Sanjiv Khanna
13 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent, copyright, design matters.
Cases Presided Over
13 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt Ltd v.Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt Ltd challenging a prior order that confirmed an ex parte interim injunction. The court upheld the injunction, finding that the respondent's registered trademark 'Doctor Brand Phenyle' had acquired distinctiveness and was associated with its phenyl disinfectant product. Despite the appellants' claims of rights via assignment deeds, the court found their use of 'Doctor Hazel' to be infringing, while allowing them to continue using 'Chemist brand germ troll.'
Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co v.Dsm Sinochem Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
The appeal challenged a decree of permanent injunction granted in favor of Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co. The core dispute involved alleged infringement of Patent No. 247301 concerning the 'Process for Preparing Amoxicilin Trihydrate'. The court set aside the previous order, recognizing that questions regarding territorial jurisdiction and the scope of the injunction against foreign manufacturing needed further examination.
Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. v.Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd., upholding a limited interim injunction granted to Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd. The court found that while the appellants held registered rights in 'Central Park', the respondents demonstrated bona fide prior use and substantial investment in their project, balancing equities in favor of the defendants. Consequently, the court allowed the respondents to continue using 'Rustomjee Central Park' provided the prominence of 'Central Park' was maintained.
Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. v.Samsung Electronics Co Ltd.& Anr
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed an intra-Court appeal filed by Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. challenging an order that allowed amendments to a trademark infringement suit. The court first ruled on the technical issue of jurisdiction, confirming that since the original suit involved intellectual property rights (trademarks), it fell under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed because an order allowing an amendment of the plaint is not specifically enumerated as appealable under Order XLIII CPC.
Director Of Income Tax v.Infrasoft Ltd.
The dispute centered on whether payments received by Infrasoft Ltd. for licensing its civil engineering software constituted royalty income under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Assessing Officer had taxed these receipts as royalty, leading to an appeal by the Director of Income Tax. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Infrasoft, holding that the payment was merely for a limited right to use the copyrighted material, not the copyright itself, and thus qualified as business income.
Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd v.Wyeth Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses complex issues surrounding design rights under the Designs Act, 2000. The court specifically examined whether a design registered in a Paris Convention country can serve as grounds for cancelling an Indian-registered design. A key focus was defining 'prior publication,' clarifying that mere existence of a design in a foreign public record is not automatically sufficient; it must possess complete clarity to be understood by the eye of the mind regarding its application to a specific article. The court directed further proceedings to determine the factual merits.
Champagne Moet & Chandon v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of Champagne Moet & Chandon's appeal against a trademark registration granted to M/s Moet’s. The court found that despite the similarity in marks, the goods were distinct (Class 33 wines vs Class 29 meat products), making confusion unlikely. Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish sufficient evidence of prior reputation or dishonest intent by the respondent, leading the court to conclude that the opposition was not within acceptable parameters.
Entertainment Network India Ltd v.Super Cassettes Industries Ltd & Ors.
This appeal challenged various orders passed by a single Judge and the Copyright Board concerning copyright works. The core legal issue addressed was whether an order passed by one tribunal or court could be automatically applied as a precedent to another case, especially where the factual matrix differed.
M/S. Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd v.M/S. Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd, upholding the cancellation of its 'Philips' trademark registration for non-electrical pressure cookers. The court emphasized that due to Philips' globally recognized goodwill and reputation for quality, allowing the petitioner to use the mark would cause public deception and dilute the established brand equity. This ruling reinforces the principle that well-known marks receive broad protection even when used on dissimilar goods.
Lowenbrau Ag & Another v.Jagpin Breweries Ltd & Another
The Delhi High Court vacated an ex parte interim injunction favoring Lowenbrau AG against Jagpin Breweries Ltd. The court found that the balance of convenience did not support granting the injunction, noting that both parties operate globally using the common mark 'LOWENBRAU'. Given that consumers could distinguish between the two beers through other features and considering the defendants' established market presence in India, the court ruled that there was no basis for a passing off claim at this preliminary stage.
Beiersdorf A.G. v.Ajay Sukhwani & Another
Beiersdorf A.G. successfully sued Ajay Sukhwani & Another for passing off, asserting its rights over the well-known trademark NIVEA. The Delhi High Court found that the defendants' initial adoption of the mark was dishonest, thereby rejecting their pleas of delay and laches. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction, protecting Beiersdorf's brand integrity against unauthorized use by the defendants.
Safari International And Anr. v.Subhash Gupta And Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to uphold a trademark registration. The core dispute revolved around allegations of fraud and non-use concerning the 'SAFARI' trademark, used for cycles since 1974. The court affirmed that the respondent had continuously used the mark, either through his proprietorship or later via a family-controlled private limited company. Furthermore, the court emphasized that claims of fraud must be specifically pleaded and supported by cogent evidence, which was lacking in this case.
M/s Satnam Overseas v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks And ...
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute over the geographical scope of the 'KOHINOOR' trademark for rice. The appellant, Satnam Overseas, sought rectification to limit the respondent's registered mark to only a few cities in Uttar Pradesh, alleging lack of bona fide use nationwide. However, the court ultimately dismissed the appeals, upholding the broader registration rights of the original user (the respondent). The ruling emphasizes that restricting a trademark based on limited local usage is impractical and contrary to normal trade practices.
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.