Dabur India Limited v. Marico Limited & Anr.

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024, I.A. 38946/2024, etc.

The Delhi High Court permitted Dabur India Limited to amend its trademark cancellation petition against Marico Limited. The amendment corrected an inadvertent error where the petitioner had mistakenly stated that their mark was 'deceptively similar' to the respondent's mark, contrary to their actual legal stand. The court allowed the correction, emphasizing that the change did not alter the cause of action or prejudice the respondent, thereby upholding the principle of rectifying clerical errors in pleadings.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024, I.A. 38946/2024, etc.
Judge(s)
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

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 Dabur India Limited vs Marico Limited & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patent2025:BHC-OS:25517

Indian Express And Commercial Ventures and ...vsFundamental Hospitality Private Limited and ...

The Bombay High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's interim application seeking to restrain the Defendants from using the mark 'HOM'. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. Key factors included the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating substantial goodwill associated with the acronym 'HOM', the distinct calligraphy used by the Defendant, and the fact that both restaurants cater to discerning customers in premium segments, making confusion unlikely.

patentIPDATM/62/2023

M/S Aravind LaboratoriesvsPayal Novelty Private Limited

In this trademark dispute concerning the 'Pearl Eyeflax Kum Kum Bindi,' the Calcutta High Court issued an interim order. The court directed the respondents to attempt modifications to their product's get-up and trade dress. Furthermore, they must submit copies of these proposed changes to the petitioner's advocates by March 13, 2025, allowing the litigation to proceed while addressing potential infringement concerns.

patentIPDTMA/14-21/2024

Dunlop International Limited (and Dunlop Slazenger Group Ltd.)vsGlorious Investment Limited And Anr.

The Calcutta High Court set aside multiple appeals concerning the registration of the 'Dunlop' word mark. The core dispute revolved around the validity of assignments made by Dunlop India Ltd. during its liquidation period, which were used by Glorious Investment Limited to secure trademark rights in various classes. Given serious questions regarding fraud, natural justice violations, and the limited jurisdiction of the Registrar concerning assignment validity, the Court remanded all matters back for a fresh hearing after ensuring all parties are heard.

patentOA/14/2020/Pt/Kol (IPDPTA/8/2022)

Oramed Ltd.vsThe Controller General Of Patents And Designs & Anr.

Oramed Ltd. appealed against an order refusing patent grant for its oral insulin composition. The appeal contended that the Deputy Controller made arbitrary omissions of prior art documents and ignored crucial technical data and expert testimony when assessing inventive steps under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970.

patentCS(COMM) 689/2024, I.A. 36503/2024 et al.

Havells India LimitedvsHetram Sharma & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against Hetram Sharma & Ors. regarding the unauthorized use of its registered trademark 'REO'. The court found that the defendants' adoption of similar marks ('R3 REO 3X') was intended to ride upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation in the electrical goods market. Furthermore, the court permitted a local commission to search the defendant's premises and seize infringing materials.

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