JULY, 2026
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Appoints Amicus Curiae In Patent Case Over Human-AI Integration Technology
Case Title: Caleb Suresh Motupalli v. Controller Of Patents
Case Number: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 20319/2026
The Supreme Court has appointed Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar as Amicus Curiae in a patent dispute concerning an invention that claims to enhance human capabilities by integrating them with artificial intelligence. The inventor describes the technology as creating a "Pan-Environment Super-Cyborg" through a method for super-augmenting a persona. A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe is presiding over the matter.
HIGH COURTS
DELHI HIGH COURT
Case Title: InterDigital Patent Holdings v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings
Case Number: Not provided in source
Citation: Not provided in source
On July 1, the Delhi High Court directed Shenzhen Transsion Holdings, the maker of Itel, Infinix, and Tecno smartphones, to deposit pro tem security with the Registrar General. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order in patent infringement suits involving Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) for 3G, 4G, 5G, and HEVC video coding technologies.
Case Title: Jain Shikanji Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Jain
Case Number: CM(M)-IPD 36/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 669
On July 2, the Delhi High Court upheld a trial court's refusal to accept an unconditional apology from Anubhav Jain for "wilful violation" of an injunction restraining the use of the "Jain Shikanji" trademark. Justice Jyoti Singh affirmed the issuance of arrest warrants and property attachments while modifying the quantum of exemplary costs from ₹5 lakh to ₹3 lakh.
Delhi HC Grants Interim Injunction Against Use Of 'Freelite' Oil Mark For Similarity With 'Freedom'
Case Title: Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd v. Mr Chegu Vasudeva Siva Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 671/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 666
The Delhi High Court on July 1 granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the makers of 'Freelite' sunflower oil from using the mark and trade dress, finding it deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'Freedom' brand. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani noted that the impugned packaging appeared similar to the plaintiff's established trademark on a "first blush" look.
Case Title: Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 200/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 665
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on July 1 restrained Finecure Pharmaceuticals from selling products under the mark 'PANTOPACID'. The court set aside a Single Judge's order, holding that the mark infringed Sun Pharma's registered 'PANTOCID' trademark and that injunctive relief should have been granted despite earlier findings.
Delhi High Court Restrains Both Ashiana Ispat And Kamdhenu From Using 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' Mark
Case Title: Ashiana Ispat Limited v. Kamdhenu Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 120/2026, CM APPL. 27051/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 663
On July 1, the Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction restraining Ashiana Ispat Limited (AIL) from using "AL KAMDHENU GOLD" after it abandoned its trademark application. Simultaneously, the court restrained Kamdhenu Limited from adopting the same mark, as neither party established proprietary rights or commercial use.
Case Title: More Than Water Private Limited v. Nesco Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 123/2026 CM APPL. 28395/2026 CM APPL. 28398/2026 CM APPL. 29895/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 662
The Delhi High Court refused interim relief to "MORE THAN WATERBOX" in its dispute with "MY WATER BOX". A Division Bench denied discretionary relief because the plaintiff allegedly relied on prima facie manipulated invoices and withheld material facts regarding its food safety license application.
Delhi High Court Orders Blocking Of Rogue Websites Streaming Sony's Exclusive Sports Broadcasts
Case Title: Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited v. Cricfree.cyou & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 672/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 659
The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction restraining eight rogue websites from illegally streaming sporting events over which Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt Ltd holds exclusive broadcast and broadcast reproduction rights. The court directed domain name registrars, internet service providers and telecom service providers to block access to the infringing websites with immediate effect.
Case Title: Rukhmani Keshwani v. Raju Agarbatti Works & Anr.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 99/2024, CM APPL. 30880/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 658
A Division Bench on July 1 restored a suit over the “RADHEY KRISHNA” agarbatti mark, holding that IndiaMart listings accessible in Delhi confer territorial jurisdiction. The court ruled that a Trial Court wrongly returned the plaint, as evidence showed the goods were available for purchase in Delhi via the online marketplace.
Delhi HC Holds Name Change Doesn't Nullify Arbitration Clause, Refers Newgen Dispute To Arbitration
Case Title: Newgen IT Technologies Ltd (earlier known as Vcare Infotech Solutions and Services Private Limited) v Newgen Software Technologies Ltd
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 112/2025 &CM APPL. 27327/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 656
The Delhi High Court referred a trademark dispute to arbitration on July 1, ruling that a change in corporate name does not extinguish an arbitration clause. The court set aside a Commercial Court order, holding that the clause survives in the subsisting agreement between the parties.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of AI Deepfakes, Cloned Voice Ads Targeting Actor Ravi Kishan
Case Title: Ravindra Shukla Alias Ravi Kishan v. Ashok Kumar (John Doe) & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 680/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 674
On July 2, Justice Jyoti Singh directed intermediaries like Google and X to immediately take down AI-generated deepfakes and cloned-voice advertisements that infringed the personality rights of actor-politician Ravi Kishan. The court drew a line between satire and the unauthorized use of an actor's persona through artificial intelligence.
Delhi High Court Refuses ITC Bid To Stop Adyar Gate Hotels' Use Of 'Dakshin' Mark
Case Title: ITC Limited & Anr. v. Adyar Gate Hotels Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 207/2025 & CM APPL. 79554/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 654
A Division Bench dismissed ITC's appeal, holding that its infringement claim regarding the "DAKSHIN" trademark was not maintainable against the defendant's standalone Chennai restaurant. The court also found ITC failed to establish a prima facie case for passing off or copyright infringement.
Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection Of Swiss Company's Patent For Plastic Static Mixer
Case Title: Sulzer Mixpac AG v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: LPA 545/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 647
On July 1, the Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of a patent application for a plastic static mixer used to mix molten polymers. The court ruled that the invention lacked an inventive step and was a "mere modification" based on the company's own earlier patents and prior art.
Case Title: Raghav Chadha v. Ashok Kumar John Doe and Ors.
Case Number: I.A. 14417/2026 IN + CS(OS) 466/2026 & I.A. 14417/2026, I.A. 14418/2026, I.A. 14419/2026, I.A. 14420/2026, I.A. 14421/2026, I.A. 14422/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 645
The Delhi High Court on June 30 ordered the removal of six "profane and vulgar" AI-generated posts against MP Raghav Chadha. However, the court declined to block other impugned content, classifying it as permissible political satire rather than defamation.
Case Title: Saregama India Limited v. Black Madras Films & Ors.
Case Number: I.A. 30776/2025 and I.A. 4553/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 649
On July 1, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made absolute an injunction in a copyright suit concerning the song Naguva Nayana. The makers of the film "Mask" were confirmed to be required to either remove the song or deposit ₹30 lakh before any OTT release.
Case Title: Saregama India Limited v. Mr. Ilaiyaraaja
Case Number: I.A. 4116/2026 and I.A. 6361/2026 In CS(COMM)-143/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 648
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld an interim injunction restraining composer Ilaiyaraaja from exploiting or licensing music from 134 films on July 1. The ruling follows a copyright suit by Saregama India Limited, which claims ownership over the compositions.
Delhi High Court Protects 'ASIAN PAINTS' Trademark, Restrains Use Of Similar 'Asia Paints' Mark
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Saroj Arora and Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 770/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 769
The Delhi High Court on July 23 restrained Saroj Arora and associated entities from using the mark 'Asia Paints' in an infringement and passing off suit. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani found that Asian Paints had established a prima facie case for protection, noting that irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff otherwise.
Case Title: M/s Nava Healthcare Pvt Ltd v. M/s Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd and Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 739/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 768
On July 24, Justice Jyoti Singh restrained Antex Pharma from selling pharmaceutical products under marks and trade dress allegedly similar to Nava Healthcare's registered brands 'HAIRFUL' and 'UDIVIN'. The court held that the defendants were prima facie infringing the plaintiff's registered trademarks.
Delhi High Court Declines Interim Ban On NHM's Use Of Patented Sickle Cell Screening Card
Case Title: Dr. Smita Nisanth Nambison v. National Health Mission India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 29/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 767
The court declined to grant an interim ban on the National Health Mission's use of a patented screening card for sickle cell disease. However, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani restrained government entities from asserting that the patented screening card originated from a state government prototype.
Case Title: Bennett Coleman And Company Limited v. Network18 Media And Investments Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 813/2026
The Delhi High Court issued notice on July 31 in a suit alleging copyright and trademark infringement over the news show 'Desh Ki Paatshala'. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani declined an ad-interim injunction at this stage, noting that the defendants had entered an appearance on caveat and were entitled to a hearing.
Delhi High Court Restrains Gujarati Newspaper From Using 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' In TV Today's Suit
Case Title: TV Today Network v. Saurashtra Aaj Tak & Anr.
Case Number: RFA 320/2012 & CM APPL. 80300/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 764
Justice Mini Pushkarna restrained a Rajkot-based newspaper from using the name 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak', ruling that TV Today Network, operator of the 'Aaj Tak' news channel, is the prior user of the mark. The court set aside a 2012 trial court order that had permitted the use with a disclaimer.
Delhi High Court Restrains Use Of PHENSERYL Mark In Opella Healthcare's Trademark Suit
Case Title: Opella Healthcare Group v. Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 552/2024 & I.A. 32616/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 763
The court restrained a pharmaceutical company from selling a syrup under the mark 'PHENSERYL'. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the name and packaging were visually and phonetically deceptively similar to Opella's registered 'PHENSEDYL' trademark and trade dress.
Case Title: Mohammed Nawaz Shaikh v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors. and Prateek Sahni v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 775/2026 & CS(COMM) - 798/2026
Hearing suits by content creators, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that Meta's copyright enforcement mechanism is being exploited by bad actors for "blackmail" and "extortion". Meta provided an assurance that it would work to ensure user accounts are not blocked due to fraudulent copyright strikes.
