Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. Satej M. Katekar

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. Satej M. Katekar

​Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Commercial Division)

Case No.: Commercial IP Suit No. 111 of 2013

Coram: Justice Manish Pitale

Date of Judgment: April 22, 2026

​1. Introduction and Facts

​The Plaintiff, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a leading manufacturer of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages against the Defendant, Satej M. Katekar (Proprietor of Absun Pharma). The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s use of the marks 'ABSUN' and 'ABSUN PHARMA' infringed upon its registered house marks 'SUN' and 'SUN PHARMA'. Additionally, the Plaintiff sought to restrain the Defendant from using the mark 'E-MIST', alleging it was deceptively similar to its registered trademark 'EYEMIST'.

​The Plaintiff has held registrations for the device mark 'SUN' since 1983 (with user claim since 1978) and word marks 'SUN PHARMA' since 2007 (with user claim since 1993). The Defendant contended that 'ABSUN' was honestly adopted by combining alphabets from the names of his son (Abheejit) and wife (Sunita).

​2. Key Issues

• ​Whether the Defendant’s use of 'ABSUN'/'ABSUN PHARMA' infringed the Plaintiff’s registered marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

• ​Whether such use constituted passing off.

• ​Whether the trademark 'SUN' is common to the pharmaceutical trade.

• ​Whether the Plaintiff had acquiesced to the Defendant’s use of the marks.

​3. Arguments and Observations

• ​Infringement: The Plaintiff argued that prefixing 'AB' to 'SUN' did not eliminate deceptive similarity, as the marks must be compared as a whole. The Defendant argued that Section 29(5) only applies if the exact registered mark is used as a trade name. The Court rejected this, clarifying that Section 29(5) also covers use of the mark as "part of" a trade name.

• ​Export Deemed as Domestic Use: The Defendant argued they only exported products to Africa and did not sell in India. The Court applied Section 56 of the Trade Marks Act, ruling that applying a trademark to goods for export constitutes "use" of the trademark in India.

• ​Proof of Goodwill: The Court upheld the validity of Chartered Accountant certificates for sales and promotional expenses as evidence of goodwill, noting that in a Commercial Suit, the Defendant’s failure to specifically deny these documents resulted in their admission under Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the CPC.

​4. Final Judgment

​The High Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff. Key findings included:

• ​Permanent Injunction: The Defendant was restrained from using the marks 'ABSUN', 'ABSUN PHARMA', and 'E-MIST'.

• ​Infringement & Passing Off: The Court found the Defendant to be a "first-time knowing infringer" as they were aware of the Plaintiff's marks since 1995 but failed to conduct a registry search before adoption.
• ​Costs: In addition to the injunction, the Court awarded partial costs of Rs. 10 lakhs to the Plaintiff, citing similar precedents in commercial litigation.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi"

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. Vs. Patanjali Biscuits Pvt. Ltd

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v. Patanjali Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. (OSA No. 263 of 2020), decided on April 21, 2026.

​Case Overview

• ​Court: Madras High Court

• ​Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi

• ​Subject Matter: Intellectual Property Rights (Trademark Infringement and Passing Off)

• ​Key Legislation: Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Sections 12, 28, and 29); Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Order XIII-A of the CPC).

​Facts of the Case

​The appellant, Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., a major private sector dairy in India, has used the registered trademark "AROKYA" for its milk and dairy products (Class 29) since 1994. The appellant alleged that the respondents (Patanjali Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.) infringed upon this trademark by selling biscuits under the mark "PATANJALI AAROGYA" (Class 30).

​The appellant sought a permanent injunction for infringement and passing off, claiming the marks were phonetically similar and likely to cause consumer confusion. The respondents contended that "Aarogya" is a generic Sanskrit term meaning "well-being" and that their products were distinct and registered under a different class (Class 30).

​Issues for Consideration

1. ​Whether a suit for infringement is maintainable against a registered trademark holder under the Trade Marks Act.

1. ​Whether the products (milk vs. biscuits) and trademarks ("AROKYA" vs. "PATANJALI AAROGYA") were sufficiently similar to cause confusion.

1. ​Whether the learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the suit via a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC.

​Arguments

• ​Appellant: Argued that the phonetic similarity of "Arokya" and "Aarogya" created bad faith and dishonesty, damaging their established goodwill. They maintained that since biscuits contain milk, there was an overlap in product association.

• ​Respondents: Argued that Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act protects co-existing registered owners of similar marks. They highlighted that the prefix "Patanjali" made their brand distinctive and that the appellant did not hold a registration under Class 30 (biscuits).

