Prathiba M. Singh
625 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
625 cases indexed | Page 10 of 21
R X Infotech Private Limited v.Jalpa Rajesh Kumar Jain
The Delhi High Court dismissed a defendant's application seeking to reject the plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that even if the suit was primarily based on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, the general provisions of Section 20 of the CPC allow for jurisdiction where any part of the cause of action arose. Specifically, the court found that online transactions related to the defendant's website could reasonably be considered to have occurred within Delhi, thus validating the plaintiff's choice of forum.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Nineplus Shoes Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues arising from a Local Commissioner's report detailing alleged removal of infringing goods. The Court clarified that while the Defendant was found to be using the impugned mark contrary to assurances, it dismissed adverse observations against the defendant's counsel for merely informing industry associations about the lawsuit. Crucially, the Court mandated fresh service and personal appearance by the key representative of the Defendant, ensuring due process before proceeding with coercive measures.
TIMAB NL BV v.Shamrock Geoscience Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a crucial interim injunction in favor of TIMAB NL BV against Shamrock Geoscience Ltd. The court found that TIMAB had demonstrated prior and continuous use of its mark, making it entitled to restrain Shamrock's use of identical or similar marks for cognate goods. This order significantly protects TIMAB's goodwill and exclusive rights during the pendency of the suits.
Tata Consumer Products Limited v.M/S Varahi Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Consumer Products Limited against M/S Varahi Limited. The court allowed defendants to file their original notarized affidavits and permitted the plaintiff to place numerous additional documents on record, including sales turnover details and evidence of prior meetings. While the core dispute involves the use of the 'HIMALAYAN' mark for mineral water, the current order focuses on procedural steps necessary to build a comprehensive case before trial.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd & Ors
The case involves RXPRISM challenging the validity of a patent held by Canva, with arguments presented regarding non-infringement and prior art.
ITC Limited v.Central Park Private Limited & Anr.
ITC Limited successfully argued that its restaurant brand, 'BUKHARA,' qualifies as a well-known mark in India. The Delhi High Court recognized the extensive reputation, global acclaim, and long history of the brand, despite similar marks being used by defendants. This judgment reinforces the strong protection afforded to established brands under Indian IP law, particularly concerning transborder reputation.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.GSP Crop Science Private Limited
FMC Corporation filed a suit seeking an injunction against GSP Crop Science Private Limited for allegedly infringing Indian Patent No. IN 252004, which covers a method for preparing intermediates used in manufacturing the insecticide CTPR. The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendant's process was identical to the patented method. However, the Court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the balance of convenience favored the Defendant and raising doubts about the patent's industrial applicability due to its age.
NEC Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
NEC Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201717010986) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step. The court allowed applications for exemption and condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subsequently listing the case for further hearing.
ITC Limited v.Central Park Estates Private Limited & Anr.
In this trademark infringement suit, ITC Limited sought various procedural reliefs against Central Park Estates Private Limited. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advanced document service. Crucially, the court allowed an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect samples and inventory related to the disputed mark 'BALKH BUKHARA', setting the stage for detailed evidence gathering in the ongoing infringement dispute.
ITC Limited v.Central Park Estates Private Limited & Anr.
In this trademark infringement suit, ITC Limited sought various procedural reliefs against Central Park Estates Private Limited. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advanced document service. Crucially, the court allowed an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect samples and inventory related to the disputed mark 'BALKH BUKHARA', setting the stage for detailed evidence gathering in the ongoing infringement dispute.
Rms Fire And Safety Services Pvt Ltd v.Ispl Automation Pvt Ltd
The appellant challenged the revocation of their patent for a Motor Bike Fire Engine granted in 2019. The case was heard by the Delhi High Court to determine its territorial jurisdiction over an appeal originating from the Mumbai Patent Office. Ultimately, the court held that since the appropriate office was in Mumbai, it lacked jurisdiction.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
This judgment addresses complex jurisdictional issues arising after the enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The court examined three proceedings: two revocation petitions and one appeal under the Patents Act, 1970. In C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2021, the court considered a petition to revoke Patent No. IN 268846. However, in other cases, the court ruled that jurisdiction was lacking because the appropriate office or another High Court already held the matter, preventing parties from pursuing parallel proceedings.
Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v.Karan Holiday Inn Private Limited & Anr
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court noted that while the defendant had largely removed the disputed mark from various sources, some instances persisted on third-party websites. The court allowed the plaintiff to issue notices to these specific sites demanding the takedown of the infringing trademarks and associated photographs. Furthermore, the parties were directed to continue mediation proceedings, indicating a potential path toward an amicable settlement.
Avery Dennison Corporation v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Avery Dennison Corporation appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs which refused to grant a patent for 'Notched Fastener' due to lack of inventive step. The Appellant argued that the specific features (notch creation, position, shape, direction) provided a technical advancement over prior art documents D2 and D3. The Court ultimately allowed the appeal, finding that the invention satisfied the test of inventive step.
Bibimoney Global Ltd. v.Taisys Technologies Ltd. And Ors.
