Sanjeev Narula
456 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
456 cases indexed | Page 5 of 16
Reliance Industries Limited & Anr v.Olx India B. V. & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning the ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Reliance Industries against Olx India. The court confirmed that the existing interim injunction, initially granted to prevent misuse of 'JIO' and 'RELIANCE' trademarks in job advertisements, would continue throughout the pendency of the suit. Furthermore, the scope of this injunction was clarified to apply specifically to job-related misuses, while reserving rights for further action regarding product sales.
Mona Aggarwal v.Sandhya Gupta
This Delhi High Court order addresses a rectification petition filed by Mona Aggarwal against the trademark 'Super MULTI PLUS' used by Sandhya Gupta. Mona Aggarwal argues that since her prior passing-off suit established her as the prior user, and Sandhya Gupta failed to provide documentary evidence of use since 1994, the registration should be cancelled as fraudulent. The court has noted these arguments but deferred a final decision, setting a date for further hearing.
Rajesh Jain v.Amit Jain & Another
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal challenging the refusal to grant discovery of documents. The suit involves trademark infringement and passing off, where defendants raised a defense of distinctiveness. The court ruled that since the sought-after documents were primarily intended to rebut an earlier application (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC) which was decided nearly ten years prior, they lacked relevance at the current stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the plaintiff must rely on other evidence to prove their case.
Sequoia Capital Operations Llc & Ors v.John Doe And Others
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to involve WhatsApp LLC in the proceedings. The court allowed WhatsApp's impleadment and issued specific directions requiring the platform to remove or block identified infringing groups and accounts associated with Sequoia Capital's trademarks. Crucially, while ordering the removal of known infringers, the court also mandated that Plaintiffs must first notify account holders before any further blocking action is taken, balancing enforcement needs with due process concerns.
Kubota Corporation v.Kaira Agros & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief to Kubota Corporation in its suit against Kaira Agros. Recognizing the threat posed by counterfeit products, the court allowed an ex-parte appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is directed to search premises and seize packaging, stickers, and promotional material bearing infringing marks, while also documenting non-infringing machinery. The order paves the way for the formal registration of the suit.
Anil Kumar Gera Trading As Alka Food Industries v.Mr Ramesh Chander Trading As Anil Food Industries
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition seeking the cancellation of two impugned copyright registrations related to a confectionary tablet label. The Petitioner argued that the Respondent failed to comply with mandatory notice requirements under the Copyright Rules, 2013. Conversely, the Respondent contended that the Petitioner was not an 'aggrieved person' and cited prior rejection orders as res judicata. The Court deferred final adjudication, requiring both parties to clarify the pending issues in the underlying suits.
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. v.Abdus Salam Khan
In a suit concerning alleged counterfeiting and infringement, the Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. The court allowed exemptions for urgent proceedings, including waiving advance service and pre-institution mediation, recognizing the need for swift action against counterfeit products. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to investigate the alleged infringements, allowing access to premises and financial records to gather evidence regarding the unauthorized use of unique designs and the 'GAURAV GUPTA' trademark.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Shri Balaji Beverages & Ors.
Archian Foods Private Limited successfully secured an ex-parte interim injunction from the Delhi High Court against Shri Balaji Beverages & Ors. The court granted permission for a Local Commissioner to be appointed, enabling the seizure and confiscation of alleged counterfeit products bearing the 'LAHORI ZEERA' brand. This decisive order allows the plaintiff to take immediate action against infringement across multiple IP rights, including trademark, trade dress, copyright, and design.
Retail Royalty Company And Anr v.Rohit Madan, Trading As Sita Outdoor Media
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by the Plaintiff, Retail Royalty Company And Anr, to amend a previous court order. The amendment corrected an error apparent on the face of the record concerning the specific description of the 'Flying Eagle Device' trademark. This procedural step ensures that the legal proceedings accurately reflect the intellectual property rights being asserted.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Media Private Limited
In a matter concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued an order on April 2, 2024. The court addressed the Plaintiff's concerns regarding ongoing trademark filings by the Defendant through 'VISTARA PRAKASHANA LLP'. Upon receiving notice, the Defendant stated its intention to dissolve the LLP and withdraw all related trademark applications. Consequently, the court determined that no immediate directions were necessary for the Plaintiff at this juncture.
