Bawa Masala Co Pvt Ltd v. Bawa Masala Co & Anr.

Axcess LimitedvsController Of Patents And Designs

Axcess Limited appealed the Controller's refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 2427/DELNP/2011), which covered bile acids and biguanides as protease inhibitors for gut peptides. The Controller had rejected the application under Section 59(1) of the Patent Act, arguing that the amendments exceeded the original scope. However, the Delhi High Court found that a detailed examination of the complete specification supported the amended claims regarding composition as a product. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.

Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited & M/s. V.R. HoldingsvsMr. Guddu Ansari & Ors.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited, finding that Defendants were infringing upon its trademarks and copyrights by operating a nearly identical website and domain (www.heroelectro.in). The court found that the defendants were actively duping consumers by misrepresenting their affiliation with the renowned 'Hero Electric' brand to solicit dealership enquiries and collect large sums of money. Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions, awarded damages of Rs. 50 lakhs, and mandated the transfer of the infringing domain name to the Plaintiffs.

BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc.vsTube Investments Of India Limited & Anr.

The Delhi High Court resolved a trademark dispute between BSA Business Software Alliance and Tube Investments of India Limited regarding the use of the mark 'BSA'. The court mandated that both parties agree on clear delineations of services to prevent conflict. Following this agreement, the appeals were disposed of, allowing BSA to register its mark in specific, restricted classes related to software promotion and education (Classes 16, 35, 41, 42). Crucially, the court also ensured that the Respondent's right to seek a declaration as a well-known mark for their goods in Class 12 remains unaffected.

Amit JainvsVikas Gupta

The Delhi High Court rejected the defendant's application seeking dismissal of the trademark infringement suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The court held that since the plaintiff explicitly pleaded in the plaint that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to his own, a clear cause of action existed. The judgment affirmed the principle that an application for rejection must be decided solely on the averments made in the plaint, treating them as correct.

Filmtec Corporation & Anr.vsAnil Kumar Ashok Bhaivaswani Owner At Messrs Jal Blue Impex & Ors.

The Delhi High Court disposed of the suit between Filmtec Corporation and Anil Kumar Ashok Bhaivaswani and others following a comprehensive settlement agreement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged ownership of Filmtec's trademarks (FILMTEC®, DUPONT, etc.) and copyrights, agreeing to cease all infringing activities. The court decreed the suit based on these terms, which included injunctions against Defendants 2 and 3 and payment of litigation costs by Defendant No. 1.