Sanjeev Narula
385 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
385 cases indexed | Page 2 of 13
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Jfe Steel Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by The Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for a method of activating a continuous annealing furnace. The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art (D1 and D2). The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Impugned Order and remanding the matter to the Controller.
Tirupati Structurals Limited v.Jai Prakash Singhal
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tirupati Structurals Limited against Jai Prakash Singhal, finding that the defendant's use of 'MM TIRUPATI' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'TSL-TIRUPATI'. The court held that despite minor differences in prefixes, the identical and prominent shared element 'TIRUPATI', coupled with the similarity in goods (pipes and fittings), created a high likelihood of consumer confusion. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded by common law passing off principles against calculated attempts to capitalize on established goodwill.
Grip Invest Technologies Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Grip Invest Technologies, restraining a newly discovered mirroring website (eliteedgebrokerage.info) from operating. The court found that the new site was an exact copy of the plaintiff's website, infringing both copyright and trademark. Furthermore, the court directed the Domain Name Registrar and the Department of Telecommunication to take immediate steps to block access to the infringing domain, reinforcing proactive measures against online IP infringement.
Tata Power Solar Systems Limited & Anr. v.Www.Tatapowersolardealership.Co.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, finding that several defendants were infringing on its registered trademarks ('TATA' and 'TATA POWER SOLAR'). The court recognized the immense goodwill and reputation associated with the brand. Furthermore, the judgment included significant ancillary relief, directing the suspension of specific domain names and mandating the freezing and transfer of funds from bank accounts linked to the infringement activities into a designated RBI fund.
Saint Gobain Placo v.Khushbu Frames
The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing on their registered patents related to corrugated construction elements. The defendants claim they have never used the technology in question.
Jamboree Resorts India Llp & Anr. v.Mehul Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Jamboree Resorts India LLP, who holds registered trademarks for 'JAMBOREE'. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off against the defendants, who were operating the resort under the name 'SIGNUM JAMBOREE CREEK RESORT' following a terminated revenue-sharing agreement. The order restrained the use of the infringing mark and mandated the handover of all associated digital assets to allow the plaintiffs to regain control.
Shrinath Travel Agency Through Its Partners & Anr. v.Harsh Kumar Trading As Shrinath Nama Travel Agency & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs to implead several additional defendants in a trademark infringement suit. Finding a prima facie case of deception due to identical or deceptively similar marks being used for identical travel services, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the newly added parties from using the impugned trademarks. Furthermore, the court directed domain registrars associated with infringing websites to block and suspend access to those domains.
Bonn Nutrients Pvt. Ltd & Anr. v.Pahal Foods Pvt. Limited & Ors.
In a dispute over the packaging and trade dress of coconut cookies, Bonn Nutrients sought an injunction against Pahal Foods for alleged infringement. The Delhi High Court issued an order facilitating an amicable settlement between the parties. Defendants agreed not to manufacture any more products under the disputed label/packaging but were granted time to exhaust their existing stock of 15,000 cases. Both parties were also directed toward mediation and listed for further consideration.
Leonhard Kurz Stiftung And Co. Kg v.Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of the Appellant's patent application, which held that subsequent amendments were outside the scope of the original filing. The High Court found that the amended claims referenced the complete specifications as originally filed. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Patents Office.
Parijat Industries India Private Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Parijat Industries appealed against an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which had revoked its Indian Patent No. 372550 based on grounds under Section 25(2)(b), (e), (f) and (g). The High Court found that the reasoning provided in the Impugned Order was inadequate and did not meet judicial standards.
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd appealed a patent application rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, failed to consider submitted data and did not provide adequate opportunity to respond to the Section 3(d) objection.
Cassiopea S.P.A. v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Cassiopea S.P.A. appealed the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patent, which rejected its Indian Patent Application (No. 201717042863) and accepted a pre-grant opposition filed by other respondents. The Delhi High Court allowed applications for condoning delay in filing and re-filing the appeal.
Castrol Limited v.Mohan Bajya
In a significant move against alleged counterfeiters, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Castrol Limited. The court recognized the substantial goodwill associated with Castrol's trademarks and trade dress for engine oils. To enforce this urgent relief, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing goods manufactured by the defendant, Mohan Bajya, and inspect relevant financial records.
Eastman Auto And Power Limited v.Shreejee Power Systems Llp
In a Delhi High Court case concerning trademark infringement and passing off, Eastman Auto And Power Limited successfully reached a settlement with Shreejee Power Systems Llp. The Defendant agreed to permanently cease using the disputed mark 'EASTON' in association with batteries and solar inverters, acknowledge the Plaintiff's rights in 'EASTMAN', and undertake specific actions including filing for cancellation of one registered mark and rectification of another. The suit was subsequently disposed of on these consent terms.
