HELIOS LIFESTYLE LIMITED v. IDAM NATURAL WELLNESS PRIVATE LTD.

In a perfume trademark dispute, Helios Lifestyle Limited appealed an interim order passed by a single judge of the Delhi High Court on 11 March 2026 that restrained it from using the name OUD WHITE or any deceptively similar marks and packaging for its perfumes, which the respondent Idam Natural Wellness claimed infringed its registered WHITE OUD and BELLAVITA WHITE OUD brands along with their trade dress and bottle shapes. Idam had filed a suit alleging passing off and copyright infringement after Helios started selling similar products. The single judge granted the ex-parte ad-interim relief in favour of Idam pending further hearing. On appeal, the division bench observed that while the overall injunction appeared justified, Helios had raised a prima facie point that the order went too far by covering certain specific perfume variants shown in paragraph 29 of the judgment, as the plaint may not have contained the necessary foundational details about those products. Since Helios had already filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 to modify or vacate the injunction, which was listed for hearing on 30 April 2026, the division bench directed that till that date Idam shall not enforce the injunction against those particular perfumes. Helios was allowed to continue selling them but directed to maintain proper accounts of sales and file the statements before the single judge. The court also asked both parties to explore an amicable settlement through the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre and clarified that all other contentions remain open for final decision by the single judge after hearing both sides.

Title: HELIOS LIFESTYLE LIMITED v. IDAM NATURAL WELLNESS PRIVATE LTD. & ORS., Order date: 02.04.2026, Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2026, Neutral Citation: not provided, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Justice V. Kameswar Rao 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

RITIK KUMAR v. R.H. AGRO OVERSEAS

In a rice trademark dispute, R.H. Agro Overseas, owner of the registered mark NAFIS for selling rice, sued Ritik Kumar for allegedly copying its brand and packaging with a similar mark NAFEEZA. The plaintiff claimed the marks and bag designs were deceptively similar, causing confusion among buyers. After the defendant’s products entered the market in December 2025, the plaintiff filed a commercial suit in January 2026 seeking an urgent injunction and appointment of local commissioners. On 2 February 2026 the trial court, without issuing notice to the defendant or hearing his side, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction stopping use of NAFEEZA and the similar packaging, while also appointing commissioners and exempting the plaintiff from pre-suit mediation.

The defendant appealed to the Delhi High Court arguing that passing such a final-looking injunction without any opportunity to be heard violated basic principles of fairness. The Division Bench agreed that the trial court should not have recorded the injunction application as finally “disposed of” at the ex-parte stage; it should have remained only an ad-interim order pending a proper hearing. The High Court found that the trial court had recorded sufficient reasons for granting temporary relief on the face of the papers (similar marks, identical goods and packaging), so the injunction itself was not set aside. However, to correct the procedural error and uphold natural justice, the court modified the order: the injunction continues as ad-interim only, the defendant must file his reply and written statement within one week, the plaintiff must file its rejoinder within the next week, and the trial court must decide the injunction application on merits within one month after pleadings are complete. The appointments of local commissioners and the exemption from pre-institution mediation were left untouched. All rights and arguments of both sides remain open for the final hearing.

Title: RITIK KUMAR v. R.H. AGRO OVERSEAS, Order date: 07.04.2026, Case Number: FAO (COMM) 79/2026 & CM APPL. 17286/2026, Neutral Citation: not provided, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Justice V. Kameswar Rao 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

IMPRESSARIO ENTERTAINMENT AND HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. v. VARDHAMAN CHOKSI

In a high-profile trademark clash in the hospitality sector, Impressario Entertainment, the company running popular cafe chains such as Odeon Social, Colaba Social and various other “Social” branded outlets across India since 2014, succeeded in getting the Delhi High Court to cancel Vardhaman Choksi’s registered mark “Social House” for restaurant services. Impressario had argued that Choksi never genuinely used “Social House” for actual restaurants or related services in the registered class, even though he claimed prior use since 2011 for hosting events at his Mumbai club Escobar. Choksi countered that “Social” is a common everyday word that no one can monopolise and that any non-use was due to ongoing litigation, but the court found Impressario had built strong goodwill and actual business under its family of “Social” marks while Choksi failed to show genuine use in the correct class and appeared to follow a pattern of registering well-known marks without real commercial activity. The judge ruled that “Social” in the restaurant context is suggestive rather than generic for Impressario’s business and that Choksi could not claim special circumstances to excuse the lack of use. As a result the court ordered “Social House” removed from the trademark register and dismissed all of Choksi’s multiple petitions seeking to cancel Impressario’s various “Social” registrations.

