Case Title: Sujoy Ghosh vs State of Jharkhand & Ors
Case Number: SLP (Crl) 9452/2025
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment in a plea filed by filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings alleging copyright infringement in connection with the film Kahaani 2, which was declined by the Jharkhand High Court. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard the matter and reserved the verdict. Earlier, on July 2, 2025, the court issued notice and granted interim relief by dispensing with Ghosh's personal appearance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh during the pendency of the case, and also directed that no coercive steps be taken against him.
Supreme Court Directs Status Quo In Zenlab-Latros Pharmaceuticals Trademark Dispute Over “ZENOVIT”
Case Title: Zenlab India (Now Known As Zenlab Ethica Ltd. & Anr. v. Latros Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd
Case Number: SLP (C) 3868 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 107
The Supreme Court recently directed the parties to maintain the status quo in a trademark dispute between Zenlab India and Latros Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., while asking the trial court to expeditiously decide the pending suits. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe passed the order while allowing an appeal filed by Zenlab challenging a judgment of the Bombay High Court dated February 16, 2022, which had granted an injunction in favour of Latros.
Case Title: Sujoy Ghosh vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case Number: SLP (Crl) 9452/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 121
The Supreme Court on Friday quashed criminal proceedings against filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh in a copyright infringement case relating to the film “Kahani 2," setting aside the summoning order issued against him by the CJM Hazaribagh and the subsequent refusal of the Jharkhand High Court to quash the case. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while allowing Ghosh's petition, said:
“In the result, the summoning order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the CJM and order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the High Court, are quashed and set aside. The proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1267 of 2017, pending before the CJM, Hazaribagh, is quashed and set aside. Accordingly the appeal is allowed.”
Case Title: Acharya Balkrishna v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 291/2026
Patanjali Ayurved co-founder and Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna has moved the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights against alleged deepfakes, misleading videos, and online misinformation. The court on Monday expressed reservations over the wide scope of the takedown relief sought. During the hearing, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the prayers in the suit appeared overly broad and cautioned that a public figure must be prepared to face criticism, satire, and commentary along with public praise.
Case Title: Cloud Wellness Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Spa De Soleil Inc
Case Number: CS(COMM) 276/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 293
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Cloud Wellness Pvt Ltd and its director. The Court restrained US-based Spa De Soleil Inc from using the trademark “DERMATOUCH” or any identical or deceptively similar mark. The Court held that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case of prior use, registration, goodwill and reputation in the mark. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on March 20, 2026. The Court observed that the plaintiffs had established prior adoption and registered ownership of the mark “DERMATOUCH”. The mark has been used since April 1, 2017, for cosmetic and skincare products.
Case Title: Gautam Gambhir v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 287/2026
The Delhi High Court on Monday allowed Indian cricket coach Gautam Gambhir to withdraw his application seeking interim injunction in a personality rights suit after the court pointed out serious defects in the pleadings and the absence of specific “takedown” prayers identifying the allegedly infringing content. The application was withdrawn after Justice Jyoti Singh observed during the hearing that the plaintiff had not provided a defendant-wise and URL-wise list of content sought to be removed, making it difficult for the court to grant effective relief.
Case Title: Products And Ideas India Pvt. Ltd. v. Nilkamal Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 111/2025, CM APPL. 41897/2025 & CM APPL. 41898/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 295
The Delhi High Court on Monday set aside a single judge's order and restored an interim injunction protecting the “STELLADEXIN” trademark used for commercial induction cookers. In a judgment pronounced on March 23, 2026, a division bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the single bench incorrectly applied the principles of international exhaustion and prior user to vacate the original injunction order.
Case Title: Acharya Balkrishna v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 291/2026
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday passed an interim order directing removal of specific online content targeting Patanjali Ayurved Co-Founder Acharya Balkrishna after observing that several links appeared to be “defamatory,” “obscene,” and “vulgar” and prima facie infringed his personality rights. During today's hearing, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela examined an abridged 18-page compilation of URLs submitted by the plaintiff and clarified that while satire and parody are protected forms of speech, certain material placed before the Court appeared to cross the permissible limit.
Mohanlal Withdraws Plea For Interim Relief In Personality Rights Suit Before Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mohanlal Viswanathan Nair v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 296/2026
The Delhi High Court on Monday allowed Malayalam actor Mohanlal Viswanathan Nair to withdraw his application seeking an interim injunction in a personality rights suit, after the court indicated that the plea lacked the necessary specificity to enable enforceable takedown directions against intermediaries such as Meta and Google. A single bench of Justice Jyoti Singh permitted the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh application containing detailed particulars, including a defendant-wise classification of allegedly infringing links involving deepfakes, unauthorized merchandise, fake endorsements and voice-cloning tutorials.
Delhi High Court To Pass Interim Order Protecting Gautam Gambhir's Personality Rights
Case Title: Gautam Gambhir v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 287/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday said it will pass an interim order to protect the personality rights of Indian cricket coach Gautam Gambhir. Justice Jyoti Singh observed during the hearing that most of the URLs identified in the suit had already been made inaccessible by intermediaries such as Meta, Google/YouTube, Amazon, and Flipkart, and said the injunction would be confined to specific links placed on record.
Case Title: Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr. v. Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 317/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed status quo on the sale and distribution of Dr. Reddy's anti-diabetic drug marketed under the mark “Olympic”, after Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk filed a trademark infringement suit alleging deceptive similarity with its globally known diabetes drug “Ozempic”. Novo Nordisk approached the court, claiming that Dr. Reddy's had begun promotional activities and was on the verge of launching, or had already launched, a semaglutide injection under the impugned mark, prompting urgent intervention to prevent the product from entering the market during the pendency of the proceedings.
Can Copyright Be Claimed Over AI-Generated Song? Delhi High Court To Examine In Infringement Suit
Case Title: Tarun Chaudhary & Anr. v. Kuldeep Meena & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 297/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday raised doubts over whether a song generated using artificial intelligence can receive copyright protection under Indian law. The court was hearing a copyright infringement suit filed by songwriter-producer Tarun Chaudhary, who claims that a song whose rights he purchased was infringed by the defendants. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed during the hearing that the legal position on AI-generated works remains unsettled, remarking, “There is no judgment on AI," while also questioning whether copyright can be claimed where the composition itself appears to have been generated by an AI tool.
Case Title: Britannia Industries Limited v. Rajat Chawla Sole Proprietor Of Madhve Global Enterprises
Case Number: CS(COMM) 480/2024 & I.A. 31014/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 301
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant a temporary injunction to Britannia Industries Limited in its trademark dispute against a manufacturer using the mark “RENEWTRIA” inside a similar geometric label. In a judgment dated March 24, 2026, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Britannia was unable to show that its five-sided pentagonal device, when used by itself without the well-known “BRITANNIA” wordmark, had acquired a distinctive identity among consumers.
Delhi High Court Records Settlement In Singh & Singh Law Firm Trademark Dispute Against CA Firm
Case Title: Singh And Singh Law Firm LLP & Anr. v. Singh And Singh Chartered Accountants & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 192/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 302
The Delhi High Court has decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP against Singh and Singh Chartered Accountants after recording a settlement under which the CA firm agreed to change its name to “SINGH M & CO” and transfer the domain name singhandsingh.in to the plaintiffs. Justice Jyoti Singh, in an order dated March 25, 2026, recorded the settlement between the parties and directed that the defendants complete the transfer of the domain name by May 6, 2026.
Case Title: Wirtgen Gmbh v. Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks And Ors
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 303
The Delhi High Court has quashed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents refusing a patent application by Wirtgen GMBH, ruling that the introduction of new technical objections for the first time in a final refusal order violates the fundamental principles of natural justice. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held on March 23, 2026, that the impugned order was procedurally infirm as it deprived the applicant of a fair opportunity to address the specific grounds of refusal.
Delhi High Court Grants Temporary Dynamic Injunction Against Illegal Streaming Of TATA IPL 2026
Case Title: Jiostar India Private Limited v. Https//Daddylives.Nl & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 313/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 304
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of JioStar India Private Limited restraining unauthorized streaming and broadcasting of the TATA IPL 2026 event, holding that the company had made out a prima facie case for protection of its exclusive broadcast rights. The 2026 IPL season is scheduled to commence in two days on March 28.
Case Title: Marriott International Inc. v. Savya Realty LLP & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 311/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 305
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Savya Realty LLP and its partners from using the mark "EDITION" for realty projects, holding it to be “completely identical” to Marriott International Inc.'s registered trademark 'THE EDITION' and likely to mislead consumers. On March 25, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that “the plaintiff has made out a prima facie strong case in its favour,” noting that “the overwhelming documents on record tilt the balance in favour of the plaintiff” and that it is “likely to suffer great loss and injury which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms if the defendants are not injuncted immediately.”
Delhi High Court To Pass Interim Orders To Protect Actor Mohanlal's Personality Rights
Case Title: Mohanlal Viswanathan Nair v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 296/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday indicated that it will grant interim protection to the personality rights of Malayalam actor Mohanlal, while asking him to first place the allegedly infringing material on record. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed Mohanlal's request to bring additional parties into the case. The court also directed him to circulate a compilation of the offending links to all defendants. The matter returns after the court had earlier permitted the actor to withdraw his interim plea, with liberty to move a fresh application supported by fuller details.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Reviving Opposition To IBM's “TIVOLI” Trademark Application
Case Title: International Business Machines Corporation v. Tivoli Gardens & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 45/2025 & IA Nos.19415/2025 & 26937/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 214
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside an order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks that permitted Tivoli Gardens to revive its opposition to International Business Machines Corporation's application for registration of the mark “TIVOLI”. Justice Tejas Karia allowed IBM's appeal. The court held that the statutory timeline for filing evidence in support of opposition admits of no discretion.
Case Title: Dr Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi Through Power Of Attorney Holder v. John Does Ashok Kumars & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 178/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 215
Calling the threat to his image “real and present”, the Delhi High Court has protected Maharashtra-based spiritual leader Dr Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi's Persinlaity Rights Against AI-generated deepfakes. The court restrained the unauthorized use of his name, voice, and persona and ordered Google, Meta and X to take down infringing content within 48 hours and disclose subscriber information of those responsible. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction on February 24, observing that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case. “The dent and damage to the image and personality of the plaintiff, prima facie, appears to be real and present,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Finds 'Huge Counterfeiting Operation', Awards ₹2.5 Lakh Damages To HUL, P&G
Case Title: Hindustan Lever Ltd. & Anr. v. Rakesh Goyal & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 256/2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 216
The Delhi High Court has recently decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (now HUL) and another plaintiff, a subsidiary of Procter & Gamble Company, USA, awarding Rs 2,50,000 in damages against individuals found to be engaged in counterfeiting fast-moving consumer goods. In a judgment delivered on February 28, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia held that the defendants were running a “huge counterfeiting operation” involving fake shampoos, creams, detergents and other FMCG products sold under the plaintiffs' well-known marks.
Case Title: Britannia Industries Ltd v. Desi Bites Snacks P Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 983/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 217
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against Britannia Industries Ltd and its authorised representative in a trademark dispute over the mark “GOOD DAY”. The plea was filed by Desibites Snacks Pvt Ltd and its director. The applicants alleged that Britannia had falsely stated on oath that it first became aware of their products only in the third week of October 2024. They also alleged that Britannia suppressed the fact that it had filed a rectification petition in 2018 against a trademark registration for “GOOD DAY” held by the director of Desi Bites, Roop Chand Agarwal, for papad.
Case Title: Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Zee Laboratories Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 896/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 219
Calling it “a case of triple identity,” the Delhi High Court has restrained Zee Laboratories from using the marks 'FEXIT', 'FEXIT-B' and 'FEXIT-M', holding them deceptively similar to GlaxoSmithKline's registered antibiotic brand 'PHEXIN'. Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on February 28, 2026, on an interim application by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. seeking restraint against infringement of its mark 'PHEXIN', passing off, unfair competition and dilution.
Delhi High Court Bars Groundless Copyright Threats Against TV9 Over Brief Use Of Third-Party Footage
Case Title: Associated Broadcasting Company Limited v. Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 9/2024 & I.A. 260/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 227
The Delhi High Court has declared that certain TV9 Network news videos uploaded on its YouTube channels do not infringe the copyright of third parties and restrained four foreign entities from issuing further groundless copyright threats against the broadcaster. The videos covered events such as Hurricane Laura in the United States, heavy snowfall and floods, the Israel–Hamas conflict, and the 2023 Chinese balloon incident.
Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection Of Crystal Crop's Herbicidal Composition Patent
Case Title: Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 19/2023 & I.A. 20715/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 228
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Crystal Crop Protection Ltd., upholding a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to reject a patent application for a herbicidal composition designed for field crops. Justice Tejas Karia upheld the Assistant Controller's finding that the proposed invention lacked an inventive step and fell under the statutory bar of Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, as it constituted a 'mere admixture' of known substances.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction To Novartis Against 'NOVIETS' For Trademark Infringement
Case Title: Novartis AG & Ors. Noviets Pharma & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 218/2024 & I.A. 24963/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 229
The Delhi High Court on 28 February granted an interim injunction in favour of the global healthcare company Novartis, restraining several Bihar-based entities, including Noviets Pharma and Noviets Veterinary Private Limited, from using the marks 'NOVIETS' and its associated logos. Justice Tejas Karia observed that the contested marks were deceptively similar to the well-known 'NOVARTIS' trademark and logo, noting a likelihood of confusion among the public.
Case Title: Radico Khaitan Ltd v. Mohit Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 & I.A. 13752/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 230
The Delhi High Court recently allowed a rectification petition filed by Radico Khaitan Ltd., formerly Rampur Distillery & Chemical Company Ltd., directing the removal and cancellation of the 'GRAND MASTI' trademark registration held by Mohit Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd. from the Trade Marks Register. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in a judgment delivered on 27 February 2026, observed that the registered mark was deceptively similar to Radico Khaitan's established 'MASTIH' brand, in use since 1969.
Case Title: Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited v. Anondita Medicare Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 184/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 233
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited, restraining Anondita Medicare Limited and the other entities behind the impugned Instagram pages from using social media content that allegedly copies the original artistic works and taglines of its popular 'MANFORCE' condom brand. On February 25, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that a side-by-side comparison of the Instagram posts “clearly would depict, prima facie, infringement of the copyrights of the plaintiff.” The Court said the material on record showed an “almost complete and identical imitation of the original artistic works and the tagline” of the plaintiff.
Case Title: Novo Nordisk v. Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited and Anr
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 204/2025 & CM APPL. 78607/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 242
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed Danish Pharma Company Novo Nordisk's appeal seeking an interim injunction against Dr Reddy's Laboratories Ltd in a patent infringement dispute over the anti-diabetic drug Semaglutide. The drug is the active ingredient in Novo Nordisk's blockbuster diabetes medicine Ozempic, which has also gained global attention for its weight loss effects. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla upheld a Single Judge's order refusing to grant interim relief restraining Dr. Reddy's from dealing in Semaglutide, holding that the defendants had raised a credible challenge to the validity of the patent.
Sale Of Used HDDs With Disclosure Does Not Amount to Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Western Digital Technologies Inc. & Anr. v. Geonix International Private Limited, Through Its Directors, Mr. Gaurav Jain Mr. Saurabh Jain & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 146/2024, CM APPL. 39898/2024 & CM APPL. 39900/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 243
The Delhi High Court on 9 March, dismissed appeals by Western Digital and Seagate against the sale of refurbished hard disk drives (HDDs), upholding the Single Judge's order permitting such sales. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, held that refurbishers selling end-of-life HDDs do not commit trademark infringement or “reverse passing off,” provided they comply with strict disclosure requirements.
Reverse Passing Off Foreign To Indian Trademark Jurisprudence, Not Enforceable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Western Digital Technologies Inc. & Anr. v. Geonix International Private Limited, Through Its Directors, Mr. Gaurav Jain Mr. Saurabh Jain & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 146/2024, CM APPL. 39898/2024 & CM APPL. 39900/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 243
The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that the tort of “reverse passing off” is foreign to Indian trademark jurisprudence and does not create an enforceable cause of action under the Trade Marks Act. The court dismissed appeals filed by Western Digital and Seagate against refurbishers who remove original brand labels from used hard disk drives and sell them under new brands. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that Indian trademark jurisprudence recognises the traditional doctrine of passing off and does not recognise reverse passing off. The doctrine applies where a trader represents its own goods as those of another. The law does not extend to claims where a trader complains that its goods are being presented as someone else's.
Delhi High Court Restrains Oiltech Engineering From Using Pirated Bentley STAAD, SACS Software
Case Title: Bentley Systems Inc & Anr. v. Oiltech Engineering India Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 49/2023 & I.A. 1674/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 250
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted a permanent injunction to infrastructure engineering software company Bentley Systems Inc., holding that Oiltech Engineering India Private Limited had used pirated versions of its software. The court restrained the company from copying, installing, or using unauthorized versions of Bentley's STAAD and SACS software programs. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “It appears that the defendants rather than procuring genuine licenses have used pirated/unauthorized versions of the said softwares. The defendants have by such use, infringed plaintiff no.1's copyright subsisting in the software programs.”
Case Title: Crocodile International Pte. Ltd. v La Chemise Lacoste & Anr.
Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) 18/2024 & CM APPL. 56314/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 245
The Delhi High Court on Monday modified a single judge ruling in a long-running trademark dispute between Lacoste and Singapore based Crocodile International, holding that the latter's crocodile device infringed both the French fashion house's trademark and its copyright in the iconic saurian emblem. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment pronounced on March 9, 2026, partly allowed cross appeals by the parties and modified the August 14, 2024 ruling of the single judge, which had limited the finding of infringement to trademark alone.
Case Title: K.S. Oils Limited v. Shivang Edibles Oils Limited & Anr.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 69/2026 & CM APPL. 14636/2026, CM APPL. 14639- 14642/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 315
The Delhi High Court on Monday set aside an ex parte ad interim injunction that had restrained K.S. Oils Limited from using the 'KALASH' trademark and has asked the Trial Court to take a fresh call on the injunction application. This allows them to use the mark for edible oils. The ruling came on March 30, 2026, from a division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, which found that the trial court's conclusion on a prima facie case could not be sustained.
Case Title: Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Mr. Vijay Keshav Wagh & Ors.
Case Number: CO(COMM.IPD-CR) 18/2023 & I.A. 23338/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 251
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the Registrar of Copyrights to remove from the Register a copyright registration obtained by Vijay Keshav Wagh for the artistic work titled “SHREE SAKSHAT,” holding that it copied in its entirety the TIGER beer logo owned by Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that a comparison of the two logos showed that Wagh had reproduced Heineken's tiger device in its entirety, with only minor additions that did not alter the dominant feature of the mark.
Case Title: Parle Products Private Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 49/2025 & I.A.19990/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 249
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Parle Products Pvt Ltd in a trademark dispute over the mark “20-20”. The court held that when competing trademark applications are filed on a “proposed to be used” basis, subsequent commercial use by one applicant cannot defeat the earlier filing date of the other. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks dated April 29, 2025 rejecting Parle's opposition to a rival company's application to register the mark “20-20” for goods in Class 30.
Delhi High Court Quashes 'NAUKRIYAN' Trademark, Says It Is Deceptively Similar To Naukri.com
Case Title: Info Edge (India) Limited v. Pradeep Namdeo & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 34/2025 & I.A. 16734/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 247
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed the trademark registration of "NAUKRIYAN," finding it deceptively similar to the “NAUKRI” mark used by Info Edge (India) Limited for its flagship job portal, Naukri.com. In a judgment delivered on March 10, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said the dominant and essential feature in both marks is the word "naukri." According to the court, “naukriyan” is simply the plural form of the Hindi word “naukri”, meaning job, and that this variation does not create enough distinctiveness to avoid confusion, particularly since both parties offer similar employment-related services.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside 'FISCHBEIN' Trademark Abandonment Order Over Uncommunicated Objections
Case Title: Nvenia LLC v. The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 28/2025, I.A. 15577/2025 & I.A. 22984/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 246
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order by the Registrar of Trade Marks that had declared a trademark application for the mark 'FISCHBEIN' as abandoned. On March 10, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated that the Registrar's decision violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the application based on grounds never communicated to the applicant, nVenia. “It is the bounden duty of the Trade Marks Office while examining the application to place all objections before the applicant so as to enable the applicant to know and be aware of the objections which are to be addressed. It is those very objections alone that the applicant can be expected to respond to at that stage,” the bench remarked.
Delhi High Court Stops Indore Firm From Using Glaxo-Like Drug Packaging, Grants Temporary Injunction
Case Title: Glaxo Group Limited & Anr. v. Anand Jain, Trading As Jain Group/ Jankem Life Science
Case Number: CS(COMM) 215/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 248
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of pharmaceutical company Glaxo Group Limited, restraining an Indore-based trader from using trademarks and packaging deceptively similar to its popular medicinal brands including ZINETAC, AUGMENTIN, CALPOL and BETNESOL, after finding a prima facie case of infringement and breach of an earlier undertaking. In an order passed on March 10, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the defendant, Anand Jain trading as Jain Group/Jankem Life Science, had continued to use marks and trade dress similar to those of the plaintiff despite having undertaken in 2024 to cease such use and destroy the infringing inventory.
Delhi High Court Restrains Kent RO From Using 'KENT' Mark For Fans, Notes Prior Use By Kent Cables
Case Title: Kent RO Systems Limited & Ors. v. Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 142/2023 & CM APPL. 35806/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 254
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday upheld an interim injunction restraining Kent RO Systems Limited from manufacturing or selling fans under the trademark “KENT”, affirming a single judge's order passed in favour of Kent Cables Private Limited. In a judgment delivered on March 11, 2026, a division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the appeals filed by the purifier manufacturer and held that the cable company had shown prior adoption of the mark for electrical goods and prima facie use of the mark for fans, disentitling Kent RO from seeking injunctive relief at the interim stage.
Delhi High Court Cancels Copyright On Bicycle Parts Label For Lack Of Originality
Case Title: Bombay Metals Pvt Ltd vs Tara Singh and Anr.
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 770/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 311
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the copyright registration of a product packaging label used by one Tara Singh for bicycle parts, holding that the sticker was a substantial imitation of Bombay Metal Works Pvt. Ltd.'s label in its layout, colour scheme and arrangement, despite bearing a different trade name. “It is trite law that Copyright protection is granted to an artistic work under the Act, only if the said artistic work satisfies the standard of originality,” Justice Tejas Karia said in an order dated March 28, 2026.
Case Title: Lawrence School Sanawar Society vs. Mr. Subodh Sinha & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 245/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 312
The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of Lawrence School Sanawar Society, which runs The Lawrence School in Sanawar, Himachal Pradesh, in a dispute over allegedly defamatory content posted about the institution on Facebook. The order targets a Facebook page and certain individuals. Educator Subodh Sinha, the page IPSC & Indian Top Schools Alumni (IITSA), and Ankit Kumar Gupta have been restrained, along with anyone acting on their behalf, from using the school's registered trademarks. Meta Platforms Inc. has also been directed to take down the impugned content.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Volkswagen's Challenge To Maruti Suzuki's 'Transformotion' Trademark
Case Title: Volkswagen AG v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 257
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by German automobile major Volkswagen AG, allowing Maruti Suzuki India Limited to proceed with registration of the trademark “TRANSFORMOTION” for vehicles. The ruling came in a judgment delivered on March 12, 2026, in which Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the rival marks, when compared as a whole, do not create any plausible likelihood of confusion and appear distinct from each other.
Delhi High Court Grants Injunction To Philips Against Geetech For Unauthorized Medical Software
Case Title: Philips Medical Systems Netherland Bv & Anr. v. Geetech Medical Systems And Services & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 233/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 264
The Delhi High Court on 13 March 2026 granted an ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction in favour of the Dutch healthcare conglomerate Philips, restraining several entities from reproducing or selling counterfeit versions of its proprietary medical diagnostic software. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that Philips had established a strong prima facie case regarding the systematic piracy of its Integrated Security Tool (IST) certificates. The Bench noted: “The plaintiffs appear to be the owners of the proprietary software, CSIP materials, IST certificates and associated intellectual property, all of which constitute 'Literary Works' protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. Defendant No.1 appears to be engaged in the systematic counterfeiting and unauthorized reproduction of plaintiffs' IST certificates and proprietary service documentation.”
Case Title: Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v. GGS Group Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 242/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 270
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Tata Sons Private Limited and Tata Consumer Products Limited, restraining a Punjab-based firm from dealing in trademarks and packaging found to be deceptively similar to the well-known “TATA TEA” brand. In an order passed on March 13, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the Tata Group companies had made out a strong prima facie case of infringement in respect of their well-known trademarks.
Case Title: Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Bhaveshbhai Chaturbhai Nakrani Trading As Arvi Tex
Case Number: CS(COMM) 235/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 269
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Lifestyle Equities C.V. and its licensing arm, protecting the intellectual property of the globally recognized Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) brand. In an order dated March 13, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the brand owners had established a prima facie strong case for grant of an injunction against a rival trader.
Case Title: Mahindra And Mahindra Limited & Anr. v. Diksha Sharma Proprietor Of Mahidnra Packers Movers & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 209/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 271
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that there is an “urgent and alarming need” to amend the Code of Civil Procedure and the IT Rules to deal with evolving online infringement, while refusing to grant a post-decree dynamic injunction in a trademark dispute involving Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., holding that courts cannot go beyond the statutory framework even where digital violations continue after judgment.
Case Title: Embassy Of Peru v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number: LPA 577/2025 & CM APPL. 57234-39/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 278
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday affirmed that Peru cannot claim the exclusive, standalone “PISCO” geographical indication (GI) for its national spirit in India, holding that the name is historically associated with alcoholic beverages produced in both Peru and Chile and granting Peru sole rights would lead to consumer confusion. Calling the dispute a “Tale of Two Countries,” a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla was dealing with an appeal filed by the Embassy of Peru against a single-judge ruling that required the spirit to be registered in India only as “PERUVIAN PISCO” instead of the standalone term “PISCO”.
Case Title: Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd. v. Sumitomo Chemical Company Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) 22/2025 & CM APPL. 45700/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 281
The Delhi High Court has set aside a single-judge order that had rejected a lawsuit filed by Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd. concerning the trademark “PADAN” and its associated packaging for insecticides, holding that the plaint disclosed a triable cause of action and could not have been rejected at the threshold. In a judgment dated March 18, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the single judge went beyond the limited scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by examining disputed facts and the merits of the case while deciding whether the suit should be rejected at the outset.
Case Title: Geron Corporation v. The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 244/2022 & I.A. 10126/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 282
The Delhi High Court has upheld the rejection of a patent application filed by the biopharmaceutical firm Geron Corporation for a method aimed at selecting cancer patients for specialized therapy. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, on March 17, 2026, held that the proposed “in vitro screening method” functions as a diagnostic process, which is barred from patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act.
Case Title: GPN Commercial LLC (USA) v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 219/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 283
The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of American sports nutrition company GPN Commercial LLC, restraining several unknown persons from manufacturing, storing, or selling counterfeit products under the popular protein powder brand “ISOPURE” trademark. The court observed that counterfeiting is a “menace which needs to be curbed with strict heads,” and noted that the sale of low-quality products could harm both the plaintiff's reputation and public health.
Case Title: Gautam Gambhir v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 287/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday directed counsel for Indian cricket team head coach Gautam Gambhir to file a corrected memo of parties in his suit seeking protection of his personality rights, after noticing a discrepancy in the numbering and description of defendants in the court filings. Gambhir has approached the court alleging misuse of his likeness/personality through deepfake videos and false news reports circulating online.
Delhi High Court Directs Sonakshi Sinha To File List Of Infringing URLs In Personality Rights Suit
Case Title: Sonakshi Sinha v. Character Technologies Inc & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 275/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday directed actor Sonakshi Sinha to file a clear, defendant-wise table of infringing URLs in her suit seeking protection of her personality rights against alleged misuse by AI-based platforms after finding a lack of clarity in the material placed on record. During the hearing, Justice Jyoti Singh expressed concern over websites that allow users to generate chatbots using the actor's likeness, but cautioned that the court would grant only legally recognised reliefs, observing, “Prayer can ask for the moon, but I'm not going to grant it. I will grant what has been granted by this court from time to time.”
Delhi High Court Restrains Sale Of “ELECTROCAD” ORS For Imitating FDC's “ELECTRAL”
Case Title: FDC Limited v. Neeraj Agarwal & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 221/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 285
The Delhi High Court on 11 March, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of FDC Limited, restraining Neeraj Agarwal and a third-party manufacturer from manufacturing or selling oral rehydration salts under the mark Electrocad, whose packaging was alleged to imitate the trade dress of FDC's Electral. Justice Jyoti Singh held that when a product is sold over the counter to consumers who may rely on visual memory rather than reading brand names, imitation of a well-known product's trade dress can cause significant consumer confusion and warrants injunctive protection.
Delhi High Court Orders Newslaundry To Remove “Shit Reporters”, “Shit Show” Remarks Against TV Today
Case Title: TV Today Network Limited v. News Laundry Media Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 268/2022, CM APPL. 18933/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 287
The Delhi High Court on Friday partly allowed an appeal filed by TV Today Network Limited, directing News Laundry Media Private Limited to remove specific derogatory remarks from its digital platforms at the interim stage. A division bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that while the defence of fair dealing in copyright law involves fact-intensive examination requiring trial, the use of expressions such as “shit reporters” and “shit show” was prima facie disparaging and defamatory.
Case Title: Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 272/2026, I.A. 7118/2026, I.A. 7117/2026, I.A. 7119/2026, I.A. 7120/2026, I.A. 7121/2026, I.A. 7122/2026, I.A. 7123/2026 & I.A. 7124/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 291
The Delhi High Court has recorded an interim arrangement between Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk and Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited in a patent infringement suit concerning semaglutide, a compound used in the popular diabetes and weight-loss drug Ozempic. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on March 20, 2026, recorded that the parties had agreed to an interim arrangement under which the Torrent would ensure that the concentration of a specific chemical component in its product does not fall within the range claimed under the Danish Pharms's patent.
Delhi High Court Says Patent Amendments Permissible At Appellate Stage, Sets Aside Daikin Refusal
Case Title: Daikin Industries Ltd v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 56/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 237
The Delhi High Court on 26 February reiterated that patent amendments are permissible even at the appellate stage, so long as they fall within the statutory framework of the Patents Act. Justice Jyoti Singh partially allowed the appeal filed by Daikin Industries Ltd, setting aside the Patent Office order that had earlier denied the company a patent for its 'Shell-And-Plate Heat Exchanger.'
Case Title: Fertin Pharma A/S v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 25/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 238
The Delhi High Court on 18 February set aside an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that had rejected a patent application from Fertin Pharma A/S, observing that the regulator failed to provide the requisite reasoning expected of a quasi-judicial authority. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the original refusal was “cryptic,” whereas reasoning is “the bedrock of all orders, including those passed by quasi-judicial authorities.”
Delhi High Court Bars Ex-Franchisee From Using 'Moti Mahal' Trademark After Franchise Termination
Case Title: Moti Mahal Legendary Hospitality Through Its Sole Proprietor & Anr. v. M/S Sant Foods Through Its Proprietor Mr Ravi Gupta & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 189/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 240
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Moti Mahal Legendary Hospitality, restraining Sant Foods, a former franchisee, from using the “MOTI MAHAL” trademark after the termination of their commercial agreement. The Court observed that once a franchise agreement is terminated, the former franchisee retains no legal right to operate a restaurant using the trademarked name.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Refusal Of Jindal Steel's 'JSP' Trademark, Orders Fresh Consideration
Case Title: Jindal Steel Limited v. Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 75/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 241
The Delhi High Court has partially allowed an appeal filed by Jindal Steel Limited against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing registration of the trademark “JSP,” holding that the decision was a “non-speaking order” passed without considering the arguments and material placed on record. In a judgment delivered on February 17, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the Registrar had failed to consider several issues raised by the company, including its reliance on Sections 34 and 55 of the Trade Marks Act.
Case Title: NEC Corporation & Ors vs The Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr
Case Number: IPDAID/21/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 66
The Calcutta High Court on Monday held that Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) are not automatically excluded from protection under the Designs Act and may qualify as registrable designs if they satisfy the statutory requirements. A GUI is the visual interface of a digital device or software that allows users to interact with it through icons, buttons and menus instead of typing text commands. A single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur ruled that the Controller of Designs had adopted an “incorrect and legally untenable” interpretation of the law while rejecting several applications seeking protection for GUI-based designs.
Calcutta High Court Protects 'SWASTIK' Rice Label Against Deceptive Packaging By Competitor
Case Title: Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v. Deepak Kumar Barnwal
Case Number: IP-COM/59/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 63
The Calcutta High Court has decreed a suit in favour of Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited against an individual, Deepak Kumar Barnwal, over the use of the “SWASTIK” label mark for rice products. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed that the respondent's packaging was “strikingly similar and deceptively identical” to that of the petitioner and held that the rival marks appeared to be identical.
Case Title: Neelam Gupta v. Esme Consumer Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/1/2025 In IP-COM/47/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 65
The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that once the proprietor of a trademark or copyright institutes an infringement suit with due diligence, the cause of action in a suit alleging groundless threats automatically extinguishes. On January 30, 2026, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur dismissed a 'threat suit' filed by Neelam Gupta against Esme Consumer Private Limited because the company had, subsequent to the filing of the suit, commenced a formal infringement action in a Delhi court.
Case Title: Prosenjit Chatterjee v. Masala Mamaji & Ors.
Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/1/2026 IN IP-COM/54/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 74
The Calcutta High Court has granted an interim injunction to safeguard the personality rights of actor Prosenjit Chatterjee, restraining Masala Mamaji and another defendant from using his name or photographs, including those generated through Artificial Intelligence (AI), to imply his endorsement of their products without any agreement with him. On March 11, 2026, Justice Arindam Mukherjee held, “However, keeping in mind the stature of the plaintiff and that his image may be tarnished by indiscriminate use of his photographs to portray that he is associated with the products of entities who have no agreement or arrangement with him, a limited protection is granted to the plaintiff at this stage. This limited protection is to prevent multiplicity of judicial proceedings and in view of the fact that refusing an order of restraint will create more inconvenience and cause further prejudice to the plaintiff.”
