similar trade dress for their products in the fitness and peanut butter industry. The Delhi High Court, while allowing the main suit to proceed, addressed several interlocutory applications regarding documentation and mediation. Crucially, the court noted the dispute over whether the Defendants' alleged infringing trade dress has been discontinued or if the current suit also covers a newer design adopted by the Respondents.
Asian Paints Limited v.Ajeet Kumar And Others
The Delhi High Court allowed Asian Paints Limited's application to implead numerous additional parties—including domain name registrars, banks, and telecom service providers—in its trademark infringement suit. The court found a prima facie case for the plaintiff, noting that fraudsters were using various digital channels (websites, phone numbers, bank accounts) to perpetuate the misuse of the 'ASIAN PAINTS' mark. Consequently, the existing injunction was expanded, and specific directions were issued compelling these third-party defendants to block infringing websites, freeze associated bank accounts, and suspend mobile numbers.
Red Bull Ag v.Rahul Ranjan Partner Of M/S Wings Energy & Ors.
The Delhi High Court finalized a trademark infringement suit between Red Bull Ag and Rahul Ranjan Partner of M/S Wings Energy after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The court decreed the suit in favor of Red Bull, granting permanent injunctions against Defendants No. 1 & 2 to prevent them from using confusingly similar marks like 'WINGS' or 'ENERGY'. This resolution allows both parties to conclude the litigation amicably.
Dabur India Limited v.Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited
Dabur India Limited successfully secured a decree against Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited regarding the infringement and passing off of its trademark 'HONITUS.' The dispute was amicably resolved through mediation, leading to a Settlement Agreement. Under this agreement, the Defendant acknowledged Dabur's rights, agreed to cease using the infringing packaging/label/trade dress, modified their product presentation, and paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Plaintiff.
Evergreen Sweet House v.JV Evergreen Sweets And Treats & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Evergreen Sweet House against JV Evergreen Sweets And Treats. The court found a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the plaintiff has been operating under the 'Evergreen' mark since 1963, establishing significant goodwill and prior use. Given the defendant's recent entry into the market and the likelihood of customer confusion on food delivery platforms, the court restrained the defendants from using the infringing mark until the final suit adjudication.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Jfe Steel Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by The Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for a method of activating a continuous annealing furnace. The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art (D1 and D2). The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Impugned Order and remanding the matter to the Controller.
Tirupati Structurals Limited v.Jai Prakash Singhal
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tirupati Structurals Limited against Jai Prakash Singhal, finding that the defendant's use of 'MM TIRUPATI' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'TSL-TIRUPATI'. The court held that despite minor differences in prefixes, the identical and prominent shared element 'TIRUPATI', coupled with the similarity in goods (pipes and fittings), created a high likelihood of consumer confusion. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded by common law passing off principles against calculated attempts to capitalize on established goodwill.
Grip Invest Technologies Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Grip Invest Technologies, restraining a newly discovered mirroring website (eliteedgebrokerage.info) from operating. The court found that the new site was an exact copy of the plaintiff's website, infringing both copyright and trademark. Furthermore, the court directed the Domain Name Registrar and the Department of Telecommunication to take immediate steps to block access to the infringing domain, reinforcing proactive measures against online IP infringement.
Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. v.Khatri Healthcare P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court clarified its earlier order in this trademark cancellation petition. The Petitioner, Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., sought clarification after raising objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the court allowed the application, permitting the Petitioner to withdraw the current case and file a fresh petition before the appropriate Trademark Registry in Mumbai. Crucially, the court emphasized that this withdrawal does not prejudice the parties' rights or express any view on the merits of the original dispute.
Tata Power Solar Systems Limited & Anr. v.Www.Tatapowersolardealership.Co.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, finding that several defendants were infringing on its registered trademarks ('TATA' and 'TATA POWER SOLAR'). The court recognized the immense goodwill and reputation associated with the brand. Furthermore, the judgment included significant ancillary relief, directing the suspension of specific domain names and mandating the freezing and transfer of funds from bank accounts linked to the infringement activities into a designated RBI fund.
Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited v.Mohammad Arshad & Anr.
Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited filed a suit seeking the removal of an identical word mark, 'ZEPTO,' registered by Respondent No. 1 under Section 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Petitioner uses 'ZEPTO' for instant grocery delivery services, while the Respondent holds the mark in Class 35 relating to mobile phone marketing. The court has initiated proceedings by issuing notices to all parties, setting the stage for a detailed examination of trademark conflict and consumer confusion.
Jamboree Resorts India Llp & Anr. v.Mehul Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Jamboree Resorts India LLP, who holds registered trademarks for 'JAMBOREE'. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off against the defendants, who were operating the resort under the name 'SIGNUM JAMBOREE CREEK RESORT' following a terminated revenue-sharing agreement. The order restrained the use of the infringing mark and mandated the handover of all associated digital assets to allow the plaintiffs to regain control.
Bonn Nutrients Pvt. Ltd & Anr. v.Pahal Foods Pvt. Limited & Ors.
In a dispute over the packaging and trade dress of coconut cookies, Bonn Nutrients sought an injunction against Pahal Foods for alleged infringement. The Delhi High Court issued an order facilitating an amicable settlement between the parties. Defendants agreed not to manufacture any more products under the disputed label/packaging but were granted time to exhaust their existing stock of 15,000 cases. Both parties were also directed toward mediation and listed for further consideration.
