Sanjeev Narula
456 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
456 cases indexed | Page 7 of 16
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Ms. Saraswati Devi And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Khadi & Village Industries Commission against Ms. Saraswati Devi and others. The Plaintiff successfully demonstrated a prima facie case that the Defendants' use of 'KHADI BHANDAR' is deceptively similar to its registered KHADI Trademarks and Charkha Logos, leading to a strong likelihood of consumer confusion. This interim order immediately restrains the Defendants from using the infringing marks in relation to identical goods.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application for 'Discovery of Secure Network Enclaves' by the Assistant Controller. The rejection was based on lack of inventiveness and indefinite claims violating Section 10(4). The High Court found procedural flaws in the rejection order, particularly regarding the sudden introduction of certain objections, and allowed the appeal.
Sanjeev Juneja v.Imaamuddin Khan And Anr
Sanjeev Juneja filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'Dr. Ortho' registered by Imaamuddin Khan. The petitioner argued that his established use of the identical mark in orthopaedic goods (Class 10) would be violated by the respondent's registration for textiles and mattresses (Class 24). Despite the class difference, the court found the petitioner prima facie aggrieved and issued notice to the respondents, setting the matter for detailed arguments.
Philip Morris Products S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Philip Morris Products S A appealed the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of patent application No. 201617029499. The appellant argued that the refusal violated natural justice principles and that the invention, which aids in smoking reduction, should not be barred under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act.
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Dr Reddys Pathlabs Private Limited
The Delhi High Court found that Dr Reddys Pathlabs Private Limited was in prima facie contempt of a previous court order by expanding its operations under the 'DR. REDDY'S' mark, even if those new centers were directly owned rather than franchised. The Court ruled that the original undertaking to maintain status quo was intended to prevent any proliferation of business under the contested mark, regardless of ownership structure. Consequently, the Defendant was served with a show cause notice regarding contempt.
Amayse As v.Joydeb Mukherjee & Anr
Amayse A/S alleges that Joydeb Mukherjee is infringing its patent related to advertisement elements during a cricket match. The plaintiff claims that the defendant's products are infringing upon their patented technology.
Avita International Ltd And Anr v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal was filed by Avita International Ltd challenging the rejection of its PCT application (PCT/1B2017/051404) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court granted exemptions for filing documents but directed that notice be issued to the respondent, listing the matter for further hearing.
Villain Lifestyle Private Limited v.Mr. Vipul Dhankher
The Delhi High Court rejected the defendant's attempt to have the trademark infringement suit dismissed, upholding the maintainability of the case. The court recognized that the plaintiff's apprehension—based on the defendant's filings for registrations and oppositions using a similar mark 'VILEN'—constitutes a valid cause of action under the doctrine of quia timet. This ruling provides strong judicial backing for proactive IP protection against imminent infringement threats.
Oikos S.P.A. v.Oikos India Pvt Ltd & Anr.
In a dispute over the use of the 'OIKOS' brand, Oikos S.P.A. filed suit against Oikos India Pvt Ltd alleging trademark infringement after its business relationship was terminated. The Defendants contested the claim, challenging the Plaintiff's ownership rights and citing an existing written agreement allowing stock sales. The Delhi High Court addressed the interim injunction application by appointing a Local Commissioner to conduct a thorough inspection of the Defendant's premises, specifically to determine if the infringing products were made from materials supplied by the Plaintiff.
Qrg Enterprises & Anr. v.Hpl (India) Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark dispute between Qrg Enterprises and HPL (India) Limited based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court upheld the plaintiffs' proprietary rights in the 'HAVELLS/HAVELL'S' mark, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants. Crucially, the judgment clarified that since the defendant's name change was mandated by the decree and not voluntary, they would not be bound by the proviso to Section 12(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, ensuring the settlement's enforceability.
Ipca Laboratories Limited v.Amandeep Singh Vohra & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Ipca Laboratories Limited seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'IPKA HEALTHCARE.' This decision was based on a consent decree previously passed by the Bombay High Court, where Respondent No. 1 agreed to remove the impugned mark. The court formally cancelled the registration, reinforcing the principle that prior litigation settlements can drive IP rectification.
Usha International Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr.
Usha International Limited filed a petition seeking the removal/cancellation of the mark 'WSHA' from the Trade Marks Register, arguing that it is deceptively similar to their long-standing mark 'USHA'. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and issued notice to the respondents. The matter was subsequently listed for further arguments on April 4, 2022.
Usha International Limited v.Rex Global Limited & Anr
In a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'BUTTERFLY', the Delhi High Court allowed Usha International Limited (Plaintiff) to introduce crucial additional evidence. This decision was made in response to Rex Global Limited's (Defendant) allegations that the Plaintiff lacked proprietary rights and concealed material facts, specifically referencing an earlier adoption of the mark by a Chinese entity. The court recognized the necessity of these documents—ranging from Trade Marks Office reports to records from the Chinese Chamber of Commerce—for a comprehensive adjudication of ownership claims.
NHK Spring Co Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
NHK Spring Co Ltd appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs, which rejected their patent application on grounds of 'lack of inventive step'. The appellant argued that the Impugned Order failed to provide adequate reasoning as to how the ground of obviousness was made out based on cited prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the Assistant Controller's analysis insufficient.
