Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals v. Sana Herbals Private Limited

Snapdeal Private LimitedvsGodaddycom Llc And Ors

Snapdeal Private Limited filed an application seeking a temporary injunction against Godaddycom and others, alleging widespread infringement of its registered 'SNAPDEAL' trademark through the registration and offering of infringing domain names. The court examined the feasibility of granting such a broad injunction, particularly concerning the ability to prevent the registration of any domain name containing the mark. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claims of infringement, the judge required further clarification from the defendant regarding the practical implementability of the requested relief before making a final decision on the interim order.

ATLAS COPCO AIRPOWER NAAMLOZE VENNOOTSCHAPvsTHE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ANR

The petitioner company filed an appeal (IPDPTA/12/2022) which was dismissed for default. The petitioner sought condonation of a 330-day delay, citing being based in Belgium and unaware of the transfer of IPAB matters to the High Court due to legal changes and COVID-19. The court found sufficient cause and allowed the delay, restoring the appeal.

Nirmal Seeds Private LimitedvsM/S Nirmal Seeds Corporation

The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application leading to a consent decree between Nirmal Seeds Private Limited and M/S Nirmal Seeds Corporation. The settlement formalized that the Plaintiff is the proprietor of the 'NIRMAL' trademark for seeds and agro products, and the Defendant agreed not to manufacture or market similar goods using deceptive trademarks. In exchange for these undertakings, the Plaintiff dropped its claims for damages, and the Court also ordered a 50% refund of the plaintiff's court fees.

Taiho Pharmaceutical Co LtdvsThe Controller Of Patents

Taiho Pharmaceutical appealed a refusal order by the Controller of Patents regarding its application for a novel piperidine compound. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d), citing prior art D1. The High Court found that the Controller failed to identify a specific 'known substance' from the Markush structure in D1, making the rejection unsustainable.

Shrinath Travel Agency & Anr.vsInfinity Infoway Pvt Ltd & Ors.

The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interlocutory injunctions regarding trademark infringement in the travel industry. While the court found prima facie evidence that Defendants 3 and 4 were infringing the plaintiff's registered marks by using deceptively similar spellings ('SHREENATH' vs 'SHRINATH'), it rejected the request to restrain Defendant 5 due to insufficient factual basis. The court issued a mixed order, granting injunctions against specific words and domain names while mandating removal of infringing marks and disclosure of earnings from Defendants 3 and 4.