Title: IMPRESSARIO ENTERTAINMENT AND HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. v. VARDHAMAN CHOKSI AND ORS. AND CONNECTED MATTERS, Order date: 10.04.2026, Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 72/2021, 93/2021, 96/2021, 98/2021, 194/2021, 212/2021, 264/2021, 269/2021, 283/2021, 333/2021, 406/2021, 47/2022, 135/2022, 150/2022, 152/2022, 197/2022, 200/2022, 254/2022, 259/2022, 284/2022, 552/2022 & 681/2022, Neutral Citation: not provided, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Justice Tejas Karia.

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

K.S. OILS LIMITED v. SHIVANG EDIBLES OILS LIMITED

In a trademark dispute over the brand name Kalash used for edible oils, K.S. Oils Limited appealed an ex-parte order from the trial court that had stopped it from using the name and related labels. The fight traces back to assignments of rights from the same person, Gopal Das Garg, decades ago to K.S. Oils, which also held trademark registrations and used the brand extensively until it faced insolvency proceedings between 2017 and 2025. After the company was auctioned and revived in early 2025, Shivang Edibles Oils Limited claimed it had received a fresh assignment in January 2026 and had been selling under Kalash since 2017, arguing K.S. Oils had abandoned the mark. The trial court granted an urgent injunction in February 2026 without hearing K.S. Oils, finding a case of passing off. On appeal, the Delhi High Court examined the chain of documents, earlier registrations, annual reports showing long use by K.S. Oils, and the fact that the mark was treated as an asset during insolvency. The Division Bench ruled that the trial court should not have passed an ex-parte order because both sides claimed rights from the same source, K.S. Oils had strong prior documents and registrations on record, and the matter required both parties to be heard first. The court set aside the injunction, directed the trial court to decide the application afresh after allowing pleadings and hearing both sides, and asked K.S. Oils to keep proper sales records in the meantime.

K.S. OILS LIMITED v. SHIVANG EDIBLES OILS LIMITED AND ANR., 30.03.2026, FAO (COMM) 69/2026 & CM APPL. 14636/2026, CM APPL. 14639-14642/2026, Neutral Citation not provided, High Court of Delhi, Justice V. Kameswar Rao 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

TASTE BOX v. JSF HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED

In a trademark battle in Kerala, JSF Holdings Private Limited, the company behind the well-known Lazza ice cream and food brand used since 1990, sued Taste Box for opening a restaurant-cum-bakery under the name Hazza at Kalamassery near Ernakulam. The company claimed Hazza was too similar to Lazza in sound, spelling and colour scheme, likely to mislead customers and ride on its goodwill even though the businesses focused on slightly different food services. After the Ernakulam Additional District Court granted a temporary injunction in September 2025 stopping Taste Box from using the name, the restaurant owner appealed to the Kerala High Court arguing the marks were different enough, their restaurant specialised in Malabar and Middle Eastern cuisine, and no real confusion existed. Justice S. Manu examined the overall look, sound and business overlap, applied settled principles from Supreme Court cases on how ordinary customers remember brands, and found a strong prima facie case of deceptive similarity and passing off. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured protecting Lazza’s reputation and that allowing Hazza to continue would cause irreparable harm to JSF Holdings. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the injunction against Taste Box using the disputed name.

Title: TASTE BOX v. JSF HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, Order date: 10.04.2026, Case Number: F.A.O.No.1 of 2026, Neutral Citation: 2026: KER : 32745, Name of court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, Judge: Justice S. Manu.

