Prathiba M. Singh
474 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
474 cases indexed | Page 13 of 16
BASF SE v.SEEDLINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR
BASF SE filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Seedlings India Private Limited and others for infringing its Patent No. IN 271338, which covers crystalline complexes used in fungicides/insecticides. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants' products were approved under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, despite previous undertakings by related group companies not to infringe the patent.
BASF SE v.GSP CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit seeking protection of its patent No. IN 271338, which covers crystalline complexes containing thiophanate-methyl and pyraclostrobin used as a fungicide. The court addressed several procedural applications before granting an interim order regarding the injunction request.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing their patent on Lactam-Containing Compounds (Apixaban API). The Defendant submitted an affidavit stating that it had not supplied commercial quantities and agreed to manufacture/sell the drug solely under Section 107A(a) of the Patents Act, leading the Court to pass an interim restraint order.
Satnam Brush Industry v.Kori Brush Industries
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Satnam Brush Industry, decreeing the suit against Kori Brush Industries for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant deliberately imitated the plaintiff's complete range of products, trade dress, packaging, and product codes, causing consumer confusion. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from further misuse and ordered to pay costs to the plaintiff.
Parmesh Construction Company Limited v.Mahinder Bhutani & Anr.
Parmesh Construction Company Limited filed a petition seeking the cancellation and rectification of Mahinder Bhutani's registered mark 'BHUTANI'. The court noted that while the petitioner argued 'BHUTANI' is a common surname, they also use it in their own trademark 'BHUTANI INFRA'. The court directed notice to be issued to the respondents and scheduled further hearings, indicating the matter will proceed through litigation.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.M S Sunmarker Pharmaceuticals & Anr
In a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. successfully reached a comprehensive settlement with M S Sunmarker Pharmaceuticals & Anr before the Delhi High Court. The parties jointly filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, leading to a decree that formally acknowledged Sun Pharma's rights in 'SUN' and 'SUN PHARMA'. Under the terms of the agreement, the Defendants agreed to cease using the infringing mark, destroy related materials, and withdraw their trademark application.
Amritsar Rice Land v.Sumit Bansal & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark dispute concerning rice products, the Delhi High Court issued a critical interim order regarding seized inventory. Recognizing that rice is a perishable commodity, the court permitted the Defendants to dispose of the substantial stock (30,000-35,000 kgs) held under local commissioner's supervision. This relief was contingent upon the Defendants depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- with the court and strictly adhering to a complete cessation of further manufacture or sale under the disputed brands.
Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Orangebelly Food And Beverages Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Defendants sought to return the plaint due to a lack of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the Plaintiff's principal place of business was in Mumbai while the Defendant operated only one restaurant in Patna. The Delhi High Court rejected the immediate request for return of the plaint, noting the Plaintiff's successful history of obtaining injunctions across various jurisdictions. Consequently, the court ordered that the status quo be maintained by the Defendant until further orders, allowing the litigation to proceed.
Interdigital Vc Holdings Inc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing their patents related to the High Efficiency Video Encoding (HEVC/H.265) standard. The Plaintiffs also seek to add further patents and devices that may infringe during the proceedings.
Valent Biosciences Llc v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Valent Biosciences Llc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201717025151). The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step under relevant sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed applications for additional documents and exempted filing fees, and listed the appeal for further hearing.
The British School Society v.Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of The British School Society, confirming an existing interim injunction against the Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society. The court found that the unauthorized and continuous use of the identical mark 'The British School' by the Defendants constituted misrepresentation and caused irreparable prejudice to the Plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the Defendants were mandated to change their school names effective May 1, 2022, ensuring a smooth transition for enrolled students.
Dr Ramesh Chander Munjal & Ors. v.Dr Suraj Munjal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed two connected suits, one concerning the infringement of the registered trademark 'SPECTRA EYE' and the other dealing with immovable property partition. The court noted that the trademark issue was complex and had been extensively heard by another bench. Consequently, the matter was listed for further adjudication before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal on May 11, 2022.
Pb Fintech Pvt Ltd v.Policy Bazar Finance & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Pb Fintech Pvt Ltd's application to implead additional defendants (No. 18 to 22) in its trademark infringement suit against Policy Bazar Finance & Ors. Crucially, the court modified existing interim injunction orders to extend protection against these newly added parties. The order reinforces the plaintiff's rights by restraining all named parties from using deceptively similar marks and mandates domain registrars and ISPs to block access to infringing websites.
Wsou Investments Llc v.Zte Telecom India Private Limited & Anr
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringement of Indian Patent No. 322101, along with damages and other reliefs. The disputes were settled, leading to the withdrawal of the suit and counterclaim.
Osram Gmbh & Anr. v.Tejmeet Singh Sethi & Anr.
In this Delhi High Court matter, the court addressed the ongoing suit concerning the 'OSRAM' trademark. The defendants voluntarily expressed their intent to abandon two specific trademark applications for the mark. Consequently, the court confirmed the existing interim injunction granted in favor of Osram Gmbh & Anr., while also directing the parties to list all relevant trademark filings for future consideration.
