Anita Agarwal v. Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd.

CS(COMM) 899/2022 & I.A. 22085/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Anita Agarwal, who owns the registered trademark 'VENSOR'. The court found prima facie that the defendant, Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd., was circulating notices that were defamatory and disparaging towards the plaintiff's mark and goods. This preliminary order aims to protect the plaintiff's goodwill while the main suit proceeds, addressing both alleged trade mark infringement and passing off.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 899/2022 & I.A. 22085/2022
Judge(s)
C.Hari Shankar

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Anita Agarwal vs Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 966/2024

Mankind Pharma LimitedvsS.A Medline Private Limited

Mankind Pharma Limited and S.A Medline Private Limited reached a joint settlement in the Delhi High Court regarding a trademark dispute. As part of the compromise, the defendant agreed to withdraw its contested trademark registration (No. 5328362) within seven days. The court accepted the terms, decreeing the suit against the defendant and allowing for a refund of court fees.

patentCONT.CAS(C) 1559/2025 & CM APPL. 65624/2025

Darzi India LlpvsKafil Ahmed

This Delhi High Court order addresses a contempt petition filed by Darzi India Llp against Kafil Ahmed for alleged violation of a prior court decree. The core dispute revolves around the permissible use of the trade mark 'KAFIL DARZI'. While the petitioner sought strict enforcement and removal of infringing marks, the respondent argued that the previous judgment permitted the usage. Consequently, the Court allowed the respondent liberty to seek clarification from the Single Judge regarding the scope of the prior order.

patentCS(COMM) 704/2021

Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr.vsChougle Salt Works Private Limited

Tata Sons Private Limited successfully resolved its intellectual property dispute against Chougle Salt Works Private Limited through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties executed a comprehensive settlement agreement acknowledging that the defendant had inadvertently infringed upon Tata's registered copyrights (TATASALT packaging) and trademarks (TATA SALT). Under the terms, the defendant agreed to cease using similar marks, destroy infringing materials, and permanently refrain from applying for or using any confusingly similar IP rights. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on this settlement.

patentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19376/2022

Gopal Krishan S/O. Sh. Mangat RaivsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks (Govt. Of India)

This writ petition was filed by Gopal Krishan seeking a direction from the High Court to expedite the registration of his trademark 'PANTHER' in Class 5. The petitioner highlighted that the application had been pending for an extended period since 2015. The court issued notices to the respondents, setting a timeline of six weeks for the matter to be returned, thereby moving the case forward.

patentIPDPTA/54/2023 (OA /7/2021/PT/KOL)

Indian Institute Of Science (Oa ...)vsThe Asst. Controller Of Patents And Designs

The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the matter for further hearing.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call