India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 27 of 161 · 4,815 total
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.M/S Martin And Brown Biosciences & Ors.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. filed a Rectification Petition against M/S Martin And Brown Biosciences & Ors., seeking the removal or cancellation of the trademark registration 'SOMI-MB' (No. 5982177) in Class 5, arguing that it is confusingly similar to their existing mark 'SUMO'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents and set timelines for filing written synopses and replies, indicating that the matter will proceed through formal litigation.
Pc Laminations v.Sk Microworks Co Ltd & Ors.
The petitioner, Pc Laminations, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN437049. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications related to procedural matters like exemption from certified copies and permission to file additional documents.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd & Ors. v.M/S Universal Corporation & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against Universal Corporation. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, noting the long history and exponential growth of the 'Moti Mahal' brand since 1920. Given the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill, the defendant was immediately restrained from using identical or deceptively similar marks like 'MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL'.
Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. v.M/S Italian Shoes Co. & Ors.
In this ongoing intellectual property dispute, Christian Louboutin SAS sought various procedural reliefs in the Delhi High Court against M/S Italian Shoes Co. The court granted several applications, including allowing the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granting exemption from pre-institution mediation due to the suit's urgent nature. Crucially, the order also addressed the core infringement claim, setting up the case for permanent injunctions related to trademark infringement, copyright violation of shoe images, and passing off concerning the signature 'RED SOLE' style.
Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft v.Sipsnap Soda Llp & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Hell Energy against Sipsnap Soda. The court allowed several procedural applications, including granting exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advanced service upon the defendants. Crucially, the court permitted the plaintiff to appoint a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure of evidence at the defendant's premises, ensuring the preservation of potential infringing materials. This order moves the case forward by formalizing the suit for permanent injunction regarding the 'HELL ENERGY' trademark and trade dress.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ashok Kumar (John Doe)
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd in its suit against an unidentified entity manufacturing and selling counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts. The court recognized the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and trade dress associated with 'HERO GENUINE PRODUCTS.' Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to execute a search and seizure commission at the Defendant's premises to recover infringing goods, setting the stage for further litigation.
The Regents of the University of California & Others v.Union of India & Others
The petitioner challenged the actions of the Opposition Board regarding an interlocutory application related to their granted patent. The dispute centered on procedural infirmities in the post-grant opposition proceedings, specifically concerning the admissibility of evidence filed by the respondent. The court held that since the matter was still pending before the Hearing Officer and no final decision had been reached, the writ petition was premature.
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies filed an application seeking to amend and file an auxiliary claim set in their patent appeal. The core legal question was whether such amendments were permissible at the appellate stage and if they complied with Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court analyzed precedents regarding amendment powers and found that the proposed changes narrowed the scope of the original claims by adding specific agents. Consequently, the court allowed the amendments and took the auxiliary claims on record.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.
The defendants filed an application seeking correction and interpretation of a prior court order, arguing that it implied the plaintiff had complied with FRAND obligations. The Court found that the defendants were not seeking a clerical correction but rather modification/interpretation of pending issues related to SEP compliance. Consequently, the application was dismissed as premature.
Montblanc-Simplo Gmbh v.Ms. Jasmin Chandrakant Vora & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Montblanc-Simplo Gmbh sought permanent injunctions and damages against the defendants for using its registered trademarks and devices. The court noted the parties' initial request for exemption from mediation but ultimately referred them to pre-litigation mediation. Subsequently, the defendants assured the court that they would withdraw infringing products from e-commerce sites within a week and were granted time to file an undertaking confirming their non-infringement intentions.
Ms Khatema Fibres Limited v.Dr Rakesh Chandra Rastogi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order allowing Ms Khatema Fibres Limited to proceed with a rectification petition against the registered trademark 'KHATEMA' held by Defendant No. 1. The court formally initiated the proceedings, granting both parties specific timeframes—four weeks for the defendant's reply and six weeks for filing composite written synopses in related applications. This order sets the stage for a detailed legal battle over the validity of the trademark registration.
