Dharmesh Sharma
20 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, copyright, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
20 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Hamdard Laboratories India Medicine Division v.Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA)
Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) appealed against an order dismissing its applications, alleging that UDMA was misleading the public by claiming market dominance and associating Hamdard Food Division products with medicinal claims. The core dispute revolved around the scope of a Family Settlement Deed which divided the HAMDARD Group into Medicine and Food divisions, restricting their respective product lines. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that the matter fundamentally involved commercial disputes concerning IP rights and required adjudication by a competent Commercial Court.
Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) v.Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA)
This appeal before the Delhi High Court involved Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) challenging an order that dismissed its applications for interim injunction. The core dispute centered on the use of the 'HAMDARD' trademark and associated products, particularly in relation to the Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA). Hamdard alleged misleading claims by UDMA regarding market share and product categorization. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that the matter fundamentally involved a commercial dispute requiring adjudication by a specialized Commercial Court.
Bhimavaram Community Network Bcn v.M/S Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of its application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a commercial suit filed by the respondent. The core dispute involved allegations that the petitioner was infringing the respondent's copyright by removing/overshadowing the 'T-Series' Logo while broadcasting content. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no patent perversity in the Trial Court's decision.
Vifor International Ltd & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd & Anr., Corona Remedies Pvt Ltd, Dr Reddys Laboratories Ltd
Vifor International Ltd challenged an interim injunction order that restricted its patent claims by interpreting product-by-process claims as limited only to the specific manufacturing process. The Delhi High Court addressed this significant issue, clarifying that the scope of a patent claim cannot be unduly narrowed merely because it is described using a 'product-by-process' format. The court emphasized that claim construction must define the full scope of protection granted by the patent, allowing the suit proceedings to continue based on this clarified legal position.
Vifor International Ltd v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Vifor International Ltd challenged an interim injunction order that restricted its patent claims to only the manufacturing process. The Delhi High Court addressed the critical issue of product-by-process claims, emphasizing that the scope of a patent monopoly cannot be limited solely by the process used to obtain the product. The court clarified that claim construction must define the full scope of the invention as disclosed in the complete specification, allowing for broader protection than merely the method.
Vifor (International) Limited v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Vifor (International) Limited appealed an interim injunction order that restricted its claims to only the process aspect, arguing against the narrow interpretation of product-by-process patents. The Delhi High Court addressed the significant issue of how such claims should be construed under the Patent Act, 1970. The court clarified that a patent's scope cannot be limited solely by the process used, emphasizing that claim construction must define the full extent of the monopoly granted to the patentee. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the restrictive judgment was set aside.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Kavitha Kuruganti
PepsiCo appealed the revocation of registration for its plant variety FL 2027. The original revocation was based on PepsiCo furnishing incorrect information about the date of first commercial sale and alleged non-compliance with documentation requirements. The High Court allowed PepsiCo's appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment regarding the eligibility to apply for registration.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited & Anr.
Novartis appealed an order that allowed certain amendments in its Indian Patent Application (IN'518) based on a finding that pre-grant opponents should be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The core dispute centered on whether the examination process and opposition proceedings are independent or merged under the Patents Act, 1970.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Kavitha Kuruganti
This appeal challenged the revocation of a plant variety registration (FL 2027) granted to PepsiCo. The initial Single Judge affirmed the revocation primarily due to incorrect information regarding the date of first commercial sale and failure to submit requisite documentation. The High Court allowed PepsiCo's appeal, setting aside the revocation order while noting that the mistake in styling as 'new' was remediable.
Bolt Technology Ou v.Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court found the defendants guilty of contumacious and willful disobedience regarding a previous court order dated November 23, 2022. The original order had clearly prohibited the defendants from using their standalone mark 'BOLT' and an earlier logo, allowing only for future expansion under a modified mark ('BOLT.EARTH'). Despite this categorical direction, the defendants continued to use the proscribed marks. Consequently, the court held them in contempt and scheduled a hearing to determine the appropriate sentence.
