Bench:Vibhu Bakhru
95 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
95 cases indexed | Page 2 of 4
Thukral Mechanical Works v.Pm Diesels Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court, in a series of connected appeals, addressed challenges to an earlier finding regarding trademark non-use. While some applications were disposed of with exemptions allowed, the court granted a stay on the main impugned judgment. This decision highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny over trademark cancellation proceedings, particularly when conflicting interpretations of Supreme Court precedents arise.
Thukral Mechanical Works v.Pm Diesels Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court, in a series of connected appeals, addressed challenges to an earlier finding regarding trademark non-use. While some applications were disposed of with exemptions allowed, the court granted a stay on the main impugned judgment. This decision highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny over trademark cancellation proceedings, particularly when conflicting interpretations of Supreme Court precedents arise.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Novartis Ag And Anr.
Novartis filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN 233161) concerning Eltrombopag bis (monoethanolamine) (ELT-O), leading to an interim injunction against Natco. Natco appealed this order, challenging the validity of IN 233161 on grounds including prior claiming and lack of inventive step under Section 3(d).
Jabir Hussain Trading As M/S Hakeem Hotel v.Ali Asgar Trading As M/S. Hakeem Restaurant
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Jabir Hussain (M/S Hakeem Hotel) against a Commercial Court's decision to return its trademark infringement plaint. The appellant sought permanent injunction against the respondent for infringing and passing off their registered trademarks in North West Delhi. The High Court ruled that since the plaintiff pleaded both existing operations via e-commerce platforms within Delhi's jurisdiction, and an imminent threat of physical expansion into Delhi, a valid cause of action existed within the territorial limits. Consequently, the Commercial Court's order returning the plaint was set aside, and the suit was restored.
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.
Pushpendra Yadav v.Kent Ro Systems Ltd
Pushpendra Yadav challenged an interim court order that restrained him from selling water purifiers or using specific marks, citing alleged infringement of Kent Ro Systems' registered design and trademarks. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the injunction primarily because the relevant Design No.219309 had expired. However, the court clarified that it did not rule on the merits of the passing off claim, which remains under consideration.
Mehboob Ahmad v.Muneer Ahmad & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the rejection of a device mark application for painting brushes. While the court upheld the finding that the mark was registrable (i.e., it had distinctive character), it noted that the initial Examiner's order failed to address objections under Section 11(1) regarding similarity with earlier marks. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal by remitting the matter back to the Examiner, directing them to proceed only on the grounds of Section 11(1) and allowing the registration process to continue.
Yashoda Super Specialty Hospitals & Anr. v.Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Yashoda Super Specialty Hospitals challenging a Single Judge's order that had set aside a trademark rectification order. The core dispute centered on whether the respondent received proper notice of the rectification proceedings before its trademark was removed from the register. The court ultimately found no error in setting aside the initial review petition, emphasizing that ambiguity regarding service should benefit the party seeking relief.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited v.Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Limited & Anr.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited appealed the rejection of its application to rectify the trademark 'HARPIC DRAINXPERT'. The core dispute revolves around whether Reckitt & Colman's use of a similar mark, specifically 'DRAIN XPERT POWDER', constitutes infringement or grounds for rectification. The appellant argues that the slight variation in spelling and presentation is deceitful and confusingly similar to their registered trademark. The court has listed the matter for further hearing to consider these complex arguments regarding similarity and deceptive intent.
Freebit AS v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
Freebit AS, a Norwegian corporation, filed an infringement suit against Exotic Mile Private Limited (operating under the brand "Boult") alleging that their products infringed Freebit's registered patent IN'748 for an improved 'C'-shaped earphone interface. The appellant sought an interim injunction but it was rejected by the Single Judge on grounds of non-disclosure and potential patent invalidity. This appeal challenged the rejection, but the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision regarding the denial of interim relief.
