- Sudeep Chatterjee, Trade mark:
Havells India Ltd. vs Cab-Rio Industries and Ors. [CS(Comm) 995 of 2024] Singh and Singh Law Firm had represented the Plaintiff in the suit seeking injunction against the Defendants from using the marks ‘CAB-RIO//’that were phonetically, visually, conceptually and structurally identical/similar to the Plaintiff’s prior, well-known and registered trade mark ‘REO’ and its derivatives/formatives. Defendants were using the impugned mark ‘CAB-RIO//’which were deceptively similar to the well-known mark of the Plaintiff ‘REO’ . It was contended that the mere addition of the prefix ‘CAB’ to "REO" does not add any distinctiveness to the impugned mark whatsoever, as the phonetics/ pronunciation of the impugned mark remains same as that of the Plaintiff's registered mark. It was submitted that the Defendants have dubiously adopted the impugned mark in order to create confusion in the market and ride upon the goodwill of the Plaintiff company. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant an interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff vide order dated 17.02.2025. The Hon'ble Court has restrained the Defendants from using the impugned, ie, ‘CAB-RIO//’ until the pendency of the suit.
Mashi Exports India Private Limited. V. Ramesh Goplani and Ors. [CS(Comm)863 of 2024] Singh and Singh Law Firm represented the Plaintiff in this commercial suit filed before the Delhi High Court seeking relief of permanent injunction against the Defendants from counterfeiting the plaintiff’s goods, infringing the registered trade mark of the plaintiff ‘NSIBTI LAAZIZA’as well as the trade dress of the Plaintiffs’ products. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and exporting superior quality henna (Mehndi), including henna based products and cosmetics such as henna powders. The Defendants also sold similar products bearing slavish imitations of the Plaintiffs’ registered mark as well as the trade dress. The Hon’ble Court found that the Defendents actions result in the infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and statutory rights. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court was pleased to find that the Planitiff had made a prima-facie case of infringement and counterfeiting of the Plaintiffs’ products and was therefore pleased to grant an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of the Plaintiff vide order dated 03.10.2024. The Hon’ble Court direct the Defendants to stop any use of the registered mark and trade dress of the plaintiff. Further, the Defendants were directed to stop and suspend any export/ clearance of the defendants’ products which are bearing the plaintiff’s registered trade mark ‘NSIBTI LAAZIZA’ or any identical or similar mark.
Dolby International AB v. Lava International Ltd. (CS(COMM) 350/2024) The case is an SEP infringement suit filed by Dolby against Lava for continued use of AAC technology by Lava without execution of a FRAND license. Vide order dated 22nd May, 2024, the defendants provided an undertaking to the Delhi High Court that they will deposit interim royalties offered by them at Rs. 5.13 per device in the Hon’ble Court to secure the interest of the Plaintiff, while the court adjudicates issues related to pro tem/interim deposit. Detailed arguments have been advanced before the Hon’ble Court for recognition of the requirement for passing of a pro tem order in favour of an SEP proprietor and judgment is likely to be pronounced by mid-2025. Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP was representing Dolby International AB.
TLM Ericcson (Publ) v. Lava International Ltd. (CS(COMM) 1148/2016 and CS(COMM) 65/2016) The case is an SEP infringement suit filed by Ericsson against Lava for continued use of telecommunication technology (2G, EDGE and 3G) by Lava without execution of a FRAND license. Detailed arguments were addressed before the Delhi High Court over a span of several months. Vide judgment dated 28th March, 2024, the Hon’ble Court held Lava liable for infringement to Ericsson granting damages equivalent to the FRAND royalty payable to Ericsson of INR 244,07,63,990/- plus interest. The significance of the case lies in being the first telecommunication SEP decision to be passed after completion of the trial by a court in India, deciding issues such as essentiality, infringement and FRAND rates after appreciating evidence led on this behalf. These are the highest damages which have been awarded by any court in India for intellectual property violation. An appeal has been preferred by Lava against the said judgment, however no stay was granted by the appellate court. Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP was representing TLM Ericsson (Publ)
Zydus Lifesciences Limited Vs F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG & ANR. FAO(OS) (COMM) 269/2024 Singh and Singh Law Firm successfully represented Zydus Life Sciences in securing a favorable order in the Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. Vs. F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG case concerning the drug Pertuzumab. The litigation involved allegations of patent infringement, with Roche claiming Zydus’ biosimilar violated its patents. Initially, an ad-interim injunction was imposed on Zydus in July 2024, preventing the company from launching its product. Various legal proceedings followed, with a detailed order in October ruling that an injunction could not be granted without meeting specific legal criteria. Despite this, a later order in November 2024 reinstated the injunction. On November 21, 2024, the Hon’ble Division Bench overturned the November 5 order, ruling that the earlier injunction was not valid. This decision clarified that there is no injunction against Zydus, allowing the case to proceed before the appropriate bench for further hearings.
