Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

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…

Case Overview This case concerns a patent infringement dispute involving a technological startup and a global electronics giant. Conqueror Innovations Pvt. Ltd., a recognized MSME and startup in India, filed a suit against Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. for allegedly infringing Patent No. 244963 titled “A Communication Device Finder System.” The core of the dispute centered on Xiaomi’s pre-installed “Find Device” feature in its smartphones and whether it infringed the claimed patented invention. The case provides judicial clarity on standards of patent infringement, particularly concerning essential features, claim mapping, and working of patents in India. Factual Background The plaintiff No.…

Here is the **HTML code** with improved readability, structured using proper headings, paragraph tags, and formatting—without altering the original content: “`html Dabur India Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. The case of Dabur India Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. represents a significant judicial examination of disparagement in commercial advertising, particularly in the context of Ayurvedic products regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Dabur, a leading manufacturer of Chyawanprash, sought legal recourse against Patanjali’s advertisements for its product, ‘Patanjali Special Chyawanprash’, alleging that they denigrated Dabur’s ‘Dabur Chyawanprash’ and the entire Chyawanprash product category. The case delves into the delicate…

Case Summary: Major League Baseball Properties Inc Vs. Manish Vijay & Ors. Date of Order: July 01, 2025 Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 279/2023 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5103 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee Dispute Overview The dispute centers around the international reputation of the petitioner’s mark “BLUE JAYS,” its spillover into India, and the respondent’s adoption of a deceptively similar mark “BLUE-JAY.” The judgment critically examines the interplay between prior user rights, international goodwill, and dishonest adoption, reaffirming established principles that protect well-known marks against misappropriation through bad faith…

VIP Industries Ltd v. Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr. A Landmark Ruling on Passing Off and Trademark Coexistence The case of VIP Industries Ltd v. Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr., decided by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, is a significant pronouncement in the domain of trademark law, particularly in determining the parameters of passing off where multiple registered proprietors of an identical mark co-exist. It presents a complex legal conflict involving cross-suits by two entities, each asserting goodwill and prior user rights over the trademark “CARLTON” in respect of goods under Class 18. The judgment settles the…

M/s Products and Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Nilkamal Limited and Ors. Case Overview The case of M/s Products and Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Nilkamal Limited and Ors. before the High Court of Delhi engages with the fundamental principle that the sale of genuine goods by an authorized reseller or importer does not amount to trademark infringement. This principle is anchored in the doctrine of international exhaustion, which permits parallel imports and resale of genuine products sourced from the trademark owner. At the heart of this dispute lies the tension between the rights of a registered proprietor claiming exclusivity…

Avient Switzerland GMBH Vs. Treadfast Ventures & Anr. Date of Order: 01 July 2025 Case Number: C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 44/2024 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5104 Court: High Court of Delhi Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee Case Overview This case involves a trademark dispute between Avient Switzerland GMBH, a global chemical manufacturer, and Treadfast Ventures, concerning the registration of the mark ‘RENOL’ in Class 2. The primary issue was whether the appellant had established prior use and proprietorship over the mark ‘RENOL’ in India, in the face of opposition by the respondent who owns the registered trademark ‘REINOL’ in Classes 1 and 3.…

Case Summary This case addresses a crucial intersection in Indian patent law, focusing on whether an invention that involves software or algorithms qualifies as patentable subject matter under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The case of Kroll Information Assurance, LLC v. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks engages deeply with the exclusion of “computer programme per se” and “algorithm” from the definition of inventions. The decision sheds light on the permissible scope of claim amendments under Section 59 and tests the limits of patentability of computer-implemented inventions (CIIs). Factual Background The appellant, Kroll Information Assurance, LLC, a…