Bayona Spa v.Varun Exports & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition concerning a trademark dispute between Bayona Spa and Varun Exports & Ors. The court noted that the respondents had filed an application to withdraw the impugned mark before the Trademarks Registry. Consequently, the petitioner's relief was deemed infructuous, leading the court to issue directions for the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the registration No. 4188398 in class 25.
Castrol Limited v.Rajasekhar Reddy Byreddy, Trading As Sri Karthikeya Traders
Castrol Limited filed a suit against Rajasekhar Reddy Byreddy for trademark infringement concerning engine oils and lubricants. The court examined the deceptive similarities between Castrol's trademarks, including 'CASTROL' and its associated devices, and the defendant's products, which used similar packaging and marks like 'CRYSTAL'. Despite the defendant making minor changes to their marks during the pendency of the suit, the court found these alterations did not negate the infringement.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Azista Industries Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The suit concerns the infringement of Plaintiff No. 1's patent (IN 297581) related to the drug Osimertinib, a second-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancers. The Plaintiffs sought an ad interim injunction against the Defendants who were allegedly manufacturing and selling infringing versions under the brand OSITAB.
Srinath Kumbargeri Venkatachalappa v.C.A. Shivaram & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in trademark disputes involving the brand 'PARIMALA COFFEE'. The court granted exemptions regarding document submission formats, allowing the petitioner flexibility due to logistical constraints. Crucially, the court also allowed the petitioner to file digitally signed and notarized affidavits despite their attorney being abroad, streamlining procedural requirements for complex IP litigation.
Saint-Gobain Placo v.Pooja Industries (Indigyp Frames)
The case involves a dispute over patent infringement where the plaintiffs allege that the defendant has infringed their patents. The parties have reached a consent decree to resolve the matter amicably.
Rich Products Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Rich Products Corporation filed a writ petition challenging an order that dismissed its pre-grant opposition and permitted the grant of Indian Patent No. 449435. The Court held that since effective mechanisms like post-grant opposition or revocation petitions exist under the Patents Act, 1970, the writ petition could not be entertained.
M/S Sana Herbals Pvt. Ltd. v.Dehlvi Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court consolidated multiple trademark-related suits, including infringement and rectification petitions, involving M/S Sana Herbals Pvt. Ltd. and Dehlvi Remedies Pvt. Ltd. The court framed a comprehensive set of 11 issues to be determined during the trial. These issues cover core disputes such as trademark infringement, passing off, validity of registrations, and the scope of assignment rights related to the mark 'DEHLVI'. This consolidation streamlines the litigation process for both parties.
Arthrogen Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Arthrogen Gmbh appealed the rejection of its Indian patent application for a method involving gold particle enrichment of blood serum. The Patent Office had rejected the claim under Section 3(i) and 3(j) of the Patents Act, arguing it constituted a 'method of treatment.' Arthrogen successfully argued that the claims were directed towards a novel 'method of producing' a substance, not a direct method of treating humans. Consequently, the Delhi High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v.Fly- Hi Maritime Travels Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court modified an interim injunction in a trademark dispute between Frankfinn Aviation Services and Fly-Hi Maritime Travels. The court allowed the defendant to use its logo mark 'FLY HI' for its current, specified services, subject to plaintiff's consent. Furthermore, the defendant was granted conditional liberty to use the word form 'FLY HI' only as a reference in its normal course of business, provided it identifies specific, necessary circumstances and avoids trademark usage.
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.
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.
Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited v.3Sk Innovations Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner invoked Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, to seek the revocation of Indian Patent 307627. The court granted exemption and issued notice to all respondents, directing them to file their replies within specified timelines.
Rajesh Sultania And Anr. v.Arun Kumar Murarka
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Rajesh Sultania and Anr. which challenged the rejection of a plaint in an infringement suit brought by Arun Kumar Murarka. The Petitioners argued that the Respondent lacked standing to sue for trademark infringement because he was not the registered proprietor of 'YEH KHILA YEH KHILA.' However, the Court found that the comprehensive nature of the Respondent's claim—which included both copyright and trademark infringement—disclosed a valid cause of action. Furthermore, the court noted an assignment deed supporting the Respondent's ownership claims, concluding that the preliminary rejection of the plaint was correct.
Saint-Gobain Placo v.Pooja Industries (Indigyp Frames)
The Plaintiffs are seeking to permanently restrain the Defendant from infringing their Indian Patents related to construction elements. The Defendant is accused of trading in products that are copies of the Plaintiffs' patents.
Axon Enterprise, Nic v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Axon Enterprise against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark 'AXON'. The court found that through strategic use of consent letters and modifications to the description of goods (including disclaimers), the objections raised regarding conflicting marks could be overcome. Consequently, the registration application was directed to proceed to advertisement before acceptance, paving the way for eventual registration.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Tiba Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd
Plaintiffs filed suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent (IN269841) covering the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The court granted exemption from advance service, noting that the Defendant had not yet launched infringing products. Furthermore, the court passed detailed orders allowing for an ex-parte ad interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to search premises and seize any infringing stock.
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.