Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd v. Xpert Tricks Softwares & Ors.

CS(COMM) 747/2022, I.As. 24519/2023, 24520/2023 & 24521/2023

This Delhi High Court order addresses an ongoing suit filed by Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd against various defendants for copyright infringement and trademark passing off related to its 'BUSY Software.' The court noted that previous interim injunctions were in place, and several pro-forma defendants had been discharged after providing undertakings. On December 8, 2023, the court directed the Plaintiff to file an updated memo of parties within one week before listing the matter again.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 747/2022, I.As. 24519/2023, 24520/2023 & 24521/2023
Judge(s)
Jyoti Singh

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 Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd vs Xpert Tricks Softwares & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patent2023:BHC-OS:4487

Maharashtra Safe Chemists And Distributors Alliance LimitedvsSachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar & Anr.

The Bombay High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit after noting that the disputed mark had already been removed from the register by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court accepted the defendant's affidavit stating that the trademark was never put into commercial operation, rendering all remaining claims for injunction and damages moot. This decision highlights how prior administrative actions (like rectification) can fundamentally alter the trajectory of a civil IP suit.

patentC.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 13/2022

Sequenom IncvsThe Controller Of Patents

Sequenom Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 3139/DELNP/2012) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which held it non-patentable under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the invention was a screening test, not a diagnostic test, while the respondent relied on the broad definition of 'Pre-Natal Diagnostic Test' under the PCPNDT Act.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 8/2025

Grena LimitedvsAxon Medical Solutions Pvt Ltd And Anr

In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed an opposition matter concerning the 'GRENA' trademark. The court granted status quo regarding two specific trademark registrations (No. 5661191 and 6050365) held by Respondent No. 1, ensuring no changes are made until further judicial direction. Furthermore, the respondent was given four weeks to file their replies in the ongoing litigation.

patentAP-COM/1043/2024

Ori-Plast LimitedvsMolecor Tecnologia S.L.

Ori-Plast Limited sought an injunction against Molecor Tecnologia S.L., which had terminated a license agreement related to the use of the Molecor PVC-O System. The petitioner feared that the withdrawal of remote assistance would cause irreparable loss, while the respondent argued for immediate termination based on alleged breaches of confidentiality and reverse engineering.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 23/2023, I.A. 16324/2023, I.A. 16325/2023 & I.A. 22032/2023

Everest Food Products Private LimitedvsEverest Beverages And Food Industries & Anr.

This appeal before the Delhi High Court challenges an earlier order that set aside an opposition filed by Everest Food Products against a Trademark Application. The appellant argued that crucial documents were misplaced or not supplied to them, hindering their ability to present a full case regarding prior use and rights. While the court did not rule on the merits of the trademark dispute, it granted an adjournment to allow further submissions and document exchange.

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