Jayant Nath
81 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark, design matters.
Cases Presided Over
81 cases indexed | Page 3 of 3
Astrazeneca Ab v.P Kumar & Anr
Astrazeneca filed suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for marketing generic versions of TICAGRELOR, claiming infringement of three Indian Patents (IN 907, IN 984, IN 674). The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff could secure an interim injunction while the patents faced credible challenges to their validity. The court ultimately found that since the defendants raised strong questions rendering the patent vulnerable, the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction.
Vinay Aggarwal v.Rims Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing interim injunction, ruling in favor of the plaintiff regarding passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'ELEPHANT JINLI' was phonetically and structurally similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'ELEPHANT,' creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Despite arguments regarding conflicting agreements from the manufacturer, the court upheld the plaintiff's prior rights and dismissed the defendant's application to vacate the injunction.
Superon Schweisstechnik India Limited v.D & H India Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging an order that allowed a plaintiff's application to amend their plaint. The plaintiff sought to introduce facts regarding the earlier use of the trademark SUPERON by its parent group, Stanvac Chemicals India Limited, dating back to 1994. Despite arguments from the defendant claiming grave prejudice due to the change in user date, the court upheld the amendment order. The judgment emphasized that at the stage of considering an amendment, the court must not delve into the merits or correctness of the claims, provided the amendment is necessary for proper adjudication and is bona fide.
M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt Ltd v.Amit Dahanukar & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed the defendant's attempt to dismiss the trademark infringement suit by arguing that the cause of action was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The court found that since the alleged unauthorized use and infringement constituted a continuing cause of action, the earlier litigation did not bar the present suit. Consequently, the application for dismissal was dismissed, allowing the main IP dispute to proceed.
Roopak Stores Pvt. Ltd. v.Roopaks Pik-N-Pay
The Delhi High Court addressed an injunction application filed by Roopak Stores Pvt. Ltd. against Roopaks Pik-N-Pay regarding alleged trademark infringement of 'ROOPAK'. While the plaintiffs sought a complete restraint, the court acknowledged the defendants' long-standing use of the mark since 1994 and noted unexplained delay in filing the suit (2017). Consequently, instead of granting an outright injunction, the Court ordered the defendants to cease using variants of the mark while simultaneously mandating them to file detailed accounts from 1993-94 to facilitate a fair trial.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking to defer or modify the appointment of a scientific expert to determine if the defendant's product, VALSAC, falls within the scope of Claim 1 of their patent (IN 229051). The court accepted the suggestion to appoint an expert from the Roll of Experts and framed a specific question for the appointed Expert Advisor.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing its patented pharmaceutical composition, Valsartan + Sacubitril (Patent No. 229051). The dispute centered on whether Natco's product, VALSAC, was identical to the claimed invention. The court found prima facie merit in Novartis' contentions and appointed an independent Expert Advisor to determine infringement.
DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V & Anr. v.Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co (WQD) & Anr.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of a process patent related to 'Amoxicillin Trihydrate'. The application before the court sought contempt proceedings due to alleged violation of an earlier interim order. The court found that the defendant's manufacturing process was virtually identical to the patented process, thus violating the interim restraint.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh & Anr v.Mn Reddy & Anr
The dispute involved allegations of patent infringement concerning the drug RIVAROXABAN (Patent No. 211300). The parties reached a settlement, leading to a decree in favour of the plaintiff.
Mahesh Gupta v.Dheeraj Kumar
This order in CS(COMM) 341/2017 addresses allegations of design infringement concerning the 'AQUA GRANDE' water purifier. Despite the defendants claiming they had stopped using the impugned trademark, the court noted evidence showing the sale of the infringing product through a third party, Mannat Electronics. Consequently, the court directed the defendants to file an affidavit clarifying their connection with this seller and detailing their sales turnover for the financial year 2018-19.
Nv Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v.A.D.S Spirits Pvt. Ltd.