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

GURBAAZ PRATAP SINGH MANN v. KUNWAR RAGHAV BHANDARI

In a Delhi High Court ruling, professional golfer Gurbaaz Pratap Singh Mann sued Kunwar Raghav Bhandari and others claiming they copied his original fast-paced team golf format called Shot Squad League or The Smash League. Mann had created the game in 2019 with unique rules like team play, player specializations for different shots, limited holes, time limits and special drop zones to make golf quicker and more exciting for players and fans; he registered the detailed rules as a literary work with copyright and ran his first tournament in 2020 where one defendant even took part. He accused the defendants of launching a very similar IGPL Flash Golf or Smash Format event in June 2024 using an information sheet that copied his game mechanics, rules and even the name, and also raised claims of trademark infringement, passing off and breach of confidence after some defendants had earlier discussed collaboration with him. After both sides presented detailed arguments on whether game rules and formats can be protected by copyright, the court examined side-by-side comparisons of the two formats and found no substantial copying of Mann’s original expression since many elements were common variations already seen in golf and the defendants’ version differed in key details. The judge held that the plaintiff failed to show a strong prima facie case of infringement, there was no proven breach of confidentiality as the format had been publicly demonstrated, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants continuing their event without causing irreparable harm to Mann during the suit. The interim injunction application was dismissed, though the defendants’ earlier undertaking not to use the word “Smash” and to stick with “Flash” remains in place.

GURBAAZ PRATAP SINGH MANN v. KUNWAR RAGHAV BHANDARI AND ORS., 10.04.2026, CS(COMM) 700/2024, Neutral Citation not provided, High Court of Delhi, Justice Tejas Karia.

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

Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs Future Brands Limited & Future Entertainment Private Limited,

In a high-stakes commercial dispute involving restructured loans worth hundreds of crores, asset reconstruction company Phoenix ARC sued Future Brands Limited and its group firm Future Entertainment Private Limited in the Bombay High Court. Phoenix ARC had taken over loans given to Future Entertainment and claimed that Future Brands, which owns popular brands like Spunk, Buffalo, RIG and AFL, had promised to pump in Rs 250 crore as equity into Future Entertainment to help repay the debt. This promise was part of a restructuring deal that also extended brand licensing agreements generating royalty income as security for the loans. When Future Brands failed to inject the equity and the licensing deals were about to expire in July 2025, Phoenix ARC rushed to court seeking a mandatory order to force the equity infusion and an injunction stopping Future Brands from selling, transferring or dealing with the brands until the money was paid. Future Brands raised a preliminary objection arguing the suit should be thrown out at the very beginning because Phoenix ARC had not properly completed the mandatory pre-institution mediation process required under the Commercial Courts Act before filing the case. The defendants claimed Phoenix ARC had suppressed facts about abandoning the mediation and that no real urgency existed. After examining the pleadings, notices, mediation timelines and the looming expiry of the brand agreements that would wipe out Phoenix ARC’s security for over Rs 500 crore in dues, Justice Gauri Godse held that Phoenix ARC had genuinely started the mediation process in March 2025 but urgent interim relief became necessary once the three-month mediation window lapsed and the licensing deals were about to end. The judge ruled there was no material suppression of facts, the suit was maintainable despite the mediation not reaching a final report, and the preliminary objection for outright rejection of the plaint was dismissed. The court allowed the commercial suit and the interim application to proceed for further hearing on the merits of the equity infusion and brand restraint prayers.

Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs Future Brands Limited & Future Entertainment Private Limited, 15.04.2026, COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 124 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 20363 OF 2025, Not Provided, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri Godse

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

PepsiCo Inc Vs Parle Agro Pvt.Ltd

In a trademark dispute between beverage giants, PepsiCo and its Indian arm sued Parle Agro for using the tagline “For The Bold” in its B Fizz drink advertisements and packaging, claiming it infringed their registered rights and caused confusion in the market. The Delhi High Court had earlier passed a detailed order in September 2023 partially restraining Parle from using the tagline as the main focus in new ads, barring changes to product labels without court approval, directing removal of specific old social media posts, and requiring Parle to file regular sales revenue certificates every two months. When PepsiCo later found some old 2022 posts still visible on Parle’s X/Twitter and Instagram accounts and noticed that the sales reports had not been filed on time, they moved a fresh application accusing Parle of deliberately disobeying the court’s directions and seeking punishment including possible jail time for Parle and its officers. Parle argued the leftover posts were old, forgotten items removed as soon as the application was filed, amounting only to an honest oversight rather than intentional defiance, and that the delayed sales reports caused no real prejudice since the full trial on damages was still far away. After hearing both sides and examining the affidavits and evidence, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that the failure to remove the two old social media posts appeared to be an inadvertent mistake rather than willful disobedience, so no punishment was warranted on that count. However, the court found Parle’s complete non-compliance with the clear direction to file sales revenue certificates every two months to be a serious and unambiguous breach of its order, showing disregard for judicial authority. To uphold the dignity of court directions without escalating to full contempt proceedings, the judge imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on Parle payable to the Bharat Ke Veer charity within three weeks and directed the officer who filed the affidavits to tender an unconditional apology to the court within four weeks. The application was disposed of accordingly while the main trademark suit continues.

