Judge Profile

Suresh Kait

3 IP cases indexed. Covers copyright, patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

3 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

copyright plaintiff favorable · Aug 3, 2011

Pine Labs Pvt. Ltd. v.Gemalto Terminals India Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · FAO (OS) 635 OF 2009 & FAO (OS) 636 OF 2009

Pine Labs, a software development company, developed an IOCL fleet card system for Gemalto Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. The dispute arose when Gemalto sub-contracted the project to a third party (QCI Technologies), leading Pine Labs to claim ownership and protection of its source code under the Copyright Act. The court set aside the lower court's order, reinstating the injunction in favor of Pine Labs during the pendency of the suit.

patent defendant favorable · Aug 3, 2011

Syndicate Of The Press Of The Universtiy of Cambridge / Chancellor Masters And Scholars of the University of Oxford v.B.D. Bhandari & Anr. / Narendra Publishing House and Ors.

Delhi High Court · RFA (OS) No.21 of 2009 & FAO (OS) No.458 of 2008

This case involved appeals filed by Cambridge University Press and Oxford University against a single judge who had dismissed their suit. The universities alleged that local publishers were illegally reproducing verbatim literary content from their prescribed grammar textbooks in guidebooks. The core legal dispute centered on whether the reproduction constituted copyright infringement or if it was permissible under the doctrine of fair dealing, particularly given the educational context.

patent defendant favorable · Feb 8, 2011

Johnson Enterprises v.Johnson Appliances Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · FAO (OS) 461/2010

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Johnson Enterprises, upholding a prior order that granted an interim injunction to Johnson Appliances Pvt. Ltd. The core issue was whether the appellant had used the 'JOHNSON' trademark for electric water geysers since 1999, and if so, when the respondent became aware of this use. The court found that the limited evidence (twelve invoices spanning 1999 to 2006) was insufficient to prove that the respondent had knowledge of the appellant's continuous use prior to 2006, thus confirming the injunction.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →