Judge Profile

Deepa Sharma

7 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

7 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

patent defendant favorable · Jul 27, 2017

Holland Company Lp And Anr. v.S.P. Industries

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 1419/2016

The plaintiffs claimed ownership and copyright over the industrial drawings of the Automatic Twist Lock (ATL) system, alleging that the defendant copied these drawings to manufacture spare parts for ATL devices used by Indian Railways. The court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case, particularly given that the drawings were published and available in the public domain.

patent defendant favorable · Jul 17, 2017

Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.Omex Cables Industries & Anr.

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) 2247/2015

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, despite the plaintiff claiming trademark infringement and passing off against 'OMEXGOLD.' The court found that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's use of the mark since 2006 when it filed a trademark opposition. Due to this significant delay in approaching the court (from 2006/2015 until 2017), the court held that the plaintiff was disentitled to discretionary relief, citing established legal precedents regarding laches and acquiescence.

patent plaintiff favorable · May 17, 2017

McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi

Delhi High Court · ST. APPL.26/2013; ST. APPL.27/2013; W.P.(C) 10726/2006; W.P.(C) 3408/2013; W.P.(C) 4453/2013; W.P.(C) 3404/2015

This batch of cases addressed the tax implications of franchise agreements under various state sales tax laws. The core dispute centered on whether the royalties received by franchisors for allowing franchisees to use their brand system constituted a 'transfer of the right to use goods' (trademark). The Delhi High Court ultimately held that the franchise agreements only grant a limited right to use, and do not constitute an outright transfer of IP rights. Consequently, the tax demands levied on these transactions were quashed.

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 17, 2017

Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd. v.Fiit Jee Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) No.2655/2013 (I.A. No.21136/2013)

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd., a well-known aerospace and defense entity, against Fiit Jee Limited & Anr. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dishonestly adopting the prestigious 'BRAHMOS' trademark for educational services, causing confusion among students who believed their tests were affiliated with the renowned company. Citing the strong prima facie case, the court ruled that allowing continued use by the defendants would cause irreparable loss to Brahmos’s goodwill and reputation.

patent mixed · Dec 23, 2016

My Space Inc. v.Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS) 540/2011

This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute between MySpace Inc., an Internet Service Provider, and Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (SCIL), a major music company, regarding the unauthorized use of copyrighted works on the Myspace platform. SCIL sought permanent injunctions against alleged infringement, while MySpace argued for intermediary protection under relevant IT laws. The court balanced IP rights with freedom of expression, clarifying that safe harbor provisions apply if an intermediary acts upon specific notice.

patent defendant favorable · Jul 21, 2016

Dart Industries Inc & Anr. v.Techno Plast & Ors.

Delhi High Court · FAO (OS) 326/2007

Dart Industries Inc, through its licensee Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging infringement of their proprietary designs and copyrights related to the popular 'Tupperware' storage containers. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants were copying these unique designs, leading to confusion in the market. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead and prove the distinctiveness of the product shape for trademark purposes, thereby lacking prima facie strength in their claims regarding design protection, copyright infringement, and passing off.

patent defendant favorable · Nov 2, 2015

Stephen Koeing v.Arbitrator Nixi And Anr.

Delhi High Court · FAO (OS) 42/2012

This case involved a dispute over the domain name 'internet.in', which was registered by Koening, while Purohit held a trade mark for 'internet'. The core issue revolved around whether the domain name registration infringed upon the existing trademark rights. The Delhi High Court examined the arbitral award concerning this matter. Ultimately, the court upheld the arbitration finding, emphasizing that the registrant has an obligation to ensure their domain name does not violate third-party rights.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →