C.Hari Shankar
182 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, design, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
182 cases indexed | Page 1 of 7
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited seeking permanent injunction against the exploitation of its patent (IN 276026) covering Ceritinib. The dispute centered on whether the patent was invalid due to prior art and obviousness, which Natco argued. The court dismissed Natco's application to vacate the existing interim injunction.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) v.Girdhar Industries And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) seeking an interim injunction against Girdhar Industries regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. Despite KVIC asserting immense goodwill associated with its 'KHADI' mark, the court found that the balance of convenience did not favor granting a restraining order at this interlocutory stage. Consequently, the application for an injunction was dismissed, though the defendants were mandated to maintain and periodically file detailed accounts of their product sales.
V Guard Industries Ltd v.Ms Mahavir Home Appliances And Anr. & Anr.
The dispute concerning the registered design for ceiling fans was amicably resolved by both parties. The Defendants recognized the Plaintiff's exclusive rights and agreed to cease production/distribution of similar designs, while also undertaking to withdraw pending cancellation petitions against the design. However, the court noted a separate legal issue regarding the refund of court fees in private settlements.
Paul Components Private Limited v.Hi Tech Arai Private Limited
This matter before the Delhi High Court concerned an application by Paul Components Private Limited seeking permission to inspect the original, unredacted versions of technical drawings filed by Hi Tech Arai Private Limited. The defendant had initially placed redacted copies on record, citing that the removed portions contained commercially sensitive trade secrets related to manufacturing specifications. Despite the plaintiff's initial 'no objection' to the redactions, the court rejected the application, holding that once a party agrees to documents being placed on record in a redacted format due to confidentiality concerns, they are not entitled to inspect the unredacted originals.
International Foodstuffs Co. Llc v.Vijay Kumar Mittal And Pawan Kumar And ...
The dispute between International Foodstuffs Co. Llc and Vijay Kumar Mittal was resolved through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement, acknowledging each other's proprietary rights in the trademark 'ALLEGRO' across different product categories and jurisdictions. This resolution required both parties to withdraw existing legal actions and abide by specific usage restrictions for the mark.
Shabeer Ahmad Bhat v.Sushil Kumar Pathak
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by the petitioner seeking to correct a clerical error in a prior order. The correction involved changing the name of the entity receiving trademark assignments from 'Globiotech International' to 'M/s Glow Biotech Ltd', as stipulated in the underlying Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This minor but crucial rectification ensures the court record accurately reflects the parties' agreement regarding the assignment of trademarks.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Naresh Kumar Goyal, Trading As Maiden Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex interplay between an infringement suit and concurrent rectification petitions concerning pharmaceutical trademarks. The court clarified that while the statute requires rectification to be decided first, the simultaneous filing by the plaintiff preempted the need for a mandatory adjournment. Consequently, the court framed multiple issues covering trademark validity, infringement, passing-off, and defenses like adoption from APIs, setting the case for trial.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Naresh Kumar Goyal, Trading As Maiden Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex interplay between an infringement suit and concurrent rectification petitions concerning pharmaceutical trademarks. The court clarified that while the statute requires rectification to be decided first, the simultaneous filing by the plaintiff preempted the need for a mandatory adjournment. Consequently, the court framed multiple issues covering trademark validity, infringement, passing-off, and defenses like adoption from APIs, setting the case for trial.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Naresh Kumar Goyal, Trading As Maiden Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex interplay between an infringement suit and concurrent rectification petitions concerning pharmaceutical trademarks. The court clarified that while the statute requires rectification to be decided first, the simultaneous filing by the plaintiff preempted the need for a mandatory adjournment. Consequently, the court framed multiple issues covering trademark validity, infringement, passing-off, and defenses like adoption from APIs, setting the case for trial.