Saga Lifesciences Limited v.Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the brand 'ULTRAMOL', the Delhi High Court recognized Saga Lifesciences Limited as the prior adopter and user of the mark for pharmaceutical preparations. Despite initial procedural applications being disposed of, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises of Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The commissioner is tasked with inventorying products bearing both 'ULTRAMOL' and 'ARISTO ULTRAMOL', and critically, examining the sales accounts of the defendant to assess the scope of alleged infringement.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The court heard various interlocutory applications in a patent infringement suit concerning standards essential patents related to 3G, 4G, and 5G communications. The primary focus was on allowing the Plaintiffs (Interdigital) to reserve rights to add future infringing devices and additional patents from their large portfolio.
The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company and Goodyear India Ltd. v.Deva Nand Sukhia
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark dispute where Goodyear sought an injunction against Deva Nand Sukhia for using the 'GOOD YEAR' mark in relation to lubricants and greases. The court affirmed that 'GOOD YEAR' is a well-known mark, granting an interim injunction restraining its use across various goods. Although the Plaintiff initially sought damages, they agreed not to press this relief after the Defendant tendered an apology, resulting in the decree being passed with costs imposed on the defendant.
ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD. v.JUMBO ELECTRIC COMPANY
The case involves a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the infringement of patent no. 193488, which pertains to a conversion kit for fluorescent lighting. The Plaintiff has not appeared in court since November 2017, leading to the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution.
Sanofi India Limited v.Ridley Life Science Private Limited
Sanofi India Limited filed a suit against Ridley Life Science Private Limited alleging continuous violation of an earlier injunction order, specifically regarding the sale of products under the marks 'CONCIFLAM' and 'CORIFLAM'. The Plaintiff claimed that these infringing products were being sold despite the May 2021 restraint on using marks similar to its registered trademark 'COMBIFLAM'. The court noted the defendant's history of alleged habitual infringement in pharmaceutical preparations. Consequently, the court directed the defendant to submit detailed sales figures and imposed a significant deposit amount due to the persistent violations.
Enlearn Education Private Limited & Anr. v.Sd Memorial Education And Welfare Society & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an injunction application filed by Enlearn Education Private Limited against Sd Memorial Education Society concerning the use of the mark 'HERITAGE'. The court found prima facie grounds for intervention, noting that the Defendants adopted a similar name ('THE HERITAGE PRIDE MODERN SCHOOL') after being aware of the Plaintiffs' established trademark rights. Consequently, the Court issued an immediate directive restraining the Defendants from opening any further schools incorporating the word 'HERITAGE' or applying for recognition under that name. The court reserved the final decision on interim relief regarding the existing school until proper notice was served.
Zydus Wellness Limited v.Mis. Siddhi Margarine Specialities Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses a suit previously decreed between Zydus Wellness Limited and Mis. Siddhi Margarine Specialities Limited. Following an amicable resolution, both parties had deposited funds with the DHCBA Pandemic Relief Fund. The court noted compliance regarding deposits and stock statements. Crucially, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process the modification/alteration forms filed by Defendant No.1 concerning their registered marks.
Government E Marketplace v.Unilex Consultants & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Government E Marketplace (GeM) against various parties for misusing its brand name. The plaintiff alleged that several defendants were registering or using 'GeM' as a domain name or URL extension, misleading the public into believing they were associated with the official portal. The court granted permanent injunctions and ordered the suspension of multiple infringing domains, reinforcing the protection of government digital brands against unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
This judgment addressed an application seeking dismissal of a patent revocation petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The court examined Section 64 of the Patents Act and the concept of a 'person interested'.
Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademarks
Daewoong Pharmaceutical appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No.201817048074), which covered a crystalline form of compound c28. The rejection was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, as the drug was considered known and lacked enhanced therapeutic efficacy. Daewoong sought to introduce additional data demonstrating superior properties like stability and dissolution rates. The High Court accepted the application for additional documents but framed two critical issues: whether this post-filing data is admissible, and if the crystalline form ultimately meets Section 3(d) requirements.
Ms Aman Engineering Works v.Registrar Trade Marks Trade Marks Registry New Delhi & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses the status of two trademark applications, 'RITE KRANTI' and 'B&M KRANTI,' which are subject to review regarding potential abandonment. The core legal question revolves around whether applications for abandoning these trademarks could be accepted after a significant passage of time. Furthermore, the court noted that the Petitioner had previously filed an opposition against these very marks in 2020, adding complexity to the ongoing dispute.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 1, 2021, passed by the Assistant Controller. The said order rejected the patent application for 'Use of a Thiazolo Pyrimidinone' on grounds of lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Sections 3(e) and 3(d) of the Patents Act.
SOTKON SP SLU v.WESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PVT. LTD.
The case involves the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's patent and copyright rights related to a waste management system. The Defendants are accused of infringing the Plaintiff's patent by submitting a tender for a similar waste management technology.
Dr. Sapna Nangia v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Dr. Sapna Nangia filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated January 29, 2021. The original patent application (No. 201911010599) for a device and process was rejected primarily on the ground of lacking inventive step.
Novartis AG v.Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
Novartis AG filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd and Metrochem Api Private Limited for infringing its patent (No. 233161) covering 'Eltrombopag Olamine', the API in Revolade. The court found that both defendants acknowledged the validity of the patent and admitted they had not manufactured or commercially sold the patented product, leading to a decree granting permanent injunction during the patent's term.
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.