Sanjeev Narula
456 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
456 cases indexed | Page 12 of 16
Pb Fintech Limited v.Policy Bazar Finance & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted significant interim relief in favor of Pb Fintech Limited against various parties accused of trademark infringement. The court impleaded new defendants and issued strict injunctions restraining them from using deceptively similar marks like 'POLICYBAZAAR' or 'PAISABAZAAR'. Furthermore, the judgment directed domain registrars (DNRs) to immediately suspend and block infringing domains, and mandated ISPs to prevent access to these websites. The court also ordered the temporary suspension of a bank account linked to one of the alleged infringers.
Desert Friendly Camps Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Desert Friendly Camps Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of its trademark application, 'THE SERAI JAISALMER.' The court found that the mark was not descriptive for Class 43 services, especially given the existence of a nearly identical registered mark in the same classes. Furthermore, considering the lapse or refusal status of most cited prior marks, the Court directed the Trademark Registry to process and advertise the application, subject to an explicit disclaimer regarding the word 'JAISALMER.'
Prem Raj Parekh (Deceased) / Abhishek Parakh v.Shah Food Products And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the substitution of the deceased Plaintiff, Prem Raj Parekh, with his legal representative, Abhishek Parakh. This order facilitated the continuation of the trademark suit, allowing the applicant to formally assign ownership of Trademark No. 543474 in his name. While the procedural hurdle was cleared, the court explicitly left open the substantive objections raised by the Defendant regarding the Plaintiff's actual ownership of the trademark, setting the stage for further litigation.
Les Ateliers Louis Moinet Sa v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Les Ateliers Louis Moinet Sa against the rejection of its trademark application 'LOUIS MOINET' for horological instruments and jewellery. The court recognized that the mark, being the founder's name used for luxury timepieces, possessed inherent distinctiveness. Despite objections regarding similarity to a cited mark ('LOUIS MONT'), the Court allowed the application to proceed to advertisement without acceptance, directing that any subsequent opposition must be decided on its own merits.
Robotics Today B.V. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Robotics Today B.V., setting aside the rejection of its trade mark application 'ROBOTICS TODAY' under Section 9(1)(b) and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the composite mark was suggestive rather than descriptive when used in the robotics industry, and determined that it was prima facie dissimilar to the cited conflicting mark. Crucially, the judgment mandated a disclaimer, ensuring the registered rights would only cover the combination 'ROBOTICS TODAY' and not the individual words.
M/S. Suparshva Swabs India v.Sh. Vipul Chhabra And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's request to cancel a registered trademark, finding no deceptive similarity between the marks. The court held that despite both marks starting with 'T' and ending with 'IP', the overall visual, phonetic, and structural differences were substantial enough to prevent consumer confusion. This ruling emphasizes that similarity must be assessed as a whole, not merely by common letters.
Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited v.Chotiwala & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited against Defendant No. 5, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that their registered mark 'CHOTIWALA,' which has acquired significant goodwill over decades, was being deceptively used by the defendant. This order provides immediate protection to the established brand while the main litigation proceeds.
Sk Geo Centric Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Sk Geo Centric Co Ltd appealed a refusal order passed by the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application. The appellant argued that the refusal order, which cited prior art D4, was bereft of any reasoning to support the conclusion of lacking inventive step. The High Court found the impugned order invalid due to lack of justification and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Kentucky Fried Chicken International Holdings LLC v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Kentucky Fried Chicken's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'CHICKEN ZINGER'. The court found that while the word 'CHICKEN' itself is generic, the combination with 'ZINGER' was suggestive rather than purely descriptive. Crucially, the court clarified that KFC would not acquire exclusive rights in the common term 'CHICKEN', ensuring a disclaimer would be reflected upon registration.
M/S Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers v.Bhagwan Das Khanna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Plaintiff sought to strike out two specific issues related to a partnership deed. The Plaintiff argued that since the Defendants had not raised any counterclaims or filed a declaration suit concerning the partnership structure, these issues were irrelevant to the core controversy of trademark infringement. The Court directed the Defendants to file a reply within four weeks and subsequently a rejoinder, keeping the litigation moving forward.