Mhg Ip Holding (Singapore) Pte. Ltd v.Anantara Greens & Ors
This Delhi High Court order marks the initial procedural steps in a trademark infringement suit filed by MHG IP Holding against Anantara Greens. The court registered the plaint and set out the schedule for pleadings, while simultaneously addressing several interlocutory applications. Key decisions included condoning the plaintiff's delay in refiling the suit and granting exemptions necessary to proceed with the claim of continuing trademark infringement.
M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited v.M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court approved an amicable settlement between the Plaintiff, M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited, and Defendant No. 1, M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited. Under the settlement, Defendant No. 1 acknowledged the exclusive rights to the 'SALLAKI' trademark and agreed to permanently cease using any similar marks or packaging. Furthermore, the court granted the Plaintiff permission to delete Defendants 2 and 3 from the suit, allowing them to pursue separate legal actions against those parties.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
The plaintiff alleges infringement of its patents by the Amazon Prime Video service, specifically regarding the Trending Now and Continue Watching features.
Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited v.Fashion One Television Llc and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited, quashing the trademark registrations held by Fashion One Television Llc. The court found that the respondent's mark infringed upon the petitioner's established 'NOW'-centric family of marks (such as TIMES NOW and ET NOW) because both operate within the same Class 38 for broadcasting services. The judgment emphasized that a viewer would likely associate the impugned mark with the petitioner’s repertoire, establishing a subsisting interest in the common element 'NOW'.
Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited v.Fashion One Television Llc and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited, quashing the trademark registrations held by Fashion One Television Llc. The court found that the respondent's mark infringed upon the petitioner's established 'NOW'-centric family of marks (such as TIMES NOW and ET NOW) because both operate within the same Class 38 for broadcasting services. The judgment emphasized that a viewer would likely associate the impugned mark with the petitioner’s repertoire, establishing a subsisting interest in the common element 'NOW'.
Intercontinental Great Brands Llc v.Parle Product Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed by Intercontinental Great Brands Llc seeking a stay of infringement proceedings. The plaintiff sought to challenge the validity of the defendant's registered trademark, FABIO, under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to raise any prima facie tenable grounds challenging the registration in its pleadings (plaint or replication). Consequently, the application for stay was rejected, allowing the main infringement suit to proceed.
Sabhyasachi Gorai v.Aveenshi International Private Limited Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to modify a prior decree based on an amended settlement agreement. The core of the dispute involved the transfer of two key trademarks, LAVAASH and LAVAASH BY SABY, from Aveenshi International Private Limited to Sabhyasachi Gorai. The court formally accepted the terms of the new agreement, which finalized the assignment of the brands and stipulated mutual non-infringement and cooperation for registration.
Sabhyasachi Gorai v.Aveenshi International Private Limited Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to modify a prior decree based on an amended settlement agreement. The core of the dispute involved the transfer of two key trademarks, LAVAASH and LAVAASH BY SABY, from Aveenshi International Private Limited to Sabhyasachi Gorai. The court formally accepted the terms of the new agreement, which finalized the assignment of the brands and stipulated mutual non-infringement and cooperation for registration.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the defendants, inspect their Preconditioned Air Units (PCAs), and audit related accounts to demonstrate infringement of Patent IN 330145. The court dismissed the application, holding that the prayers were misconceived and did not meet the strict criteria required for appointing a commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC.
Raj Kumar Sharma v.Sandeep Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interconnected trademark disputes concerning the 'Pizza Galleria' brand between Raj Kumar Sharma and Sandeep Kumar & Anr. The court first resolved a factual contradiction regarding an MoU, accepting that the date should be 25th March 2018 instead of 9th June 2021. Furthermore, all applications seeking a stay on trademark registrations were dismissed as withdrawn by the Petitioner. Despite these procedural steps, the Court noted significant gaps in documentation and directed Respondent No.1 to file a comprehensive additional affidavit within six weeks.
Raj Kumar Sharma v.Sandeep Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interconnected trademark disputes concerning the 'Pizza Galleria' brand between Raj Kumar Sharma and Sandeep Kumar & Anr. The court first resolved a factual contradiction regarding an MoU, accepting that the date should be 25th March 2018 instead of 9th June 2021. Furthermore, all applications seeking a stay on trademark registrations were dismissed as withdrawn by the Petitioner. Despite these procedural steps, the Court noted significant gaps in documentation and directed Respondent No.1 to file a comprehensive additional affidavit within six weeks.
Raj Kumar Sharma v.Sandeep Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interconnected trademark disputes concerning the 'Pizza Galleria' brand between Raj Kumar Sharma and Sandeep Kumar & Anr. The court first resolved a factual contradiction regarding an MoU, accepting that the date should be 25th March 2018 instead of 9th June 2021. Furthermore, all applications seeking a stay on trademark registrations were dismissed as withdrawn by the Petitioner. Despite these procedural steps, the Court noted significant gaps in documentation and directed Respondent No.1 to file a comprehensive additional affidavit within six weeks.
Ayur United Care LLP v.Union Of India & Anr.
This judgment addresses a procedural challenge concerning the jurisdiction for hearing writ petitions filed against decisions made by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner, Ayur United Care LLP, challenged an order passed by the IPAB that allowed rectification petitions against its trademark registration. The core legal question was whether these appeals required a Single Judge or a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
Ramada International, Inc v.La-Ramada World Private Limited & Anr
The Delhi High Court reinforced the existing ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ramada International, Inc against La-Ramada World Private Limited. Finding that the defendants continued unauthorized use of the 'RAMADA' mark across various digital platforms and domains despite prior court orders, the court made the injunction absolute during the pendency of the suit. Furthermore, to ensure compliance, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner with extensive powers to seize evidence, including pamphlets and server data, and mandate the shutdown of infringing social media accounts.
UPL Limited v.Triveni Chemicals And Industries Ltd. & Anr.
UPL Limited filed a suit alleging that Triveni Chemicals And Industries Ltd. was manufacturing and selling a product containing the composition protected by UPL's Indian Patent No. IN 428514. The court registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons to the defendants, and directed parties to file pleadings and respond to the interlocutory injunction application.
Dharampal Satyapal Limited v.Mr Basant Kumar Makhija & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that since the defendants raised a defense based on their registered mark (Section 30(2)(e)), and the plaintiff pleaded the invalidity of that registration, the plea was deemed prima facie tenable. Consequently, the Court framed an issue challenging the validity of the defendant's trademark and adjourned the suit for three months to allow the plaintiff to file a rectification petition.
Intervet International B.V. v.Reyaansh Healthcare
The plaintiffs, holders of Indian Patent 283279 for the veterinary product Fluralaner, filed a suit against Reyaansh Healthcare for manufacturing and selling Fluralaner tablets under the brand Flurashield without a license. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the product until further hearing.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The dispute involved allegations of patent infringement concerning the drug 'Apixaban'. The parties reached separate settlement agreements with Defendants 1 & 2 and Defendant 3, mediated by the Delhi High Court. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on these terms.
Vbm Medizintechnik Gmbh v.Geetan Luthra
The Delhi High Court granted an interlocutory injunction in favor of Vbm Medizintechnik Gmbh against Geetan Luthra regarding the use of the mark 'VBM'. The court found that despite prior distribution agreements, the defendant's subsequent registration and use of a deceptively similar mark for medical equipment constituted infringement. The ruling emphasizes the need to prevent consumer confusion when one party leverages another's established brand identity.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc v.Sanjeev Gupta & Ors
The commercial suit for patent infringement (CS(COMM) 823/2018) between Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc and Sanjeev Gupta & Ors was settled. The parties agreed that the suit would be decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs, acknowledging the validity of Patent IN'816 and the Defendants' infringing activities.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Sh. Gautam Tank And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a pending interlocutory application in the trademark infringement suit. The court framed an additional issue to determine whether the defendant is liable to pay additional damages for using the impugned mark after the suit was revived, given that the original ad interim injunction had stood. With evidence complete and parties consenting not to lead further evidence, the matter was scheduled for final hearing.
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.