Bench:Vibhu Bakhru
71 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, design, trademark, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
71 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sandeep Kumar v.Pla Foods Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sandeep Kumar challenging an ex parte ad interim injunction issued by a lower Commercial Court, which restrained him from using the trademark 'CHEFFY'. The court noted that while the appellant raised issues regarding territorial jurisdiction and prior knowledge of usage, it deemed inappropriate to interfere with the existing interim order at that stage. The appeal was ultimately disposed of, allowing the original parties to advance their full contentions before the Commercial Court.
Provident Housing Ltd v.Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed Provident Housing Ltd's appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order that restrained its use of 'Provident Central Park'. The court found that the appellant's mark was deceptively similar to the respondents' registered trademarks, particularly because 'CENTRAL PARK' is a prominent feature in the respondent's marks. While clarifying that no exclusive right exists over the generic words 'CENTRAL PARK', the judgment affirmed that copying this prominent portion of a device mark constitutes infringement.
M/S Babaji Udyog v.Lalit Kumar
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in the trademark dispute between M/S Babaji Udyog and Lalit Kumar. The respondent was directed to modify his product's label, tagline, and general get-up to ensure no similarity with the appellant's registered marks. Concurrently, the appellant was required to submit clear copies of its trademarks. This order sets the stage for further evidence presentation in the ongoing infringement litigation.
Ms Shivam Hardware Store v.Ms Century World
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court in favor of Ms Century World against Ms Shivam Hardware Store. The dispute centered on the use of the mark 'SHIVAM CENTURY,' which was deemed deceptively similar to Ms Century World's registered marks, including 'CP CENTURY.' Despite arguments that 'CENTURY' is a common word, the court found that the prominent inclusion of this term in both marks, coupled with the similarity of goods and lack of justification for the appellant's use, warranted protection of the respondent's goodwill. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
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.
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.
Pm Diesels Pvt Ltd v.Thukral Mechanical Works And Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an IPAB order that rejected its request to implead the original trademark assignor. The court held that since the petitioner was questioning both the initial registration and the subsequent assignment as potentially fraudulent, the assignor (M/s Jain Industries) should have been included from the outset. Given the passage of time, the High Court found it inappropriate to allow impleadment at this late stage, thereby upholding the IPAB's decision.
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited v.Competition Commission Of India
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited challenged several orders issued by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) concerning allegations of unfair trade practices related to the 'trait fee' charged for using Bt. Cotton technology. The core dispute revolved around the licensing terms and recurring fees imposed by MMBL, a subsidiary in India. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions, finding no reason to interfere with the CCI's administrative orders, provided they were not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Pioneer Overseas Corporation v.Chairperson, Protection Of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights and Ors.
Pioneer Overseas Corporation challenged decisions made by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority regarding the registration of Kaveri Seeds Limited's maize variety KMH50. Pioneer claimed that KMH50 was identical to its own variety, 30V92, and alleged misappropriation of germplasm. The court set aside several impugned orders and restored Pioneer's application for a DNA profiling test.
The Regents Of The University Of California v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application for 'Enzalutamide', citing lack of inventive steps. The petitioner further argued that the rejection was vitiated because the Controller failed to address or refer to crucial expert affidavits and scientific documents presented during the proceedings.
Luxembourg Brands S.A.R.L & Anr. v.G.M. Pens International Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an extension of five weeks to the Local Commissioner in a trademark infringement dispute involving the brand TERAMAX. The court noted that while the defendant had finally filed an affidavit regarding net revenue, it lacked necessary annexures detailing the accounts workings. Given these procedural delays and ongoing verification processes, the court allowed more time for the commissioner to submit a comprehensive report on the defendant's sales.
Ngk Spark Plug Co. Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ngk Spark Plug Co. Ltd. sought to rectify the corporate name of NTK Bearings Private Limited, arguing that the company's use of 'NTK' infringed upon Ngk's registered trademark. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, upholding the Regional Director's rejection. The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory limitations, finding that the petitioner failed to act diligently and waited too long after becoming aware of the opposition and subsequent rejections.