The Capital Group Companies, Inc v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a request by an intermediary (Defendant No. 11) seeking to modify its obligations under trademark infringement proceedings involving 'CAPITAL ONE.' The Court rejected the plea for extended compliance time, emphasizing that due to the nature of the case—which involves fraudulent ponzi/pyramid schemes proliferating on social media like Telegram—swift action is imperative. Consequently, the court reinforced the existing order, mandating Defendant No. 11 to take down infringing accounts within 72 working hours upon receiving a complaint from the Plaintiff.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The court disposed of several interlocutory applications (I.A.) in the patent dispute between Novartis Ag and Natco Pharma Limited. The defendant withdrew its counter claim seeking invalidity of the suit patent, and the court allowed the defendant to file additional documents after imposing conditions.
United Coffee House v.Raghav Kalra
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by United Coffee House, leading to the cancellation of a nearly identical mark registered by Raghav Kalra. The court found that the respondent's registration was ex-facie dishonest because it failed to disclose his partnership interest in the petitioner's firm during the application process. This decision reinforces the principle that prior use and established goodwill outweigh subsequent registrations made in bad faith.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust & Anr. v.M/S. R.J Enterprises & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit brought by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S. R.J Enterprises, the Delhi High Court facilitated a potential settlement pathway. The court noted that Defendant No. 1 offered an undertaking to cease using the disputed marks if the Plaintiff waived their claim for damages. The Plaintiff agreed to this condition provided the Defendant paid INR 75,000/- towards local commission charges. This order sets the stage for further negotiation and resolution of the dispute.
M/S Luxottica Group S.P.A & Anr v.M/S Deals Cracker & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex-parte injunction granted against the defendants in a trademark infringement suit brought by Luxottica Group S.P.A regarding its 'RAY-BAN' brand. The court proceeded to frame several key issues, including whether the defendant website (Shopclues) has infringed or committed passing off, and specifically addressed the defense of being merely an intermediary under the IT Act. This marks a significant step toward the trial phase of the dispute.
ITC Limited v.Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed two separate applications in the dispute between ITC Limited and Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors. Regarding a request to use a new label, the court found that the proposed packaging did not appear deceptively similar to ITC's marks, thereby lifting the existing ad-interim injunction for this specific design. Separately, the Court initiated proceedings against Mr. Prem Chand Mittal for alleged assault and deliberate disobedience of previous orders.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design's order dated February 27, 2020, which refused to register Indian Patent Application No. 9486/DELNP/2007 for a system and method related to wearable electronic devices.
Delhi Public School Society v.Delhi Public School Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi Public School Society filed petitions seeking the cancellation of a specific copyright registration held by its subsidiary, Delhi Public School Pvt Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether the impugned copyright was an exact replica of the Petitioner's original copyrights and if the Respondent had the right to hold such a registration. The Court found that the rival copyrights were nearly identical and that the Petitioner's rights predated the challenged registration. Furthermore, the court noted a prior decree restraining the Respondent from using similar marks.
Honeywell International Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr.
Honeywell International Inc. filed an appeal challenging the decision of the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs, which had declined its patent application under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the decline order was non-reasoned and inconsistent with previous judicial decisions. The Delhi High Court issued directions to both parties to file detailed submissions, brief notes, and relevant documentation before proceeding with the appeal.
Amrit Corp. Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Amrit Corp. Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the composite label mark 'JUST MILK'. The court found that the combination of the arbitrary word 'JUST' with 'MILK' was suggestive and capable of distinguishing goods, overcoming the objection based on lack of distinctiveness. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to proceed with the registration process for 'JUST MILK', while clarifying that this registration would not grant exclusive rights in the generic term 'MILK'.
Sabyasachi Couture v.Technicolour Dream Pants Private Limited
In a significant resolution for the fashion industry, the Delhi High Court decreed a suit involving Sabyasachi Couture against Technicolour Dream Pants Private Limited. The parties reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. Under the terms, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's trademark rights and undertook not to use or deal in garments bearing the 'SABYASACHI' mark or designs without authorization. This judgment provides a clear example of how IP disputes can be resolved through negotiated settlements.