V.R. Industries Private Ltd. v.Rajesh Kejriwal
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's interim injunction restraining V.R. Industries Private Ltd. from using the trademark 'GOLDEN GATE.' The respondent, Rajesh Kejriwal, holds registered trademarks for this name across various food and chemical classes. Despite the appellant claiming prior use and pending cancellation proceedings against the registration, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Commercial Court's exercise of discretion regarding the injunction. This decision reinforces the weight given to existing trademark registrations in preventing potential infringement.
M/S. Ganesh Gouri Industries And Ors v.R. C. Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court set aside an earlier Commercial Court order that had restrained M/S. Ganesh Gouri Industries (Appellants) from using its trademark and trade dress, 'AQUA PLAST'. The court found that the trial court erred in concluding that the competing marks were deceptively similar merely by comparing parts of the devices. Instead, the High Court emphasized that a comprehensive review of the overall commercial impression of the marks is necessary when assessing infringement, thereby favoring Ganesh Gouri's right to use its label.
Humanity Life Extension Llc v.Union Of India And Anr.
The petitioner, a US-based medical device manufacturer, challenged the amendment to Rule No. 138 of the Patents Rules, 2003, arguing that it removed the provision allowing extension of time for international patent applications and conflicted with the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The petitioner sought directions to entertain its National Phase Application despite missing the deadline.
Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Hab Pharmaceuticals And Research Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Vee Excel Drugs challenging the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to cancel two pharmaceutical trademarks: 'VEGA ASIA' and 'VEGAH TABLETS'. The core issue revolved around determining prior use, particularly when one mark was registered on a 'proposed to be used basis.' The Court upheld the IPAB's finding that the subsequent user had the better right, emphasizing that the High Court should not re-appreciate evidence while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226.
Ace Technologies Corp & Ors. v.Communication Components Antenna Inc.
This appeal challenged an interim injunction granted by the Delhi High Court, which restrained Ace Technologies Corp from manufacturing and selling antennae due to alleged infringement of Patent IN240893. The respondent claimed its patent covered a novel asymmetrical beam pattern for fixed antennas used in cellular networks. While the court found no grounds to interfere with the core interim relief, it modified the financial compliance terms, allowing the respondents to deposit a bank guarantee instead of cash.
Surya Food & Agro Ltd v.Om Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Surya Food & Agro Ltd against a single judge's dismissal of its infringement suit. The court overturned the previous ruling, finding that the lower court had erred in basing its decision on recollections of facts not present in the record. This sets the case back for trial, allowing the appellant to prove claims related to copyright and passing off concerning their 'Butter Delite' packaging versus the respondent's 'Butter Crunch'.
Raman Kwatra & Anr. v.Kei Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court overturned an interim injunction that had restrained Raman Kwatra & Anr. from using a similar trademark, 'KEI', in relation to electrical goods. The court found merit in allowing the matter to proceed further, specifically directing the lower court to examine the respondent's claim of infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. This decision highlights the importance of correctly framing the legal basis for trademark infringement claims during interim proceedings.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation appealed an order that rejected its application for a permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited. FMC alleged that Natco's process for manufacturing Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR) infringed their patented method IN 298645, claiming equivalence between the processes. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no infringement because the use of thionyl chloride by Natco was not equivalent to sulfonyl chloride in the suit patent.
Surya Food & Agro Ltd v.Om Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Surya Food & Agro Ltd against a single judge's dismissal of its infringement suit. The court overturned the previous ruling, finding that the lower court had erred in basing its decision on recollections of facts not present in the record. This sets the case back for trial, allowing the appellant to prove claims related to copyright and passing off concerning their 'Butter Delite' packaging versus the respondent's 'Butter Crunch'.
Sterne India Private Limited v.Haier Appliances India Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sterne India Private Limited against a District Judge's order that had appointed a Local Commissioner to seize goods allegedly infringing Haier's trademark. The court noted that the original order appeared flawed because it treated the appellant as the direct seller, ignoring its role as an online marketing platform. While staying the seizure order, the High Court mandated that Sterne provide details of all sellers on its platform using the 'HAIER' brand to properly address the infringement claims.
