Bench:Vipin Sanghi
22 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, design, trademark, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
22 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Airtec Electrovision Pvt. Ltd. v.Sunil Kumar Saluja
The Delhi High Court dismissed Airtec Electrovision's appeal against the Commercial Court's refusal to grant an interim injunction. Airtec sought protection for its registered mark 'EIRTEC' against Sunil Kumar Saluja's use of 'AIRNET' on television sets, claiming deceptive similarity. However, the court found no sufficient phonetic or stylistic similarity and emphasized that common words like 'air' are often used in the electronics trade, ultimately upholding the lower court's decision.
Abhishek Gupta v.Vipin Jain
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Abhishek Gupta, who was seeking restraint against trademark and copyright infringement related to his 'BOL' sports publication. Despite initial resistance based on delayed approach, the court found a prima facie case for the appellant. The judgment specifically restrained Vipin Jain from passing off or associating their goods with the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and copyrights, recognizing the likelihood of consumer confusion due to similar get-up and use.
Vikas Gupta & Anr v.M/S Sahni Cosmetics
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's decision, confirming an injunction that allowed M/S Sahni Cosmetics to continue using the trademark 'NEHA' for face cream. The court prioritized the defendant's established prior use of the mark dating back to 2003 over the plaintiff's claims, despite arguments regarding regulatory compliance under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating long-standing market presence in trademark disputes.
P. P. Jewellers Retail Private Limited & Ors. v.P. P. Jewellers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a District Court's directions regarding the use of trademarks in a family business dispute. While initially restraining P. P. Jewellers Retail Private Limited from using the plaintiff's marks, the court granted a stay on these injunctions, acknowledging the appellants' long-standing and acknowledged use of the trademarks within the family structure. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inventory the stock at the shared showroom premises, ensuring proper accounting between the competing entities.
Reliance Life Sciences Private Limited v.M/S Genentech Inc And Ors.
This case involves a dispute between Reliance Life Sciences (the appellant) and Genentech/Roche (the respondents) concerning the launch of the biosimilar drug TrastuRel. The respondents sought an injunction against TrastuRel, alleging inadequate testing under Indian regulatory guidelines despite the original patent having lapsed. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, granting an interim stay on the restrictive order, thereby allowing Reliance to continue its manufacturing and marketing operations.
Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente v.Uoi & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs' decision to refuse examination and treat his patent application as withdrawn due to a delay in filing Form-18 (request for examination). The court examined the relevant sections of the Patents Act, 1970, and held that since the request was made outside the prescribed time limit based on the earlier date (priority date), the petition lacked merit.
Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd. v.Surya Roshni Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design for a Hollow Section Pipe. The defendant contested the claim, arguing that the design lacked novelty, was common to trade, and was based on pre-existing prior art. The court dismissed the interim application in favor of the defendant.
Skechers Usa Inc & Ors v.Pure Play Sports
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Skechers against Pure Play Sports, finding prima facie evidence of passing off. The court noted that the defendant's footwear was a substantial imitation of the plaintiffs' GOwalk 3 series, specifically citing copied trade dress elements like the unique outsole design and 'Goga Mat' technology features. This preliminary ruling suggests that the defendants were consciously imitating Skechers' distinctive look to mislead consumers about the source of their products.
Aura Synergy India Ltd. v.M/S New Age False Ceiling Co Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction request filed by Aura Synergy India Ltd. against M/S New Age False Ceiling Co Pvt. Ltd., concerning the use of the trade name 'AURA' for metallic false ceiling products. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' application. The judgment highlighted that the plaintiffs had suppressed material facts and made misstatements regarding their business history and relationship with the defendants, leading to the vacation of the ex-parte injunction.
Groupon, Inc. v.Mohan Rao And Another
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Groupon, Inc., granting an injunction against Mohan Rao and others for passing off the trademark 'GROUPON'. The court emphasized that priority is determined by earlier use rather than mere registration date when a suit for passing off is filed. Given Groupon's extensive international goodwill and prior usage since 2002, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or any deceptively similar variations.
Philip Morris Products S.A & Anr v.Sameer & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Philip Morris Products S.A., finding that the defendants were engaged in both counterfeit and grey market sales of MARLBORO cigarettes, constituting trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted permanent injunctions to protect the brand's goodwill and awarded nominal damages against the infringing retailers. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to established global brands against unauthorized use, even by small vendors.
