C.Hari Shankar
182 IP cases indexed. Covers design, patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
182 cases indexed | Page 6 of 7
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
The court heard an application filed by Defendant 7 seeking permission to place screenshots and a research paper on record to challenge the novelty of Design No. 263764 asserted by Sirona Hygiene Private Limited. The plaintiff opposed the application, citing delay. The Court allowed the documents but directed the plaintiff to file an affidavit of admission or denial.
Gea Refrigeration Netherlands Nv v.Metalex Cryogenics Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon their Indian Patent (IN 296857) related to piston compressor crankcases. The court registered the plaint and issued summons, setting out procedural directions for filing written statements and addressing various interlocutory applications.
Anuj Singhal v.Anupreet Kaur
This Delhi High Court case involving a trademark dispute between Anuj Singhal and Anupreet Kaur was successfully settled through mediation. The settlement agreement mandates that the respondent cease using specific trademarks, including 'NANDINI BLACK SALT,' and refrain from copying the petitioner's packaging and color schemes. Furthermore, the respondent agreed to withdraw all related trademark applications, leading the court to dispose of the suit in terms of the binding agreement.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
The plaintiffs, Astrazeneca Ab, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited, was infringing their Indian Patent IN 297581, which covers the anticancer drug Osimertinib (marketed as Tagrisso). The plaintiffs claimed the defendant was soliciting large orders to manufacture and sell the infringing product without authorization.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Sham Bansode
The dispute between Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Sham Bansode regarding the 'Dream11' trademarks was amicably settled through mediation. The parties agreed that the court would decree the infringement suit based on the settlement terms. Key provisions included the defendant acknowledging ownership of the plaintiff's listed trademarks, agreeing to cease all use of similar marks, transferring the domain name www.mydream11.in, and paying a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Elder Labs Limited & Anr.
The dispute between Himalaya Wellness Company and Elder Labs Limited was resolved through mediation, leading to a comprehensive settlement agreement accepted by the Delhi High Court. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiffs' rights in trademarks like 'Liv.52' and 'HIMALAYA', as well as their trade dress (orange and green color combination). In exchange for discontinuing infringing activities and paying damages of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the suit was decreed based on the settlement terms.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.M/S Shri Sai Foods & Beverages & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, an extension of 90 days to execute local commissions in a trademark infringement suit. The court also appointed four additional advocates as local commissioners. This order facilitates the quantification of damages by allowing detailed inspection and inventory of infringing goods at the defendants' premises.
Core Integrated Management Systems Pvt Ltd v.The Bci Forum Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Core Integrated Management Systems Pvt Ltd seeking permanent injunction against trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution related to the marks 'CONTINUITY AND RESILIENCE' and 'CONTINUITY & RESILIENCE'. Given that oppositions have been filed against the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks, the court suspended the registration certificates. Consequently, both parties agreed that the pending opposition proceedings must be decided first before the injunction application can proceed. The court also directed both sides to file documents detailing the nature of use of the disputed mark.
Eli Lilly And Company & Ors. v.Bryan Pharmaceuticals Through Its Proprietor Mr. Laxmi Kand Pal / Navneet Kand Pal & Ors.
In this pharmaceutical dispute, Eli Lilly sued several companies for marketing its patented compound Baricitinib under a brand name ('Barinat') for rheumatoid arthritis, allegedly breaching licensing agreements that restricted use solely to COVID-19 treatment. The court addressed an application by one defendant (Defendant No. 11), who claimed the marketing was an inadvertent error and no sales had occurred. After the defendant provided undertakings not to market or sell the drug for any ailment other than COVID-19, the plaintiff agreed that no cause of action survived against this specific defendant, leading to its removal from the suit.
Bridgestone Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents Designs & Trademarks & Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in the matter of Bridgestone Corporation versus Controller General Of Patents Designs & Trademarks. The court directed both parties to prepare and exchange short notes detailing their submissions and to compile relevant judicial precedents for consideration. This procedural step moves the case closer to final disposal, which is scheduled for February 2, 2022.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Nava Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Nava Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and associated defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Defendants' mark 'Blofin-D3 Max' and packaging were identical to the Plaintiff's registered marks ('Bio-D3', 'Bio-D3 Max') used for similar pharmaceutical preparations. Although Defendant No. 1 changed its mark, the injunction was upheld against all parties involved in the collaboration, and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.
Pfizer Inc & Ors v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited & Ors
The plaintiffs, holding patent IN 218291 for Palbociclib, filed an application seeking interim relief against the defendants who were allegedly manufacturing, marketing, and selling infringing products online. The court found prima facie evidence of infringement and passed several ad interim injunctions restraining the parties from further dealing in the patented product.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Abony Healthcare Limited Through Its Directors & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company against Abony Healthcare Limited. The suit alleged trademark infringement, passing off, trade dress infringement, and copyright violation concerning the 'Liv' product line. The court found prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity based on identical packaging elements, color schemes (orange/green), and similar product names ('Liv.52' vs 'Liv.55 DS'). This interim order prevents the defendants from continuing their alleged infringing activities pending the final hearing.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Hetero Labs Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have infringed their patent for Baricitinib by manufacturing and selling it without a license. The case involves a request for an injunction to prevent the defendants from continuing this activity.
