Manmohan
157 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, copyright, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
157 cases indexed | Page 2 of 6
Carlsberg Breweries A/S v.Tensberg Breweries And Industries Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an application regarding the alleged expansion of business by Tensberg Breweries despite a prior injunction order. Carlsberg contended that Tensberg was willfully violating the court's restraint by applying for fresh excise licenses in new states using the restrained marks. The court found merit in Carlsberg's contention, leading to notice being issued to Tensberg and setting the matter for further arguments.
M/S Gulab Oil And Food (Ahmedabad) Pvt. Ltd. v.Smt. Madhu Gupta
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S Gulab Oil And Food, upholding the District Judge's interim order that prohibited the appellant from trading and selling 'Gulab' Namkeen products. The court found a prima facie case for confusion between the marks, noting that consumers identify the plaintiff's products solely by asking for 'Gulab.' Furthermore, it held that since namkeen is an allied product to the registered goods (Gajak/Rewari), Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act was attracted, thus justifying the interim protection.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The appeal challenges a single judge's decision that invalidated the Appellant's patent (IN240893). The Appellant argues that the ground of Section 64(1)(h) was not pleaded or evidenced, while the Respondent seeks to uphold the revocation based on various sections of the Patents Act.
Diva Enterprises (P) Ltd v.Institute Of Medico Legal Publication (P) Ltd.
The appeal challenged the dismissal of the appellant's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The appellant argued that the contractual dispute, seeking damages and injunction, was arbitrable. However, the High Court held that since the reliefs sought were primarily based upon Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), the dispute was non-arbitrable.
Mrf Limited. v.Metro Tyres Limited.
Mrf Limited filed a suit alleging that Metro Tyres Limited infringed its copyright by producing a similar advertisement for their tyres. The plaintiff claimed the defendant's ad was a substantial and material copy of their original cinematic work. However, the Delhi High Court found that after applying the R.G. Anand test, the two advertisements were neither substantially nor materially similar in substance or kernel. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction.
M/S Teleecare Network India Pvt Ltd v.M/S Asus Technology Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Teleecare Network India Pvt Ltd, finding that Asus Technology and others had infringed upon its trademark rights through passing off. The court determined that the defendant's adoption of 'ZENFONE' was deceptive because it incorporated the plaintiff's dominant mark 'ZEN' for identical goods (mobile phones). Given the plaintiff's prior use, significant market reputation, and large advertising expenditure, the court granted a permanent injunction to prevent further misuse of similar marks.
Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited v.Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited, which was seeking relief for trademark infringement and passing off. The court dismissed the defendants' application to vacate the order, primarily based on the principle that the defendants themselves had applied for registration of a similar mark (CONCRETA). This ruling reinforces the legal doctrine against 'approbation and reprobation,' preventing parties from contradicting their own prior actions in litigation.
Utv Software Communication Ltd. v.1337X.To and others
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple suits concerning the unauthorized streaming and distribution of copyrighted cinematograph works on various websites. The court found that the defendant-websites were infringing upon the plaintiffs' copyrights.
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v.Mr. Gagan Varshney & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited against Mr. Gagan Varshney & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court observed that the defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'PULSER' and identical trade dress for candies, which infringed upon the plaintiff's registered trademark PULSE and its associated artistic packaging. This protective order prevents the defendants from manufacturing or selling products under the infringing marks until further orders.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Venkata Reddy Alla
The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered Patent No. 209816, along with damages and other reliefs. The case was successfully mediated, leading to a settlement agreement between the parties.
Marico Limited v.Mahajan Group Of Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Marico Limited against Mahajan Group Of Industries & Ors. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off regarding the plaintiff's 'SAFFOLA Oats' brand. Given that the defendants were allegedly selling oats with packaging deceptively similar to SAFFOLA, the court restrained them from manufacturing or distributing the competing product, 'NUTRI DELITE OATS,' until further orders.
H & M Hennes & Mauritz Ab & Anr. v.Hnm Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hennes & Mauritz (H&M) against Hnm Traders. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendants' adoption of 'HnM' was nearly identical to H&M's distinctive style and color schemes. This order prevents the defendant from using any confusingly similar marks or applying for registration until further orders.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Rshyamala Ranganathan
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants for infringement of their registered patent. The defendants stated they have never manufactured the products in question and agreed to the decree.
Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited & Anr. v.Mr. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited (Times Group) against the defendants for infringing their intellectual property rights. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were illegally making available electronic copies of 'The Times of India' and 'The Economic Times,' as well as using the plaintiff's logo on their website without authorization. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, leading to an order restraining the use of the trademarks and copyrighted works, and directing the locking of the infringing domain name.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Amit Apparels & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Under Armour, Inc. against Amit Apparels & Anr., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the defendants were allegedly adopting and using the identical trade mark 'UNDER ARMOUR' and copying its artistic features on apparel goods. Given the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in the infringing goods until further orders.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.Patanjali Ayurved Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Reckitt Benckiser against Patanjali Ayurved concerning alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair trade practices related to toilet cleaner advertisements. The core dispute centered on misleading claims made in both original and revised advertisements regarding the use of hydrochloric acid and product naturalness. While the plaintiff sought to challenge the defendant's revised advertisement, the Court permitted Reckitt Benckiser to amend its plaint, allowing the litigation to proceed while preserving the rights of Patanjali Ayurved.
