Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
90 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark, design matters.
Cases Presided Over
90 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.
This litigation involves Communication Components Antenna Inc. challenging Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.'s alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. IN240893, which relates to 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency' in wireless communication systems. The core dispute revolves around the validity of this patent, as raised by the defendant through a counterclaim. While the court analyzed grounds of revocation under Sections 64(d), (e), and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970, it ultimately decided to list the suit for further consideration, indicating that the matter remains unresolved.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Zydus Healthcare Limited & Anr., Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, Micro Labs Limited, MSN Laboratories Private Limited, Eris Lifesciences Limited, USV Private Limited, Ajanta Pharma Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses multiple appeals filed by AstraZeneca seeking interim relief to restrain various pharmaceutical companies from infringing its patents. The core issue revolved around whether AstraZeneca was entitled to an immediate injunction while the underlying suits for permanent injunction were pending. The court ultimately dismissed all nine appeals, finding no merit in the appellants' claims.
Stanley Switchgear Products v.Sunil Agarwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal filed by Stanley Switchgear Products challenging a Commercial Court order regarding trademark infringement and passing off concerning the 'STANLEY' mark used for wires and cables. The core dispute centered on conflicting claims of prior usage dates. Ultimately, the court facilitated an amicable resolution, with the respondents agreeing not to seek interim injunctions against the appellant's use of the mark. Furthermore, the court suggested a permanent settlement where both parties could distinguish their products by adding unique house marks.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co. Ltd & Anr.
This order addressed a review petition filed by Defendant No. 2 (Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd.) challenging the denial of framing issues regarding its application for patent revocation. The court noted that the pending revocation proceedings before IPAB were effectively being handled by the High Court's jurisdiction post-IPAB abolition. To resolve this, the court permitted the defendant to withdraw the IPAB revocation petition and file a counterclaim in the suit.
M/S Nutrica Pusti Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Morepen Laboratories Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Nutrica Pusti Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Commercial Court's interim injunction against Morepen Laboratories Ltd. The court found that the marks used by the appellants were deceptively similar to those of the respondents, particularly considering the pharmaceutical context and potential for consumer confusion. This judgment reinforces the strict application of trademark principles in the highly regulated pharma sector.
Kanjibhai Ishwarbhai Patel & Ors. v.Jafar Ali
This appeal was filed by Kanjibhai Ishwarbhai Patel & Ors. challenging an ex parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court in a suit for patent infringement. The appellants argued that the Commercial Court had incorrectly applied parameters suitable for trademark infringement, constituting a jurisdictional error. They also raised concerns regarding procedural lapses and prior litigation history which prejudiced their case. Despite finding merit in the contentions, the High Court decided to allow the matter to proceed before the Commercial Court to ensure a fair hearing on the interim relief application.
Societe D Elastographie v.N.W. Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 244875 by the defendants. The patent's validity lapsed in February 2020, affecting the need for interim relief.
Roland Corporation v.Sandeep Jain
Roland Corporation sued Sandeep Jain and others for passing off their trademark BOSS in relation to electronic musical instruments. Despite initially finding the plaintiff guilty of laches and acquiescence, the court ultimately balanced commercial interests against consumer protection. The judgment resulted in a decree restraining the defendant from using the mark 'BOSS' unless it was prefixed with 'Hi-Tone,' thereby limiting the scope of use while protecting consumers from confusion.
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited v.Competition Commission Of India
This appeal challenges a single judge's decision that appellants (Monsanto) were governed by both the Competition Act, 2002, and the Patents Act, 1970. The core dispute revolves around whether competition law proceedings are applicable when patented seeds are involved. The court allowed several applications and issued an interim restraint on the CCI from finalizing its report pending further hearing.
Sungro Seeds Ltd v.Sk Tripathi & Ors
Sungro Seeds Ltd filed a suit alleging that its ex-employees misappropriated confidential information, including parent lines and breeding strategies for its hybrid cauliflower 'Katreena', which was then used by a competitor to market an identical variety named 'Riya'. The core dispute centered on the unauthorized use of trade secrets and unfair competition. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that without prior registration under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act), the plaintiff could not maintain a suit to restrain infringement.
Prof. Dr. Claudio De Simone & Next Gen Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. v.Actial Farmaceutica Srl. (Formerly known as CD Investment Srl.) & Ors.
The plaintiffs, claiming ownership over the 'De Simone Formulation' through patent rights and subsequent Know-How agreements, filed suit against CD Group entities. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff retained proprietary rights (trade secrets) after the initial patent expired in 2015. The court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that without a valid patent right in India, the plaintiffs lacked a personal cause of action to restrain the defendants from working or selling the formulation.
Bharat Bhogilal Patel v.Nokia Corporations & Ors
The appellant filed a Regular First Appeal against a judgment decreeing the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff. The original suit declared that the processes and machinery used by the plaintiff did not infringe the appellant's patents (189027 and 188787) and granted permanent injunction restraining the appellant from threatening infringement proceedings. The appeal was dismissed primarily due to the failure of the appellant to prove sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co. Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court passed an order in a patent infringement suit concerning several Ericsson patents related to 2G, EDGE, and 3G technology. The court framed issues regarding whether the patents are Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), whether there is infringement by Gionee, and whether the plaintiff complied with FRAND commitments.
Roche Products (India) Private Limited v.Cadila Healthcare Limited
The plaintiffs, including Roche Products and F. Hoffmann-La Roche, challenged the validity of drug approvals granted by the DCGI and DoB to Cadila Healthcare Ltd. for its biosimilar product 'Trastuzumab'. The core legal issue was whether the suit was maintainable given the regulatory framework, specifically concerning appeal provisions under the Drugs Rules.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Natco Pharma
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma for infringing Indian Patent No.IN247381 (APIXABAN). The defendant sought a stay under Section 10 CPC, citing a previously instituted suit in the City Civil Court at Hyderabad concerning patent validity and infringement. The High Court dismissed the stay application.
