Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Facts This case involves a trademark dispute that traces back to the family business of Panchhi Petha Store, founded in 1952 in Agra by late Panchhi Lal. Over time, the business and the trademark rights were distributed between his two sons, Kanhaiya Lal and Subhash Chander, and their respective descendants. The original partnership registered the trademark “PANCHHI KA PETHA AUR DALMOTH” in 1971. After Panchhi Lal’s passing, a family settlement was executed in 1982 stipulating rights to use the trademark and maintaining a one-kilometer distance between respective shops operating under the “PANCHHI” name. As years passed, disputes arose when the…

The Appeal In this matter, the High Court of Delhi was called upon to decide an appeal by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG against Natco Pharma Limited regarding the manufacture and sale of the drug “Risdiplam.” The appellants, holders of Indian Patent IN 3343971 concerning compounds for treating spinal muscular atrophy, sought an injunction to prevent Natco from producing and selling Risdiplam. Facts of the Case The facts of the case are straightforward. F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG is the patentee for Risdiplam, marketed under the brand name EVRYSDI, used for spinal muscular atrophy. Natco Pharma began manufacturing and marketing Risdiplam, which…

Tapas Chatterjee Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr. Order Date: 6 October 2025  |  Case No: LPA 836/2023  |  Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8824-DB  |  Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi  |  Division Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Ajay Digpaul Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney) Executive Summary This case involved a patent dispute over a process for recovery of potassium sulphate and other valuable products from distillery spent wash, aiming for a Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) system. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (AC) refused the application on…

Facts: The appellant, B. L. Agro Industries Limited, is a long-time user and registered proprietor of the trademark “NOURISH” in Class 30, which covers a wide range of food-related products including edible oils, ghee, milk and dairy products, pulses, tea, coffee, flour, confectionery, spices, and other allied goods. The mark “NOURISH” has been in use since 2007, and the appellant holds registrations covering Classes 29, 30, and 31. The respondent Urban Exports (P) Ltd. applied for registration of the mark “TeaNOURISH” (stylized) under Application No. 6544100 in Class 30 covering similar goods such as coffee, tea, biscuits, confectionery, spices, and…

Anugya Gupta v/s. I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. – Trademark Dispute Fact of the Case This case revolves around a trademark dispute between Anugya Gupta and another party acting against I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd., represented by Director Arpit Seth. The core business of the plaintiff is providing career and employment-related services in India, with a focus on competitive examination preparation. The plaintiff had started an online service under the name “Sarkari Result” in 2009, and over time built a web portal, mobile apps, and related services using this mark. The mark became widely recognized and used by millions across…

Facts: Princeton University, a world-renowned Ivy League institution in the United States, was originally established in 1746 as the College of New Jersey and became “Princeton University” in 1896. Over the centuries, it gained international reputation and became home to numerous Nobel laureates, US Presidents, judges, and other dignitaries. The University has an established presence in India through academic collaborations, student exchange programs, seminars, and enrolment of Indian students. Princeton owns registrations of the trademark “Princeton” in India under Classes 16, 25, and 41 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. In 2020, Princeton discovered that the Vagdevi Educational Society, based…

Facts: In this case, Pushpdeep Cotex Private Limited, the petitioner, filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of trade mark registration no. 5925080. This registration covered a label device granted to respondent Anoop Agarwal on May 6, 2023, in Class 26, which pertains to textile goods like saree falls. The petitioner claimed it had been using the trademarks “Rani” and “Rachna” on saree falls and blouse textile pieces for many years, with the earliest trademark “Rani” registered since May 16, 2000. The petitioner presented evidence showing continuous and extensive use of these…

Gopika Industries Vs Dayal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Facts Of The Case The lawsuit was initiated by Gopika Industries, which claimed infringement of its registered trademark DYAL, used for cattle feed and registered since April 4, 1996 under Trade Mark No. 709502 in Class 31. Gopika Industries had records showing use of the DYAL mark both in English and regional languages. The defendant, Dayal Industries Pvt. Ltd., is also in the business of manufacturing and selling cattle feed and holds its trademark DAYAL (Trade Mark No. 923948) registered on May 10, 2000 in Class 31. Both parties claimed to use their…

Neeraj Gupta Vs. Controller Of Patents And Designs Order Date: September 26, 2025 Case Number: C.A.COMM.IPD-PAT 29/2023 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8664 Name Of Court: High Court Of Delhi, New Delhi Name Of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia Facts The case involved an appeal by Neeraj Gupta (“Appellant”) against the Controller of Patents and Designs (“Respondent”) after the rejection of his patent application titled ‘An Intravenous Catheter Device’. The device’s primary purpose is to infuse medication or fluids directly into a vein or draw blood samples for testing. The patent application (No. 201911036272) was filed on September 10, 2019 before…

Honasa Consumer Limited Vs. Cloud Wellness Private Limited & Anr. Order Date: September 26, 2025 Case Number: CSCOMM 483/2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8662 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi, New Delhi Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia Facts Honasa Consumer Limited brought a suit against Cloud Wellness Pvt. Ltd., alleging that Cloud Wellness had unlawfully copied the packaging, colours, trade dress and overall get-up of its products, thus infringing Honasa’s copyright and passing off. Honasa is a company selling skin care, personal care, and baby products using a unique blend of colours and layouts for packaging—what it…