Bench:Sanjeev Narula
439 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
439 cases indexed | Page 6 of 15
M/S. Serveshwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Sachin Gupta Trading As M/S Jai Balaji Grah Udyog & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S. Serveshwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. against the Defendants for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'LACY' brand. The court allowed the Plaintiff to conduct a search and seizure operation at the Defendants' premises using Local Commissioners, aiming to prevent further unauthorized use of deceptively similar marks like 'LECY'. This order establishes strong preliminary protection for the Plaintiff's established goodwill in the FMCG sector.
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.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v.Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark dispute between Rexcin Pharmaceuticals and Rekin Pharma concerning the similar corporate names 'REXCIN' and 'REKIN'. The court noted that while Rexcin holds registrations for 'REXCIN', they are not currently using it commercially, whereas Rekin has registered 'REKIN-SP' in Class 05. To resolve the conflict, the Court proposed a potential settlement where both parties could agree to restrict the use of the disputed term only as part of their corporate name, rather than as a trademark or trade name. Both counsels agreed to consult their clients on this proposal and were directed to consider mediation.
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.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.Daichi International
In this trademark infringement suit, Western Digital alleged that Daichi International was rebranding and reselling used/refurbished HDDs originally manufactured by WD under the 'Daichi' brand. The Delhi High Court issued conditional interim directions, allowing sales to continue but mandating that all impugned products must carry a clear disclaimer stating they are used and refurbished goods. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to file detailed stock statements regarding the purchase and sale of these specific HDDs.
Mukesh Kumar Vidyarthi v.Controller Of Patents New Delhi & Anr.
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting the appellant's patent application for 'Charge Recirculation Air Intake Main Ford (CRAIM)' on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The Court, after considering submissions from both parties and an Assistant Controller, allowed the appeal.
Vijay Abrol v.Yogesh Kumar Rustogi
The Delhi High Court allowed appeals filed by Vijay Abrol, setting aside a previous judgment that had favored Yogesh Kumar Rustogi in a passing off suit. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary goodwill and reputation for the trademark 'BRITE' as required by the triple test for passing off. Furthermore, the appellant/defendant successfully demonstrated their own established use of the mark and secured its registration, leading the court to conclude the original suit lacked a real basis.
Wb Innovations Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged an order refusing patent application No. 2293/DELNP/2011, which cited issues regarding lack of single inventive concept and incomplete specification. The Delhi High Court found that the refusal reasoning did not meet legal requirements and allowed the appeal.
Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited v.Garima Singh Proprietor Of Ambika Industries
In this interim order concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court accepted the Defendant's proposal to substantially modify their contested mark. Despite the Plaintiff's concerns regarding residual similarity in font style, the Court ruled that the overall changes sufficiently reduced the likelihood of consumer confusion. The Defendant was allowed a grace period of two months to exhaust existing inventory while transitioning to the new mark, provided they comply with all regulatory requirements.
Burberry Limited v.M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Burberry Limited filed a claim against M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors., alleging that the defendants' perfumes bearing 'MY PETROL' and 'MR. PETROL' marks were deceptively similar to Burberry's registered trademarks and trade dress. The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders, including granting exemptions for document filing and directing the defendants to provide a detailed affidavit regarding all goods manufactured under the impugned marks. This order sets the stage for the full trial on infringement and passing off.
Galaxy Packtech Private Limited v.Ashok Chaturvedi & Anr.
The petition seeks revocation of patent No. 282428 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Petitioner contends that they are an aggrieved person and that the Patent Office overlooked relevant prior art disclosures regarding the patented invention.
Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Elder Projects Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd, restraining Elder Projects Ltd and its representatives from issuing baseless threats of legal action against the plaintiffs concerning the use of the trademark 'ELDER' and 'ELDERVIT'. The court relied heavily on a prior judgment establishing that the registered ownership of the 'ELDER' mark belongs to Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited (EPL), which is currently in liquidation. This ruling protects the plaintiffs from harassment while maintaining that the interim order does not grant them absolute entitlement to use the trademark.
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the refusal of its divisional patent application (No. 201918017795), which was rejected on grounds including conflict with the parent application and non-compliance with various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court found that the Assistant Controller evaluated the application based on claims that had been waived by the appellant, leading to inconsistencies in the refusal order.
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd appealed the order dated October 31, 2023, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Impugned Order rejected the Appellant's patent application (No. 77/DELNP/2015) under Section 2(1)(j) and Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court disposed of applications related to condonation of delay and exemption from filing documents while allowing the respondent to file a reply.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals appealed a rejection order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal challenged the refusal, which cited claims that were not part of the final application submission. The High Court found the impugned order to be unreasoned and procedurally flawed.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
F- Hoffmann -La Roche filed a suit for infringement against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning two patents related to Pertuzumab, a monoclonal antibody used in cancer treatment. The court issued several procedural orders and directed both parties to provide exhaustive legal and scientific assistance, including disclosing experts and considering an independent Scientific Advisor, while the core issue of formulation identity remains pending.
