Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Case Summary This case involves a significant dispute in the field of intellectual property law, particularly relating to patent infringement in the agricultural sector. The litigation centers on Indian Patent No. 282092, concerning a novel agricultural composition. The plaintiff, SML Limited, a research-driven agrochemical company, approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh alleging patent infringement by the defendants, Mohan & Company and Safex Chemicals India Ltd., over a competing fertilizer product branded as “Aladdin.” The plaintiff sought interim injunctive relief pending final adjudication. The case illustrates critical questions of patent validity, inventive step, public interest under regulatory frameworks, and the…

Overview This case explores the critical intersection of trademark law, procedural fairness, and corporate liquidation under Indian jurisprudence. The matter involved the contentious registration of the trademark “DUNLOP” by Glorious Investment Limited, a successor to Dunlop India Ltd., which was undergoing liquidation. The core contention revolved around the legitimacy of assignments executed during liquidation and whether the Registrar of Trademarks complied with the principles of natural justice. The decision of the Calcutta High Court provides crucial judicial interpretation concerning the rights of opponents in trademark opposition proceedings and the procedural conduct expected from administrative authorities. Factual Background Dunlop International Limited…

Newgen IT Technologies Ltd. v. Newgen Software Technologies Ltd. Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar Date of Order: 12 June 2025 Case Numbers: FAO (COMM) 73/2025 and FAO (COMM) 75/2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4964 Overview The dispute in Newgen IT Technologies Ltd. v. Newgen Software Technologies Ltd. epitomizes the complexities involved in trademark conflicts, particularly when commercial partnerships deteriorate into litigation. The matter revolves around the alleged infringement and passing off involving the mark “NEWGEN”, a name prominently used in the technology domain. This case throws…

Penguin Books Ltd. Vs India Book Distributors & Ors. Date of Order: 1 August 1984 Citation: AIR 1985 DELHI 29, 26 (1984) DLT 316 Court: High Court of Delhi Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Justice Shri Avadh Bihari Rohtagi Case Overview This case involves a dispute between the publisher of a copyrighted book, Penguin Books Ltd., and a distributor and printers in India regarding allegations of copyright infringement. The core issue is whether the defendants illegally reproduced and distributed a book titled “Spycatcher” without proper authorization. Detailed Factual Background The plaintiff in the case, Penguin Books Ltd., is a reputed UK-based publishing…

Sita Ram Iron Foundry and Engineering Works v. Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd. & Anr. Date of Order: 09 July 2025 Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 150/2021 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5395 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna Introduction The case raises significant questions of trademark ownership, assignment validity, and the burden of proof in rectification proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner sought cancellation of the trademark “BADAL” registered in favour of Hindustan Technocast, alleging fraud and impropriety in the chain of title. The Delhi High Court adjudicated the matter and delivered the judgment…

Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. V-Guard Industries Ltd. In the case of Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. V-Guard Industries Ltd., the Delhi High Court addressed a critical legal issue concerning the enforceability of design rights and the scope of permissible challenges to registered designs. The matter pertained to allegations of design piracy under the Designs Act, 2000, and whether a defendant, who had itself obtained design registration for a substantially similar design, could subsequently challenge the plaintiff’s registered design on the ground of prior publication. Factual Background Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd.…

Case Summary: Global IEEE Institute for Engineers v. IEEE Mumbai Section Welfare Association This case arises from a contractual and trademark dispute between a corporate entity, Global IEEE Institute for Engineers, and a public charitable trust-cum-society, IEEE Mumbai Section Welfare Association. The dispute centered on the termination of two service agreements and the subsequent unauthorized use of the IEEE trademark by the defendant trust. The case presented a complex interplay between intellectual property rights, private contractual obligations, and statutory requirements under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act). The High Court of Karnataka’s decision in this case provides significant…

Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr. Date of Order: 04 July 2025 Case Number: RFA(OS) (COMM) 18/2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5307 Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul Introduction The present case, Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited Vs. Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr., decided by the Delhi High Court on 4th July 2025, presents a significant development in Indian trademark jurisprudence concerning the protection of well-known marks in the pharmaceutical sector. The Court adjudicated upon the alleged infringement of the well-known registered…

Case Summary This case revolves around the conflict between Chile and Peru over the exclusive right to use the term “PISCO” as a Geographical Indication (GI) for alcoholic beverages. The petitioner, Asociacion de Productores de Pisco A.G., an association of Chilean producers, contested the registration of the GI “PISCO” granted in favor of Peru by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner asserted that Chile also has a historical and cultural claim to the term and sought to establish “Chilean PISCO” as a homonymous GI. Factual Background The petitioner represents Chilean producers of PISCO, primarily based in the river…

Case Summary This case revolves around the interpretation of the proviso to Order XXV Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly in the context of whether courts are mandatorily required to direct a foreign-residing plaintiff without sufficient immovable property in India to furnish security for costs. The issue arose in a commercial suit concerning intellectual property rights, and the matter was referred to a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court to reconcile conflicting decisions by Coordinate Benches on the interpretation of this provision. Factual Background The plaintiff, Communication Components Antenna Inc., a company based outside…