Navin Chawla
59 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark, design matters.
Cases Presided Over
59 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
M/S JK Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Raj Kumar Singla Trading As M/S Shiv Shakti Sanitary Store & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S JK Lakshmi Cement Limited against Raj Kumar Singla Trading As M/S Shiv Shakti Sanitary Store. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of trademark infringement, leading to the restraint on the defendants from using the 'JK Smart' mark for wall putty and related products. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing goods and inspect the defendant's accounts, reinforcing the immediate protective measures available in IP litigation.
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.
M/S Thind Industries v.M/S Pankaj Sales Corporation
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed the dispute between M/S Thind Industries and M/S Pankaj Sales Corporation. Recognizing the appellant's willingness to modify its branding, the court granted permission for M/S Thind Industries to revise its trademark and label. This interim decision allows the parties to move forward with a resolution by allowing the appellant time to submit the revised materials.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The appeal challenged a single judge's judgment that invalidated the Appellant's patent IN240893 under Sections 64(1)(h) and (k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court held that since no issues were framed regarding these specific grounds for revocation, the learned Single Judge could not have entertained them.
M/S Gulab Oil And Food (Ahmedabad) Pvt. Ltd. v.Smt. Madhu Gupta
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S Gulab Oil And Food, upholding the District Judge's interim order that prohibited the appellant from trading and selling 'Gulab' Namkeen products. The court found a prima facie case for confusion between the marks, noting that consumers identify the plaintiff's products solely by asking for 'Gulab.' Furthermore, it held that since namkeen is an allied product to the registered goods (Gajak/Rewari), Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act was attracted, thus justifying the interim protection.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The appeal challenges a single judge's decision that invalidated the Appellant's patent (IN240893). The Appellant argues that the ground of Section 64(1)(h) was not pleaded or evidenced, while the Respondent seeks to uphold the revocation based on various sections of the Patents Act.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd v.D S Foods & Ors.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd challenged an order that referred its trademark dispute against D S Foods & Ors. to arbitration. The petitioner asserted ownership of the trademarks "SAGAR," "RATNA," and "SAGAR RATNA" and alleged infringement by the respondents, who were franchisees. Despite arguments for arbitrability based on the franchise agreement, the Delhi High Court ultimately intervened, finding that the core dispute concerning trademark rights was not amenable to arbitration due to inherent jurisdictional limitations.
Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc., setting aside previous refusal orders regarding a trademark registration. The court found that the original orders violated Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, because they failed to provide adequate reasons for refusing the application. This judgment underscores the mandatory requirement for IP authorities to furnish clear and reasoned decisions when rejecting an application.
Lens. Com, Inc. v.Ju J Friend International
The Delhi High Court reviewed an arbitration award concerning a domain name dispute under NIXI's INDRP. The court struck down the arbitrary direction to confiscate the disputed domain name, ruling that such power was outside the scope of the policy. However, the court clarified that merely cancelling the registration does not automatically grant ownership to the petitioner; the complainant must independently prove their rights in the generic term 'lens'.
Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co v.Dsm Sinochem Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
The appeal challenged a decree of permanent injunction granted in favor of Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co. The core dispute involved alleged infringement of Patent No. 247301 concerning the 'Process for Preparing Amoxicilin Trihydrate'. The court set aside the previous order, recognizing that questions regarding territorial jurisdiction and the scope of the injunction against foreign manufacturing needed further examination.
Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. v.Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd., upholding a limited interim injunction granted to Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd. The court found that while the appellants held registered rights in 'Central Park', the respondents demonstrated bona fide prior use and substantial investment in their project, balancing equities in favor of the defendants. Consequently, the court allowed the respondents to continue using 'Rustomjee Central Park' provided the prominence of 'Central Park' was maintained.
Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. v.Samsung Electronics Co Ltd.& Anr
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed an intra-Court appeal filed by Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. challenging an order that allowed amendments to a trademark infringement suit. The court first ruled on the technical issue of jurisdiction, confirming that since the original suit involved intellectual property rights (trademarks), it fell under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed because an order allowing an amendment of the plaint is not specifically enumerated as appealable under Order XLIII CPC.
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.