PepsiCo Inc Vs Parle Agro Pvt.Ltd., 15.04.2026, CS(COMM) 268/2021, Not Provided, High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

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

More than Water Pvt Ltd Vs Mesco Ltd

In a dispute over packaged drinking water sold in eco-friendly paper boxes, More Than Water Private Limited sued Nesco Limited in the Delhi High Court claiming that Nesco was passing off its product by using the very similar name “My Water Box” after the plaintiff had been selling its own “Water Box” and “More Than Water Box” brands since 2018 through its predecessor company. The plaintiff argued it had built strong reputation and customer goodwill over the years with steady sales and promotions, while Nesco had dishonestly copied the core part of its name and packaging to confuse buyers. Nesco defended itself by saying it held an official trademark registration, the plaintiff’s sales evidence was weak and unreliable with questionable invoices and gaps in regulatory approvals, and there was no real proof of substantial goodwill or confusion in the market. After carefully examining the sales records, promotion expenses, packaging designs and regulatory documents, the court found that the plaintiff had not been able to show clear, continuous and substantial market presence or goodwill dating back to 2018, while several of its key documents raised doubts about their authenticity. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela therefore refused to grant any temporary ban on Nesco’s use of its “My Water Box” mark, saying the plaintiff had failed to make out a strong enough case at this early stage for an interim injunction, though the full trial on the passing-off claim will continue.

More than Water Pvt Ltd Vs Mesco Ltd, 15.04.2026, CS(COMM) 125/2026, Not Provided, High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

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

Flipkart India Pvt Ltd Vs Marc Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.

In a trademark battle between two companies in the electrical goods sector, Marc Enterprises, which has been manufacturing and selling items like fans, geysers and irons under its 'MARC' brand since the early 1980s with official registrations dating back to 1984, sued Flipkart India Private Limited after the e-commerce giant began using the very similar name 'MARQ' (stylised as marQ) in 2017 for its own large appliances such as televisions, washing machines and microwave ovens sold exclusively on the Flipkart website. Marc claimed the names were confusingly alike in sound, spelling and overall look, likely to mislead ordinary customers into thinking the products came from the same source. The trial court in Delhi agreed and issued an injunction in October 2018 stopping Flipkart from using the 'MARQ' name. Flipkart appealed to the Delhi High Court, arguing that the marks were different enough especially when shown alongside the prominent 'Flipkart' house brand, that its products were sold only online where buyers search carefully, and that no real confusion was possible. After examining the long prior use by Marc, the close phonetic and visual similarity of the two names, the fact that both companies deal in allied electrical goods reaching the same customers through common trade channels, and the absence of any strong evidence from Flipkart to prove honest adoption, the court found the trial court's decision was reasonable and not perverse. Justice Tejas Karia dismissed Flipkart's appeal on 10 April 2026, upheld the injunction against using the 'MARQ' mark, but allowed the company until 15 May 2026 to clear existing stock from the market.

