Bench:Sanjeev Narula
368 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
368 cases indexed | Page 9 of 13
Vifor International Ltd. v.Aishwarya Health Care Private Limited
Vifor International Ltd., a global pharmaceutical company, filed suit against Aishwarya Health Care Private Limited alleging infringement of its patented drug, Ferric Carboxymaltose. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants intended to launch a generic version, 'Ferocose FCM', which would infringe upon their patent (No. 221536). After considering the prima facie case and balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction.
M/S Malabar Gold Private Limited v.Mr. M. Manuvel And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed interim applications in the trademark dispute between Malabar Gold Private Limited and Mr. M. Manuvel. The defendant argued that the existing injunction should be vacated because the plaintiff failed to disclose specific conditions imposed by the Trade Marks Registry regarding their trademarks, particularly concerning the exclusive right over 'M' or 'MALABAR'. The court accepted submissions from both parties and scheduled the matter for further hearing.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the refusal of its patent application concerning a method for text selection on touch screens. The core issue before the Delhi High Court was not the technical merits of the invention itself, but rather the procedural flaw in the Assistant Controller's rejection order. The court found that the impugned order lacked discernible reasoning and appeared to be a mechanical replication of claims, rendering the decision arbitrary. Consequently, the High Court quashed the refusal order and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh, reasoned consideration.
M/S K.W Enterprises v.M/S Karam Industrial Works
M/S K.W Enterprises filed a petition seeking the cancellation of an artistic work registered in favor of M/S Karam Industrial Works under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner argued that the respondent had previously undertaken not to use 'K.I.W.' in relation to cycle parts, which is deceptively similar to K.W. The court observed that this matter was already being disputed in a separate civil suit (CS(COMM) 1035/2016).
Rspl Limited v.Grindwell Norton Limited
Rspl Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Grindwell Norton Limited before the Delhi High Court. The parties reached a compromise where Grindwell Norton agreed not to manufacture or market products under deceptively similar marks (like 'COMPASS GHADI CHAP') in specific classes, while Rspl Limited withdrew its opposition and agreed not to seek damages. This resolution allows both parties to move forward without protracted litigation.
Bundl Technologies Private Limited v.Pankaj Garg & Anr.
Bundl Technologies Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the well-known trademark 'SWIGGY', initiated proceedings against Pankaj Garg & Anr. alleging dishonest adoption of the mark. The Delhi High Court issued directions to both parties regarding the procedural aspects of the case, including filing replies and rejoinders within specified timelines. The court also set dates for the completion of pleadings before the Joint Registrar and subsequent hearing before the Court.
Sun Hydraulics Llc v.Sun Hydraulics Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff to introduce a rectified Legal Proceedings Certificate (LPC) late in the proceedings. Although the Defendant argued that the document was already in the Plaintiff's possession and control, the Court found that the newly issued LPC was not available at the time of filing the suit. However, due to the significant delay, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Plaintiff.
Satbir Singh v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Satbir Singh appealed the rejection of his patent application for a 'Pellet Feed Manufacturing Plant'. The Assistant Controller rejected the application citing lack of inventive steps and that it was merely an arrangement or re-arrangement. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the objection under Section 3(f) was not afforded to the Appellant during the examination process.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents that refused its Indian Patent Application (No. 5429/DELNP/2007) under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the cited prior art did not disclose the claimed invention.
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
Plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of his process patent related to extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The dispute centered on whether the Defendants' product was made using the patented process, and how to balance the need for evidence with the protection of Defendants' trade secrets.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter And Gamble Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5444/DELNP/2007). The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, citing prior art that showed individual ingredients. P&G argued that the cited art did not disclose the invention as a composition thereof.
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.
Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society v.Delhi Public School Society
This case involved a dispute between Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society (AEWCS) and Delhi Public School Society (DPSS) following the termination of their Joint Venture Agreement (JVA). The core issues revolved around whether AEWCS could continue operating as 'Delhi Public School, Sahibabad' using DPSS's name and logos after the JVA ended. While AEWCS challenged the arbitrary nature of the termination, the court found the contractual clause binding. However, addressing public interest, the Court issued a directive requiring DPSS to issue public notices clarifying that students enrolled at DPS Sahibabad would be entitled to admissions in other regional schools.
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. v.Controller Of Patents
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. appealed against an order by the Controller of Patents rejecting its Indian Patent Application No. 10246/DELNP/2012. The rejection was based on Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued directions for filing replies and further pleadings.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.