Mukta Gupta
95 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
95 cases indexed | Page 3 of 4
M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash v.Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a settlement reached between M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash and Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co. regarding the trademark 'POOJA RAKHI'. The parties, who had previously sought mediation, agreed that the defendant would cease using the mark in Class 25 Wrist Band items. In exchange for this undertaking, the plaintiff waived claims for damages or profits, leading to the suit being decreed based on the settlement terms.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking action under Contempt of Court because defendant No.1 submitted a tender offering for the sale of Apixaban, despite a prior interim injunction restraining them from dealing in any infringing product covered by Indian Patent No. IN 247381. The court issued show cause notices to the Chairman and Director of defendant No.1 regarding potential contempt proceedings.
SAP SE v.ERP TRAINING INDIA & ORS.
SAP SE successfully secured a comprehensive interim injunction against ERP Training India and associated parties in the Delhi High Court. The court found prima facie evidence of trademark and copyright infringement related to unauthorized online SAP training courses. Consequently, the defendants were ordered to immediately deactivate websites, domains, email addresses, block specific IP access points, and freeze bank accounts linked to the infringing activities.
GS1 India v.Barcodes Sl & Ors
GS1 India successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against a competitor operating barcode allocation websites. GS1, the sole licensed body in India for issuing standardized barcodes starting with '890', alleged that Defendant No. 1 was illegally allocating non-compliant and unverifiable codes, causing consumer deception. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of GS1, granting the injunction to protect its trademark rights and prevent irreparable harm to both itself and innocent customers.
Jagran Prakashan Limited v.Telegram Fz Llc & Ors.
Jagran Prakashan Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Telegram FZ LLC in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff alleged that users on Telegram were illegally distributing and downloading copyrighted e-papers of Dainik Jagran through various public channels, causing significant financial loss. The court ruled that Telegram, as an intermediary, must exercise due diligence under IT laws and was directed to immediately block the infringing channels and disclose the identities of the channel owners.
Reliance Industries Limited & Anr v.Olx India B. V. & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning the ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Reliance Industries against Olx India. The court confirmed that the existing interim injunction, initially granted to prevent misuse of 'JIO' and 'RELIANCE' trademarks in job advertisements, would continue throughout the pendency of the suit. Furthermore, the scope of this injunction was clarified to apply specifically to job-related misuses, while reserving rights for further action regarding product sales.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, holding patents and licenses for Sitagliptin (under trade names ISTAVEL and ISTAMET), filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling the drug under the brand name TwoTrack, thereby infringing their patent. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The plaintiff, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Triveni Interchem Private Limited, was selling and advertising various compositions of Sitagliptin without taking any license. The plaintiff holds a valid patent for Sitagliptin.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Jigs Chemicals Limited
Astrazeneca sued Jigs Chemicals Limited for infringing its patents covering the anti-platelet drug TICAGRELOR. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was commercially advertising and offering to sell API TICAGRELOR. Based on the defendant's admission regarding the exclusive rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Astrazeneca.
Vishnu Kant & Ors v.Eduvision Traders And Printers Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark infringement suit, Vishnu Kant & Ors vs Eduvision Traders And Printers Private Limited & Ors. The court settled several key issues, including whether the plaintiffs are registered proprietors of the trademark 'CURRIMAKERS' and their entitlement to injunctions and rendition of accounts. The parties were directed to file witness lists and affidavits within specified timelines, setting the stage for the commencement of the trial.
Tulsyan Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. v.R.R. Enterprises & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement related to rice products, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders. The court directed the defendants (D1 and D2) to provide a detailed reply affidavit within three weeks regarding the supply chain of the impugned goods. Additionally, an application by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 seeking permission to sell non-infringing packaging was dismissed as withdrawn. The suit remains listed for issue settlement on April 28, 2020.
Cde Asia Limited v.Jaideep Shekhar & Anr.
Cde Asia Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Jaideep Shekhar and others for infringing its patent (No. 307249) and registered design (No. 262629) related to material classification systems used in mining and sand aggregate production. The defendant challenged the plaint, arguing that the suit was premature as it was filed before the one-year period required for post-grant opposition under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act had lapsed. Additionally, the defense contested the court's territorial jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the application challenging the plaint, allowing the infringement suit to proceed.
Eih Ltd. v.Sahana Realty Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed challenges to the court's territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement dispute brought by EIH Ltd. against Sahana Realty Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' use of 'THREE SIXTY WEST' and 'OBEROI' infringed their established luxury brand rights. The court ultimately dismissed the applications challenging its jurisdiction, affirming that the cause of action arose within Delhi due to consumer confusion and business activities in the region.
Novartis Ag v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd
The plaintiffs own the patent for the compound 'NILOTINIB', which is valid until July 4, 2023. The defendant announced the launch of a product based on NILOTINIB, which the plaintiffs claim infringes their patent.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The plaintiffs, owners of Patent IN-381 covering the molecule APIXABAN (Eliquis®), filed a suit against Bdr Pharmaceuticals for allegedly manufacturing and intending to supply generic versions of this patented drug. The court considered arguments regarding infringement and the validity of the patent based on prior art documents submitted by the defendant.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
Astrazeneca sued Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited and MSN Laboratories Limited for infringing their patents related to the pharmaceutical compound TICAGRELOR, marketed as BRILINTA. The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction against the defendants' generic versions (TICAPLAT and TIARE).
Ifrs Foundation v.Rammohan Bhave & Ors
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of IFRS Foundation against Rammohan Bhave & Ors following a comprehensive settlement. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights over the 'IFRS' trademark and its copyrighted standards. Key terms included the payment of ₹11 lakhs, the surrender of multiple domain names, the withdrawal of related trademark applications, and an undertaking to cease unauthorized use of the IFRS mark in training materials or goods.
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v.Mr. Akshay Singhal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited, declaring its candy brand 'PULSE' a well-known trademark. The court found that the plaintiff had established extensive goodwill and reputation both domestically and internationally through significant promotion and unique trade dress. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from manufacturing or selling similar products under deceptively similar marks like 'PLUSS', protecting the integrity of the PULSE brand.
Pfizer Inc v.Actiza Pharmaceutical Private Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit against Actiza Pharmaceutical Private Limited alleging infringement of its patents covering Sunitinib and Axitinib. The parties subsequently reached a settlement through mediation before the Delhi High Court.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie v.Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie filed a suit alleging that Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd. was infringing his registered copyright in the artistic work titled 'HIMLAYAN HELI SERVICES'. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was illegally using his pictorial representation on various business materials. However, the court examined the history of the company and its logo design, finding evidence suggesting the defendant's original creation and use of the insignia, particularly incorporating the symbol of 'Dorje', leading to the dismissal of the application against the plaintiff.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v.Rajesh Bansal, Sole Proprietor
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. filed two suits alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 184753, which covers channel decoding technology used in DVD video players. The plaintiff claimed this patent was essential for the industry. Although the suit patent had expired by the time of judgment, the Delhi High Court found that the defendants were infringing the patent and liable to pay royalties at FRAND rates. Furthermore, due to the defendant's conduct as a former employee, punitive damages were awarded against Rajesh Bansal.
Upl Limited v.Pradeep Sharma & Anr
Upl Limited filed a suit claiming infringement of three patents related to a stable synergistic herbicidal composition (Sulfosulfuron + Metsulfuron Methyl WG). The defendants challenged the validity of these patents. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and granted an interim injunction.
M/S Instapower Ltd. v.M/S Alpha Interiors Pvt Ltd & Ors.
M/S Instapower Ltd., a company specializing in energy-efficient lighting systems, filed a suit alleging that M/S Alpha Interiors Pvt Ltd and others were infringing its registered design patents for aviation warning lights. The plaintiff demonstrated extensive market presence and proved that the defendants were manufacturing and selling similar products. Despite the defendants failing to contest the case effectively, the court found infringement.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Glaxo Group Limited against Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors for trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement. The court found that the defendants were infringing on registered trademarks (ZINACEF, FORTAM) and common law rights (FORTAZ), as well as passing off the plaintiff's goods using similar packaging (trade dress/copyright). Given the multiple violations, the court granted permanent injunctions and awarded compensatory and punitive damages of ₹20 lakhs to Glaxo Group.
Pepsico Inc & Ors. v.Dugar Spices & Eatables (P) Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pepsico Inc, granting a permanent injunction against Dugar Spices & Eatables for the illegal use and sale of counterfeit and look-alike snack products. The court found that the defendants were violating Pepsico's rights through deceptive similarity in trademarks (KURMURE, CRACKURE), logos, packaging design, and overall trade dress associated with the 'KURKURE' brand. Furthermore, the judgment included directions to customs departments to prevent the import of these infringing goods.
Teva Api India Pvt. Ltd. v.Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp
The respondents sued the appellants alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 209816 for Sitagliptin. The appellants challenged the interim injunction, claiming their manufacturing and exports were solely for Research & Development (R&D) and obtaining global regulatory approvals before the patent expiry in 2022. The court dismissed the appeal but directed the parties to complete pleadings.
Qarshi Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Abdul Mueed & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Qarshi Industries challenging the denial of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Hamdard in a passing off suit. The court found that given the complexity of the arguments—including issues regarding the descriptive nature of the Urdu words 'JAM-E-SHIRIN' and potential suppression of facts related to Pakistani trademark disclaimers—the prima facie case was not strong enough for an immediate injunction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, requiring both parties to complete their pleadings before further relief could be considered.
Devagiri Farms Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr Sanjay Kapur & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the tea seller, Mr. Sanjay Kapur & Anr., finding that Devagiri Farms Pvt. Ltd. had infringed upon their trade dress. The court held that despite minor variations, the overall get-up and striking similarity between the packaging—specifically the fabric sleeve used over a rectangular cuboid packet—was likely to deceive an ordinary purchaser. This judgment reinforces that the overall visual impression of a product's packaging is a critical factor in assessing trade dress infringement, even when trademarks are displayed.
Mac Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v.Lavera Gmbh And Co.Kg
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction in favor of Lavera Gmbh, affirming that Mac Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. was a dishonest adopter of the trademark 'LAVERA'. Despite initial contradictions regarding trans-border reputation, the court found that Lavera's international registration and intent to market in India entitled it to protection. The judgment emphasizes that dishonesty at the inception of mark adoption is fatal, even if subsequent use by the alleged infringer continues.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Cipla Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a complex patent dispute between F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Cipla Ltd. concerning Erlotinib Hydrochloride, a life-saving cancer drug. The court examined challenges to the validity of Roche's Indian Patent IN '774, particularly regarding inventive step over prior art (EP '226). While the court found that Cipla had raised credible doubts about the patent's validity, it ultimately restored Roche's suit for injunction but denied the immediate grant due to the approaching expiry date of the patent. Consequently, Cipla was directed to render accounts of its sales.
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.