Jyoti Singh
189 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
189 cases indexed | Page 7 of 7
Whitehat Education Technology Private Limited v.Ms Kanishk Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Whitehat Education Technology Private Limited against Ms Kanishk Enterprises & Anr. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trademark entry bearing number 4786408 in Class 16. This decision effectively removed the contested mark from the register, favoring the petitioner's claim regarding the intellectual property rights.
WHITEHAT EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED v.MS KANISHK ENTERPRISES & ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addressed a petition for the rectification of a registered trademark. While the substantive issues were not decided on this date, the court focused on procedural matters. The court noted that the Vakalatnama for Defendant No. 1 was missing from the record and directed steps to be taken to place it on file. The matter has been listed for further hearing.
Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited v.The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority & Ors.
Astrazeneca challenged several orders and notifications issued by NPPA regarding overcharging on its drug, OSIMERTINIB (TAGRISSO). The petitioner argued that the drug is patented and qualifies for a five-year exemption from price controls under DPCO, 2013. The Court directed NPPA to reconsider the matter afresh after taking into account the data supplied by the petitioner.
M/S Aman Engineering Works v.Registrar, Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry, New Delhi & Anr.
M/S Aman Engineering Works challenged the Trade Mark Registry's decision to allow review applications filed years after trademark applications were allegedly abandoned due to non-attendance at hearings. The Petitioner argued that the Senior Examiner lacked jurisdiction to condone delays far exceeding statutory limits, citing Supreme Court precedent. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Petitioner and granted an interim stay on the impugned orders while further legal issues regarding the condonation of over 16 years of delay are examined.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt Ltd v.Time Plus Institute & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Triumphant Institute Of Management (T.I.M.E.) against Time Plus Institute, recognizing the strong likelihood of trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the respondent's use of similar marks was likely to deceive the public and dilute T.I.M.E.'s established goodwill in the coaching industry. Furthermore, a local commissioner was appointed to seize infringing materials, reinforcing the protection of T.I.M.E.'s statutory and common law rights.
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc appealed against the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting their opposition to the registration of the mark GHOST BUSTER. The appellant argued that the mark is similar to their well-known trademark GHOSTBUSTERS and that the respondent had applied for registration in bad faith. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The Registrar will now consider the appellant's contentions relating to alleged bad faith and the claim that the mark GHOSTBUSTERS is entitled to protection as a well-known trademark.
Astral Ltd v.M/S. Sri Sai Electricals & Ors
Astral Ltd filed a suit against M/S. Sri Sai Electricals & Ors for trademark infringement, seeking a decree of permanent injunction. The defendants agreed to give up the use of the impugned marks and not to use any marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark ASTRAL. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, with the defendants permitted to sell existing stock within five months.
M/S. Psychotropic India Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/S. Psychotropic India Limited, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to correct the class of goods in respect of Trademark Application No. 2038075 from Class 11 to Class 05. The petitioner had filed the application for the mark 'THIOPIL' in 2010, but due to an error, the application was processed under the wrong class. The court ordered the correction to be made within three weeks and the application to be processed expeditiously thereafter.
Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd v.Exotic Mile
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application for interim injunction filed by Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd against Exotic Mile, seeking to restrain the defendant from using the trademark BOULT, which was deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks BOAT/boAt. The court found that the defendant had discontinued the use of the impugned marks and had transitioned to a new trademark, rendering the application without merit. The case highlights the importance of establishing undue hardship in seeking interim relief. The court's decision is significant as it demonstrates the application of trademark law principles in determining the similarity between marks and the potential for consumer confusion.
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.