Bench:Tushar Rao Gedela
58 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
58 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Array Biopharma Inc v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Array Biopharma Inc appealed against the refusal of its patent application No. 450/DELNP/2015 directed to a pharmaceutical combination of a B-Raf inhibitor (encorafenib), an EGFR inhibitor (cetuximab/erlotinib), and optionally a PI3K-alpha inhibitor. The Controller had refused the application citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(i). The Delhi High Court found the Controller's reasoning deficient on multiple grounds, including failure to properly assess synergistic technical advancement, mechanical application of Section 3(d) without analyzing enhanced therapeutic efficacy, and incorrect interpretation of Section 3(i) as barring the claimed product combination. The court remanded the matter for de novo reconsideration with directions to decide within six months.
Honasa Consumer Ltd v.Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Honasa Consumer Ltd seeking rectification of the trademark 'D-TAN' registered in favor of Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd. The court held that the mark 'D-TAN' is descriptive and not registrable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The registration of the mark 'D-TAN' was cancelled, and the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to remove the registration from the Register of Trade Marks.
Renee Cosmetics Private Limited v.Ms. Rupali Sharma & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Renee Cosmetics Private Limited and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the registration of the mark 'GLASS SKIN' granted in favour of Ms. Rupali Sharma. The court held that the term 'GLASS SKIN' is generic and descriptive of the goods, and therefore, cannot be monopolized by any party. The respondent had filed a trademark application for the mark 'GLASS SKIN' in Class-03 on a 'proposed to be used basis' and was granted a registration certificate, which was challenged by the petitioner.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr v.Siddharth Vij & Anr
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark 'PONTA' in favor of Siddharth Vij, as it was found to be deceptively similar to the prior registered trademark 'PENTA' of Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court held that the registration of 'PONTA' was without sufficient cause and would create confusion and deception in the mind of the general public. The Registrar of Trade Marks has been directed to remove the registered mark 'PONTA' from the Register of Trade Marks.
M/S. Motherson Through Its Partners V.C. Sehgal, Vidhi Sehgal and Laksh Vaaman Sehgal v.Motherson Industries Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S. Motherson, restraining Motherson Industries Private Limited from using the trademark 'MOTHERSON'. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's use of the mark would amount to infringement of their registered trademark. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and granted exemption from pre-institution mediation. The matter is listed for further hearing on October 29, 2026.
Amber Nutrition Private Limited v.Ms. Neetu Choudhary & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Amber Nutrition Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'AMBER KREAM TOFFEE' or any other similar mark. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and that irreparable harm would be caused if the injunction was not granted. The defendants were directed to file an affidavit disclosing their sales and to provide an account of profits.
Safex Chemicals India Limited v.Safex Seed India Llp & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Safex Chemicals India Limited, restraining Safex Seed India Llp & Anr from using the trademark 'SAFEX' in relation to agrochemical products. The plaintiff claimed to have adopted and used the trademark 'SAFEX' since 1991 and had established a substantial sales turnover and widespread advertising and promotion of its products under the trademark. The court allowed the plaintiff's application for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, citing the plaintiff's prima facie case and the balance of convenience in its favor.
Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited v.Garg Realtech Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited against Garg Realtech Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'CITYWALK' or 'GLOBAL CITYWALK'. The court also granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service to the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were using a deceptively similar trademark, which could cause confusion among consumers.
Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited v.Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited against Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd. for using a deceptively similar trademark. The plaintiff claimed that the trademark 'CITYWALK' is a unique mark adopted by them in 2004 and has become an industry standard for shopping malls and commercial spaces in India. The court allowed the plaintiff's application for exemption from filing original documents and advance service to the defendants.
More Than Water Private Limited v.Nesco Limited
The Delhi High Court denied an ad-interim injunction to More Than Water Private Limited against Nesco Limited, but directed both parties to sell their packaged drinking water products within their respective states. The court found that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case for an ad-interim injunction. The plaintiff had claimed that the defendant's mark 'MY WATER BOX' was similar to its own mark 'WATER BOX' and would cause confusion among consumers.
Crocs Inc. & Anr v.Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited
Crocs Inc. filed a lawsuit against Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited for trademark infringement. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant, restraining them from manufacturing and selling footwear that infringes Crocs' trademark. The court also directed the defendant to maintain and preserve accounts and documents related to the manufacture and sale of the impugned products.
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd v.Jai Shiv Oil Industries And Anr
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd, directing the cancellation of Jai Shiv Oil Industries' trademark 'GOLDI' due to its similarity with the petitioner's trademark 'GOLDIEE'. The court found that the two marks were phonetically, visually, and structurally nearly identical, and that the respondent's adoption of the mark 'GOLDI' was without bonafide intention. The court also noted that the two parties were in the same business and had common trade circles, distribution networks, and retail outlets, which increased the likelihood of confusion among consumers.
