Jyoti Singh
189 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark, design matters.
Cases Presided Over
189 cases indexed | Page 5 of 7
Ravinder Singhania v.Union Of India & Anr.
Ravinder Singhania filed a writ petition challenging the validity of certain provisions related to patents. Since one of the reliefs sought involved questioning the legal validity (vires) of Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Rule 24B(2)(i) of the Patents Rules, 2003, the court ordered the matter to be listed before a Division Bench.
Disposafe Health And Life Care Ltd & Hindustan Syringes & Medical Devices Limited v.Rajiv Nath & Anr.
The Delhi High Court consolidated two related commercial suits concerning trademark disputes involving the 'DISPOSAFE' and other 'DISPO' formative marks. The court framed detailed issues covering questions of mark proprietorship, alleged infringement, passing off, and prior user rights. This consolidation paves the way for a comprehensive trial to determine the validity and scope of the trademarks in the medical device sector.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Jimsun Life Sciences P. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'JIMSUN' held by Jimsun Life Sciences P. Ltd. The court granted the relief based on a settlement reached between the parties, where Respondent No. 1 agreed to have no objection to the cancellation. This order effectively cleared the path for the Petitioner to remove the disputed mark from the registry.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Sanjeev Gupta
The commercial suit for patent infringement concerning Sitagliptin (protected by IN 209816) was settled between Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. The Defendants acknowledged the validity of the patent and agreed to cease all infringing activities, including manufacturing generic versions, until the patent expires.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Chougle Salt Works Private Limited
Tata Sons Private Limited successfully resolved its intellectual property dispute against Chougle Salt Works Private Limited through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties executed a comprehensive settlement agreement acknowledging that the defendant had inadvertently infringed upon Tata's registered copyrights (TATASALT packaging) and trademarks (TATA SALT). Under the terms, the defendant agreed to cease using similar marks, destroy infringing materials, and permanently refrain from applying for or using any confusingly similar IP rights. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on this settlement.
Astrazeneca Ab v.MSN Laboratories Limited
Astrazeneca filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringing Indian Patent IN 297581 related to cancer treatment. The dispute centered on whether a Public Notice issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals constituted Government Authorization allowing generic manufacturing. The Court clarified that the notice was merely for collating local manufacturer details, not an authorization to infringe.
Best Agrolife Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller's decision granting Patent No. IN 394568, arguing that the grant was flawed because the pre-grant opposition raised on grounds like lack of novelty and non-patentability under Section 3(d) was ignored. The court found that the impugned order was non-speaking, failed to address key objections, and did not consider expert affidavits. Consequently, the matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Sehgal Auto House Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sunil Sehgal
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited against Sehgal Auto House. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was engaged in the wholesale business of counterfeit spare parts using the HERO trademark and logo, infringing both trademark rights and copyright associated with packaging. The court authorized a Local Commissioner to search and seize all infringing products and related materials from the Defendant's premises.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.Mr. Bijender Kumar Trading As M/S Shri Balaji Enterprises
In a significant move to protect its brand integrity, Exxon Mobil Corporation sought an interim injunction against Mr. Bijender Kumar Trading As M/S Shri Balaji Enterprises for selling counterfeit products bearing the 'MOBIL' trademark. The Delhi High Court granted the ex-parte ad-interim injunction and authorized a Local Commissioner to search and seize the infringing goods at the defendant's premises. This order underscores the court's willingness to provide swift, robust remedies against trademark infringement and counterfeiting in the commercial sector.
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. v.Powereye Electronics
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. filed a fresh suit against Powereye Electronics under the Trademark and Copyright Act, seeking permanent injunction and relief for passing off. The petitioners challenged an earlier court order that merely adjourned the matter. While the High Court clarified it was not adjudicating the merits of the case, it supported the petitioner's request to expedite the proceedings. Consequently, the Trial Court was directed to take up the matter on 04.07.2022.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitions were filed seeking directions to expedite the hearing and adjudication of a post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN 257402, which was facing significant delays by the Respondents (Controller/UOI). The Petitioner also challenged the validity of the Opposition Board's constitution and recommendation.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Union of India
The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking directions to the respondents (Controller/UOI) to expedite the hearing and adjudication of a post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN 257402. The petitioner also challenged the validity of the Opposition Board's recommendation, alleging procedural flaws. The Court directed the Competent Authority to decide the pending representation and scheduled the patent proceedings.
Ambuja Cements Limited v.Shiv Kripa Steels & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ambuja Cements Limited against Shiv Kripa Steels & Anr. The court found that the defendants' use of marks was a slavish imitation of Ambuja's registered trademarks 'AMBUJA' and 'VIRAT'. Given the likelihood of customer confusion in the common building materials trade, the injunction prevents the defendants from using deceptively similar marks or devices related to cement and allied goods.
Amazon Seller Services Private Limited v.Amazonbuys.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Amazon Seller Services Private Limited to implead a new infringing website, 'storeamazon.co.in,' in its ongoing suit against rogue sellers. Citing precedent regarding mirror websites, the court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining this new defendant from infringing Amazon's trademarks and copyrights. Furthermore, the court directed various internet service providers (ISPs) and domain registrars to block access to the site and disclose registrant details, reinforcing judicial control over online piracy.
Kamla Kant And Company Llp v.Sanjay Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit filed by Kamla Kant & Company LLP against Sanjay Gupta & Anr. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of similar marks ('RAJ', 'KG') for tobacco and allied products, infringing upon the Plaintiff's established trademarks 'RAJSHREE' and 'KP'. Through a settlement agreement, the court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from using confusingly similar marks while allowing them to use 'KANTHA RAJA' under strict conditions. The parties also agreed on financial compensation and the destruction of infringing materials.
