Peak Xv Partners Advisors India Llp & Anr v. Satyajit Herma & Ors

CS(COMM) 153/2024, I.A. 3955/2024

The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Peak Xv Partners Advisors India LLP, restraining the defendant from using specific domain names bearing the 'PEAK XV' mark. The court recognized the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation associated with the brand, despite the defendant claiming ignorance regarding trademark registration. Furthermore, the parties were directed to participate in mediation to seek an out-of-court settlement.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 153/2024, I.A. 3955/2024
Decision Date
19 February 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 Peak Xv Partners Advisors India Llp & Anr vs Satyajit Herma & Ors is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentW.P.Nos.12620 & 12621 of 2017

Chandra SekarvsThe Controller of Patents and Designs

Chandra Sekar challenged orders dismissing his two patent applications (Nos. 8846/CHENP/2011 and 8907/CHENP/2011) because the request for examination was filed late. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to calendaring errors and negligence on the part of the Indian agent, not his own.

patentCS(COMM) 733/2025

Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt LtdvsM/S Doyir Eshi & Anr.

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against its ex-franchisee, M/S Doyir Eshi & Anr. The court found that the defendant was willfully infringing upon the Plaintiffs' well-known and registered trade marks, specifically 'Moti Mahal' and 'Tandoori Trail'. The order immediately restrained the defendant from using confusingly similar marks in their restaurant business and mandated the removal of all impugned references from public platforms.

patentCS(COMM) 767/2025

Jk India Eagritech Limited & Anr.vsMeera Trade Fair Media Private Limited & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Jk India Eagritech Limited against Meera Trade Fair Media Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of the Plaintiffs' trademarks, logos, and associated copyright content. This urgent order restricts the Defendants from using or operating any website, social media pages, or promoting marks deceptively similar to 'ChiniMandi,' 'Bio Mandi,' and 'Bio Energy Times.'

patentCS(COMM) 477/2024

Ds Agrifoods Private LimitedvsM/S Singhal Enterprises & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Ds Agrifoods Private Limited against M/S Singhal Enterprises & Ors. The court found that the Defendant's use of the mark 'DOODMALAI' and its associated trade dress was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established trademark 'DOONMALAI'. Given the phonetic, visual, and structural similarity, coupled with a prior business relationship suggesting bad faith, the court ruled that the Defendants were passing off their goods. This interim order protects the Plaintiff's market standing until the final hearing.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 63/2024

Syngenta Crop Protection AgvsAssistant Controller Of Patents

Syngenta Crop Protection Ag challenged the refusal of its patent application, which covered methods for controlling rice plant infestations using a specific compound. The initial rejection was based on the argument that these methods constituted 'methods of agriculture' and were thus unpatentable under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court overturned this decision, holding that a method of treating plants is distinct from fundamental agricultural practices. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Controller for fresh examination.

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