Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Bajaj Auto LimitedvsS. Tejinder Pal Singh & Anr.

This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark opposition petition filed by Bajaj Auto Limited. The court issued directions to serve notices on the respective respondents, setting timelines for filing replies and rejoinders. Both the main opposition case and associated interim applications were listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar and subsequently before the Court.

Aditya Infotech LimitedvsDipankar Mandal

Aditya Infotech Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Dipankar Mandal in a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant was falsely printing the plaintiff's registered 'CP Plus' logo on unbranded CCTV cameras, leading to potential consumer confusion. Given the market reputation of 'CP Plus' and the risk of irreparable harm, the court granted immediate relief to protect the brand's goodwill.

M/S. Malar Publications Ltd.vsM/s.Malar Network Private Limited

The Madras High Court disposed of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal concerning Trademark No. 1066201. The court noted that the registration for this trademark had lapsed and was only renewed up to December 11, 2011. Furthermore, it was established that M/s. Malar Network Private Limited, one of the parties involved, had been struck off and dissolved from the corporate register. Consequently, the High Court directed the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the lapsed trademark entry from the register.

Rosemount IncvsDeputy Controller Of Patents And Designs

Rosemount Inc appealed a rejection order passed by the Controller of Patents regarding its application for a 'Process Device with Density Measurement.' The Controller had rejected the patent citing lack of inventive steps based on prior art. However, the Delhi High Court found that the Controller's impugned order was cryptic and failed to provide adequate reasoning or analyze the three essential elements required to determine inventive step. Consequently, the High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration with a mandate for a reasoned decision.

Patanjali Ayurved LtdvsMeta Platforms Inc Ors & Ors.

The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Patanjali Ayurved against a trial court order that had returned its trademark infringement suit, citing lack of jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the suit was not commercial in nature, despite the trial court's finding. The High Court found that the trial court failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements under the CPC when returning the plaint. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to present their case afresh before the Trial Court.