The parties requested time to file written submissions regarding the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court concerning patent revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court listed the matter for further hearing.
Pm Franchise Brands, Llc v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of a trademark application, PRETZELMAKER. While the court found that the word mark was problematic under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act due to descriptiveness and similarity, it recognized the distinctiveness of the accompanying logo. Consequently, the court allowed the Appellant to proceed with registration by deleting the descriptive word 'PRETZELMAKER' from the application.
Visage Beauty And Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed Visage Beauty And Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of their mark 'GLOW-GETTER'. The court held that while the component word 'GLOW' might be descriptive in cosmetics, the combination forms a composite mark that does not inherently describe the product's quality or kind. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed for registration, provided the appellant accepts a disclaimer ensuring no exclusive rights vest solely in the word 'GLOW'.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves Nokia Technologies Oy filing against Oppo and Vivo for patent infringement related to telecommunications technology. The hearings have focused on non-infringement and invalidity aspects of the patents.
Jindal Industries Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Mark
The Delhi High Court allowed Jindal Industries Private Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its trademark application. The court held that the rejection, based on non-distinctiveness or prohibition under Section 9 of the Act (specifically regarding the use of India's map outline), was unsustainable. Citing previous rulings and the 'No Objection' from the Survey of India, the High Court directed the Registrar to proceed with the registration of the mark.
Om Shivam Utpadan v.Saraswati Utpadan Private Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of multiple trademark and copyright rectification petitions after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement through mediation. The agreement outlines specific usage rights for both parties' marks and logos, allowing them to continue using certain designs under modified conditions while withdrawing ongoing legal challenges. This resolution provides clarity on their respective intellectual property rights moving forward.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Zee Laboratories Limited & Ors.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against Zee Laboratories Limited and others for manufacturing and selling generic Apixaban products ('Apixaz' and 'Apiquis') that infringed Patent No. IN 247381. The court noted that the patent had expired on September 17, 2022. Consequently, the suit was disposed of, but directions were issued regarding the removal of listings from e-commerce platforms.
Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited v.Mahesh Edible Oils Products Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order addressing trademark disputes among related entities in the edible oil industry. The court affirmed that the 'SALONI' trademark belongs exclusively to Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd., preventing individual brothers from claiming it. However, the ruling allows the family members freedom to operate their own businesses, provided they do not use marks or trade dresses deceptively similar to 'SALONI'. This order sets a clear boundary for internal corporate IP rights while allowing independent commercial activity.
Messrs Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd v.Mr Pushpinder Garg & Ors / Super Impex and Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple facets of the trademark dispute involving 'MONICA GOLD' and 'MONICA PRIME'. In the infringement suit, the court allowed an application to appoint a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises and inventory infringing goods. Separately, the court initiated proceedings for the rectification of the mark 'Monica Prime', issuing notices to the respondents. The overall matter remains active with interim orders in place.
Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application titled "HYGIENE WASH". The rejection was based on insufficient disclosure under Section 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed several interlocutory applications and listed the matter for further hearing.
Premier Nutritions Privat Limited v.Amit Product A Proprietary Connern
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Premier Nutritions Privat Limited against Amit Product A Proprietary Connern, finding that the defendant's use of 'DOODH MANTHAN' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'MANTHAN/PREMIER MANTHAN'. Furthermore, the court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory and seize infringing products, reinforcing the immediate protection available to IP holders facing market imitation.
Sotkon Sp Slu v.Western Imaginary Transcon Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves Sotkon Sp Slu alleging that Western Imaginary Transcon Pvt. Ltd.'s technical specifications and products for underground bins infringe upon its patented 'Subsurface System for the Collection of Refuse'. The Plaintiff had previously secured an interim injunction based on a prima facie comparison showing similarity between the parties' designs. During the hearing, the court addressed arguments regarding deviations in supplied goods versus bid documents. While noting that the Defendants were prima facie guilty of contempt due to non-compliance with the existing order, the Court granted them one last opportunity to present evidence upon depositing a substantial sum.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound Alectinib (Alecensa®). The dispute centered on the defendants' alleged activities including import/export and online listings of the product, leading to an amicable resolution.
Cinni Foundation Through Managing Trustee Dipak Kumar Sah v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Cinni Foundation challenging the rejection of its trademark application 'CINNI' in Class 07, which relates to pumps. The court issued notice and directed that the respondents be served with the appeal documents. Both matters were subsequently listed for a detailed hearing on January 16, 2023.
Bacardi And Company Limited v.Bahety Overseas Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a suit concerning trademark infringement where the plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendants. The court reviewed an application filed by the defendant seeking vacation of the existing interim injunction, which was granted previously. The judge directed the defendant to place on record the memorandum of appeal and produce evidence regarding similar bottle shapes, while also addressing a counter-application by the plaintiff alleging non-compliance with the original injunction.
Scipharm Sarl v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Scipharm Sarl appealed a decision made by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing the grant of a patent application titled 'Novel Composition for the Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis'. The case was transferred from the IPAB to the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file written submissions.
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.