Crystal Crop Protection Limited v. Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors

Zenith Spray And Aerosols Pvt LtdvsUrmila Goel Tin Works And Packaging

The Delhi High Court reinforced the existing injunction against Urmila Goel Tin Works and Packaging after finding that the defendant's packaging remained deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress, despite changing its trademark. The court found that merely altering the brand name did not negate the infringement of the distinctive visual appearance (trade dress). Consequently, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendant's premises to prevent further violation of the original order.

Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And AnrvsAshok 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.

Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr.vsM/S Dominic Pizza & Ors.

Dominos Ip Holder LLC successfully secured an interim injunction against M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors. in the Delhi High Court. The court recognized that the defendant's use of names like 'Dominic Pizza' and 'Domindo Pizza' was highly likely to cause confusion, deception, and passing off with the globally renowned Domino's brand. This preliminary order provides immediate protection for the plaintiff's trademarks while the main suit proceeds.

Tata Chemicals LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

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

Syngenta Crop Protection AgvsAssistant Controller Of Patents

Syngenta Crop Protection Ag challenged the refusal of its patent application, which covered methods for controlling rice plant infestations using a specific compound. The initial rejection was based on the argument that these methods constituted 'methods of agriculture' and were thus unpatentable under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court overturned this decision, holding that a method of treating plants is distinct from fundamental agricultural practices. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Controller for fresh examination.