Delhi High Court Restrains Unknown Entities From Impersonating Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC, Officials
Case Title: Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 716/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 758
The court restrained unidentified entities from impersonating officials of Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC. Justice Jyoti Singh directed WhatsApp to remove fraudulent groups and suspend the identified profiles within 36 hours of receiving the order.
Case Title: Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v. Aurore Life Sciences Pvt Ltd
Case Number: CS(COMM) 780/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 757
Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling pharmaceutical products containing Ruxolitinib. The court held that the patent holders established a prima facie case of infringement regarding the cancer treatment drug.
Delhi High Court To Order Takedown Of Content Infringing Yuvraj Singh's Personality Rights
Case Title: Yuvraj Singh v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 796/2026
The court indicated it will direct the takedown of content infringing cricketer Yuvraj Singh's personality rights. Justice Jyoti Singh gave uploaders 48 hours to voluntarily remove the material before requiring intermediaries to step in to protect the cricketer's persona.
Case Title: Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.) v. Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
Case Number: CS(COMM) 376/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 749
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the university from using the name "Maharaja Agrasen," finding its adoption was mala fide and dishonest in light of the plaintiff's prior use of the mark for various institutions.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Ahmedabad Firm From Using VOLVO Trademark For Elevator Parts
Case Title: Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. Shree Vishwakarma Engineering Works
Case Number: CS(COMM) 765/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 747
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on July 22 restraining the Ahmedabad-based manufacturer from using the mark "VOLVO" for elevator components. Justice Jyoti Singh held the defendant's use was deceptively similar to the trademarks of the Swedish automotive company.
Case Title: Parle Products Pvt Ltd v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: LPA 316/2026 & CM APPL. 27819-20/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 748
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held on July 28 that Parle's subsequent commercial use of the "20-20" mark could not defeat the rival company's earlier trademark application. The court dismissed Parle's challenge to the registration.
Delhi High Court Orders Meta To Share User Details, IP Logs In Suit Over Fake Copyright Strikes
Case Title: Mohammed Nawaz Shaikh v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar and Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 775/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 746
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed Meta Platforms Inc. to furnish subscriber information and IP logs relating to individuals alleged to have misused the copyright reporting system to extort digital content creator Mohammed Nawaz Shaikh.
Case Title: DNA Forensics Test Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 9684/2026 and CM APPL. 45118-45119/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 740
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order directing a DNA testing company to change its name, holding that the Central Government's power to rectify similar company names under the Companies Act is not rendered invalid merely because its opinion was triggered by an application from another company. "The order being passed under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, even though triggered by an application, cannot be considered to be invalid or without jurisdiction, for the simple reason that it was triggered on the basis of information given by an applicant," the court said.
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against 'DYNAFRESH' In Trademark Dispute With Anchor's 'DYNA'
Case Title: Jagdish Dahyalal Patel v. Anchor Consumer Products Private Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 CM APPL. 45867/2026 CM APPL. 45868/2026 CM APPL. 45869/2026 CM APPL. 45870/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 739
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Jagdish Dahyalal Patel against an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining him from using the trademark 'DYNAFRESH' for air fresheners. Relying on the Registrar of Trade Marks' unchallenged finding that 'DYNAFRESH' was deceptively similar to Anchor Consumer Products Private Limited's registered trademark 'DYNA', the court held that Patel's adoption of the mark was not bona fide.
Case Title: Nitin Joshi v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) - 9441/2026
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora issued notice on July 28 on a PIL alleging that organized cyber criminals are exploiting Instagram's automated copyright-strike system to extort digital content creators.
Delhi High Court Grants HBO Temporary Injunction Against 30 Rogue Websites In Copyright Suit
Case Title: Home Box Office Inc & Ors. v. Streamzy.To & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 740/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 738
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Home Box Office Inc. (HBO) against 30 rogue websites allegedly streaming its copyrighted films and shows without authorisation. The court has also directed internet service providers (ISPs) and domain name registrars (DNRs) to technically verify whether any newly identified website is a mirror, redirect or alphanumeric version of the injuncted websites and, if so, enforce the injunction against it as a pro-tem measure, while HBO moves the court to implead those websites.
Case Title: Salman Khan v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1322/2025
The Delhi High Court on Monday directed that all disputed links, including the teaser of movie Kala Hiran and other online content identified by actor Salman Khan in his personality rights suit, be taken down within 24 hours. The court further directed that if the uploaders failed to remove the content within that period, the platforms hosting it would take it down within the next 24 hours.
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. Open AI OpCo LLC
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1028/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 734
The Delhi High Court noted that requiring AI firms to obtain licences from every data source would make the development of Large Language Models (LLMs) economically unviable. The court emphasized that the success of AI models depends on accessing information in the public domain while hearing ANI's copyright infringement suit against OpenAI.
Case Title: TVS Motor Company Limited v. Ram Chandra Maurya & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 767/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 732
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the holders of two copyright registrations from issuing further groundless threats of legal proceedings against TVS Motor Company. The dispute involved allegations that TVS engines and vehicles used features covered by the defendants' registered literary works, which TVS sought to declare as groundless.
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. Open AI OpCo LLC
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1028/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 734
The court dismissed ANI's plea for an interim injunction against OpenAI, ruling that the news agency failed to make out a prima facie case of copyright infringement regarding the training of ChatGPT. Justice Amit Bansal upheld the court's territorial jurisdiction but found no immediate grounds to restrain OpenAI's use of content.
Delhi High Court Restrains 14 More Websites From Using 'BETWAY' Trademark
Case Title: Merryvale Limited v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 678/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 728
The court extended interim protection to Merryvale Limited, the proprietor of the "BETWAY" mark, by restraining 14 additional rogue websites from using the trademark or deceptively similar marks. Justice Jyoti Singh directed that these sites be blocked within 36 hours to prevent further trademark infringement in the online betting sector.
Delhi High Court Restrains Delhi Restaurant From Using 'LAMA KITCHEN' Mark
Case Title: Satinder Singh Sarna & Anr. v. Lama Kitchen
Case Number: CS(COMM) 744/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 726
Justice Jyoti Singh temporarily restrained a Delhi-based restaurant from using the "LAMA KITCHEN" mark after finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the balance of convenience favoured the original Himachal Pradesh-based proprietors of the registered mark.
Case Title: Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited v. Cricgo.pro & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 753/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 725
Observing that rogue websites pose a recurring threat, the court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Sony Pictures. The order restrains 14 websites from unauthorizedly streaming or hosting any part of the Commonwealth Games 2026 and the Australian Open 2027, for which Sony holds exclusive broadcast rights.
Delhi High Court Restrains Former JK Paper Employees From Using Company's Confidential Report
Case Title: JK Paper Limited v. Mr. Subhendu Kesh & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 719/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 724
The court temporarily restrained former IT department employees of JK Paper from using the company's proprietary "Purta/Purtha" report. The company alleged the employees resigned en masse, took confidential data, and set up a competing business. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted protection pending further scrutiny of a forensic report.
Delhi High Court Directs Meta To Remove Zee's Copyrighted Content From 14 Facebook Pages
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Meta Platforms Inc. & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 729/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 722
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed Meta to take down infringing content featuring Zee's television serials and web series from 14 Facebook pages. While declining to block the accounts entirely at this stage, the court granted an ad-interim order to prevent continued copyright infringement.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains NBFC From Using 'Zepto' And 'Zepto Finance' Marks
Case Title: Zepto Limited & Anr. v. Sailendra Kashyap & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 752/2026
The quick-commerce platform Zepto secured an ad-interim injunction against Naman Finlease, restraining it from using "Zepto" and "Zepto Finance" for its lending business. Justice Jyoti Singh found that Zepto is the registered proprietor of the "coined" term, which has no descriptive connection to financial services.
Delhi High Court Restrains Havai Home Products From Using 'HAVAI' Mark in Havells Passing Off Suit
Case Title: Havells India Limited & Anr. v. Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 778/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 718
The court restrained Havai Home Products and Advance Coolers from selling electrical goods under the "HAVAI" marks. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the marks were deceptively similar to Havells' registered trademarks, establishing a prima facie case of passing off.
Uniqueness' Not A Statutory Test For Refusing Trademark Registration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 8/2026 and I.A. 3697/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 723
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside an order refusing registration of the trademark 'OFFER' for alcoholic beverages. It held that the Registrar of Trade Marks rejected the application by applying the non-statutory test of "uniqueness" instead of examining whether the mark was distinctive in relation to the goods for which registration was sought.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Refusal Of Patent For Cancer Drug Combination, Orders Fresh Review
Case Title: Array Biopharma Inc v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 37/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 736
The Delhi High Court has set aside the refusal of a US company's patent application for a pharmaceutical combination used to treat proliferative diseases, including colorectal cancer. Holding that the Deputy Controller's findings on inventive step and patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(i) of the Patents Act could not be sustained, the court remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Delhi High Court Cancels 'ZORA' Trademark, Holds It Deceptively Similar To Well-Known ZARA Mark
Case Title: Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 52/2024, I.A. 33885/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 702
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark 'ZORA', ruling it deceptively similar to the well-known Spanish fashion brand ZARA. Justice Jyoti Singh set aside the Registrar's order dismissing ZARA's opposition and directed the removal of the 'ZORA' mark from the Register within two months. The court found phonetic and visual similarities likely to cause consumer confusion.
