Delhi High Court Monthly Digest - January 2025
The Delhi High Court delivered 467 judgments in January 2025. We bring you a comprehensive digest featuring concise summaries, along with statistics on the number of judgments authored by each judge.
Access the complete digest by clicking here
BAJAJ RESOURCES LIMITED & ANR VS GOYAL HERBALS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS [CS(COMM)-1564/2016]
Judges: Justice Amit Bansal
The plaintiffs' application to amend the plaint in a trademark infringement and passing off suit was allowed. The amendments included details of subsequent trademark registrations, an interim injunction and decree against the defendants' bottle manufacturer, and updated sales and advertising figures. These changes were deemed necessary to address the core issues in the case, avoid multiple proceedings, and did not prejudice the defendants or alter the suit's nature.
ITC LIMITED VS RAJ KUMAR MITTAL & ORS. [CS(COMM)-647/2019]
Judges: Justice Amit Bansal
Mr. Prem Chand Mittal and Mr. Raj Kumar Mittal were found guilty of civil contempt for willfully disobeying an ad interim injunction order. They obstructed the Local Commissioner during execution and provided inconsistent explanations for missing seized products. Despite expressing remorse and apologies, Mr. Mittal was fined INR 500,000 and Mr. Raj Kumar Mittal was fined INR 300,000 for their conduct, avoiding civil imprisonment.
BROAD PEAK INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LTD. AND ANR. VS BROAD PEAK CAPITAL ADVISORS LLP AND ANR [CS(COMM)-405/2024]
Judges: Justice Amit Bansal
The plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for an interim injunction against the defendants using the trademark 'BROAD PEAK'. Their trademark application in India was submitted on a 'proposed to be used' basis, and the evidence was insufficient to show prior goodwill and reputation in the mark. The defendants' adoption of the mark appeared bona fide, and both parties had distinct businesses with low likelihood of consumer confusion. The application for interim injunction was dismissed.
MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD VS THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR. [C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT)- 38/2022]
Judges: Justice Amit Bansal
A revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act remains maintainable even if invalidity is raised as a defense under Section 107 in an infringement suit. The processes are distinct; a revocation petition can remove a patent from the register, while a defense only suggests the patent is revocable. The petitioner possesses an independent right to file a revocation petition, and the expiration of the patent does not render the petition irrelevant, as the cause of action for damages in the infringement suit persists. Applications to dismiss the revocation petition were dismissed.
ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS MR. NIPUN GUPTA & ANR. [C.O. (COMM.IPDTM)-138/2024]
Judges: Justice Amit Bansal
Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited's petitions led to the removal of the respondent's "RAPIDO" trademark registrations in classes 39, 12, 25, and 42 from the Register of Trade Marks. The respondent's mark was found identical to Roppen's well-known and prior registered "RAPIDO" marks, indicating a dishonest adoption meant to exploit Roppen's goodwill and reputation. This adoption contravened Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act and was likely to cause consumer confusion, meeting the criteria of the "Triple Identity Test."
GENSOL ELECTRIC VEHICLES PVT. LTD. VS MAHINDRA LAST MILE MOBILITY LIMITED [CS(COMM)-849/2024]
Judges: Justice Amit Bansal
The plaintiff's application for an interim injunction was dismissed due to the defendant's use of the mark 'MAHINDRA ZEO', which is unlikely to cause confusion with the plaintiff's registered trademark 'EZIO'. The plaintiff has not launched its product and lacks established goodwill, while the defendant is a recognized entity in the commercial electric vehicle sector, prominently featuring the 'MAHINDRA' name. Factors such as the nature of the goods, consumer sophistication, and purchasing behavior in the automobile market indicate that the defendant's mark is sufficiently distinct. The plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case for the injunction, and the balance of convenience favored the defendant.
SYNGENTA LIMITED AND ANR. VS GSP CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED [CS(COMM)-87/2020]
Judges: Justice Amit Bansal
The plaintiffs' application for their Tier-II Confidentiality Club member to access records collected by the court-appointed Scientific Advisor was deemed maintainable. The mutually agreed Terms of Reference entitled Tier-II members to this information, with the exception of supplier records, which could be redacted. Arguments against confidentiality and information leakage were rejected. The defendant is required to provide the relevant documents to Dr. Alan Whitton, the plaintiffs' eligible Tier-II representative.
FMI LIMITED VS MIDAS TOUCH METALLOYS PVT. LTD. [CS(COMM)-721/2024]
Judges: Justice Amit Bansal
FMI Limited received an interim injunction against Midas Touch Metalloys Pvt. Ltd., prohibiting the use of the mark 'INDEED' or any similar variations that could confuse consumers with FMI's registered trademark 'INDI.' The plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case of passing off due to the phonetic, visual, and structural similarities between the marks, along with the defendant's use of an identical color scheme. The defendant's claims regarding the suppression of facts and the relevance of its separate trademark registrations were dismissed.
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS SIYA RAM SINGH & ORS. [MAC.APP.-339/2024]
Judges: Justice Amit Mahajan
The appeal by the insurance company against the compensation awarded for injuries from a motor accident was dismissed. Evidence, including the victim's wife's testimony and medical records, supported the assessment of 100% functional disability. An award of ₹5,00,000 for future medical expenses was upheld, following established principles for severe permanent disabilities. The insurance company's arguments were rejected, and the statutory amount deposited was directed to be released.
ABDUL RAB VS NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU [BAIL APPLN.-3023/2024]
Judges: Justice Amit Mahajan
Abdul Rab received bail in a case involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The evidence against him consisted only of co-accused disclosure statements and CDR connectivity, which were insufficient for establishing his involvement. He had also been arrested in two separate cases for the same incident, suggesting a violation of double jeopardy. Bail was granted with conditions, emphasizing that the observations made were solely for this decision and should not affect the trial's outcome.