Kamdhenu Limited v. Raghunath Virdharam Bishnoi And Ors

Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr.vsRishabh Bansal & Anr.

The Delhi High Court disposed of a complex IP dispute involving trademark infringement, copyright violation, and rectification petitions between Ashok Kumar Gupta and Rishabh Bansal. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement mediated by the court. Under the terms, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiffs' proprietary rights in the 'SAKARNI' brand (trademark) and its packaging features (copyright). The defendant committed to withdrawing an infringing mark, ceasing all use of similar marks/designs, and paying substantial damages.

Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt.LtdvsSalman Iqbal Ahmed Momin And Anr

This commercial appeal involved a dispute over the medicinal oil 'Roghan Sukoon Massage Oil,' where the Plaintiff alleged copyright infringement and passing off against the Respondent. The core issue revolved around whether the Plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of the Defendant's impugned goods, which was central to the initial injunction granted by the lower court. The Bombay High Court upheld the previous orders, finding no infirmity in the single judges' discretion regarding the interlocutory applications.

Flipkart Internet Private LimitedvsGodaddy Operating Company Llc & Ors.

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the admissibility of a written statement in a trademark infringement suit involving domain names. The court clarified that in complex domain name disputes with numerous impleadments, the 120-day period for filing a written statement commences from the date the amended memo of parties is filed, not the initial notice date. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and permitted the defendants' written statement to be taken on record after they paid a stipulated fee.

Thukral Mechanical WorksvsPm Diesels Private Limited & Anr.

The Delhi High Court, in a series of connected appeals, addressed challenges to an earlier finding regarding trademark non-use. While some applications were disposed of with exemptions allowed, the court granted a stay on the main impugned judgment. This decision highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny over trademark cancellation proceedings, particularly when conflicting interpretations of Supreme Court precedents arise.

Cryomass LlcvsAssistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Cryomass LLC filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application, '201917048279,' titled "Cryogenic Separation of Plant Material." The initial rejection by the Assistant Controller was based on a lack of inventive steps and falling under Section 3(f) of the Patents Act. Cryomass argued that their non-aqueous cryogenic system offered novel advantages not disclosed in prior art. The Delhi High Court, while setting aside procedural objections regarding delay subject to costs, directed further pleadings before listing the case for final hearing.