Bombay High Court Cancels “Tractorjunction” Trademark, Finds Registration Obtained In Bad Faith
Case Title: Rajat Kumar v. Shivankar Gupta & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 479 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 162
The Bombay High Court has allowed a petition seeking cancellation of the trademark “TRACTORJUNCTION” registered in the name of Shivankar Gupta, holding that the registration was obtained in bad faith and was wrongly remaining on the register. In a judgment dated March 23, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the impugned registration was liable to be removed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Bombay High Court Quashes Patent Refusal To Medipack, Says Reasons Are 'Heart And Soul' Of Orders
Case Title: Medipack Global Ventures Private Limited v. Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 19258 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 163
The Bombay High Court on 23 March set aside the Patent Office's refusal to grant a patent for a single-use safety syringe to Medipack Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd., holding that the order was unreasoned and violated the principles of natural justice. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Controller.
'Kaithi' Makers Move Bombay High Court Over 'Bholaa' Remake Rights Dispute
Case Title: Dream Warrior Pictures v Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: COMIP SUIT NO. (L) 3739 OF 2026
Chennai-based production house Dream Warrior Pictures has moved the Bombay High Court seeking a permanent injunction to restrain Reliance Entertainment Studios and others from further exploiting, streaming, or monetizing the Ajay Devgn-starrer 'Bholaa', after claiming that the underlying remake rights have reverted to it following the termination of remake rights agreements. During the hearing on Wednesday, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh heard arguments on the issue of jurisdiction and reserved orders on that aspect.
Case Title: Elder Project Limited V/s. Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) No.27106 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 120
The Bombay High Court on Monday vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted to Elder Projects Ltd in a trademark infringement suit against its group company, Elder Nutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd., holding that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts while seeking injunction without notice to the opposing party. Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that the injunction, granted on September 26, 2025, restrained Elder Nutraceuticals Pvt Ltd from using the mark “ELDER” or any deceptively similar mark for pharmaceutical products.
Case Title: Rajeev Prakash Agarwal v. Tata Play Limited and Others
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 257 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 121
Observing that the blending of Hindi and English is common in India's linguistic landscape, the Bombay High Court has held that a combination of a clipped English word with a Hindi word does not, prima facie, make a trademark inherently distinctive. “The combination of the clipped version of the English word with the Hindi word prima facie does not make it inherently distinctive in our country where there is tendency of blending Hindi and English and spoken as such,” Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed.
Bombay High Court Refuses MINCO Injunction Against Sister Concern Over 13-Year Acquiescence
Case Title: Minco India Private Limited v. Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 1600 OF 2006 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 12616 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 236 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 170
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal by Minco India Private Limited, affirming a Single Judge's decision to deny an interim injunction against Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited, a company run by the appellant's director's brother. The court found that the plaintiff had been aware of the defendant's use of the “MINCO” mark since 2012 yet chose not to act for over 13 years. That prolonged inaction, the bench held, amounted to clear acquiescence, a complete defence in a trademark infringement claim.
Companies Too Can Claim 'Own Name' Defence Against Trademark Infringement: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhavesh Suresh Kataria
Case Number: Commercial Appeal (L) No. 42036 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 122
The Bombay High Court has held that the defence available under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which protects the bona fide use of one's own name, is not confined only to natural persons and can also be invoked by a corporate entity where the name used reflects the surname of its promoters. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and R. N. Laddha made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. against an interim injunction granted in favour of Bhavesh Suresh Kataria, proprietor of “Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy”.
Bombay High Court Protects Shilpa Shetty's Personality Rights, Orders Removal of AI Deepfakes
Case Title: Shilpa Shetty Kundra v. Getoutlive.in & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 720 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 124
The Bombay High Court has recently granted protection to the personality rights of the renowned actress Shilpa Shetty Kundra, ordering the removal of AI-generated deepfakes and restraining commercial entities from the unauthorized use of her likeness. On March 4, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh stated that the actress's personality attributes are protectable elements that cannot be commercially exploited without her express consent.
Case Title: Century 21 Real Estates LLC Versus Century 21 Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 857 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 125
The Bombay High Court has allowed rectification petitions filed by Century 21 Real Estate LLC and ordered cancellation of four trademark registrations for the mark “C21” obtained by Century 21 Town Planners Pvt Ltd, holding that the respondent's adoption of the mark was dishonest and intended to ride on the petitioner's goodwill. “The contention that the marks are dissimilar needs only to be stated to be rejected. This contention once again brings to the fore the dishonesty and inconsistency in the conduct of Respondent No. 1, since Respondent No. 1 has itself relied upon “CENTURY 21 TOWN PLANNERS” to assert rights in “C21”, thereby acknowledging the association between the two.”, the court observed.
Case Title: Rajiv Suri v. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd.
Case Number: SUIT NO. 4804 OF 2000
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 132
The Bombay High Court has recently dismissed a decades-old copyright infringement suit filed by filmmaker Rajiv Suri against Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. concerning the Hindi feature films Manzil and Parwana, characterizing the litigation as a “gross abuse of the process of law” and imposing exemplary costs of Rs 10 lakh on the plaintiff. While pronouncing the judgment, Justice Arif S. Doctor held that Rajiv Suri had approached the court with “unclean hands” by suppressing a Memorandum of Understanding and a Deed of Assignment, which showed that disputes relating to Manzil had already been settled after payment of compensation and that the rights in Parwana had been assigned to a third party before the suit was filed.
Case Title: Saurabh Arora v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Anr.
Case Number: COMM. MISC. PETITION NO. 46 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 131
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order of the Deputy Controller of Patents that had dismissed a post-grant opposition, finding that the decision contained no real reasoning and did not include the technical analysis required under the law. In a judgment dated March 10, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor noted that the patent office had rejected the prior-art claim relied on by the opponent without explaining the basis for doing so. The Court said that because the order was appealable, the absence of reasons made it impossible to assess whether the decision was correct.
Case Title: Universal Test Solutions v. Punam Kumari Singh & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 22386 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 20290 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 133
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an interim plea filed by Universal Test Solutions LLP, declining to grant interim relief in a trademark, copyright and passing-off dispute against its former partner Punam Kumari Singh and others. In a judgment dated March 11, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case to restrain the defendants from using the domain name uts-global.com, the acronym “UTS”, the corporate name ODC Universal Technological Solutions Private Limited, or the software alleged to have been copied from the LLP.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited v. Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 27758 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 27133 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 138
The Bombay High Court has granted urgent ad interim protection to Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), restraining Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited, the owner and operator of Legends League Cricket (LLC), from publicly performing its copyrighted sound recordings during its cricket matches without obtaining a valid licence. Absolute Legends Sports conducts Legends League Cricket, a T20 tournament featuring retired international players, and the music licensing body moved the Court apprehending that its copyrighted recordings would be played during the upcoming fixtures without authorisation.
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Tarun Paints Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO. 28196 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (LODGING) NO. 27857 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 140
The Bombay High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Asian Paints Limited, restraining a rival firm from using the mark “ASIA TUFF” for cement paint and wall putty. In an order dated March 13, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the rival marks show deceptive visual as well as phonetic similarity, giving rise to a strong likelihood of consumer confusion.
Case Title: Delhi Zaika through Partners Mr. Aamir Siddiqui v. Zidz Hospitality LLP & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 39269 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 31885 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 142
The Bombay High Court has granted ad-interim relief to the restaurant chain Delhi Zaika in a trademark dispute involving family members, restraining Zidz Hospitality LLP and others from using the registered trademark “DELHI ZAIKA”, after noting that one of the defendants, who is the biological brother of the plaintiff, had earlier been permitted to use the mark only under a conditional arrangement.
On March 11, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed, “The Plaintiff's proprietary right in the registered trade mark of “DELHI ZAIKA” is prima facie demonstrated from the registration certificate which has been placed on record. The registration has been secured by the Plaintiff in the year 2011. Considering the proprietary right of the Plaintiff in the registered trademark, without the consent of the Plaintiff, the Defendants are prima facie not entitled to use the registered trade mark.”
Case Title: Dr. Bawaskar Technology (Agro) Pvt. Ltd. v. Anannya Agro Products & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.28 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.9 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12806 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 146
The Bombay High Court on Monday granted interim injunction in a trademark dispute over the mark “GERMINATOR” but directed the parties to maintain the status quo for four weeks to allow the defendants to challenge the ruling. A Division Bench of Justice R. I. Chagla and Justice Advait M. Sethna restrained Anannya Agro Products and Avishkar Agro Chem from using the mark “GERMINATOR” or any deceptively similar trade dress in a suit filed by Dr. Bawaskar Technology (Agro) Pvt. Ltd.
Bombay High Court Rejects Rynox Gears' Interim Plea To Injunct Steelite From Using 'RHYNOX' Mark
Case Title: Rynox Gears v. Steelite India
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO.897 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (LODGING) NO.35513 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 148
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused interim relief to motorcycle gear company Rynox Gears in its trademark dispute with Steelite India, holding that the firm made false statements on oath and failed to establish a case for either infringement or passing off. Rynox had sought to stop the rival from using the mark “RHYNOX” for helmets. In an order dated March 17, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh said the pleadings were based on “false statements on oath” and observed that a party seeking equitable relief cannot approach the court without clean hands.
Case Title: Procter & Gamble Health Limited & Anr v. Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO.39102 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (LODGING) NO.38975 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 147
The Bombay High Court has recently granted an interim injunction in favour of Procter & Gamble Health Limited and its German affiliate, restraining the use of a rival mark found to be deceptively similar to their registered trademarks “LIVOGEN” and “LIVOGEN-Z”. On March 17, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of trademark infringement against Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Curewell Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. over their adoption of the mark “LIVOGEM”.
Patent Examination Cannot Be Skipped Due To Pre-Grant Opposition: Bombay High Court
Case Title: AIC246 AG & Co. KG v. The Patent Office of India & Ors.
Case Number: COMM. MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 72 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 109
The Bombay High Court has set aside the rejection of a fungicide patent application, reiterating that examination proceedings under the Patents Act cannot be bypassed merely because a pre-grant opposition is pending. In a judgment delivered on February 27, Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the Controller acted “plainly arbitrary, unexplained, and contrary to the statutory scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder” by cancelling a scheduled examination hearing, assuring the applicant that a fresh hearing would be granted, and then rejecting the patent application without granting that hearing.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Bars Delhi Hospital From Infringing 'SAIFEE HOSPITAL' Mark
Case Title: Saifee Hospital Trust v. Saifi Hospital Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 41547 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 41524 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 110
The Bombay High Court has recently granted ad-interim relief to Saifee Hospital Trust, restraining a Delhi-based company from infringing its registered trademark “SAIFEE HOSPITAL” after finding that the rival mark “SAIFI HOSPITAL” is “visually, structurally and phonetically deceptively similar”. In an order dated February 10, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the defendant company, Saifi Hospital Private Limited, was offering similar medical services under the impugned mark even though the trust is the registered proprietor of the word mark.
Case Title: Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/s Rasnam Foods Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: C.S(COMM DIV) No. 116 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 89
The Madras High Court has recently held that former franchisees of the Sangeetha restaurant chain were liable for passing off for about 17 months after ending their association but ruled that their use of the name “Geetham” did not amount to trademark infringement. In a judgment pronounced on March 25, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the defendants had dishonestly adopted a trade dress identical to the plaintiff's iconic red-and-green color scheme to mislead the public into believing that the famous "Sangeetha" restaurants had simply "metamorphosed" into "Geetham.
Madras High Court Rejects Lahari Recording's Claim Over Satellite Telecast of Telugu-Dubbed 'Roja'
Case Title: Lahari Recording Co. P. Ltd. v. Jain Television (Mala Publicity Service P Ltd) & Ors.
Case Number: OSA No. 206 of 2016 and OSA No.207 of 2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 64
The Madras High Court has dismissed appeals filed by Lahari Recording Co. Pvt. Ltd. over the satellite telecast of the Telugu-dubbed version of Roja, the Mani Ratnam-directed Tamil film that became one of Indian cinema's most recognisable titles of the 1990s. The company had sought to block the broadcast and claim Rs 1 crore in damages, arguing that the telecast infringed its rights in the dubbed version.
Madras High Court Protects '777 Oil' Trademark, Sets Aside Order Dismissing Infringement Suit
Case Title: M/s. J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd v. M/s. Sanjeevi Pharma
Case Number: OSA(CAD) No. 1 of 2025 & C.M.P.No. 7 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 65
The Madras High Court on Friday protected the trademark “777 Oil” used for a Siddha medicinal oil to treat psoriasis, setting aside a single judge's decision that had dismissed an infringement suit filed by J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals against Sanjeevi Pharma. In a judgment pronounced on March 6, 2026, Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu allowed the company's appeal, holding that the earlier judgment suffered from “perversity,” and decreed the suit with a permanent injunction restraining Sanjeevi Pharma from using the mark “777 Oil” or any deceptively similar mark.
Madras High Court Orders Removal of 'Sugar Pop' Device Mark On Plea By Sugar Cosmetics Brand
Case Title: Sugar Brands Pvt. Ltd v. M/s. Sugar Pop Bath And Body LLP & Anr.
Case Number: (T)OP(TM) No. 375 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 90
The Madras High Court has recently directed the removal of the 'SUGAR POP' device mark from the Register of Trade Marks on a plea by Sugar Brands Pvt. Ltd., holding that it was entered without sufficient cause due to lack of due diligence by the Registrar. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in an order dated March 25, 2026, observed that the Registrar failed to properly search for conflicting marks despite the petitioner's existing registrations, leading to the wrongful entry of the impugned mark.
Case Title: Sunshine Pictures Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.A.Nos.185 & 186 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.69 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 52
The Madras High Court has granted an ad interim injunction in a case of apprehended infringement of the copyright of the cinematographic film titled “THE KERALA STORY 2”, restraining various Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and cable TV operators from unauthorized broadcasting. In a decision passed on March 2, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy stated that it is necessary to prevent unlawful broadcasts at the very threshold to avoid irreversible injury. However, the Court observed that the wide-reaching nature of the requested relief could potentially impact the legitimate business interests of the respondents.
Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v. Chennai Super Kings Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA 212 of 2026 and CS (Comm Div) 81 of 2026
Sun TV Network has approached the Madras High Court seeking to restrain Chennai Super Kings (CSK) from using its songs from the movies "Jailer," “Jailer 2," and “Coolie” for the team's promotional activities. Sun has also claimed damages to the tune of Rs 1 crore. When the matter came up before Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy on Friday (13th March 2026), Senior Advocate J Ravindran, appearing for the network company, stated that the team had used songs that belonged to Sun for its promotional videos.
Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v. Chennai Super Kings Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA 212 of 2026 and CS (Comm Div) 81 of 2026
The Madras High Court on Monday (March 16) disposed of Sun TV's applications after Chennai Super Kings undertook not to use songs from Sun TV-owned films, including Coolie and Jailer, in promotional content without obtaining prior licence. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy closed the interim pleas after taking note of the affidavit filed by KS Viswanathan, Managing Director of CSK, undertaking not to use the songs without obtaining a license.
Madras High Court Restrains “Sri Aachi Mess” From Using Registered AACHI Trademark
Case Title: Mr.A.D.Padmasingh Isaac & Ors. v. Mr.A.D.Padmasingh Isaac
Case Number: C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.208 of 2025 and A.No.822 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 76
The Madras High Court on 9 March 2026, held that a restaurant in Ulundurpet cannot use the name “SRI AACHI MESS”, permanently restraining it in favour of Mr. A.D. Padmasingh Isaac and his firms, Aachi Masala Foods and Flora Foods. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed: “The nature of food served in the defendant's restaurant is insufficient to conclude that services are not similar. Thus, the defendant is the later user of a deceptively similar mark in respect of similar services.”
Case Title: Solariz Healthcare Private Limited v. The Deputy Registrar (Head of Office) & Anr.
Case Number: WP(IPD) No. 3 of 2026 and WMP.(IPD)No.2 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 79
While Section 18(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which requires a trademark application to be filed in the Trade Marks Registry office within whose territorial limits the applicant's principal place of business in India is situated, governs the place of filing, the Madras High Court has clarified that the statute does not require that the application must be examined only by an officer attached to that very office.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in an order dated March 4, 2026, held that under Section 3(2) of the Act, the Registrar is empowered to authorize officers to discharge the functions of the Registrar, and neither the Act nor the Trade Marks Rules restrict such authorization to officers attached to the “appropriate office”.
Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Case Number: OA Nos. 242 & 243 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm Div) No.90 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 82
The Madras High Court has protected the streaming rights of Reliance Industries Limited (Jio Studios), granting an interim injunction against dozens of internet service providers and cable operators to prevent the unlawful broadcast of the film 'Dhurandhar The Revenge'. On March 18, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that such preventive measures are necessary to avoid irreversible injury to the creators just before the movie's scheduled theatrical release.
Madras High Court Grants Interim Injunction To Block Unauthorized Broadcast Of 'Jab Khuli Kitab'
Case Title: Applause Entertainment Private Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.A.Nos.220 & 221 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.83 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 84
The Madras High Court on 16 March, held that preventive measures are necessary to protect copyright owners from irreparable harm and granted an ad‑interim injunction restraining unauthorized broadcasting of the film Jab Khuli Kitab. A single‑judge Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy allowed the injunction against dozens of internet service providers (ISPs) and cable TV operators.
Case Title: Sree Lakshmi Balaji Industries v. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Industries & Anr.