Oriental Cuisines Private Ltd. v.Star Restaurants Private Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Oriental Cuisines Private Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Star Restaurants Private Ltd. for passing off and trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's use of the identical mark, 'THE NOODLE HOUSE,' for similar hospitality services was likely to confuse consumers and dilute the plaintiff's established goodwill. While the suit was decreed regarding the injunction, the court declined to award damages due to insufficient evidence regarding the duration of the infringement.
M/S American Express Company & Others v.M/S Amex Financial Services Private Ltd & Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of American Express (Amex) against Amex Financial Services Private Ltd for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant was malafidely using the 'AMEX' mark in financial services identical to those offered by Amex, leading to strong likelihood of confusion among the public. Consequently, the plaintiffs were granted a permanent injunction restraining further infringement, along with damages.
Gopal Kishan v.Union Of India & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Gopal Kishan seeking cancellation of trademarks registered in favor of the Union of India & Anr. The appellant argued that the marks were generic or lacked continuous use, but the court upheld the lower tribunal's findings. The judgment emphasized that questions regarding prior usage and distinctiveness are matters of fact best left to the specialized tribunals (like IPAB) and cannot be re-adjudicated in an appeal against a writ petition.
Merck Kgaa v.Galaxy Hompro And Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Merck Kgaa's appeal against the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decision, upholding the registration of the trademark 'RECIBION'. The court found no deceptive similarity between 'CEBION' and 'RECIBION', emphasizing that the common suffix 'BION' is widely used in the pharmaceutical industry. Crucially, the judgment noted the petitioner's lack of recent use of its mark and applied the strict test for confusion, concluding that the marks were sufficiently distinct.
Gilead Sciences Inc v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Gilead Sciences Inc challenged the IPAB's order rejecting its application for condonation of delay in appealing a patent rejection. The core dispute revolved around whether an appeal against a pre-grant opposition was maintainable under Section 117A of the Patents Act, and whether the Board had the power to relax the limitation period despite initial reluctance.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd v.Uoi And Aors
The petitioner challenged an order directing the Registry to furnish certified copies of its plant variety registration applications to a competitor (Respondent No. 3) upon request under Form PV-33. The petitioner argued that the application contained confidential information and disclosure would harm its competitive position. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the provisions of the Act mandate public disclosure of such documents.
Malhotra Book Depot v.Union Of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Malhotra Book Depot, mandating the Union of India to restore and renew its trademark registration. The court found that the removal of the mark was illegal because the Registrar failed to issue the mandatory 'O-3' notice required under Rule 67 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959. Furthermore, the court held that restoration should not be viewed as a penal measure and that procedural lapses by the government do not bar the petitioner's right to renewal.
Super Cassettes Industries Limited v.Mr Chintamani Rao & Ors.
Super Cassettes Industries Limited and Yashraj Films Private Limited filed suits alleging that India TV (represented by Mr Chintamani Rao & Ors.) had unauthorizedly broadcasted and exploited their copyrighted cinematographic films and sound recordings. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions to restrain the defendants from further infringement.
Penn Racquet Sports v.Mayor International Ltd
This case involves an execution petition filed by Penn Racquet Sports (the Decree Holder) seeking enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against Mayor International Ltd (the Judgment Debtor). The dispute originated from two Trademark License Agreements (TLAs) granting the use of the 'Penn' trademark. Although the judgment debtor raised objections regarding alleged breaches by the decree holder, the Delhi High Court dismissed these objections. Consequently, the court held that the foreign award was enforceable under Chapter I Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Kamdhenu Ispat Limited v.Kamdhenu Metal
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Kamdhenu Ispat Limited against Kamdhenu Metal for passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Kamdhenu Metal' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark, leading to an inevitable likelihood of confusion among consumers. While the injunction and rendition of accounts were granted, the suit was held incomplete because the plaintiff had failed to properly value the relief for court fee purposes, requiring them to pay the balance fees before the decree could be executed.
Hindustan Lever Limited v.Mr. Lalit Wadhwa And Anr.
Hindustan Lever Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its valid patent (No. 198316) concerning a gravity fed water purification system by defendants, including those marketing 'Forbes Aquasure'. The court addressed preliminary objections raised by the defendants seeking rejection of the plaint and deletion of certain parties. While rejecting the plea that the plaint lacked a cause of action, the court allowed the request to delete one defendant, finding him neither necessary nor proper for the civil suit.
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.