Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Nilesh Girkar Vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited and Others — Summary Case Summary Case Title: Nilesh Girkar Vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited and Others Order Date: September 16, 2025 Case Number: RFA(COMM) 251/2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8281-DB Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla Nilesh Girkar Vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited and Others — Summary Facts The appellant, Mr. Nilesh Girkar, an author and lyricist, was engaged by Respondents 2 to 5, including Tutri Ventures Private Limited and its directors, to write dialogues and lyrics…

Oxular Limited Vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs Case Title: Oxular Limited Vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs Order Date: 11 September, 2025 Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 142024 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8337 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora The Fact This case center around a patent application for an ophthalmic delivery device. Oxular Limited filed Patent Application No. 201817034819 titled “Ophthalmic Delivery Device and Ophthalmic Drug Compositions” at the Patent Office, New Delhi, on 14 September 2018, through its authorized Patent Agent. A request for examination was timely…

Jain Shikanji Private Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Jain Facts The core dispute revolved around the use of several trademarks involving “Jain Shikanji.” Satish Kumar Jain, the respondent, claimed exclusive rights over the trademark “Jain Shikanji.” Meanwhile, the appellant company, Jain Shikanji Private Limited, and its Directors were accused of violating earlier ad-interim injunction orders by continuing to use, advertise, and promote goods under deceptively similar trademarks like “Jain Shikanji Restaurant,” “Jain Asli,” and related variants. This dispute even extended to online references and third-party platforms where the marks appeared. Trial Court Order Originally, the learned District Judge, Commercial Court-01, East…

Exotic Mile Vs. Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd – Case Summary Trademark dispute between Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd (boAt) and Exotic Mile (Boult) decided by the Delhi High Court on 15 September 2025. Facts The present legal dispute revolves around Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd (IMPL) and Exotic Mile (EM). IMPL is a well-established company known primarily for its electronic gadgets such as earphones, headphones, speakers, soundbars, and travel chargers marketed under its flagship brand “boAt”, launched in 2014. IMPL has registration of several trademarks and claims exclusive ownership of original logos and taglines including the trademark “boAt” and the tagline “PLUG…

Burberry Ltd v Megastar Shipping Pte Ltd Court: Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos 237 and 238 of 2017 Neutral Citation: [2019] SGCA 1 Order Date: 5 September 2018 Judges: Justice Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Justice Judith Prakash JA, Justice Tay Yong Kwang JA Facts The case involved Burberry Ltd and Louis Vuitton Malletier, two luxury brand owners who brought trade mark infringement actions against Megastar Shipping Pte Ltd, a freight forwarder company in Singapore. The dispute arose because Megastar Shipping handled the transhipment of counterfeit goods infringing the appellants’ registered trade…

Case Title: Nupur Mehta v. Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd. and Others Order Date: 11 September 2025Case Number: CS(OS) 376/2025Court: High Court of DelhiHon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora Facts The plaintiff, Nupur Mehta, filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions as well as compensation for violation of her image rights and defamation caused by the defendants, which included Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd. The suit was filed in the High Court of Delhi and valued at a total of Rs. 10 crores for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction. The suit included various prayer clauses, such…

Patent Case: BASE SE Vs. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs Fact The matter concerns the rejection of a patent application by the Deputy Controller and its subsequent appeal under the Patents Act, 1970. The case began with a patent application filed on 26 February 2009 titled “Pesticidal Mixtures Comprising an Anthranilamide Compound.” It originally contained 24 claims related to a chemical mixture used to protect plants from harmful fungi and pests. The application was subjected to the examination process under the provisions of the Patents Act, and a First Examination Report (FER) dated 13 October 2014 objected to the…

Novartis AG Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs & Ors. Order Date: 16th September 2025 Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 50/2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8211 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Hon’ble Judge: Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora Fact Novartis AG is the holder of Indian Patent No. 414518, which was granted after dismissal of several pre-grant oppositions. Post-grant, various pharmaceutical parties filed oppositions challenging the validity of the patent on the grounds of lack of inventive step and violation of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The patent grant was followed by procedural battles—opponents submitted further expert…

UPL Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. Case Title: UPL Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. Order Date: 16 September 2025 Case Number: WPA-IPD No.3 of 2024 Neutral Citation: 2025:CHC-AS:1812 Court: High Court at Calcutta Hon’ble Judge: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur Facts This case revolves around a patent application made by UPL Limited seeking rights over a specific fungicidal combination, which, according to the company, shows unexpected benefits such as a reduction in fungal diseases, delayed ageing in crops, and improved yield. The invention proposed the combination of various categories of fungicides—specifically a succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor (SDHI), a…

WOW Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. WOW Burger & Anr. — Case Summary High Court of Delhi at New Delhi — Order dated 12 September 2025 Facts WOW Momo Foods Private Limited began operations in 2008 in Kolkata and gradually grew into a well-known food business with more than 600 outlets across India. Its core brand identity revolved around the mark “WOW! MOMO,” which it used along with other related marks such as “WOW! CHINA,” “WOW! CHICKEN,” and “WOW! DIMSUM.” The plaintiff claimed that “WOW!” itself was the essential and distinctive feature of all its trademarks. It relied on its…