​Judgment

​The Division Bench upheld the single Judge’s decision to dismiss the suit through a summary judgment. The Court found:

• ​No Real Prospect of Success: Applying the principle from Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Ltd., the Court held the appellant could not claim a monopoly over a mark for products they do not produce.

• ​Distinctiveness: The goods falling under Class 30 (biscuits) were found to be entirely different from those in Class 29 (milk products).

• ​Statutory Protection: Under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, the respondents were protected as registered holders of their mark.

• ​Procedural Validity: The Court affirmed that there were no compelling reasons to record oral evidence, justifying the use of summary judgment under the Commercial Courts Act.

​Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the summary judgment in favor of the respondents was sustained. 

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi"

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Modi Woodspace Private Limited Vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks

Modi Woodspace Private Limited Vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks

​Citation: 2026:DHC:3341

Court: High Court of Delhi

Case No: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 56/2025

Date of Judgment: April 22, 2026

Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

​Overview

​The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks which had refused the registration of the wordmark "KAMA CASA". The Court emphasized the "Anti-Dissection Rule" and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

​Facts

• ​Application: The appellant, Modi Woodspace Private Limited, filed an application (No. 6087367) for the mark "KAMA CASA" (word) in Classes 20 and 35 on a "Proposed to be used" basis.

• ​Objection: The Registrar raised objections under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, citing prior registrations of the marks "KAMA" and "CASA".

• ​Impugned Order: On May 21, 2025, the Registrar refused the application, concluding that since "KAMA" and "CASA" were already registered in Class 20, the combined mark would cause public confusion.

​Legal Issues

1. ​Whether a composite wordmark can be dissected into individual components for comparison with prior marks under Section 11(1).

1. ​Whether a wordmark can be considered deceptively similar to device marks containing similar text elements.

​Court’s Observations & Findings

• ​The Anti-Dissection Rule: The Court held that the Registrar committed a fundamental flaw by breaking the mark "KAMA CASA" into separate parts. A trademark must be viewed as a whole; comparing a composite mark against two separate marks is "anti-thesis to the prudence of registration".

• ​Wordmark vs. Device Mark: The Court noted that the appellant sought a wordmark, while the cited marks were device/label marks. These device marks cannot be stripped of their visual elements to compare only the text.

• ​Existence of Similar Marks: The appellant presented a search report (not previously shown to the Registrar) indicating numerous existing registrations for marks containing "CASA" in the same class.

​Conclusion

​The High Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Registrar for de novo consideration. The Registrar was directed to pass a fresh order within four months, specifically taking into account the search report provided by the appellant.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi"

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

New Bharat Overseas Vs Bhagwati Lacto

Factual and procedural background

New Bharat Overseas has been processing and exporting rice since 1978 and holds long standing trademarks and copyright for its Taj Mahal brand which features an artistic drawing of the Taj Mahal on its packaging. In 2019 Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Exports obtained copyright registration for its own artistic packaging label named Garimaa Gold which also prominently shows the Taj Mahal along with rice. New Bharat had earlier filed police complaints and FIRs against Bhagwati alleging that the Garimaa Gold packaging copied its Taj Mahal design. New Bharat only learnt about the copyright registration during related court proceedings and then filed a rectification petition in the Delhi High Court asking to cancel the registration because Bhagwati had not given it any notice before obtaining the copyright.

Dispute in question

The main dispute was whether Bhagwati’s copyright registration for the Garimaa Gold artistic work should be cancelled because Bhagwati failed to send mandatory notice to New Bharat who already had a clear interest and ongoing dispute over the very same type of Taj Mahal packaging design.

Reasoning and decision of court

The court examined the Copyright Rules which require anyone applying for copyright to give notice to every person who claims an interest in the work or disputes the applicant’s rights. The judge found that New Bharat was clearly such a person because of its earlier trademarks FIRs and complaints against Bhagwati over the identical artistic element. Bhagwati had not disclosed these disputes while applying for copyright and had not sent any notice to New Bharat. This breach of the mandatory notice rule made the registration procedurally invalid. The court therefore cancelled the Garimaa Gold copyright registration revived Bhagwati’s original application and gave New Bharat four weeks to file its objections so the Registrar can decide the matter afresh on merits within three months while leaving all other issues open for future hearing.

Legal point settled in this case

When someone applies for copyright registration they must give prior notice to any person who has a genuine claim or dispute over the artistic work otherwise the registration is procedurally invalid and can be cancelled by the court.

