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

Indigenous Energy Storage Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Controller of Patent

Factual and Procedural Background

Indigenous Energy Storage Technologies developed a process to turn cattle manure into hard carbon for use in sodium-ion batteries and supercapacitors. The company filed a patent application in November 2020, and the patent was granted in August 2021. Shortly after grant, a post-grant opposition was filed by a third party. In October 2024 the Deputy Controller of Patents revoked the patent on two grounds: lack of inventive step over existing knowledge and insufficient disclosure in the specification. The company filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court and also sought to place additional expert opinion and yield data on record.

Dispute in Question

The core issue was whether the Controller was right to cancel the patent. The company argued that its process was new and non-obvious, offered clear technical and environmental advantages, and was fully described in the patent. The Controller and opponent maintained that the invention was obvious in light of earlier documents and that the specification did not adequately explain how the claimed results were achieved.

Reasoning and Decision of Court

Justice Jyoti Singh examined the Controller’s order and found it flawed. The court noted that the required five-step test for checking inventive step had not been followed properly — the skilled person was not identified, the inventive concept was not clearly set out, and differences from prior art were not examined without hindsight. On the issue of insufficient disclosure, the court observed that the company had not been given a proper opportunity to submit supporting data. Additional evidence filed before the High Court was allowed because it was relevant to a fair decision. Rather than deciding the validity itself, the court set aside the revocation order and sent the post-grant opposition back to the Controller for fresh consideration. The Controller must now re-hear both sides, take the additional material on record, and pass a reasoned order within four months. The High Court expressed no view on the ultimate merits of the patent.

Indigenous Energy Storage Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Controller of Patent and Designs:12.03.2026:C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025:Justice Jyoti Singh, H.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

Laser Shaving India Pvt Ltd Vs RKM International Products Pvt Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

Laser Shaving India, a company that makes and sells razor blades and shaving products, launched its “SETMAX” brand in distinctive red packaging. It claimed the look was original and had built strong sales and reputation. When it discovered rival RKM International selling almost identical “SetMax” blades in very similar red packaging through its distributors, Laser Shaving filed a commercial suit in the Bombay High Court alleging copyright infringement in the artistic packaging and passing off. It sought an urgent interim order to stop the rival sales. A single judge refused the order, saying the company had hidden key facts from earlier trademark proceedings. Laser Shaving then filed this appeal before the division bench.

Dispute in Question

The fight was whether Laser Shaving deserved a temporary ban on the rival product while the full trial went on. The company said its packaging was unique and being copied, confusing customers. The defendants argued the marks and packaging were different, and more importantly, that Laser Shaving had earlier told trademark officials the two marks looked nothing alike, so it could not now claim they were confusingly similar.

Reasoning and Decision of Court

The division bench examined the record and found Laser Shaving had deliberately withheld its own earlier reply to the trademark registry, where it had insisted its “SETMAX” mark was visually and structurally different from the rival’s mark. The court said every litigant must approach with clean hands and full disclosure; hiding material facts amounts to playing unfair. It also noted the principle of prosecution history estoppel: once a party tells the trademark office the marks are dissimilar, it cannot later take the opposite stand in court to claim deception. Because of this suppression and contradictory position, the company was not entitled to any urgent relief. The appeal was dismissed and the single judge’s refusal of the interim injunction was upheld.

Laser Shaving India Pvt Ltd Vs RKM International Products Pvt Ltd:06.04.2026:Commercial Appeal (ST) No. 26806 of 2025:2026:BHC:OS:9090-DB:Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande HJ

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

Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Factual and Procedural Background

Pharmaceutical companies led by Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals and the Indian Drug Manufacturers Association approached the Bombay High Court after the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority issued notices demanding huge sums as alleged overcharges on certain medicines. The companies had been selling sustained-release versions of drugs such as Metformin, believing these were not covered by price caps because they were not listed in the official schedule of the 2013 Drug Price Control Order. The authority insisted the price ceiling applied anyway. Interim orders from the court had already stopped any coercive recovery while the case was heard.

Dispute in Question

The fight centred on whether the pricing authority could impose a ceiling price on drug formulations that were not specifically named in the First Schedule of the 2013 Drug Price Control Order. The companies argued that only the exact formulations listed in the schedule were subject to price control, while the authority claimed that any version of a listed drug fell under the same rules.

