Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. v. Khatri Healthcare P. Ltd. & Anr.

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 1/2024

The Delhi High Court clarified its earlier order in this trademark cancellation petition. The Petitioner, Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., sought clarification after raising objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the court allowed the application, permitting the Petitioner to withdraw the current case and file a fresh petition before the appropriate Trademark Registry in Mumbai. Crucially, the court emphasized that this withdrawal does not prejudice the parties' rights or express any view on the merits of the original dispute.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 1/2024
Judge(s)
Sanjeev Narula

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 Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. vs Khatri Healthcare P. Ltd. & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentAppeal (CAD) Nos.10 and 13 of 2024

M/s.Sri Modern Weigh SystemsvsNipro MACHOI P. Ltd.

The Madras High Court addressed appeals concerning the alleged deceptive similarity between the trademarks 'MACHOI' and 'MAKHOI'. The court accepted an undertaking from the appellants not to use 'MACHOI' or any remotely similar name in the future. Furthermore, the opposing party was directed to immediately apply for the cancellation of their registered trademark, which was deemed deceptively similar. This judgment provides a practical resolution through undertakings and administrative action rather than a definitive finding on infringement.

patentC.S.(Com.Div.) No.313 of 2020 and O.A.Nos.603 to 605 of 2020

Dhanavilas Madras Snuff CompanyvsS.Muthazhagu Proprietor M.M.Snuff Company

Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company filed a civil suit against S.Muthazhagu Proprietor M.M.Snuff Company alleging multiple infringements, including trademark misuse and copyright violation concerning the design of snuff pouches. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to stop the use of similar marks and artistic designs. Ultimately, the parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the Memo of Compromise.

patentCS(COMM) 1395/2025

Novartis AgvsNovarise Gastro Bariatrics & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Novartis Ag against Novarise Gastro Bariatrics & Ors. The court found that the use of the impugned tradename 'NOVARISE' by the defendants was likely to cause confusion among consumers, given the established goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's well-known trademark 'NOVARTIS' in the pharmaceutical sector. Citing prima facie evidence, the court held that irreparable harm would be caused to Novartis if the injunction was not granted immediately.

patentFAO (COMM) 24/2024

Krbl LimitedvsPraveen Kumar Buyyani & Ors.

The Delhi High Court allowed Krbl Limited's appeal, overturning a Commercial Court decision that had vacated an existing injunction. The court found that the respondent's use of 'Bharat Gate' for rice constituted clear infringement of the appellant's registered trademark 'India Gate.' Citing established legal precedents, the High Court held that prima facie evidence of infringement necessitates the continuation of the injunction to protect the goodwill and reputation of the original mark.

patent(T)CMA(TM) No.180 of 2023

The Bull HospitalityvsThe Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court allowed The Bull Hospitality's appeal, setting aside the Trademark Registry's refusal to register its mark 'THE BULL' (Device). The court held that while the word 'Bull' alone lacks distinctiveness, the accompanying device provided sufficient distinctiveness for registration under Class 43. The Registrar was directed to complete the registration process promptly.

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