New Bharat Overseas Vs Bhagwati Lacto :08.09.2025: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 843/2022:Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Anuradha Sharma Vs Jiva Ayurvedic

Factual and procedural background

Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy and its group have been using the trademark Jiva since 1992 for Ayurvedic medicines wellness centres and related services and have built substantial reputation through registrations sales and advertising. In 2018 the Sharma family associated with the well-known Baidyanath brand registered the mark Shatam Jeeva in Class 5 and later launched a wellness retreat under that name in 2021 to mark 100 years of Baidyanath adding the words By Baidyanath and using a distinct logo with herbs and the letter S. In 2022 Jiva discovered the retreat when a customer inquired about it and sent a legal notice alleging infringement and passing off. Jiva then filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction and also applied for a temporary injunction. The commercial court at Tis Hazari granted the temporary injunction restraining the Sharmas from using Shatam Jeeva finding the marks deceptively similar. The Sharmas appealed to the division bench of the Delhi High Court.

Dispute in question

The core dispute was whether the Sharmas use of the mark Shatam Jeeva for their wellness retreat infringed Jiva’s registered trademarks or amounted to passing off by creating confusion or riding on Jiva’s goodwill.

Reasoning and decision of court

The division bench examined both marks as a whole including their visual phonetic and overall commercial impression. The court found no deceptive similarity because Shatam Jeeva is a composite mark with different spelling colour scheme artwork and the clear distinguishing phrase By Baidyanath while Jiva’s mark features a lotus and different styling. The bench held that an average consumer would not be confused and that Jiva could not claim monopoly over the common Sanskrit word Jeeva without proving secondary meaning. The court also noted that Jiva failed to establish essential ingredients of passing off such as misrepresentation and damage. Finding the commercial court’s order perverse and contrary to settled principles the division bench allowed the appeal set aside the injunction and permitted the Sharmas to continue using their mark.

Legal point settled in this case

In trademark disputes involving composite marks courts must compare the rival marks as a whole under the anti-dissection rule rather than focusing only on one common or dominant element to decide if there is any likelihood of confusion.

Anuradha Sharma Vs Jiva Ayurvedic: 21.04.2026:FAO (COMM) 334/2025:2026:DHC:3302-DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Castrol Limited Vs Sanjay Sonavane

Factual and procedural background

Castrol Limited, a well-known manufacturer of engine oils and lubricants, filed two separate commercial suits in the Delhi High Court against Sanjay Sonavane and others. In the first suit Castrol sought a declaration that its 3X trademark did not infringe Sonavane’s 3P mark and an injunction to stop him from issuing groundless threats of legal action. This suit arose after a police raid on one of Castrol’s authorised distributors triggered by a complaint and FIR filed by Sonavane. In the second suit Castrol sued Sonavane along with several newspapers, a YouTube channel and other media outlets for publishing allegedly disparaging articles and videos about the raid which tarnished Castrol’s reputation. The single judge dismissed the second suit holding it was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure because both suits arose from the same set of facts and Castrol should have claimed all reliefs in the first suit. Aggrieved by this order Castrol filed the present appeal before the division bench.

Dispute in question

The central dispute was whether the second suit filed by Castrol was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC on the ground that it arose from the same cause of action as the first suit and that Castrol had omitted to claim the reliefs of disparagement and media takedown in the earlier proceeding.

Reasoning and decision of court

The division bench examined both plaints in detail and the timeline of events. The court found that while the initial police raid and Sonavane’s complaint formed the background, the second suit was based on distinct subsequent events including specific media publications and WhatsApp messages circulated after the first suit had already been filed. The bench reviewed several Supreme Court judgments on Order II Rule 2 CPC and held that the causes of action in the two suits were not identical and the reliefs claimed in the second suit could not have been sought in the first suit at the time it was instituted. The court accordingly allowed Castrol’s appeal set aside the single judge’s order dismissing the second suit and directed that the second suit be restored and proceed in accordance with law.

Legal point settled in this case

A second suit is not barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC merely because it relates to events connected with the first suit if the causes of action are distinct or the facts and reliefs in the later suit arose or came to the plaintiff’s knowledge only after the first suit was filed.

