M/S Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers v. Bhagwan Das Khanna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd & Ors.

CS(COMM) 564/2018

In this trademark infringement suit, the Plaintiff sought to strike out two specific issues related to a partnership deed. The Plaintiff argued that since the Defendants had not raised any counterclaims or filed a declaration suit concerning the partnership structure, these issues were irrelevant to the core controversy of trademark infringement. The Court directed the Defendants to file a reply within four weeks and subsequently a rejoinder, keeping the litigation moving forward.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
CS(COMM) 564/2018
Judge(s)
Badar Durrez Ahmed,Sanjeev Sachdeva

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/S Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers vs Bhagwan Das Khanna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentFAO(OS) (COMM) 32/2023 & CAV 92/2023

Krbl LimitedvsVikram Roller Flour Mills Limited

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the denial of interim injunction regarding the trademark 'INDIA GATE'. The court analyzed a prior consent order between the parties, which restricted usage based on product type and packaging size. While acknowledging the Appellant's claim as a well-known mark, the court ruled that if the Respondent's right to use 'dalia' flows from its existing rights for wheat products (atta, suji, etc.), it must adhere to the B2B/bulk sales restriction of 20 kgs and above. This interim order maintains the status quo while the core dispute over prior user rights remains sub-judice.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 27/2023 & C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 219/2023

Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsLumix Domestic Appliances Private Limited

The Delhi High Court allowed Panasonic Holdings Corporation's appeal and rectification petition against Lumix Domestic Appliances Private Limited. This decision was reached following a settlement between the parties, which stipulated that Lumix would not object to Panasonic's trademark application for 'LUMIX'. Consequently, the court set aside the Registrar of Trademarks' previous refusal, allowing Panasonic's trademark registration and directing the limitation of goods in Lumix's existing registration.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 481/2022

The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniavsThe Controller Of Patents

The Regents of the University of California appealed the refusal of their patent application concerning a recombinant Salmonella microorganism based live vaccine. The Controller argued that the broad scope of the claims led to two major issues: first, they potentially covered naturally occurring loss-of-function variants, making them non-patentable under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act; and second, the complete specification lacked sufficient disclosure and clarity for the wide range of organisms claimed. The Delhi High Court upheld the Controller's decision, dismissing the appeal on grounds of insufficient disclosure and non-patentability.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 89/2022

Ticona Polymers, Inc.vsRegistrar Of Trade Marks

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Ticona Polymers against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the word mark 'COOLPOLY'. The court held that a trade mark cannot be dissected into its component parts (like COOL and POLY) when assessing inherent distinctiveness. Finding that 'COOLPOLY' as a whole was not descriptive, the High Court quashed the rejection order and remanded the application for further processing.

patentCS(COMM) 1235/2025 & I.As. 28626-30/2025

Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And AnrvsAshok Kumar (John Doe)

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd in its suit against an unidentified entity manufacturing and selling counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts. The court recognized the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and trade dress associated with 'HERO GENUINE PRODUCTS.' Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to execute a search and seizure commission at the Defendant's premises to recover infringing goods, setting the stage for further litigation.

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