Sanjeev Narula
456 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
456 cases indexed | Page 6 of 16
Bayer Pharm Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Bayer appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 5818/DELNP/2006), which was rejected on grounds that the composition did not meet criteria under Sections 3(e) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the Controller failed to adhere to principles of natural justice by not clearly communicating all objections in the hearing notice, and ruled that the claimed composition was patentable.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The Plaintiffs (F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag) filed an application seeking the constitution of a Confidentiality Club. The Defendant (Zydus Lifesciences Limited) argued that access should be contingent upon preliminary findings regarding the identity of the biosimilar to the innovator drug. The Court directed both parties to submit their proposed members for the confidentiality club.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Medisave Formulations India Llp
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in the trademark infringement suit filed by Novartis against Medisave Formulations. Recognizing the urgent nature of the case, the court exempted the plaintiffs from standard procedural requirements like advance service and pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search at the defendant's premises, seize infringing products bearing the mark 'ZYMADA', and inspect relevant financial documents, finding prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity between the marks and packaging.
Peak Xv Partners Advisors India Llp & Anr. v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs' application to implead WhatsApp LLC in a trademark infringement suit concerning deceptive online investment schemes. The court found prima facie evidence that certain administrators of the 'Peak XV 1026' WhatsApp group were using the Plaintiff's trademark and images of their Managing Directors to create an impression of authenticity. Consequently, WhatsApp was directed to block access to the implicated accounts and provide subscriber information to aid in identifying the perpetrators.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v.Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' product composition infringes on their patented weedicidal formulation, which includes a specific blend of chemicals. The case involves determining whether the Defendants' product violates the claims of the Plaintiff's patent.
Eli Lilly And Company Private Limited v.Eskayef Pharmaceuticals Limited
Plaintiffs, Eli Lilly And Company, filed a suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. IN 297760 (covering Abemaciclib) by the Impugned Drug 'Abeclib', manufactured by Defendant No. 1. The court prima facie found that 'Abeclib' infringes the patent and granted an interim injunction.
Pfizer Inc. v.Beacon Pharmaceuticals Limited
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where Pfizer Inc. claims that Beacon Pharmaceuticals has infringed on their patents. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in favor of the Plaintiffs regarding the subsisting patents.
Kao Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kao Corporation appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents concerning its patent application No. 5945/DELNP/2009. The appellant argued that the Controller's observation contradicted previous hearing notices and written submissions, specifically regarding industrial applicability under Section 2(1)(ac) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd v.Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr
This order addresses an interim injunction application filed by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited (Plaintiff) against Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd (Defendant). The court noted that the suit patent IN'720 was nearing its expiration date. The parties debated whether to proceed with the hearing given the imminent expiry and broader legal questions regarding patent coverage versus disclosure.
Gm Modular Pvt Ltd. v.Mayur Electromeck Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the rectification petition filed by Gm Modular Pvt Ltd., successfully challenging the registration of a similar mark held by Mayur Electromeck Pvt Ltd. The court found that the Impugned Mark was not genuinely used in commerce, despite the respondent's claims. Based on the lack of substantial evidence of use and potential confusion with the established 'GM' brand, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the infringing trademark registration.
M/S. Serveshwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Sachin Gupta Trading As M/S Jai Balaji Grah Udyog & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S. Serveshwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. against the Defendants for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'LACY' brand. The court allowed the Plaintiff to conduct a search and seizure operation at the Defendants' premises using Local Commissioners, aiming to prevent further unauthorized use of deceptively similar marks like 'LECY'. This order establishes strong preliminary protection for the Plaintiff's established goodwill in the FMCG sector.
Ab Skf & Anr v.M/S Osaka International Inc. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in favor of Ab Skf & Anr, reinforcing existing injunctions while addressing new infringement concerns. The court directed a defendant involved in non-compliance with an earlier injunction to file a compliance affidavit regarding sales cancellations and refunds. Furthermore, based on evidence of counterfeit goods and domain squatting, the court ordered Defendant No. 12 (GoDaddy LLC) to immediately lock and suspend the infringing domain name 'www.skfsg.com', demonstrating proactive enforcement against trademark misuse.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v.Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark dispute between Rexcin Pharmaceuticals and Rekin Pharma concerning the similar corporate names 'REXCIN' and 'REKIN'. The court noted that while Rexcin holds registrations for 'REXCIN', they are not currently using it commercially, whereas Rekin has registered 'REKIN-SP' in Class 05. To resolve the conflict, the Court proposed a potential settlement where both parties could agree to restrict the use of the disputed term only as part of their corporate name, rather than as a trademark or trade name. Both counsels agreed to consult their clients on this proposal and were directed to consider mediation.
Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. v.Khatri Healthcare P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court clarified its earlier order in this trademark cancellation petition. The Petitioner, Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., sought clarification after raising objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the court allowed the application, permitting the Petitioner to withdraw the current case and file a fresh petition before the appropriate Trademark Registry in Mumbai. Crucially, the court emphasized that this withdrawal does not prejudice the parties' rights or express any view on the merits of the original dispute.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.Daichi International
In this trademark infringement suit, Western Digital alleged that Daichi International was rebranding and reselling used/refurbished HDDs originally manufactured by WD under the 'Daichi' brand. The Delhi High Court issued conditional interim directions, allowing sales to continue but mandating that all impugned products must carry a clear disclaimer stating they are used and refurbished goods. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to file detailed stock statements regarding the purchase and sale of these specific HDDs.