Castrol Limited Vs Sanjay Sonavane:20.04.2026:RFA(OS)(COMM) 38/2025:2026:DHC:3210-DB: High Court of Delhi, Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi SpA Vs Lehry Instrumentation

Factual and procedural background

An Italian company called Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi SpA makes brass valves and plumbing products and sells them worldwide under its well-known trademarks RB and Rubinetterie Bresciane. It appointed an Indian firm Lehry Instrumentation & Valves Pvt Ltd as its authorised distributor in India for several years. Later the Italian company received complaints from customers that some valves bearing its trademark looked different from genuine products and came with suspicious quality certificates. Believing counterfeit goods were being sold under its name the Italian company filed a suit for passing off and injunction. After terminating the distributorship it sent letters to customers warning them not to deal with the Indian firm. The Indian company then filed its own suit claiming the letters were defamatory and had damaged its reputation and business. Both suits were heard together by a single judge who dismissed the Italian company’s case and awarded damages to the Indian company. The Italian company appealed to the division bench of the Madras High Court.

Dispute in question

The main dispute was whether the Indian distributor had sold counterfeit products using the Italian company’s trademark and whether the letters sent by the Italian company to customers after terminating the distributorship amounted to actionable defamation or were justified to protect its brand.

Reasoning and decision of court

The High Court examined the evidence in detail including clear admissions by the distributor that the Italian company was the prior owner and user of the RB trademark. The court found that the distributor had internally generated quality certificates based on the Italian company’s earlier documents which could mislead buyers into thinking the goods were genuine. The court held that the Italian company had acted in good faith on customer complaints and was entitled to terminate the distributorship and inform the trade to safeguard its reputation. The letters were not defamatory as they were issued to prevent confusion in the market. The division bench set aside the single judge’s judgment allowed the Italian company’s appeal decreed its suit for injunction and accounts and dismissed the Indian company’s defamation suit.

Legal point settled in this case

In a passing off action a court can rely on circumstantial evidence such as admissions of prior trademark use internal generation of misleading quality certificates and the overall conduct of the parties to establish likelihood of confusion even without producing the actual counterfeit product in court.

Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi SpA Vs Lehry Instrumentation & Valves Pvt. Ltd.:17.04.2026, O.S.A.Nos.241 & 255 of 2020: , MadrasHC:Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.Velmurugan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Emami Agrotech Limited Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Factual and procedural background

Emami Agrotech Limited received a deed from Rasoi Limited in September 2014 assigning copyrights in several product labels and brands for a stated consideration of Rs 9 crore. The deed was registered with the authorities who accepted the valuation and granted full exemption from stamp duty under Article 23 of the Indian Stamp Act charging only a nominal Rs 300. Years later the stamp authorities issued notices and passed orders demanding Rs 53 99 700 as deficit stamp duty claiming the exemption did not apply because the assignment was not made “by entry” under the Copyright Act and certain registration certificates were allegedly missing. Emami’s appeal was rejected leading the company to file a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court.

Dispute in question

The core dispute was whether the copyright assignment deed qualified for complete exemption from stamp duty or whether the authorities could reopen the already registered document years later and demand full duty by questioning the mode of assignment and production of additional certificates.

Reasoning and decision of court

The High Court found that the deed was validly executed in writing and registered exactly as required under Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act 1957. It held that the registering authorities had already accepted the market value and granted the exemption at the time of registration so they could not later invoke the undervaluation provisions of Section 47A without any fresh ground or proper procedure. The court ruled that the exemption under Article 23 applies to such copyright assignments and the authorities failed to give any valid reason for denying it. Both the original demand order and the appellate order were set aside and the writ petition was allowed.

Legal point settled in this case

A properly executed and registered deed of assignment of copyright qualifies for full exemption from stamp duty under Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and registering authorities cannot arbitrarily reopen the matter years later to demand deficit duty once they have accepted the document and granted the exemption at registration.

Emami Agrotech Limited Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Range-III, Hooghly & Ors., Order date: 20.04.2026, Case Number: W.P.A. No. 19812 of 2022, Neutral Citation: Not Provided, Name of court and Judge: High Court at Calcutta, Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Sri Sai Baba Impex Vs Venkateswara Food Products

Factual and procedural background

A company named M/s Sri Sai Baba Impex has been manufacturing and selling processed sunflower seeds under the trademark RAM-G GOLD since 2015 and got one of its marks registered in 2022. When a rival firm Venkateswara Food Products started using a very similar name SRI RAM-G GOLD for exactly the same product, Sri Sai Baba Impex filed a suit in the district court at Ananthapuramu seeking to stop the copying. In the interim application the trial court chose to issue notice to the other side instead of granting an immediate order to halt sales. Feeling that its business was at immediate risk, Sri Sai Baba Impex rushed to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh through a revision petition asking for urgent protection.

