Walter Bushnell Private Limited & Anr. v. Ramesh Juneja & Ors.

CONT.CAS(C) 1921/2023

Walter Bushnell Private Limited filed a petition seeking contempt action against Ramesh Juneja and others for violating an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order. The IPAB had previously directed the removal of the trademark 'DROTIKIND' (Registration No. 1309918). Despite this directive, the respondent renewed the impugned trademark. Consequently, the Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents, setting a date for their appearance and initiating proceedings related to the alleged violation.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CONT.CAS(C) 1921/2023
Judge(s)
Jasmeet Singh

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 Walter Bushnell Private Limited & Anr. vs Ramesh Juneja & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 158/2024, I.A. 36142/2024-Stay, I.A. 36143/2024-Summon the complete record of impugned registered trademark.

Dunar Foods LimitedvsAnkit Vats Trading As Avjk Foods Llp & Anr.

Dunar Foods Limited initiated proceedings seeking the cancellation of the registered trademark 'Nawazish' through a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court issued notice to all parties and set forth detailed timelines for filing replies and written synopses. This order marks a procedural step in the ongoing litigation aimed at challenging the validity of the registered mark.

patentCS(COMM) 318/2023

Jockey International Inc.vsM/S Khalsa Accessories & Ors.

The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by Jockey International Inc. against M/S Khalsa Accessories & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that 'JOCKEY' is a well-known trade mark, supported by extensive sales figures and promotional expenditure. While granting procedural exemptions to the plaintiff, the court proceeded with the suit, allowing for further pleadings and setting up the framework for interim injunctive relief.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 96/2022 & C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 97/2022

Sachdeva And Sons Industries Private LimitedvsDeputy Registrar Of Trade Marks

The Delhi High Court dismissed two appeals filed by Sachdeva And Sons Industries Private Limited challenging the Deputy Registrar's decision to allow TM-16 applications. These applications permitted the substitution of the trademark applicant's name in pending opposition proceedings, citing that allowing the change would not prejudice the opponents' rights. The court noted the Appellant's lack of appearance and concluded that since the impugned order only related to the name change and did not affect the merits of the final opposition, the appeals were dismissed.

patentCS (COMM) 427/2021

Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr.vsNatco Pharma Limited

Plaintiffs (Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr.) filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound Alectinib (Alecensa®). The dispute centered on the Defendant's alleged export and potential commercial launch of generic Alectinib products. The matter was amicably resolved.

patentIP-COM/38/2025

East India Pharmaceutical Works LimitedvsAnil Keshrwani And Ors

The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint filed by East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited against Anil Keshrwani and Ors. The court granted necessary procedural leaves, including exemption from pre-institution mediation.

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