Jayant Nath
95 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
95 cases indexed | Page 1 of 4
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited filed an application seeking injunction against Hindustan Unilever Limited, alleging that a campaign of advertisements by HUL was designed to vilify and denigrate its popular toilet cleaner brand, HARPIC. The plaintiff argued that these ads disparaged the product's effectiveness and sought to divert market share to HUL's DOMEX. The court examined whether the defendant's advertising amounted to passing off or defamation of goodwill.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Zee Laboratories Limited & Ors.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing Indian Patent Nos. 247381, which covers the subject matter related to Apixaban. The court granted the ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from dealing in or advertising the infringing generic products 'Apixaz' and 'Apiquis', and ordered the permanent delisting of such advertisements.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Hetero Labs Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against Hetero Labs Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 294424, which covers Alectinib or its salts/solvates. The court allowed the application subject to exceptions, permitting defendants to use the drug for research purposes under Section 107A of the Patents Act but prohibiting commercial launch without prior court permission.
Cross Fit Llc v.Rtb Gym And Fitness Centre Through Its Proprietor Mr. Arun Sharma
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Cross Fit LLC against RTB Gym And Fitness Centre for using the identical mark 'CROSSFIT' in the fitness industry. Given that the defendant had failed to appear despite service, the court appointed a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is mandated to visit the premises, remove all infringing signage and advertisements, seize stock of materials bearing the disputed mark, and prepare an inventory report for the plaintiff.
Novartis AG v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 229051, which covers a pharmaceutical composition combining Valsartan and Sacubitril. The dispute centered on whether Natco Pharma Limited's product, described as a supra molecular complex, infringed the patented combination.
Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v.Karan Holiday Inn Private Limited & Anr
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court noted that while the defendant had largely removed the disputed mark from various sources, some instances persisted on third-party websites. The court allowed the plaintiff to issue notices to these specific sites demanding the takedown of the infringing trademarks and associated photographs. Furthermore, the parties were directed to continue mediation proceedings, indicating a potential path toward an amicable settlement.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr v.Harman Finochem Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendant was violating and infringing their registered patent (IN 209816) related to Sitagliptin. Despite previous assurances, the plaintiffs presented evidence showing the defendant continued to advertise and export infringing products. The court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from further infringement.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Aqualite Industries Pvt Limited
Relaxo Footwears Limited filed an application seeking an ex parte injunction against Aqualite Industries Pvt Limited, alleging that the latter was unlawfully imitating and pirating its distinctive footwear designs. The plaintiff highlighted that two specific slipper designs were duly registered under the Designs Act, 2000. After considering the prima facie evidence presented by both parties, the court found that the defendant had copied the plaintiff's designs. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing designs.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendants for dealing in generic Apixaban product that infringes Indian Patent No. 247381. The court, relying on previous orders regarding the same patent, passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing the infringing generic product.
Sotkon Sp Slu v.Western Imaginary Transcon Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, a Spanish company operating in India, filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed its patented 'Subsurface System for the Collection of Refuse' (IN 329620) and violated its copyrights. The infringement was alleged based on the defendants' tender bid submitted to Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v.M/S Skynet Placements & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited against M/S Skynet Placements & Ors. The court found a prima facie case that the defendants were using the plaintiff's registered trademark 'MACLEODS' for deceptive purposes, specifically related to fake job offers. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from promoting or offering services under the mark, and banks were directed to freeze specific accounts linked to the alleged fraudulent activity.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 294424 related to the drug Alectinib. The court granted the injunction, restraining commercial activities, but allowed the defendant to use the product for research purposes under Section 107A of the Patents Act.
Om Logistics Ltd v.Sh Mahendra Pandey
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in favor of Om Logistics Ltd, restraining Sh Mahendra Pandey and his associates from using the deceptively similar trade mark 'OM EXPRESS LOGISTICS'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, given the long-standing reputation of 'OM LOGISTICS LTD.' and the similarity in the marks used by the defendant. This order allows the suit to proceed while protecting the established brand identity.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 294424 concerning Alectinib. The court allowed the application subject to exceptions and noted that while the defendant could use the drug for research under Section 107A, any commercial launch would require prior permission from the court.
Dfm Foods Ltd v.Ishvi Food Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court formally decreed a trademark infringement suit between Dfm Foods Ltd and Ishvi Food Private Limited after the parties reached an amicable settlement. The settlement agreement confirmed that the defendant violated the plaintiff's 'CURLS' trademark rights by passing off their corn-based snacks as originating from Dfm Foods. In exchange for the defendants agreeing to cease all infringing activities, destroy existing goods, and acknowledge the plaintiff's ownership, the plaintiff waived claims for damages and costs.
Sap Se v.Sanjay Kumar Goel & Anr.
In a trademark dispute concerning the names 'SAP' and 'SAPPY', the Delhi High Court took two key actions. First, it confirmed an existing interim injunction after the defendants withdrew their trademark applications, thereby protecting the plaintiff's interests temporarily. Second, recognizing the parties' willingness to resolve the conflict amicably, the court directed both sides to participate in mediation, signaling a move towards settlement for the ongoing commercial suit.