Luxembourg Brands S.A R.L & Anr v.G.M Pens International Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court partially decreed the suit for trademark infringement and passing off. Despite previous settlements where the defendant agreed to cease using certain marks, the court found that the defendant continued manufacturing and selling products under the mark 'TERAMAX'. Consequently, the court imposed a penalty of ₹5 lakh on the company's directors and mandated a detailed accounting and independent audit of all net revenue earned from the infringing sales.
Radio Next Webcastion Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India And Anr.
Radio Next Webcastion Pvt. Ltd. challenged an administrative order that declined to list its application under Section 31D of the Copyright Act before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The denial was based on the absence of a dedicated technical member for copyright matters. The Delhi High Court examined whether the IPAB, which is primarily constituted under the Trade Marks Act, could exercise jurisdiction over copyright issues. The court held that due to statutory amendments, the existing Appellate Board has sufficient jurisdiction and can proceed with examining copyright applications despite the temporary vacancy in specialized membership.
Lt Foods Limited v.Heritage Foods (India) Limited
The Delhi High Court stayed a trademark infringement suit filed by Lt Foods Limited against Heritage Foods (India) Limited. The stay was granted because both parties had pending cancellation/rectification applications concerning their respective 'HERITAGE' trademarks before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. Crucially, the court clarified that while the main suit is stayed under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, this does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing urgent interlocutory relief, such as an injunction.
Sphaera Pharma, Pte. Ltd And Anr. v.Union Of India And Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking directions to restore its Indian Patent Application (No. 3584/DELNP/2015) for examination, which had been treated as abandoned due to failure to file the request within the prescribed time limit. The court examined the mandatory nature of the statutory deadlines and ruled against the petitioner's plea for restoration.
Kellogg Company v.Pops Food Products (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Kellogg Company's appeal against the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to remove its 'POPS' trademark from the register. The core issue was non-use, as the petitioner failed to provide evidence of bona fide use in India since 1989, despite claiming international adoption and goodwill. The court upheld the IPAB's finding that a prolonged lack of domestic commercial activity negates the right to maintain registration under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act.
J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited & Anr. v.Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sued the defendant alleging imminent infringement of copyrights in component drawings and registered designs related to their 3DX Backhoe Loader. The defendant filed applications seeking dismissal of the suit on the grounds that it lacked a cause of action, particularly after the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew an injunction order. The court dismissed the defendant's applications, noting that the issues required a full trial.
Praveen Kumar Maakar v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the trademark applicant, Praveen Kumar Maakar, setting aside an order that deemed his application for 'FRONTIER BAKERY' abandoned. The core issue was whether he received a Notice of Opposition filed by M/s Frontier Bakery Pvt. Ltd. Despite evidence showing dispatch to a related service, the Court accepted the petitioner's claim that he never received the notice. Consequently, the applicant was granted an eight-week window to file his counter-statement.
Vivek Kochher & Anr v.M/S Kyk Corporation Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Vivek Kochher & Anr challenging an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that rectified the trademark 'KYK'. The court upheld the finding that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating continuous commercial use of the mark since the dates claimed in their registration applications. Consequently, the court affirmed the IPAB's conclusion that the original registration was obtained based on a false statement and fraud, favoring the respondent, KYK Corp.
Modi- Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to de-register the trademark 'FECONTIN' due to alleged non-use. The court found that the IPAB overlooked a crucial fact: 'FECONTIN' was registered as an associated mark of 'FECONTIN F'. Citing Section 55(1) of the Trade Marks Act, the High Court held that the use of an associated trade mark can be accepted as equivalent to the use of the primary mark. Consequently, the court set aside the IPAB's order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.
Tryton Medical Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Tryton Medical Inc. challenged the refusal by the Controller of Patents to examine its National Phase Patent Application, which had been rejected due to a minor delay in filing. The petitioner argued that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had previously allowed the appeal and directed the Controller to proceed with examination. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, mandating compliance with the IPAB's orders.
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.