Case Title: New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Astormueller AG and Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 962/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 710
Justice Jyoti Singh has temporarily restrained Swiss footwear company Astormueller AG from manufacturing or selling products bearing the standalone "n:" logo or "nu:beat" mark. The court held that New Balance established a prima facie case for passing off, finding the impugned marks deceptively similar to New Balance's established identity.
Case Title: Loreal SA v. Vekariya Nikunj Arvindbhai & Ors.
Case Number: CM(M)-IPD 21/2026 & CMs 91/2026, 92/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 704
On July 13, 2026, the Delhi High Court set aside a trial court order that refused L'Oréal permission to amend its passing-off suit to include trademark infringement. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the subsequent registration of the 'GARNIER BRIGHT COMPLETE' mark did not constitute a fresh cause of action that would bar an amendment.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains MDL Herbal From Using “HAJMOLA” Mark In Dispute With Dabur
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Sameer Das Shastri Proprietor of MS MDL Herbal Dhanvanatri Ayurvedic Mahamritunjay
Case Number: CS(COMM) 708/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 715
The Delhi High Court on July 8 granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining an Ayurvedic firm from using the mark “HAJMOLA” or any deceptively similar mark. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that Dabur had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off.
Delhi High Court Protects “BATA” From Counterfeiters, Directs Flipkart To Remove Infringing Listings
Case Title: Bata India Limited v. Lalli Devi & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 712/2026
Citation: LLBiz HC (DEL) 712
Justice Jyoti Singh on July 8 granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining individuals from selling footwear under the BATA trademark. The court also directed Flipkart to remove the infringing listings, noting that identical marks for identical goods constitute prima facie infringement and are likely to cause confusion.
Delhi High Court Refers SOCIAL HOUSE-SOCIAL Trademark Row To Mediation
Case Title: Vardhaman Choksi v. Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: LPA 480/2026, CM APPL. 41723-41727/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 705
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has referred a trademark dispute between "SOCIAL HOUSE" and "SOCIAL" to mediation. The court also issued notice on an appeal by SOCIAL HOUSE proprietor Vardhaman Choksi against a judgment that had ordered the removal of his trademark.
Case Title: Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 44/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 699
The Delhi High Court set aside an order allowing the registration of "GHOST BUSTER" for pharmaceuticals, finding the Registrar failed to examine the "well-known" status claim of the "GHOSTBUSTERS" mark. Justice Jyoti Singh remanded the matter for fresh consideration within three months.
Delhi HC Restrains 'Electroford' From Selling ORS Products In Packaging Similar To FDC's 'Electral'
Case Title: FDC Limited v. Wellford Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 707/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 700
On July 7, the Delhi High Court restrained Wellford Pharmaceutical from selling ORS products under trade dress deceptively similar to FDC Limited's well-known “ELECTRAL” packaging. Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in the suit alleging copyright infringement and passing off.
Delhi High Court Makes Permanent Injunction Against MaxLife Diagnostic's Use of 'MAX' Trademark
Case Title: Maxlife Diagnostic And Research Center & Ors. v. Max Health Care Institute Ltd.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 97/2025 & CM APPL. 23724/2025
Citation: LLBiz HC (DEL) 711
The court confirmed a permanent injunction against MaxLife Diagnostic for using the 'MAX' trademark following a settlement. The defendant agreed to pay ₹5 lakh in one-time damages to Max Healthcare Institute Ltd.
Case Title: Pushkar Raj Thakur v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 647/2026, I.A. 15834/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 708
Two content creators have alleged that Meta's copyright system is being exploited via Facebook's “Edit Post” feature to backdate stolen videos. They claim these backdated posts are used to file false copyright complaints, leading to the permanent disabling of verified accounts.
Case Title: Salman Khan v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1322/2025
On July 6, Justice Jyoti Singh questioned the breadth of personality rights claims, specifically whether they could be used to stall the promotional content of a film titled Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy. The court asked for clarity on the extent to which such rights could stretch regarding artistic content and public titles.
Delhi HC Rejects Intra-Cellular Therapies' Patent Appeal, Holds Bioavailability Alone Insufficient
Case Title: Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. v. The Controller of Patents
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 24/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 681
On July 6, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld the rejection of a patent application for deuterated organic compounds used in psychiatric treatments. The court ruled that the claimed invention lacked novelty and that mere improvement in bioavailability was insufficient to meet patentability criteria.
Case Title: Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Orsim Pharma & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 530/2026
Justice Jyoti Singh imposed costs of ₹10,000 on Emcure Pharmaceuticals for filing an application for a court fee refund that had already been granted in a previous order. The court expressed displeasure over the oversight, noting that the company should have verified previous orders before filing duplicate pleas.
Case Title: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Techtalkwithmalik & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 681/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 693
The court directed Reddit to provide particulars of an anonymous account behind a post alleging a "Samsung Galaxy S26 blast in the box". While declining an immediate takedown of the post, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani ordered the disclosure to identify the source of the alleged defamatory content.
Case Title: GOOGLE LLC V/S HINDWARE LIMITED & ORS.
Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) - 14/2026
A Division Bench issued notice on Google's appeal against a single judge's order that restrained Google from allowing "Hindware" as a keyword trigger for rival ads and awarded ₹30 lakh in damages. The Bench directed that this appeal be treated as a lead matter in related cases concerning ad keyword disputes.
Delhi High Court Restrains Former Geetanjali Franchisee From Using 'GEETANJALI' Trademarks
Case Title: Geetanjali Salon Private Limited v. Ms. Amita Dubey & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 689/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 694
The court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining a former franchisee from using the "GEETANJALI" brand. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani found that the salon continued to operate under the trademarks even after the termination of the franchise agreement.
Case Title: Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc & Anr. v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1045/2025, I.A. 24409/2025, I.A. 30455/2025, I.A. 31617/2025, I.A. 2901/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 672
The Delhi High Court has directed Shenzhen Transsion Holdings, which sells smartphones under the Itel, Infinix and Tecno brands, to deposit pro tem security with the Registrar General in patent infringement suits filed by InterDigital Patent Holdings over Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) covering 3G, 4G, 5G and HEVC video coding technologies.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Use Of 'ISI HP' Mark In Landmark Crafts' 'HP' Trademark Suit
Case Title: Landmark Crafts Limited v. Shalini Garg Proprietor of Shree Mange Ram and Sons
Case Number: CS(COMM) 693/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 692
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained a fastener seller from using the mark "ISI HP" for hardware products. The court found the mark prima facie deceptively similar to Landmark Crafts' registered "HP" trademark.
Delhi High Court Dismisses boAt's Second Bid to Restrain 'BOULT' Wordmark
Case Title: Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Exotic Mile
Case Number: CS(COMM) 519/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 690
The court dismissed a second interim injunction application by boAt (Imagine Marketing), holding that it was seeking relief on facts that had not been granted in previous proceedings. Justice Jyoti Singh noted that the earlier order clearly limited the injunction to specific device marks.
Case Title: ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED V/S JOHN DOE & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 716/2026
The court questioned whether an investment scam using a CEO's photograph could be classified as a personality rights claim. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the allegations appeared more related to impersonation than a typical personality rights violation.
Case Title: Crocs Inc. USA v. M/S Bata India Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 625/2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 687
Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed Crocs Inc. to pay Bata India ₹24.63 lakh in litigation costs. The court noted that because Crocs' design registration had been cancelled for lack of novelty, its infringement suit against Bata was unsustainable.
Karam Industrial Works Gives Up 'K.I.W.' Trademark, Delhi HC Records Settlement In K.W. Mark Dispute
Case Title: K.W. Enterprises v. M/S Karam Industrial Works
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1035/2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 683
The court recorded a settlement where Karam Industrial Works agreed to stop using the "K.I.W." trademark and label for vehicle parts under Class 12. It also agreed to cancel its related copyright registration, while the plaintiff waived claims for damages.
Case Title: Abhishek Sharma v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 702/2026
Following an initial refusal on July 4 due to discrepancies in evidence, the Delhi High Court on July 11 indicated it will pass interim orders directing the takedown of infringing content. The suit filed by cricketer Abhishek Sharma seeks protection against AI-generated defamatory content and the unauthorized use of his name, image, and persona for commercial purposes across social media and e-commerce platforms.
Delhi High Court Restrains Traders From Using 'Beauty Of Joseon' Trademark And Trade Dress
Case Title: GoodAI Global Inc. v. Shahnawaz Siddiqui & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 679/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 682
On July 2, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining multiple traders from using the trademark and trade dress associated with the "Beauty of Joseon" skincare brand. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani also directed Amazon Seller Services to de-list the impugned product URLs after finding a prima facie case of infringement.
Delhi High Court Restrains Hind Enterprises From Using 'EASTHRON' Mark For Similarity With 'EASTMAN'
Case Title: Eastman Auto and Power Limited v. M/S Hind Enterprises & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 684/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 687
The court restrained a Haridwar-based battery seller from using the trademark “EASTHRON” on July 3. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that the mark was prima facie deceptively similar to Eastman Auto and Power Limited's registered “EASTMAN” trademark and trade dress, noting that failure to grant relief would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Restrains Hema Industries From Using 'FREEDINE' Mark In 'FREEDOM' Trademark Dispute
Case Title: Gemini Edibles And Fats India Ltd v. M/S Hema Industries
Case Number: CS(COMM) 674/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 676
Justice Jyoti Singh on July 2 temporarily restrained Hema Industries from using the trademark “FREEDINE” and its associated packaging. The court found that the mark and trade dress were deceptively similar to the "FREEDOM" brand of edible oils owned by Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd, satisfying the requirements for an ex-parte ad interim injunction.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Case Title: Institute For Technology And Management Trust and Anr. v. Putch Venkata Ramana & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3128 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 102 OF 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 367
The Bombay High Court has held that the Registrar of Trade Marks can be regarded as a court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of transferring pending trademark rectification proceedings. The ruling allowed the Institute for Technology and Management Trust (ITM) to transfer three rectification proceedings to the High Court to be heard alongside a related trademark suit and 17 other connected matters.