In this commercial suit concerning trademark and copyright infringement, the Delhi High Court allowed Nv Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. to file crucial additional documentation. The plaintiff sought permission to submit legal proceedings certificates and invoices related to their BESTO whisky brand. After considering arguments from both sides, the court granted leave for the documents to be taken on record, provided the plaintiff pays a cost of Rs. 15,000/-.
dharampal satyapal sons pvt ltd v.mr satish kumar
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Pvt Ltd (Plaintiff) sued Mr. Satish Kumar & Ors (Defendants) for infringement of their registered trademark 'PULSE' on candies, alleging deceptive similarity to the Defendants’ brand ‘PLUS’ and trade dress. Both parties were selling candies in class 30, with the Plaintiff claiming significant market share and goodwill.
Red Bull Ag v.C. Eswari & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Red Bull Ag, declaring its 'Double Bull Device' and 'Single Bull Device' trademarks as well-known marks in India. The court found that Red Bull's extensive global presence, massive sales figures (controlling 97.3% of the Indian energy drink market), and widespread promotion satisfied the criteria for a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This declaration provides strong legal backing to prevent unauthorized use by defendants in related goods.
Kama Ayurveda Private Limited v.Rwl Healthworld Ltd. & Ors
Kama Ayurveda sought an interim injunction against Rwl Healthworld, alleging that the defendant's product packaging was deceptively similar to its own 'Eladi Hydrating Ayurvedic Face Cream,' thereby constituting passing off. The Delhi High Court examined both products and found material distinctions in shape, color scheme (gold/cream vs. white/off-white), and floral patterns. Ultimately, the court concluded that a common purchaser would not be misled, dismissing the plaintiff's application for an interim order.
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/S Arora Sationers
This case involves a dispute over design rights concerning a pen. The defendants filed an application seeking to amend their written statement, claiming that they had subsequently received a Certificate of Registration for Design No. 282909 in Class 19-06. The plaintiffs opposed the amendment, arguing it was mutually destructive and that the trial had already commenced. However, the court allowed the amendment, finding that the registration was a subsequent development and not fundamentally contradictory to the earlier pleas.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Lupin Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd against Lupin Ltd and others. The court found that the defendant's trade mark, TRI-VOBIT, was structurally and phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark, TRIVOLIB. Despite arguments regarding prior use of 'VOBIT,' the court ruled that the full marks must be compared, establishing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Vinod Jadhav
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp sought confirmation of an existing ex parte ad interim injunction against Vinod Jadhav and others, alleging that they were infringing on their registered patent for the drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs established that they held a valid patent (No. 209816) and had previously secured a permanent injunction in a related suit. The court found that the plaintiffs clearly made out a prima facie case and confirmed the interim order, noting the defendants' attempts to delay the matter.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr.
Vifor (International) Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr. for infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers a novel water soluble iron carbohydrate complex used for intravenous treatment of iron deficiency. The court found that the defendants were violating the plaintiff's registered patent rights.
Wonderful Developers Private Ltd. v.Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Private Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a conflict regarding when a trade mark infringement suit must be stayed pending rectification proceedings before the IPAB. The court clarified that merely filing a rectification application after an infringement suit has commenced does not automatically mandate a stay. Instead, the trial court must assess whether the plea of invalidity is prima facie tenable; if so, it should stay the suit to allow time for the IPAB decision. This ruling provides clarity on the procedural interplay between civil suits and IPAB rectification actions.
Tata Sons Ltd v.Neil Sombuntham & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Ltd, granting a permanent injunction against Neil Sombuntham and others for infringing on the well-known 'TATA' trademark. The court found that the defendant's use of the domain name 'www.tatamassage.com' constituted misappropriation and an attempt to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the Tata brand in the global market. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or domain name, and the court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name to the plaintiff.
Crayons Advertising Ltd v.Crayon Advertising
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Crayons Advertising Ltd against Crayon Advertising regarding trademark and domain name infringement. The court found that the defendant's use of a substantially similar domain name, 'www.crayonadv.com,' was likely to cause confusion and irreparable harm to the plaintiff, who had established itself as a prominent user of the mark 'CRAYONS' since 1986. This ruling underscores the importance of protecting prior users in the digital space against deceptive similarity.
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.