Dispute in question

The central question was whether the court should immediately restrain Venkateswara Food Products from making or selling its sunflower seeds under the deceptively similar trademark while the main case was still pending, especially after the lower court refused to grant any stop-order without first hearing the rival.

Reasoning and decision of court

The High Court found that Sri Sai Baba Impex had a strong prima facie case as the earlier user and registered owner of the mark while the rival’s marks were almost identical in name, style, colour scheme and packaging, making customer confusion highly likely. The judge held that the trial court had erred by thinking a pending trademark application by the rival prevented any interim relief. To prevent irreparable harm to the first company’s goodwill and business, the court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction stopping the rival from using the similar mark for three weeks, giving the petitioner time to seek further orders from the trial court.

Case law settled in this case

The court applied the Supreme Court ruling in S. Syed Mohideen Vs. P. Sulochana Bai that prior user rights in a trademark prevail over any subsequent registration or application, so the first user cannot be defeated merely because someone else later applies for registration.

Sri Sai Baba Impex Vs Venkateswara Food Products:15.04.2026:Civil Revision Petition No.1101/2026,APHC010197992026: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Hon’ble Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Akash Arora Vs Reckitt and Colman

factual and procedural background

Mr Akash Arora, who runs Grand Chemical Works and sells household cleaning products under the brand GAINDA, found himself in a legal fight with Reckitt and Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Limited, the makers of well-known brands like Harpic and Colin. The bigger company had obtained an interim injunction in March 2026 stopping Arora from using certain bottle shapes and labels for his glass cleaner and toilet cleaner, claiming they looked too similar to theirs. Arora appealed to the Delhi High Court, explaining that he had been selling these products since 2019 and was left with a large amount of already-made stock sitting with distributors as well as empty bottles and packaging materials ready at his factory.

dispute in question

The main disagreement was whether Arora should be allowed to sell off his existing finished stock and finish packaging the empty bottles he had already paid for, or whether the entire inventory had to be destroyed because of the injunction. Arora argued that destroying the stock would cause him heavy financial loss and create unnecessary waste, while Reckitt insisted that letting the products stay in the market would weaken their rights.

reasoning and decision of court

The judges accepted that Arora had been in the market for years and that suddenly stopping all sales would hurt him far more than it would help Reckitt, especially since the products are not perishable and Arora promised to keep proper accounts of every sale. To strike a fair balance, the court permitted him to use the empty bottles but only after making simple changes to reduce any similarity, such as using yellow caps and labels for the toilet cleaner and a white spray nozzle for the glass cleaner. The court laid down clear deadlines: packaging must be completed by the end of May 2026, distributors could sell till the end of July 2026, and retailers could clear remaining stock till the end of December 2026, after which everything unsold had to be recalled. Reckitt was also allowed to verify the stock numbers at Arora’s premises. The order was passed purely to balance the equities during the appeal and without deciding the final merits of the case.

one important case law settled in this case

The court focused on practical equity and the need to avoid economic hardship and environmental waste when granting time-bound relief for exhausting existing inventory in trade-dress disputes.

Akash Arora Vs Reckitt and Colman:21.04.2026:FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026:2026:DHC:3282:Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi)

Factual and procedural background

Gorkha Security Services, a private firm, won a contract in 2011 to provide security guards at a Delhi government-run hospital. The one-year deal was later extended informally as the company kept supplying services. The government accused the firm of serious lapses such as not paying minimum wages to its guards, failing to deposit provident fund and insurance contributions, and not submitting required documents. After notices and replies, the authorities issued a show-cause notice in February 2013 listing the defaults and warning of costs plus “other actions as deemed fit.” In September 2013 the government terminated the contract, imposed financial penalties and blacklisted the firm for four years, stopping it from bidding on any government tenders. The company challenged the order in the Delhi High Court, which upheld the blacklisting. Gorkha then approached the Supreme Court.

Dispute in question

The core dispute was whether the government could blacklist the firm when the show-cause notice never clearly said blacklisting was even being considered.

Reasoning and decision of court

The Supreme Court explained that blacklisting is an extremely harsh step, practically a “civil death” for a business because it shuts the door on future government contracts. Principles of natural justice therefore demand that the affected party must be told in advance, in clear words, that such a penalty is proposed so it can properly defend itself. The court found that the notice given to Gorkha only spoke of levying costs and used vague language about “other actions.” It did not mention or even hint at blacklisting, even though the contract contained a clause allowing it. The judges held that the mere existence of that clause was not enough; the department had to spell out the proposed punishment specifically. Because proper notice was missing, the blacklisting order violated natural justice. The Supreme Court quashed the blacklisting but made it clear the government could start the process afresh after issuing a correct show-cause notice.

Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi):(2014) 9 SCC 105

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

R.N. Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir

Factual and procedural background

Yashpal Dhir, a retired government employee who had worked with the Haryana government and later the Haryana Agricultural University, sought eviction of his tenant R.N. Gosain from a residential house in Chandigarh under special provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act meant for specified landlords. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition, holding that Dhir did not qualify as a specified landlord. On revision, the High Court allowed the eviction, found Dhir eligible, and gave the tenant one month’s time to vacate provided he paid arrears of rent and filed an undertaking to hand over vacant possession at the end of that period. The tenant filed the required undertaking but added a note saying it was subject to his right to file a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, and then approached the Supreme Court challenging the eviction order.

Dispute in question

The key issue was whether the tenant, after giving the undertaking to the High Court and availing the benefit of one month’s protection from immediate eviction, could still challenge the High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court.

Reasoning and decision of court

The Supreme Court held that once the tenant elected to accept the benefit of the High Court’s order by filing the undertaking and thereby secured one month’s time to vacate, he could not later turn around and assail the very same order. The court applied the principle that a person cannot both approbate and reprobate the same instrument — he cannot take advantage of an order on the footing that it is valid and then challenge its validity to gain some other advantage. The tenant had two clear options — either accept the one-month protection by giving the undertaking or face immediate eviction — and having chosen the first, he was bound by it. The special leave petition was accordingly dismissed without examining the merits of the eviction order.

R.N. Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir:23.10.1992:Criminal Appeal No. 341 of 1990:MANU/SC/0078/1993, Name of court and Judge: Supreme Court of India, Justices K. Jayachandra Reddy and S.C. Agrawal.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjuto

Rahul Mavai Vs Union of India

Factual and procedural background

Rahul Mavai applied for a Group D government post but his related case was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 17 July 2018. He waited almost six years before filing a writ petition in the Delhi High Court in 2024. In the petition he claimed that his previous lawyer in Gurgaon had misled him with fake dates, did not file the case properly, and that he only discovered this when he visited the lawyer in August 2024 after which he obtained the complete file from the tribunal.

Dispute in question

The main point before the court was whether the writ petition filed after such a long delay of six years should be entertained at all or dismissed outright on the ground of delay and laches.

Reasoning and decision of court

The division bench observed that the explanation given by the petitioner was vague and insufficient to justify six years of delay. The judges relied on several Supreme Court rulings which hold that delay defeats equity and that a person who sleeps over his rights for a long time cannot be granted extraordinary relief under writ jurisdiction. They also disapproved the common practice of simply blaming the lawyer for delay without placing convincing material on record to show that the litigant had been regularly following up and was genuinely misled. Since the delay was not satisfactorily explained the court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches without examining the merits of the case.

Rahul Mavai Vs Union of India:18.12.2024:W.P.(C) 17440/2024:2024:DHC:9873-DB:Hon'ble Justices C. Hari Shankar and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Novo Nordisk Vs Dr Reddys Laboratories

Factual and procedural background

Novo Nordisk A/S filed a commercial suit in the Delhi High Court against Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Limited claiming that the defendant was infringing its registered trademark OZEMPIC by using the mark OLYMVIQ on similar diabetes injection products. The suit sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing selling promoting or dealing in any goods under the OLYMVIQ mark or any deceptively similar name.

Dispute in question

The core disagreement was whether Dr Reddy’s could continue using the OLYMVIQ trademark and what should happen to the existing stock of injections already manufactured under that mark.

Reasoning and decision of court

During the hearing the parties reached a settlement which the court accepted. Dr Reddy’s gave undertakings to immediately stop all manufacture sale supply export promotion and commercial use of products under OLYMVIQ including its logo and packaging to withdraw all pending trademark applications for the mark and to switch to a new mark called OLYMRA. The court permitted Dr Reddy’s to sell its existing stock of injections within 30 days after which any remaining stock would be donated to a government hospital in the presence of Novo Nordisk’s representative. Novo Nordisk was awarded 30 per cent of the costs claimed in the bill of costs and a full refund of court fees. The suit was decreed in terms of the settlement and disposed of along with all pending applications.

