Anil Rathi v. Barhi Concast Llp & Ors.

CS(COMM) 282/2021, I.A. 7381/2021

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Anil Rathi against Barhi Concast LLP and others. The court found that the defendants were attempting to circumvent a previous injunction by adopting the deceptively similar mark 'BCLLPRATHI' while dealing in TMT bars and steel products, which are identical to the goods covered under Mr. Rathi's registered trademark 'RATHI'. This interim order restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under this contested mark until the final hearing of the suit.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 282/2021, I.A. 7381/2021
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 Anil Rathi vs Barhi Concast Llp & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 633/2024

Havells India LtdvsHirvijay Industries Llp & Ors

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Ltd against Hirvijay Industries Llp & Ors regarding the alleged infringement of the registered trademark 'REO'. The court found that the defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark, 'REIO', constituted passing off and dilution. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct searches at the defendants' premises, seize infringing goods, and inspect relevant financial records.

patentW.P.(C) 2503/2010

Merck KgaavsGalaxy Hompro And Anr

The Delhi High Court dismissed Merck Kgaa's appeal against the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decision, upholding the registration of the trademark 'RECIBION'. The court found no deceptive similarity between 'CEBION' and 'RECIBION', emphasizing that the common suffix 'BION' is widely used in the pharmaceutical industry. Crucially, the judgment noted the petitioner's lack of recent use of its mark and applied the strict test for confusion, concluding that the marks were sufficiently distinct.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 381/2022

Baxalta IncorporatedvsThe Controller Of Patents

Baxalta Incorporated appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents which refused their application for "FACTOR VIII POLYMER CONJUGATES" due to lack of novelty and inventive steps in product claims. The appellant sought leave to submit an auxiliary claim set restricting the scope to method claims. The High Court allowed this submission, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 1/2024

Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.vsKhatri Healthcare P. Ltd. & Anr.

The Delhi High Court clarified its earlier order in this trademark cancellation petition. The Petitioner, Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., sought clarification after raising objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the court allowed the application, permitting the Petitioner to withdraw the current case and file a fresh petition before the appropriate Trademark Registry in Mumbai. Crucially, the court emphasized that this withdrawal does not prejudice the parties' rights or express any view on the merits of the original dispute.

patentC.O. 4/1997 and connected matters (e.g., CS(COMM) 415/2022)

Sh. Jaininder Jain And Ors.vsRegistrar Of Trade Marks And Ors.

The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the ongoing dispute concerning the 'KANGARO' trademark. Addressing requests for comprehensive information, the court directed the Plaintiffs to first compile a list of all trademark oppositions they have filed against Defendants. Subsequently, the Defendants were mandated to provide certificates and applications for all relevant foreign trademark registrations not contested by the Plaintiffs. This order aims to ensure full transparency regarding global IP rights related to the brand.

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