Reasoning and Decision of Court

The court read the 2012 National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy and the plain language of the 2013 Order together with official government clarifications. It found that whenever the government wanted to control a new version of a medicine it had issued separate orders to add that exact formulation to the schedule and fix its ceiling price. Since the sustained-release versions in question had never been added that way, the authority could not suddenly apply price caps to them. The court held that the authority’s demands were contrary to the law and the government’s own policy. Both writ petitions were allowed, the demand notices were quashed, and the companies were relieved of any liability for the alleged overcharges.

Title: Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India , Order date: 10th April 2026, Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2216 of 2015 with Writ Petition No. 885 of 2015, Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC:OS:9091-DB, Name of court and Judge: Bombay High Court, Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat 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

Atomberg Technologies Private Limited Vs Stove Kraft Limited

Factual and Procedural Background

Atomberg Technologies sued Stove Kraft Limited after spotting a ceiling fan sold under the Pigeon brand that it believed copied the look of its own Renesa Alpha fan. Atomberg had registered the fan’s design in January 2020 and had been selling it openly since November 2020. Claiming the rival product was an imitation, Atomberg asked the Bombay High Court for an immediate ban on its manufacture and sale and for a court receiver to seize the offending fans. In July 2025 the court passed an ex-parte order granting that relief and the receiver carried out the seizure. After both sides filed their replies and arguments, the court heard the interim application in detail.

Dispute in Question

The fight was over whether Stove Kraft’s Pigeon Fan-tastic BLDC ceiling fan looked so similar to Atomberg’s registered design that it amounted to design infringement and passing off. Atomberg said the overall shape and style were nearly identical and would confuse buyers, while Stove Kraft argued the fans were visibly different, that Atomberg’s design was not truly new, and that no customer would mistake one brand for the other.

Reasoning and Decision of Court

The judge compared photographs of both fans and examined the actual products in court. She found that the basic parts of any ceiling fan—blades, shank, canopy and motor housing—are common and cannot be protected unless something truly distinctive is copied. On a plain look, the two fans showed clear differences in blade shape, curves and other details that an ordinary buyer would notice. The court also observed that Atomberg had compared its later models rather than the exact registered design and had not proved strong goodwill tied only to that design or any real risk of confusion. Finding no prima facie case, the court dismissed the interim application, discharged the court receiver and ordered the seized goods to be released back to Stove Kraft.

Atomberg Technologies Private Limited Vs Stove Kraft Limited:17.04.2026:Comm (IP) Suit No. 710 of 2025, 2026:BHC:OS:9652, Gauri Godse H 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

Victoria Cross Vs Victorinox

In a commercial trademark dispute, Victoria Cross India Pvt Ltd lost a case before the district commercial court in Delhi and filed an appeal against the judgment passed on 23 March 2024, but the appeal reached the High Court 195 days late. 

The company sought to excuse the delay by explaining that the main decision-maker in the business had died in 2022, leaving his widow to handle everything for the first time while dealing with grief, that the partnership firm holding the rights had to be dissolved, that trademark ownership had to be transferred to the present appellant company, that directorship changes took time, and that obtaining the bulky trial court records also caused delay. 

The Delhi High Court examined these reasons and refused to condone the delay, holding that in commercial matters the law demands quick filing of appeals to ensure speedy resolution of business disputes, and a delay of 195 days is far too long to be excused unless it is very short and completely genuine with no negligence. 

The judges noted that the husband’s death had occurred almost two years before the judgment and that the steps taken after the judgment still left large unexplained gaps, so the explanations were not sufficient under Supreme Court guidelines that treat long delays in commercial appeals as the exception rather than the rule. The court therefore rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal outright without going into its merits.

