Jangeer Singh Trading As Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works v. Yogesh Jangid Trading As Jangid Agro Engineering & Anr.

CS(COMM) 598/2022

In this commercial suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications filed by both parties. The court allowed Defendant No. 1 to place legal proceeding certificates related to its registered trademarks on record, despite initial objections regarding relevance. Furthermore, upon agreement from the Plaintiff, the court permitted the deletion of Defendant No. 2 (IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd.) from the array of parties, allowing the litigation to proceed with a refined set of defendants.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 598/2022
Judge(s)
Sanjeev Narula

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 Jangeer Singh Trading As Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works vs Yogesh Jangid Trading As Jangid Agro Engineering & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 370/2023, I.A. 10773/2023 & I.A. 13598/2023

Abhishek Jain (Trading As M/S Trip Planners)vsTrip Planners Holidays Private Limited

The dispute between Abhishek Jain (M/S Trip Planners) and Trip Planners Holidays Private Limited was amicably settled through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The settlement mandates that the defendant must cease all use of the trademark 'Trip Planners' and its derivations in perpetuity, including removing it from business names, websites, social media handles, and closing associated domains/email suffixes by December 31, 2023. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to withdraw a pending trademark application for the disputed mark.

patentFAO(OS) 109/2011

Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd.vsParul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the use of the trademark 'KRISHNA' in dairy products. The court ruled that a common word, even if associated with a deity like Lord Krishna (who is linked to milk and butter), cannot be monopolized by a single entity. Furthermore, the court held that when a defendant uses a disputed mark prefixed by other words ('PARUL'S LORD KRISHNA'), confusion regarding the source of goods is unlikely, provided those prefix words are given equal prominence as the core trademark. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the interim relief granted to the respondent.

patentFAO(OS)(COMM) 159/2023, 160/2023 & 161/2023

Vifor (International) LimitedvsMsn Laboratories Pvt Ltd

Vifor (International) Limited appealed an interim injunction order that restricted its claims to only the process aspect, arguing against the narrow interpretation of product-by-process patents. The Delhi High Court addressed the significant issue of how such claims should be construed under the Patent Act, 1970. The court clarified that a patent's scope cannot be limited solely by the process used, emphasizing that claim construction must define the full extent of the monopoly granted to the patentee. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the restrictive judgment was set aside.

patentCS(COMM) 747/2022, I.As. 24519/2023, 24520/2023 & 24521/2023

Busy Infotech Pvt LtdvsXpert Tricks Softwares & Ors.

This Delhi High Court order addresses an ongoing suit filed by Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd against various defendants for copyright infringement and trademark passing off related to its 'BUSY Software.' The court noted that previous interim injunctions were in place, and several pro-forma defendants had been discharged after providing undertakings. On December 8, 2023, the court directed the Plaintiff to file an updated memo of parties within one week before listing the matter again.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 226/2022

Mukesh Kumar VidyarthivsController Of Patents New Delhi & Anr.

The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting the appellant's patent application for 'Charge Recirculation Air Intake Main Ford (CRAIM)' on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The Court, after considering submissions from both parties and an Assistant Controller, allowed the appeal.

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