Sanjeev Narula
456 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
456 cases indexed | Page 8 of 16
Mcnroe Consumer Product Pvt. Ltd. v.Idam Natural Wellness Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mcnroe Consumer Product Pvt. Ltd., a leading FMCG manufacturer, against its defendants regarding alleged trademark infringement and disparagement. The court found that the Plaintiff's distinctive trade dress and registered mark 'SECRET TEMPTATION' were being referenced negatively in an advertisement. Consequently, Defendant No. 1 was restrained from broadcasting the impugned video, and Defendant No. 2 (YouTube) was directed to block/takedown the offending content.
M/S Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities Ltd. v.M/S National Biscuits And Sweet Mfrs.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, M/S Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities Ltd., to implead two additional parties—M/s Satnam Mart Private Limited and M/s JK Print Pack—in its ongoing trademark infringement suit against M/S National Biscuits And Sweet Mfrs. This move was based on evidence gathered during a local commission inspection, which revealed that the defendant's infringing products were manufactured by Satnam Mart and printed by JK Print Pack. The court proceeded to issue summonses to these newly added defendants, ensuring the litigation can proceed against all responsible parties.
E R Squibb And Sons Llc v.Beacon Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the Defendants were infringing their Indian Patent No. 340060, which covers the drug Nivolumab. The court examined the patent's validity and prima facie case before issuing interim directions.
Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (Uab) Baltijos Mineraliniu Vandenu Kompanija v.Mr. Sahil Tandon Trading As A And Z Exports International & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (UAB) against Mr. Sahil Tandon, leading to the cancellation of a registered trademark for 'TICHE' in Class 32. The court found that UAB was the prior and legitimate adopter of the mark since 1998, citing extensive international use and evidence of trans-border reputation spilling over into India. The judgment underscores the importance of proving prior usage and bona fide adoption when challenging a trademark registration.
havells india limited v.azad singh
Havells India Limited sued Azad Singh for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that Azad Singh's use of 'REO-LT' on low tension wires deceptively imitated Havells’ registered trademark 'REO'. Havells claimed significant brand recognition and consumer confusion due to the similarity between the marks.
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.
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.
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. v.Controller Of Patents
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. appealed an impugned order dated February 19, 2019, passed by the Controller of Patents which denied its application (No. 10246/DELNP/2012). The appellant argued that the denial was based on new grounds (lack of enablement) and non-speaking reasons, violating natural justice.
Amba Motorcyles Thr. Sh. Sanjeev Kapoor / Top MotoComponents Private Limited v.Mahavir Prasad
In a significant development for trademark litigation, the Delhi High Court allowed an application to replace one plaintiff with its successor-in-interest, Top MotoComponents Private Limited, who had acquired the assets and liabilities related to the 'TOP' trademark. Furthermore, the court subsequently accepted a joint application from both parties, leading to the suit being decreed based on the terms of a comprehensive settlement agreement. This outcome provides clarity on succession in IP disputes while finalizing the underlying commercial dispute.
Bawa Masala Co Pvt Ltd v.Bawa Masala Co & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the Trademarks Office's decision regarding the abandonment of an opposition. The core issue was whether service effected via email to a correct address constituted sufficient legal notice, allowing the opposition timeline to begin. Despite arguments that sending an email is a recognized mode of service, the court ruled that mere dispatch creates only a presumption, which can be rebutted by the recipient demonstrating non-receipt. Since the opponent successfully proved they never received the counter statement, the appeal was dismissed.
Tajinder Soap And Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patents Design and Trade Marks Registry At New Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking cancellation of a trade mark registration, finding that the renewal was administratively irregular and illegal. The court noted that the mark had lapsed in 2007, and despite subsequent public notices offering opportunities for revival, the owner failed to act. Crucially, the court found that the Registry erroneously revived the expired mark after nearly fourteen years through an interlocutory petition, leading to its cancellation.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v.Devender Kumar
GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging infringement of its Suit Patent (IN384184) concerning a liquid composition of Pendimethalin and Metribuzin. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant launched an imitation product named 'Pendamic' which matched the claims of the patent. Based on the prima facie case established, the Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Chetan Padilya & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing injunction protecting Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd's trademark rights against specific infringing content published by the defendant. Crucially, the court clarified that this injunction is not a 'gag order.' While the defendant must refrain from publishing articles identical or similar to the impugned material and avoid derogatory remarks, they retain the right to engage in lawful discourse comparing plant-based beverages with dairy milk products.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.Mr Ashish Singh And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Khadi And Village Industries Commission against Mr. Ashish Singh and others. The Plaintiff, a statutory body protecting the 'KHADI' mark, alleged that Defendants were deceptively using similar marks like 'KHADI ORGANIC' on various products and websites to exploit public goodwill, particularly around religious events. The Court found a prima facie case for infringement and passed orders restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under infringing marks and mandating the suspension of the associated domain name.
Rupa Gujral & Ors. v.Daryaganj Hospitality Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in a passing off suit concerning the 'Moti Mahal' trademark. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants were misleading the public by associating their restaurants with the Plaintiffs' famous brand, citing misuse of predecessor photographs and marks. While the Defendants vehemently disputed the claims, they offered a conciliatory gesture, committing to remove the disputed photograph from their website without conceding liability. The court proceeded to issue notices for an interim injunction while setting timelines for written statements and framing issues.
Sh. Jaininder Jain And Ors. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks And Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the ongoing dispute concerning the 'KANGARO' trademark. Addressing requests for comprehensive information, the court directed the Plaintiffs to first compile a list of all trademark oppositions they have filed against Defendants. Subsequently, the Defendants were mandated to provide certificates and applications for all relevant foreign trademark registrations not contested by the Plaintiffs. This order aims to ensure full transparency regarding global IP rights related to the brand.
Drs Educational Society & Ors. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Drs Educational Society challenging the registration of the 'DRS' trademark. The petitioners argued that the registration was erroneous because the applicant had previously withdrawn their application, but the Registrar failed to act on this withdrawal. However, the court held that administrative lapses do not invalidate an accrued statutory right. It emphasized that disputes over trademark validity must be pursued through specific remedies under the Trademarks Act, 1999, rather than via a writ petition.
Nectar Biopharma Private Limited v.M/S. Kashmik Formulations Private Limited
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff's application seeking to implead Mr. Nilesh M. Patel, Director of Defendant No. 1. The court found that since Mr. Patel was the proprietor of M/s Nectar Lifecare and his marks were applied for registration, he was a necessary party due to the exclusive supply relationship between Defendant No. 1 and M/s Nectar Lifecare. This decision significantly expands the scope of the litigation by bringing in an individual directly connected to the disputed intellectual property rights.
Castrol Limited v.Ibrahim Adamali Sanchawala, Trading As EA & Sons and T-Max Lubricants Andr.
Castrol Limited filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Ibrahim Adamali Sanchawala regarding the use of deceptively similar packaging for engine oils. The Delhi High Court granted several critical interim reliefs to Castrol, including an exemption from pre-litigation mediation and advance notice to the defendants. Crucially, the court allowed for the ex-parte appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation on the defendant's premises to prevent further infringement.
Pratibha Proprietor Of Lamed India v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Pratibha Proprietor Of Lamed India against a registered trademark 'LAMED'. The court cancelled the registration (No. 1576720) after noting that one of the respondents, who held the mark, no longer intended to use it. This decision effectively cleared the path for the petitioner to utilize the brand name.
Imagine Marketing Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Ors.
Imagine Marketing Limited (boAt) successfully secured an interim injunction against several defendants accused of trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court recognized that the defendants were using deceptively similar domain names and creating fake websites to sell counterfeit or fraudulent consumer electronics, causing irreparable harm to boAt's goodwill. The court restrained these parties from operating such domains and ordered registrars to suspend the infringing sites within ten days.
Epitech S.P.A. v.The Controller Of Patents
Epitech S.P.A. appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents, which had denied the grant of its PCT national phase application (No. 6850/DELNP/2014). The Controller's initial decision was based on the finding that the data provided by the Appellant related to an irrelevant compound (PEA-OXA) instead of the claimed subject matter (PEA-OXLE). However, the Delhi High Court found this reasoning insufficient and factually incorrect, noting that the data did indeed include examples pertaining to PEA-OXLE. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the Impugned Order and directing the Controller to decide the application afresh.
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.Maa Bara Devi Namkeen Bhandar And Anr
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd filed petitions seeking the removal and cancellation of specific copyright registrations held by Maa Bara Devi Namkeen Bhandar. The court noted that a prior civil suit between the parties had been decreed on consent terms, wherein the Respondent agreed not to use any deceptively similar labels or trademarks. Since the respondent subsequently undertook to withdraw relevant trademark applications and cancel certain copyrights, the High Court allowed the petitions.
Castrol Limited v.Vivek Sen, Trading As Tridev Auto Parts & Anr.
In a suit concerning trademark and copyright infringement, Castrol Limited successfully secured several critical interim orders from the Delhi High Court. The court granted exemptions allowing the Plaintiff to proceed urgently without pre-litigation mediation or prior notice to the defendants. Crucially, the court authorized the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation against the Defendants for counterfeit products bearing deceptively similar marks and packaging.
M/S Raj Steel Rolling Mills v.M/S Haryana Strips Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S Raj Steel Rolling Mills seeking cancellation of the trademark 'SHAILDU HEAVY'. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively and structurally similar to the Petitioner's prior registered mark, 'SALDU', which had been in continuous use since 1974. Given the identical nature of the goods (iron and steel shapes) and the clear evidence of prior usage by the petitioner, the registration of 'SHAILDU HEAVY' was deemed a contravention of the Trade Marks Act, leading to its cancellation.
Huck International, Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Huck International appealed the rejection of its divisional patent application based on an objection under Section 16 of the Patents Act. The Appellant argued that they were denied a fair opportunity because the final decision was based on an objection not enumerated in the initial hearing notice. The Court agreed, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Respondent to issue a fresh notice.
3G Licensing S.A v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
The appeal was filed challenging the rejection of a patent application. The Appellant argued that prior art cited by the Indian Patent Office had also been considered and the patent granted in Europe. The Court issued an interim order allowing the Appellant time to submit the European patent record.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
In this matter concerning a trademark opposition, Louis Vuitton Malletier sought relief after being unable to complete the payment for its notice of opposition due to a technical glitch with the payment gateway. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim regarding the non-fault nature of the delay and took steps to ensure all parties were heard. Consequently, the applicant of the disputed mark was impleaded as Respondent No. 2, allowing the litigation to proceed fairly.
M/S Star Syringe Ltd v.M/S Tiger Surgical Disposable Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have infringed their patent and seek damages. The case is ongoing with preliminary objections raised by the defendants regarding maintainability due to insolvency proceedings.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co Ltd
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed a decision by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks regarding an opposition filed against the trademark 'FLORASIS'. The Delhi High Court granted condonation of a 7-day delay in filing the appeal, allowing the matter to proceed. Notice has been issued to all parties, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on the merits of the trademark dispute.
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.