Alimentary Health Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Alimentary Health Limited appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 3989/DELNP/2012), which covered a formulation using the probiotic strain Bifidobacterium longum NCIMB 41676 (AH1714). The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under various sections of the Patent Act. The Delhi High Court set aside this refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The court provided detailed directions to the Controller, requiring a thorough reassessment focusing on novelty, specific dosage/methodology, and whether the claims relate to second medical use.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Perilla Life Science P. Ltd & Anr.
Sun Pharma Laboratories sought the cancellation of the trademark 'G-VER,' registered by Perilla Life Science P. Ltd, alleging contravention of the Trade Marks Act. Although Sun Pharma raised grounds based on Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Act, the court noted that Respondent No. 1's counsel stated her client had discontinued use of the mark and had no objection to its cancellation. Consequently, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition with a direction compelling the respondent to file the formal application for trademark cancellation.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.M/S Shri Sai Foods & Beverages & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, an extension of 90 days to execute local commissions in a trademark infringement suit. The court also appointed four additional advocates as local commissioners. This order facilitates the quantification of damages by allowing detailed inspection and inventory of infringing goods at the defendants' premises.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs alleged infringement of their statutory rights over Indian Patent No. 224186. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The case involves allegations of patent infringement regarding product patent IN 268632 and process patent IN 464646.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd v.Devender Kumar
The Plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of Indian Patent No. 3841841 related to a suspo-emulsion of Pendimethalin and Metribuzin. The parties mutually resolved their disputes and agreed to a compromise.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit concerned allegations by Eli Lilly And Company that Natco Pharma Limited was infringing Indian Patent No. IN 297760 related to Abemaciclib. The dispute was resolved amicably, with the Defendants agreeing not to launch any product containing Abemaciclib until the patent expires or is invalidated.
Rajesh Chugh Kart Amir Chand And Sons Huf & Anr. v.Mr Nazim Khan Proprietor Partner Nazim S Kathi Roll & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an interim application filed by the defendant, Mr. Nazim Khan, seeking court approval for a proposed trademark design. The Court found that despite some adherence to previous consent terms regarding font size and prominence, the new design still spotlighted 'NAZIM'S' on a standalone basis, violating the spirit of the earlier agreement. Consequently, the application was rejected, reinforcing the importance of strict compliance with court-mandated usage restrictions during litigation.
Future Bath Products Private Limited v.Corza International & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an application filed by Corza International challenging the validity of Future Bath Products' trademark 'CORSA'. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to use the mark for goods in Class 11, citing Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. The court issued notice and set timelines for both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders before proceeding with the matter.
M/S New Bharat Overseas v.M/S Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Exports Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an application for substitution, recognizing that the original petitioner's trademark and copyright rights had been assigned to a new entity, M/s New Bharat Impex. The court held that since the cause of action now rested with the assignee, the substitution was necessary for effective adjudication. This order ensures continuity in IP litigation following a change in ownership.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design's order dated January 2, 2024. The refusal was based on Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, concerning the Appellant's Indian Patent Application No. 201917025257.
Structural Integrated Panels Private Limited v.Hexpressions Megatech Private Limited & Anr.
The Petitioner, engaged in manufacturing integrated panels, filed a suit seeking the revocation of Patent No. 360834 held by Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner claims that the patented technology is identical to its own commercially available product and that the patent claim is factually misleading.
Sunflame Enterprises P. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
Sunflame Enterprises appealed the Registrar of Trademarks' decision to reject its opposition against a trademark application. The appellant argued that the Registrar incorrectly applied the 'actual confusion' test, contending that the standard should be the more robust 'likelihood of confusion.' The Delhi High Court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed written submissions within four weeks, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on the merits of the trademark dispute.
Rayner Surgical Ireland Limited (formerly Omeros Corporation) v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant (Rayner Surgical Ireland Limited/Omeros Corporation) filed an appeal challenging the order dated January 31, 2020, which refused its patent application for 'STABLE PRESERVATIVE-FREE MYDRIATIC AND ANTI-INFLAMMATORY SOLUTIONS FOR INJECTION'. The court also addressed applications regarding exemption from fees and condonation of delay.
Samsung Electronics Co,M v.Samsung Leasing & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark passing off suit filed by Samsung Electronics. The court allowed a minor application concerning corporate name changes for one defendant, while simultaneously framing an additional issue to determine the validity and non-use of the plaintiff's 'SAMSUNG' trademarks. Furthermore, the court dismissed the defendants' attempt to prematurely adjudicate objections regarding the mode of proof during evidence, holding that such issues are best reserved for final arguments.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed petitions concerning the registration of impugned trademarks. While an initial request for document exemption was granted, a subsequent interim application seeking directions was dismissed because the marks had already been registered. The court noted that despite the registrations, the core legal question regarding third-party rights under Section 19 of the Trade Marks Act requires further consideration and set a date for re-notification.
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.