Case Number: (T)OP(TM) No. 234 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 85
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Sree Lakshmi Balaji Industries seeking removal of the trademark “Ayyappan Brand” owned by Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Industries from the Register of Trade Marks on the ground that the user date recorded for the mark was inconsistent and that the trademark owner had not used the mark in the form in which it was registered. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in an order dated March 11, 2026, said the petitioner had not shown sufficient grounds to remove the trademark, either for non-use under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, or for rectification under Section 57, which allows the Court to correct or remove an entry from the register.
Case Title: Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd v. Molla Karimunnisabi
Case Number: OA Nos. 137 to 139 of 2026 and A.No.847 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.55 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 86
The Madras High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd., restraining a Kurnool-based trader from using the mark “Freedum” for edible oils. In an order dated March 16, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the applicant had established a prima facie case showing the rival trader had adopted a mark deceptively similar to Gemini's registered trademark for identical products.
Case Title: Mr. Anil Gopalji Thacker v. Mr. Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra
Case Number: R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 207 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 207 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 39
The Gujarat High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal filed by Anil Gopalji Thacker, upholding a trial court's refusal to grant an interim injunction against Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra for using the trade name “Kshetrapal Construction.” In a judgment delivered on March 16, 2026, Justice Niral R. Mehta held that the applicant was not entitled to equitable relief because he had suppressed material facts regarding a prior business relationship with the rival developer.
Case Title: Jallan Enterprises v. M/S. Sarathi International Inc.
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5183 OF 2025 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5220 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 40
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an injunction restraining the use of the “TULSI” mark for agarbattis, holding that it is prima facie deceptively similar to the long-standing “TULASI” mark and not merely descriptive of fragrance. In a judgment delivered on March 25, 2026, Justice Ravi V. Hosmani held that Jallan Enterprises' use of the word “TULSI” was displayed in a trademark-like manner that prima facie infringed the long-standing registered mark “TULASI” of Sarathi International Inc.
Case Title: Wacom Company Limited v. Cirel Systems Private Limited
Case Number: CIVIL PETITION NO.426 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 29
The Karnataka High Court has recently allowed Japanese technology firm Wacom Company Limited to collect documents and testimony from Bengaluru-based semiconductor manufacturer Cirel Systems Pvt Ltd. The evidence will be used in a patent infringement lawsuit pending in the United States between Wacom and Chinese company Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co Ltd, in which the Indian firm is not a party.
Orissa High Court Allows Application For Patent Restoration As Expiry Was Within Covid-19 Period
Case Title: M/S.Green Energy Resources v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.19128 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 12
The Orissa High Court on 12 February, allowed a writ petition filed by Green Energy Resources, a Sambalpur-based firm, permitting it to apply for the restoration of a patent that had ceased to have effect due to the non-payment of renewal fees. Justice B.P. Routray observed that the company's explanation for the lapse was convincing and noted that the patent's expiry occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court remarked that under the given facts, there was “no difficulty... for considering the application of the Petitioner for restoration of the Patent by the Controller”.
Case Title: Malkans Training Institute Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Vs Telegram Messengers LLP & Ors.
Case Number: CS (COMM)260/2026
The Tis Hazari District Court in Delhi has granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction to protect the intellectual property of Malkans Training Institute Pvt. Ltd. and its founders, Vishal B. Malkan and Meghana V. Malkan, in a trademark and copyright infringement suit against Telegram Messengers LLP and others. The court also issued summons to the defendants, including Telegram, after observing that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case of trademark and copyright infringement as well as passing off.
Case Title: Physicswallah Limited v. Nikhil Kumar Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 70/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 104
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of PhysicsWallah Limited, restraining former employee and rival coaching operator Nikhil Kumar Singh from using deceptively similar trademarks and from publishing disparaging online content. A single-judge of Justice Jyoti Singh held that the videos and social media posts circulated by Singh are prima facie defamatory, disparaging, and abusive and are intended to tarnish PhysicsWallah's goodwill and reputation. Finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and disparagement, the Court observed, “Law in the trademark regime grants protection from infringement to a registered proprietor of the mark and also shields from erosion of goodwill and reputation, which is a common law right associated with the mark. Disparagement through misleading and/or abusive statements, constitutes an unlawful interference in other party's commercial goodwill and is actionable in law.”
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Over Mold-Tek's Tamper-Evident Packaging Patents
Case Title: Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. v Mold-Tek Packaging Limited
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 235/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 102
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday upheld an interim injunction against Neway Industries over alleged infringement of Mold-Tek Packaging Limited's tamper-evident packaging patents and revived interim relief in respect of a second patent. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment delivered on January 28, 2026, dismissed Neway's appeal challenging the grant of injunction over Mold-Tek's patent IN'417, while allowing Mold-Tek's appeal against the vacation of an ad-interim injunction protecting its patent IN'724. The dispute concerns two patents registered in favour of Mold-Tek Packaging Limited - patent IN'417 titled “Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail closure System” and patent IN'724 titled “A Tamper Proof Lid Having Spout for Containers and Process for Its Manufacture.”
Case Title: Jiostar India Private Limited v. Crichdbest.com & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 81/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 99
The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining several rogue websites from illegally streaming and disseminating ongoing 'ICC Under-19 Men's Cricket World Cup 2026' and upcoming 'ICC Men's T20 Cricket World Cup 2026', over which JioStar India Private Limited holds exclusive broadcast and digital rights. The order was passed by Justice Jyoti Singh on January 29, 2026, while hearing an interim injunction application in a suit filed by JioStar seeking protection of its broadcast reproduction rights in relation to the cricket events. Noting the need for immediate relief as the tournaments were ongoing and imminent, the Court observed that, “The issue of rogue websites engaged in piracy of copyrighted content is posing a recurring threat and there is no gainsaying that piracy must be curbed and needs to be dealt with a heavy hand.”
Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Sale Of Products Using 'Happi Planet' Mark And Similar Packaging
Case Title: Happi Planet Eco Products P Ltd v. Ravi Malani Trading as Febway India & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 79/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 98
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Happi Planet, a home and personal care brand, restraining multiple entities from selling products bearing the “Happi Planet” mark and identical packaging and trade dress. By an order dated January 28, 2026, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that Happi Planet had made out a strong prima facie warranting interim protection. Finding the rival products to be deceptively similar, the Court observed that, “Having compared the products, this Court is of the opinion that not only do the infringing products contain the trademark “Happi Planet” of the plaintiff but also are packaged in near identical or deceptively similar packaging and trade dress. The artistic work, the trade dress and packaging is so identical that it took a while for this Court to distinguish between the two. The Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has a prima facie strong case.”
Delhi High Court Orders Refex Hotels to Change Name Over Similarity With Refex Industries
Case Title: Refex Industries Limited v. Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry Of Corporate Affairs & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 27/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 96
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed Refex Hotels Private Limited to change its corporate name, holding that the use of the word “REFEX” is undesirably similar to the name and registered trademark of Refex Industries Limited, a company incorporated much earlier. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in a judgment delivered on January 28, 2026, set aside a 2018 order of the Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which had declined to direct a name change on the ground that the two companies operated in different business sectors. Disagreeing with the Regional Director's reasoning, the Court observed that “the dissimilarity in the businesses of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was not a relevant criterion for the Regional Director to consider for declining to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon him under Section 16 of the Act of 2013.”
Delhi High Court Makes Interim Ban Permanent Against 24 Websites Streaming ICC Champions Trophy 2025
Case Title: Star India Private Limited v. 1xbetcom & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 175/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 92
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained 24 rogue websites from unauthorizedly streaming, disseminating, or communicating matches of the ICC Champions Trophy 2025, holding that the platforms infringed Star India Private Limited's exclusive broadcasting and reproduction rights. In a judgment dated January 15, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh passed a decree of permanent injunction, noting that none of the identified websites appeared before the Court or filed written statements despite being duly served with summons.
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Barring Canva's 'Present and Record' Feature In India
Case Title: Canva Pty Ltd & Ors v. RxPrism Health Systems Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 211/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 91
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday upheld an interim injunction barring Canva from offering its “Present and Record” feature in India. Canva operates a widely used online graphic design and content creation platform. The court rejected the platform's appeal against the Single Judge's July 18, 2023, order passed in favour of RxPrism Health Systems Private Limited A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla pronounced the judgment on January 28, 2026, dismissing Canva's appeal and holding that no case was made out for appellate interference with the interim relief granted by the Single Judge
Case Title: Bajaj Finance Limited v. Manish Singh @ Settlement Guru & Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 63/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 89
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Bajaj Finance. It has restrained the operators of “SettlementGuru” from using the company's name and trademarks and from pushing content that allegedly encourages loan defaults. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on January 22, 2026, while hearing an interim injunction application filed by Bajaj Finance, a registered non-banking financial company, which alleged large-scale misuse of its brand across social media platforms and websites.
Delhi High Court Says Rohini Commercial Court Has Jurisdiction In 'AMRAPALI' Trademark Dispute
Case Title: Raju Kumar v. Vinod Sah
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 260/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 86
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Commercial Court at Rohini, which had prima facie held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear a trademark dispute relating to the spice brand “AMRAPALI” and, while doing so, declined to grant interim relief against the rival mark “QUEEN AAMRAPALI.” A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment delivered on January 13, 2026, ruled that the Commercial Court had erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. The Bench remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the plea seeking interim relief.
Delhi High Court Bars “EMSURE” Pharma Mark For Infringing Emcure Trademark
Case Title: Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Emsure Pharmaceutical Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 524/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 84
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained Emsure Pharmaceutical Private Limited from using the mark “EMSURE” or any other deceptively similar mark, holding that it infringes the trademark “EMCURE” owned by Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited. Justice Jyoti Singh delivered the judgment on January 13, 2026, while deciding a trademark infringement and passing-off suit filed by Emcure Pharmaceuticals. As Emsure Pharmaceutical failed to appear before the Court despite service of summons, the matter proceeded ex-parte.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Cancel 'REKIN-SP' Trademark Registration In Rexcin Pharma Plea
Case Title: Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v. Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 111/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 83
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to cancel the registration of the pharmaceutical trademark 'REKIN-SP,' dismissing a rectification plea filed by rival company Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, which claimed rights over the mark 'REXCIN.' The Court also declined to restrain the use of the 'REKIN-SP' mark at the interim stage in the infringement suit. In a judgment dated January 27, 2026, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Rexcin Pharmaceuticals had failed to establish any use of 'REXCIN' as a trademark for pharmaceutical products and therefore, could not seek removal of the 'REKIN-SP' mark.
Delhi High Court Bars Rival Manufacturer From Using 'NOVA' Name on Ghee, Dairy Products
Case Title: Sterling Agro Industries Ltd v. Giriraj Gupta
Case Number: CS(COMM) 58/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 80
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained a manufacturer from making, selling, or advertising ghee and other dairy products under the “NOVA” name, after finding that the branding was likely to infringe Sterling Agro's trademark. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on January 21, 2026, while hearing an interim injunction application in a suit filed by Sterling Agro Industries, a Delhi-based dairy products company that markets its products under the “NOVA” trademark.
Delhi High Court Grants Injunction Against Imposters Misusing 'Delhivery' Trademark
Case Title: Delhivery Limited v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 61/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 79
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained several known and unknown persons from misusing the name and brand of Delhivery, a logistics and supply chain company, to run fake franchise and delivery service scams. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order on January 22, 2026, while hearing an interim injunction application in a suit filed by Delhivery after it discovered that fraudsters were impersonating the company to cheat members of the public.
Case Title: Mr Akira Desai Alias Akira Nandan v. Sambhawaami Studios LLP & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 68/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 76
The Delhi High Court on Friday ordered the immediate takedown of an AI-generated film and related deepfake content depicting Akira Nandan alias Akira Desai, son of Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, holding, prima facie, that the AI-generated use of his name, image, likeness and voice violated his personality and privacy rights The Court had earlier also protected Pawan Kalyan's personality rights in an interim order passed on December 22, 2025.
Delhi High Court Revives ITC's Challenge To Philip Morris's Non-Tobacco Nicotine Patent
Case Title: ITC Limited v. The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 44/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 74
The Delhi High Court has revived ITC Limited's challenge to a Philip Morris patent covering a non-tobacco nicotine product after setting aside a 2024 Patent Office order that had rejected ITC's opposition. In a judgment dated January 12, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh allowed an appeal filed by ITC, holding that the impugned order suffered from a lack of independent application of mind and was largely a verbatim reproduction of the patentee's submissions and the recommendations of the Opposition Board. The Court remanded the matter to the Patent Office for reconsideration.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Comforter System Patent, Orders Fresh Review
Case Title: Jesal Vimal Jetha v. Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 233/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 72
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Patent Office order rejecting a patent application filed by Jesal Vimal Jetha for a therapeutic comforter system, holding that the refusal suffered from procedural infirmities and violation of principles of natural justice for non-consideration of applicant's responses to subsequent objections raised by Patent Office. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela delivered the judgment on January 23, 2026, while allowing an appeal against a 2020 order by which the Patent Office had refused application on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act.
Delhi High Court Awards ₹81 Lakh to Merck, Sun Pharma In Diabetes Drug Patent Infringement Case
Case Title: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. & Anr. v. Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1075/2018
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 70
The Delhi High Court on Friday awarded over Rs 81 lakh in damages and costs to US-based pharmaceutical company Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and its Indian licensee, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., in a patent infringement suit concerning the anti-diabetic drug Sitagliptin and its pharmaceutical combinations. In a judgment dated January 23, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela decreed the suit in favour of the pharmaceutical companies, holding that unauthorized manufacture and export of the patented drug stood established on the basis of unchallenged evidence. The Court also noted that the infringing conduct continued even after injunctive relief had been granted.
Case Title: Loreal India Private Limited v. Shanaz Bariz
Case Number: CS(COMM) 51/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 69
The Delhi High Court has restrained a social media content creator from circulating an allegedly AI-generated video or any other posts targeting Maybelline products, holding that the unsubstantiated claims could irreparably damage L'Oréal India's brand and consumer trust. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order on January 20, 2026, observing that the continued circulation of the disputed content would cause irreparable harm to the goodwill and reputation of L'Oréal India Private Limited and its globally recognised brands.
Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Ban on Jaipur Restaurant Chain's Use Of 'DASAPRAKASH' Trademark
Case Title: Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt Ltd v. Mysore Dasaprakash
Case Number: FAO(OS)(IPD) 1/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 67
The Delhi High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining a Jaipur-based company, Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Private Limited, from using the “DASAPRAKASH” trademark. The restraint covers ice creams, restaurants, and allied goods and services. The court held that the continued use of the mark was prima facie unauthorized and amounted to trademark infringement. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla delivered the judgment on January 21, 2026. The bench dismissed a batch of appeals in a long-running trademark dispute that began before the Madras High Court in 2008.
Case Title: Khadi And Village Industries Commission v. Enduring Body Care LLP & Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 22/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 65
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained an Ahmedabad-based cosmetic goods manufacturer, Enduring Body Care LLP, and its associated entities from using the mark “KHADI VEDA” or any other deceptively similar variant of “KHADI” for any goods or services. The Court held that the use of the disputed mark prima facie infringed the registered and well-known 'KHADI' trademarks of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC). Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order on January 13, 2026, observing that the continued use of the disputed mark would lead to consumer confusion and cause irreparable harm to KVIC.
Case Title: Vishal Choudhary v. SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 64/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 63
The Delhi High Court has refused to lift an interim injunction in a patent dispute over mobile brick-making machines, holding that while the rival machines are not identical, they appear to share the core patented concept of making and laying bricks as the machine moves. A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav pronounced the judgment on January 16, 2026, dismissing an appeal filed by Choudhary against a 2024 interim order passed in favour of SNPC, a Haryana-based manufacturer alleging infringement of its mobile brick-making machine patents.
Case Title: Twin Brothers v. Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 57/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned Flipkart on whether its “more sellers” or latching-on feature can be considered legitimate when, in the facts of the case, it is alleged to enable the sale of counterfeit goods linked to a genuine product listing. Justice Jyoti Singh raised the issue while hearing a suit filed by a seller alleging that counterfeit sellers had latched on to its product listing as “more sellers” and offered non-genuine goods at lower prices, thereby misleading consumers.
Delhi High Court Lifts Injunction On BONERICH In Dispute With Pharma Mark BONRICH
Case Title: Kedar Nath Mishra v. Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 159/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 58
The Delhi High Court has set aside an interim injunction granted in favour of Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a Bengaluru-based pharmaceutical company using the mark “BONRICH,” which had restrained Kedar Nath Mishra, the proprietor of the “BONERICH” mark, from using that mark for competing pharmaceutical products. In a judgment dated January 13, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla allowed the appeals filed by Mishra against the order of the Commercial Court at Saket, ruling that a claim of passing off cannot be sustained merely on the basis of prior use of the “BONRICH” mark unless goodwill and reputation in the mark are clearly established.
Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection of Japanese Firm's Patent Bid For Worm-Based Cancer Detection
Case Title: Hirotsu Bio Science Inc v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 45/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 57
The Delhi High Court has upheld the rejection of a patent application for a cancer detection technique that relies on the smell responses of worms, holding that it is a non-patentable diagnostic method under Indian law. In a judgment delivered on January 17, 2026, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the appeal filed by Hirotsu Bio Science Inc., holding that the company's cancer detection method amounts to a diagnostic process barred from patent protection under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.
