Conqueror Innovations Private Limited v. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited

Asian Paints LimitedvsAjeet Kumar And Others

The Delhi High Court allowed Asian Paints Limited's application to implead numerous additional parties—including domain name registrars, banks, and telecom service providers—in its trademark infringement suit. The court found a prima facie case for the plaintiff, noting that fraudsters were using various digital channels (websites, phone numbers, bank accounts) to perpetuate the misuse of the 'ASIAN PAINTS' mark. Consequently, the existing injunction was expanded, and specific directions were issued compelling these third-party defendants to block infringing websites, freeze associated bank accounts, and suspend mobile numbers.

Promoshirt Sm Sa.vsArmasuisse And Anr.

This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed by Promoshirt SM SA. challenging decisions related to its trademark registration applications, specifically against an opposition raised by Armasuisse. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the LPAs under Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that no further appeal should lie from a Single Judge's appellate order. The High Court ultimately negated this preliminary objection, holding that since the Trade Marks Act did not mandate adherence to the restrictive provisions of the CPC, the LPA remedy remained applicable.

Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors.vsSamsung Electronics Co Ltd.& Anr

This Delhi High Court judgment addressed an intra-Court appeal filed by Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. challenging an order that allowed amendments to a trademark infringement suit. The court first ruled on the technical issue of jurisdiction, confirming that since the original suit involved intellectual property rights (trademarks), it fell under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed because an order allowing an amendment of the plaint is not specifically enumerated as appealable under Order XLIII CPC.

Raj Kumar Jain / Puja Agarwal / Pravesh Narula Trading as M/s. Capital EnterprisesvsRegistrar of Trademark & Anr.

The Delhi High Court issued several orders across connected trademark litigation matters. Notably, the court condoned a significant delay (82 days) in filing a Written Statement to an amended plaint, allowing the case to proceed despite procedural lapses. Furthermore, directions were given for forensic examination of specific sale invoices, indicating that evidence authenticity remains a critical point of contention in this dispute.

Hindustan Unilever LimitedvsRspl Limited

Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) sought an interim injunction against Rspl Limited over disparaging advertisements for its 'Ghadi' detergent, claiming the ads tarnished HUL's flagship product, 'Surf Excel.' The Delhi High Court found that while comparative advertising is permissible, derogatory and defamatory remarks are not. Consequently, the court issued a prima facie order directing Rspl to remove specific phrases—such as 'Na Na, yeh dhoka hai' and 'Aapka kare badi badi baatein, dho nahi patey'—from its commercials before they can be broadcast.