Rajiv Shakdher
78 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent, design matters.
Cases Presided Over
78 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc v.Designarch Consultants Private Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment resolves a complex trademark dispute between Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC and Designarch Consultants Private Ltd through a comprehensive settlement. The parties mutually agreed to acknowledge each other's core trademarks, such as 'BURJ AL ARAB' and 'BURJNOIDA'. Crucially, the agreement mandates the withdrawal of numerous pending cancellation petitions and oppositions filed by both sides, effectively clearing the path for continued use while establishing clear boundaries on brand usage.
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc
The Delhi High Court disposed of cross-appeals between Designarch Consultants and Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The settlement mandates that Designarch must cease using certain 'BURJ' formative marks (other than BURJNOIDA) and refrain from designing buildings resembling Jumeirah’s pictorial references. In return, Jumeirah agrees to withdraw several cancellation petitions filed against Designarch's trademarks, while Designarch acknowledges Jumeirah's ownership of its key brands.
Mohd Shakir v.Gopal Traders & Anr.
Mohd Shakir appealed a single judge's decision that dismissed his petition seeking cancellation or rectification of a work registered under No. A-120894/2017, which was claimed by Gopal Traders & Anr. The core dispute revolves around the mark "MYA," where the appellant claims prior rights based on third-party trademark registrations held by Mr Youssef and Mya International. The court found the matter required examination and issued notice to all respondents.
Vishal Choudhary v.Snpc Machines Private Limited
Vishal Choudhary appealed an order that restrained him from manufacturing and selling brick making machines due to alleged patent and copyright infringement. The High Court reviewed the matter, including a local commissioner's report confirming the availability of eight such machines.
Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors. v.Rajkumar Sabu
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex family dispute concerning the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' used for sabudana. The appeal challenged a lower court judgment that favored the respondent, holding that the appellants failed to prove prior use of the mark. Recognizing the contentious nature and the underlying familial connection to the brand creation, the Court directed that the status quo ante should be maintained until the final disposal of the appeal. This allows both parties to continue operating their businesses without claiming sole ownership.
Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v.Phonepe Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed multiple petitions filed by Resilient Innovations seeking the removal/rectification of several PhonePe trademarks. The court held that because the petitioner had previously raised objections regarding the descriptive nature and invalidity of the marks in a separate civil suit (CS(COMM) 292/2019), they were bound by Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. This section mandates that challenges to trademark validity must be addressed within the original civil proceeding before the court can allow rectification proceedings.
Mahle Filter Systems (India) Pvt Ltd v.Mobis India Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the dispute between Mahle Filter Systems and Mobis India Ltd concerning a subject trademark. The court directed both parties to file concise written submissions and, crucially, instructed counsel to exchange proposals aimed at resolving the trademark issue amicably. This indicates the ongoing litigation is moving towards potential settlement or mediation.
Abhishek Gupta v.Vipin Jain
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Abhishek Gupta, who was seeking restraint against trademark and copyright infringement related to his 'BOL' sports publication. Despite initial resistance based on delayed approach, the court found a prima facie case for the appellant. The judgment specifically restrained Vipin Jain from passing off or associating their goods with the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and copyrights, recognizing the likelihood of consumer confusion due to similar get-up and use.
Ampm Fashions Private Limited v.Mr. Akash Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application concerning the use of the 'AMPM' trademark. While the plaintiff asserted its mark was well-known and infringed upon by the defendant's stylized version, the court declined to grant the requested injunction. However, in a compromise, the defendants agreed to prominently display a specific subtitle ('Interior design by Akash Mehta and Poonam Mehta') alongside their impugned mark and submit quarterly turnover accounts to the court.
Rajdhani Masala Co & Anr. v.Victoria Foods Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark dispute between Rajdhani Masala Co & Anr. and Victoria Foods Private Limited, which centers on the use of the 'RAJDHANI' mark. While the appellants claimed long-standing usage since 1965, the court noted a lack of concrete evidence, such as sales invoices, to establish prima facie commercial use of the trademark on their goods. The Court directed both parties to file the complete record before proceeding further in the litigation.
Mahaan Foods Ltd & Anr. v.Calpro Specialities Pvt Ltd
In this Delhi High Court matter concerning trademark disputes, the court observed significant procedural difficulties on the part of the respondent. Despite being notified about the termination of key trademark license agreements, the respondent failed to provide a formal response and instead changed legal counsel without adequate instructions. Given these compounding issues, the bench decided to stay the operation of the impugned orders in the appeals, allowing time for the matter to be properly addressed.
Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt. Ltd. v.Rajesh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt. Ltd. challenging a lower court's refusal to grant an ad interim injunction. While noting the appellant's claims of prior use of its trademark and copyright registration on its packaging, the Court ultimately decided not to interdict proceedings at that stage. Instead, it directed the District Judge to expedite the hearing of the interlocutory application, ensuring the matter moves forward promptly.
Ampm Fashions Private Limited v.Mr. Akah Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a rectification application concerning a trademark registration. The plaintiff informed the court that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had previously directed the removal of the defendant's mark from the Trademarks Register. However, the defendants requested an adjournment as they were in the process of challenging the IPAB's decision, leading the court to list the matter for a future date.
