Prathiba M. Singh
625 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
625 cases indexed | Page 9 of 21
Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. v.Union Of India Through Its Secretary Department For Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the advertisement of 'KENT' as a well-known trademark by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The core dispute centered on jurisdictional issues, with the Respondent arguing that such challenges must be filed in the Bombay High Court. However, the Court also clarified procedural requirements for the Registrar, emphasizing that when an applicant relies on court orders to establish well-known status, the Registrar must scrutinize whether those orders constitute a specific declaration or merely preliminary observations.
Dow Agrosciences Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Dow Agrosciences LLC challenged the refusal of its patent application, 'Stabilized Agricultural Oil Dispersions,' citing errors and inaccuracies in the Controller's objections. The appellant argued that key prior art documents were wrongly cited or misinterpreted, particularly regarding thermal stability claims. Recognizing significant procedural flaws and incorrect references in the impugned order, the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh examination.
Roxtec Ab & Anr v.Sukant Chakravarty & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Roxtec Ab & Anr seeking permission to file rectification petitions against registered trademarks, which the defendants argued were monopolizing common industry terms. The court examined the claims related to a 'Bulls Eye' device mark and the slogan 'We Seal Your World'. While addressing the scope of trademark rights, the Court ultimately disposed of the application but framed an issue regarding whether Roxtec India Private Limited (Plaintiff No. 2) was a necessary party in the ongoing suit.
Enconcore N.V. v.Anjani Technoplast Ltd. & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Enconcore N.V., a Belgium-based company, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing its patented technology related to folded honeycomb sandwich panels (Therm-Hex technology). The court held an interim hearing, modifying existing injunctions and imposing conditions on the defendants regarding sales reporting and security deposit.
Acko Technology And Services Pvt Ltd v.Bal Kishan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted relief to Acko Technology And Services Pvt Ltd, directing the cancellation of a conflicting trademark (No. 5320418) registered by Bal Kishan. The petitioner argued that its established mark 'ACKO' for insurance services was being infringed upon by the respondent's mark 'ACKOLITE' in Class 11 (household appliances). Given the likelihood of confusion and Acko's strong prior rights, the Court cancelled the impugned registration, reinforcing the principle against conflicting marks.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioners filed revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondents sought to transfer these petitions to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh to consolidate them with ongoing infringement suits related to Patent IN243301 covering Linagliptin. The court dismissed the applications for transfer/consolidation.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Canva Pty Ltd, alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. IN 360726, which covers a system and method for creating and sharing interactive content. The Plaintiff argued that Canva's 'Present and Record' feature directly infringes the patented technology used in their product, 'My Show & Tell'. After analyzing the claims and evidence, the Delhi High Court found prima facie merit in the Plaintiff's case.
Mhg Ip Holdings (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Mhg Ip Holdings challenging the refusal of registration for its mark 'TIVOLI'. The Appellant argued that it had used the mark globally since 1933, establishing significant prior adoption. Recognizing this extensive global usage, the court invoked Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing for honest concurrent use. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar, directing a fresh review considering the Appellant's long-standing reputation.
new era cap co inc v.ms galaxy caps
New Era Cap Co. Inc. sued M/S Galaxy Caps for trademark infringement, alleging that Galaxy Caps manufactured and sold counterfeit caps bearing New Era's 'NEW ERA' mark and associated logos without authorization. The Plaintiff claimed significant global sales and brand recognition, including endorsements from Virat Kohli. Local Commissioners seized over 200 infringing products from Galaxy Cap’s premises.
Pfizer Inc v.West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited for infringing four patents covering Palbociclib and Crizotinib. The dispute centered on the Defendant's listing of these products for manufacture and sale, despite the existence of valid patents held by the Plaintiffs.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application for 'Non-Oriented Electrical Steel Excellent in Magnetic Properties'. The Appellant argued that the rejection order failed to provide a proper hearing and did not adequately discuss the novelty and inventive step objections. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order summarily rejected the application without due consideration of prior art, leading to its remand.
Tata Sky Limited (later Tata Play Limited) v.Linkedin Corporation And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Sky against LinkedIn concerning unauthorized use of the 'TATA SKY' brand on user profiles. Recognizing the recurring nature of fake and infringing profiles, the court issued specific directions to LinkedIn. These directions mandate that LinkedIn publicly disclose its Grievance Officer details, relevant policies, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) related to handling such grievances under the IT Rules, aiming to establish an effective framework for redressal without requiring constant litigation.
Communication Components Antena Inc. v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. Kg & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a patent infringement action against the defendants regarding patent IN240893, which relates to asymmetrical beams for spectrum efficiency. The defendants counter-claimed seeking revocation of the patent under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970. Given that the remaining term of the patent was less than five years, the court directed summary adjudication.
Hamdard National Foundation India v.Government Of Nct Delhi
Hamdard National Foundation India challenged the unrestricted use of 'Rogan Badam Shirin' by Ayurvedic manufacturers for almond oil, arguing it was reserved for Unani medicine. The petition sought directions to prevent unauthorized usage of this terminology. The court noted that the Ministry of Ayush had communicated to State licensing authorities that Raughan-E-Badam Shireen requires a Unani Drug License, thereby satisfying the petitioner's primary relief.
Opentv Inc v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Opentv Inc appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs which refused grant for its patent application titled 'System and method to provide gift media'. The refusal was based on non-patentability under Section 3(k) (computer program/business method) and issues related to novelty and inventive step. Opentv argued that the invention provided a technical solution for selecting and distributing interactive media content.
M/S Sureka International v.Government E Marketplace & Anr.
