Sunstar Joint Stock Company & Anr. v. Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.

Bp P.L.C. & Anr.vsSubhash Chandra, Trading As Shivay Enterprises

In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking summary judgment. While noting that the defendant had previously complied with a court injunction and ceased using the impugned trademarks, the court did not grant immediate relief. Instead, it allowed the defendant to file a response regarding claims for costs and damages, keeping the litigation active.

The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior UniversityvsAssistant Controller of Patents and Designs

The appellants challenged the rejection of their patent application (No. 9445/CHENP/2013) by the Controller, which cited objections regarding insufficient disclosure and lack of clarity in the claims. The High Court held that the impugned order lacked the necessary specificity to enable the applicant to address the objections effectively.

Lacoste S.A.vsSheetal Fabrics

Lacoste S.A. filed a suit against Sheetal Fabrics alleging infringement of its trademark LACOSTE, passing off, and violation of copyrights in relation to garments and accessories. The court found that the defendant adopted and used trademarks deceptively similar to Lacoste's, causing loss to the plaintiff's reputation.

Glaxo Group LimitedvsAar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Glaxo Group Limited against Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors for trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement. The court found that the defendants were infringing on registered trademarks (ZINACEF, FORTAM) and common law rights (FORTAZ), as well as passing off the plaintiff's goods using similar packaging (trade dress/copyright). Given the multiple violations, the court granted permanent injunctions and awarded compensatory and punitive damages of ₹20 lakhs to Glaxo Group.

Rajani ProductsvsMadhukar Varandani, Proprietor Of M/S Naturalindia Oils And Proteins & Anr.

Rajani Products filed a petition seeking the removal of a specific Copyright registration (A-128046/2019) held by Madhukar Varandani. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing edible oils, claimed that their own artistic works and labels, featuring the SWASTIK device, were prior and original. They argued that the impugned work was a substantial reproduction of their protected designs. After comparing the two artistic works, the court found that the Impugned Artistic Work lacked originality and substantially imitated the Petitioner's registered works.