Flipkart India Pvt Ltd Vs Marc Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., 10.04.2026, FAO-IPD 46/2021, CM APPL. 46817/2018 & CM APPL. 54484/2018, Not Provided, High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

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

Shubham Goldie Masale Vs Jai Shiv Oil Industries

Shubham Goldiee Masale Private Limited, a company based in Kanpur that has been making and selling spices and food products under the GOLDIEE brand since 1980, went to the Delhi High Court asking to cancel two trademark registrations held by Jai Shiv Oil Industries for the similar looking and sounding GOLDI label marks used on edible oil and animal feed products. The company said the GOLDI marks were far too close to their own well known GOLDIEE brand in sound, look and feel, which could easily confuse ordinary shoppers into thinking the goods came from the same source, especially since both companies sell food items through the same shops and distribution networks. After looking at the petitioner’s old registration papers, strong sales records showing steady growth over the years, newspaper advertisements and proof of long continuous use, and noting that the respondents never showed up in court or filed any reply despite being properly served, the court agreed the marks were deceptively similar and that an average customer with ordinary memory could get misled. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela therefore ordered the GOLDI trademarks to be cancelled and removed from the official register so they could no longer remain alongside the petitioner’s earlier rights.

Shubham Goldie Masale Vs Jai Shiv Oil Industries ., 08.04.2026, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 393/2021, Not Provided, High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

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

Entero Healthcare Solutions Limited Vs Registrar Of Trade Marks

Entero Healthcare Solutions Limited challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register their mark ENTERO for pharmaceutical and healthcare products. The company had applied for the mark after using it honestly and continuously since 2018 across India, building significant reputation through sales, advertising, and presence in the market.

The registrar rejected the application because it was similar to an earlier registered mark EnteroGG, believing it could confuse the public. Despite the company submitting detailed evidence of their long use and noting that the other mark was not being used, the registrar's order did not address these points at all.

The Bombay High Court examined the matter and found the registrar's decision to be unreasoned and lacking proper consideration of the law that allows registration of similar marks in cases of honest concurrent use. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and directed that the application be reconsidered afresh by a different registrar to ensure a fair decision.

Entero Healthcare Solutions Limited Vs Registrar Of Trade Marks: 23.03.2026:Commercial Miscellaneous Petition (L) No. 27100 of 2025, 2026:BHC-OS:7875, Hon'ble Justice Arif S. Doctor, J.

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

Crystal Crop Protection Limited Vs Sudpita Dey, Assistant Controller of Patents

In a patent dispute involving agricultural chemicals, Crystal Crop Protection Limited approached the Delhi High Court after the Assistant Controller of Patents rejected their application for an insecticidal composition made with specific amounts of two well-known active ingredients, Fipronil and Emamectin Benzoate, in a suspension concentrate form.

The company had filed the patent application back in 2010, arguing that this particular mix provided better pest control across a wide range of crop-damaging insects at lower doses, reduced costs, and was kinder to the environment compared to separate products already on the market.

Several opponents filed pre-grant challenges between 2017 and 2021, and after hearings the controller turned down the patent in January 2022, saying the invention was not new, did not involve any inventive step, and failed other legal tests under the Patents Act.

Crystal Crop Protection claimed the controller’s order simply copied the opponents’ arguments without giving proper independent reasons and asked the court to quash the refusal and send the application back for a fresh look.

After examining the complete file, the prior Chinese patents cited by the opponents, and the arguments from both sides, the High Court found that the controller’s conclusions on lack of novelty and lack of inventive step were fully reasoned and supported by evidence—the earlier documents already described very similar combinations of the same two ingredients in comparable strengths and forms.

The court therefore saw no reason to interfere with the refusal and held that the invention did not qualify for patent protection. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Crystal Crop Protection Limited Vs Sudpita Dey, Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs:08.04.2026:C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 86/2022:2026:DHC:2926:Hon'ble Justice Shri Tushar Rao Gedela.

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

Colgate Palmolive Company Vs Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.

Colgate Palmolive and Anchor Health and Beauty Care found themselves in a courtroom battle over toothpaste packaging designs. Anchor had been selling its product under the name Anchor White Allround Protection since 2005 and in 2007 filed a suit claiming that Colgate’s new Strong Teeth carton copied similar words and looks, unfairly interfering with Anchor’s business.

While the case was still going on, Anchor received official registration for its Allround trademark in 2008. Four years after starting the case and more than three years after the registration, Anchor asked the court in 2011 to update its papers and add a fresh claim of trademark infringement based on that registration. The single judge allowed the change, but Colgate appealed to the higher bench.

The Delhi High Court examined the matter and found that the proposed update would completely alter the basic nature of the original lawsuit from a claim about general unfair business practices to a full statutory infringement case, which could unfairly harm Colgate’s defence.

