Mukta Gupta
95 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
95 cases indexed | Page 1 of 4
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for dealing in generic APIXABAN infringing Indian Patent No. IN'247381. The dispute centered on whether the defendants' continued activities, such as participating in tenders and authorizing distributors post-injunction, constituted willful disobedience or contempt of court.
M/S Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. v.Mr. Tazeen Farooqui & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the interim injunction in favor of M/S Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. against Mr. Tazeen Farooqui & Ors., finding that the defendant's mark 'SEABIRD' was deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s established trademark 'STEELBIRD'. The court emphasized the importance of common law rights derived from long, continuous use, ruling that registration alone does not supersede prior proprietary rights. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to well-known marks against potential dilution and confusion in the market.
Kuvam Gujral v.Ashim Gujral & Ors
This appeal challenges a single judge's order that restrained the appellant from using the trademark 'Moti Mahal'. The core dispute revolves around the devolution of proprietary rights in the unregistered trademark following the death of its original applicant. The appellant argues that since the trademark was inherited by multiple branches through intestate succession, all descendants should have the right to use it, preventing exclusion.
T K D Keerthi, Sole Proprietress, M/S Lifeimpressions v.Yamini Manohar
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by T K D Keerthi against the Commercial Court's decision regarding an interim injunction. While the appellant initially accepted waiting for a final decision, the core grievance centered on the lower court prematurely deciding material issues related to trademark abandonment. The Court subsequently issued notice to the respondent, allowing the litigation to proceed and address these specific concerns.
Delhivery Pvt Ltd v.Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited
Delhivery Pvt Ltd and Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited reached a settlement regarding trademark infringement claims. The court formally accepted the Settlement Agreement dated February 26, 2022, which mandated that the respondent acknowledge Delhivery's statutory rights and cease using similar marks. While the suit was decreed granting permanent injunction, the appellant waived their claim for damages and costs in exchange for the resolution.
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED AND OTHERS v.RAJIV MUKUL AND ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an execution petition filed by Glaxo Group Limited seeking enforcement of a prior decree. The core issue is the alleged infringement and passing off committed by the judgment debtors who began selling products under the deceptively similar trade name 'BETNEVIN'. Although the original suit covered various trademarks, the petitioners argued that their rights in 'BETNOVATE' and 'BETNESOL' were encompassed within the general scope of the decree. The Court directed notice to the defendants regarding this new alleged infringement, setting the stage for further litigation.
Red Bull Ag v.Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Red Bull's application for an interim injunction against Pepsico India Holdings regarding the use of the tagline 'STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY.' by their product STING. The court found that both taglines are descriptive and laudatory in nature, meaning the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case at this stage. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favored the defendants given their long-standing market presence with the tagline.
Pharmacyclics Llc. v.Alkem Laboratories Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a commercial suit filed by Pharmacyclics Llc. against Alkem Laboratories Ltd., alleging infringement of Patent IN 262968. The court noted that the plaintiffs had other related suits pending before different benches regarding the same patent. Consequently, the court ordered the listing of the current suit for further consideration.
Jagmohan Ratra v.Ampa Cycles Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction in favor of Jagmohan Ratra against Ampa Cycles Pvt. Ltd., finding that the latter was engaging in passing off. The court determined that the defendant was illegally using the identical mark 'AMPA' and a deceptively similar logo to ride upon the plaintiff's established goodwill, which had been built over nearly three decades. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to unregistered trademarks under common law principles of passing off.
H Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drug Ltd.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were infringing their patent (IN 227963) by manufacturing and exporting substantial quantities of the anti-depressant drug Vortioxetine. The court found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, considering the allegations of export and potential use under Section 107 of the Patents Act.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The commercial suit for patent infringement regarding the drug Sitagliptin was settled between Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (Plaintiffs) and Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1). The court accepted the settlement, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against Defendant No. 1.
M/S Asugar Engineering Services & Anr. v.Weld Trade Pvt. Ltd. and M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to implead M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd. as a defendant in the trademark infringement suit, recognizing that this new party was also infringing the 'AZUCAR' mark. The court found it necessary for the cause of action against them. Furthermore, the court extended existing interim orders to include the newly added defendant. This procedural step ensures all parties involved in the alleged trademark violation are properly before the court.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Nitin Jain & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute where the AMUL Federation alleged that videos produced by Defendant No. 1 were scandalous, disparaging, and specifically targeted their brand using trademark elements like the 'AMUL Girl' mascot. The core issue revolved around whether the content constituted fair use or targeted defamation against the Plaintiffs. While the Plaintiff argued the targeting was evident through specific advertisements shown in the video, the Court directed the Defendant to provide detailed affidavits regarding the sources of their investigative journalism, allowing the Plaintiffs to adequately address the allegations.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. v.Vintage Distillers Ltd.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Vintage Distillers Ltd. in a trademark infringement suit concerning alcoholic beverages. The dispute arose from Vintage Distillers' adoption of the mark 'VINTAGE MOMENTS,' which Radico Khaitan argued was confusingly similar to its established and widely used brand, 'MAGIC MOMENTS.' The Delhi High Court found that Radico Khaitan had made out a prima facie case, leading to the grant of an interim injunction to prevent irreparable loss until the final hearing.
International House Of Pancakes LLC. v.IHOP Cake N Bake & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of International House Of Pancakes LLC. (Plaintiff) against IHOP Cake N Bake & Ors. (Defendants). The plaintiff, a global brand owner of 'IHOP', sought protection against the defendants' use of the identical mark. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss, thereby protecting the established reputation of the trademark.