M/S Eureka Forbes Limited v.Vaibhav Agro Industries
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Eureka Forbes Limited, granting a permanent and mandatory injunction against Vaibhav Agro Industries for trademark infringement. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'AquaSure' on packaged drinking water was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. While the claim for copyright infringement failed due to lack of similarity in artistic works, the core trademark infringement suit was successfully decreed.
Travelodge Hotels India(Ip) Pte Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Travelodge Hotels India(Ip) Pte Ltd against the Trademark Registry's refusal of its application for 'TRAVELODGE SKYE'. Despite concerns regarding similarity with prior marks, the court directed that the subject mark be permitted to be advertised without acceptance. This decision allows the applicant to proceed with the registration process while any underlying disputes over the core 'TRAVELODGE' mark remain pending.
Shiv Nadar Foundation v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Shiv Nadar Foundation's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its device mark. The court held that because the mark is composite—combining a graphic representation with the institution's name and the word 'SHIKSHA'—it cannot be deemed descriptive in isolation. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, allowing the application to proceed for advertisement, provided the Appellant agrees not to claim exclusive rights over the common term 'SHIKSHA'.
Organo Gold Holdings, Limited v.Origano Gold Private Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit filed by Organo Gold Holdings against Origano Gold Private Limited. The parties reached a settlement agreement, which the court subsequently decreed. Under the terms, the defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's rights in the 'ORIGANO GOLD' mark and committed to immediately cease using similar marks or logos. Furthermore, Defendant No. 2 agreed to withdraw specific registered trademarks and pending trademark applications.
Infiniti Retail Limited v.M/S Croma Wholeseller & Ors.
Infiniti Retail Limited successfully sought judicial intervention against an infringing website, www.cromawholesellersltd.co.in, which was identified as using its registered trademarks and logo. The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to implead the website owner as a defendant and extended the existing ex-parte ad-interim injunction to cover this new party. Crucially, the court directed the suspension of the infringing domain name and mandated that the responsible parties provide detailed registrant information, reinforcing strong protection for well-known trademarks in the digital space.
Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP v.TVC Life Sciences Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP, granting a permanent injunction against TVC Life Sciences Ltd and others. The dispute centered on trademark infringement concerning Ayurvedic joint pain relief oils. The court found that the defendants' mark, 'SANDHEE SUDDHAM,' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark, 'SANDHI SUDHA.' This decision reinforces the importance of prior use and goodwill in protecting brand identity within the pharmaceutical sector.
Sweeton Foods Pvt Ltd v.M/S Grv Conferectionery And Foods
Sweeton Foods Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking the cancellation of a copyright held by M/S Grv Conferectionery And Foods for the label 'KARTIER GOLD 24 CARAT SWISS MILK CHOCO'. This action stemmed from an earlier civil suit regarding trademark infringement. The court found that since the respondent had undertaken in a settlement decree to withdraw and cancel the registration, the petition was allowed.
Siddharth Suri v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Siddharth Suri against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'ANDAMEN'. The initial refusal was based on similarity to an earlier trade mark under Section 11(1)(b). However, the court found that since 'ANDAMEN' is a name of a sea and does not have a reputation associated with Class-18 goods (leather goods), the absolute ground for refusal under Section 9(1)(a) was not attracted. Consequently, the Impugned Order was set aside, directing the Trademark Registry to process the registration application.
Jangeer Singh Trading As Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works v.Yogesh Jangid Trading As Jangid Agro Engineering & Anr.
In this commercial suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications filed by both parties. The court allowed Defendant No. 1 to place legal proceeding certificates related to its registered trademarks on record, despite initial objections regarding relevance. Furthermore, upon agreement from the Plaintiff, the court permitted the deletion of Defendant No. 2 (IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd.) from the array of parties, allowing the litigation to proceed with a refined set of defendants.
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.