Shrinath Travel Agency Through Its Partners & Anr. v.Harsh Kumar Trading As Shrinath Nama Travel Agency & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs to implead several additional defendants in a trademark infringement suit. Finding a prima facie case of deception due to identical or deceptively similar marks being used for identical travel services, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the newly added parties from using the impugned trademarks. Furthermore, the court directed domain registrars associated with infringing websites to block and suspend access to those domains.
Cassiopea S.P.A. v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Cassiopea S.P.A. appealed the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patent, which rejected its Indian Patent Application (No. 201717042863) and accepted a pre-grant opposition filed by other respondents. The Delhi High Court allowed applications for condoning delay in filing and re-filing the appeal.
Castrol Limited v.Mohan Bajya
In a significant move against alleged counterfeiters, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Castrol Limited. The court recognized the substantial goodwill associated with Castrol's trademarks and trade dress for engine oils. To enforce this urgent relief, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing goods manufactured by the defendant, Mohan Bajya, and inspect relevant financial records.
Parijat Industries India Private Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Parijat Industries appealed against an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which had revoked its Indian Patent No. 372550 based on grounds under Section 25(2)(b), (e), (f) and (g). The High Court found that the reasoning provided in the Impugned Order was inadequate and did not meet judicial standards.
Ab Skf & Anr v.M/S Osaka International Inc. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in favor of Ab Skf & Anr, reinforcing existing injunctions while addressing new infringement concerns. The court directed a defendant involved in non-compliance with an earlier injunction to file a compliance affidavit regarding sales cancellations and refunds. Furthermore, based on evidence of counterfeit goods and domain squatting, the court ordered Defendant No. 12 (GoDaddy LLC) to immediately lock and suspend the infringing domain name 'www.skfsg.com', demonstrating proactive enforcement against trademark misuse.
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd appealed a patent application rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, failed to consider submitted data and did not provide adequate opportunity to respond to the Section 3(d) objection.
Leonhard Kurz Stiftung And Co. Kg v.Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of the Appellant's patent application, which held that subsequent amendments were outside the scope of the original filing. The High Court found that the amended claims referenced the complete specifications as originally filed. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Patents Office.
Eastman Auto And Power Limited v.Shreejee Power Systems Llp
In a Delhi High Court case concerning trademark infringement and passing off, Eastman Auto And Power Limited successfully reached a settlement with Shreejee Power Systems Llp. The Defendant agreed to permanently cease using the disputed mark 'EASTON' in association with batteries and solar inverters, acknowledge the Plaintiff's rights in 'EASTMAN', and undertake specific actions including filing for cancellation of one registered mark and rectification of another. The suit was subsequently disposed of on these consent terms.
Divay Hygiene Private Limited v.Kamal Garg & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Divay Hygiene Private Limited against Kamal Garg & Anr. for trademark infringement concerning feminine hygiene products. The court found that the Defendants' use of the deceptively similar mark 'ANNY MAXI' constituted infringement and passing off of the Plaintiff's established brand, 'AMMY'. Based on evidence gathered by a Local Commissioner, including seized infringing goods, the Court decreed the suit, awarding nominal damages and significant legal costs to the Plaintiff.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Perilla Life Science P. Ltd & Anr.
Sun Pharma Laboratories sought the cancellation of the trademark 'G-VER,' registered by Perilla Life Science P. Ltd, alleging contravention of the Trade Marks Act. Although Sun Pharma raised grounds based on Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Act, the court noted that Respondent No. 1's counsel stated her client had discontinued use of the mark and had no objection to its cancellation. Consequently, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition with a direction compelling the respondent to file the formal application for trademark cancellation.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.M/S Shri Sai Foods & Beverages & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, an extension of 90 days to execute local commissions in a trademark infringement suit. The court also appointed four additional advocates as local commissioners. This order facilitates the quantification of damages by allowing detailed inspection and inventory of infringing goods at the defendants' premises.
Alimentary Health Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Alimentary Health Limited appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 3989/DELNP/2012), which covered a formulation using the probiotic strain Bifidobacterium longum NCIMB 41676 (AH1714). The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under various sections of the Patent Act. The Delhi High Court set aside this refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The court provided detailed directions to the Controller, requiring a thorough reassessment focusing on novelty, specific dosage/methodology, and whether the claims relate to second medical use.
Rajesh Chugh Kart Amir Chand And Sons Huf & Anr. v.Mr Nazim Khan Proprietor Partner Nazim S Kathi Roll & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an interim application filed by the defendant, Mr. Nazim Khan, seeking court approval for a proposed trademark design. The Court found that despite some adherence to previous consent terms regarding font size and prominence, the new design still spotlighted 'NAZIM'S' on a standalone basis, violating the spirit of the earlier agreement. Consequently, the application was rejected, reinforcing the importance of strict compliance with court-mandated usage restrictions during litigation.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit concerned allegations by Eli Lilly And Company that Natco Pharma Limited was infringing Indian Patent No. IN 297760 related to Abemaciclib. The dispute was resolved amicably, with the Defendants agreeing not to launch any product containing Abemaciclib until the patent expires or is invalidated.
M/S New Bharat Overseas v.M/S Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Exports Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an application for substitution, recognizing that the original petitioner's trademark and copyright rights had been assigned to a new entity, M/s New Bharat Impex. The court held that since the cause of action now rested with the assignee, the substitution was necessary for effective adjudication. This order ensures continuity in IP litigation following a change in ownership.
Future Bath Products Private Limited v.Corza International & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an application filed by Corza International challenging the validity of Future Bath Products' trademark 'CORSA'. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to use the mark for goods in Class 11, citing Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. The court issued notice and set timelines for both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders before proceeding with the matter.
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.