Mitsui Chemicals Inc v.Controller Of Patents
Mitsui Chemicals Inc appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 3877/DELNP/2009), which was rejected on grounds that the claims were unpatentable as a 'method of agriculture' (Section 3(h)) and that amendments violated Section 59. The Appellant argued that the original PCT filing supported the amended composition claims, making the refusal invalid.
BMI Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps) v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and Another
The appeal challenges the refusal of a patent application (No. 202017020602) by the Assistant Controller, which was based on non-compliance with Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. The Appellant argued that the Assistant Controller's reasoning regarding prior art was cursory and lacked sufficient justification. The Court found the existing reasoning insufficient and issued notice to the Respondents for reconsideration.
Vimal Agro Products P. Ltd. v.Capital Foods P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed by Vimal Agro Products challenging the 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' trademark held by Capital Foods. While acknowledging that the core issue—whether the mark is descriptive or generic—is pending before a Division Bench, the court declined to grant an immediate stay on the registration. Instead, the Court prioritized determining its own territorial jurisdiction over the matter, setting up further hearings to resolve this critical legal question.
Sequenom, Inc And Anr v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellants challenged the rejection of their Indian Patent Application No. 2476/DELNP/2011 by The Controller of Patents on multiple grounds, including Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. Given that the challenge under Section 3(i) is being deliberated in a batch of appeals before another Bench, the Court decided to tag this appeal for hearing before that same Bench to ensure uniformity.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Ms. Saraswati Devi And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Khadi & Village Industries Commission against Ms. Saraswati Devi and others. The Plaintiff successfully demonstrated a prima facie case that the Defendants' use of 'KHADI BHANDAR' is deceptively similar to its registered KHADI Trademarks and Charkha Logos, leading to a strong likelihood of consumer confusion. This interim order immediately restrains the Defendants from using the infringing marks in relation to identical goods.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application for 'Discovery of Secure Network Enclaves' by the Assistant Controller. The rejection was based on lack of inventiveness and indefinite claims violating Section 10(4). The High Court found procedural flaws in the rejection order, particularly regarding the sudden introduction of certain objections, and allowed the appeal.
Sanjeev Juneja v.Imaamuddin Khan And Anr
Sanjeev Juneja filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'Dr. Ortho' registered by Imaamuddin Khan. The petitioner argued that his established use of the identical mark in orthopaedic goods (Class 10) would be violated by the respondent's registration for textiles and mattresses (Class 24). Despite the class difference, the court found the petitioner prima facie aggrieved and issued notice to the respondents, setting the matter for detailed arguments.
Philip Morris Products S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Philip Morris Products S A appealed the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of patent application No. 201617029499. The appellant argued that the refusal violated natural justice principles and that the invention, which aids in smoking reduction, should not be barred under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act.
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Dr Reddys Pathlabs Private Limited
The Delhi High Court found that Dr Reddys Pathlabs Private Limited was in prima facie contempt of a previous court order by expanding its operations under the 'DR. REDDY'S' mark, even if those new centers were directly owned rather than franchised. The Court ruled that the original undertaking to maintain status quo was intended to prevent any proliferation of business under the contested mark, regardless of ownership structure. Consequently, the Defendant was served with a show cause notice regarding contempt.
Avita International Ltd And Anr v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal was filed by Avita International Ltd challenging the rejection of its PCT application (PCT/1B2017/051404) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court granted exemptions for filing documents but directed that notice be issued to the respondent, listing the matter for further hearing.
Villain Lifestyle Private Limited v.Mr. Vipul Dhankher
The Delhi High Court rejected the defendant's attempt to have the trademark infringement suit dismissed, upholding the maintainability of the case. The court recognized that the plaintiff's apprehension—based on the defendant's filings for registrations and oppositions using a similar mark 'VILEN'—constitutes a valid cause of action under the doctrine of quia timet. This ruling provides strong judicial backing for proactive IP protection against imminent infringement threats.
Oikos S.P.A. v.Oikos India Pvt Ltd & Anr.
In a dispute over the use of the 'OIKOS' brand, Oikos S.P.A. filed suit against Oikos India Pvt Ltd alleging trademark infringement after its business relationship was terminated. The Defendants contested the claim, challenging the Plaintiff's ownership rights and citing an existing written agreement allowing stock sales. The Delhi High Court addressed the interim injunction application by appointing a Local Commissioner to conduct a thorough inspection of the Defendant's premises, specifically to determine if the infringing products were made from materials supplied by the Plaintiff.
Qrg Enterprises & Anr. v.Hpl (India) Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark dispute between Qrg Enterprises and HPL (India) Limited based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court upheld the plaintiffs' proprietary rights in the 'HAVELLS/HAVELL'S' mark, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants. Crucially, the judgment clarified that since the defendant's name change was mandated by the decree and not voluntary, they would not be bound by the proviso to Section 12(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, ensuring the settlement's enforceability.
Ipca Laboratories Limited v.Amandeep Singh Vohra & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Ipca Laboratories Limited seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'IPKA HEALTHCARE.' This decision was based on a consent decree previously passed by the Bombay High Court, where Respondent No. 1 agreed to remove the impugned mark. The court formally cancelled the registration, reinforcing the principle that prior litigation settlements can drive IP rectification.
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.