Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v. The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Dolphin Mart Private LimitedvsAvenue Supermarts Limited & Anr.

In this trademark infringement dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed two key applications. First, it permitted the defendants (Avenue Supermarts) to introduce crucial trademark registration certificates into evidence, noting that since these were issued post-filing of the written statement and are in the public domain, they should be admissible. Second, regarding the plaintiff's request for an interim injunction against infringement, the Court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate that the balance of convenience favored them.

Fmc CorporationvsNatco Pharma Limited

FMC Corporation filed suits alleging infringement by Natco Pharma Limited regarding the product Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR), protected under Indian Patents IN 307 and IN 332. The core dispute revolved around whether these specific patents remained valid, especially since CTPR was covered by an expired genus patent (IN 978). While FMC argued for a permanent injunction against the launch of CTPR, Natco contended that the validity of the suit patents was questionable due to the prior coverage by IN 978. The court disposed of the interim applications but scheduled further hearings to conclude the complex arguments on the merits.

Sammaan Finserv LimitedvsSvamaan Financial Services Private Limited

The Delhi High Court addressed appeals challenging an injunction restraining Sammaan Finserv and Sammaan Capital from using names similar to Svamaan Financial Services' registered trademarks. The court disposed of the interim applications by staying the operation of the restrictive judgment, allowing the appellants time to continue their current advertising campaigns. However, it mandated that the appellants must include clear disclaimers in all future advertisements, such as 'Formerly known as Indiabulls' and 'We have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd,' to prevent consumer confusion.

Cipla LimitedvsUnion of India & Ors. (including Registrar of Trade Marks)

This case involves a writ petition filed by Cipla Limited seeking restoration of its trademark 'NO DARAR' (application no. 1694972), which had been removed from the register. The Delhi High Court had previously allowed Cipla to file restoration and renewal applications, and the trademark was subsequently reflected as 'Registered' on the official website. A third-party applicant, who was not a party to the original proceedings, sought to be impleaded and to recall the earlier orders. The Delhi High Court dismissed all three applications filed by the applicant, holding that the renewal of a trademark is strictly between the Registry and the registered proprietor, and that the proper recourse for an aggrieved third party is a rectification application.

Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Private LimitedvsThe Registrar Of Trademarks

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Impresario Entertainment, setting aside the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of its trademark application. The court found that the Registrar violated the principles of natural justice because the Appellant was prevented from participating in the scheduled virtual hearing due to technical impediments. Furthermore, the Impugned Order failed to consider crucial evidence, such as a Joint Memorandum of Compromise between the parties. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back for a fair and comprehensive hearing.