'A To Z' Is Generic For Multivitamins, Cannot Be Monopolised: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Alkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare And Research Pvt Ltd
Case Number: CS(COMM) 84/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 53
Holding that “A TO Z” is generic and descriptive for nutraceutical products, the Delhi High Court has lifted an interim injunction against Prevego Healthcare. The Court ruled that Alkem Laboratories cannot claim exclusive rights over the letters “A” and “Z” in relation to multivitamin supplements. In a judgment delivered on January 17, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia allowed Prevego's application seeking vacation of the injunction and dismissed Alkem's plea for interim relief in a suit alleging trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Case Title: Indospirit Beverages Private Limited v. Ravi Mohan Studios Private Limited
Case No.: CS(COMM) - 1104/2025
The Delhi High Court on Thursday referred a trademark infringement dispute between Indospirit Beverages Private Limited and actor Ravi Mohan's production house over the use of the title “BRO CODE” for an upcoming Tamil film to mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on January 15, 2026, while hearing the matter arising from Indospirit's suit alleging infringement and passing off of its “BROCODE” trademark through the film's title.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited v. Pass Code Hospitality P Ltd & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 267/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 43
The Delhi High Court has directed the continuation of an ad-hoc licence fee arrangement in a copyright infringement suit filed by copyright society Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) against Pass Code Hospitality Private Limited, a Delhi-based company that owns and operates various well-known high-profile pubs and bars. The order was passed by Justice Tejas Karia on January 9, 2026, while considering applications relating to continuation of interim licence fee deposits and a plea seeking refund of amounts already paid by the hospitality company for playing sound recordings at its outlets. The Court held that the interim arrangement should remain in force until pending applications in the matter are finally decided.
Case Title: Bhole Nath Foods Ltd v. Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt Ltd
Case Number.: FAO (COMM) 79/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 40
The Delhi High Court has set aside an interim injunction restraining Bhole Nath Foods Ltd., a Delhi-based rice manufacturer, from using the “CHEETAL” word and device marks, holding that no prima facie case of trademark infringement or passing off was made out in favour of Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt. Ltd., the Chennai-based owner of the “DOUBLE DEER” mark for rice products. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, by a judgment dated January 9, 2026, allowed an appeal filed by Bhole Nath Foods Ltd. against an order of the Commercial Court at Tis Hazari, which had granted interim protection to Kirorimal Kashiram pending disposal of its trademark infringement suit.
Delhi High Court Restrains “Charcha Aaj Ki” From Using Deceptively Similar Aaj Tak Device Mark
Case Title: Living Media India Limited And Anr v. Charcha Aaj Ki
Case Number: CS(COMM) 15/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 42
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Living Media India Limited, the company behind the Hindi news channel AAJ TAK. The Court restrained a digital news platform operating under the name “Charcha Aaj Ki” from using a device mark and colour combination found to be deceptively similar to the “AAJ TAK” trademark. In an order dated January 9, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh held that Living Media had made out a prima facie case. The court directed that the disputed mark, to the extent it resembles the “AAJ TAK” mark, shall not be used until the next date of hearing.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Unauthorized Images of YouTuber Bhuvan Bam
Case Title: Bhuvan Bam & Anr. v. Inkwynk & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) - 23/2026
Bhuvan Bam, a popular YouTube content creator and web-series actor, approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights and restraint against the unauthorized use of his images by various unknown individuals and entities. Justice Jyoti Singh, while hearing the matter on January 13, 2026, directed the takedown of the unauthorized images but declined to record any prima facie finding on the issue of personality rights at this stage.
Case Title: Ashish Sharma v. M/S Maruti International & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 4/2026
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday recorded an undertaking by the makers of Mastiii 4 to remove a disputed scene from its OTT and satellite releases following a copyright suit by comedian and content creator Ashish Sharma. The undertaking was given before a single-judge bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela during the hearing of an interim injunction application in Sharma's copyright infringement suit, in which he has accused the filmmakers of lifting a scene from his Instagram skit titled “Shaq Karne Ka Nateeja” without authorization.
Delhi High Court Rejects Colgate Plea To Amend Suit Against Dabur Over Fluoride Ads
Case Title: Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr v. Dabur India Ltd.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 567/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 38
The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to allow Colgate-Palmolive to amend its 2019 plaint to specifically challenge Dabur's later newspaper advertisements, holding that fresh versions of an advertising campaign do not warrant repeated amendments when the issue is already pleaded. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in an order dated January 12, 2026, clarified that Colgate's 2019 plaint contains detailed allegations accusing Dabur of spreading misleading information and disparaging fluoride as an ingredient in toothpaste. Therefore, the Court held that there was no legal requirement to amend the plaint each time a new version of the advertisement was released.
Delhi High Court Lifts Injunction, Allows Zydus To Manufacture And Market Lifesaving Cancer Drug
Case Title: Zydus Lifesciences Limited v. E.R. Squibb And Sons, LLC & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 120/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 37
The Delhi High Court on Monday cleared Zydus Lifesciences Limited to manufacture and market its cancer drug ZRC 3276. The court set aside an injunction that had barred the drug's launch over alleged patent infringement of a medicine owned by US-based pharmaceutical major E.R. Squibb. A Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla modified an earlier order passed by a single judge. The Bench held that Zydus could not be restrained from launching a life-saving anti-cancer drug in the absence of clear product-to-claim mapping showing patent infringement, especially in light of paramount public interest.
Case Title: Gautami Kawale & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(OS)-33/2026
Digital content creators Gautami Kawale and Abhyudaya Mohan, who run the popular YouTube channel Slayy Point, have moved the Delhi High Court seeking urgent protection against the alleged creation and circulation of AI-generated, morphed and pornographic deepfake content falsely portraying them. The matter is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday before Justice Vikas Mahajan. In their plea, the creators said they are widely recognised public figures with significant goodwill and an online following, noting that their YouTube channel has more than 10 million subscribers. They asserted that their personality and privacy rights are protected under the Constitution, as well as under statutory and common law.
Case Title: Mayank Jain, Proprietor Of Mahaveer Udyog v. M/S Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 412/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 35
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to an agricultural equipment maker that sought to stop a rival from using the word “Tiger” as part of its brand name for farm implements. In a judgment delivered on January 9, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court held that the words “Tiger” and “Brand” are common to the trade and that no case of deceptive similarity was made out at the interim stage.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trade Marks Registry Order Refusing Mankind Pharma's PETKIND Trademark
Case Title: Mankind Pharma Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 13/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 34
The Delhi High Court has overturned an order of the Trade Marks Registry refusing registration of Mankind Pharma Limited's trademark “PETKIND” for animal and agricultural products. The relief was earlier denied on the ground of similarity with an earlier “PETKIND” mark filed by Petkind Pet Products Inc. Justice Tejas Karia, by a judgment dated January 9, 2026, allowed the appeal filed by Mankind Pharma, holding that the refusal of the trademark was unjustified in view of the company's long-standing use and reputation associated with its “KIND” family of marks.
Delhi High Court Declines To Cancel 'Patanjali Gonyle' Trademark On Plea By Holy Cow Foundation
Case Title: Holy Cow Foundation v. Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas (Trust) & Ors.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 85/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 31
The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to cancel the trademark registration of “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner,” holding that the mark lawfully belongs to Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas and does not infringe the rights claimed by Holy Cow Foundation. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia, in a judgment delivered on January 9, 2026, dismissed a trademark rectification plea filed by Holy Cow Foundation, which also sells a cow-urine-based cleaner product under the same name, seeking removal of Patanjali's “Gonyle” mark over claims of deceptive similarity.
Case Title: Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S The Shake Social Through Its Proprietor
Case Number: CS(COMM) 121/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 29
The Delhi High Court has declared Impresario Entertainment's “SOCIAL” mark a well-known trademark in India and barred a Gujarat-based café from using the name “The Shake Social.” Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on January 9, 2026, in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit against a café operating in Valsad and Navsari, Gujarat. Granting permanent injunctive relief in favour of Impresario, the Court observed, “A clear case of infringement of the Plaintiff's Marks is made out. The Defendant has taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff's Marks and has also deceived the unwary consumers into believing their association with the Plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the Impugned without any plausible explanation.”
Delhi High Court Rejects Former Cineyug Employee's Claim Over 'IPL Awards' Copyright, Moral Rights
Case Title: Gaurav Garg v. Aly Morani & Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 200/2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 30
The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a long-running copyright dispute over the “IPL Awards”, holding that Gaurav Garg, a former employee of Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd., cannot claim authorship or moral rights over the event's concept and presentations. The court ruled that the copyright vested in the company, not in Garg. A single-judge bench of Justice Tejas Karia delivered made the ruling while deciding a suit filed by Garg against filmmaker Aly Morani, Mohomed Morani, and Cineyug Films, which organised the IPL Awards.
Case Title: Living Media India Limited v. Zee Media Corporation Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 826/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 26
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Zee Media Corporation Limited from using the “Duniyadari” label for its news programme in a manner that is deceptively similar to the registered device mark of Living Media India Limited, part of the India Today Group. A single-judge bench of Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on January 9, 2026, while deciding an interim injunction plea filed by Living Media. The Court held that Zee Media's use of the disputed label was likely to cause confusion among viewers.
Case Title: Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors. v. Ferrero S.P.A & Ors.
Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) 1/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 24
The Delhi High Court has partly modified an order directing the handover of over three lakh seized infringing Nutella-shaped glass jars to registered proprietor Ferrero S.p.A. The court held that while seizure and delivery-up of the jars was justified, they must be destroyed and not put to any commercial or other use. A division bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment dated January 6, 2026, disposed of an appeal filed by Firozabad-based glass jar manufacturers.
Case Title: Trackon Couriers Private Limited v. B. N. Srinivas
Case Number: IA (L) No. 35022/2024 in Comm IP Suit No. 11/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 48
The Bombay High Court has recently granted an interim injunction restraining the use of the mark “TRACK-ON” or any other deceptively similar variant for courier services, holding that such use is prima facie infringing of the registered “TRACKON” trademark. By an order dated January 22, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor allowed an interim application in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit instituted by Trackon Couriers Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the “TRACKON” marks.
Case Title: The Supreme Industries Limited v. Moorthi Rabeha
Case Number: IA No. 4642/2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 336/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 41
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained PVC pipe maker Moorthi Rabeha from using the mark “SUPREMES GOLD” after finding a prima facie infringement of Supreme Industries' “SUPREME” trademark. The order was passed on January 19, 2026, by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh while deciding an interim application in a suit filed by Supreme Industries alleging trademark and copyright infringement, as well as passing off, by the rival manufacturer.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Bars Zee Laboratories From Using “GLYZET” Mark, Imposes ₹50 Lakh Costs
Case Title: Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited & Anr. v. Rajiv Mukul & Ors.
Case Number: IA No. 3540/2022 in COMM IP Suit No. 213/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 32
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained Zee Laboratories and its associated entities from manufacturing, selling or marketing diabetes medicines under the mark “GLYZET,” holding that the mark is deceptively similar to “GLIMET,” a registered trademark used by Laboratoires Griffon Pvt. Ltd. for its anti-diabetic medicine. The Court has also imposed exemplary costs of ₹50 lakh on Zee Laboratories for adopting the disputed mark in breach of earlier Court orders and for making false statements on oath. In a judgment dated January 13, 2026, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor, while deciding an interim injunction application, observed that “GLIMET” and “GLYZET” are phonetically, structurally and visually similar and that an average consumer with imperfect recollection is likely to be confused between the two.
No Bar On Trademarking Hindu Deity Names If Distinctive: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v. M/s. Stanford Siyaram Fashion P Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: Notice of Motion No. 22/2013 in Commercial IP Suit No. 23/2008
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 30
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday observed that there is nothing in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, that prevents the registration or enforcement of trademarks merely because they contain the names of Hindu gods or deities. Granting interim relief to Mumbai-based Siyaram Silk Mills Limited, the court held that such marks are entitled to protection once they are validly registered and have acquired distinctiveness through use. Justice Arif S Doctor, while restraining Delhi-based Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited from using “Siyaram” as part of its corporate name or trademark, observed, “There is no provision in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, prohibiting registration or enforcement of marks comprising names of the Hindu Gods or Deities.”
Case Title: People Interactive India Private Limited v. Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial IP Suit No. 225/2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 25
The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained the operators of www.getshaadi.com, a matrimonial and matchmaking website, holding that it infringes and passes off the trademark Shaadi.com. In a judgment delivered on January 6, 2026, Justice Arif S Doctor ruled in favour of People Interactive, which operates the popular matrimonial platform “Shaadi.com.” The court held that the rival operator's adoption and use of “getshaadi.com” for identical matrimonial and matchmaking services violated People Interactive's trademark rights and amounted to passing off.
Bombay High Court Declares Radhakrishna Productions Sole Owner of Rights Of 'Will You Marry Me' Film
Case Title: Radhakrishna Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ikkon Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial IP Suit No. 98 of 2012
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 13
The Bombay High Court has declared Radhakrishna Productions Pvt. Ltd. as the lawful owner of copyright and allied rights of the 2012 Hindi film Will You Marry Me, permanently restraining Ikkon Films Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliates from exploiting the film or creating any third-party rights. A single-judge bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor passed the judgment on January 5, 2026. He held that the copyright assignment and financing agreements placed on record by Radhakrishna Productions clearly vested all rights of the film with it, and that breaches of these agreements by rival companies had resulted in infringement.
Case Title: Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd. v. Smt. Archana Debnath & Anr.
Case Number: FMAT 18 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 32
The Calcutta High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt. Ltd., a Kolkata-based publishing house, from publishing, selling or distributing the literary and artistic works of late author and cartoonist Narayan Debnath, holding that no legal infirmity existed in the trial court's order granting protection to the author's legal heirs. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya passed the order on January 21, 2026, while dismissing an appeal filed by the publishing house against an ad-interim injunction dated January 9, 2026, issued by the District Judge at Alipore.
Email Service Of Patent Examination Report Valid, Postal Service Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Dr. Dulal Kumar De v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA-IPD No.2 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 24
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the rejection of a patent application on the ground of abandonment, ruling that service of the First Examination Report (FER) through email constitutes valid service under the Patents Act, 1970, and that postal service is not mandatory. In an order passed on January 19, 2026, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur dismissed a writ petition challenging the abandonment of a patent application titled “Herbal Anti-Venom against Catfish Sting,” holding that the Patents Act and Rules permit electronic service of documents and that the applicant had failed to respond to the FER within the prescribed statutory timelines.
Calcutta High Court Removes Rival 'TANA TAN' Trademark, Rules Bikaji Foods Is Prior User
Case Title: Bikaji Foods International Limited v. Jagaranath Prasad & Anr.
Case Number: IPDATM/31/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 17
The Calcutta High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark “TANA TAN” from the Trade Marks Register. The Court held that the mark was deceptively identical to the long-standing “TANA TAN” trademark owned by snack food manufacturer Bikaji Foods International Limited. It found that the rival registration, secured in the name of Jagaranath Prasad, had been obtained in bad faith. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur passed the order on January 7, 2026, while allowing a trademark rectification plea filed by Bikaji Foods.
Bioreactor Invention Involving Human Embryonic Stem Cells Not Patentable: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Viacyte Inc v. Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: IPDPTA/7/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 16
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the Patent Office's refusal to grant a patent to US-based biotechnology company Viacyte Inc., holding that the claimed bioreactor invention was primarily directed at biological material, including human embryonic stem cell-derived aggregates and therefore fell within non-patentable subject matter under the Patents Act, 1970. In a judgment dated January 16, 2026, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, affirming the decision of the Deputy Controller of Patents, noted that inventions whose substance lies in biological material or parts of animals are excluded from patent protection under Section 3(j) of the Act.
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Patent Office Order Rejecting US Company's Glass Fibre Patent
Case Title: OCV Intellectual Capital LLC v. The Controller General Of Patents
Case Number: IPDPTA/34/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 5
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a Patent Office order rejecting a patent application filed by OCV Intellectual Capital LLC, a subsidiary of Owens Corning. The court held that the refusal was passed without proper analysis of novelty and inventive step. A single-judge bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, in a judgment dated January 6, 2026, held that the Patent Office rejected the application without engaging with the technical submissions made by the company or recording clear reasons explaining how the invention was covered by prior art.
How Can Trademark Registry Restrict Use Of A Mark Without Reasons, Gujarat High Court Orally Asks?
Case title: Kunvarji Growth Corporation LLP v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: R/CIA/99/2022
The Gujarat High Court on Friday (January 16) orally questioned the Registrar of Trademarks on why the adjudicating authority had permitted advertisement of a trademark in the Trademark Journal with restrictions, without recording any reasons for imposing such conditions. Justice Niral R. Mehta was hearing an appeal arising from a 2020 order of the trademark authority, which had conditionally accepted an application for registration of the “Family Farms” logo with the tagline “Ye Ghar Ki Baat Hai” in Class 31, covering agricultural and horticultural products.
Case Title: Davinder Pal Bakshi v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Case Number: CRM-M-11221-2025 (O&M)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 4
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against an Ambala-based garment trader for allegedly selling fake clothing branded as “Raymond,” holding that garments do not constitute a “work” protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. Justice Manisha Batra, in an order dated January 23, 2026, allowed a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by Davinder Pal Bakshi, proprietor of Ambala-based garment business Bakshi Enterprises, and set aside an FIR registered under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act for infringement, along with all consequential proceedings.