Pankaj Sales Corporation v.Indra Jain Industries
The Delhi High Court dismissed an execution petition filed by Pankaj Sales Corporation against Indra Jain Industries. The dispute centered on whether the judgment debtor was violating a consensual decree related to trademark use. The court ruled that while the defendant was bound by the settlement agreement regarding specific registered trademarks (TRISHUL/TRIDENT and TRISHUL), the plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights over an unreferenced label design presented in the execution petition. Consequently, the attempt to enforce the alleged violation failed.
Star Television Productions Limited & Ors. v.Vaishali Saran & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Star Television Productions Limited, granting permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing on the 'HOTSTAR' brand through trademark misuse, copyright infringement of logos, and passing off. The court specifically ordered the transfer of deceptive domain names (hotstar.online and hotstarmovies.co) to the plaintiff, emphasizing that domain names function as commercial identifiers akin to trademarks in the digital age.
Dabur India Ltd. v.Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamria
Dabur India Ltd. filed a suit against Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamria alleging infringement of copyright, design rights, and passing off related to its popular brand HAJMOLA Anardana. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing 'KARORPATI Anardana' using packaging and trade dress deceptively similar to its own. After proceeding ex-parte due to the defendant's non-appearance, the court found that the plaintiff successfully proved a likelihood of confusion leading to passing off.
Maya Sharma v.Unique Law Publication House & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Maya Sharma, granting a permanent injunction against Unique Law Publication House & Ors for passing off. The court found that the defendants used deceptively similar trademarks ('UNIQUE' and 'UNIQUE 20') and copied the plaintiff's distinct trade dress on law books. Given the identical goods (law books) and channels of trade, the triple identity test was satisfied, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Ashoka Distillers & Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Ads Spirits Pvt Ltd
Ashoka Distillers & Chemicals Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Ads Spirits Pvt Ltd seeking permanent injunction and damages for trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off related to country liquor. The defendant argued that since the impugned product was restricted and sold only within Haryana, the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The court agreed with the defense, finding that both parties operated in Haryana, thus necessitating filing the suit in a competent court there.
M/S Okaya Power Ltd v.M/S Aqua Healer & Ors
M/S Okaya Power Ltd filed a suit against M/S Aqua Healer & Ors alleging infringement of its registered trademark, 'MINJET', along with claims of passing off and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from using similar names or designs. After reviewing the pleadings, the court found that there were no prospects for the defendants to successfully defend the claim. Consequently, the application for summary judgment was allowed, and the suit was decreed in favor of M/S Okaya Power Ltd.
M/S. Aero Club v.Mr. Sahibjeet & Anr.
M/S. Aero Club filed a suit alleging that Mr. Sahibjeet and others were selling counterfeit products bearing its trademarks, including WOODLAND, TREE DEVICE, and Woodland Label. The plaintiff claimed extensive use of these marks for over 25 years in manufacturing footwear and apparel. After the defendants failed to enter an appearance or file a written statement, the court found they had no real prospect of defending the claim.
M/S.Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Pureca Laboratories (P) Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd against Pureca Laboratories (P) Ltd & Ors, finding that the defendants infringed upon the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. The court held that the defendant's use of similar trademarks and packaging for liver tonic preparations amounted to both copyright infringement and passing off. Consequently, the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from continuing their infringing activities.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v.Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation filed a suit alleging that Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was planning to launch a generic version (ECOGLIPT) of its patented drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs argued this constituted patent infringement and sought a permanent injunction based on the apprehension of future market flooding. The court found the defendant's actions violated Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Mr. Munish Thakur
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Munish Thakur for infringing Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin. The court found that the defendant's product, GLIPSIT-M1, contained Sitagliptin and thus infringed the patent.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.HRCN Cable Network
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited filed a suit against HRCN Cable Network alleging unauthorized use and infringement of its vast repertoire of copyrighted music, sound recordings, and cinematographic films. The plaintiff demonstrated ownership through assignment deeds and copyright certificates, proving that the defendant was illegally broadcasting their content on cable television networks. Consequently, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions against further infringement and awarding the plaintiff compensation amounting to Rs. 16,20,000/-.
yahoo inc v.mr rinshad rinu ors
Yahoo Inc sued Mr Rinshad Rinu and others for infringement of its YAHOO trademark in Class 39, alleging deceptive use in a trading name (yahookochi.com) and business operations. The defendants used the Yahoo mark and logo, claiming they had invested significantly in promoting it.
Dharam Chand Ladha Mal v.Subhash Sabun Udyog & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Dharam Chand Ladha Mal, finding clear similarity between the trade dress of the defendants' products (NIROKHA) and the plaintiff's registered trademark (NAULAKHA). The court granted permanent injunctions to prevent further infringement and passing off. Furthermore, it directed each defendant to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff.
M/S Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. v.H.E. Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Johnson Appliances, finding that the defendants infringed upon the registered trademark 'JOHNSON' in relation to electric water heaters. The court extensively reviewed the historical chain of title, confirming the plaintiff's continuous ownership and rights over the mark since 1960. Despite the defendant's reliance on an alleged license agreement, the court held that the defendants lacked any valid rights to use the mark for these specific goods, granting a permanent injunction.
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.