Glaxo Group Limited v. Mohd. Nazim And Anr.

CS(COMM) 193/2024, I.A. 5188/2024 & I.A. 5192/2024

The Delhi High Court registered the commercial suit filed by Glaxo Group Limited against Mohd. Nazim And Anr., concerning alleged trademark infringement of 'AUGMENTIN' by the use of 'ZENMENTIN' for similar pharmaceutical products. The court allowed several procedural applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and granting permission to submit sealed documents related to sales figures. Crucially, the court directed that notice be issued to the defendants regarding the injunction application (I.A. 5188/2024), setting the stage for a full trial on the infringement claim.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 193/2024, I.A. 5188/2024 & I.A. 5192/2024
Decision Date
5 March 2024

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 Glaxo Group Limited vs Mohd. Nazim And Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS(COMM) 273/2024

Kubota CorporationvsKaira Agros & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief to Kubota Corporation in its suit against Kaira Agros. Recognizing the threat posed by counterfeit products, the court allowed an ex-parte appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is directed to search premises and seize packaging, stickers, and promotional material bearing infringing marks, while also documenting non-infringing machinery. The order paves the way for the formal registration of the suit.

trademarkCS(COMM) 689/2024, I.A. 36503/2024 et al.

Havells India LimitedvsHetram Sharma & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against Hetram Sharma & Ors. regarding the unauthorized use of its registered trademark 'REO'. The court found that the defendants' adoption of similar marks ('R3 REO 3X') was intended to ride upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation in the electrical goods market. Furthermore, the court permitted a local commission to search the defendant's premises and seize infringing materials.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 8/2025

Grena LimitedvsAxon Medical Solutions Pvt Ltd And Anr

In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed an opposition matter concerning the 'GRENA' trademark. The court granted status quo regarding two specific trademark registrations (No. 5661191 and 6050365) held by Respondent No. 1, ensuring no changes are made until further judicial direction. Furthermore, the respondent was given four weeks to file their replies in the ongoing litigation.

trademarkCS (COMM) 179/2018

Intel CorporationvsS.P. Gupta And Others

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Intel Corporation in a long-pending trademark infringement suit against S.P. Gupta and others. The court granted permanent injunctions, recognizing the extensive goodwill and reputation of the 'INTEL' mark. Crucially, the judgment was reached after the Defendants indicated they were willing to cease using the infringing marks, leading the court to decree the suit based on this mutual understanding.

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

Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.vsKhatri Healthcare P. Ltd. & Anr.

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.

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