Gopaljee Foods v. Subhash Chand & Ors.

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 871/2022

In Gopaljee Foods vs Subhash Chand & Ors., the Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark disputes, noting that an ex-parte ad interim injunction previously granted in favor of the petitioner regarding trademark infringement had been confirmed by a Coordinate Bench. The court also noted attempts by respondents to revive abandoned trademarks and make changes to user dates, requiring them to place supporting documentation on record for further consideration.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 871/2022
Decision Date
27 February 2024

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 Gopaljee Foods vs Subhash Chand & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 26/2021 & I.A. 16971/2021

Ab Initio Technology LlcvsAssistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

The Appellant filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 6500/DELNP/2011). The court first condoned a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal, and subsequently granted further time to the Respondent to file their reply.

patentCS(COMM) 1408/2025

Myokardia Inc.vsLucius Pharmaceutical

Myokardia Inc. filed a suit against Lucius Pharmaceutical alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 392872, which covers novel pyrimidinedione compounds used to treat serious cardiovascular diseases like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The Plaintiffs argued that the defendants' generic product infringed upon their patented technology and caused irreparable harm. Based on a prima facie assessment, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling generic Mavacamten until further hearing.

patentOP(C).No. 2661 of 2013 (O)

M.ManuvelvsMalabar Gold Pvt. Ltd

The Kerala High Court dismissed an Original Petition filed by M.Manuvel, which challenged a lower court's order regarding jurisdiction in a trademark and passing off suit. The core issue revolved around the defendant's late application to amend their written statement to raise objections concerning territorial jurisdiction. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court held that without demonstrating due diligence before the trial commenced, such an amendment could not be allowed after the proceedings had started.

patentCS(COMM) 708/2024

Reckitt & Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home LimitedvsAshok Kumar(S)/ John Doe(S)

In a major infringement suit concerning hygiene products, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs favoring the plaintiffs, Reckitt & Colman. The court allowed the plaintiffs to implead Ashok Kumar and John Doe as defendants and sanctioned an extensive local commission to investigate counterfeiting activities related to brands like HARPIC and LIZOL. Furthermore, the court provided exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, paving the way for swift enforcement of their claims regarding trademark, copyright, design, and passing off infringement.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 36/2021, 37/2021, 38/2021 & 39/2021

Raj Kumar SharmavsSandeep Kumar & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed several interconnected trademark disputes concerning the 'Pizza Galleria' brand between Raj Kumar Sharma and Sandeep Kumar & Anr. The court first resolved a factual contradiction regarding an MoU, accepting that the date should be 25th March 2018 instead of 9th June 2021. Furthermore, all applications seeking a stay on trademark registrations were dismissed as withdrawn by the Petitioner. Despite these procedural steps, the Court noted significant gaps in documentation and directed Respondent No.1 to file a comprehensive additional affidavit within six weeks.

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