Chief Justice
29 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark, copyright, design matters.
Cases Presided Over
29 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Pataka Industries Private Limited v.Jyoti Dewani
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Pataka Industries Private Limited against Jyoti Dewani. The court noted that the appellant had previously benefited from an injunction and allowed the application, restraining the respondent from using the trademark '502 Pataka' on any product or label until further orders. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to established trademarks.
M/S SUMOTEK INNOVATION PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v.Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd.
The petitioner filed a writ appeal claiming that the respondent, APDCL, was infringing its patent rights related to a Prepaid/Postpaid Electricity Supply Machine. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the remedy for patent infringement is compensation or injunction under the Patents Act, 1970, the matter must be heard by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
Kirloskar Aaf Limited v.M/S American Air Filters Company Inc; M/S. AAF - McQUAY INC.; M/S. MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
The appeal challenged a judgment and decree that partly granted permanent injunction and damages against Kirloskar Aaf Limited for unauthorized use of the 'AAF' trademark. The High Court confirmed the injunction part of the original decree, finding that the appellant ceased to be a permitted user after the Termination Agreement. However, the court set aside the portion of the decree directing daily damages due to lack of evidence.
Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited v.The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority & Ors.
Astrazeneca challenged several orders and notifications issued by NPPA regarding overcharging on its drug, OSIMERTINIB (TAGRISSO). The petitioner argued that the drug is patented and qualifies for a five-year exemption from price controls under DPCO, 2013. The Court directed NPPA to reconsider the matter afresh after taking into account the data supplied by the petitioner.
Indoco Remedies Ltd. v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
Indoco Remedies Ltd. filed an application seeking permission to sell approximately 58,000 strips of its generic product APIXABID (Apixaban), which had been manufactured prior to a restrictive injunction being passed by the Single Judge. The court dismissed the application, holding that without a decision on the merits, it could not reverse the findings of the learned Single Judge.
Indoco Remedies Ltd. v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
This order from the Delhi High Court addresses procedural matters in the dispute between Indoco Remedies Ltd. and Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company regarding the trademark 'APIXABID'. The court allowed certain exemption applications while also granting time to the respondents to file a reply concerning objections raised against the sale of 58,000 strips under the brand name.
D & H India Ltd v.Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd
This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned a suit filed by Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd against D & H India Ltd, alleging infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'SUPERON'. The core legal dispute revolved around whether the respondent could amend its plaint to establish prior user rights for 'SUPERON' since 1994. The court ultimately upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the appellant, who had ample opportunity to contest the claim.
M/S Laxmi Agro Impex India v.M/S Ladli India Commodities
The Delhi High Court admitted an appeal challenging a lower court's decision regarding trademark infringement. The core issue was that the Single Judge incorrectly compared the plaintiff's mark ('A') with a new defendant mark ('C'), instead of comparing it with the original relevant mark ('B'). Recognizing this procedural error, the Chief Justice granted a stay on the challenged order, preserving the status quo until the appeal is finally disposed of.
Steer Engineering Private Limited v.Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US)LLC; Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare (UK) IP Limited; Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare (UK) Trading Limited; Smithkline Beecham Limited
Steer Engineering Private Limited (appellant) filed a commercial appeal seeking an interim injunction against Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare (respondents). The appellant claimed infringement of its copyright and trade secrets related to proprietary extrusion technology used for nutritional beverages. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for granting temporary relief.
Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors v.Shogun Organics Ltd
The appeal was filed by the original defendants against a decree that found them infringing the plaintiff's patent for the process of manufacturing d-trans Allethrin. The appellants argued that the process was already known due to its registration under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that product registration does not equate to disclosure of the manufacturing process required for patentability.
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.
M/S Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd. v.Union Of India And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd. challenging the removal of its 'GURUJI' trademark. The core dispute centered on whether a mandatory prior notice (Form O-3) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, was properly served before the mark's cancellation. The Court upheld the Single Judge's finding that since the notice was sent by post and addressed to the proprietor, it was deemed legally served under Rule 15 of the Rules, thereby validating the removal.
Research Foundation, Sci., Tech. & Eco. & Anr. v.Union of India & Ors.
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Union of India to challenge patents related to wheat in international forums, citing concerns over biodiversity protection and biopiracy. The court noted that the specific patent challenged had since been revoked by the European Patent Office.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India And Others
Bayer Corporation appealed an order allowing Nacto Pharma Ltd. (NPL), a compulsory licensee, to export its product 'Sorafenat' outside India for clinical trials. Bayer alleged this violated the terms of the compulsory license granted under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court directed that instead of deciding the appeal on merits, the underlying writ petition be disposed of expeditiously by impleading relevant regulatory authorities.
The Delhi Network Of Positive People v.Union Of India
This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenged the practice of pharmaceutical companies abusing Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that filing identical divisional patent applications was used to keep patents alive and obstruct access to affordable medicines, particularly ARVs for HIV/AIDS patients. While acknowledging the merit in the grievance regarding process abuse, the court ultimately held that it could not issue directions requiring the Executive to amend statutory rules or interfere with the domain of administrative procedure, instead directing the respondents to consider rule amendments as a representation.
Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v.Koninklijke Phillips Electronics
The respondent (Koninklijke Phillips Electronics) sued for permanent injunction against the appellants (Maj. Sukesh Behl & Anr.) regarding infringement of Patent No. 218255. The defendants filed a counter-claim seeking revocation based on the plaintiff's failure to disclose foreign patent applications as required by Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the omission was not an unequivocal admission of deliberate suppression and thus revocation is not automatic.
Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. v.Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Procter & Gamble against an interim injunction granted to Anchor Health & Beauty Care. The court upheld the protection of Anchor's trademark 'ALLROUND,' finding that the phrase 'ALL-AROUND PROTECTION' was not merely descriptive but indicated a peculiar quality and feature unique to Anchor's product. This ruling reinforces the principle that suggestive marks, even if related to general product characteristics, can be protected against imitation.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Natco Pharma Limited
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries challenged an order that returned its patent infringement suit against Natco Pharma Limited, arguing that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The core dispute revolved around whether the process patent infringement claim was limited only to exports from Hyderabad or if it extended to the apprehension of marketing within Delhi. The court held that since the plaint pleaded an apprehension of sale/marketing in Delhi, the court possessed jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the suit was restored.
Neo Milk Products Private Limited v.Neo Foods Private Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring Neo Foods Private Limited (the registered trademark owner) against Neo Milk Products Private Limited. The court found that the plaintiff had established a reputation for its registered mark 'NEO' under Class 29, and the defendant's use of the identical mark in relation to milk products was likely to dilute the distinctive character of the original mark. Crucially, the court dismissed the defense of prior use (Section 34) because the appellant failed to provide prima facie evidence of continuous usage predating the plaintiff's registration.
Mr Pramod Hegde (M/S Meditek India) v.M/S Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to deny trademark registration. The dispute centered on whether 'Z-CAL' (Petitioner) was deceptively similar to 'ZECAL' (Respondent). Applying established tests for deceptive similarity, the court found that despite minor spelling differences, the marks were phonetically and visually similar, especially within the pharmaceutical industry where buyers rely heavily on pronunciation. Consequently, the court upheld the prior user's rights, preventing the registration of the petitioner's mark.
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.
Cipla Ltd. v.Union Of India And Ors.
Cipla Ltd. appealed an order passed by a Single Judge which restrained it from marketing its drugs. The original dispute involved the second respondent challenging the revocation of its patent by the Assistant Controller, arguing that provisions of Section 25(3) and (4) of the Patents Act were not followed. The High Court dismissed Cipla's appeal, upholding the interim restraint order.
Champagne Moet & Chandon v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of Champagne Moet & Chandon's appeal against a trademark registration granted to M/s Moet’s. The court found that despite the similarity in marks, the goods were distinct (Class 33 wines vs Class 29 meat products), making confusion unlikely. Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish sufficient evidence of prior reputation or dishonest intent by the respondent, leading the court to conclude that the opposition was not within acceptable parameters.
Entertainment Network India Ltd v.Super Cassettes Industries Ltd & Ors.
This appeal challenged various orders passed by a single Judge and the Copyright Board concerning copyright works. The core legal issue addressed was whether an order passed by one tribunal or court could be automatically applied as a precedent to another case, especially where the factual matrix differed.
Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v.A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses complex jurisdictional issues arising from an action for passing off. The Plaintiff, a Singapore-registered company using the mark 'Banyan Tree' in the hospitality sector, sued Defendants based on their use of a deceptively similar mark online. Since neither party was physically located within the court's jurisdiction, the Division Bench examined whether the mere accessibility of the defendant's website in Delhi was sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Cipla Ltd.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (Roche) appealed a decision that denied an interim injunction against Cipla Ltd. regarding the manufacturing and sale of the generic drug Erlocip, which is based on the patented molecule Erlotinib (Tarceva). The plaintiffs claimed patent rights over this cancer treatment. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the defendant had raised credible challenges to both the validity of the patent and the prima facie case for infringement. Crucially, the court emphasized that public interest in greater access to life-saving drugs must outweigh the interest in granting an injunction.
Dabur India Ltd. v.Amit Jain & Anr.
Dabur India Ltd. appealed the dismissal of its application seeking interim injunction against Amit Jain and others who were manufacturing and selling hair oil products in bottles and caps deceptively similar to Dabur's registered designs. The core dispute revolved around infringement of registered industrial designs for packaging, specifically concerning whether foreign registrations could be used to challenge the novelty of the Indian design.
Atul Rawal T/A M/S. Navin Polycon v.Sb Equipments
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Navin Polycon against Sb Equipments regarding the use of deceptively similar detergent trademarks. The court found that the appellant had established a prima facie case as prior users of the 'SUPER BRIGHT' mark and that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction. This ruling prevents the respondent from manufacturing or selling confusingly similar products until the final disposal of the suit.
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal And Ors. v.Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the registrability of the surname 'AGGARWAL' as a trademark for sweets and namkeens. The court clarified that while a surname is prima facie not distinctive, it can be registered if evidence of acquired distinctiveness is provided. Crucially, the High Court found that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had erred by focusing solely on establishing 'user' rather than addressing the core issue of distinctiveness under Section 9 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to allow for a proper assessment of distinctiveness.
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.