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd v.Meta Platforms Inc Ors & Ors.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Patanjali Ayurved against a trial court order that had returned its trademark infringement suit, citing lack of jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the suit was not commercial in nature, despite the trial court's finding. The High Court found that the trial court failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements under the CPC when returning the plaint. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to present their case afresh before the Trial Court.
Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel Trading As Rakesh Pharmaceuticals v.Sss Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court addressed critical procedural issues concerning IPR litigation under the Commercial Courts Act. The court clarified that despite the plaintiff's freedom to value a suit, this principle cannot be used to undervalue IPR disputes below the Rs. 3 lakh threshold to avoid the rigors of the CCA. The judgment mandates that intangible rights must be ascribed a 'specified value,' considering both the relief sought and the market value of the IP right involved. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the order vacating the injunction, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Syngenta Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Syngenta Limited appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs which refused its Divisional Application, arguing that the parent application lacked claims relating to multiple distinct inventions. The High Court addressed the legal questions regarding the maintainability of divisional applications under Section 16 of the Patents Act.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
The review petitions sought reconsideration of an earlier court order that had negated a preliminary objection to the maintainability of two applications. The core dispute revolves around alleged non-compliance by the respondent with directions, specifically concerning the payment of 'entire royalty amount' as mandated by previous orders.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Parle Agro Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural disputes raised by PepsiCo in its appeal against a trademark rectification petition filed by Parle Agro. The court noted that the primary grievance concerned the alleged departure from prescribed procedures under Section 124(1)(a)(ii) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. While acknowledging concerns about the fast-tracking of the original application, the Court allowed PepsiCo to file its reply and evidence within a specified timeframe, subsequently postponing the hearing date for the rectification proceedings.
Essee Networks Private Limited & Ors. v.Paragon Cable India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Essee Networks Private Limited, upholding the Single Judge's decision. The core dispute revolved around the trademark 'ELEKTRON' for electric wires and cables. The court found that while the appellants claimed prior use dating back to 1992, they failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate this claim. Conversely, the respondents successfully demonstrated a credible basis to challenge the validity of the appellant's registrations due to misleading claims regarding their usage period.
The Delhi Public School Society v.Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society
This case revolves around a dispute between The Delhi Public School Society (DPSS) and Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society (AEWCS) concerning the termination of a Joint Venture Agreement. DPSS had permitted AEWCS to use the 'Delhi Public School' name and logo for its school, but this usage was explicitly limited by the agreement. Upon termination of the JVA, DPSS sought an injunction against AEWCS for continued use of the brand identity. The High Court upheld the lower court's finding that once the agreement ended, AEWCS lost all rights to use the IP, thus constituting infringement and passing off.
Promoshirt Sm Sa. v.Armasuisse And Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed by Promoshirt SM SA. challenging decisions related to its trademark registration applications, specifically against an opposition raised by Armasuisse. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the LPAs under Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that no further appeal should lie from a Single Judge's appellate order. The High Court ultimately negated this preliminary objection, holding that since the Trade Marks Act did not mandate adherence to the restrictive provisions of the CPC, the LPA remedy remained applicable.
V. R. Holdings v.Hero Investocorp Limited & Anr.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court questioned the correctness of a single judge's decision that dismissed an appellant's petition for rectification under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act. The core legal debate centered on whether the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable, particularly in light of restrictions imposed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Given the serious dispute and potential impact on pending cancellation proceedings, the Court granted an interim stay on the impugned judgment to balance the interests of both parties.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v.Akash Aggarwal & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over e-commerce platform features, specifically Flipkart's 'latching on' function. The plaintiff, V Tradition, alleged that this feature allowed unauthorized sellers to piggyback on their brand reputation and product listings, constituting passing off. While the initial order strongly restricted the use of this feature, the court ultimately stayed those restrictive observations pending further examination. This decision highlights the tension between protecting IP goodwill in e-commerce and maintaining platform functionality.
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.