Starbucks Corporation v.Mr.Sunil & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Starbucks Corporation against Defendant No. 5 following a joint settlement agreement. The settlement confirmed that Starbucks owns registered trademarks (STARBUCKS, FRAPPUCCINO) and copyrights in its logos and artistic works. In exchange for a payment of Rs. 37,500/-, the defendant agreed to permanent injunctions restraining them from infringing or misusing these marks and copyrights, including ceasing the sale of counterfeit products.
Whitehat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. v.Aniruddha Malpani
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Whitehat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. against Aniruddha Malpani, who was accused of defamation and trademark infringement via social media posts. The court found that the plaintiff faced irreparable loss due to the defendant's derogatory tweets regarding its brand 'WHITE HAT JR'. Consequently, the defendant was ordered to immediately cease posting such content and take down a list of specific offending tweets within 48 hours.
Karan Bajaj & Anr. v.Pradeep Poonia
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Karan Bajaj & Anr. against Pradeep Poonia, addressing allegations of trademark infringement, copyright violation, defamation, and unauthorized access to confidential business data. The court restrained the defendant from using similar marks like 'WhiteHat Sr' and prohibited him from hacking or circulating the plaintiffs' proprietary curriculum. Furthermore, the judgment mandated the removal of multiple defamatory tweets and YouTube content posted by the respondent.
Sopariwala Exports & Anr. v.Mr.Haji Iqbal Ahmed Ansari Trading As M/s Afzal Bidi Co. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sopariwala Exports & Anr. against Mr. Haji Iqbal Ahmed Ansari Trading As M/s Afzal Bidi Co. The plaintiffs, who hold extensive trademark rights for 'AFZAL' related to tobacco products, successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of infringement by the defendants selling similar goods under infringing marks like 'AFZAL BIDI No. 90.' This interim order protects the plaintiffs from irreparable loss while the main suit proceeds.
ASTRAZENCA AB & ANR v.AJANTA PHARMA LTD.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their patent IN '625. The present order addressed the defendant's request for an early hearing, noting that in connected suits, the court had previously declined interim injunctions.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Micro Labs Limited, Zydus Healthcare Ltd., ERIS Lifesciences Ltd., USV Pvt. Ltd., MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought permanent and temporary injunctions against various defendants for infringing their patents related to Dapagliflozin. The court found that the defendants had laid a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent, leading the court to decline the grant of interim injunction.
Microsoft Corporation & Anr. v.Pcpatchers Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Microsoft against Pcpatchers Technology Pvt. Ltd. and associated parties. The suit alleged that the defendants were using various domain names and impersonating Microsoft's authorized technical support staff to defraud customers. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence, noting that the defendants were infringing on Microsoft's registered trademarks, domain names, and copyrights while engaging in fraudulent activities.
Sap Se v.Chetan Maini& Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Sap Se following an amicable settlement reached with Chetan Maini. The settlement agreement established that the defendant admitted ownership of the SAP trademark and logo. Key terms included a permanent injunction against using the mark for educational services, destruction of infringing materials, cessation of providing pirated software, and payment of INR 100,000 in costs.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd And Anr v.Dilip Kumar Shukla & Ors.
In this ongoing commercial suit concerning alleged infringement and passing off related to Kent RO's products, the court addressed a procedural challenge regarding one of the defendants. The defendant argued that the design right relevant to their involvement had expired, prompting the plaintiff to consider removing them from the case. While no final judgment was reached, the court issued several directions for the completion of pleadings and document exchange.
Havells India Limited v.Yash Fans Pvt. Ltd.
Havells India Limited filed a suit against Yash Fans Pvt. Ltd. for infringement of its design and passing off. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was recorded by the court.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use and copying of the registered trademark 'OMEZ' for the medicinal preparation OMEPRAZOLE. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting both trademark infringement ('OMZES') and copying of packaging, thereby preventing irreparable loss to Dr. Reddys.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.R S Chauhan Proprietor Of Fern Biotech & Mediva Lifecare
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction favoring Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited in its trademark infringement suit against R S Chauhan Proprietor Of Fern Biotech & Mediva Lifecare. The dispute centered on the use of 'RAZO' by the plaintiff and 'RAPRAZO' by the defendant for the drug Rabeprazole. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima-facie case, noting similarities in both the marks and the packaging design (blue and white color combination), leading to the grant of immediate injunctive relief.
Minda Corporation Ltd. v.Star Minda Oil Lubricants Ind. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Minda Corporation Ltd. against Star Minda Oil Lubricants Ind. Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's adoption of the 'STAR MINDA' mark was deceptively similar to their registered device marks, leading to a risk of consumer confusion and passing off. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. v.Vintage Distillers Ltd.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Vintage Distillers Ltd. in a trademark infringement suit concerning alcoholic beverages. The dispute arose from Vintage Distillers' adoption of the mark 'VINTAGE MOMENTS,' which Radico Khaitan argued was confusingly similar to its established and widely used brand, 'MAGIC MOMENTS.' The Delhi High Court found that Radico Khaitan had made out a prima facie case, leading to the grant of an interim injunction to prevent irreparable loss until the final hearing.
Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Gepl) v.Gadham Ramesh
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (GEPL) against Gadham Ramesh regarding alleged trademark infringement. GEPL, claiming extensive use and registration of the 'GMR' mark across various sectors since 1978, sought protection against the defendant who was using a similar mark for a news channel on YouTube. The court found that GEPL had made out a prima facie case and granted immediate relief to prevent irreparable damage to its goodwill.
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.