M/S Rspl Health Private Limited v. Bhagwati Gram Udyog Mandal & Anr

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 60/2024, I.A. 10526/2024-Stay, I.A. 10527/2024-Summoning of record, I.A. 10528/2024-Exp

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S Rspl Health Private Limited, confirming a prior compromise reached with Respondent No. 1 in TM-84/2021. As part of this settlement, the respondent undertook to cancel their registered trademark 'SAKSHI XPERIA' and withdraw all related applications for marks containing 'XPERT' or 'XPERIA'. Consequently, the court disposed of all pending applications, upholding the terms of the compromise.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 60/2024, I.A. 10526/2024-Stay, I.A. 10527/2024-Summoning of record, I.A. 10528/2024-Exp
Decision Date
19 July 2024

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 M/S Rspl Health Private Limited vs Bhagwati Gram Udyog Mandal & Anr is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 636/2024

L&T Valves LimitedvsM/S Isteel

In a suit concerning trademark infringement, L&T Valves Limited successfully secured several interim reliefs from the Delhi High Court. The court granted exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advance service, allowing the plaintiff to proceed urgently. Crucially, the court passed an order for ex-parte ad-interim injunction, directing the appointment of a Local Commissioner to seize infringing material and inspect relevant documents, thereby providing immediate protection against alleged trademark misuse.

patentCS(OS) No.2558/2013

3M Innovative Properties CompanyvsM/S Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd.

This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application challenging a prior ex-parte injunction restraining M/S Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd. from manufacturing and selling a respiratory protection device, which was claimed to infringe Patent No. 211175 held by 3M Innovative Properties Company. The court examined the prima facie case presented by the plaintiff regarding the infringement of their patented flat-folded personal respiratory device. Given that the defendant had been using the impugned device since April 2011 and had made considerable investments, the court found the balance of convenience favored the defendants.

patentCS(COMM) 952/2025

Dominos Ip Holder Llc & AnrvsMr. Jaideep Singh Gusain & Ors

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Dominos Ip Holder Llc, restraining certain online entities (Defendants 9 and 10) from using marks deceptively similar to 'Domino's Pizza'. Furthermore, the court directed major aggregators, Zomato and Swiggy, to immediately take down specific listings containing infringing variations. This order establishes a strong preliminary stance against trademark infringement in the digital marketplace, while simultaneously setting out procedural steps for the full trial.

patentCS(COMM) 1266/2025

Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors.vsGreenland Trading Company

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off against Greenland Trading Company. The court recognized 'HIMALAYA' as a well-known mark due to its extensive global use since 1930. Given the potential for consumer confusion in the health and wellness sector, the court restrained the defendant from using deceptively similar marks until further hearing.

patentC.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 24/2025

Lmw LimitedvsMarzoli Machines Textile S. R. L & Anr.

Lmw Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent number IN 496349. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file necessary pleadings, setting future dates for listing.

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