Novo Nordisk Vs Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited:30.03.2026: CS(COMM) 317/2026:H.J. Justice Jyoti Singh.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Meera Daruka Vs Pradhuman Bharti

Factual and procedural background

In an ongoing civil dispute involving family members and property rights, Meera Daruka and others filed a First Appeal before the Patna High Court. While that appeal was still pending before a single judge, the judge passed certain interim orders on applications filed by the parties. Aggrieved by those interlocutory directions, the Daruka family filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the division bench.

Dispute in question

The central issue was whether a Letters Patent Appeal can be filed against an interlocutory order passed by a single judge in a first appeal.

Reasoning and decision of court

The division bench examined Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure which expressly bars any further appeal, including under the Letters Patent, against any order passed by a single judge in an appeal from an original or appellate decree. The court held that this statutory bar applies equally to final judgments as well as interlocutory orders and is supported by consistent rulings of the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court. The judges clarified that the legislative intent behind the 2002 amendment was to prevent multiplicity of appeals and reduce delays in litigation. Since the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable, the court dismissed it for want of jurisdiction while allowing minor procedural applications for condonation of delay and deletion of certain annexures.

Meera Daruka Vs Pradhuman Bharti., Order date:26.06.2025:LPA No.660 of 2022:, 2025(6) eILR(PAT) HC 371, Name of court and Judge: Patna High Court, Justices P. B. Bajanthri and S. B. Pd. Singh.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Mahesh Value Products Private Limited Vs Rikhab Chand Jain

Factual and procedural background

Mahesh Value Products Private Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Rikhab Chand Jain and others alleging that they were manufacturing and selling counterfeit versions of its products. The commercial court passed an ex-parte order granting a stay and appointing a local commissioner to inspect the premises and seize evidence without hearing the defendants. Feeling aggrieved by the lack of proper reasoning in that order Mahesh Value Products approached the Delhi High Court in appeal.

Dispute in question

The main issue was whether the commercial court had given sufficient reasons for granting such strong interim relief including a stay and appointment of a local commissioner on an ex-parte basis.

Reasoning and decision of court

The division bench of the Delhi High Court examined the impugned order and found that it contained only one short paragraph as justification which was too brief and vague to support the relief granted. The judges also observed that the appellant’s long-standing trademark registrations dating back to 1950 with user claimed since 1895 had apparently not been considered. Prima facie they felt the matter deserved to be sent back to the commercial court for fresh consideration. However following a recent Supreme Court direction in a similar case the bench issued notice to the respondents directed them to file replies within one week and listed the appeal for hearing on 16 April 2026 without passing any interim or final order at this stage.

Mahesh Value Products Private Limited Vs Rikhab Chand Jain:30.03.2026:FAO (COMM) 88/2026: Hon'ble Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Mahender Singh Vs The State

Factual and procedural background

Mahender Singh’s mother Smt Lado had made a will in April 2007. His brother Vijender Singh applied to the trial court for probate of that will. After hearing Mahender Singh’s objections the trial court rejected the probate petition. Vijender Singh then filed an appeal before a single judge of the Delhi High Court who allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court’s order. Feeling aggrieved Mahender Singh approached the division bench through a Letters Patent Appeal.

Dispute in question

The central issue was whether Mahender Singh could file this further appeal against the single judge’s decision in the probate matter.

Reasoning and decision of court

The division bench held that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable. The judges explained that once a single judge has decided a first appeal even under a special law like the Indian Succession Act no second appeal or Letters Patent Appeal can be filed because Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly bars any further appeal. Relying on an earlier full bench decision of the Delhi High Court and a Supreme Court judgment the bench ruled that this bar was introduced to reduce delays in litigation and applies regardless of the nature of the original proceedings. The appeal was accordingly dismissed while giving the appellant liberty to pursue any other remedy available under law.

Mahender Singh Vs The State.:02.04.2024:LPA 253/2024:2024:DHC:2704-DB,Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Grasim Industries Limited Vs Saboo Tor Private Limited.

Factual and procedural background

Grasim Industries Limited, part of the well-known Aditya Birla Group, along with Ultra Tech Cement, sued Saboo Tor Private Limited and others for trademark infringement and passing off. They claimed Saboo Tor was wrongly using the mark “BIRLA” and variants like “BIRLA TMT” and “BIRLA E-BIKE” on steel products and electric vehicles, while Grasim had registered and used “BIRLA” since the late 1980s mainly for cement and related building materials. The single judge of the Bombay High Court refused to grant a temporary injunction, saying Grasim had not produced enough documents to prove its clear link to the Birla family business and that Saboo Tor had been openly selling its products under the mark for many years without any proven confusion. Grasim appealed the order and also filed an application to place some old company records on record as additional evidence.

