Manmohan
157 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
157 cases indexed | Page 5 of 6
M/S Micolube India Limited v.Rakesh Kumar Trading As Saurabh Industries & Ors
M/S Micolube India Limited filed a suit against Rakesh Kumar Trading As Saurabh Industries for infringement of its registered container design. The dispute centered on the similarity of the designs, with both parties holding registrations from the same office. The defendants challenged the validity and scope of the plaintiff's rights, raising complex legal questions regarding concurrent registration and the applicability of passing off alongside statutory design law. Given the judicial inconsistency in existing precedents, the court decided to refer these fundamental issues to a larger bench for an authoritative ruling.
The Press Trust Of India Limited v.Navbharat Press (Bhopal Pvt. Ltd.)
The Press Trust Of India Limited filed a suit against Navbharat Press (Bhopal Pvt. Ltd.) alleging unauthorized copying and reproduction of its proprietary news articles in their publications, 'Central Chronicle' and 'Navbharat'. The plaintiff asserted that as the owner of copyright in the content created by its employees, it held exclusive rights to reproduce and disseminate the work. Despite issuing legal notices, the defendants continued the alleged infringement. The court found that the defendants' publications were verbatim copies or colorable imitations of the plaintiff's copyrighted works. Consequently, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction restraining further infringement and awarded punitive damages of Rs. 5 lac to the plaintiff.
Executive Access (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Anand Menon & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction favoring Executive Access (India) Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. Anand Menon and others. The plaintiff, which holds registered trademark rights for 'EXECUTIVE ACCESS' and its associated logo in India, alleged that the defendants were operating a competing executive search business using similar names and misrepresenting their affiliation with the plaintiff. The court found a strong prima facie case, recognizing the importance of protecting the plaintiff's territorial rights in the Indian market.
M/S Shree Ganesha Enterprises v.Sandeep Gullah
M/S Shree Ganesha Enterprises filed suit against Sandeep Gullah alleging that after his retirement from their partnership, he began using an identical and deceptively similar trademark, 'CITY BANQUETS,' in a nearby location. The plaintiff claimed this constituted passing off and infringement of their established trade mark, 'CITY BANQUET.' The court confirmed the interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff had made out a strong case for proprietary rights and that allowing the defendant to continue using the name would cause irreparable loss.
M/S Abhipra Capital Ltd. v.Abhipray Securities Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing interim injunction, ruling in favor of M/S Abhipra Capital Ltd. against Abhipray Securities Private Limited and others. The court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off due to the deceptive similarity between 'ABHIPRA' and 'ABHIPRAY'. Despite the defendants arguing lack of jurisdiction or non-similarity, the court upheld the injunction, emphasizing that confusion in business warrants protection even if adopted innocently.
Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v.Bharat Bhogilal Patel & Others
LG Electronics filed a suit challenging actions taken by Customs officials (Defendants No. 2 and 3) who were restricting the clearance of its goods based on a patent infringement complaint filed by Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff argued that the impugned patent lacked novelty and inventive step, and that Customs action was contrary to government circulars regarding border measures for patents.
Federation Of Industries Of India v.Mr. G. Kesavalu Naidu @ Kesavan
The plaintiffs, representing manufacturers of steel pipes, filed a suit against the defendants who had obtained copyright registrations for drawings of these pipes. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using these registrations to threaten and extract money from them. The court ultimately ruled that no valid copyright subsisted in the mere concept or idea of the pipe drawing.
Rohit Khattar & Anr. v.Cookie Singh
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Rohit Khattar & Anr., finding that the defendant's use of 'CHOR BIZZARE' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against their established brand, CHOR BIZARRE. The court noted that despite a mere misspelling, the similarity was sufficient to create confusion among consumers regarding the origin of the restaurant services. Consequently, the plaintiffs were granted permanent injunctions and awarded damages.
M/S Marvel Tea Estate India Ltd. v.P.M. Batra (Prop) M/S Gurukripa Traders
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S Marvel Tea Estate India Ltd. against P.M. Batra (Prop) M/S Gurukripa Traders, finding that the defendant's use of 'MARVEL TOUCH' was likely to cause confusion and constitute trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized the extensive goodwill and reputation built by the plaintiff under its registered mark 'MARVEL' in Class-30 goods like tea and spices. This ruling underscores the protection afforded to established brands against deceptively similar marks, even during preliminary proceedings.