Bombay High Court Dismisses 'SUNDAY' Trademark Renewal Plea, Finds Notice Properly Dispatched
Case Title: Raju Patel & Anr. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.4868 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC BOM 409
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking the renewal of the "SUNDAY" trademark, ruling that the Trade Marks Registry had fulfilled its statutory obligation. The court held that by proving the renewal notice was properly dispatched to the address for service before the registration expired, the Registry triggered the statutory presumption of service.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Niravi From Using 'SAPAT' Trademark For Tea
Case Title: SAPAT International Private Limited v. Niravi Consumer LLP & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6387 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 612 OF 2025 WITH COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 612 OF 2025 INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 18951 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC BOM 408
The court has restrained Niravi Consumer LLP from using the "SAPAT" trademark for tea, finding that the defendants failed to establish any independent right to the mark. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that Niravi's use of "SAPAT" signages while selling its "NIRAVI" tea was likely to cause consumer confusion and infringed upon the registered trademark of SAPAT International.
Case Title: Dr. Ashok M. Bhat v. Harichand Nagpal & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 9324 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 378 OF 2021 ALONG WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1269 OF 2016 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 378 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 401
The Bombay High Court has imposed costs exceeding ₹82 lakh on Harichand Nagpal, proprietor of Ravi Industries, for the wilful violation of a 2010 injunction. The court found that the defendant continued to market hair cream under the 'NONI' label and 'NOVA MINI' mark despite being restrained from using the registered 'NOVA' trademark. Justice Arif S. Doctor directed the defendant to pay ₹32.42 lakh to the plaintiff and ₹50 lakh to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.
Bombay HC Restrains Use Of 'LAVIE LUXURY' Mark For Perfumes Over Similarity With Bagzone's 'LAVIE'
Case Title: Bagzone Lifestyles Pvt Ltd v. Shweta Agrawal
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.20382 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO.20200 OF 2026 WITH LEAVE PETITION NO.211 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 399
On July 7, 2026, the Bombay High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a seller from using the mark “LAVIE LUXURY” for perfumes and colognes. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar held the mark was deceptively similar to the registered “LAVIE” family of marks owned by Bagzone Lifestyles. The court also appointed a Court Receiver to seize the allegedly counterfeit goods.
Case Title: Deepak Nitrite Limited v. The Assistant Controller General of Patents and Designs
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 107 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 384
The Bombay High Court held on July 6 that the Controller of Patents cannot reject a patent application by relying on "common general knowledge" without identifying the specific source of such knowledge or establishing its existence prior to the application's priority date. Justice Arif Doctor set aside the rejection of Deepak Nitrite's application for a food-grade sodium nitrite production method, remanding the matter for a fresh hearing.
Bombay High Court Orders Takedown Of Content Infringing Actor Preity Zinta's Personality Rights
Case Title: Preity G. Zinta v. Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.20703 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO.245 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 379
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar directed major intermediaries, including Google/YouTube, X, and Meta, to remove or block access to specific URLs that infringed upon actor Preity Zinta's personality rights. The suit alleged the unauthorized use of her identity through AI-generated deepfakes, chatbot personas, and GIFs for commercial purposes.
Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief To Bristol Bakery, Grupo Bimbo In 'Bimbo' Trademark Dispute
Case Title: Bristol Bakery v. Grupo Bimbo S.A.B. DE C.V & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 13958 OF 2023 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 117 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 372
On July 6, the court refused to grant interim injunctions in cross-suits between Bristol Bakery and Mexican company Grupo Bimbo regarding the "Bimbo" trademark. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that both companies had acquiesced to each other's use of the mark for years, and their long-standing coexistence should not be disturbed at the interim stage.
Case Title: Phantom Studios India Private Limited v. Jiostar India Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (l) NO. 23075 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT (L) NO. 22856 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 391
The court declined to grant urgent ad-interim relief to Phantom Studios in its suit against JioStar over the film Queen Forever, which Phantom alleged was an unauthorized sequel to the 2014 film Queen. Justice Gauri Godse heard the claim regarding joint ownership of intellectual property but found no immediate grounds for relief.
Bombay High Court Restrains Hamon Cooling Systems From Using 'HAMON' Trademark
Case Title: John Cockerill Hamon SA v. Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 345 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 7 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 376
Justice Arif S. Doctor granted an interim injunction restraining Hamon Cooling Systems from using the "HAMON" mark. The court found that the Belgian plaintiff, John Cockerill Hamon SA, had established a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off.
Case Title: Atyati Technologies Private Limited v. Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 7958 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 613 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 375
The court refused to restrain Cognizant from using its hexagonal logo, ruling that Atyati Technologies failed to prove that Cognizant had copied the design. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh noted that Cognizant prima facie established that the mark was independently created.
Bombay High Court Rejects EYETEX DIVYA Owner's Plea Against DIVYAM Trademark
Case Title: Aravind Laboratories v. Manoj Agrawal & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO.17853 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 418
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a plea to cancel the registration of a device mark featuring the word "DIVYAM". Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the prefix "EYETEX" is the dominant feature of the petitioner's registered mark "EYETEX DIVYA", and the company cannot claim exclusive rights over the word "DIVYA" standalone.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Commercial Court Must Transfer Design Suit Once Validity Is Challenged: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Aines Food & Beverages & Ors. v. Abdulla Muhammed Sali
Case Number: OP(C) No. 147 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 120
On June 30, the Kerala High Court held that a Commercial Court loses jurisdiction over a design infringement suit as soon as a defense challenging the design's validity is raised. Justice T.R. Ravi ruled that such suits must be immediately transferred to the High Court under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act.
Case Title: Nisar Ali Pari v. The Registrar of Trademarks & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 22356 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 138
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed the Registrar of Trademarks to pass orders within three months on two applications that have been pending since 2012 and 2014. The court noted that it was unacceptable for the applications to remain undisposed of for more than a decade.
Trade Marks Registry Cannot Remove Trademark Without Mandatory Notice: Kerala High Court
Case Title: S. Prasannan v. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 7528 OF 2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 145
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen held that the Trade Marks Registry cannot delete a registered mark from the register without first complying with the mandatory notice requirements under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Madras High Court Allows Dynamic Blocking Of Pirated Content of YRF's 'Alpha' Starring Alia Bhatt
Case Title: Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 652 and 653 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 183 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 165
The Madras High Court on July 3 granted an ad-interim injunction and permitted the dynamic blocking of pirated online content for the upcoming movie "Alpha". Justice K. Kumaresh Babu allowed the protection of the film's copyright ahead of its theatrical release
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 718 & 719 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 208 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 198
The court temporarily restrained ISPs and cable TV operators from infringing the copyright of the Marathi film Bhootam Bhayam. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu passed the order to prevent "irreversible injury" from apprehended unlawful broadcasts following the film's July 24 release.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Rejection of US Company's Patent For Pet Appetite Drug
Case Title: Elanco US Inc v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: CMA(PT) No. 37 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 193
The court set aside the Patent Office's rejection of Elanco's application for a pet appetite drug and remanded it for fresh consideration. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu noted contradictions in the Controller's order, which claimed the invention was substantially the same as an earlier one while simultaneously recording differences.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Order Reviving Kangaro's Trademark Opposition Against V-Guard
Case Title: V-Guard Industries Limited v. M/s.Kangaro Industries & Another
Case Number: LPA No.18 of 2026 AND CMP No.12387 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 211
The Madras High Court ruled that a trademark opponent cannot be granted extra time to file evidence after missing the two-month deadline. The court restored the Assistant Registrar's decision treating Kangaro's opposition as abandoned.
Madras High Court Restrains Edible Oil Firm, Holds 'CYCLE' Mark Has Reputation Beyond Agarbattis
Case Title: N. Ranga Rao & Sons Private Ltd. v. Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods
Case Number: O.SA.(CAD)No.3 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 208
A Division Bench restrained an edible oil firm from using the "CYCLE" trademark. The court held that the reputation of the "Cycle" brand agarbattis extends beyond incense sticks, granting it protection even against dissimilar goods.
Madras High Court Restrains Karnataka Bar From Using 'TVS' Mark
Case Title: TVS Holdings Limited & Anr. v. TVS Bar and Restaurant
Case Number: OA Nos. 693 to 695 of 2026 in C.S.(COMM DIV) NO. 199 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 183
On July 10, the Madras High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction restraining a Karnataka-based establishment from using the name "TVS Bar and Restaurant". Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the applicants had established registered rights over the "TVS" trademark.
Madras High Court Holds 'KONGU ELITE MATRIMONY' Infringes 'ELITE MATRIMONY' Mark, Grants Injunction
Case Title: Matrimony.com Limited v. Bharathi, Trading as Kongu Elite Matrimony
Case Number: OA Nos. 667, 668 and 669 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 189 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 182
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted an interim injunction on July 8 against a matchmaking service using the name “KONGU ELITE MATRIMONY”. The court found the name and identical domain name to be visually and phonetically similar to the registered “ELITE MATRIMONY” mark.
Madras High Court Restrains Online Piracy Of Idhayam Murali Ahead Of Release
Case Title: Dawn Pictures Private Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Case Number: OA Nos. 687 & 688 of 2026 in C.S.(COMM.DIV.)No.198 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 172
The Madras High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining various internet service providers from infringing the copyright of the Tamil film Idhayam Murali ahead of its July 10 release. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that such injunctions are necessary to prevent irreversible injury to film producers.
