Navin Chawla
74 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
74 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh Co v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
The plaintiffs (Boehringer Ingelheim) filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing/importing generic versions of medicines covered by their Indian Patent No. 243301, which relates to Linagliptin compounds. The court found that the plaintiffs made out a good prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing products.
Plusplus Lifesciences Llp & Anr. v.Dr. Shiwani Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiffs an interim injunction in a suit alleging trade secret misappropriation and trademark infringement. The court found that the defendants, former employees, had gained access to proprietary technical know-how and confidential business information regarding prenatal supplements (TRIMACARE/LAYERCARE). Based on this prima facie case, the court authorized local commissioners to seize digital data, stock of infringing products ('NUTRIEPIC' and 'UTTERCARE'), and relevant documents to prevent irreparable injury.
M/S Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v.Union Of India & Others
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals challenging an IPAB order that directed the cancellation of its registered trademark 'VEGA ASIA'. The court upheld the IPAB's finding regarding prior use by the respondent, noting that while the petitioner argued for earlier adoption and assignment rights, the evidence presented by the respondent was sufficient to establish their claim of user since 2001. This ruling underscores the strict adherence required when challenging rectification orders before a High Court.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co Ltd & Anr
The defendant filed an application seeking production of various documents, including global license agreements, declarations of essentiality to ETSI, and statements of working related to Ericsson's patents. The court observed that while some documents were relevant for FRAND determination, the burden lay on the defendant to prove comparability in trial, and thus dismissed the application.
Mahesh Gupta v.Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This Delhi High Court order addresses a writ petition filed by Mahesh Gupta challenging the Deputy Registrar's decision to dismiss his opposition against the trademark application 'KENT'. The core dispute revolves around whether the Petitioner abandoned their opposition due to repeated adjournments. While the Respondent argued that the Petitioner failed to appear and request adjournment properly, the Court granted an interim stay on the dismissal order pending production of the impugned order itself.
Leeford Healthcare Limited v.Vobb Healthcare & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Leeford Healthcare Limited against Vobb Healthcare & Ors. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, specifically concerning the medicinal cream brand 'DERMIFORD.' Given that the goods are pharmaceutical and the defendants had recently entered the market, the court held that Leeford would suffer grave injury without immediate protection. This order temporarily halts the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like 'NEO DERMIFORD' until further orders.
Usha International Limited v.Mr Haseen Ahmed Trading As Tusha Sewing Machine Co
The plaintiff, Usha International Limited, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was adopting the deceptively similar mark 'TUSHA' in relation to sewing machines, infringing upon the plaintiff's well-known mark 'USHA'. The court granted an interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and seize all infringing goods manufactured under the disputed marks.
Carousel Design Pvt Ltd v.Kurush Noshir Jungalwala & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Carousel Design Pvt Ltd, who holds the registered trademark 'SHIFT'. The court found that the defendant's adoption of a deceptively similar mark ('CHEMOULD SHIFT') created a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Despite initial attempts at amicable settlement, the plaintiff successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, leading the court to restrain the defendants from using the infringing marks until further orders.
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.
Mensa Brand Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Kartik Fashion & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Mensa Brand Technologies against Kartik Fashion & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized that the defendants were deceptively using the 'DENNIS LINGO' mark, along with similar trade dress features, to ride on the plaintiff's reputation in the e-commerce market. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises, seize counterfeit goods, and document their infringing activities.
Infiniti Retail Limited v.M/S Croma Wholeseller & Ors.
Infiniti Retail Limited successfully sought judicial intervention against an infringing website, www.cromawholesellersltd.co.in, which was identified as using its registered trademarks and logo. The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to implead the website owner as a defendant and extended the existing ex-parte ad-interim injunction to cover this new party. Crucially, the court directed the suspension of the infringing domain name and mandated that the responsible parties provide detailed registrant information, reinforcing strong protection for well-known trademarks in the digital space.
Sunstar Joint Stock Company & Anr. v.Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court settled a trademark dispute between Sunstar Joint Stock Company and Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal. The parties reached an amicable agreement, leading the court to decree the suit based on specific prayers in favor of the plaintiff. Crucially, Defendant No. 1 was directed to assign its registered Trademark (No. 3750648) for 'Thai Duong' to Sunstar Joint Stock Company, resolving the core ownership conflict.
General Mills Inc. v.Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd Federation
In this ongoing trademark dispute, General Mills Inc. sought to incorporate the registration of its mark 'TRIX' into the existing pleadings. The Delhi High Court accepted the amendment and subsequently framed a new, specific issue before the court. This new issue directly addresses whether the defendant's use of the 'TRIX' mark constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark.
Popsockets Llc v.Flipkart India Private Limited & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Popsockets LLC sought remedies against Flipkart India Private Limited for allegedly selling products under an infringing mark. The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders on November 12, 2020. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and permitted the issuance of summons to all defendants, while also noting the dispute regarding whether Flipkart itself was infringing by selling the product under the disputed trademark.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Sh. Gautam Tank And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a pending interlocutory application in the trademark infringement suit. The court framed an additional issue to determine whether the defendant is liable to pay additional damages for using the impugned mark after the suit was revived, given that the original ad interim injunction had stood. With evidence complete and parties consenting not to lead further evidence, the matter was scheduled for final hearing.
Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. v.Nixi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in favor of Colgate Palmolive, addressing ongoing trademark infringement and fraudulent activities using their brand name. The court directed the domain registrar, GoDaddy.com LLC, to immediately block and suspend the infringing domain www.colgatepalmolive.work. Furthermore, the court ordered the disclosure of registrant details for the domain and mandated the freezing of a bank account linked to the scam operation, demonstrating strong judicial action against brand impersonation and cyber fraud.
Neeraj Kumar Trading As M/S Ganga Traders v.M/S Chacha Food Company & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Neeraj Kumar Trading As M/S Ganga Traders against M/S Chacha Food Company, finding that the defendant's packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress for non-alcoholic beverages. The court recognized a strong prima facie case and ordered the defendants to immediately cease all activities related to the infringing goods. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the defendant's premises to seize and seal all incriminating materials, including packaging and molds.
Havells India Ltd & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar/ John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Havells India Ltd against various defendants regarding the misuse of its registered trademarks, HAVELLS and LLOYD. The court found a prima facie case that rogue websites and domain names were being used to mislead consumers and conduct fraudulent activities. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate blocking of specific infringing domains by ISPs and directed the disclosure of registrant details from the responsible parties.
Mrs. Anugya Gupta v.Mr. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mrs. Anugya Gupta against Mr. Ajay Kumar and others, finding that the defendants' use of domain names like 'SARKARIRESULT.INFO' was likely to cause confusion with her established trademark and website, 'SARKARIRESULT'. The court emphasized that the similarity between the marks/domains, coupled with evidence of dishonest adoption by the defendants, warranted immediate protection for the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Philips Lighting Holding B.V./Signify Holding BV v.Jai Prakash Agarwal And Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses applications concerning the infringement of registered designs related to LED lighting products. The court considered claims regarding Design Registration No. 299147 (T-Bulb) and others, where the plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendants. While the court noted the existence of similar products in the market, it denied the ad-interim injunction due to the lack of action against other competitors. However, for Design Registration No. 247723, the defendant was directed to file regular sales accounts.
S M Motorenteile Gmbh v.Maharashtra Motors & Ors.
S M Motorenteile GmbH successfully pursued an infringement suit in the Delhi High Court regarding its 'SM' trademark used for high-quality automotive parts. While a settlement was reached with Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the court decreed the suit against Defendants 4 to 6, finding them liable for selling counterfeit products under the disputed mark. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining clear documentation of brand history and rights in complex international IP disputes.
Abhishek Kathuria & Anr. v.Ramesh Kumar Malhotra
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Abhishek Kathuria & Anr. against Ramesh Kumar Malhotra regarding the disputed trademark 'ROSABAGH'. The plaintiffs, who own and use the mark for furniture and artifacts, successfully argued that the defendant's adoption of a similar mark for a banquet hall constituted potential dilution and infringement. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs, leading to an immediate restraint on the defendant's use of the contested trademark until further hearing.
Capital One Financial Corporation v.Ashok Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital One Financial Corporation against Ashok Kumar & Anr. The court found a prima facie case that the defendants were unauthorizedly using marks and domain names deceptively similar to 'CAPITAL ONE' to mislead consumers into believing they were dealing with the major US bank. Consequently, the court restrained the parties from using these infringing marks and directed Google LLC to block the associated email address.
The Capital Group Companies, Inc v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a request by an intermediary (Defendant No. 11) seeking to modify its obligations under trademark infringement proceedings involving 'CAPITAL ONE.' The Court rejected the plea for extended compliance time, emphasizing that due to the nature of the case—which involves fraudulent ponzi/pyramid schemes proliferating on social media like Telegram—swift action is imperative. Consequently, the court reinforced the existing order, mandating Defendant No. 11 to take down infringing accounts within 72 working hours upon receiving a complaint from the Plaintiff.
M/S Dreams Lingerie Products v.Akash Chaudhary
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Dreams Lingerie Products against Akash Chaudhary, restraining him from manufacturing or selling products under the deceptively similar mark 'DREAM'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case regarding trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises, inventory infringing goods, and examine manufacturing records.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.M/S. K.K.Garments, Through Its Owner
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S. K.K.Garments, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed multiple Local Commissioners to inspect the defendants' premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the CK trademarks, and demand disclosure of financial records, significantly bolstering the plaintiff's ability to enforce its rights.
Pfizer Inc And Ors v.Jodas Expoim Pvt Ltd And Anr
The court framed several issues in this commercial suit concerning alleged patent infringement by the defendants against Pfizer Inc and Ors. The core questions revolve around whether the defendants' activities infringe two specific Indian Patents (No. 218291 and No. 209251) and if the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction or damages.
Sunit Shah v.Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sunit Shah against Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal regarding alleged trademark infringement. The court found that the similarity between the plaintiff's mark ('SHAH/SHAH NAMKEEN') and the defendant's mark ('SHAH JI NAMKEEN'), applied to identical goods (namkeen), created a likelihood of confusion. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the infringing mark until further hearing, and a Local Commissioner was appointed to seize and inventory the disputed goods.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Ashok Kumar Trading As WWW.SASTAJOOTA.COM & ORS.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of New Balance Athletics Inc. against Ashok Kumar Trading As WWW.SASTAJOOTA.COM & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized that the defendants were operating websites offering footwear bearing New Balance's mark without authorization, leading to apprehension of counterfeit goods. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate deactivation and blocking of the infringing websites.
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.
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.