Apl Apollo Tubes Limited v.M/S Steel Track & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Apl Apollo Tubes Limited against M/S Steel Track & Ors. regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'APOLLO/APOLLO TMT' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established marks, risking irreparable harm to their brand equity. While acknowledging the Plaintiff's delay in filing the suit, the Court issued a comprehensive restraint order covering all marketing and sales activities, though it exempted goods already manufactured by the Defendants.
north side brewers private ltd v.the registrar of trade marks
North Side Brewers Private Ltd appealed a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, prompting consideration of relevant case law regarding the Registrar's discretionary powers and precedents concerning trademark delays.
Mayo Foundation For Medical Education and Research v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal concerns the patentability of a method for detecting autoantibodies in biological samples. The respondent argued that the method was ineligible under Section 3(i) because it described a diagnostic process. The petitioner countered, but the respondent raised a legal challenge based on a Madras High Court judgment, arguing that the previous finding (that in vitro methods were acceptable) was incorrect.
Asian Paints Limited v.Ajeet Kumar And Others
The Delhi High Court allowed Asian Paints Limited's application to implead numerous additional parties—including domain name registrars, banks, and telecom service providers—in its trademark infringement suit. The court found a prima facie case for the plaintiff, noting that fraudsters were using various digital channels (websites, phone numbers, bank accounts) to perpetuate the misuse of the 'ASIAN PAINTS' mark. Consequently, the existing injunction was expanded, and specific directions were issued compelling these third-party defendants to block infringing websites, freeze associated bank accounts, and suspend mobile numbers.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiff filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their patent, 'a self locking glazing system'. The court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and directed the parties to proceed with the suit. The Defendant contested the injunction, raising objections regarding the validity and suppression of the patent.
Up Hotels Clarks Limited v.Arjun Bhanot Trading As Arjun Clarks Inn and Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Up Hotels Clarks Limited, cancelling a competing trademark registration held by Arjun Bhanot Trading As Arjun Clarks Inn. The court found that the respondent's mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established 'CLARKS' brand, which possesses significant goodwill and reputation dating back decades. Despite the respondent's claims of honest adoption, the court determined that the similarity, coupled with the identical class of services (hotels/restaurants), created a high likelihood of consumer confusion, thus violating trademark law.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v.Godaddy Operating Company Llc & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the admissibility of a written statement in a trademark infringement suit involving domain names. The court clarified that in complex domain name disputes with numerous impleadments, the 120-day period for filing a written statement commences from the date the amended memo of parties is filed, not the initial notice date. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and permitted the defendants' written statement to be taken on record after they paid a stipulated fee.
The Board Of Directors Of The Woodstock School Nand Teachers Training College v.Rajneesh Arora And Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a joint application regarding the settlement between The Board Of Directors Of The Woodstock School and Rajneesh Arora. As part of the agreement, Respondent No. 1 agreed to withdraw their impugned trademark (No. 1519967) registered in Class 41. Furthermore, Respondent No. 1 also withdrew oppositions filed against the Petitioner's trademark applications (Nos. 2825545 and 2825546). The Court directed the Trademark Office to process these withdrawals expeditiously, confirming that both parties remain bound by the settlement terms.
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.
Ht Media Limited & Anr. v.Hindustan News Network & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ht Media Limited against Hindustan News Network. The court found that the defendant was attempting to pass off its news channel and name as being connected with the long-established 'HINDUSTAN' mark owned by the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing mark and logo, and orders were issued compelling domain registrars (GoDaddy) and tech platforms (Google/Meta) to suspend the infringing website and take down related content.