LA RENON HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ARENON HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED - CS (COMM) No. 26 of 2025 Singh and Singh Law Firm successfully represented La Renon Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. in securing an ex-parte ad-interim injunction from the Delhi High Court against Arenon Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. The court restrained the Defendant from using the mark ‘ARENON’ or any similar variation, citing trademark infringement and passing off. La Renon, the registered owner of the ‘LA RENON’ trademark since 2007, opposed the Defendant’s attempts to register ‘ARENON,’ which were subsequently abandoned. However, the Defendant continued to use the mark, listing its products on e-commerce platforms, prompting La Renon to file suit. The Court found that the marks were phonetically and visually similar, leading to potential consumer confusion. Since the Defendant did not appear despite advance notice, the Court ruled in favor of La Renon, prohibiting the Defendant from manufacturing, selling, or promoting products under ‘ARENON’, and also restricting the use of the domain name ‘arenonhealth.com.
𝒁𝒚𝒅𝒖𝒔 𝑯𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉𝒄𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝑳𝒕𝒅. & Ors. against 𝑨𝒍𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝑩𝒊𝒐𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒎 𝑷𝒗𝒕. 𝑳𝒕𝒅. [CS(COMM) 516/2023, I.A. 14145/2023 & I.A. 3116/2024] The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favor of Zydus Healthcare Ltd., Biochem Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd., and German Remedies Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. against Alder Biochem Pvt. Ltd., restraining the Defendant from using the mark ‘ALDER BIOCHEM’ or any variation containing ‘BIOCHEM’, including its trade name and domain (www.alderbiochem.com). The Plaintiffs, registered proprietors of the ‘BIOCHEM’ trademark since 1961 and 1991, argued that the Defendant’s use of a deceptively similar mark in the pharmaceutical sector could cause life-threatening confusion. The Defendant claimed ‘BIOCHEM’ was generic, but the Court rejected this, finding no evidence of third-party usage. The Court ruled that adding ‘ALDER’ did not differentiate the mark, as ‘BIOCHEM’ remained the dominant feature. Recognising the risk of confusion in medical products, the Court restrained Alder Biochem from using the disputed mark, name, or any similar variations. An appeal has been filed by Alder Biochem Ltd. against the injunction order. However, no stay has been granted by the Court.
Trimble Solution Corporation v. Mold-Tek Technologies Limited (CS(COMM) 445/2024 The Plaintiff alleged infringement of copyright in its software Tekla by the Defendant – Mold-Tek, and sought an ex-parte ad interim injunction and appointment of Local Commissioners. The Firm represented the Defendant on the first hearing, challenging the copyright infringement claims and opposed the interim injunction. The Defendant volunteered inspection of its computer systems by third-party IT personals, preferably from the IT department of the court to verify the claims of the Plaintiff. The court accepted the arguments of the Defendant and appointed personnel from the IT department of the Delhi High Court for inspection of the computer system of the Defendant. Additionally, the Court directed the Plaintiff to file an affidavit undertaking that if the claims of the Plaintiff are found to be false, the Plaintiff would be burdened with appropriate costs for filing a frivolous suit. Subsequently, no inspection was undertaken by the Plaintiff and the suit was withdrawn unconditionally and settlement was recorded on 27.09.2024.