Ever Resource Ltd & Anr. v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks
This is an appeal filed by Ever Resource Ltd & Anr. challenging an order dated 31.12.2025 passed by The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding additional documents, exemptions, and condonation of delay.
Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc v.Brewholik Private Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application by Brewholik Private Limited to sell existing stock of whiskey bearing the trademark 'OLD FORESTER', which is registered by Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc. The court held that the sale of the seized goods would be violative of the provisions of the Excise Act, 2009 and the Act. The court also noted that the plaintiff had vehemently disputed the quality of the seized goods, alleging them to be counterfeit.
Mechmaark Filtechindia Private Limited v.Asawa Insulation Private Limited & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent no. 532136, which was granted to respondent no. 1 (Asawa Insulation Pvt. Ltd.). The court issued notices and set timelines for filing replies and rejoinders.
Jntl Consumer Health I (Switzerland) Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of a seven-day delay in filing an appeal. The court allowed this application. Subsequently, the main appeal was listed to challenge the Controller's decision refusing the appellant's patent application.
Scipharm Sarl v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Scipharm Sarl appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method enhancing engraftment of haematopoietic stem cells. The High Court allowed the appeal, permitting the appellant to amend the claims by deleting claim no.1 and retaining claims 2 to 5, and remanded the matter back to the Controller's office for further consideration.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v.Basil Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The plaintiffs, Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr., filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 294424) related to the compound Alectinib. The court addressed several interlocutory applications and subsequently registered the plaint as a suit, while also granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products.
Gsp Crop Science Private Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors.
The court addressed arguments regarding the maintainability and survival of a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The order noted that a Division Bench had held that such a petition remains maintainable even after patent expiry or when an invalidity defence is raised in suit.
Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner sought orders regarding the maintainability and survival of a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court noted that the issue had been addressed by a Division Bench judgment in another appeal (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH vs. The Controller of Patents & Anr).
Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr v.Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited
Novo Nordisk filed a commercial suit seeking an interim injunction against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories concerning their patented composition involving semaglutide. The court heard arguments, noted affidavits from both sides, and allowed procedural applications while directing the parties to proceed with pleadings.
Novartis Ag v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Private Limited
This order addresses several interlocutory applications filed by Novartis Ag against Bdr Pharmaceuticals International. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowed additional documents, while also considering arguments regarding the scope of the defendants' license under the Patents Act.
Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
Daewoong Pharmaceutical appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201817048074) by the Controller General, which was based on non-patentability under Section 3(d). The appeal challenged the decision to reject the application despite submissions regarding improved therapeutic efficacy and stability data.
Mati Therapeutics Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mati Therapeutics Inc filed an appeal against the Controller of Patents and Designs. The court order addressed arguments regarding the possibility of amending patent claims to comply with Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970, and whether such amendments could be reviewed at a de novo stage.
Pharma Cinq, Llc v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Pharma Cinq, Llc filed an appeal challenging an earlier order passed by the Controller of Patents concerning Indian Patent Application no. 202017028792. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications related to filing procedures.
Sinopsee Therapeutics v.The Controller Of Patents
Sinopsee Therapeutics filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its Indian Patent application no. 202117059910. The court first allowed the application for condonation of a 13-day delay in filing the appeal, and subsequently issued notice to the respondent.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Lupin Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed suit against Lupin Limited regarding the public display of a specific product by the defendant. The court accepted that if the defendants modify their website to include an asterisk stating 'for the purposes of research under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970', it would suffice to address the plaintiff's grievance.
T-Mobile International Ag And Co. Kg. v.The Controller Genereal Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
T-Mobile appealed a rejection order concerning its patent application related to optimizing mobile terminal performance. The original rejection was based on the grounds that the invention constituted a mere scheme or mental act under Section 3(m) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court noted the lack of sufficient guidelines and ordered the matter to be remanded for de novo consideration.
Shaafi Naturcure Llp v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged an objection raised by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The court noted that the appellant had entered into an agreement with the National Biodiversity Authority, which could address the Section 3(p) objection. To clarify the matter, the Court directed the respondent to provide a detailed response regarding both the biodiversity agreement and a specific chart demonstrating inventive step.
Uflex Limited v.The Shakti Plastic Industries & Anr.
The petitioner, Uflex Limited, filed an application seeking permission to amend its revocation petition concerning Patent No. IN 396443, which relates to the recycling of multilayer plastics used in packaging. The court allowed the amendment and also granted permission for the petitioner to file confidential customer details in a sealed cover.
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.