Case Title: Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Case Number: O.A. Nos. 60 & 61 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 34
The Madras High Court on Wednesday granted ad-interim protection to Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., restraining the unauthorised broadcast of the Hindi film Mardaani 3, starring Rani Mukerji, released theatrically on January 30, 2026. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the interim order on January 28, 2026, in a suit filed by the production house against internet service providers and cable television operators, apprehending infringement of its copyright in the film. While granting the interim relief, the Court observed that irreparable injury would be caused unless unlawful broadcast was restrained.
Madras High Court Quashes Cancellation Of 'SAKTHI' Trademark Without Prior Notice
Case Title: Perundurai Chennimalai Gounder v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: CMA (TM) No.16 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 29
The Madras High Court on Tuessay set aside the cancellation of a registered trademark by the Trade Marks Registry without prior notice to the trademark owner, holding that such action is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, in a judgment delivered on January 27, 2026, allowed an appeal filed by Perundurai Chennimalai Gounder Duraisamy, a Tamil Nadu-based food products manufacturer and the proprietor of 'SAKTHI' trademark, directing the Trade Marks Registry to restore the trademark registration.
'VAPORIN' Doesn't Infringe 'VICKS VAPORUB' Mark: Madras High Court Dismisses P&G's Plea
Case Title: The Procter @ Gamble Company v. IPI India Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: O.P. (TM) Nos. 48, 49, and 50 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 28
The Madras High Court has rejected Procter & Gamble's attempt to cancel the trademarks “VAPORIN” and “VAPORIN COLD RUB,” holding that the marks are validly registered in favour of IPI India and are not deceptively similar to P&G's well-known product “VICKS VAPORUB”. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice N. Senthilkumar, in an order dated January 6, 2026, dismissed a batch of trademark rectification pleas filed by P&G seeking removal of IPI's registrations on the ground of deceptive similarity.
Case Title: Shambhunath & Bros v. Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: LPA Nos. 27 & 28 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 25
The Madras High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark “THUFAN” in Telugu and Tamil, holding that failure to provide mandatory transliteration and translation while advertising the mark deprived affected parties of their statutory right to oppose it. In a judgment dated December 12, 2025, a Division Bench of Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar allowed appeals filed by Kolkata-based fan maker Shambhunath & Bros., which uses the mark “TOOFAN”. The court set aside a single judge order that had upheld Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd.'s registrations for the mark “THUFAN” in Class 11, which covers lighting, heating, and other electrical appliances.
Madras High Court Upholds KMF's Opposition To Registration of 'NANDINI' Mark For Agarbattis
Case Title: Karnataka Cooperative v. Vinod Kanji Shah & Anr.
Case Number: (T)CMA(TM) No.112/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 23
The Madras High Court on Monday set aside a Trade Marks Registry order and upheld Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation's objection to the 'NANDINI' trademark for agarbattis. In a judgment dated January 19, 2026, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh allowed KMF's appeal and overturned an order passed by the Trade Marks Registry in April 2010, observing that the objection had been rejected without proper consideration of the deceptive similarity between the rival marks and the long-standing reputation acquired by KMF in the “NANDINI” mark.
Patent Opposition Board Recommendations Are Advisory, Not Binding Decision: Madras High Court
Case Title: E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number.: W.P. No.8451 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 17
The Madras High Court has refused to step in midway in a patent dispute over a cancer drug, holding that a recommendation made by the Opposition Board during post-grant opposition proceedings is only advisory and does not create anu valid binding rights. Dismissing the writ petition filed by two foreign pharma firms, Justice N. Senthilkumar said the patent holders must place all their objections before the Controller of Patents, who alone takes the final call.
Case Title: Flipkart Internet Private Ltd v The Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: CMA(PT) No. 9 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 16
The Madras High Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Patent Office's rejection of Flipkart's post-grant opposition, allowing a US company's patent on virtual agents used in online customer interactions to continue. In an order dated January 5, 2026, Justice N. Senthilkumar refused to interfere with the decision of the Patent Office, which had dismissed Flipkart's post-grant opposition and allowed the patent titled “Systems and Methods for Virtual Agents to Help Customers and Business” to continue.
Madras High Court Temporarily Bars Use Of “URG-9”, Finds It Deceptively Similar To “ARG-9”
Case Title: Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v. Foregen Healthcare Ltd.
Case Number: C.S. (COMM DIV) NO. 184 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 15
The Madras High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Foregen Healthcare Ltd. from using the pharmaceutical mark “URG-9.” The court held that it was prima facie deceptively similar to the registered trademark “ARG-9” owned by Nouveau Medicament Private Limited. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order on January 7, 2026, while deciding the interim injunction application in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit concerning pharmaceutical products.
Case Title: Versuni Holding BV v. Maya Appliances Private Limited
Case Number: (PT) A No. 3 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 12
The Madras High Court has dismissed a patent revocation plea filed by Maya Appliances Private Limited, a Chennai-based company, seeking to revoke a food processor patent held by Versuni Holding B.V., a Netherlands-based home appliances company. In an order passed on December 19, 2025, Justice N. Senthilkumar allowed Versuni's application seeking rejection of the revocation proceedings, holding that the challenge was not maintainable since the very same issue had already been raised in a pending patent infringement suit before the Delhi High Court.
Madras High Court Orders Removal Of Wipro's 'PREMIO' Trademark On Crompton Greaves Plea
Case Title: Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Wipro Enterprises Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: (T)OP(TM) No. 411 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 10
The Madras High Court has ordered the removal of the “PREMIO” trademark registered in favour of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited. The Court found that the mark had not been put to genuine commercial use for more than five years. Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on December 16, 2025. He allowed a rectification plea filed by Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited, a Mumbai-based consumer electricals manufacturer.
Case Title: Bongchie India Private Ltd. v. Mrs. Chandra Kumari & Anr.
Case Number.: CS (COMM.) 953/2023
A Commercial Court in Delhi has permanently restrained Ish Nagpal, a Faridabad-based manufacturer, from using the trademarks “BONGCHIE” and “PERFECT ROLL” on smoking paper products. The court made the ruling after counterfeit goods bearing the marks were recovered from his premises. In a judgment dated January 5, 2026, District Judge Harish Kumar of the Commercial Court at Tis Hazari partly allowed a suit filed by Bongchie India Private Limited. The plaintiff is a Delhi-based company engaged in the manufacture and sale of pre-rolled cones, rolling papers and smoking accessories.
Government Proposes Protection For Metaverse Designs, Virtual Products Under Designs Act
The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry has proposed bringing metaverse-based and other virtual designs within the scope of India's design protection law under amendments to the Designs Act, 2000. The proposal forms part of a concept note issued by the department on Friday and placed in the public domain for stakeholder consultation. DPIIT has invited comments within 30 days The concept note states that the Designs Act was drafted in a “markedly different industrial and technological environment” when design protection was closely linked to physical products.
IP Office Issues Public Notice Against Misleading Online Trademark Registration Platforms
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) has issued a public notice warning businesses and individuals against online platforms that advertise and solicit clients by offering assured trademark registration services, terming such practices misleading and illegal. In the notice dated January 7, 2026, the CGPDTM said it has taken serious note of several entities engaging in the solicitation of prospective trademark applicants through digital platforms, in violation of the Advocates Act, 1961, which prohibits advertising and solicitation of legal services.
Taj Hotels Secures Sound Mark Registration For Hospitality Services
Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL), a Tata Group company operating hospitality brands such as Taj, Vivanta, Ginger and SeleQtions, has secured trademark registration for the “Taj” sonic sound, marking the first instance of a sound mark being registered in the hospitality sector in India. According to the registration certificate, the sound mark was registered by the Trade Marks Registry on January 7, 2026, with a registration date of April 17, 2025 and is valid for a period of ten years. The registration grants IHCL exclusive statutory rights over the sound mark and protection against unauthorized use or commercial exploitation.
Case Title: E. R. Squibb And Sons Llc & Ors. v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited
Case Number: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3267/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 58
The Supreme Court on Wednesday disposed of a special leave petition filed by E.R. Squibb and Sons LLC against Zydus Lifesciences Ltd in a patent dispute over the anti-cancer immunotherapy drug Nivolumab, arising from a January 12 judgment of the Delhi High Court's Division Bench. A Bench of the Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that since Zydus had already marketed its product and it was readily available in the market, the petitioners would be at liberty to undertake a direct product-to-claim mapping and, depending on the outcome, approach the Division Bench of the High Court for appropriate interim relief.
Case Title: I.S.D.S Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Khemka Food Products Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 60138/2025
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it will examine whether a Commercial Court presided over by a Civil Judge (Senior Division) can entertain trademark infringement and passing-off suits in view of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. The court stayed further proceedings in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit pending before the Commercial Court at Jamshedpur. The issue arises from Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which governs the forum for filing trademark infringement and passing-off suits and bars such suits from being instituted before a court “inferior to a District Court.”
Supreme Court To Hear On Friday Ustad's Plea In 'Veera Raja Veera' Copyright Case Against A R Rahman
Case Title: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar vs A.R. Rahman
Case Number: SLP (C) No. 4742 of 2026
The Supreme Court will hear on Friday an appeal filed by renowned Dhrupad vocalist Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to vacate and dilute interim relief granted in his copyright suit over the song “Veera Raja Veera” from the film Ponniyin Selvan II, composed by A. R. Rahman. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria will hear the matter.
Case Title: Saregama India Ltd. v. Sreedevi Video Corporation & Ors.
Case Number: SLP (C). 6950/2026
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Madras High Court order that had revived an injunction claim in a copyright dispute between SaReGaMa India Ltd and Sreedevi Video Corporation over the audio rights of iconic Tamil and Telegu films such as Sagara Sangamam, Salangai Oli and Shankara Bharanam. The High Court had held that although Sreedevi's plea seeking declaration of copyright was barred by limitation, its claim for permanent injunction could still be examined independently and remanded the matter to a Single Judge for fresh adjudication.
Case Title: Hero Cycles Ltd & Anr. vs Hero Ecotech Ltd & Ors
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.1478 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 74
The Supreme Court recently revived proceedings for alleged breach of an injunction in the long-running “HERO” trademark dispute between Hero Cycles Limited and Hero Ecotech Limited. A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside a September 3, 2025 judgment of the Patna High Court, which had quashed a 2019 trial court order directing initiation of contempt proceedings against Hero Ecotech and others for alleged breach of an injunction.
Case Title: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar vs A.R. Rahman
Case Number: SLP(C) 4742 OF 2026
Music composer A.R. Rahman on Friday undertook before the Supreme Court of India to give credit to Late Ustad Faiyazuddin Dagar and Late Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar in relation to the song “Veera Raja Veera” from Ponniyin Selvan II. The court accordingly closed the appeal filed by Dhrupad vocalist Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar against a division bench order of the Delhi High Court that had modified interim relief granted in the copyright dispute. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi recorded the undertaking that the revised credits would be displayed on all OTT and online platforms within five weeks.
Supreme Court Appoints Former CJI B R Gavai To Mediate Veda Seed- Kohinoor Trademark Dispute
Case Title: Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd vs Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd
Case Number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5850/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 76
The Supreme Court on Friday appointed former Chief Justice of India Justice B.R. Gavai to mediate a trademark dispute between Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd and Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd., while staying further proceedings in the suit before the Delhi High Court. A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Atul S. Chandurkar recorded that the parties had “favourably responded to the suggestion of the Court that an amicable resolution of the dispute be explored through the process of mediation.”
Case Title: Saregama India Limited v. Ilaiyaraaja
Case Number: CS(COMM) 143/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 149
The Delhi High Court has recently issued an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining music composer Ilaiyaraaja from exploiting, using or issuing licences in respect of sound recordings and underlying works from 134 films claimed by Saregama India Limited, holding that the company has made out a prima facie strong case. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order after noting that assignment agreements and inlay cards placed on record prima facie supported Saregama's claim of exclusive copyright.
Delhi High Court Allows Oswaal Books To Register 'ONE FOR ALL' As Trademark
Case Title: Oswaal Books And Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: LPA 571/2025 & CM APPL. 56791/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 151
The Delhi High Court on 10 February cleared the way for Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Ltd. to register “ONE FOR ALL” as their trademark, observing that the phrase is a protectable suggestive mark rather than a merely descriptive slogan. The Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed: “We find that the applied mark “ONE FOR ALL” does not evoke a connect, in the mind, between the mark and books. The mark has no relation with books and can be used in any situation to communicate broad coverage or universality.”
Delhi High Court Reiterates Limited Interference In Appeals Against Interim IPR Orders
Case Title: Sanjay Gupta & Anr v. Vineet Jain
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 44/2026, CM APPL. 9539/2026, CM APPL. 9540/2026, CM APPL. 9541/2026, CM APPL. 9542/2026 & CM APPL. 9543/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 152
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that appellate courts must remain highly circumspect before overturning discretionary orders issued by commercial courts in intellectual property matters. The bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed an appeal in limine by the owners of the “Golden Eagle” brand against a rival “Golden Kingfisher” product, upholding the decision of the Commercial Court at Tis Hazari to refuse ex parte ad-interim injunction and appointment of a local commissioner.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Deepika Padukone's 82°E From Using “Lotus Splash” Mark In Dispute With Lotus Herbals
Case Title: Lotus Herbals Private Limited v. DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 45/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 158
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction restraining actress Deepika Padukone's DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited, the entity behind the skincare brand 82°E, from manufacturing, advertising or selling its "Lotus Splash" facial cleanser until final disposal of the suit. The Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar held that the use of the mark "Lotus Splash" by the defendants was not merely descriptive of an ingredient but was being used as a trademark.
Baba Ramdev Approaches Delhi High Court Over Deepfakes, Seeks Protection of Personality Rights
Case Title: Swami Ramdev v. John Doe (S) & Ors.
Yoga guru and Patanjali Ayurved co-founder Baba Ramdev has moved the Delhi High Court on Tuesday (February 17) seeking protection of his personality rights. The matter was listed before Justice Jyoti Singh and was briefly heard. It has now been kept for further hearing on Wednesday. Ramdev seeks an injunction against the unauthorised use of his name, likeness, voice and distinctive style of discourse on digital platforms. The plea targets “John Doe” defendants allegedly using artificial intelligence-generated content, deepfake videos and voice cloning to exploit his identity without consent.
Expiry Notice To Unauthorized Agent Not Compliant With Trade Marks Act: Delhi High Court Allows Renewal Of 8 Marks
Case Title: Coldsmiths Retail Services Private Limited v. Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 37/2025, CM 162/2025 & CM 164/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 162
The Delhi High Court has permitted renewal of eight trademarks after holding that expiry notices sent to an unauthorized agent do not amount to compliance with the Trade Marks Act. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that issuing notices to a person who was no longer authorised does not satisfy Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act.
Public University Data Can Be Used If Not Disparaging: Delhi High Court Lifts Injunction Against EdTech Site
Case Title: Getmyuni Education Services Private Limited v. Mangalayatan University
Case Number: FAO 126/2023 and CM APPL. 27117/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 164
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday set aside a trial court order restraining an education-technology start-up from using the names, information, and details of two universities on its website, holding that it has a right to use publicly available information so long as it is not presented disparagingly. A single-judge bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the respondents were “unable to make out a prima facie case” and termed it “an unconvincing argument” that rankings displayed on the website were disparaging when they were referenced to rankings available in the public domain and were open-sourced.
Delhi High Court Imposes ₹50,000 Costs On Patent Owner For “Unnecessary Litigation”
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Goel v. Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 672/2022, CC(COMM) 16/2023 & I.A. 13948/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 163
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to allow Pawan Kumar Goel to withdraw his patent infringement suit over a patented process for extracting Alpha Yohimbine, a plant-derived compound used in dietary supplements, and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 for “unnecessary litigation.” Justice Tushar Rao Gedela declined Goel's request under Order XXIII Rule (1)(3)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action.
Delhi High Court Refers Patanjali–Britannia 'Milk Bikis' Ad Disparagement Dispute To Mediation
Case Title: Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr. v. Britannia Industries Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM)-162/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday referred to mediation a trademark disparagement dispute between Patanjali Ayurved Limited and Britannia Industries Limited over Britannia's “Milk Bikis” advertisement. The matter was listed today before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. After hearing preliminary submissions, the court referred the parties to the Delhi Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Patanjali has sought an injunction against the allegedly disparaging ad. It contends that the advertisement disparages its milk biscuits. It objects to the depiction of its packaging. It also challenges the use of the word “Baba”.
'More The Merrier?': Delhi High Court Questions Insistence On Retaining Social Media Platforms In Karan Johar's Personality Rights Suit
Case Title: Karan Johar v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 974/2025
The Delhi High Court on Thursday questioned the legal basis for retaining social media intermediaries as parties in filmmaker Karan Johar's personality rights suit after they have complied with its takedown directions, asking, “Why have more the merrier attitude?” Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing submissions from platforms including Meta (Defendant 15), X Corp. (Defendant 16) and Etsy (Defendant 12), which were impleaded as proforma parties in the suit.
Delhi High Court Asks Singer Jubin Nautiyal Why He Filed Personality Rights Suit In Delhi Despite Being Based in Uttarakhand
Case Title: Jubin Nautiyal v. Jammable Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 166/2026
The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked singer Jubin Nautiyal why he had approached it for protection of his personality rights when he is based in Uttarakhand. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela questioned the choice of forum. “Why are you here? What is accessible here is accessible there. The courts there aren't abolished yet…,” the judge remarked. At the outset, the Court asked how it could entertain the suit.