Visakha Chemicals v.Bindal Food Products
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Visakha Chemicals against Bindal Food Products for trademark infringement and passing off related to Ayurvedic products. The Plaintiff successfully demonstrated prior usage and established significant goodwill for their trademarks 'ROCHAK' and 'AM PACHAN,' as well as the associated trade dress/packaging, which were deceptively copied by the Defendant. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using these marks and awarded nominal damages.
Eveready Industries India Limited v.Ksc Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Eveready Industries India Limited against Ksc Industries & Ors. The court found that the Defendants' use of the mark 'EVERYDAY' was deceptively similar to Eveready's well-known trademark, 'EVEREADY', leading to potential infringement and passing off. Given the prima facie case made out by Eveready and the risk of irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under the impugned mark until further hearing.
Krbl Limited v.Rajesh Kejriwal Trading As Chemical Centre India And Anr.
In this ongoing trademark dispute, Krbl Limited sought permission to introduce several documents into the court record. The Delhi High Court allowed the admission of statutory and official records pertaining to the respondent, while rejecting other documents presented by the petitioner due to lack of relevance in the current proceedings. This order allows both parties time to prepare comprehensive written synopses detailing the chronological events and legal arguments for the final adjudication of the cancellation petition.
Suzuki Motor Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
Suzuki Motor Corporation appealed regarding objections related to their patent claims. The Court noted that while there is no specific provision for re-consideration, amendments might be allowed if errors relate to translation/transliteration. The Court subsequently directed the Appellant to file an application under Section 57 of the Patents Act to amend their modified claims.
Pfizer Inc. v.Incepta Pharmaceuticals Limited
The court confirmed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted earlier, restricting defendants from dealing in infringing products related to Patents No. 243571 and 250050, as other patents had expired. The court also directed service of notice for discovery regarding the origin and import of impugned products and allowed amendments to the plaint.
Baxalta Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Baxalta Incorporated appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents which refused their application for "FACTOR VIII POLYMER CONJUGATES" due to lack of novelty and inventive steps in product claims. The appellant sought leave to submit an auxiliary claim set restricting the scope to method claims. The High Court allowed this submission, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
M/S Imberatek Llc v.Apple Inc & Anr.
M/S Imberatek Llc filed a commercial suit alleging patent infringement against Apple Inc. Initially, the plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit to explore mediation, and the court allowed it with a refund of court fees. However, subsequent consideration found that since no urgent interim relief was sought, the plaintiff could not circumvent the mandatory requirement of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, leading to the final dismissal of the suit.
Sunil Dutt Trading As Kilter v.Pro Muscle Science & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed the dispute between Kilter (owner of 'MUSCLE SCIENCE') and Pro Muscle Science regarding trademark infringement in the dietary supplement market. The court found that the Defendants' use of marks like 'PRO MUSCLE SCIENCE' was highly likely to cause consumer confusion, as the Plaintiff's registered mark is entirely incorporated into the competing names. Consequently, the existing interim injunction favoring the Plaintiff was confirmed. While the matter proceeds toward mediation, the ruling strongly affirms the protection afforded to established trademarks against similar competitors.
Sequoia Capital Operations Llc & Ors v.John Doe And Others
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to involve WhatsApp LLC in the proceedings. The court allowed WhatsApp's impleadment and issued specific directions requiring the platform to remove or block identified infringing groups and accounts associated with Sequoia Capital's trademarks. Crucially, while ordering the removal of known infringers, the court also mandated that Plaintiffs must first notify account holders before any further blocking action is taken, balancing enforcement needs with due process concerns.
Sequoia Capital Operations Llc & Ors. v.Seene Trader & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Sequoia Capital Operations LLC and Peak XV Partners against the alleged fraudster 'Senee Trader'. The court granted several urgent reliefs, including exempting the plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed domain name registrars (Dynadot, Gname) to suspend relevant domains and mandated government bodies (MeitY, DoT) and financial institutions (NPCI) to take steps to permanently block or remove access to fraudulent websites, social media accounts, and UPI IDs used by the defendant.
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.