Madras High Court Protects Travel Content From Alleged AI Scraping, Grants Interim Relief
Case Title: Keshan Infotech Pvt Ltd v. Oliver Brandt & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 637 to 640 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 181 OF 2026 and A.Nos.2715 & 2716 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 167
In a significant copyright ruling on July 1, the Madras High Court granted an ad-interim injunction against the unauthorized scraping and AI-driven use of digital travel content. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that using proprietary content as training data or prompts for Large Language Models (LLMs) without permission raises a prima facie case of copyright infringement.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Ltd.
Case Number: CS/96/2008
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 178
Hindustan Unilever and Anchor Health settled an 18-year-old commercial disparagement dispute. Under the terms of the settlement accepted by Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay, Anchor agreed to cease advertising its toothpaste as the "first and only (Sirf)" product containing Triclosan, Fluoride, and Calcium, or as India's "First All-Round Protection Toothpaste"
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Darshan Srinivas & Anr. v. Siri Productions & Ors.
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4257 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 126
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal by actor Darshan and his wife seeking to block the release of the film BOSS. Justice Pradeep Singh held that mere similarities between the film and a pending murder trial in which the actor is an accused were not sufficient to justify an interim injunction.
Case Title: Eternal Limited v. Eternl Resilienttech Private Limited
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4339 OF 2026 (IPR)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC KAR 102
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by Eternal Limited, formerly known as Zomato Limited, against a trial court's ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining it from using the trademark "Eternal" in relation to services similar to those offered by Bengaluru-based Eternl Resilienttech Private Limited.
Case Title: M/s MI Marbo Italia v. M/s M Marble Italia
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2946 OF 2015 (IPR)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC KAR 103
The High Court dismissed an appeal and upheld a restraining order against the use of the trade name “MI Marbo Italia”. The court found the name deceptively similar to the registered trademark “M Marble Italia” (owned by Tile Italia Mosaics). Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar observed no perversity in the trial court's findings that granted the injunction in the long-standing trademark dispute.
Case Title: Priya Industries & Anr. v. Vishwanatha K
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.351 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 130
The court set aside an ex-parte injunction that had barred Priya Industries from selling an areca nut dehusking machine. The court found that the lower court failed to analyze the patent claims or provide sufficient reasons for concluding that infringement had occurred.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case Title: Tinubhai Babubhai Bhalgama & Ors. v. Alpeshbhai Ranchhodbhai Lunagariya & Ors.
Case Number: R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 82 of 2026 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 82 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 105
The Gujarat High Court set aside a temporary injunction that had restrained the registered owners of the "Aditya Jewellers" trademark from using their mark. The court ruled that the trial court committed a grave error by conducting a "mini trial" at the interim stage.
Case Title: M/S Raj Abhushan Bhandar v. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 619 of 2026 with R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 620 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 100
A Division Bench held that an intra-court Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is not maintainable against a Single Judge's decision in a statutory appeal under the Trade Marks Act. The court cited Section 100A of the CPC as a bar to such appeals.
COMMERCIAL COURTS
Saket Court Protects “ANTARA” Trademark, Restrains Kapiraj Corporation From Using “Shivant Antara”
Case Title: Antara Senior Living Limited v. Kapiraj Corporation & Ors.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 520/2025
The Commercial Court at Saket on July 10 awarded ₹5 lakh in damages against Kapiraj Corporation for using the mark “Shivant Antara”. District Judge Vrinda Kumari held the mark deceptively similar to the “ANTARA” trademark owned by the Max Group.
TRADE MARKS REGISTRY
Case Title: Tanisha Sheth v. Coty Beauty Germany GmbH
Case Number: APPLICATION NO. 5241172
The Trade Marks Registry, Ahmedabad, refused the registration of "BOSSBABE" for cosmetics. The Assistant Registrar held that the mark was dominated by the word "BOSS," which is identical to the registered marks owned by Hugo Boss (represented by Coty Beauty).
AUGUST, 2026
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Upholds PepsiCo's Lay's Potato Variety Registration
Case Title: Kavitha Kuruganti Versus PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.10320-10321 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 260
The Supreme Court has upheld a Delhi High Court order concerning PepsiCo's registration of its Lay's potato variety. The top court clarified that farmers can claim protection under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights (PPVFR) Act if PepsiCo initiates proceedings against them.
Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Delhi HC Order Restraining Kent RO From Using KENT Mark For Fans
Case Title: KENT RO SYSTEMS LIMITED VS. KENT CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: DIARY NO. - 27701/2026
The Supreme Court refused to stay a Delhi High Court interim order that restrained Kent RO Systems from manufacturing and selling fans under the 'KENT' mark. Concurrently, the court permitted Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. to continue using the mark. The Delhi High Court had held that Kent Cables was the prior adopter of the mark for electrical goods and had prima facie established prior use.
Case Title: BLACK DIAMOND MOTORS PVT. LTD. VERSUS REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & ANR.
Case Number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.26470/2026
The Supreme Court on 24 August issued notice on Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd.'s challenge to a Bombay High Court judgment. The High Court had held that the two-month period prescribed under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, for filing an evidence affidavit is directory and not a mandatory deadline. A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran stayed the underlying rectification proceedings in the interim.
Supreme Court Issues Notice In Embassy Of Peru's Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling On 'PISCO' GI
Case Title: EMBASSY OF PERU Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case Number: SLP(C) No. 26484/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday, 24 August, issued notice on a special leave petition filed by the Embassy of Peru. The plea challenges a Delhi High Court judgment that declined to grant Peru an exclusive, standalone Geographical Indication (GI) registration for the term “PISCO” in India. The High Court had previously held that the term has historically been associated with alcoholic beverages originating from both Peru and Chile, making exclusive protection likely to confuse consumers.
Case Title: ILAIYARAAJA vs SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED
Case Number: DIARY NO. 50668/2026
Music composer Ilaiyaraaja has moved the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Delhi High Court's dismissal of his review petition in a copyright dispute concerning the sound recording of “En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the Tamil film Moodu Pani. The dispute arose after Saregama India Ltd. initiated proceedings against Vels Film International Ltd. (VFIL) over its proposed use of a recreated version of the song in Aghathiyaa. VFIL had relied on an agreement with the composer to justify the use.
Case Title: MATRIMONY.COM LIMITED vs FREEELECTIVE NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: SLP(C) 28561 of 2026
The Supreme Court has asked matchmaking app Matrimony.com Ltd and FreeElective Network Pvt Ltd to explore an amicable settlement in their ongoing trademark dispute concerning Matrimony.com's 'Jodii' matchmaking app and FreeElective's registered 'Jodi365' mark. The Court was hearing Matrimony.com's challenge against a Madras High Court Division Bench order that restrained it from using the mark 'Jodii', which set aside a 2022 Single Judge order. The Division Bench had held that the mark was deceptively similar to 'Jodi365'.
Case Title: Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited vs The Indian Performing Right Society Limited
Case Number: SLP(C) 28489/2026
The Supreme Court stayed a Calcutta High Court judgment holding that providing cable television connections to individual hotel rooms constitutes "communication to the public" under the Copyright Act, 1957, and thus amounts to copyright infringement. A Bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli issued notice and stayed the operation of the judgment while hearing the challenge filed by Hotel Appolo & Tours.
Case Title: Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10260 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 267
The Supreme Court has ruled that a party accused of trademark infringement can question the trademark owner about documents showing when the disputed brand name was first used, even if that party's written statement is not on record. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside a Kerala High Court order that had expunged such a question from the trial record. The court held that this was a factual question within the permissible scope of cross-examination.
HIGH COURTS
DELHI HIGH COURT
Case Title: VISHESH FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED V/S SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 68/2024
T-Series informed the Delhi High Court that it has changed the title of its upcoming Kartik Aaryan and Sai Pallavi-starrer film from “Tu Hi Aashiqui” to “Tu Meri Zindagi Hai” to resolve a trademark dispute with Mukesh Bhatt's Vishesh Films. However, the proposal could not be recorded as a complete consent settlement after the parties disagreed over how far the proposed terms should extend. Justice Jyoti Singh asked them to discuss the issue further.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Alleged Fraudsters In Recruitment Scam From Using HCL Marks
Case Title: HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd v. John Does & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 127/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 894
Justice Jyoti Singh temporarily restrained five newly added defendants from using HCL Corporation's trademarks, holding that the company had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were colluding to operate a fraudulent recruitment racket by impersonating HCL.
Delhi High Court Rejects Reddy Pharmaceuticals' Review Plea In 'REDDY' Trademark Dispute With DRL
Case Title: Reddy Pharmaceuticals v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories
Case Number: RFA(OS) 138/2013
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 893
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed a review petition filed by Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (RPL). The court refused to revisit its earlier judgment that upheld a permanent injunction restraining RPL from using the mark “REDDY” and directing the removal of its registered trademark.
Case Title: GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Scott Edil Pharmacia Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 816/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 806
The Delhi High Court on 5 August restrained Scott Edil Pharmacia Limited and its affiliate from manufacturing, selling or advertising pharmaceutical products under the marks “Nexporin” and “Zetum”, holding them deceptively similar to GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited's registered trademarks “Neosporin” and “Ceftum”. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order while hearing an application filed by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited (GSK) seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Scott Edil Pharmacia.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Stop TV Channel From Airing SGPC's Live Gurbani Broadcast
Case Title: SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE AND ANR V/S GALACTIC TELEVISION AND COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD AND ORS
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 883/2026
The Delhi High Court refused to pass a temporary order stopping Galactic Television from re-broadcasting the live Gurbani feed from Sri Harmandir Sahib, Amritsar, in a copyright suit filed by the SGPC. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani found prima facie merit in the channel's submissions that the broadcast, which is not offered to viewers for payment, may not fall within the broadcast reproduction right.