Vivek Kochher & Anr v.Kyk Corporation Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a judgment that had partially allowed a counter-claim by Kyk Corporation, granting it permanent injunctions. The court found that while the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) findings were dispositive regarding trademark registration, they did not address Kyk Corporation's core claim of passing off. Consequently, the High Court set aside the granted injunctions and remanded the matter to the Single Judge to specifically consider Kyk Corporation's claim for passing off based on the existing evidence.
Satish Kumar v.Khushboo Singh & Ors.
Satish Kumar filed a suit against Khushboo Singh and others, alleging the misappropriation of confidential information, trade secrets, and clientage belonging to his company, Plasma Impex Inc. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages, claiming that the defendants used proprietary data obtained during their employment. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as withdrawn by the plaintiff.
The Chartered Institute Of Taxation v.Institute Of Chatered Tax Advisers Of India Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by The Chartered Institute Of Taxation against a lower court's dismissal of its interim injunction application regarding the trademark 'ADIT'. The Court found that the Respondent, Institute of Chartered Tax Advisers of India Ltd., was likely to cause enormous harm by using a similar name and mark. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the Defendant must refrain from launching any course under the name 'ADIT' while the main suit is pending.
Dart Industries Inc v.Vijay Kumar Bansal
Dart Industries Inc. filed a suit against several defendants alleging infringement of their registered design (casserole lid) and passing off related to their Tupperware products. The court examined the scope of protection, noting that while the lid is independently registered, the plaintiffs claimed passing off for the entire casserole set. The court ultimately issued an interim order directing the defendants to furnish detailed sales particulars.
Transformative Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Pawajot Kaur Baweja
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, former employees, from disclosing confidential information, using proprietary content (including copyright), and competing in Ayurveda. The dispute centered on whether the plaintiffs could refuse to share the list of customers with the defendants, despite claiming rights over that data.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The plaintiff has sued for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its patents related to optical fibre technology. The court is considering interim arrangements to balance the rights of both parties until a final determination is made.
Unilin Beheer B.V. v.Balaji Action Buildwell
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement of Patent No.193247, but since the patent had lapsed, the suit was pursued only for damages. The defendant filed a Counter Claim seeking revocation of the subject patent. The core legal issue addressed by the court was whether the written statement to the Counter Claim could be taken on record despite not being accompanied by an affidavit of admission/denial within the stipulated time.
Pharmacosmos Holding A/S v.La Renon Healthcare Private Limited & Anr
Pharmacosmos Holding A/S filed a suit for infringement against La Renon Healthcare Private Limited and others regarding Patent No. 291100 ('RAPIFER'). The court granted permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1 based purely on the defendant's binding statement, despite disputes over the plaint's merits. Similarly, the suit against Defendant No. 2 (Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.) was disposed of by binding them to their reply stating they were not infringing.
Tata Sky Limited v.National Internet Exchange Of India (NIXI)
Tata Sky Limited filed suit seeking permanent injunction against an individual (D-3) for passing off the 'TATA SKY' trade mark, and mandatory injunctions against NIXI (D-1) and GoDaddy (D-2) to prevent or extinguish deceptively similar domain names. The court granted decrees in favor of Tata Sky Limited against D-3, ordering permanent injunction, and against D-1 and D-2, directing the extinguishment of specific listed domain names.
Surya Food And Agro Limited v.Om Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Surya Food And Agro Limited's suit against Om Traders and others, which alleged passing off based on similar packaging trade dress. The court found that despite the plaintiff's claims regarding distinctive packaging for 'BUTTER DELITE,' there was no sufficient similarity or likelihood of confusion with the defendant's product, 'BUTTER KRUNCH.' The judgment emphasized consumer perception principles (Gestalt Psychology), concluding that consumers recall products holistically rather than focusing on minute details of the packaging.
Filex Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Deepika File Products
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Filex Systems Pvt. Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Deepika File Products for passing off the plaintiff's trade name 'FILEX'. The court found that despite the defendant's arguments regarding prior use or lack of registration, the extensive and long-standing use of 'FILEX' by the plaintiff had established significant goodwill and reputation in the stationery market. This judgment underscores the protection afforded to unregistered marks when passing off is involved.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr
Hindustan Unilever Limited sued Eureka Forbes Limited for infringement of its water purifier patent (IN 198316). The defendants challenged the suit by arguing that an infringement suit is not maintainable against another registered patentee. The court ultimately held that a patentee is entitled to maintain such a suit, deciding the preliminary issue in favor of the plaintiff.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh And Anr v.Symed Laboratories Ltd
The execution petition sought to enforce a consent decree from 2015, which restricted Symed Laboratories Ltd from commercially exploiting RIVAROXABAN. The plaintiff later learned that the defendant had obtained a commercial license and made exports. The court addressed jurisdictional objections before disposing of the petition.
Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v.Celebrities Management Private Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute over territorial jurisdiction concerning a suit for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant challenged the court's authority, arguing that since both parties had connections to Mumbai, the case should have been filed there based on precedents like Sanjay Dalia. However, the court ultimately held that the interpretation of Sections 62 and 134 of the Trademarks Act, conferring 'additional jurisdiction,' is distinct from the general provisions of Section 20 of the CPC, thereby upholding the court's territorial competence.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v.Dr. Abhijit Mukherjee
Bayer sought execution of a prior judgment restraining Dr. Abhijit Mukherjee and others from commercially launching 'RIVAROXABAN' during the lifetime of Patent IN 211300. The court accepted an undertaking from the defendants, including representatives of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited, that they would not make commercial use of the product until the patent expires.
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.