Jockey International Inc v. Domain Administrator & Ors.

CS(COMM) 891/2022

The Delhi High Court allowed Jockey International Inc's application to add domain name registrars and associated banks as additional defendants in its trademark infringement suit. The court granted crucial interim relief, directing the blocking and suspension of specific infringing domain names (www.jockeydealer.in and www.jockeyshops.in). Furthermore, it issued orders freezing bank accounts linked to these domains, significantly strengthening Jockey's ability to protect its 'JOCKEY' trademark against online infringement.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 891/2022
Judge(s)
C.Hari Shankar

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 Jockey International Inc vs Domain Administrator & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCMA(PT)/8/2023

Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc.vsThe Controller of Patents and Designs

Saint-Gobain Abrasives appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents and Designs concerning Patent Application No. 201941052276 for a NONWOVEN ARTICLE. The appellants argued that the rejection based on lack of disclosure, definitiveness, and obviousness was unsustainable. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for re-consideration.

patentC.S.No.859 of 2022

Flamagas S.A.vsAshok Bafna and Bafna Agencies

Flamagas S.A. filed a civil suit against Ashok Bafna and Bafna Agencies, alleging infringement of its registered designs and trademarks concerning cigarette lighters. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and an accounting of profits due to the sale of similar 'BAIDE/TOYO' lighters. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the plaintiff moved to withdraw the suit.

patentIPDATM/30/2023 (ORA/6/2020/TM/KOL)

Triumph Designs LimitedvsTube Investments Of India And Anr

The Calcutta High Court addressed an application filed under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of a mark based on non-use. While the core issue remains pending, the court granted a short adjournment to allow for the appearance of counsel from Chennai. The respondent was directed to pay costs before the next hearing date.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 162/2021

Punam FlutesvsMahesh Chand Gupta And Anr

The Delhi High Court allowed Punam Flutes' petition seeking the cancellation of a conflicting trademark registration ('PUNAM'). The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner's prior and well-established mark, 'PUNAM FLUTES,' used for musical instruments. Given the strong potential for consumer confusion and the Petitioner's established market reputation, the Court ruled that the Respondent's registration could not sustain under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act.

patentW.P. (C) No. 8973/2008

M/S. Kunj Aluminium Private LtdvsM/S. Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd, upholding the cancellation of its 'Philips' trademark registration for non-electrical pressure cookers. The court emphasized that due to Philips' globally recognized goodwill and reputation for quality, allowing the petitioner to use the mark would cause public deception and dilute the established brand equity. This ruling reinforces the principle that well-known marks receive broad protection even when used on dissimilar goods.

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