Delhi High Court Rejects Trademark Appeal Over “DIGESTO PLUS”, Says Mark Common To Trade
Case Title: Hahnemann Scientific Laboratory India Pvt. Ltd. v. Meera Rastogi Trading As Hahnemann Memorial Laboratory
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 182/2026 CM APPL. 43491/2026 CM APPL. 43489/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 892
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking to restrain the use of the mark “DIGESTO PLUS” in a trademark dispute over digestive formulations. A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the word “DIGESTO” is descriptive and common to the trade, meaning its use alone cannot establish deceptive similarity between competing products.
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Alder Biochem Over 'BIOCHEM' Mark In Zydus' Suit
Case Title: Alder Biochem Private Limited v. Zydus Healthcare Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 268/2024 & CM APPL. 67780/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 820
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by Alder Biochem Private Limited against an injunction restraining it from using 'ALDER BIOCHEM'. A Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal upheld the Single Judge's order, finding the mark deceptively similar to Zydus Healthcare's registered 'BIOCHEM' device mark for pharmaceutical products.
Case Title: Nilesh Dhanukar v. Siemens Industry Software Inc & Anr.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 218/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 818
The Delhi High Court has upheld the civil contempt finding against Nilesh Dhanukar for obstructing a court-appointed Local Commissioner during an inspection into the alleged unauthorised use of Siemens Industry Software's “NX” software. However, a Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora reduced his detention in civil prison from two months to one month, citing his family circumstances.
Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection Of Esteve Pharma's Tramadol-Celecoxib Co-Crystal Patent
Case Title: Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v. Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 118/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 815
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. against the rejection of its patent application for a co-crystal of tramadol and coxibs. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the claimed invention lacked an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, as the prior art documents, when read together, rendered the combination of tramadol and celecoxib obvious.
Case Title: MOHIT KUMAR V/S JOHN DOE/ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 858/2026
The Delhi High Court has asked Meta to place on record its policy, guidelines, and eligibility criteria for access to its "Rights Manager" tool. The court questioned why the anti-plagiarism tool is not available to genuine content creators with large followings, while scammers appear to easily get access to it to initiate fraudulent copyright strikes.
Delhi High Court Grants Khushi Kapoor Relief Against Unauthorised Merchandise, Obscene Content
Case Title: KHUSHI KAPOOR V/S ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 869/2026
The Delhi High Court has indicated it will order the takedown of links carrying obscene and pornographic content, as well as links selling unauthorised merchandise bearing actor Khushi Kapoor's persona. While Justice Jyoti Singh left the larger dispute over "fan pages" open for a later hearing, today's relief was strictly confined to unauthorized commercial exploitation and obscene content.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Mumbai Café Operator From Using 'MOCHA KAFFEE' Trademark
Case Title: Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Mocha Kaffee
Case Number: CS(COMM) 839/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 814
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Mumbai-based café operator Mocha Kaffee from offering, marketing, or advertising its business under the “MOCHA KAFFEE” mark. Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, finding the mark deceptively similar to Impresario's registered “MOCHA” trademarks and noting that "Kaffee" is merely a misspelling of "cafe".
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Rejecting Patent For Carbon Dioxide Capture Device
Case Title: Enviro Ambient Corporation v. Assistant Controller of Patents
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 74/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 808
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting Enviro Ambient Corporation's patent application for a carbon dioxide capture device, finding the rejection “unreasoned and non-speaking”. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the impugned order merely extracted objections from the First Examination Report (FER) without properly analysing Enviro's case.
Delhi High Court Restrains Mohali Restaurant From Using 'GOLA' Marks After Franchise Termination
Case Title: Gola Sizzlers Private Limited v. M/S GM Foods & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 745/2026, I.A. 20627/2026 & I.A. 20628/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 804
The Delhi High Court on 5 August restrained GM Foods and another, operators of a restaurant in Mohali, from using the trademarks "GOLA," "GOLA SIZZLERS" and "GOLA RESTAURANTS" following termination of their franchise arrangement with Gola Sizzlers Private Limited over royalty defaults and alleged sales suppression. Allowing the application, a Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that "prima facie without any right, title or authority and amounts to infringement under Section 29(2)(c) of the 1999 Act."
Case Title: Allcargo Logistics Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 806/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 807
The Delhi High Court has restrained 36 operators of rogue websites from offering packing, shifting, and relocation services under marks incorporating the well-known “GATI” mark or deceptively similar variants. Justice Jyoti Singh directed domain registrars to lock and suspend the infringing domains within 36 hours.
Case Title: Emami Limited v. Dabur India Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 177/2026 CM APPL. 45249/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 810
The Delhi High Court held that a Single Judge cannot relax an interim injunction restraining Dabur India Limited from selling its “Cool King Thanda Tel” under a deceptively similar trade dress after a Division Bench has already upheld the injunction in appeal. A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Dabur's application to dispose of existing stock could not have been entertained by the Single Judge.
Delhi High Court Issues Notice On YouTuber's Plea Challenging Meta's Copyright Strike Mechanism
Case Title: SAURABH MAURYA V/S JOHN DOE/ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 870/2026
The Delhi High Court issued notice on an application by stock market trading content creator Saurabh Maurya challenging how his account was suspended due to copyright strikes. Even though Meta restored his account and reversed the strikes, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani issued notice on Maurya's broader challenge regarding how intermediaries act on copyright strikes.
Delhi High Court Grants Jahnvi Kapoor Relief Against Obscene Content, Commercial Misuse Of Persona
Case Title: JANHVI KAPOOR V/S ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE AND ORS
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 868/2026
The Delhi High Court declined to grant a blanket injunction sought by actor Jahnvi Kapoor against 6,884 URLs. However, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted interim relief under three specific categories: content that is ex-facie obscene or pornographic, content that directly monetises Kapoor's personality rights, and content using her name and likeness to sell merchandise or services.
Delhi High Court Orders Restoration Of 'BLUE CHIP' Trademark, Holds Removal Without Notice Invalid
Case Title: Amrit Singh Mehta Trading As Mehta Cosmetics vs. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 5/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 791
On August 4, Justice Jyoti Singh directed the Trade Marks Registry to restore the trademark 'BLUE CHIP' belonging to Amrit Singh Mehta. The court held that the removal of the mark from the Register without issuing the mandatory notice required under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, violated statutory provisions.
Case Title: TABASSUM JAMAL HASHMI V/S ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 812/2026
On Wednesday, August 5, Justice Jyoti Singh directed intermediaries to take down specified online URLs hosting content that actor Tabu alleged was defamatory, pornographic, or otherwise violative of her personality rights. Senior Advocate Swati Sukumar appeared for Tabu.
Delhi High Court Frames Guidelines To Distinguish 'Mental Acts' From Patentable Inventions
Case Title: T-Mobile International AG and Co. Kg. v. The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 149/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 786
On August 4, 2026, a bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela proposed a set of guidelines designed to help patent examiners differentiate between abstract human thought ("mental acts") and genuine technical innovations. The decision arose from an appeal by T-Mobile International against the rejection of its patent application.
Case Title: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors v. Anantara Galleria and Anantara & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 834/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 785
On August 3, Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the Ahmedabad-based real estate project “Anantara Galleria” and its operators from using the mark “ANANTARA” and the domain name “www.anantara.life”. The court held that the marks were deceptively similar to those of the plaintiff, part of the Minor Hotel Group.
Delhi High Court Protects Physics Wallah Founder Alakh Pandey's Personality Rights
Case Title: ALAKH PANDEY V/S JOHN DOE(S) AND ORS
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 835/2026
The Delhi High Court directed intermediaries to remove specified infringing content misusing Physics Wallah founder Alakh Pandey's personality rights. However, the court reserved its decision regarding a YouTube video calling him "Scamwala".
Physics Wallah Founder Alakh Pandey Moves Delhi High Court Over Alleged Misuse Of Personality Rights
Case Title: ALAKH PANDEY V/S JOHN DOE(S) AND ORS
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 835/2026
On Tuesday, August 4, Alakh Pandey moved the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights against unauthorized commercial exploitation. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed the petitioner to submit a defendant-wise tabulated chart classifying the alleged infringements before considering interim relief.
Actor Tabu Moves Delhi High Court Over Alleged Personality Rights Violations
Case Title: TABASSUM JAMAL HASHMI V/S ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 812/2026
On Tuesday, August 4, actor Tabu approached the Delhi High Court seeking the removal of online content that she alleges disparages her and violates her personality rights across social media, websites, and e-commerce portals. Justice Jyoti Singh heard submissions regarding the obligations of intermediaries to remove the disputed content.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown of Videos Disparaging Patanjali, Including 'Cause Cancer' Claims
Case Title: PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED & ORS. V/S DAMIT GALHOT & ORS
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 736/2026
On Tuesday, August 4, Justice Jyoti Singh directed Google and Meta to take down 19 videos that allegedly disparaged Patanjali and its products by calling them "zeher" (poison) and claiming they "cause cancer". The court also restrained the identified uploader from publishing the impugned content further.