M/S Gulab Oil And Food (Ahmedabad) Pvt. Ltd. v.Smt. Madhu Gupta
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S Gulab Oil And Food, upholding the District Judge's interim order that prohibited the appellant from trading and selling 'Gulab' Namkeen products. The court found a prima facie case for confusion between the marks, noting that consumers identify the plaintiff's products solely by asking for 'Gulab.' Furthermore, it held that since namkeen is an allied product to the registered goods (Gajak/Rewari), Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act was attracted, thus justifying the interim protection.
Relaxo Footwears Ltd v.Aqualite India Ltd
Relaxo Footwears Ltd challenged a single judge's decision that had allowed Aqualite India Ltd to challenge an interim injunction protecting Relaxo's registered footwear design. The core dispute revolved around whether Relaxo's design, bearing registration no. 294938, possessed sufficient novelty and originality to warrant protection against infringement. The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the impugned judgment, finding that the single judge's conclusion lacked a proper foundation, particularly its reliance on mere market availability rather than established prior art.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v.Akash Aggarwal & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over e-commerce platform features, specifically Flipkart's 'latching on' function. The plaintiff, V Tradition, alleged that this feature allowed unauthorized sellers to piggyback on their brand reputation and product listings, constituting passing off. While the initial order strongly restricted the use of this feature, the court ultimately stayed those restrictive observations pending further examination. This decision highlights the tension between protecting IP goodwill in e-commerce and maintaining platform functionality.
Vivek Kochher & Anr v.Kyk Corporation Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a judgment that had partially allowed a counter-claim by Kyk Corporation, granting it permanent injunctions. The court found that while the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) findings were dispositive regarding trademark registration, they did not address Kyk Corporation's core claim of passing off. Consequently, the High Court set aside the granted injunctions and remanded the matter to the Single Judge to specifically consider Kyk Corporation's claim for passing off based on the existing evidence.
M/S Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.M/S Mindwave Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/S Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd.'s appeal, upholding a Commercial Court order that restrained Maan from using the trademark 'BUPROEX'. The court found that Mindwave Healthcare was the registered proprietor of the mark and that evidence suggested Maan acted as a third-party manufacturer or contract manufacturer. This ruling reinforces the principle that registration rights hold significant weight against claims of prior use by manufacturers, especially when correspondence supports the relationship.
M/S Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.M/S Mindwave Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/S Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd.'s appeal, upholding a Commercial Court order that restrained Maan from using the trademark 'BUPROEX'. The court found that Mindwave Healthcare was the registered proprietor of the mark and that evidence suggested Maan acted as a third-party manufacturer or contract manufacturer. This ruling reinforces the principle that registration rights hold significant weight against claims of prior use by manufacturers, especially when correspondence supports the relationship.
Apaar Homez Mart Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Century World
The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court's order restraining Apaar Homez Mart from using its trademark 'SEPAL' combined with 'Century'. The court found that M/S. Century World had successfully established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting the significant increase in the respondent's turnover and the appellant's recent adoption of the mark. This judgment reinforces the principle that if an appellant cannot provide a plausible reason for using a potentially common term like 'Century,' they risk being found to be capitalizing on the goodwill of an established competitor.
Raman Kwatra & Anr. v.Kei Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court overturned an interim injunction that had restrained Raman Kwatra & Anr. from using a similar trademark, 'KEI', in relation to electrical goods. The court found merit in allowing the matter to proceed further, specifically directing the lower court to examine the respondent's claim of infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. This decision highlights the importance of correctly framing the legal basis for trademark infringement claims during interim proceedings.
Kamdhenu Limited v.Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd
Kamdhenu Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design for surface patterns on steel rods. The core dispute revolved around whether this design was novel, as Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd contended that the pattern was derived from an existing British Standard (BS4449-2005). The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed Kamdhenu's appeal, holding that since the standard prescribed the specific surface pattern for identifying a steel grade, the design lacked originality and was incapable of registration.
Ravinder Singhania v.Union Of India & Anr.
Ravinder Singhania filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a patent application by Respondent No. 2, seeking to quash the impugned decision and direct reconsideration. The petitioner primarily argued that he did not receive an essential email containing the examination report, preventing him from responding within the stipulated time.
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.