Ms Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt Ltd v.Vyom Foodcraft Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to introduce additional documents related to trademark applications and assignments in a commercial suit. The court, emphasizing that procedure is the handmaid of justice, permitted the plaintiff to place statutory Trademark Registry documents on record, despite their belated submission. However, the court rejected a third-party legal notice as irrelevant to the pleadings. This order allows the litigation to proceed with expanded evidence while ensuring procedural fairness for both parties.
The Football Association Premier League Limited v.Yoghurt Tv & Ors.
The Football Association Premier League Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for the infringement of its copyrighted content by various 'Rogue Apps' like Yoghurt TV. The court initially granted procedural exemptions sought by the plaintiff regarding pre-litigation mediation and advance service upon regulatory bodies (DoT/MEITY). Crucially, the court also passed a significant temporary injunction order, granting a 'Dynamic+' relief to protect its works against ongoing infringement across various platforms.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v.Safex Chemicals India Limited
Crystal Crop Protection Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Safex Chemicals India Limited for infringing its registered patent no. 417213, which covers a novel weedicidal formulation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's product 'RACER' had an identical composition to the patented invention. However, while considering the interim injunction application, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because the element of 'dyeing agent or pigment' was not proven to be non-essential in the patent claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the injunction request.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case before the Calcutta High Court concerned an application seeking revocation of a dispensation granted to the plaintiff (Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited) allowing them to bypass pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff alleged trademark and copyright infringement by the defendant using 'Poly Punkaj'. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the nine-month delay between becoming aware of the infringement (January 2024) and filing the suit (September 2024). Consequently, the court allowed the application seeking revocation of dispensation.
Trodat Gmbh & Anr. v.Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd
This case involves a dispute over the infringement of registered stamp designs. The defendant, Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd, sought clarification regarding an interim injunction that had previously restrained it from manufacturing products deemed imitations of the plaintiffs' (Trodat Gmbh & Anr.) designs. The defendant proposed a new, alternative design and argued that it was sufficiently distinct to avoid infringement. The court examined the visual differences between the two designs and granted prima facie permission for the defendant to proceed with the manufacture and marketing of this modified product.
Hermes International & Anr. v.Neofusion Commerce Through Sole Proprietor Mr. Rishabh Jain & Anr.
In a trademark infringement suit filed by Hermes International against Neofusion Commerce, the Delhi High Court issued an order on May 6, 2025. While the plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the use of their registered trademarks in relation to luxury bags and accessories, the court referred the parties to pre-litigation mediation. The defendants were granted a temporary reprieve, agreeing not to deal with existing disputed inventory while proposing alternative product variations.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Wipro Enterprises Private Limited
Himalaya Wellness Company initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking to challenge the validity of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited's trademark registration 'EVECARE.' The court allowed the plaintiffs' application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Consequently, the court framed a specific issue questioning whether the defendant's mark is invalid and liable for removal/cancellation from the Register of Trademarks, setting the stage for further substantive litigation.
Mohammed Azam Trading As Noor Ahmed Mohd Azam v.Paramjeet Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters: first, it condoned a minor delay in the petitioner's rectification petition. Second, the court initiated proceedings to cancel the trademark 'SARDARJI MASALE WALE NURY'. The court ordered notice to be served on all parties and directed the summoning of the complete registration record from the Trademark Registry for review.
Vidya Bhushan Jain v.Mohammed Younus Sheikh And Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning Trademark No. 605340 after finding that the core issue had been resolved by the parties. The court noted that the trademark renewal process was completed, with the mark being renewed for another ten years. Consequently, the High Court set aside an earlier order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and allowed the petitioner's trademark to continue subsisting in the Register.
Goethe-Institut E.V. v.Abhishek Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Goethe-Institut E.V., a well-known cultural institute, against Abhishek Yadav and others. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant's use of similar marks like 'MAX MUELLER INSTITUTE' was likely to cause confusion among the public regarding their association with the established brand. The court found that the plaintiff had prima facie established its prior goodwill and reputation in the market for German language courses, warranting immediate protective relief pending the final trial.
