Vinod Snacks and Confectioners Private Limited v. Vinod Multifood Products Private Limited

Bajaj Auto Ltd.vsTVS Motor Company Ltd.

Bajaj Auto Ltd. appealed against an order directing them (the defendant in the original suit) to start leading evidence, while Bajaj Auto was the appellant. The original suit filed by TVS Motor Company Ltd. claimed that its product, TVS Flame, did not infringe Patent No. 195904 held by Bajaj Auto. The court ruled that since the plaintiff's suit was for declaration of non-infringement and damages, they should have been directed to lead evidence first.

Nilkamal Crates And Contaners & Anr.vsMs. Reena Rajpal & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning plastic molded chairs, balancing claims over both word marks and device marks. While the court found no deceptive similarity between the word marks 'NILKAMAL' and 'NILKRANTI,' it did find that the defendants' adopted logo was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered device mark. Consequently, the injunction sought against the use of the word mark was rejected, but the defendants were strictly restrained from using the infringing device mark.

Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr.vsEna Universal & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking to enforce an existing injunction against trademark infringement related to 'BAJAJ ALMOND DROPS'. The Plaintiffs argued that Defendants were circumventing the court order by selling infringing products through e-commerce platforms under different names. Recognizing this evasion, the Court allowed the impleadment of new parties, including AMZ Venturz, VBRO Skin Care, and Flipkart itself, to ensure comprehensive enforcement against all involved entities.

Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc.vsAssistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Paratek Pharmaceuticals challenged an order rejecting its patent application for a tetracycline compound. The High Court found the rejection order bad in law because it failed to consider the appellant's responses and submissions, and because it introduced new objections (claims 9-24) not raised during the hearing notice. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter.

Russell E. FreeburyvsRegistrar Of Trade Marks

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Russell E. Freebury against the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of their trademark 'ZINKA'. The court noted that the goods covered by the appellant were distinct from those cited in opposition, and considering the long-standing use of the mark, it set aside the refusal order. Consequently, the application was allowed to proceed with a modified device mark, directing the Registry to process its registration.