M/S Sureka International challenged the lack of verification mechanisms on the Government E Marketplace (GeM) portal, arguing that false complaints regarding its trademark usage were damaging its reputation. The court acknowledged the reputational harm but noted that the dispute was fundamentally about trademark registration scope (Class 35 vs goods). Instead of mandating a specific mechanism, the Delhi High Court directed GeM to consider and respond to the petitioner's representation within two weeks.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
The court addressed several counter claims filed by counterclaimants seeking the revocation of four specific Indian patents (IN 259932, IN 269929, IN 321300, and IN 300066). The order directed that the counter claims be numbered, notice issued, and written statements filed.
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd v.Controller General Of Patents, Design
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents which had refused to grant a patent for its 'Air Decontamination Assembly.' The refusal was based primarily on the grounds that the subject matter lacked inventive step over existing prior art. Biomoneta highlighted the innovative nature of its device, supported by significant government funding and international recognition. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents Designs And Anr
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd. appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents and Designs which refused to grant a patent for its 'Air Decontamination Assembly.' The refusal was based on objections regarding lack of inventive step and non-patentable subject matter. Biomoneta argued that their device offered unique features not present in the prior art, supported by significant government funding and international recognition. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.
Gpl Exports Limited & Golden Peakock Overseas Limited v.Global Lighting Source Private Limited & Others
The Delhi High Court formally recorded a comprehensive settlement reached between GPL Exports Limited and Global Lighting Source Private Limited. The original suit involved claims related to intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, designs, and confidential information concerning the lighting industry. By entering into a mediated agreement, both parties resolved their disputes, with the court decreeing the suit based on the terms of the settlement.
Landmark Crafts Private Limited v.Union Of India Through Its Secretary & Anr.
This order in Landmark Crafts Private Limited vs Union Of India concerns the rectification of Trademark No. 266607. The court noted that the matter was pending and scheduled it to be listed before the IP Division on March 2, 2023. This procedural step indicates the ongoing legal process aimed at correcting issues related to the registered trademark.
Bajaj Finance Limited v.Registrant Of Www.Bajaj-Finserve.Org & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim order in favor of Bajaj Finance Limited against the registrant of infringing domains. The court found that three specific domain names were clearly violating the petitioner's trademark. Consequently, the concerned Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) were directed to lock these illegal domains, and the Department of Telecommunications/Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (DOT/MEITY) was mandated to block access to them.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistance Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for 'Use of a Thiazolo Pyrimidinone for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and falling under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Act. The court released the matter from part heard due to heavy board load.
Vbm Medizintechnik Gmbh v.Geetan Luthra
The Delhi High Court granted an interlocutory injunction in favor of Vbm Medizintechnik Gmbh against Geetan Luthra regarding the use of the mark 'VBM'. The court found that despite prior distribution agreements, the defendant's subsequent registration and use of a deceptively similar mark for medical equipment constituted infringement. The ruling emphasizes the need to prevent consumer confusion when one party leverages another's established brand identity.
Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp v.P Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp against P Singh & Ors. The Plaintiff, a prior user of the Ayurvedic joint pain relief oil 'SANDHI SUDHA', successfully argued that the Defendants' use of similar marks and imitation of packaging constituted passing off and copyright infringement. The court recognized the Plaintiff's established market presence and sales history to protect consumers from potential confusion.
Ecomax Solutions Pvt. Ltd v.Energeo Building Solutions Llp & Ors
The case involves issues related to patent infringement, rights relating to confidential information, and copyrighted drawings concerning the Automatic Tube Cleaning system. The court appointed Local Commissioners to ascertain the working of the system used by the Defendants.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Parulben Navnath Chothani Trading As Shiv Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court recorded a settlement between the Plaintiff, Sirona Hygiene Private Limited, and Defendant No. 1 in a trademark infringement suit concerning its 'SIRONA' brand. The settlement acknowledged Sirona's rights in both its registered mark and product packaging copyright. As part of the agreement, the infringing party agreed to cease using similar marks like 'SIROMA' and paid Rs. 65,000/-. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1, who was then deleted from the array of parties.
Parle Products Private Limited v.Britannia Industries Ltd.
Parle Products filed a suit against Britannia Industries alleging disparagement and unfair competition through advertisements for 'Britannia Milk Bikis.' The court found that the use of terms like 'G-NAHI' and similar packaging strongly suggested a comparison with Parle-G. Recognizing both parties' willingness to resolve the dispute, the Delhi High Court referred them to mediation while issuing an interim injunction preventing Britannia from re-publishing the print advertisements.
H.S. Sahni, Sole Proprietorm/S M. K. Auto Sales Corporation v.Saic Motor Corporation Limited & Ors
This Delhi High Court order initiates a trademark infringement suit filed by H.S. Sahni against Saic Motor Corporation Limited concerning the use of the marks 'M.G' and 'M.G.I' in the automotive sector. The Plaintiff claims rights based on continuous use since 1989 and registered trademarks from 1998, alleging that the Defendant is infringing upon these established marks. While procedural applications were disposed of, the Court formally registered the suit and directed the Defendants to file a detailed affidavit regarding their sales figures and product launches under the disputed mark.
Vijay Baweja Proprietor Of Ms Vijay Auto Sales v.Ajay Baweja Trading As Ajay Auto Spares & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed by Vijay Baweja against Ajay Baweja concerning the trademarks 'AIRGOLD' and 'AIR GOLD (Device)'. The court accepted the petitioner's application to summon the original records related to these marks from the CGPDTM. The core dispute revolves around the joint ownership of the mark, which was subsequently assigned exclusively by the respondent without obtaining a necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the petitioner.
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.