M/S Mittal Electronics v.Mr. Rohit Rana
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for consent decree, formally settling an intellectual property dispute between M/S Mittal Electronics and Mr. Rohit Rana. The settlement involved the defendant acknowledging the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the 'SUJATA' trademark, apologizing for infringement and passing off, and undertaking not to use similar marks in the future. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 2,50,000 as costs and Rs. 10,00,000 as liquidated damages in case of any breach.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Qpharm Health Care Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple issues in the ongoing dispute between Glaxo Group Limited and Qpharm Health Care Limited. The court allowed a petition seeking the transfer and consolidation of trademark rectification proceedings against 'BETNOTREAT' into the main infringement suit, recognizing the interconnected nature of the disputes. Furthermore, after hearing arguments regarding trade dress similarity, the parties were referred to mediation, indicating a potential path toward settlement.
M/S Mittal Electronics Through Its Partner Mr. Akhil Aggarwal v.Mr. Satapara Vijaybhai Bhikhabhai @ Vijay Prajapati Trading as Shree Ganesh Industries
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for consent decree, formally settling an intellectual property dispute between M/S Mittal Electronics and Mr. Satapara Vijaybhai Bhikhabhai. The settlement confirmed that the Plaintiff exclusively owns the 'SUJATA' trademark and required the Defendant to apologize for infringement and passing off. Crucially, the Defendant agreed to cease all use of similar marks, destroy existing goods, and pay Rs. 2,50,000/- as costs, while also undertaking a liquidated damages clause.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Dr. Mariya Parvez & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by Alkem Laboratories seeking to include a proposed defendant who had posted misleading content targeting its pharmaceutical products, PAN-D and PAN-40. Although the plaintiff initially sought to extend existing injunctions against this individual, the court noted that the impugned video had already been taken down. Consequently, the court dismissed the impleadment request but reaffirmed that the proposed defendant remains prohibited from using Alkem's 'PAN' family of marks in any videos, reserving the right for the plaintiff to seek further action if infringement recurs.
Miss Kiara Rawat Through Mrs. Lovely Gusain v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner sought directions from the Delhi High Court regarding the high cost of the drug Zolgensma. The petitioner requested that the Union of India facilitate the issuance of compulsory licenses under the Patents Act, 1970, and also asked for the formation of a committee to raise funds for her treatment.
Vishnu Kumar Mittal & Ors. v.Madhu Mittal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Vishnu Kumar Mittal & Ors. seeking the rectification or revocation of an impugned trademark registration (Application No. 1880542) in Class 35, which was granted to Respondent No. 1. The petitioners initially sought various interim injunctions and reliefs against multiple respondents, but subsequently withdrew claims against certain parties. The Court proceeded by deleting the withdrawn respondents and issued notice to the remaining parties, setting a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders.
M/S. Rashik Soap Factory v.The Registrar Of Copyright & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S. Rashik Soap Factory to amend its ongoing petition by incorporating a subsequent trademark registration. The petitioner sought to update the court record, confirming that they had acquired ownership of Trademark No. 4176479 through an assignment deed during the pendency of the case. This order allows the petitioner to formally bring this change in IP ownership before the court, ensuring all relevant facts are on record for the ongoing litigation.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals challenged notices and orders issued by the Controller General regarding its patent application for a cystic fibrosis treatment compound. The core legal question was whether a pre-grant opposition could be entertained after the patent had already been granted by the Controller. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Vertex, holding that once the Controller grants the patent, they become functus officio and cannot legally entertain subsequent oppositions.
Upl Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark
Upl Ltd challenged the rejection of its patent application concerning a novel agrochemical fungicide combination. The core dispute centered on whether adding a multi-site fungicide to existing SDHI combinations provided a synergistic and unexpected technical advantage, or if it was merely an obvious aggregation of known substances. The Calcutta High Court found that the original order lacked proper analysis of the experimental data supporting synergy and noted procedural lapses by the Controller in failing to issue a Second Examination Report (SER). Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.