Cipla Limited v.Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd
In a trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court directed the parties, Cipla Limited and Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd, to engage in formal mediation. Following successful settlement talks on two of the three trademarks, the court facilitated further negotiations for the remaining mark. This order underscores the judiciary's preference for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in complex IP conflicts.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Ektarfa Garments Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark infringement suit filed by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ektarfa Garments Private Limited. During the proceedings, the plaintiff indicated that the defendants had expressed interest in settling the matter. The court acknowledged these overtures and scheduled the case for further hearing on December 8, 2020, allowing time for settlement discussions.
RB Health (Us) Llc v.Dabur India Limited
RB Health (US) LLC filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Dabur India Limited, alleging infringement of their registered soap bar design (No. 271671) and the tort of passing off through similar trade dress and taglines. The plaintiffs sought to prevent Dabur from manufacturing or selling a competing soap bar under the brand 'SANITIZE'. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the application for an injunction, noting that such cases heavily depend on specific facts rather than merely analogical precedents.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Alkem Laboratories Limited
Astrazeneca sued Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited and Alkem Laboratories Limited regarding two patents, IN 147 (genus) and IN 625 (species), covering the SGLT2 inhibitor Dapagliflozin (DAPA). The core dispute was whether DAPA, which is used to treat type-II diabetes, falls within the scope of the genus patent. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' applications.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Ors. v.Sarfaraz Khan
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'TAZA WATER PLUS' while operating in the same trade channel as Tata's registered trademarks. Based on the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable harm to Tata's goodwill, the court issued an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.
Philip Morris Brands S.A.R.L v.Ntc Industries Limited & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, Philip Morris Brands S.A.R.L challenged Ntc Industries Limited regarding the use of its stylized 'Maypole' mark and packaging devices. During the proceedings on October 20, 2020, the court noted that the defendants would place advertisements showing the use of the 'Maypole' mark since 1994 on record. Furthermore, the defendants assured the court they would not use the specific roof device integral to the plaintiff’s trademark packaging, leading the matter to be listed for further hearing.
Giani S Foods Private Limited v.Mr. Keshav Aggarwal, Trading As M/S Keshav Foods & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Giani S Foods Private Limited against Mr. Keshav Aggarwal regarding alleged trademark infringement. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, noting irreparable harm to its commercial interests due to the unauthorized use of the 'GIANI'S' mark and associated trade features by the defendant. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the protected trademark or similar marks on their products and from utilizing any distinctive store layouts or fixtures belonging to Giani S Foods.
Astral Poly Technik Limited & Anr. v.Astralglee Through Its Proprietor Ms Pooja Surendra Ayre & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Astral Poly Technik against Astralglee, concerning the use of 'Astral' and 'Astralglee' in Class 3 goods. The court noted conflicting arguments regarding prior use, consumer confusion, and the scope of statutory rights conferred by registration. Given the complex factual matrix and competing legal precedents cited by both sides, the judge decided to proceed with a detailed examination of the issues.
Novartis Ag v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant's product infringes their patent for a pharmaceutical composition consisting of sacubitril and valsartan. The defendant claims their product is different and has filed for revocation of the suit patent.
Sarla Holdings Private Limited v.Pathways School Gurugram Parents Association
Sarla Holdings Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the 'PATHWAYS' mark, sought to restrain a parents' association from using its trademark. The Delhi High Court mediated a settlement where the Defendants agreed to modify their association's name and remove all references to 'PATHWAYS' or 'PSG' from their communications and social media platforms. This order allows the Plaintiff to protect its brand identity while accommodating the community interest.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The case involves requests for injunctions against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Living Media India Limited & Anr. v.Www.News-Aajtak.Co.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Living Media India Limited, who claimed ownership of the 'AAJ TAK' trademark. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement by various defendants using similar marks in their domain names. Consequently, the court directed the concerned Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to immediately block and suspend the infringing websites and take down related content from social media platforms.
Modern Foods Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed cross-suits concerning the identical mark 'MODERN' used in the FMCG sector. While acknowledging that the plaintiff (Modern Foods) was a prior adopter of the mark, the court granted an interim injunction with significant caveats. The defendant (Modern Snacks) is restrained from expanding its product range using 'MODERN', but is allowed to continue using it on existing labels and registered goods. This decision balances the rights of both parties while preserving the status quo pending final determination.
Jindal (India) Limited v.Vision Prime Tech Pvt Ltd
In a commercial suit concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on September 4, 2020. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents while also accepting assurances from the defendant. Crucially, the defendant agreed to withdraw its pending trademark application and provided statements denying the use of the impugned mark in the market. These procedural steps move the case toward a resolution based on the parties' commitments.
Makemytrip India Private Limited v.Wing In Travel Advisory Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Makemytrip against Wing In Travel Advisory and others. After hearing arguments, the court accepted an assurance from Defendant No. 1 that it would not bid for, adopt, or use Makemytrip's registered trademarks (MakeMyTrip/MMT) or any deceptively similar variants. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1 on these terms, without awarding damages or costs to the plaintiff. The court noted that the remaining defendants could not be proceeded against in the current form of the suit.
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.