M/s Bharat Salt Company v. M/s Bhagyalaxmi Brinechem Pvt Ltd

Hindustan Composites Ltd.vsJasbir Singh Randhawa And Anr.

Hindustan Composites Ltd. filed a petition alleging that Respondent No. 1, an employee, used confidential information and processes to promote and run Respondent No. 2, which manufactured identical products. The court found that Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 committed contempt by continuing production despite prior injunctions, leading to fines and the striking off of their defense in the underlying suit.

Akzo Nobel Coatings International B.V.vsAmbience Limited And Anr

The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark dispute concerning the identical mark 'AMBIANCE'. After considering arguments regarding co-existence under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court ruled in favor of Akzo Nobel Coatings International B.V. The judgment directs the Registry not to consider Ambience Limited's existing application for 'AMBIANCE' in Class 02 when evaluating the petitioner's applications, thereby allowing both parties to use the mark concurrently on the register.

Smt. Harbans Kaur / Gurmarg Appliances Pvt LtdvsAscent Electronics / Gurmarg Appliances Pvt Ltd

The Delhi High Court ruled decisively in favor of the original proprietor regarding the trademark 'TANASHI'. The court found that the plaintiff had established prior rights through long-standing use dating back to 1993, despite subsequent registrations by the defendant. Crucially, the court held that a distributor is merely a permissive user and cannot claim proprietary rights over a mark belonging to the original owner. Consequently, the suit for infringement was decreed, and the defendant's conflicting trademark registration was cancelled.

A.L.M.Holding CompanyvsAssistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

A.L.M.Holding Company appealed the Patent Controller's rejection of its application for a cold-in-place recycling method, which was rejected on grounds of lacking inventive step. The core dispute centered on whether prior art citing heat-based processes could invalidate an invention that specifically operates without heat in key stages.

Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.vsCurewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

This case involves disputes between two pharmaceutical companies regarding the artistic work and copyright protection of 'ENERZY' powder. The core legal challenge revolved around whether the plaintiff's suit, which sought injunctions against infringement, should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because its valuation was tied to a prior agreement. The High Court examined the distinction between statutory rights (Copyright Act) and contractual obligations, ultimately modifying the trial court's order to allow the suit to proceed without mandating the inclusion of all specific pleadings from the external agreement.