C.Hari Shankar
130 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, design, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
130 cases indexed | Page 3 of 5
Dolby International Ab v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dolby International Ab appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 6570/DELNP/2009) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was arbitrary, incomprehensible, and lacked any proper reasoning or due application of mind. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design, 'PEE BUDDY', by Defendant 7, which was manufacturing an identical device under the name 'NAMYAA'. The core dispute centered on whether the defendant's product constituted piracy of the plaintiff's certified design. While the court found the designs to be identical, subsequent proceedings led to a settlement with one key defendant (Defendant 2), resulting in a decree sheet being drawn up for that party.
Immersion Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Immersion Corporation, filed a commercial suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon a patent held by the plaintiff through their manufacture and sale of mobile handsets. The court allowed procedural applications regarding document submission and exempted the case from mandatory pre-institution mediation.
Ms Bharat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks Also Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed objections raised in a rectification petition concerning the trademark 'LUBI'. The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the registration occurred in Ahmedabad and not New Delhi. Furthermore, they contended that the petitioner's filing was barred by Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to a prior pending suit in the District Court at Ahmedabad. Given these complex jurisdictional and procedural hurdles, the court decided to renotify the matter for further consideration.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Br Agrotech Limited And Anr
The dispute involved Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd asserting its exclusive patent rights over a specific suspo-emulsion formulation. The parties reached a settlement regarding Defendant No. 1 (BR Agrotech), acknowledging the Plaintiff's patent validity and granting a permanent injunction against infringement.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Buildtech Llp & Anr.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Vistara Buildtech LLP and others in the Delhi High Court. The court found a clear prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given that Tata Sia is the proprietor of the well-known mark 'VISTARA' used in commercial aviation. The order restrained the defendants from using the infringing mark while the main suit proceeds.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.Win Health Pharma Through: Its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd., finding that the Defendant's use of the mark 'CARDIOCONTIN' constituted a prima facie infringement on the Plaintiffs' established 'CONTIN' series trademarks and trade dress. The court noted the extensive goodwill, high sales figures (over Rs. 2000 crores), and the likelihood of confusion caused by the identical product type and near-identical packaging. While the injunction was granted against 'CARDIOCONTIN', the issue regarding the use of the mark 'WIN' was reserved for a later hearing after notice to the Defendants.
Samridhi Enterprises v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors.
Samridhi Enterprises filed a suit against Flipkart and several sellers for alleged infringement of its trade marks and copyrighted marketing materials related to car covers. The court recognized the prima facie case of infringement, particularly concerning the unauthorized use of design look-and-feel and promotional imagery by third-party sellers on the platform. Crucially, the court issued an interim injunction restraining these infringing parties from using the plaintiff's intellectual property until the full trial can proceed.
Ticona Polymers, Inc. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Ticona Polymers against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the word mark 'COOLPOLY'. The court held that a trade mark cannot be dissected into its component parts (like COOL and POLY) when assessing inherent distinctiveness. Finding that 'COOLPOLY' as a whole was not descriptive, the High Court quashed the rejection order and remanded the application for further processing.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v.The Registrar
The Delhi High Court allowed Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation's appeal, overturning the Trade Marks Registry's refusal to register a proposed mark. The court held that despite some phonetic similarity, the marks were not similar when viewed as a whole because the cited mark was a composite device containing unique visual elements (a sketch and bilingual text) absent in the appellant's mark. This ruling emphasizes that for trademark opposition under Section 11(1), the comparison must be holistic, preventing mere phonetic resemblance from leading to rejection.
Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application for 'Hygiene Wash' by the Joint Controller. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on insufficiency of disclosure (Section 10(4)), was violative of natural justice as no objection was raised at earlier stages. The court directed re-notification to hear the matter further.
Greaves Electric Mobility Private Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors
The petitioner, Greaves Electric Mobility Private Limited, filed a case against The Controller of Patents. The respondent argued that the Controller was not a necessary or proper party to the revocation petition, relying on Section 64(5) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Purushottam Singhal Proprietor Ms. Prime Cable Industries v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the proper service of an objection notice related to a trademark application. The core issue was whether the appellant (Purushottam Singhal Proprietor Ms. Prime Cable Industries) actually received the notice sent by the Registrar of Trade Marks, who claimed it was delivered to their agent. Given the conflicting claims regarding service, the Court decided not to rule immediately.
Dr. Sapna Nangia v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dr. Sapna Nangia appealed the rejection of her patent application for a device and process related to tactile feedback replicating breath hold. The Assistant Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D1 and D2. The High Court found the impugned order perfunctory and unreasoned, quashing it and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Dr. Sapna Nangia v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dr. Sapna Nangia appealed against an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which found that her patent application lacked inventive step based on cited prior arts D1-D3. The appellant argued that the decision was non-reasoned, leading to a request for remand.
Smithkline Beecham Limited v.Gskfinancial.Com & Ors.
In this Delhi High Court order, Smithkline Beecham Limited sought relief against rogue websites operating under similar domains like gskfinancial.com. The plaintiff alleged that these sites were fraudulently collecting money from the public while incorporating its corporate identity and trademarks (GSK). The court issued extensive interim directions, including permanent injunctions against trademark infringement, restraints on domain name registration, and specific orders to block access to fraudulent websites and freeze associated bank accounts.
