Jyoti Singh
235 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
235 cases indexed | Page 7 of 8
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.
Ruptech Educational India v.Mansi Aggarwal
The Delhi High Court formally decreed a commercial suit between Ruptech Educational India and Mansi Aggarwal based on an amicable settlement reached by both parties. The settlement agreement addressed disputes concerning formative trademarks, specifically the word 'SCOTTISH.' Key terms included the withdrawal of pending trademark applications by the defendant, a limited grace period for the use of certain marks until December 31, 2022, and subsequent cessation of all related activities. This judgment provides a clear example of how parties can resolve complex IP disputes through mediation.
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. v.Swati Narula
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. successfully obtained an interim injunction from the Delhi High Court against Swati Narula in a copyright infringement suit concerning unique artistic garments. The court recognized the Plaintiff's rights over its distinctive designs and granted permission for a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the Defendant's premises. This decisive order allows the Plaintiff to gather evidence of alleged counterfeiting, paving the way for further litigation against the infringer.
Astra Zeneca Ab v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The dispute involved Astra Zeneca alleging infringement of its formulation patents (IN 247984 and IN 272674) by Torrent Pharmaceuticals' product, Ticagrelor. The parties amicably resolved their differences before the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Metrochem Api Pvt. Ltd
The parties amicably resolved their dispute concerning Patent Infringement (CS(COMM) No. 406 of 2019). The Settlement Agreement stipulated that the suit would be decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs, who hold exclusive rights over products containing Sitagliptin.
Lilly Icos Llc v.Vivek Pharmachem And Anr.
The dispute between Lilly Icos Llc and Vivek Pharmachem was amicably resolved through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties executed a settlement agreement where they mutually acknowledged each other's respective trademarks, 'CIALIS' and 'ZYDALIS'. Crucially, Defendant No. 2 agreed not to use any mark with the suffix 'ALIS' for erectile dysfunction drugs, while Plaintiff agreed to withdraw an opposition against ZYDALIS. The court subsequently decreed the suit against Defendant No. 2 based on these settlement terms.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed against an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected a post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN319780, thereby maintaining the patent. The Appellant argued that the impugned order was non-speaking and unreasoned. Both parties consented to the matter being remanded.
Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v.Akash S. Shah & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a suit filed by Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. against Akash S. Shah & Anr., which sought permanent injunctions for trademark and copyright infringement and passing off. The parties reached an out-of-court settlement, which the court incorporated into its decree. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff based on these terms, and the Plaintiff was granted a refund of the entire Court Fees.
SMC Foods Limited & Anr. v.Jyoti Devi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of SMC Foods Limited, recognizing the prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were deceptively imitating the Plaintiffs' established brand 'MADHUSUDAN,' including its unique packaging and trade dress. This interim order immediately restricts the defendants from manufacturing or selling products bearing similar marks or designs until the final hearing.
Sopariwala Exports & Ors. v.Mr Grijesh Kumar Garg & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Sopariwala Exports & Ors. against Mr Grijesh Kumar Garg & Ors. The court found that the Plaintiffs had established a strong prima facie case regarding their well-known trademark 'AFZAL' used for tobacco products. Given the potential irreparable harm to the Plaintiff's goodwill, the Court restrained the Defendants from manufacturing or selling any goods using deceptively similar marks like 'AFDHAAL' and 'ALAFDHAAL', pending further hearings.
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiffs, developers of the Fantasy Sports Mobile Application 'EXCHANGE22', filed a suit alleging that the Defendants operate a competing application named MYFAB11 which infringes upon their copyrighted works. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using or making available the infringing content and directed them to suspend domain name registration and remove the app.
Bajaj Finance Ltd & Anr. v.Niko Das & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Bajaj Finance Ltd against Niko Das & Anr. The court found that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case demonstrating that the Defendants were fraudulently using identical or deceptively similar marks, such as 'BAJAJ' and 'BAJAJ FINANCE,' to offer financial services. This unauthorized use was deemed to constitute trademark infringement and passing off, causing potential confusion among the public.
Minda Spectrum Advisory Limited & Ors. v.Ab Petrochem
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Minda Spectrum Advisory Limited & Ors. against Ab Petrochem, recognizing the Plaintiffs' established rights over the MINDA trademark and its variants. The court found that the Defendant was operating under infringing marks (AB MINDA) in the oil and grease sector. To enforce this interim relief, a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the Defendant's premises, seize infringing goods, and inventory relevant business records.
Ferring B.V. v.Precise Bio Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
Ferring B.V. filed a suit alleging infringement of Patent IN 387567, which covered RTS Carbetocin for preventing post-partum haemorrhage. The Plaintiffs argued that manufacturing occurred while the patent was validly granted in February 2022. However, the court found merit in the Defendants' contention that since the grant order was subsequently set aside by a writ petition, there was no valid patent to sustain the infringement suit.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Neeram Garg & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning the brand SAKRNI PLASTER, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders on April 7, 2022. The court granted exemptions to the Plaintiffs regarding document filing and advance notice service due to urgency. Crucially, the court allowed an application for ex-parte ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, leading to the appointment of Local Commissioners to seize infringing products and inspect the Defendants' premises.
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.