Victoria Cross Vs Victorinox: 17.02.2026: RFA(COMM) 532/2024:2026:DHC:1458-DB:H.J. Shri 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

Grasim Industries Limited & Anr. Vs. Saboo Tor Private Limited

Grasim Industries and Ultra Tech Cement, part of the Aditya Birla Group, sued Saboo Tor Private Limited and others for trademark infringement and passing off, claiming the defendant was unlawfully using the well-known “BIRLA” name and “BIRLA TMT” on steel bars, TMT products and electric vehicles while the plaintiffs had been using “BIRLA” since 1988 for cement, construction materials and other goods. The single judge refused to grant any temporary ban on the defendant’s use of the name, holding that the plaintiffs had not placed enough documents on record to prove their connection to the Birla family business or their prior rights, and that the defendant had been openly selling its products under the mark for over 15 years without causing any confusion in the market, so the balance of convenience favoured allowing continued sales while directing the defendant to keep proper accounts of sales till the suit was decided. In the appeal before the division bench, the plaintiffs sought to bring on record certain old documents such as business transfer schemes, annual reports and trademark registration details that they said could not be traced earlier despite due diligence. After examining the pleadings, the law on additional evidence in appeals and the single judge’s reasoning, the Bombay High Court found that key statements in the original complaint linking the plaintiffs to the Birla Group had been overlooked and that the fresh documents were relevant and necessary to decide the matter fairly, therefore allowed the additional evidence to be taken on record so that the appeal could be properly adjudicated.

Title: Grasim Industries Limited & Anr. Vs. Saboo Tor Private Limited & Ors., Order date: 06.04.2026, Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.2849 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.39319 OF 2025, Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:8587, Name of court and Judge: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION, BHARATI DANGRE & 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

NOVO NORDISK A/S & ANR. Vs. DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED

In a trademark dispute involving diabetes medicines, Novo Nordisk sued Dr Reddy’s Laboratories in the Delhi High Court claiming that the defendant’s use of the mark OLYMVIQ on similar injection products was infringing their registered trademark OZEMPIC and amounted to passing off. During the hearing the defendant immediately agreed to stop all manufacture, sale, promotion and use of OLYMVIQ in any form, withdraw all pending trademark applications for the mark and switch to a new name OLYMRA. The only issues left were the defendant’s existing ready stock of injections and the question of legal costs. The court accepted the defendant’s undertakings, noted that the product was a prescription drug for treating type 2 diabetes with no quality concerns, and allowed the sale of the existing stock within 30 days in the larger public interest; any unsold stock after that period was to be donated to a government hospital in the presence of Novo Nordisk’s representative. The judge also awarded Novo Nordisk 30 per cent of their claimed legal costs after deducting court fees, ordered full refund of the court fees paid, and decreed the entire suit as settled between the parties.

Title: NOVO NORDISK A/S & ANR. Vs. DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED, Order date: 30.03.2026, Case Number: CS(COMM) 317/2026, I.As. 8033/2026, 8035/2026, 8037/2026, 8039/2026, Neutral Citation: Not provided, Name of court and Judge: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI, HON'BLE MS. 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

Unique Enterpreneurs Vs Really Agritech Pvt. Ltd

In a trademark dispute, Unique Entrepreneurs and Finance Limited accused Really Agritech Private Limited of copying their "Ralli" brand name with a very similar "Really" mark for comparable agricultural products, claiming it amounted to infringement and passing off that was causing ongoing harm. 

The plaintiff rushed to court seeking an urgent temporary ban on the defendant's use of the name without first going through the mandatory mediation process required for commercial cases, arguing the issue needed immediate attention. The trial court however found that the plaintiff had actually known about the defendant's product for years, including through their participation in the same 2018 Pune trade fair and direct business discussions via WhatsApp messages in 2022 where product details and prices were shared, meaning the claim of sudden urgency was not genuine and facts had been suppressed. 

The single judge therefore revoked the permission to skip mediation, lifted the temporary order, and dismissed the injunction request. On appeal the division bench of the Calcutta High Court fully agreed, holding that there was no real need for urgent relief given the plaintiff's prior knowledge, and dismissed the appeal entirely.

Unique Enterpreneurs Vs Really Agritech Pvt. Ltd.:07.04.2026,:IP-COM/31/2024: 2026:CHC-OS:117-DB : CalHC:H.J. Debangsu Basak and 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

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

Helios Life Style Vs Idam Natural

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 Life Style Vs Idam Natural., 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 Vs 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.

Ritik Kumar Vs R.H.Agro Overseas, 07.04.2026, FAO (COMM) 79/2026:2026:DHC:2843-DB:Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.

Disclaimer: Do not 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