DLF Limited v. Rediff.Com India Ltd.

CS(COMM) 399/2017

In a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'EMPORIO' brand, DLF Limited and Defendant No. 2 reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. The Delhi High Court formally recorded this settlement, decreeing the terms against Defendant No. 2 while allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit unconditionally against the remaining defendants. This outcome highlights how out-of-court settlements can resolve complex IP disputes within the judicial framework.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 399/2017
Judge(s)
Yogesh Khanna

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in DLF Limited vs Rediff.Com India Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademark2008(36)PTC610(DEL)

Safari International And Anr.vsSubhash Gupta And Ors.

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to uphold a trademark registration. The core dispute revolved around allegations of fraud and non-use concerning the 'SAFARI' trademark, used for cycles since 1974. The court affirmed that the respondent had continuously used the mark, either through his proprietorship or later via a family-controlled private limited company. Furthermore, the court emphasized that claims of fraud must be specifically pleaded and supported by cogent evidence, which was lacking in this case.

trademarkW.P.(IPD) No.31 of 2023

Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Private LimitedvsThe Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court intervened in a protracted dispute involving the renewal of the trademark 'GENTALENE.' The petitioner sought relief against the Registrar, who had refused renewal citing statutory limitation. The court found that the Trade Marks Registry's own extreme delay—taking over 32 years to issue the registration certificate despite multiple assignments and opposition dismissals—rendered its insistence on strict adherence to limitation rules unjust. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to accept the renewal application, effectively overriding the procedural lapse caused by administrative inaction.

trademarkC/RA/247/2022

Pfizer Products Inc.vsSanjay Rungta T/As M/S Bonsai Pharma

The Gujarat High Court directed the removal of the trademark 'TERCOREX' from the official registry website. The court noted that the trademark was likely to be removed due to non-filing of a renewal request within the prescribed time limit, citing precedents from other high courts. This order effectively cleared the mark from public record, allowing the petitioner liberty to file again should the mark eventually be renewed.

trademarkCS(COMM) 535/2017

The Himalaya Durg Company & OrsvsHimalya International Ltd

In this ongoing trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed an application by the defendant seeking permission to file fresh evidence. Despite objections from the plaintiffs that the new defense went beyond pleadings, the court permitted the filing of the affidavit in evidence (DW-1). The court also reminded both parties about the long pendency of the case and directed a day-to-day trial to expedite proceedings.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 369/2021

Indarmal M SolankivsRakesh Gupta And Anr

The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Indarmal M Solanki against Rakesh Gupta, leading to the cancellation of the contested trademark 'EL PASO'. The court found that the impugned mark was identical to the Petitioner's prior registered and used marks for readymade garments (Class 25). Furthermore, the Respondent failed to renew the registration since April 2017, making it liable for removal under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the court ordered the cancellation and deletion of the mark from the register.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM 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 trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call