The judges noted that Anchor had waited far too long to seek this change even though the registration had come early in the case, and allowing it now risked problems with time limits for such claims. The court therefore set aside the single judge’s order, rejected the amendment application, and directed Anchor to pay costs to Colgate.

Colgate Palmolive Company Vs Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., (2016) 65 PTC 69 (DB)

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

Bennett Colemann and Co Vs E Entertainment

Bennett Coleman and Company Limited challenged two trademark registrations of the "E!" mark owned by E Entertainment Television LLC in India, arguing the marks lacked distinctiveness and had not been properly used in the country.

In the Delhi High Court proceedings, the company filed applications seeking permission to cross-examine the respondent's witness, whose affidavit supported the claimed use and reputation of the marks.

The court dismissed both applications, holding that trademark rectification cases are normally decided on written affidavits and documents alone, with cross-examination allowed only in rare cases where strong reasons are shown.

Court found no specific doubts raised about the public records or company documents exhibited, noting that cross-examination is not an automatic right and would turn these summary proceedings into unnecessary full trials. The cases have now been listed for further directions.

Bennett Colemann and Co Vs E Entertainment: 10.03.2026:C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 86/2022 :2026:DHC:2010: 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

Baldev Singh and Others Vs. Manohar Singh

In a family property dispute from Punjab, Manohar Singh filed a suit claiming he was the real owner of certain agricultural land bought in his parents’ names as a benami transaction, while his relatives (Baldev Singh and others) denied this and asserted their own ownership and possession in their written statement. During the trial, the defendants sought to amend their written statement to add that after the parents’ death the land had been mutated jointly in equal shares among all family members and that the suit was barred by limitation. Both the trial court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the amendment, holding it introduced inconsistent pleas and withdrew admissions. The Supreme Court overturned those orders, ruling that amendments to a written statement must be allowed liberally unless they cause serious injustice or irreparable harm to the other side. Defendants can raise alternative or even inconsistent defences, unlike plaintiffs who cannot change their core claim, and mere delay is not a ground for refusal when no prejudice is shown. The proposed changes were simply an elaboration of the existing defence, the trial had not yet begun, and no admissions were being withdrawn. The Supreme Court allowed the amendment, directed the defendants to file it within one month, and ordered the trial court to decide the suit within one year.

Title: Baldev Singh and Others Vs. Manohar Singh and Another, Order date: August 3, 2006, Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3362 of 2006, Neutral Citation: (2006) 6 SCC 498, Name of court and Judge: Supreme Court of India, Dr. AR. Lakshmanan and Tarun Chatterjee.

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

AstraZeneca AB Vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

AstraZeneca, the Swedish company behind the diabetes drug Dapagliflozin (sold as Forxiga), sued eight Indian generic drug makers — Intas, Alkem, Zydus, Eris, USV, Torrent, MSN, Micro Labs and Ajanta — for selling cheaper versions of the same medicine. AstraZeneca claimed the generics infringed two Indian patents: an earlier broad “genus” patent (IN 147, which covered a large family of similar compounds and expired in October 2020) and a later “species” patent (IN 625) that specifically protected Dapagliflozin until 2023. The generic companies argued that the specific patent was invalid because Dapagliflozin was already covered and known from the first patent, making the second one obvious and not truly new. Two single judges, after hearing the cases separately, refused to stop the generics from selling their versions while the trials continued, saying the companies had raised serious doubts about the later patent’s validity. AstraZeneca appealed all nine cases together to the division bench. The Delhi High Court examined the patents, the companies’ own earlier statements in India and the US, and the scientific details. It found that AstraZeneca itself had treated Dapagliflozin as covered by the first patent, creating a credible challenge to the second patent on grounds of prior disclosure, obviousness and incomplete information given to the Indian Patent Office. The judges also noted that generics offered the medicine at much lower prices and that stopping them would harm patients more than it would help AstraZeneca. The court dismissed all the appeals on 20 July 2021, allowing the generic companies to continue making and selling Dapagliflozin while the main trials go on.

AstraZeneca AB Vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.:20.07.2021:FAO(OS)(COMM) 139/2020: Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Amit Bansal.