Delhi High Court Restrains 'HOTEL JEROME'S HOLIDAY INN' From Using 'HOLIDAY INN' Trademark
Case Title: Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Mr. Jerome Fernandes
Case Number: CS(COMM) 887/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 861
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining hotel operator Jerome Fernandes from using the name “HOTEL JEROME'S HOLIDAY INN” or any deceptively similar mark. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed Fernandes to remove advertisements and listings of the hotel from third-party online platforms, including Goibibo, following a trademark infringement and passing-off suit by Six Continents Hotels, Inc., proprietor of the registered "HOLIDAY INN" mark.
Delhi High Court Cancels 'DAPLOGIN' Trademark Registration Over Similarity With Dr. Reddy's 'DAPLO'
Case Title: Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v. M/S Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 122/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 856
The Delhi High Court has cancelled Razenta Pharmaceuticals' trademark registration for “DAPLOGIN”. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed Dr. Reddy's Laboratories' rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register by removing the mark within six weeks. The court held that the mark "DAPLO" is neither publici juris nor common to the trade, and "DAPLOGIN" is deceptively similar to it.
HUL Drags Beco To Delhi High Court Over Ads Claiming Surf Excel, Vim Cause Skin Allergies
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED V/S KWICK LIVING (I) PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 904/2026
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) has dragged cleaning products brand Beco (run by Kwick Living (I) Private Limited) to the Delhi High Court over allegations of trademark infringement and product disparagement. HUL moved the court alleging that Beco's advertisements disparage its detergent brands Surf Excel and Vim by falsely claiming they contain chemicals that cause skin irritation and allergies. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani heard submissions and issued notice in the matter.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains MVP Healthcare From Using 'House Of Doctors' Mark
Case Title: House of Diagnostics LLP & Ors. v. MVP Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 872/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 846
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained MVP Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. from using “HOD House of Doctors” or any other mark deceptively similar to the "H.O.D." and "House of Diagnostics" trademarks of the HOD Group. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the ex parte ad interim order in a suit filed by the HOD Group, which provides diagnostic and healthcare services.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Sale Of 'THUNDER 15000' Beer In InBrew's Trademark Suit
Case Title: InBrew Beverages Private Limited v. Kinjore Brewery Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 491/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 845
The Delhi High Court restrained the Bhutan-based manufacturer of 'THUNDER 15000' and its distributor in Jharkhand from dealing in products under that mark. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the interim order in a trademark infringement suit filed by InBrew Beverages Private Limited to protect its registered 'THUNDERBOLT' beer brand, with the restraint remaining in force until December 21, 2026.
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against 'Noviets' Pharma In Trademark Dispute With Novartis
Case Title: Noviets Pharma & Ors. v. Novartis AG & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 143/2026 & CM APPL. 35368/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 844
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Noviets Pharma against an interim order restraining it from using the mark 'NOVIETS'. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the Single Judge's order, finding prima facie that the mark was deceptively similar to Novartis AG's registered 'NOVARTIS' trademark.
Case Title: KRBL Limited v. M/s J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 701/2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 843
The Delhi High Court has allowed KRBL Limited to amend its 2016 suit against J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd., allowing it to add a claim of trademark infringement over the use of “ROYAL GATE” with a device of “INDIA GATE." The suit originally sought relief on the ground of passing off. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the amendment on August 12, 2026, while directing KRBL to pay Rs. 50,000 to the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust within two weeks. The cost was imposed as the court found that no plausible explanation had been given for the delay in seeking the amendment.
Case Title: Rakesh Jain v. Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP
Case Number: CS(COMM) 856/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 857
The Delhi High Court on 10 August granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining FMCG company Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP from using “RANI SAHIBA” or any deceptively similar mark for rice products, and from passing off its goods as those of Rakesh Jain. A Bench comprising Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani also directed the takedown of an infringing Amazon listing and other online references bearing the mark.
Delhi High Court Directs Sun Pharma To Seek Prior Approval Before Launching Semaglutide Tablets
Case Title: Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 837/2026 & I.A. 21265/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 858
The Delhi High Court on 11 August directed Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited to seek prior approval from the Court before commercially manufacturing or launching its Semaglutide Tablets, in a patent infringement suit filed by Novo Nordisk A/S. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani did not grant an interim injunction at this stage.
Case Title: AB SKF vs. M/S B.M. Bearing Sales & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 918/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 890
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained two Delhi-based traders from selling counterfeit ball bearings under the “SKF” mark. Justice Jyoti Singh passed an ad-interim injunction, observing that selling inferior-quality bearings poses a severe safety hazard for vehicle drivers. The court also directed Bank of Baroda to freeze proceeds traced to the defendants.
Delhi High Court Restrains Ajmer Spa From Using "ANANTARA" For Similarity With MHG IP Holding's Mark
Case Title: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors. vs. Anantara Spa and Massage
Case Number: CS(COMM) 914/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 879
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained Ajmer-based Anantara Spa and Massage from using the mark “ANANTARA” or deceptively similar variants. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the ex-parte ad interim injunction in a suit filed by MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd (part of the Minor Hotel Group), noting the group's valid and subsisting registrations for the mark.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Sale Of 'SCALP SAYY' Hair Care Products For Similar To 'SAYY'
Case Title: M/s Sayy Partnership Firm v. Bhuva Ankitkumar Jaysukhbhai
Case Number: CS(COMM) 912/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 874
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained a sole proprietor from manufacturing or marketing cosmetic products under the mark “SCALP SAYY”. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark “SAYY” and subsumed the plaintiff's trademark in its entirety.
Case Title: Stonex India Private Limited vs. Mohit Kumawat & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 284/2025 & I.A. 32460/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 881
The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of the trademark “STONEX WORLD” held by individual proprietor Mohit Kumawat. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the rectification petition filed by Stonex India, ruling that the mark was deceptively similar to the registered “STONEX” marks, and flagged a lapse by the Trade Marks Registry in verifying conflicting marks during registration.
Delhi High Court Restrains Use Of 'COBEX' Mark In GlaxoSmithKline's Trademark Suit Over 'COBADEX'
Case Title: GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Orion Biotech Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 754/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 774
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Orion Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and two other entities associated with the manufacture of a paediatric antibiotic sold under the mark 'COBEX' from using the mark. The order came in a trademark infringement suit filed by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited (GSK), which claims that 'COBEX' is deceptively similar to its registered trademark 'COBADEX', used for its multi-vitamin drug. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that GSK had made out a prima facie case.
Delhi High Court Restrains Patna Firm From Using 'Nintendo India Private Limited' Name
Case Title: Nintendo Co. Ltd. v. Nintendo India Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 747/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 772
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained a Patna-registered real estate company from using the name 'Nintendo India Private Limited'. The ruling came in a trademark infringement suit filed by Japanese gaming company Nintendo Co. Ltd. Justice Jyoti Singh ruled that the company's adoption of the name was with an objective of encashing on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff, attempting to create a false impression of association.
Case Title: Cipla Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 23/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 771
The Delhi High Court has dismissed applications filed by a third party seeking to be impleaded in a writ petition filed by Cipla Limited over the restoration of its 'NO DARAR' trademark. Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that the applicant was "a rank outsider nowhere related and/or even remotely connected with the facts" of the case, finding that it had no locus standi to be added as a party.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trademark Registry Order Refusing “AYU LIFESCIENCE” Registration
Case Title: Ayu Lifescience Industries FZE vs. The Controller General of Trademarks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 74/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 880
The Delhi High Court set aside the Trade Marks Registry's order refusing to register the device mark “AYU LIFESCIENCE”. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the Registry cannot rely on cited conflicting marks without first verifying whether those registrations are validly subsisting on the register, remanding the matter for fresh examination.
Case Title: Novartis AG & Anr. v. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 293/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 875
The Delhi High Court directed BDR Pharmaceuticals to seek the court's prior approval before taking any steps toward the commercial manufacture or launch of Dabrafenib. Justice A. J. Bhambhani issued the direction in a quia timet patent infringement suit filed by Novartis AG.
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 904/2026 & I.A.22515/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 876
The Delhi High Court has referred the question of territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property suits based solely on website accessibility to a larger bench. Justice A. J. Bhambhani referred the matter while hearing HUL's disparagement suit against Kwick Living (which runs the cleaning brand Beco) over its “War on What's Hidden” campaign, noting conflicting precedents on the issue.
Delhi High Court Restrains Healing Pharma From Using Trade Dress Similar To Himalaya Products
Case Title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr. v. Healing Pharma India Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 892/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 872
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Healing Pharma from using packaging and trade dress deceptively similar to Himalaya's Liv.52, Cystone, Mentat, Speman, Pilex, and Confido products. Justice A. J. Bhambhani passed the order in a suit protecting Himalaya's signature herbal ranges.
Case Title: Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd & Anr. v. M/s. Wear and Glow & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 845/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 871
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining several entities from selling counterfeit skincare and dermatological products bearing Sun Pharma's registered marks 'PHOTOSTABLE' and 'BELLO'. Justice A. J. Bhambhani observed that the plaintiff had successfully established a prima facie case of trademark infringement.
Personality Rights Cannot Extinguish Parody, Caricature Or Lampooning: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Alakh Pandey v. Unauthorised Social Media Accounts & Others
Case Number: CS(COMM) 835/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 870
The Delhi High Court held that personality rights cannot be used to extinguish entire genres of expression such as caricature, lampooning, or parody. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted PhysicsWallah founder Alakh Pandey interim protection against three specific forms of commercial misuse of his persona, while declining to block comedic or satirical content.
Delhi High Court Reserves Order On Jurisdiction In HUL's Disparagement Suit Against Beco
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED V/S KWICK LIVING (I) PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 904/2026
The Delhi High Court reserved its order on the preliminary question of territorial jurisdiction in HUL's suit against Beco's parent company. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani made it clear that no interim or ad-interim orders would be passed before deciding the question of jurisdiction.
