Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Meera Soap Works

Merck Sharp & Dohme CorporationvsGlenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation filed a suit against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin, a key drug for Type II diabetes. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from manufacturing and selling generic versions like Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate under brands such as ZITA. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted infringement of the plaintiff's patent rights.

Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr.vsOm Prakash Gupta

In a case concerning the infringement of trademarks and copyrights, Tata Sons sought judicial assistance to manage seized counterfeit products. The Delhi High Court granted the application, appointing a Local Commissioner to visit the warehouse where 624 packages of fake TATA TEA PREMIUM were stored. This order allows Plaintiffs to draw samples for trial purposes while also granting them liberty to destroy the remaining inventory, ensuring the chain of custody is maintained.

Pawan Kumar GoelvsDr. Dhan Singh & Anr.

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for infringing Indian Patent 369150 related to extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The plaintiff later sought conditional withdrawal, arguing that the defendant was using a different plant species (Rauwolfia Vomitoria) and thus there was no current cause of action. However, the court found evidence suggesting the defendant was indeed using Rauwolfia tetraphylla, leading it to deny the permission for withdrawal.

Nippon Steel CorporationvsController General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.

Nippon Steel Corporation appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents which refused its patent application for a gas flue repair method and device under Section 3(d) of the Patent Act. The appellant argued that the rejection was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice because the specific objection (Section 3(d)) was not clearly communicated in the initial hearing notice. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the impugned order unsustainable due to lack of sufficient reasons. Consequently, the court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, mandating a clear delineation of all objections before granting a new hearing.

YC Electric VehiclevsNipun Sanyantra Private Limited

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Nipun Sanyantra Private Limited. The court recognized that the Plaintiff holds rights over its trademarks ('YATRI', 'YC'), copyrights, and design registrations related to electric vehicles. Consequently, the Defendant was restrained from using any deceptively similar marks for manufacturing or selling e-rickshaws and was directed to immediately take down all infringing product listings from social media platforms.