Delhi High Court Restrains 20 Rogue Websites Streaming Barrios vs Ryan Garcia Fight, Grants DAZN Dynamic Injunction
Case Title: Dazn Limited & Anr. v. Olympicstreams.Co & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 152/2026 & I.A. 4277/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 168
The Delhi High Court has recently restrained 20 rogue websites from illegally streaming the “Mario Barrios vs. Ryan Garcia” boxing match scheduled for February 21, 2026. The court held that DAZN Limited had made out a strong case for urgent protection of its exclusive broadcast rights. Granting an ex parte ad interim injunction, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “In such case, the plaintiffs, appears to have a prima facie strong case for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.”
Delhi High Court Tells Vivek Oberoi To Accept 'Bouquets and Brickbats' In His Personality Rights Suit
Case Title: Vivek Anand Oberoi v. Collector Bazar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 105/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that public figures must be prepared to accept both “bouquets and brickbats”, cautioning actor Vivek Anand Oberoi against becoming “hyper-sensitive” while hearing an application filed by Reddit seeking vacation of an ad-interim injunction earlier granted in his favour. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the remarks during proceedings in the personality suit filed by the actor, where the actor has sought protection of his personality and publicity rights. The court had previously passed an ad interim order directing certain websites and online platforms to take down links listed in the annexure to the order and to furnish user information within 72 hours.
Delhi High Court Restrains Misuse Of HCL Trademark In Alleged Fraudulent 'HCL Mediclinic' Scheme
Case Title: HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd v. John Does & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 127/2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 143
The Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to protect HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd against unidentified parties who are allegedly misrepresenting themselves as company officials to dupe members of the public and job seekers. According to the suit filed by HCL, the company recently became aware of illegal and fraudulent activities by rogue third parties. HCL alleges that these individuals have been issuing fraudulent emails, calls, and messages while posing as HCL employees.
Delhi High Court Restrains Indian Firm From Using 'SHRM' Trademark Of US HR Organisation
Case Title: Society For Human Resource Management SHRM v. Strategic HRM & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 128/2026, I.A. 3790/2026, I.A. 3791/2026 & I.A. 3792/2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 142
Finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court has barred Strategic HRM from using the “SHRM” mark, observing that failure to grant an ex-parte injunction would cause “irreparable loss and injury” to the US-based Society for Human Resource Management. A single-bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on February 11. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) was established in the United States as the American Society for Personnel Administration (ASPA) in 1948, before adopting its current name in 1989. Beyond its status as a professional membership body, the organisation claimed to have played a role in shaping workplace-related legislation and policy in the USA.
Delhi High Court Closes COBADEX Trademark Case After GlaxoSmithKline Settles With Mensa Futura
Case Title: Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Mensa Futura Life Sciences Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1004/2025
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 137
The Delhi High Court has recently disposed of a trademark suit filed by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited, a major Indian pharmaceutical company, after it reached a settlement with Mensa Futura Life Sciences over the use of the 'COBADEX' brand and look-alike packaging. Under the settlement, Mensa Futura agreed to permanently stop using the mark 'CUBANEX-CZS' and any deceptively similar mark or packaging, consented to a permanent injunction in favour of GlaxoSmithKline, and undertook to recall and destroy products bearing the impugned branding.
Delhi High Court Restrains 'SUPERON' Trademark Use, Orders Takedown Of Infringing Websites
Case Title: Sanjay Mehra v. Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Gupta
Case Number: CS(COMM) 102/2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 136
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Sanjay Mehra, proprietor of the registered “SUPERON” trademark, restraining a Gurugram-based entity from using the mark or any deceptively similar name of the stainless steel consumables brand. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on February 4, 2026, directing the entity's proprietor to immediately cease using the "SUPERON" name in any capacity, whether as a trade name, domain name, or email address.
Delhi High Court Injuncts 23 Rogue Websites Illegaly Streaming UEFA Champions League 2025–26
Case Title: Union Of European Football Associations v. Livetv.Sx & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 106/2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 135
Holding that piracy of live sports poses a “recurring threat” and that any delay would cause irreparable copyright breach and revenue loss, the Delhi High Court on February 5 granted an ex parte ad interim injunction blocking 23 rogue websites from unauthorisedly streaming matches of the ongoing UEFA Champions League 2025–26. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the Champions League season is currently underway and will conclude only in May 2026. Any delay in blocking access to infringing platforms, the court said, would result in continuing violation of copyright and financial loss.
Delhi High Court Protects 60-Year-Old Trademark Rights, Orders Removal of 'ARUN' From 'AiC ARUN' Mark
Case Title: Satya Paul v. Alka Industrial Corporation & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 651/2022
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 134
The Delhi High Court on Monday ordered the removal of the word “ARUN” from Alka Industrial Corporation's registered trademark “AiC ARUN,” holding that the mark infringed the six-decade-old “ARUN” brand of Satya Paul & Company used for sewing machines. Allowing a rectification petition filed by Satya Paul & Company, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the firm had continuously and uninterruptedly used the trade name “ARUN” since 1962 and had established substantial goodwill and reputation in the mark over the decades.
Delhi High Court Restrains Parth Law House, Others From Selling Counterfeit LexisNexis Law Textbooks
Case Title: LexisNexis v. Parth Law House & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 156/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 176
The Delhi High Court has recently granted a temporary injunction in favour of LexisNexis, restraining Parth Law House and others from printing, distributing, or selling counterfeit copies of its legal textbooks. A coram of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that interim protection was warranted pending further proceedings. “Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff and upon examination of the documents, I am of the view that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction,” the Court held.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains 19 More Entities From Infringing JAQUAR Trademark
Case Title: Jaquar And Company Private Limited v. Jaquar Franchise & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1160/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 174
The Delhi High Court has recently extended an earlier ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Jaquar And Company Private Limited after impleading 22 additional entities, restraining 19 of them from using the trademark “JAQUAR”. The Court restrained them from using the mark and directed banks to freeze accounts opened in a deceptively similar name. The relief was originally granted on November 3, 2025. At that stage, the Court recorded that Jaquar And Company Private Limited, the Indian bathroom fittings and sanitaryware manufacturer, is the registered proprietor of the well-known trademark “JAQUAR”. The mark was declared a well-known trademark on February 19, 2024.
Case Title: Bennett Coleman And Company Limited v. Seera Raja Babu M.R. Seera, & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 172/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 179
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Bennett Coleman and Company Limited restraining the use of the marks TIMES OF INDIA, TOI MOVIES, TOI_MOVIES and TOIMOVIES_, or any identical or deceptively similar mark, by unauthorised social media account operators. The order was passed on February 20, 2026 by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. The court noted that “The Times of India” was recognised as a well-known trademark by the Trade Marks Registry in 2024. It held that the company had made out a strong prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in its favour.
Case Title: Dr Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi Through Power Of Attorney Holder v. John Does Ashok Kumars & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 178/2026
In what it described as a “very surprising suit,” the Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard a personality rights case filed by Mumbai-based godman Dr. Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi, popularly known as Aniruddha Bapu, who is seeking to restrain his own followers from portraying him as a deity. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela remarked during the hearing, “Faith moves mountains… This is something very surprising. You have come up with a very surprising suit,” as the Court considered a plea that does not allege defamation or commercial disparagement, but instead challenges devotional content created by the plaintiff's own followers.
Delhi High Court Questions 'Zora' Trademark Registration, Says Visually Similar To 'Zara'
Case Title: Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A v. Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) - 52/2024
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday questioned the Registrar of Trade Marks action allowing the registration of the mark “Zora,” observing that it is “visually, receptively similar beyond any doubt” to the global fashion brand “Zara”. The matter arises from a challenge filed by Industria De Diseño Textil, S.A., owner of the brand “Zara,” against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks permitting registration of the mark “Zora” in Class 24, which covers textile goods and fabrics.
Delhi High Court Protects Singer Jubin Nautiyal's Personality Rights From Commercial Exploitation
Case Title: Jubin Nautiyal v. Jammable Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 166/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 186
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of singer Jubin Nautiyal, restraining unauthorised commercial exploitation of his personality and publicity rights, including through artificial intelligence tools, deepfakes and voice cloning technologies. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in an order dated February 19, 2026, held: “In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has a prima facie strong case and having regard to his well-known, popular and well-accepted personality, the balance of convenience is tilted in favour of the plaintiff. In case, ex-parte ad-interim injunction and other directions, as sought, are not passed, the irreparable loss and injury which may occasion may not be compensated in monetary terms. The dent and damage to the image and personality of the plaintiff, prima facie, appears to be real and present.”
Patent Revocation Petition Survives Even If Patent Expires By Efflux Of Time: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Case Number: LPA 129/2025, CM APPL. 10551/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 188
Holding that revocation operates retrospectively and in rem, the Delhi High Court has ruled that expiry of a patent does not render a pending revocation petition infructuous. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla on Tuesday held “a revocation petition would be maintainable, and would continue to survive, even after the patent of which revocation is sought expires by efflux of time."
Delhi High Court Protects Swami Ramdev's Personality Rights, Restrains AI Deepfakes
Case Title: Swami Ramdev v. John Doe (s) & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 147/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 193
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of yoga guru Swami Ramdev, restraining the unauthorised use of his name, voice, image, likeness and distinctive style in AI-generated deepfakes, fabricated endorsements and other commercial content. In an order dated February 18, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh held that Ramdev had made out a prima facie case. The Court observed that the material placed on record showed exploitation of his personality rights.
Case Title: Kajol Vishal Devgan v. Kash Collective & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 173/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 196
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to protect the personality rights of Bollywood actress Kajol Vishal Devgan, restraining the unauthorised use of her likeness in AI-generated deepfakes, vulgar chatbots, and commercial merchandise. Presiding over the matter, Justice Jyoti Singh on February, 2026, found that the actress had established a prima facie case for injunction, observing that the alleged unauthorised exploitation of her attributes impacts her right to privacy/personality and live with dignity.
Delhi High Court Grants Levi Strauss Temporary Injunction Against Use of Its Iconic Pocket Tab Mark
Case Title: Levi Strauss And Company v. Beyoung Folks Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 175/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 197
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of US denim and apparel company Levi Strauss and Company, holding that it had made out a strong prima facie case for protection of its registered “Tab Device Mark” and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in its order dated February 23, 2026, observed that the “cumulative effect” of the pleadings, trademark registrations and sales figures tilted the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff.
One-Month Notice Before Suo Motu Trademark Cancellation Is Mandatory: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Landmark Crafts Limited v. Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta & Anr.
Case Number: LPA 575/2025, CM APPL. 57191/2025, 57192/2025, 57194/2025 & 69956/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 198
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday made it clear that if the Registrar decides to cancel or rectify a trademark registration on his own initiative, the registered owner must first be given at least one month's notice under Rule 100(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The Court emphasised that this is not a mere formality. The one-month notice requirement is mandatory and cannot be brushed aside by invoking principles such as estoppel.
Case Title: Singh And Singh Law Firm LLP & Anr. v. Singh And Singh Chartered Accountants & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 192/2026
The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted an ad-interim injunction restraining a chartered accountancy firm from using the name “Singh and Singh Chartered Accountants” in a trademark infringement suit filed by Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP. The order was passed by Justice Jyoti Singh after hearing the submissions of the law firm at the ad-interim stage. During the hearing, the court sought clarification on the nature of the defendants' business, asking, “These are what, chartered accountants?” Counsel for the plaintiffs confirmed that the defendants were operating as “Singh and Singh Chartered Accountants.”
Purva Dhanashree Moves Delhi High Court Amid Trademark Dispute Over 'Vilasini Natyam'
Case Title: Purva Dhanashree v. Guru Swapnasundari & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) - 60/2026
Renowned classical dancer Purva Dhanashree has approached the Delhi High Court seeking permission to continue using the name 'Vilasini Natyam' for her public performances, challenging the exclusive trademark claimed by her guru, Swapnasundari, a Padma Shri awardee, over the traditional dance form. On Thursday 26 February, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela urged the “guru-shishya” duo to resolve the matter through dialogue, noting that while the trademark is registered, the guru's own research indicates the name may not have been personally coined by her.
Case Title: Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited v. Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Landsmill Healthcare Private Limited) & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 111/2024 & CM APPL. 33733/2024, CM APPL. 33736/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 203
Holding there can be no monopoly over the word “FOREST” without stringent proof that it has acquired a secondary meaning, the Delhi High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of the luxury Ayurvedic brand Forest Essentials, allowing a newer entrant, Baby Forest, to continue using 'BABY FOREST' and 'BABY FOREST-SOHAM OF AYUVEDA' marks. In a judgment pronounced on February 27, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain upheld the Single Bench's decision to refuse an interim order of injunction against Baby Forest, finding that the established brand could not claim an exclusive monopoly over the dictionary word “Forest.”
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of KREOFLAT Trademark Over Similarity To Abbott's PANKREOFLAT
Case Title: Abbott Products Operations AG v. Ms. Aprajita Sushma Proprietor Of Alrom Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 163/2025 & I.A.16868/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 204
The Delhi High Court has ordered removal of the registered trademark “KREOFLAT” from the Register of Trade Marks after holding it deceptively similar to Abbott Products Operations AG's mark “PANKREOFLAT.” In a judgment delivered on February 26, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowed a rectification petition filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court held that in the case of medicinal and pharmaceutical products, the “threshold laid down for deciding deceptive similarity is very low.”
Case Title: Sauss Home Products Private Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 145/2025, CM APPL. 60016/2025 & CM APPL. 75892/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 206
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an interim injunction restraining Sauss Home Products Private Limited from using a “Flying Bird” device mark in relation to washing soap, washing powder, detergent powder and cake, and cleaning starch. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the company's appeal on February 7, 2026. The court held that the “Flying Bird marks of the appellant and respondent were practically identical in appearance, in shape, colour scheme and lay out” and were used for identical goods.
Delhi High Court Recalls Stay On 'THE BREW BUKHARA' Trademark In ITC Dispute
Case Title: ITC Limited & Anr. v. Umesh Arora & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 48/2026 & I.A. 4244/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 207
The Delhi High Court recently recalled an ex-parte stay it had earlier granted to ITC Limited concerning the trademark registration of 'THE BREW BUKHARA'. In contrast to the Court's view just days earlier, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on 19 February held that since the respondent, Umesh Arora, is the registered proprietor of the disputed mark, an ad interim injunction could be considered only after he has been given an opportunity to file a reply.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of 'Accko' Trademark, Finds It Deceptively Similar to 'ACKO' Brand
Case Title: Acko Technology And Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandra Mohan Mishra & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 48/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 208
The Delhi High Court on 10 February, directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the trademark registration for 'ACCKO' observing that the mark is deceptively similar to the well-known 'ACKO' brand. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the rectification petition filed by Acko Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd. under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court remarked: “Similarity in the rival marks leaves little doubt that the intention of Respondent No. 1 was dishonest and the impugned mark was adopted in bad faith to encash on the goodwill of the trademark of the Petitioner.”
Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Dabur's Cool King Thanda Tael Over Navratna-Like Trade Dress
Case Title: Emami Limited v. Dabur India Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 532/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 106
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Dabur India Limited from selling its cooling oil product, “Cool King Thanda Tael,” after finding, at the interim stage, that its packaging is deceptively similar to the trade dress of Emami Limited's “Navratna” cooling oil. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia, in an order dated January 31, 2026, allowed Emami's application for interim injunction in a passing off action against Dabur India. The Court held that Dabur's impugned packaging closely imitates the essential and distinctive features of Emami's packaging and is likely to cause consumer confusion.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains One-Person Company From Using 'Media Monk' Name
Case Title: Mediamonks Multimedia Holding B.V v. Systemry Global Tech (OPC) Pvt. Ltd
Case Number: CS(COMM) 71/2026, I.A. 2042/2026, I.A. 2043/2026, I.A. 2044/2026 I.A. 2045/2026, I.A. 2046/2026 & I.A. 2047/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 111
The Delhi High Court has temporarily barred a one-person company from using the name “Media Monk” after finding it deceptively similar to the global digital brand MediaMonks and likely to mislead consumers. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against Systemry Global Tech (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. The court restrained the company from using the marks “Media Monk”, “MediaMonk”, the domain name mediamonk.ai, or any other mark or domain that is deceptively similar to “MediaMonks”.
Delhi High Court Bars “Divine Miss India” For Infringing Times Group's “Miss India” Trademark
Case Title: Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd & Anr. v. Seraphic Divine Beauty P Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 252/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 113
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained Seraphic Divine Beauty Pvt. Ltd. from organising or promoting a beauty pageant under the name “Divine Miss India,” holding that the mark infringes and passes off the iconic “Miss India” trademark owned by Bennett, Coleman & Company Ltd. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, by a judgment dated January 21, 2026, ruled in favour of Bennett, holding that use of the impugned mark amounted to trademark infringement and passing off and was intended to exploit the goodwill associated with the “Miss India” mark.
