ITC Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.

CS(COMM) 373/2020 and I.A. 19495/2023

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of ITC Limited, restraining defendants from using infringing domain names and sub-domains that fraudulently solicit franchises and dealerships under the guise of ITC's brand. The court reinforced previous orders, directing Domain Name Registrars to immediately lock and suspend the specified domains while also instructing the Cyber Cell to freeze numerous bank accounts linked to these fraudulent activities.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 373/2020 and I.A. 19495/2023
Judge(s)
Prathiba M. Singh

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 ITC Limited vs Ashok Kumar & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM)159/2020

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.vsAngels Pharma India Private Limited

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit alleging that Angels Pharma India Private Limited was attempting to manufacture and infringe its Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers the drug SITAGLIPTIN. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and granted interim relief.

patentO.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 37/2024

M/S Eat Hearty Private LimitedvsM/S Jagdamba Incorporation Private Limited & Anr.

The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to M/S Eat Hearty Private Limited, who holds registered trademarks for 'BURGRILL'. The petitioner sought restraint against the respondent, despite a terminated franchise agreement, due to continued unauthorized use of the mark at an outlet in Vadodara. Citing the termination and evidence of ongoing infringement, the Court restrained the respondents from operating the specific outlet or using the trademark until arbitration commences.

patentAP-COM/808/2024

SRMB Srijan Private LimitedvsGrihashakti Private Limited

The Calcutta High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of SRMB Srijan Private Limited against Grihashakti Private Limited. The court found that the respondent was grossly violating the terms of a franchise agreement by misusing the petitioner's 'SRMB' trademark and brand, logo, and trade dress while manufacturing TMT Steel Bars without adhering to required standards. Given the urgency and apprehension of further misuse, the court restrained the respondent from using the marks or selling related products until November 30, 2024.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 225/2022

Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbhvsThe Controller Of Patents

Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh appealed a rejection order passed by The Controller of Patents, which refused their application for "Containers for Compositions Comprising Meloxicam." The initial refusal was based on lack of novelty and inventive step in light of cited prior art. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to address their detailed written submissions distinguishing the invention from the prior arts. The Delhi High Court agreed, noting the Controller's order merely reproduced objections without proper consideration of the arguments, and consequently set aside the rejection, remanding the matter for fresh, reasoned consideration.

patent2025:BHC-OS:12294

Travel Blue Products India Private LimitedvsMiniso Life Style Private Limited

Travel Blue Products India Private Limited filed a suit against Miniso Life Style Private Limited for piracy of its registered design and passing-off concerning the 'Tranquility Neck Pillow'. The plaintiffs claimed that their distinctive neck pillow design, registered under number 281315, was being copied by the defendants in retail stores and online platforms. The court found a prima facie case based on the identical aesthetic appeal and visual similarity of the products, leading to the grant of interim relief.

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