Anay Kumar Gupta v.Jagmeet Singh Bhatia
The Delhi High Court allowed an interim application filed by Anay Kumar Gupta against Jagmeet Singh Bhatia in a suit concerning trademark infringement. The court granted an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from continuing to manufacture and sell whisky using the 'EVERSHINE PREMIUM CLASSIC WHISKY' label, bottle shape, or logo AWB. This order was issued after the plaintiff demonstrated that the agreements allowing the use of the mark had expired, leading to alleged unauthorized continued use by the defendant.
Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Pawan Kumar
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd against Pawan Kumar. The dispute centered on the registered trademark 'MONICA GOLD'. Following successful mediation, the parties executed a settlement agreement which the court upheld. Under the terms, the defendant committed to cease all use of the protected mark and any deceptively similar marks, effectively resolving the litigation in favor of the plaintiffs.
Chugai Seiyaki Kabushiki Kaisha v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against MSN Laboratories Private Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 294424, which covers Alectinib or its derivatives. The court allowed the application subject to exceptions, permitting the defendant to use the drug for research purposes under Section 107A of the Patents Act, but prohibiting commercial launch without prior court permission.
Dimple Madhulal Bhatia v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Dimple Madhulal Bhatia against the Union of India regarding delays in processing trademark applications. The petitioner sought an urgent direction for the Registrar of Trademarks to schedule hearings and expedite the examination of her pending trademarks. While the respondent argued that matters were being processed according to seniority, the court intervened, directing the concerned authority to deal with the petitioner's applications preferably within four months.
Victoria Foods Private Limited v.Rajdhani Masala Co. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed allegations of trademark infringement concerning the 'RAJDHANI' mark used for spices. While initially granting an interim injunction favoring Victoria Foods based on registration and prima facie evidence, the court subsequently heard a contempt application alleging continued violation by the defendants. Following a Local Commissioner's report detailing ongoing production post-injunction, the Court sealed the defendant's factory and ordered detailed inspections to assess compliance and potential misuse of goods.
Spread Home Products Pvt Ltd v.M/S Bellagio At Super Nets And Fabrics
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte injunction in favor of Spread Home Products Pvt Ltd against M/S Bellagio At Super Nets And Fabrics, halting the defendants from using the trademark 'DOCTOR PILLOW' or any deceptively similar mark. Recognizing the need to prevent the removal of evidence, the court further appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the defendants' premises and seize all infringing products, including packaging materials. This order provides immediate protection for the plaintiff's brand while the suit proceeds.
Yonex Co., Ltd. v.Sumit Girdhar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte injunction in favor of Yonex Co., Ltd. against Sumit Girdhar and others regarding counterfeit goods. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case showing that defendants were dealing in counterfeit badminton equipment using the protected YONEX mark. This interim order immediately restrained the defendants from selling or advertising any products bearing the YONEX mark or similar variations, pending further proceedings.
Tusaj Lifestyle Private Limited v.Ms Yum Yum Chi
Tusaj Lifestyle Private Limited successfully sought an ex parte injunction against Ms Yum Yum Chi in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, which operates restaurants under registered trademarks like 'Yum Yum Cha,' alleged that the defendant's use of 'Yum Yum Chi' was deceptively similar to its established brand. The court granted the interim relief, restraining the defendants from selling or advertising services under the disputed name pending further proceedings.
Sagacious Research Private Limited v.Vivek Dahiya & Ors.
In this matter concerning the 'SAGACIOUS' mark, the parties agreed to pursue an amicable resolution rather than immediate litigation. The court facilitated this by directing both the plaintiff and defendants to attend mediation and conciliation proceedings on August 23, 2021. While some interlocutory applications were allowed subject to exceptions, the primary focus shifted towards resolving the trademark and domain name disputes outside of court.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Ireland Unlimited Company v.Micro Labs Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Micro Labs Limited for infringing their registered patent (No. 247381) related to Apixaban, an anticoagulant drug. The court considered the prior history of similar cases and granted an ex-parte ad- interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling generic Apixaban under any brand name, including 'APIVAS'.
Northland Rubber Mills v.Varun Mahajan & Anr.
Northland Rubber Mills filed a civil suit seeking an injunction against Varun Mahajan and others to prevent the use of the trademark 'NORTHLAND' or similar marks. The plaintiff asserted ownership based on historical adoption dating back to 1972. However, the defendants argued that Defendant No. 1 had rights as a legal heir and ex-partner of the firm. The court registered the suit and issued notice for the injunction application, setting the stage for further arguments.
Krown Biscuit Private Limited v.Richfield Industries Private Limited
Krown Biscuit Private Limited filed a suit against Richfield Industries Private Limited alleging trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'WHITE MAGIK' and associated trade dress for biscuits, confusing consumers who were familiar with the plaintiff's established brand, 'BLACK MAGIC.' Based on the prima facie case presented by the plaintiffs regarding the similarity of the marks and packaging, the court granted an interim injunction.
Pcm Stresscon Overseas Ventures v.Patil Rail Infrastructure Private
The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendant for allegedly infringing their technology and making threats regarding Patent No. 219099. The defendant agreed not to communicate against the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit.
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser sought an interim injunction against Hindustan Unilever, alleging that HUL's advertising campaign disparaged its product, Harpic. The Delhi High Court examined the claims of false and misleading comparisons between the two toilet cleaner brands. While the court found prima facie evidence suggesting one specific print advertisement denigrated Harpic, it reserved judgment on the remaining advertisements, requiring a detailed reply from the defendant before making a final determination.
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.