Jyoti Singh
235 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
235 cases indexed | Page 8 of 8
Savelife Foundation v.Mr. Aslam Shaikh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Savelife Foundation against Mr. Aslam Shaikh and others. The court found that Defendants were fraudulently using deceptively similar trademarks ('Save LIFE' and 'Save LIFE Foundation') and associated domains to solicit funds, thereby infringing the Plaintiff's well-known trademark and committing passing off. This immediate relief aims to prevent irreparable harm while the main suit proceeds.
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v.Www.Dhanifinance.In & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., granting permanent injunctions against Www.Dhanifinance.In for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court found that the defendant was operating a fraudulent website using deceptively similar marks ('Indiabulls', 'Dhani') and domain names to mislead consumers into believing they were dealing with Indiabulls Group. Consequently, the defendant's website operation was suspended, and damages were awarded.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Vifor (International) Ltd filed suit against Hetero Healthcare Limited alleging infringement of its patented drug, FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE. Vifor contended that Hetero was preparing to launch a generic version under the brand HETROFER, which infringed upon their exclusive patent rights for treating iron deficiency anaemia. The Delhi High Court examined the prima facie case and balance of convenience presented by the Plaintiffs.
Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. v.Sai Krishna Foods
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. against Sai Krishna Foods regarding trademark infringement. The Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that their 'ROYAL' mark is well-known, enjoys significant goodwill, and the Defendant was using a similar mark to cause consumer confusion. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from selling infringing products and ordered a Local Commissioner to search and seize the counterfeit goods.
UPL Limited v.Agro King Pesticides Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute involved UPL Limited asserting its patent rights over the composition Clodinafop-Propargyl (15%) + Metsulfuron Methyl (1%) WP against Agro King Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. The matter was amicably settled before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Pioneer Corporation v.Gulab Goel & Ors.
In a suit involving claims of trademark and copyright infringement, Pioneer Corporation and Defendant No. 8 reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. As part of this resolution, Defendant No. 8 paid compensation to the Plaintiff. The Delhi High Court subsequently allowed the application, passing a decree of permanent injunction against Defendant No. 8 and disposing of the suit concerning that specific defendant.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Sai Deepa Rock Drills Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their registered patents related to Top Hammer Rock Drilling Tools. The court passed an interim order granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from commercializing the infringing products and directed the defendants to disclose specific financial and production details on affidavit.
Xiaomi Inc v.Dharama Mobitel Industries Private Limited & Anr.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed a request filed by Dharama Mobitel Industries Private Limited to cancel the trademark 'SHOMI.' The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the mark from the register after the respondent provided an affidavit confirming that they were not using the trademark and would not use it in the future for related goods. This decision highlights the importance of active use or intent to use when maintaining a registered trademark.
JK Cement Limited v.Anav Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of JK Cement Limited against Anav Industries & Anr. The court found that JK Cement had established a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of its well-known trademark 'JK' and associated trade dress on cement and wall putty products. This interim order immediately restrained the defendants from using the deceptively similar mark 'JK Premium' to prevent consumer confusion in the market.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Nisekind Pharma Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against Nisekind Pharma Private Limited. The court found that Mankind, a major player in the Indian pharmaceutical industry, had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement. The ruling specifically restrained the defendant from using the name 'NISEKIND PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED' and any similar mark containing the word element KIND for medicinal preparations, citing potential consumer confusion and dilution of Mankind's well-known marks.
Vifor International Ltd v.Unijules Life Sciences Limited
The dispute involved allegations of infringement regarding Ferric Carboxymaltose protected under Indian Patent No. 221536. The parties referred the matter to mediation, resulting in a Settlement Agreement dated 21.02.2022.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Daxia Healthcare & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the product SILODAX-8 D, the Delhi High Court directed both parties toward mediation. The defendants agreed not to manufacture or sell further stock of the infringing product while also committing to provide details of all products manufactured and sold to date. This order signals a judicial preference for alternative dispute resolution in complex IP disputes.
Tata Sons Private Limited v.Dinesh Kumar
The Delhi High Court disposed of the dispute between Tata Sons Private Limited and Dinesh Kumar after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The agreement confirmed Tata's ownership of the well-known 'TATA' mark and required the defendant to cease all use of the mark or any deceptively similar variations. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to assign his related trademark registration and pay a full and final settlement amount of INR 2,00,000/-.
Syngenta Participations Ag v.Gsp Crop Science Private Limited
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was using a process patented under IN 206995. The Defendant defended by claiming invalidity based on prior art (EP 1031566). This order addressed procedural applications, allowing the Defendant time to file the official translated copy of the cited prior art.
Deepak Kukreja v.Anil Kukreja
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Deepak Kukreja against Anil Kukreja, restraining the latter from using the deceptively similar trademark 'RIGALITE' in relation to electrical goods. The court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off concerning his registered trademarks RIGA and RIGGA. Furthermore, the Court allowed the appointment of Local Commissioners to visit the Defendant's premises, seize infringing materials, and inventory the goods.
Ani Media Pvt Ltd v.Vinay G David & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Ani Media Pvt Ltd alleging that Defendant No.1 was willfully disobeying a prior ad interim injunction order. The court found prima facie evidence of breach, as the defendant continued using the plaintiff's registered trademarks and domain name on his Facebook account despite the restraint order. Consequently, the court issued a show cause notice to initiate proceedings for disobedience and mandated that the defendant remove all offending content within 48 hours.
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.