Super Cassetes Industries Ltd. v.Myspace Inc.
Super Cassetes Industries Ltd. filed a suit against Myspace Inc., alleging that the social networking platform was infringing its copyrights across thousands of songs and films. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' business model encouraged users to upload and share copyrighted material without authorization, causing significant royalty losses. The court addressed interim applications seeking injunctions to prevent further infringement.
Davinder Kumar Jain & Ors. v.Sanjeev Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who owned the 'LUXOR' trademark, finding that defendants were infringing upon their rights by using the mark on electric bulbs. The court established both trademark infringement and passing off, noting that allowing continued use would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and punitive damages.
The Himalaya Drug Company & Ors. v.Surjit Singh Sial & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of The Himalaya Drug Company, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant's website for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation. The court found that the defendants were unauthorizedly selling and promoting Himalaya products while creating a false impression of being authorized dealers. Furthermore, the parties settled on damages, with the defendants agreeing to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the plaintiffs.
M/S. M.K. Petro Products India Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. M.K. Bitumen Products
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex parte interim injunction, ruling in favor of M/S. M.K. Petro Products India Pvt. Ltd. against M/S. M.K. Bitumen Products. The court found that the defendant's use of 'MK' and its similar firm name was likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers, despite the defendant claiming trademark registration. This decision reinforces the principle that established goodwill and reputation can outweigh subsequent registrations if consumer confusion is a risk.
M/S Loreal v.Mr. Rajesh Verma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Loreal against Mr. Rajesh Verma & Anr., finding that the defendants were infringing upon Loreal's registered trademark 'L'OREAL'. The court determined that the use of the identical mark on similar cosmetic goods constituted both trademark infringement and passing off, noting a clear case of triple identity (same mark, same goods, same market). Consequently, the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction against the defendants, although claims for damages were rejected due to lack of evidence.
John Wiley & Sons Inc. v.Prabhat Chander Kumar Jain
John Wiley & Sons Inc. and its affiliates filed suit alleging that defendants were illegally exporting their copyrighted 'Low Price Edition' academic books outside the territories specified in the licenses. The plaintiffs argued that these editions, intended for specific regional markets like India, carried explicit notices prohibiting circulation elsewhere. The court found prima facie evidence of copyright infringement due to this unauthorized export and granted a temporary injunction.
Country Inn Private Ltd. v.Country Inns And Suites By Carlson, Inc.
The Delhi High Court disposed of interim applications concerning trademark infringement and passing off between Country Inn Private Ltd. and Country Inns And Suites By Carlson, Inc. While the plaintiff asserted prior rights over the 'Country Inn' trademark, the court ultimately denied an injunction against the plaintiff, citing that stopping its 17-year-old business would cause irreparable loss. Instead, the court imposed strict conditions on the plaintiff, requiring transparent financial reporting and restricting new licensing agreements until the suit is resolved.
Glaverbel S.A. v.Dave Rose & Ors.
Glaverbel S.A. filed an application seeking an ad-interim injunction against Dave Rose & Ors., alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and selling copper-free mirrors infringing Patent No. 190380. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the innovative process and product, which lacked a copper layer.
Pachranga Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v.Som Nath & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed interim applications filed by both parties regarding alleged infringement and passing off of the 'Pachranga' mark. While declining to grant a definitive injunction at that stage, the court mandated an expedited trial. Crucially, it allowed the defendants to continue using their label under strict conditions—specifically requiring them to use different fonts/scripts and background colors to prevent market confusion, while also compelling them to maintain detailed quarterly sales accounts.
Pachranga Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v.N. Kheri Gram Udyog Mandal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application filed by Pachranga Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. against N. Kheri Gram Udyog Mandal & Anr., concerning the alleged infringement of its trade mark 'Pachrangas Farm Fresh'. While declining to grant a blanket restraining order at that stage, the court issued several critical directions. These include mandating the defendant to maintain and file quarterly accounts of sales, allowing conditional use of certain design elements, and permitting the temporary use of 'CHAMPION PACHRANGA' to mitigate market confusion until the final trial.
Rana Steels v.Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications filed by Rana Steels concerning the alleged infringement of its registered trademark RANA. The core dispute revolved around the defendant's continued use of similar marks (RANATOR/RAN INDIA) in relation to steel products, despite existing injunction orders. Recognizing the need for factual verification regarding ongoing usage and the disposal of old stock, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises and examine account books.
Micolube India Ltd. v.Maggon Auto Centre & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to stay a trade mark infringement suit due to pending rectification proceedings. The court ruled that while the suit claiming infringement of a registered trademark must be stayed until the validity of the registration is determined, the separate claim for 'passing off' can continue independently. This nuanced decision clarifies the scope of Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing parties to pursue related claims even when one aspect of the litigation is paused.
Dashmesh Mechanical Works v.Hari Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking declaration and injunction against groundless threats related to Patent No. 213823. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction by filing an application for return of plaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Pine Labs Pvt. Ltd. v.Gemalto Terminals India Pvt. Ltd.
Pine Labs sued Gemalto Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. for copyright infringement related to its software (Version 1.03) used in the IOCL Fleet Card Program. The dispute centered on whether the plaintiff had validly assigned all intellectual property rights to the defendant under the MSA, especially concerning subsequent modifications after the original work order expired.
Sap Aktiengesellschaft & Anr. v.M/S. Varehouse Infotech
This case involved a suit filed by SAP Aktiengesellschaft against M/S. Varehouse Infotech seeking permanent injunctions for copyright infringement related to SAP software. The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient nexus with Delhi under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. However, the High Court dismissed the application, holding that since Plaintiff No. 2 was carrying on business in Delhi on an extensive scale, the court possessed the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
Modi Mundi Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v.Matrix Formulations & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Modi Mundi Pharma Pvt. Ltd., finding that the defendant's use of 'NEUROCONTIN-800' infringed upon the plaintiff's registered trademark 'CONTIN'. The court held that the resemblance between the marks was likely to cause confusion and deceive consumers, thereby amounting to passing off. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants and ordering them to surrender all infringing materials.
Dabur India Ltd. v.Sh. Ashok Aushadhi Udyog
Dabur India Ltd. filed a suit against Sh. Ashok Aushadhi Udyog alleging that the latter had adopted deceptively similar labels for ayurvedic tonics, specifically Dashmularishta and Ashokarishta. Dabur claimed ownership of copyright in the artistic work comprising these distinctive product labels. The court found sufficient evidence to establish Dabur's proprietary rights and ruled that the defendant's use constituted infringement. Consequently, the suit was decreed with permanent injunctions and punitive damages awarded.
M/s Lachhman Das Behari Lal v.Ghanshyam Das Jetha Nand & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by the defendants seeking to set aside an ex parte decree passed against them in a suit involving trademark, copyright, and passing off claims. While acknowledging the procedural issues raised by the defendants regarding lack of personal service, the court found that the matter required further evidence to determine if there was sufficient cause for setting aside the decree or condoning the delay. Consequently, the court framed specific issues and directed both parties to file their lists of witnesses and evidence.
Alberto-Culver Usa Inc. v.Nexus Health & Home Care (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction against alleged trademark infringement by Nexus Health & Home Care (P) Ltd. The court found a need to strike an equitable balance, issuing a mixed order. While restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark 'Nexxus' in relation to the goods covered by the plaintiff's trademarks, the court allowed the defendant to continue operating under its corporate name in specific states until the final disposal of the suit.
Agc Flat Glass Europe Sa v.Anand Mahajan And Ors.
The plaintiff, claiming global leadership in glass technologies, filed an application seeking to amend Claim 1 of Indian Patent No. 190380 concerning copper-free mirrors (MNGE). The defendants objected, arguing the amendment added new matter and was an attempt to evade patent revocation. The court allowed the amendment, finding it merely clarificatory.
Mahesh Gupta & Anr. v.Tej Singh Yadav & Anr.
The plaintiffs, who developed the 'Mineral RO' water purifier technology under Patent No. 199716 and marketed it under the brand KENT Mineral RO, filed a suit against the defendants for infringing their patent, copyright, and goodwill. The court found that the defendant's product fully adopted and copied the patented technology, leading to a settlement where the defendants agreed to pay damages and cease 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.