Havells India Limited v.Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt Ltd
Havells India Limited filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt Ltd, alleging that the latter's VENICE PRIME series of ceiling fans was a blatant imitation and substantial reproduction of Havells' registered ENTICER/ENTICER ART designs. The Plaintiff asserted its market dominance and unique design features protected under the Designs Act, 2000. The Delhi High Court found that the Plaintiff had successfully made out a prima facie case for infringement and balance of convenience in its favor.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Chardikla Accessories & Ors.
In the ongoing trademark dispute between Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Chardikla Accessories, the Delhi High Court issued an order on February 24, 2023. The court noted that Defendant No. 4 expressed a willingness to settle the matter, similar to Defendants No. 1 through 3. Consequently, the case was listed for further proceedings and settlement discussions on April 6, 2023.
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v.Www.Indiabullsdhanifinance.Co & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., finding that the defendant's website and domain name were engaged in trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court found that the use of deceptively similar marks ('Indiabulls', 'Dhani') and identical get-up was designed to mislead customers into believing the fraudulent site was affiliated with the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the defendant was permanently restrained from using the infringing marks and their website operation was suspended.
ITC Limited v.Fortune Holidays Inn And Suites Private Limited & Anr.
ITC Limited filed a suit against Fortune Holidays Inn And Suites Private Limited and others, alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the use of the 'FORTUNE' brand in the hospitality sector. The court acknowledged ITC's extensive rights over the 'FORTUNE' trademarks and noted the potential for consumer confusion caused by the Defendants' unauthorized use. While reserving a full hearing on the merits, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, immediately stopping the Defendants from making new bookings under the disputed mark.
Shivan Ramachandran & Anr. v.Madhur Sharma
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on May 27, 2022. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents while simultaneously accepting a significant undertaking from the defendant. The defendant agreed to withdraw pending trademark applications and cease all sales of the disputed products, providing an affidavit detailing existing stock and past sales figures.
A India Print House Through Its Partners Kunal Kapoor and Vibha Kapoor v.Pavan Bansal Trading As Bajrang Traders
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of A India Print House against Pavan Bansal Trading As Bajrang Traders. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was deceptively using the identical trademark, trade-dress, and color scheme ('MERCURY') for playing cards, leading to a high likelihood of consumer confusion and passing off. The Court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, concluding that the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm while the suit proceeds.
FMC Corporation v.Insecticides India Limited
The case involves FMC Corporation and others against Insecticides India Limited regarding patent infringement. The defendant has indicated they will not launch a product until certain patents expire.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Msn Laboratories Limited
This order was passed in an interim application filed by the Plaintiffs (Astrazeneca Ab). The Defendant (MSN Laboratories Limited), through its counsel, requested a restraint on commercial launch while challenging the patent's validity and rights under Section 107(A) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Welcome Shoes Private Limited v.Retro Footwears Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court judgment in Welcome Shoes vs. Retro Footwears concluded the dispute through an amicable settlement between the parties. The defendants agreed to withdraw several similar trademarks, cease using deceptively similar marks like 'BURE' or 'WELCOMO' for footwear, and refrain from diluting the plaintiff's established brands ('WELCOME' and 'PURE'). This resolution provides a clear path forward, binding both companies to the terms of the settlement decree.
Sudhir Bhatia Trading As V.Bhatia International v.Central Government Of India & Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a challenge to the registration of the trademark 'LAXMAN REKHA' by arguing that the initial advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal was illegible. The petitioner sought to quash the advertisement and compel re-advertisement, claiming this error prejudiced their ability to file an opposition. However, the court ultimately dismissed the petition, emphasizing that while the Registrar has a duty to ensure proper advertising, the petitioner's significant delay in challenging the registration—despite learning of the issue years earlier—precluded the High Court from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Pi Industries Limited v.Seedlings India Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications before proceeding with the main suit. The court decreed the suit against Defendants No. 1 to 3, based on their submission that they would not contest the patent infringement claim and were willing to suffer an injunction.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Mackedos Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
In this trademark infringement suit, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited sought a permanent injunction against Mackedos Pharmaceuticals Ltd. regarding the use of the mark 'OFLOMAC.' The court noted that the matter was previously stayed pending an IPAB order which ultimately favored the Plaintiff by ordering the removal of the Defendant's mark due to deceptive similarity with 'OFRAMAX.' However, given conflicting statements made by counsel before the Bombay High Court regarding the continuation of the suit, the Delhi High Court decided not to rule on the procedural dispute and instead issued notice for the Defendant to file a reply.
Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. v.Mukesh Dalmia
In this Delhi High Court order, Jindal Stainless sought to cancel an upcoming evidence recording date before a Local Commissioner. The request was made because the Plaintiff had filed rectification proceedings challenging the Defendant's trademark registration. Since the Defendant raised no objection, the court allowed the application and cancelled the scheduled date, allowing the parties to mutually fix a new convenient time.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Vickey Trading As M/S Fash Wagon & Ors.
Havells India Limited successfully resolved its trademark infringement dispute against Vickey Trading As M/S Fash Wagon & Ors. through a comprehensive settlement agreement before the Delhi High Court. The parties agreed that the defendants would cease all use of the infringing mark 'HAVEL' and similar variants, take down online listings, destroy counterfeit materials, and pay damages to Havells. This judgment formally decrees the terms of this amicable resolution.
Starbucks Corporation v.Teaquila A Fashion Cafe & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Starbucks Corporation, granting a permanent injunction against Teaquila A Fashion Cafe & Anr. for infringing the registered trademark 'FRAPPUCCINO' and engaging in passing off. Despite the defendants being proceeded ex parte, the court found them guilty of infringement based on the evidence presented by Starbucks. Furthermore, the court awarded damages to Starbucks, noting that while specific sales figures were lacking, notional damages could be granted given the established infringement.
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.