Sachin Datta
11 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
11 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Rajput Jewellers Pvt Ltd v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Rajput Jewellers Pvt Ltd challenging an ongoing complaint lodged against it by a third party regarding trademark ownership. The petitioner sought interim relief to prevent adverse orders from the Regional Director, Northern Division. While dismissing the apprehension of arbitrary action, the court issued a crucial direction, mandating that the Regional Director must dispose of the Section 16(1)(b) complaint after thoroughly considering all submissions and granting a proper hearing to all concerned parties.
Miss Kiara Rawat Through Mrs. Lovely Gusain v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner sought directions from the Delhi High Court regarding the high cost of the drug Zolgensma. The petitioner requested that the Union of India facilitate the issuance of compulsory licenses under the Patents Act, 1970, and also asked for the formation of a committee to raise funds for her treatment.
Kedar Nath Mishra v.Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court deferred the appeals filed by Kedar Nath Mishra against Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court allowed further time for arguments and noted that the respondent required additional time to place documents on record regarding an amendment to its trademark registration, reflecting usage since 31.12.2007. Consequently, the appeals were released from part-heard status and rescheduled for a later date.
M/S Avon Automotive And Ors v.M/S Avon Cycles Limited
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on an earlier injunction restraining M/S Avon Automotive And Ors from using trademarks like 'AVON' in connection with cycles and related goods. The court recognized the appellants' claims of long-standing usage since 1980, despite the initial order being passed ex parte based on trademark registration details. This interim relief allows the appellants to continue their trade operations while the full merits of the infringement dispute are heard.
Madhu Food Products v.Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Madhu Food Products, upholding the Commercial Court's initial order favoring Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on alleged trademark infringement and passing off concerning food products under the marks 'HUNK' and 'HUNT'. The court found prima facie evidence that the appellant copied the respondent's distinctive trade dress and packaging, concluding that the use of 'HUNT' was intended to take advantage of the respondent's established goodwill. This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting brand identity through both trademark registration and distinct visual presentation.
Shri Kirit Bhadiadra v.Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent) to introduce a recent trademark registration certificate for 'MEDILICE' into the ongoing litigation. Although the original suit concerned infringement and passing off, the court recognized that the new Class 5 registration could bear on the disputes between the parties. This order allows the introduction of evidence relating to the mark's expanded scope, while preserving the rights of the appellant.
Radha Kishan Agarwal & Anr. v.M/S Ignyt Electricals
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Radha Kishan Agarwal & Anr. challenging a Commercial Court order that had restricted their use of the trademark 'IGNYT' due to alleged infringement on M/S Ignyt Electricals' registered mark 'IGNYT'. The appellants argued they were merely distributors of genuine goods and sought permission to sell their existing stock. While the High Court noted procedural gaps in the lower court's decision, it deferred a final ruling on the stay application, listing the matter for further instructions from both parties.
Joseph Taheny v.Tektronix Inc.
Joseph Taheny challenged an arbitral award that directed him to transfer the domain name 'tek.in' to Tektronix Inc., arguing that his registration predated the respondent's trademark filing. The petitioner contended that the domain was registered as a generic Turkish term and not in bad faith. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, finding no infirmity in the arbitral award. The court upheld the transfer, emphasizing that the complainant only needed to be a registered proprietor of the mark for the INDRP rules to apply.
Viridian Development Managers Private Limited & Anr. v.Rps Infrastructure Limited
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions against Rps Infrastructure Limited after a petition alleging trademark infringement concerning the 'World Trade Centre' brand in Faridabad. The court temporarily restrained the respondent from using the disputed trademarks on its projects, requiring immediate removal of the marks from all public materials and mandating disclosure to unit buyers that the developer holds no rights to the brands. While granting these protective measures, the Court deferred the adjudication of significant monetary claims (over Rs 31 crore) to the ongoing arbitration proceedings.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd v.Ch V Pulla Rao
Alkem Laboratories Ltd filed a petition alleging that Ch V Pulla Rao was willfully disobeying a settlement agreement by using the deceptively similar trademark "A VITA Z" against Alkem's mark, "A to Z". The petitioner presented photographic evidence of the alleged infringement. The respondent denied the allegations and stated they were not using the infringing mark. The court noted that the respondent's counter affidavit was missing and listed the matter for further hearing.
Delhi Public School Society v.Savita Girdhar And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner's application for an early hearing, noting that the respondents were allegedly in continuous contempt of previous orders and continuing to infringe upon the petitioner's trademark by enrolling new students. The court recognized the urgency due to ongoing alleged infringement despite prior legal dismissals. Consequently, the original hearing date was cancelled, and a new listing was set for September 12, 2022.
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.