Pfizer Inc v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The plaintiff alleges infringement of its Indian Patent No. 218291 related to Palbociclib, marketed under the brand name 'Palbace'. The court found a prima facie case of infringement but noted the timeline of alleged infringement was unclear.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff, Novartis AG, seeks to restrain the defendant from manufacturing Pazopanib Hydrochloride, claiming it infringes their Indian patent. The defendant has obtained approval to manufacture the product, raising concerns of imminent patent infringement.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Rishabh Kaushal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd concerning the misuse of its 'AMUL' brand on social media. While initial injunctions were granted, the court examined the claims for damages against Defendants No. 1 and No. 4. Recognizing that both defendants had taken remedial steps, including removing the infringing content, the Court dismissed the claim for damages due to a lack of evidence of loss suffered by the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit was closed against these two defendants, while proceedings remain pending against Defendant No. 5.
Anil Rathi v.Barhi Concast Llp & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Anil Rathi against Barhi Concast LLP and others. The court found that the defendants were attempting to circumvent a previous injunction by adopting the deceptively similar mark 'BCLLPRATHI' while dealing in TMT bars and steel products, which are identical to the goods covered under Mr. Rathi's registered trademark 'RATHI'. This interim order restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under this contested mark until the final hearing of the suit.
Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited v.West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
In this trademark infringement suit concerning Omeprazole capsules, the Delhi High Court addressed a request for ex parte ad interim relief. While the plaintiff presented an arguable case regarding the deceptive similarity between 'OMEZ' and 'OMES', the court ultimately refused immediate injunction. The judge emphasized that mere prima facie evidence is insufficient; the balance of convenience, irreparable loss, and public interest must be weighed, leading to a decision to allow the defendant a chance to respond.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Apple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute concerning the trademarks 'UNOCAL' and related products. The plaintiff, Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited, had previously obtained an ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with litigation in the United States. However, the court ultimately allowed the vacation of this injunction. The ruling emphasized that Indian courts should not restrain parties from seeking protection against perceived infringement in foreign jurisdictions unless those proceedings are oppressive or vexatious to the domestic case.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Apple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited. The court restrained the defendants from pursuing a related civil action before the U.S. District Court at Southern District of Texas, as well as preventing them from manufacturing or selling goods using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to UNOCAL and UNOCAL 76 in India. This decision protected the plaintiff's established rights derived from its licensing agreement with UNOCAL.
Snapdeal Private Limited v.Godaddycom Llc And Ors
Snapdeal Private Limited filed an application seeking a temporary injunction against Godaddycom and others, alleging widespread infringement of its registered 'SNAPDEAL' trademark through the registration and offering of infringing domain names. The court examined the feasibility of granting such a broad injunction, particularly concerning the ability to prevent the registration of any domain name containing the mark. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claims of infringement, the judge required further clarification from the defendant regarding the practical implementability of the requested relief before making a final decision on the interim order.
The Himalaya Drug Company & Ors v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued interim protective orders in favor of The Himalaya Drug Company against Ashok Kumar & Ors regarding trademark infringement. The court restrained the defendants from using Himalaya's registered logos, trademarks (including 'Himalaya Pure Herbs'), specific domain names like <himalayawelness.com>, and associated email IDs. Furthermore, the court directed the freezing of certain websites and domain names to prevent further unauthorized capitalization on the plaintiff's goodwill.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Apple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited. The court restrained the defendants from pursuing a related civil action before the U.S. District Court at Southern District of Texas, as well as preventing them from manufacturing or selling goods using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to UNOCAL and UNOCAL 76 in India. This decision protected the plaintiff's established rights derived from its licensing agreement with UNOCAL.
The Himalaya Drug Company & Ors v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued interim protective orders in favor of The Himalaya Drug Company against Ashok Kumar & Ors regarding trademark infringement. The court restrained the defendants from using Himalaya's registered logos, trademarks (including 'Himalaya Pure Herbs'), specific domain names like <himalayawelness.com>, and associated email IDs. Furthermore, the court directed the freezing of certain websites and domain names to prevent further unauthorized capitalization on the plaintiff's goodwill.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Chiral Biosciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp, filed a suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. 209816 covering Sitagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor used to treat Diabetes Mellitus Type II. The court issued an order granting an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products until further hearing.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt Ltd v.Agribiotech Industries Limited (Abil)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt Ltd against Agribiotech Industries Limited. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was infringing on its registered trademarks ('Officers Choice') and copyrighted trade dress associated with its IMFL products, specifically by using a deceptively similar label for its 'Chetak Whisky'. The court found that there was a high likelihood of consumer confusion, satisfying both the 'average intelligence' test and the 'triple identity' test. This interim order protects the plaintiff's brand reputation pending final disposal of the suit.
Onyx Therapeutics Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors
Onyx Therapeutics Inc. challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents' orders that restricted its right to cross-examine expert witnesses during a post-grant opposition filed by Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether the patentee, having filed objections under Rule 58, was entitled to challenge the veracity of the opponent's experts through cross-examination. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Onyx, quashing the restrictive orders and allowing the cross-examination without imposing any condition regarding the filing of evidence by the patentee.
Praneet Singh Davar v.L S Davar & Co & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a previous interim order that restricted the appellant's association with the respondent firm. While acknowledging the initial prohibition, the court clarified that the single judge's recorded 'prima facie' opinion regarding trademark rectification was not a final determination. The judgment directs the Registrar of Trademarks to proceed with the rectification proceedings based on merits, independent of the prior preliminary view.
Citicorp Business & Financial Services Pvt Ltd v.Citi Group Inc & Anr
This appeal challenged a single judge's order that had attached the bank accounts of Citicorp Business & Financial Services Pvt Ltd due to non-compliance with previous injunction orders regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no statutory provision for an appeal against such an order under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's subsequent failure to comply with a one-month compliance statement made before the judge demonstrated bad faith.
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.