Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt Ltd v. Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd

CS(COMM) 24/2024 & I.A. 460/2024

The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark dispute between Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt Ltd and Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd following a comprehensive settlement. The defendant agreed to exhaust all existing stock bearing the disputed mark 'SHYAMJI' by September 30, 2024, while simultaneously withdrawing opposition and registration applications related to that mark. Crucially, the plaintiff consented not to oppose the defendant's adoption of the new trademark, 'SHYAM RASS', effectively resolving the conflict amicably.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 24/2024 & I.A. 460/2024
Decision Date
10 May 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 Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt Ltd vs Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCMA(TM)No.6 of 2025

Lucas TVS LimitedvsFFC Impex & The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court reviewed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision regarding a trademark opposition. The court upheld the Registrar’s finding that there was no proof of actual service of the counter statement on the opponent, thus preserving the right of the opponent to file evidence. However, recognizing the long pendency of the application, the High Court directed the Registry to dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months.

patentCS(COMM.) 611/2019

Fmc Corporation & Anr.vsNatco Pharma Limited

The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit alleging infringement by Natco Pharma Limited of their Indian Patents IN 201307 and IN 213332, covering the molecule Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The defendant challenged the plaint through various applications. This order addressed these interim applications.

patentCS(COMM) 155/2025

Hero Investcorp Private Limited & AnrvsM.M. Oil Traders

The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited, which is suing M.M. Oil Traders for infringement. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and exempted them from advance service and pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the case. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to confiscate infringing products and inspect the defendant's accounts, signaling strong judicial support for the plaintiff's claims regarding trademark, design, and copyright infringement.

patentRFA-IPD 3/2022, CM 274/2025 & CM APPL. 25635/2019

Docbel Industries & Anr.vsBraun Aktiengesellschaft

The Delhi High Court disposed of the dispute between Docbel Industries and Braun Aktiengesellschaft based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court accepted the compromise, which involved the formal assignment of Trademark registration no. 405367 (the mark BRAUN) from Appellant No. 2 to the Respondent. Furthermore, the parties agreed to the handover of all related documents and financial considerations, effectively resolving the underlying litigation.

patentIP-COM/11/2025 (IA NO: GA-COM/1/2025 with GA-COM/3/2025)

Parul Ruparelia And AnrvsCamme Wang And Anr

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petitioners' interim relief application in a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'PL SUPREME'. The court found that the respondents, who are Chinese manufacturers, had prior use of the mark since 2014. Furthermore, the court heavily scrutinized the petitioners' conduct, finding prima facie evidence of underinvoicing and financial irregularities, which led to the dismissal of their claims based on principles of 'clean hands.'

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