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

Ashiana Ispat Limited Vs Kamdhenu Limited

Two steel companies that once shared management under the same family groups ended up in a bitter trademark battle over similar brand names for TMT steel bars. Ashiana Ispat claimed it had full rights to sell products under the name “AL KAMDHENU GOLD” because of a 2002 agreement that split the brands between the two firms, allowing each to own separate marks while they jointly built the “KAMDHENU” reputation. Kamdhenu Limited argued that later 2021 licensing deals replaced the old arrangement, that it owned the registered “KAMDHENU”, “KAMDHENU GOLD” and “KAMDHENU GOLD TMT” marks, and that Ashiana’s use of the similar name was causing confusion and passing off its products as Kamdhenu’s.

The Delhi High Court examined the agreements, sales records, advertisements and evidence of use. It found that the 2021 deal had novated the earlier 2002 split, that Ashiana had not built independent goodwill in “AL KAMDHENU GOLD” on its own, and that any earlier use was only as a licensed user. Kamdhenu proved its prior rights, substantial reputation and the strong likelihood that ordinary buyers would be confused by the similar names on identical steel products.

The court granted an interim injunction stopping Ashiana and its associates from manufacturing, selling or promoting goods under “AL KAMDHENU GOLD” or any deceptively similar mark, while dismissing Ashiana’s request for a similar order against Kamdhenu. The main suits will now proceed to full trial.

Ashiana Ispat Limited Vs Kamdhenu Limited : 10.04.2026:CS(COMM) 130/2025:2025:DHC:3002, Hon'ble Justice Shri Justice Tejas Karia.

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

Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited Vs. Exide Industries Limited

Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited went to the Calcutta High Court after a single judge blocked them from selling their new Elito car batteries packed in bright red boxes that closely matched the red trade dress long used by rival Exide Industries Limited.

Exide argued that its red packaging, along with the “EL” name and shattered “O” design, had become a well-known sign of its batteries after decades of use, and that Amara Raja’s similar look was confusing buyers and amounting to copying. Amara Raja replied that no company can own a plain colour like red, that buyers choose batteries by brand name and vehicle fit rather than colour, and that their design had enough differences.

The Division Bench examined the evidence, including Amara Raja’s earlier social-media campaign that promoted green as its own signature colour while criticising red, and found that red had become strongly linked to Exide in the market.

The judges noted that the two battery boxes looked deceptively alike when placed side by side on shop shelves and that ordinary buyers could easily be misled. They upheld the injunction granted by the single judge, ruled that the balance of convenience favoured protecting Exide’s established identity, and dismissed Amara Raja’s appeal, keeping the restriction on the similar red packaging in place.

Title: Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited Vs. Exide Industries Limited: April 02, 2026:TEMPA PO-IPD/7/2025:,CalHC, Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi.

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

All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs Prof. Kaushal K. Verma

In a long-running dispute at AIIMS, several senior doctors who had earned promotion to professor through an internal assessment scheme felt they deserved higher seniority than doctors hired directly into the same posts from outside. The Central Administrative Tribunal ruled against them, prompting the promoted professors to approach the Delhi High Court. During an earlier hearing the court had refused to stay the tribunal’s order and had given AIIMS time till the end of 2014 to implement it. Believing that one of the judges had already made up his mind against them, two groups of petitioners asked the bench, especially Justice S Ravindra Bhat, to step aside and not hear the case further.

The High Court rejected the request for recusal. It explained that a judge’s preliminary view given while deciding an interim application does not amount to final bias or prejudging the whole dispute, and that every litigant must expect such views during early hearings. The court added that judges are trained to keep an open mind, the second judge on the bench had an equal say, and not all petitioners even supported the recusal plea. Finding the apprehension unreasonable, the bench ruled it would go ahead and hear the main petitions on merits as scheduled.

Title: ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Vs PROF. KAUSHAL K. VERMA AND ORS and connected writ petitions, Order date: 05.05.2015, Case Number: W.P.(C) 4103/2014, W.P.(C) 4228/2014, W.P.(C) 4245/2014 & W.P.(C) 7166/2014, Neutral Citation: 2015:DHC:4005-DB, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice R.K. Gauba.

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