Adama India Private Limited v.Fmc Corporation & Anr.
Adama India Private Limited filed a suit seeking a declaration that its process for manufacturing Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR) does not infringe Patent No. IN 298645 held by FMC Corporation. The court, while addressing an interim application, granted a temporary restraint on the defendants from contacting distributors or regulatory authorities to prevent business hindrance.
Inbrew Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. & Anr.
Inbrew Beverages Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition seeking the removal of an identical trademark from the register, arguing that their own mark was already registered. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of Inbrew but granted Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. an opportunity to respond before making a final decision on the removal prayer. This interim order sets the stage for further litigation regarding trademark rights.
Laboratoires Expanscience v.Seagull Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Laboratoires Expanscience seeking the rectification of the trademark register. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's registration of the word mark 'MUSTELA' in Class 5 (pharmaceutical preparations) infringed upon its own prior, registered rights in Class 3 (non-medicated skin care). Crucially, the respondent agreed to relinquish the mark and cooperate with its deletion. Consequently, the Court directed the removal of the impugned registration, rectifying the register accordingly.
H.S. Sahni, Sole Proprietor M/S M. K. Auto Sales Corporation v.Saic Motor Corporation Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff, H.S. Sahni, seeking a stay under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court issued notice to the defendants and set the matter for return on July 4, 2023. This order indicates that the dispute regarding trademark rights is actively progressing through litigation.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.Mobilfuels Private Limited & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, Exxon Mobil Corporation challenged the use of an impugned mark by Mobilfuels Private Limited. While the defendant claimed to be giving up the mark, the court noted that the defendant had also filed a registration application which needed withdrawal. The court directed the defendant to place communication regarding the withdrawal on record and scheduled a future hearing specifically to address claims for costs and damages.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim injunctive relief regarding trademark infringement in the pharmaceutical sector. The court found prima facie substance in Glaxo Group Limited's claim against Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning the marks BETNOMAID and MEDNOVATE, ruling that these were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks (BETNESOL/BETNOVATE). Consequently, an injunction was granted restraining the defendant from using these specific marks pending the final suit. However, the court declined to grant an injunction against the mark BETASON.
Star Sintered Products Ltd. v.Karan Bhutani
The Delhi High Court addressed an application related to trademark rectification between Star Sintered Products Ltd. and Karan Bhutani. The court noted that the defendant had withdrawn earlier applications seeking objections or rectification against the plaintiffs' trademarks. Consequently, the status of the plaintiff's marks was updated in the Registrar's records, removing references to prior objections. As a result, one specific interlocutory application (I.A. 2301/2021) was disposed of, while the court scheduled further hearings to consider the plaintiffs' claim for damages and other pending matters.
Marico Limited v.Narico Agrovet Private Limited & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses the ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Marico Limited against Narico Agrovet Private Limited. The court was reviewing Defendant 1's compliance with a previous directive to change its company names to avoid infringing on Marico's registered trademark. However, the defendant raised procedural hurdles related to the unavailability of necessary e-forms from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). Consequently, the Court directed the MCA to appear and clarify this position, ensuring that administrative difficulties do not impede the legal process.
Jockey International Inc v.Domain Administrator & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Jockey International Inc's application to add domain name registrars and associated banks as additional defendants in its trademark infringement suit. The court granted crucial interim relief, directing the blocking and suspension of specific infringing domain names (www.jockeydealer.in and www.jockeyshops.in). Furthermore, it issued orders freezing bank accounts linked to these domains, significantly strengthening Jockey's ability to protect its 'JOCKEY' trademark against online infringement.
Anubhav Jain v.Satish Kumar Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking cancellation of the 'Jain Shikanji' trademark registration. While dismissing the petitioner's initial arguments regarding lack of distinctiveness under Section 9, the court found technical deficiencies in the grant. Consequently, it directed the Registrar to re-examine two critical issues: the objections raised in the First Examination Report (FER) concerning prior marks (Section 11), and the validity of the claimed date of user. This interim order allows the respondent to continue using the mark while a de novo review is conducted.
Hermes International & Anr. v.Crimzon Fashion Accessories Private Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Hermes International, declaring its 'H' trade mark as a well-known trademark. The court meticulously examined five factors outlined in Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, including global promotion, extensive use since 1997, international registrations across numerous countries, and successful enforcement actions abroad. This judgment solidifies the legal standing of globally recognized luxury brands within India.
Novartis Ag v.Synokem Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis filed a suit alleging that Synokem infringed Indian Patent IN 229051, which covered a pharmaceutical composition of Valsartan and Sacubitril. The court noted that the patent had expired on January 16, 2023, rendering the dispute infructuous.
Allergan Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Allergan Inc appealed an order by the Controller of Patents that rejected its claims for 'INTRACAMERAL SUSTAINED RELEASE THERAPEUTIC AGENT IMPLANTS' based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court held that since the amendment was sought at a pre-grant stage and merely related to the same implants, the Controller ought to have allowed the amendments and examined them on merits.
Allergan Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Allergan Inc appealed an impugned order issued by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the order was unreasoned and challenged the decision regarding voluntary amendments made to the patent application. The court reserved the matter for further submissions.
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.