Dispute in question

The main point before the Division Bench was whether Grasim should be allowed to introduce fresh documents at the appeal stage to fill the gaps the single judge had noted, and whether the lower court was correct in denying an interim injunction stopping Saboo Tor from using the similar mark.

Reasoning and decision of court

The Bombay High Court Division Bench reviewed the strict rules for accepting extra evidence in appeals and found that the documents — including the scheme of arrangement transferring the white cement business and old annual reports — directly addressed the exact shortcomings identified by the single judge. The court accepted that these papers were relevant, could not have been produced earlier despite reasonable efforts, and would help the court reach a proper decision on the facts. The judges therefore allowed the application for additional evidence so that the appeal can be heard with a complete picture of Grasim’s claimed rights in the “BIRLA” mark.

Grasim Industries Limited Vs Saboo Tor Private Limited.:06.04.2026:Commercial Appeal (L) No.39319 of 2025:2026:BHC-OS:8587:BombHC:Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Dwaraka Das Vs. State of M.P

Factual and procedural background

In the early 1960s the Madhya Pradesh government gave a construction contract to Dwaraka Das for building a boys hostel at the Polytechnic in Ujjain. The work had to be finished within a fixed period but the state later cancelled the contract saying the contractor had completed almost nothing. Dwaraka Das went to court claiming he was owed money including compensation for the profit he would have earned if the contract had continued. The trial court partly agreed with him and ordered the state to pay a certain sum along with interest after the judgment. Dwaraka Das then asked the trial court to add interest for the time the case was actually going on in court calling it a small accidental mistake in the order. The trial court made that change. The state appealed and the high court reduced the total amount payable and also removed the extra interest for the court period. Dwaraka Das then approached the Supreme Court.

Dispute in question

The main arguments were whether the trial court was allowed to go back and add interest for the period the case was pending by treating it as a minor correction and whether Dwaraka Das could claim money for the expected profit he lost when the contract was cancelled even though he had not shown exact losses on paper.

Reasoning and decision of court

The Supreme Court held that once a judgment is delivered a court cannot use correction rules to change important parts of its decision unless there was a genuine accidental slip or typing error. In this case the trial court had clearly decided only future interest and not interest during the case so the later change was not a simple correction and the high court was right to set it aside. On the compensation side however the court said that when the government wrongly cancels a works contract the contractor is entitled to a reasonable amount for the profit he would have made and does not have to prove every single rupee of actual loss. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and directed the state to pay Dwaraka Das a total of Rs 24 783 with future interest at six per cent from the date of the decree.

Dwaraka Das Vs. State of M.P., (1999) 3 SCC 500

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs Meghmani Lifesciences

Factual and Procedural Background

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, one of India's largest pharma companies, owns the registered trademark RACIRAFT for an oral suspension used to treat heartburn and indigestion. In early 2025 Sun discovered that Meghmani Lifesciences was selling a similar product with the same active ingredients under the name ESIRAFT. Sun filed a commercial suit in the Bombay High Court alleging trademark infringement and passing off, and obtained a temporary injunction in April 2025. In December 2025 the single judge vacated that injunction, ruling that the two marks were not deceptively similar. Sun then filed this appeal before the division bench.

Dispute in Question

The central issue was whether Meghmani's mark ESIRAFT is deceptively similar to Sun's RACIRAFT. Sun argued that the marks are visually and phonetically too close for medicines used for the same purpose, creating a real risk of confusion among patients and chemists. Meghmani contended that the common suffix "RAFT" is a generic descriptive term and that the overall marks are sufficiently different.

Reasoning and Decision of Court

The division bench held that the single judge had not correctly applied the established legal tests for comparing trademarks, particularly in the sensitive field of pharmaceutical products where even a small chance of confusion can harm public health. After examining the marks as a whole, the court found that RACIRAFT and ESIRAFT are deceptively similar in appearance, sound and overall impression. It set aside the December 2025 order vacating the injunction and allowed Sun's appeal, restoring the temporary restraint on Meghmani from using the mark ESIRAFT. The case will now proceed to full trial on merits.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs Meghmani Lifesciences Ltd. :08.04.2026:Commercial Appeal (L) No.42382 of 2025:2026:BHC:OS:9214-DB:Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande JJ

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor