Navin Chawla
74 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
74 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Jain Shikanji Private Limited v.Satish Kumar Jain
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal challenging a prior injunction against the use of the trademark 'Jain Shikanji'. The court found evidence suggesting continued infringement, despite assurances from the appellant. Consequently, the court mandated that Jain Shikanji Private Limited provide detailed affidavits regarding its current branding and bank account usage, while immediately ceasing the use of the disputed mark on digital payment platforms like UPI.
Jan Aushadhi Sangh v.M/S. Pharmaceuticals And Medical Devices Bureau of India (PMBI)
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Jan Aushadhi Sangh challenging a lower court's judgment that granted injunction and damages to PMBI for trademark infringement. While the core dispute over the injunction was maintained, the High Court provided relief regarding the financial aspect of the ruling. The appellant was permitted to stay the execution of the Rs. 10 lakh damage award upon depositing Rs. 5 lakhs with the court, though the injunction against further alleged infringement remains in force.
Ds Drinks And Beverages Private Limited v.Hector Beverages Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ds Drinks And Beverages Private Limited, upholding the interim injunction granted to Hector Beverages Private Limited. The court found that despite differences in surrounding words and product types (energy drink vs. juice), the core mark 'SWING' is predominant and highly similar. Given that both products are allied and sold across the same counter, the court ruled that there is a clear likelihood of customer confusion, favoring the established goodwill of Hector Beverages.
Adyar Gate Hotels Limited v.ITC Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte interim injunction that had restrained Adyar Gate Hotels Limited from using the trademark 'Dakshin'. The court found that the Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant was independently using the mark since 2015 and had shifted premises recently. This decision allows the matter to proceed on merits, requiring the appellant to file a formal response before the case is heard fully.
Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd v.Rspl Helathcare P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a District Judge's order that had granted an ex parte injunction against Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd, restraining it from using the trademark 'PRUEASE'. The court set aside this restrictive interim order. Instead, it directed the Trial Court to expedite the hearing of the original application filed by the respondents seeking injunctive relief, allowing both parties a chance to present their case.
Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals v.Sana Herbals Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals against a lower court's decision concerning the consolidation of connected trademark rectification proceedings. The appellant argued that a prior transfer of a rectification petition involving the mark 'DEHLVI' should necessitate consolidating all related matters. However, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order, thereby maintaining the status quo regarding the procedural handling of the cases.
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ld. v.Kavitha Kuruganti
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ld. appealed a decision by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority (Authority) that revoked its registration for the potato variety FL 2027. The appellant challenged the revocation order, arguing it was based on incorrect information regarding the variety's category and assignment chain, and that the Authority exceeded its jurisdiction. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the challenge to the respondent's locus standi or the Authority's decision.
Bayer Healthcare Llc v.Natco Pharma Limited
Bayer Healthcare LLC sought an interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited regarding the patented anti-cancer drug, REGORAFENIB. The Delhi High Court examined the plaintiff's claim, noting that while the patent was validly granted, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction. Crucially, the court considered the public interest, highlighting the significant price disparity between Bayer's imported product and Natco's domestically manufactured, affordable version.
Modern Foods Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed cross-suits concerning the identical mark 'MODERN' used in the FMCG sector. While acknowledging that the plaintiff (Modern Foods) was a prior adopter of the mark, the court granted an interim injunction with significant caveats. The defendant (Modern Snacks) is restrained from expanding its product range using 'MODERN', but is allowed to continue using it on existing labels and registered goods. This decision balances the rights of both parties while preserving the status quo pending final determination.
Capital Food Private Limited v.Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement of 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY,' the Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to introduce crucial subsequent evidence. The court ruled that the take-down notices and market surveys were necessary for a fair adjudication, despite the defendant's objections regarding late filing. This order allows the case to proceed with expanded evidentiary material.
M/S Liberty Footwear Company v.M/S Liberty International
This case involved a suit filed by M/S Liberty Footwear Company against M/S Liberty International, alleging unauthorized use and infringement of the registered trademark 'LIBERTY' in the footwear sector. The core dispute centered on whether the claims of trademark infringement could be subjected to arbitration as stipulated in an underlying Partnership Deed. The court ultimately allowed the defendant's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, referring the parties to arbitration.
New Bharat Overseas v.Kian Agro Processing Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'TAJ MAHAL' used for rice. While the plaintiff holds Indian registration, the court noted that a Saudi Arabian entity also possesses similar trademark rights in its country of origin. The court allowed both parties time to file detailed written statements and granted an undertaking from the defendant not to sell or distribute the product outside India and Saudi Arabia. Crucially, the court directed the plaintiff to array the foreign entity as a party, indicating that the matter requires further examination regarding international trademark rights.
Plusplus Lifesciences Llp & Anr. v.Dr. Shiwani Singh & Ors.
Plaintiffs sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with medicines bearing marks like 'NUTRIEPIC' and 'UTTERCARE', alleging misuse of confidential information related to their multi-micronutrient supplement, 'TRIMACARE'. The court examined claims of passing off and similarity between the marks. Ultimately, the ex-parte order was vacated, but the defendants were directed to disclose sales data.
Apollo Tyres Limited v.Glory Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Apollo Tyres Limited against Glory Enterprise & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized the deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's 'APOLLO' mark and the defendants' 'OPOLLO' mark used on automotive tyres and tubes. Furthermore, the Court appointed Local Commissioners to conduct comprehensive searches, seizures, and inventories at the defendants' manufacturing premises to gather evidence against the alleged counterfeit operations.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendants for alleged infringement and passing off of its medicinal goods under the marks 'SITARED' and 'SETARET', claiming similarity with the defendant's mark 'SITARA-D'. The court found that prima facie, the two marks were not phonetically or visually similar, and dismissed the application for an interim injunction.
Ds Confectionery Products Limited v.Nirmala Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Limited against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off related to confectionery products. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated that its marks (PULSE/) were being deceptively used by the defendants' goods (PELSE/ and PLUS++/). Furthermore, given the defendants' failure to appear despite service, the court awarded the plaintiff damages of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The court found that the Defendant's use of the deceptively similar trademark 'FOLZEST' infringed upon the Plaintiff's registered mark 'FORZEST'. Recognizing the potential for irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendant from selling or manufacturing the infringing product until further hearing. Furthermore, a Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect and seize all medicines bearing the impugned mark.
Inventio Ag And Anr v.Schneider Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Inventio Ag And Anr. against a newly formed company, VDMIL Elevator India. The court found that this new entity was being used to circumvent existing trademark injunctions previously passed against the original defendants (Schneider Elevator). The order restrains the proposed defendant from using marks or logos deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks and from mimicking the plaintiff's website look and feel.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.S.Sura & Ors
The Delhi High Court delivered a mixed verdict in the trademark infringement suit filed by Aktiebolaget Volvo. While the court found that Defendants 6 and 7 were infringing the 'VOLVO' mark through deceptive similarity and dilution, leading to permanent injunctions and costs being awarded to Volvo, it ultimately dismissed the suit against other defendants (4, 5, and 9). The judgment highlights the critical importance of evidence regarding trademark usage and ownership in determining liability.
Future Bath Products Private Limited v.Corza International & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an application filed by Corza International challenging the validity of Future Bath Products' trademark 'CORSA'. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to use the mark for goods in Class 11, citing Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. The court issued notice and set timelines for both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders before proceeding with the matter.
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd v.Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc, seeking permanent injunction and declarations that the defendant's legal threats regarding trademarks and architectural design were unjustifiable. The plaintiffs also claimed damages for alleged infringement. However, since the defendant had already initiated a counter-suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement, the court found the current claims infructuous. Consequently, the suit was disposed of without prejudice to the pending litigation.
Divay Hygiene Private Limited v.Kamal Garg & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Divay Hygiene Private Limited against Kamal Garg & Anr. for trademark infringement concerning feminine hygiene products. The court found that the Defendants' use of the deceptively similar mark 'ANNY MAXI' constituted infringement and passing off of the Plaintiff's established brand, 'AMMY'. Based on evidence gathered by a Local Commissioner, including seized infringing goods, the Court decreed the suit, awarding nominal damages and significant legal costs to the Plaintiff.
Bridgestone Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents Designs & Trademarks & Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in the matter of Bridgestone Corporation versus Controller General Of Patents Designs & Trademarks. The court directed both parties to prepare and exchange short notes detailing their submissions and to compile relevant judicial precedents for consideration. This procedural step moves the case closer to final disposal, which is scheduled for February 2, 2022.
Nirma Limited v.Purnima Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Nirma Limited's rectification petition, successfully removing the deceptively similar trademark 'NIMA' registered in favor of Purnima Gupta. The court held that because Nirma's primary mark ('NIRMA') is a well-known trade mark and the marks are confusingly similar, allowing the registration would cause consumer deception and dilute Nirma's established goodwill. This judgment reinforces the protective scope afforded to well-known trademarks against subsequent registrations.
Bayer Healthcare Llc v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
This order addressed various interlocutory applications in the commercial suit filed by Bayer Healthcare Llc against MSN Laboratories Private Limited. The court allowed several procedural requests, including granting time extensions and allowing additional documents. It also noted that the defendant had not yet launched its product and directed it to maintain status quo.
Zydus Wellness Products Limited v.M/S Arihant Remedies & Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction in favor of Zydus Wellness Products Limited against M/S Arihant Remedies & Anr. The court found that the defendant's product was prima facie deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark and trade dress, despite arguments regarding ownership transfer and territorial jurisdiction. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to established brands through both trademark law and passing off principles.
Fmc Corporation v.Best Crop Science Llp
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Best Crop Science LLP for allegedly using the patented process IN '645 to manufacture Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR) under the brand name CITIGEN. Defendants contested the suit, raising issues of patent invalidity due to non-working and allegations of evergreening by plaintiffs. The Court ordered the appointment of a Local Commissioner and Scientific Advisors to independently analyze the product and map the defendants' process against the suit patent.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.M/S Blue Ivory & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S Blue Ivory & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed Local Commissioners with extensive powers to inspect premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the CK Marks, and demand disclosure of financial records from the defendants. This order provides immediate protection while allowing for thorough investigation into the alleged counterfeiting operations.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The plaintiff sought to amend its plaint to implead ZTT International Limited as a necessary party, alleging that the entity infringes the plaintiff's patent through the import and sale of optical fibre cable. The court allowed the amendment, finding the proposed defendant was indeed a necessary party based on the facts pleaded in the written statement.
Dabur India Limited v.Marico Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed disputes regarding trade dress infringement concerning SAFFOLA products between Dabur and Marico. The court noted that while the defendant had previously represented changes to its packaging (including embossing), it failed to inform the court when certain product lines, like glass bottles or 100gm PET bottles, could not comply with those representations. Consequently, the court revived the plaintiff's interim injunction application for these specific products and imposed a significant cost on the defendant for non-disclosure.
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.