Vivek Oberoi Moves Delhi High Court Over AI, Deepfake Misuse of Personality Rights
Actor Vivek Oberoi has filed a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court seeking an injunction against the alleged infringement of his publicity and personality rights, including the unauthorised use of his name, image, voice, and likeness for commercial and personal gain. The suit has been filed through Advocate Sana Raees Khan. The suit has been instituted against several entities, including Collector Bazar, ZoomMantra, Indiacontent, WattPad and Bollywood Movie Posters, alleging impersonation of the actor on social media platforms, sale of unauthorised merchandise bearing his name and image, and the creation and dissemination of AI-generated and deepfake content falsely depicting him in insulting and demeaning ways.
Case Title: Allied Blenders and Distillers Ltd. v. Batra Brewries and Disttilleries Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 551/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 115
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of Allied Blenders and Distillers Ltd., granting a permanent injunction restraining Batra Breweries and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. from using the marks “Officer's Choice”, “Officer's Choice Blue”, “Choice”, or any other identical or deceptively similar mark. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the final decree disposing of the commercial suit filed by Allied Blenders alleging infringement of its well-known whisky trademark by Batra's use of the marks “Principal Choice” and “Principal Choice Premium Whisky.”
Case Title: Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Nitish Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 104/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 116
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday awarded Rs 20 lakh in damages and Rs 3 lakh in litigation costs to Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited while decreeing a trademark infringement suit over a dealership scam run through a rogue website. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela also granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from unauthorised use of Hero Electric's registered trademarks and copyrighted works. The court found that the defendants had posed as the company and cheated innocent investors by falsely offering exclusive dealerships.
Delhi High Court To Pass Interim Order Protecting Vivek Oberoi's Personality Rights
The Delhi High Court on Friday said it would issue an interim order safeguarding the personality rights of actor and entrepreneur Vivek Oberoi. The observation was made by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela when advocate Sana Raees Khan appeared on behalf of Oberoi in a suit seeking protection against misuse of his identity. At the beginning of the hearing, the judge remarked, “We will pass orders.” When Khan asked whether submissions were required, the court replied, “Do you need to make any submission when the Court is saying it will pass orders?”
Case Title: Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr. v. Rajesh Sharma & Ors.
Case Number: CP No. 58/245/PB/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 124
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a copyright suit cannot be dismissed merely because the Local Commissioner appointed visited the additional premises beyond judicial mandate. A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla said that it is normal for a court to authorise the Local Commissioner not only to visit the premises disclosed in the plaint but also any other premises at which infringing goods may be found to be present.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against Rogue Websites Misusing 'VIMAL' Trademark
Case Title: Vishnu and Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v. Mr. Dharmani Deni and Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1341/ 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 123
The Delhi High Court, in a recent order, has temporarily restrained rogue websites and social media pages that were selling VIMAL gutka without authorisation, after finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing a commercial suit filed by Vishnu and Company Trademarks Private Limited seeking protection of its trademark rights.
Case Title: Thukral Mechanical Works v. PM Diesels Private Limited and Anr.
Case Number: LPA 320/2024 & other connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 126
The Delhi High Court has brought a five-decade dispute over the “FIELDMARSHAL” trademark to an unusual end by barring both rival manufacturers from using the mark for centrifugal pumps, after finding that one held a valid registration while the other had built prior market goodwill. A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla delivered the judgment on February 6, 2026, in a long-running battle between PM Diesels Private Limited (PMD) and Thukral Mechanical Works, holding that neither side could lawfully use the “FIELDMARSHAL” brand in the centrifugal pump market.
Delhi High Court Bars Unauthorised Use Of Vivek Oberoi's Name, Image and Voice
Case Title: Vivek Anand Oberoi v. Collector Bazaar & Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 105/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 127 The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of actor Vivek Oberoi, restraining the unauthorised use of his name, image, likeness, and voice, including through AI-generated content. A coram of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that a prima facie case had been made out, noting that “the dent and damage to the image and personality of the plaintiff, prima facie, appears to be real and present.”
Case Title: Shatrughan Prasad Sinha v. John Doe & Ors.
Veteran Bollywood actor and Member of Parliament Shatrughan Sinha has moved the Bombay High Court seeking to protect his personality and publicity rights. The commercial suit, heard by a single-judge bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, alleges the unauthorised use of Sinha's name, image, likeness, and his signature catchphrase, "Khamosh!" The court has reserved the matter for ad-interim orders on Monday.
Bombay High Court Restrains 'ACERIL' Trademark For Phonetic Similarity With Glenmark's 'ASCORIL'
Case Title: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Venkata Subbarao & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 716 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 31 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 80
The Bombay High Court on 16 February granted ad-interim relief to Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, temporarily restraining the use of the trademark “ACERIL” by Venkata Subbarao, after finding it visually and phonetically similar to Glenmark's registered mark “ASCORIL.” Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that although the two medicinal products treat different ailments, the similarity between the marks, if not restrained, could have a disastrous effect.
Khamosh! Bombay High Court Protects Shatrughan Sinha's Catchphrase, Personality Rights
Case Title: Shatrughan Prasad Sinha v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 2870 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 2167 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 87
The Bombay High Court has granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction to veteran actor and politician Shatrughan Sinha, restraining the unauthorised commercial exploitation of his personality rights. The Court also restrained use of his signature catchphrase “Khamosh” and his distinctive vocal mannerisms, observing that the expression, delivered in his unique and distinct style, is associated exclusively with his persona.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited vs Effingut Breweries Private Limited
Case Number: Contempt Petition (CD) 51 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 76
The Bombay High Court recently issued bailable warrants against four directors of the Pune-based Effingut Breweries, a popular largest craft beer brand and owners of pubs and lounges operating in major cities like Pune, Delhi, Mumbai, Gurugram etc for failing to appear before the court as ordered in a previous hearing. Single-judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh was hearing a contempt petition against Effingut Breweries and its directors - Vishal Makar, Manish Tandon, Upesh Gulati and Monika Gulati for non-compliance with a previous order of the bench.
Bombay High Court Permanently Injuncts 'SUPER ASIAN PLUS' Trademark In Asian Paints Suit
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Smt. Manju Rani Jindal & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 271 OF 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 90
The Bombay High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Asian Paints, holding that the use of the mark “SUPER ASIAN PLUS” was “entirely dishonest and actuated by bad faith” and amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. Justice Arif S. Doctor, on 20 February 2026 also directed three of the defendants to each pay Rs 3 lakh in compensatory costs. Asian Paints submitted that it had been using its house mark “ASIAN PAINTS” continuously since 1952 and the mark “ASIAN” since 1965.
Bombay High Court Restrains Use Of 'ZEKODOL-P', Finds It Deceptively Similar To IPCA's 'ZERODOL'
Case Title: IPCA Laboratories Limited v. Rikon Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 218 OF 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 92
The Bombay High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of IPCA Laboratories Limited, restraining Rikon Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd from using the mark “ZEKODOL-P”, after holding that it infringes IPCA's registered trademark “ZERODOL” and amounts to passing off. Justice Arif S. Doctor, in a judgment pronounced on February 23, 2026, held that the impugned mark is “phonetically, visually and structurally almost identical” to the plaintiff's mark. The court also imposed a cost of Rs 15 Lakh on Rikon.
No Separate Disclosure Standard For IP Disputes Under Commercial Courts Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: FinTree Education Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Fintree Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 8377 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 234 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 93
The Bombay High Court has partly rejected a trademark owner's attempt to introduce additional documents nearly six years after filing suit, holding that intellectual property disputes are not entitled to any special procedural indulgence under the Commercial Courts Act. In a judgment pronounced on February 20, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor said the disclosure requirements under amended Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code are “mandatory and must be strictly enforced” in commercial suits.
Case Title: Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V v. The Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (IPD) No. 24 of 2025 and W.M.P.(IPD) Nos.19 and 20 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 49
The Madras High Court on 12 February observed that the Intellectual Property Office cannot mechanically issue notices or summons whenever pre-grant patent oppositions are received, warning that such an approach makes it “very easy to defeat the rights” of patent applicants. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh issued directions in a case involving a 14-year-old patent application filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. for a cancer drug. Noting that by “postponing the same for one reason and the other” officials allowed oppositions to accumulate instead of taking a final decision, he directed the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs to decide all four pending pre-grant oppositions within three months.
Madras High Court Restrains Unauthorised Broadcast Of Taapsee Pannu Starrer 'Assi' On Release Day
Case Title: Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited
Case Number: O.A.Nos.144 & 145 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 52
The Madras High Court on Friday restrained the unauthorised broadcast of the Taapsee Pannu-starrer Bollywood film 'Assi' on the day of its release, granting ad-interim relief to its producer. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, by order dated February 20, 2026, observed that “in matters of this nature, it is likely that irreversible injury will occur unless unlawful broadcast is prevented.” At the same time, the Court noted that “in view of the expansive nature of the relief claimed, it is possible that the legitimate business interest of one or more respondents may be affected.”
Madras High Court Restrains Unauthorised Broadcast Of Zee's 'Do Deewane Seher Mein' On Release Date
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.A.Nos.151 & 152 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.59 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 53
On the date the film “DO DEEWANE SEHER MEIN” was slated for release, the Madras High Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining unlawful broadcast of the movie in a suit alleging apprehended infringement of copyright. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order on Friday in two applications filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, the producers of the film, which has arrayed 33 defendants, including Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and others.
Madras High Court Rules Against 7-Eleven in 'Big Bite' Trademark Battle With Indian Company
Case Title: Eleven International LLC v. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors.
Case Number: (T) CMA (TM) Nos.110 & 157 of 2023
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 43
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a batch of appeals filed by a global retail giant, 7-Eleven International LLC, upholding the “Big Bite” trademark in favour of an Indian company, Ravi Foods Private Limited. The court held that "there is no material to show that the appellant has done business on Indian soil, with the aforesaid mark, on the date of the application or at any subsequent point of time prior to the commencement of opposition proceedings."
Madras High Court Approves Settlement Favouring SNS Movies In 'Think Studio' Trademark Dispute
Case Title: M/s.SNS Movies Productions LLP v. Mr.Manjunath
Case Number: C.S(COMM DIV) No. 283 of 2025 and O.A.Nos.1059 & 1060 of 2025 and A.No.5555 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 58
The Madras High Court on 23 February decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of SNS Movies Productions LLP, owner of Think Studios, after Manjunath, the proprietor of a rival firm, named Think Studio, undertook to permanently cease using the contested mark. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy recorded a settlement in which the defendant agreed to withdraw its pending trademark application and remove the infringing name from all digital and physical platforms by 10 April 2026. He noted: “Subject to the above limited exemption, learned counsel for the defendant submits that a decree may be issued in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 38 of the plaint. Learned counsel for the plaintiff agrees to give up claims in terms of clauses (c) and (d) of paragraph 38.”
Rajasthan High Court Upholds Injunction Over 'DURGA' Mustard Oil Trademark, Cites Public Interest
Case Title: Mupub Mehta v Vinayak Corporation & Anr.
Case Number: D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3815/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 2
The Rajasthan High Court has declined to interfere with an interim injunction restraining the use of the trademark “DURGA” for mustard oil. The court said trademark infringement affects not just the parties to the dispute but also consumers and the wider public, as it can cause confusion and deception. A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit dismissed an appeal challenging an order of the commercial court that had granted a temporary injunction against the appellant, restraining him from manufacturing or selling mustard oil under the mark “DURGA” or any deceptively similar trademark or packing label.
Case Title: Mangrol Oil Mill & Ors. v. Vikas Oil Industries & Anr.
Case Number: R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 192 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 192 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 20
The Gujarat High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by Mangrol Oil Mill in its trademark dispute over “GULAB” groundnut oil. The Court refused to interfere with a Commercial Court order that denied interim injunction against Vikas Oil Industries, which markets edible oil under the mark “ROSE”. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker upheld the November 30, 2024 order of the Commercial Court at Morbi. The trial court had rejected the plaintiffs' application for ad-interim relief on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence.
Calcutta High Court Finds 'Spic' Bottle 'Virtually Identical' To Harpic, Restrains Godrej
Case Title: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v. Godrej Consumer Products Limited
Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/1/2026 IP-COM/3/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 59
The Calcutta High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction against Godrej Consumer Products Limited, restraining the company from selling its 'Godrej Spic' toilet cleaner in bottles that allegedly infringe upon the registered trademark shape of Reckitt Benckiser's 'HARPIC'. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, on February 25, 2026, explained that the cancellation or expiry of a design monopoly does not prevent a party from claiming trademark protection over a registered shape.
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of UPL's Herbicide Patent For Denying Mandatory Hearing
Case Title: UPL Limited v. Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association & Anr.
Case Number: IPDPTA No.116 of 2023
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 49
The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside an order of the Controller of Patents rejecting UPL Limited's patent application for a herbicidal combination, holding that the authority committed a “serious procedural infirmity” by denying the company a mandatory hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act and improperly issuing a composite order in examination and pre-grant opposition proceedings. Allowing the appeal, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur ruled that examination proceedings under Sections 14–15 and pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) are “distinct, separate and independent stages” that must be carried out separately.
Case Title: TopoTarget UK Ltd v. The Controller General of Patent and Designs
Case Number: IPDPTA/50/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 37
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a Patent Office order rejecting a cancer drug patent filed by TopoTarget UK Limited, observing that the decision was taken without a proper and independent assessment of the invention. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, in a judgment dated January 30, 2026, allowed TopoTarget's appeal and quashed an order dated November 29, 2019, passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata.
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Juneja & Anr. v. Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Case Number: CR No.6252 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 6
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently reiterated that once a trial court comes to the conclusion that a plea challenging the validity of a registered trademark is prima facie tenable, it must not proceed with the infringement suit and is bound to grant time to the concerned party to approach the Registrar or the High Court for rectification. A single bench of Justice Pankaj Jain clarified that under section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a trial court does not have the jurisdiction to try the issue with respect to rectification after recording such a prima facie finding.
Kerala High Court Restrains Former G-TEC Franchisee From Using GIO TECH Mark
Case Title: G-Tec Education Private Limited v. Mr.Binu A.Joy
Case Number: FAO NO.72 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 32
Holding that “G-TEC” and “GIO TECH” are phonetically similar and confusion is likely to be caused, the Kerala High Court has restrained a former franchisee from using the marks “GIO TECH” and “GIO TECH COMPUTER ACADEMY,” setting aside a trial court order that had refused interim relief. Justice S. Manu, in a judgment delivered on February 18, 2026, held that the analysis made by the court below was “by dissecting the trademarks” and that such an exercise “is not in consonance with the settled principles regarding infringement.”
Belagavi Court Refuses Ex Parte Injunction Against US AI Company Anthropic In Trademark Dispute
Case Title: Anthropic Softwares Private Limited v. Anthropic PBC
Case Number: Com.OS No.02/2026
A Commercial Court in Belagavi, Karnataka has refused to grant an ex parte interim injunction to an Indian company in a trademark dispute over the mark “Anthropic” against a US AI company Anthropic PBC. The court held that there is no “imminent threat” of infringement at this stage. The court, however, issued summons to the San Francisco-based defendant and directed that emergent notice be sent in accordance with the applicable guidelines
Delhi Court Orders Takedown Of YouTube Shorts Infringing Karl Rock's Copyright
Case Title: Karl Edward Rice v. Adam El-Megrisi, Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Suit (Comm.) No.706/2025
A Delhi Commercial Court has recently granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining UK-based YouTuber Adam El-Megrisi, who operates the channel “VidBrew”, from reproducing or monetising content belonging to Karl Edward Rice, also known as Karl Rock, in a copyright infringement and passing off suit. District Judge Vinod Yadav held that a prima facie case of infringement of copyrighted works and passing off was made out against El-Megrisi.
Jammu Court Grants Interim Relief To JioStar India, Restrains Unauthorised Cable Transmission
Case Title: JioStar India Private Limited v. M/S Take One JK Media Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: Original Suits OS/148/2026
Principal District Judge R.N. Watal, Jammu on 24 February protected the broadcast reproduction rights of JioStar India Private Limited by issuing an ad interim injunction against several regional cable networks. The judge directed that, until the next date of hearing, the defendants shall refrain from “retransmitting, rebroadcasting, disseminating, exhibiting and/or communicating” its content, including popular television shows and exclusive sporting events notified as being of national importance.
Delhi Court Awards ₹20 Lakh Damages To Siemens In NX Software Piracy Case
Case Title: Siemens Industry Software Inc. & Anr. v. Mr. Niilesh Dhanukar & Ors.
Case Number: CS (Comm) 470/2023
A Commercial Court at Saket, New Delhi, has decreed a copyright infringement suit in favour of Siemens Industry Software Inc.and its Indian subsidiary, restraining Maharashtra-based mould maker Om Sai Moulds and Plastics and its promoters from using unlicensed copies of its NX (Unigraphics) software. In a judgment dated February 19, 2026, District Judge Anuradha Shukla granted a permanent injunction and awarded 20 lakh in damages.
United Breweries Secures Trade Mark Registration For Kingfisher Sound Mark “Oo La La La La Le O”
United Breweries Limited has secured a registration for the sound trade mark associated with its Kingfisher brand, with the Trade Marks Registry issuing a certificate of registration for the jingle popularly rendered as “Oo La La La La Le O” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The registration, granted by the Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai, confers statutory exclusive rights on United Breweries Limited over the auditory brand asset, which has been extensively deployed in advertising and brand communication across India. The certificate has been issued under Section 23(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 56(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.