Harpal Singh Gulati v. Registrar Of Trademarks

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 25/2025 & I.A. 13397/2025

This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Harpal Singh Gulati challenging the rejection of his trademark application for 'Martban -MAA KE HAATH SA'. The core dispute revolves around the appellant's claim of prior use. Crucially, M/s Martbaan, proprietor of similar marks, was impleaded as a respondent to participate in the proceedings. The Court set out a detailed schedule for filing pleadings and listing the matter before the Joint Registrar.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 25/2025 & I.A. 13397/2025
Judge(s)
Amit Bansal

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 Harpal Singh Gulati vs Registrar Of Trademarks is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentMISC. APPEAL No. 232 of 2021

Pernod Ricard India Private LimitedvsKaranveer Singh Chhabra Trading As J.K.

Pernod Ricard appealed a Commercial Court order that rejected their application for temporary injunction against Karanveer Singh Chhabra, alleging trademark infringement of 'Blenders Pride' and 'Imperial Blue' by the defendant's use of 'London Pride'. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the trial court's finding that no deceptive similarity existed between the marks. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the main suit on merits without being influenced by the appellate observations.

patentI.A. No.3412/2010 in CS(OS) No.480/2010

NRB Bearings LimitedvsWindsor Export

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of NRB Bearings Limited against Windsor Export, finding that the latter was infringing on its trademark and goodwill through deceptive use of a similar domain name. The court held that the defendant's minor spelling variant ('nrbearing.com') was intentionally chosen to attract customers associated with the plaintiff's well-known mark 'NRB'. Given the prima facie case and the risk of irreparable confusion, the injunction was granted during the pendency of the suit.

patentCS(COMM) 436/2022

Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr.vsSehgal Auto House Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sunil Sehgal

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited against Sehgal Auto House. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was engaged in the wholesale business of counterfeit spare parts using the HERO trademark and logo, infringing both trademark rights and copyright associated with packaging. The court authorized a Local Commissioner to search and seize all infringing products and related materials from the Defendant's premises.

patentCOMS No. 17 of 2022

Jansen Pharmaceuticals & OthersvsAeon Formulations Pvt. Ltd.

The plaintiffs, who are exclusive licensees of the patent holder (Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation), filed a suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 was manufacturing and marketing Canagliflozin Tablets/Capsules, thereby infringing Indian Patent No. 232231. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs.

patentCM (M)-IPD 10/2022 & connected matters

Semco Infratech Pvt LtdvsSimla Chemicals Pvt Ltd

This Delhi High Court judgment resolves a trademark dispute between Simla Chemicals (owner of SIMCO) and Semco Infratech (using SEMCO). The parties reached an amicable settlement, leading the court to decree the original suit in terms of this agreement. Under the settlement, Simla retains ownership of 'SIMCO' but is permitted to expand its product range, while Semco can continue using 'SEMCO' for specific goods and services, provided they pursue necessary registrations. The ruling provides a clear path forward for both parties to operate without ongoing litigation.

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