Mukesh Kumar Vidyarthi v.Controller Of Patents New Delhi & Anr.
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting the appellant's patent application for 'Charge Recirculation Air Intake Main Ford (CRAIM)' on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The Court, after considering submissions from both parties and an Assistant Controller, allowed the appeal.
Vijay Abrol v.Yogesh Kumar Rustogi
The Delhi High Court allowed appeals filed by Vijay Abrol, setting aside a previous judgment that had favored Yogesh Kumar Rustogi in a passing off suit. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary goodwill and reputation for the trademark 'BRITE' as required by the triple test for passing off. Furthermore, the appellant/defendant successfully demonstrated their own established use of the mark and secured its registration, leading the court to conclude the original suit lacked a real basis.
Wb Innovations Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged an order refusing patent application No. 2293/DELNP/2011, which cited issues regarding lack of single inventive concept and incomplete specification. The Delhi High Court found that the refusal reasoning did not meet legal requirements and allowed the appeal.
Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited v.Garima Singh Proprietor Of Ambika Industries
In this interim order concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court accepted the Defendant's proposal to substantially modify their contested mark. Despite the Plaintiff's concerns regarding residual similarity in font style, the Court ruled that the overall changes sufficiently reduced the likelihood of consumer confusion. The Defendant was allowed a grace period of two months to exhaust existing inventory while transitioning to the new mark, provided they comply with all regulatory requirements.
Burberry Limited v.M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Burberry Limited filed a claim against M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors., alleging that the defendants' perfumes bearing 'MY PETROL' and 'MR. PETROL' marks were deceptively similar to Burberry's registered trademarks and trade dress. The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders, including granting exemptions for document filing and directing the defendants to provide a detailed affidavit regarding all goods manufactured under the impugned marks. This order sets the stage for the full trial on infringement and passing off.
Galaxy Packtech Private Limited v.Ashok Chaturvedi & Anr.
The petition seeks revocation of patent No. 282428 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Petitioner contends that they are an aggrieved person and that the Patent Office overlooked relevant prior art disclosures regarding the patented invention.
Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Elder Projects Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd, restraining Elder Projects Ltd and its representatives from issuing baseless threats of legal action against the plaintiffs concerning the use of the trademark 'ELDER' and 'ELDERVIT'. The court relied heavily on a prior judgment establishing that the registered ownership of the 'ELDER' mark belongs to Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited (EPL), which is currently in liquidation. This ruling protects the plaintiffs from harassment while maintaining that the interim order does not grant them absolute entitlement to use the trademark.
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the refusal of its divisional patent application (No. 201918017795), which was rejected on grounds including conflict with the parent application and non-compliance with various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court found that the Assistant Controller evaluated the application based on claims that had been waived by the appellant, leading to inconsistencies in the refusal order.
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd appealed the order dated October 31, 2023, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Impugned Order rejected the Appellant's patent application (No. 77/DELNP/2015) under Section 2(1)(j) and Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court disposed of applications related to condonation of delay and exemption from filing documents while allowing the respondent to file a reply.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals appealed a rejection order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal challenged the refusal, which cited claims that were not part of the final application submission. The High Court found the impugned order to be unreasoned and procedurally flawed.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
F- Hoffmann -La Roche filed a suit for infringement against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning two patents related to Pertuzumab, a monoclonal antibody used in cancer treatment. The court issued several procedural orders and directed both parties to provide exhaustive legal and scientific assistance, including disclosing experts and considering an independent Scientific Advisor, while the core issue of formulation identity remains pending.
Mitsui Chemicals Inc v.Controller Of Patents
Mitsui Chemicals Inc appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 3877/DELNP/2009), which was rejected on grounds that the claims were unpatentable as a 'method of agriculture' (Section 3(h)) and that amendments violated Section 59. The Appellant argued that the original PCT filing supported the amended composition claims, making the refusal invalid.
BMI Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps) v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and Another
The appeal challenges the refusal of a patent application (No. 202017020602) by the Assistant Controller, which was based on non-compliance with Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. The Appellant argued that the Assistant Controller's reasoning regarding prior art was cursory and lacked sufficient justification. The Court found the existing reasoning insufficient and issued notice to the Respondents for reconsideration.
Vimal Agro Products P. Ltd. v.Capital Foods P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed by Vimal Agro Products challenging the 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' trademark held by Capital Foods. While acknowledging that the core issue—whether the mark is descriptive or generic—is pending before a Division Bench, the court declined to grant an immediate stay on the registration. Instead, the Court prioritized determining its own territorial jurisdiction over the matter, setting up further hearings to resolve this critical legal question.
Sequenom, Inc And Anr v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellants challenged the rejection of their Indian Patent Application No. 2476/DELNP/2011 by The Controller of Patents on multiple grounds, including Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. Given that the challenge under Section 3(i) is being deliberated in a batch of appeals before another Bench, the Court decided to tag this appeal for hearing before that same Bench to ensure uniformity.
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.