Case Title: Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 167/2026 CM APPL. 43226/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 869
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Nugenesys from selling nutraceuticals under the mark “RewireX”. Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the respondent (Celagenex) had obtained the order by wilfully suppressing material facts and imposed costs of ₹2 lakh.
Delhi High Court Restrains 'ANANTARA SPA' From Using 'ANANTARA' For Spa And Wellness Services
Case Title: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors. v. Anantara Spa & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 876/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 864
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a wellness and spa business operating as “ANANTARA SPA” from using the "ANANTARA" marks. Justice A. J. Bhambhani passed the order, noting that a domain name arbitrator had already ruled against the defendants' deceptive adoption of the mark.
Delhi High Court Holds Varun Beverages' 'SMOOTH' Deceptively Similar To 'SMOODH', Restrains Use
Case Title: Parle Agro Private Limited v. Varun Beverages Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 897/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 863
The Delhi High Court restrained Varun Beverages from using the mark “SMOOTH” for its dairy-based yoghurt drink, finding it deceptively similar to Parle Agro's “SMOODH” trademark. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the defendant had engaged in "smart copying" by substituting the letter 'D' in “SMOODH” with 'T'.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bombay High Court Restrains 'Bislie' Water Maker From Using Mark In Bisleri Trademark Suit
Case Title: Bisleri International Private Limited v. Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 18664 OF 2026 WITH LEAVE PETITION NO. 208 OF 2026 WITH COURT RECEIVER'S REPORT NO. 292 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L.) NO. 18582 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 443
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained a Karnataka-based packaged drinking water manufacturer from using the mark “Bislie”. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar found the mark to be prima facie deceptively similar to Bisleri International's registered “Bisleri” trademark.
Case Title: Khadi & Village Industries Commission v. Jaishukh N. Bhuta & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5867 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO.580 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 442
The Bombay High Court held that the Mumbai Khadi & Village Industries Association (MKVIA) wilfully breached a 2022 injunction restraining it from manufacturing, selling, or advertising products under the “Khadi” mark. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that MKVIA did exactly what it was prohibited from doing and imposed costs of ₹2.5 lakh.
Bombay High Court Directs Meta To Remove AI Deepfake Video Impersonating Delta Corp Promoter
Case Title: Delta Corp Limited v. Meta Platforms Inc.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3875 OF 2026 IN SUIT NO. 167 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 439
On August 6, Justice Abhay Ahuja directed Meta Platforms to take down an AI-generated deepfake video showing Delta Corp promoter Jaydev Mody announcing the launch of an online casino application. The court also ordered the removal of social media pages allegedly impersonating the company.
Bombay High Court Pulls Up Masala Maker For Only Paying 'Lip Service' To Trademark Injunction
Case Title: Sky Enterprise Private Limited v. Abaad Masala & Co.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 2372 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 279 OF 2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 434
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that cosmetic changes to a trademark cannot be used to sidestep an injunction. The court ruled that Abaad Masala & Co.'s revised branding failed to maintain a "safe distance" from Sky Enterprise's registered marks, noting that "lip service" to a court order renders it ineffective.
Actor Shruti Haasan Moves Bombay High Court Over AI Deepfakes, Personality Rights Violations
Case Title: Shruti Haasan v. Mahalaxmi Arts And Craft Works & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 26069 of 2026
Actress Shruti Haasan has moved the Bombay High Court with a commercial suit seeking ₹15 crore in damages. She alleges that unauthorised merchandise sellers, online platforms, and unidentified parties have violated her personality and publicity rights by using her identity without consent. She also alleged the creation and circulation of sexually explicit AI-generated deepfake content featuring her likeness. Justice Abhay Ahuja heard the matter.
Case Title: Jyothy Labs Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1880 OF 2021 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 240 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 455
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained Dabur India Ltd. from using its toothpaste label featuring 'NEEM' as the leading and essential feature. Justice Arif S. Doctor, while allowing the interim application in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit, clarified that Dabur was not barred from using the word 'NEEM' descriptively, but could not use it as a prominent, source-identifying feature on the label.
Case Title: Comite International Olympique v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO.9556 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 451
The Bombay High Court has set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of the International Olympic Committee's application to register “Faster, Higher, Stronger-Together” and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing a petition challenging the rejection of the phrase, which the committee had adopted as a further improvisation of its historic motto.
Bombay High Court Allows Kataria Insurance Brokers To Retain Name, Bars Gems Jewellery Insurance
Case Title: Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v. Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 215 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 466
The Bombay High Court has allowed Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. to continue using its corporate name “KATARIA INSURANCE”. However, the court permanently restrained the company from providing insurance services relating to the gems and jewellery sector. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed the company's application to vacate an interim injunction dated December 8, 2025, which had previously barred the company from using "KATARIA" in its corporate name.
Sonu Nigam Namesake Agrees Before Bombay High Court To Stop Using Singer's Name On Social Media
Case Title: Sonu Nigam v. Sonu Nigam Singh & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO.20577 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 463
A man who ran a social media account under the name “Sonu Nigam” has agreed before the Bombay High court to stop using the singer's name, photograph, likeness, and other personality attributes in a manner that exploits or misappropriates his personality and publicity rights, bringing a year-long dispute between the two men to an end. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar recorded the settlement on August 13 and decreed the suit in terms of the Consent Terms. Sonu Nigam Singh can continue operating the account under the handle “@SonuNigamSingh”, subject to the undertakings given to the court.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Case Title: The Indian Performing Right Society Limited v. Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited
Case Number: FMA 322 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 187
A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and another judge restrained Hotel Appolo from communicating IPRS-owned literary and musical works to guests through TV sets in hotel rooms without a licence. The court held that routing cable television connections to hotel rooms constitutes "communication to the public" under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Calcutta High Court Rejects Injunction Against New Central Book Agency After Years Of Inaction
Case Title: Pares Chandra Das & Anr. v. New Central Book Agency Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: G.A. No. 1 of 2023 In I.P. (COM) No. 11 of 2024 (Old No. CS 216 of 2023)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 203
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an interim injunction application filed by textbook author Pares Chandra Das and his son Amitava Das against their long-time publisher, New Central Book Agency Private Limited. Justice Krishna Rao held that authors cannot seek an interim injunction to halt the continued publication of their books after actively allowing the publisher to distribute them for years despite claiming the agreement had expired.
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v. Emami Limited & Ors.
Case Number: F.M.A.T. No. 56 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 198
The Calcutta High Court set aside a temporary injunction that restrained Sun Pharmaceutical Industries from airing an advertisement that Emami alleged disparaged its “Zandu Balm”, “Mentho Plus Balm”, and “Zandu Ultra Power Balm”. A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the advertisement did not specifically target Emami's products, and the company had failed to establish a prima facie case for an injunction.
Case Title: Fox and Mandal and Anr. v. Somabrata Mandal and Ors.
Case Number: IA NO. GA/4/2023 [OLD NO CS/269/2022] In IP-COM/6/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 199
The Calcutta High Court permanently restrained Somabrata Mandal and his law firm from holding themselves out as connected with Fox & Mandal or using the marks “Fox & Mandal,” “Fox and Mandal,” and “F&M”. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the goodwill generated by a partnership is a partnership asset belonging to the firm, and individual partners or their heirs have no independent right to trade on its name.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Pare Innovations Private Limited v. Vox Building Products Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 20090 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 134
The Karnataka High Court set aside a commercial court's order refusing to reject a plaint in a commercial disparagement suit, observing that the order was "bereft of reasons". Justice Lalitha Kanneganti heard the writ petition challenging the lower court's decision in the underlying suit filed by Vox Building Products and Vox Interior.
Karnataka High Court Refuses Plea Seeking $2.5 Million From eBay Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
Case Title: Lt. Col. D.K. Havanoor (Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 8530 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 144
The Karnataka High Court has recently declined to entertain a writ petition by retired Army officer Lt. Col. D.K. Havanoor seeking USD 2.5 million in damages from eBay entities over alleged copyright infringement. Justice M.G.S. Kamal passed the order on August 3, 2026, while giving Havanoor liberty to pursue his grievance before a competent court. Havanoor's grievance concerned a book that he claimed belonged to him and which, according to the order, was displayed and sold through eBay.com for USD 12.53.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Madras High Court Restrains Piracy Of Lokesh Kanagaraj-Starrer 'DC' Ahead Of Release
Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 805 & 806 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 233 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 225
The Madras High Court restrained internet service providers and cable TV operators from facilitating the apprehended copyright violation of Sun TV Network's Tamil film DC. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu on August 5 passed the order on two applications ahead of the film's theatrical release.
Madras High Court Restrains Three Pharma Companies From Using 'ORG-9' Trademark
Case Title: Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v. Orange Biotech Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 724 to 726 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 209 OF 2026 and A NO. 3151 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 216
On July 27, Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted an ad-interim temporary injunction restraining three Haryana-based pharmaceutical companies from using the mark "ORG-9". The court found that the mark prima facie infringed the registered trademark "ARG-9" owned by Chennai-based Nouveau Medicament Private Limited.
Madras High Court Refuses To Stall Release Of AI-Enhanced Kochadaiiyaan Over 2014 Financing Dispute
Case Title: Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: O.A.No.181 of 2026 in C.S.No.545 of 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 215
The Madras High Court refused to stop the release of an AI-enhanced version of the 2014 Rajinikanth film Kochadaiiyaan. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the film's financier could not seek to restrain its release because it had failed to seek relief against the fifth defendant, who is the current assignee of the film.
Madras High Court Temporarily Restrains Universal Spirits From Using 'Marco Polo' For Liquor
Case Title: Empee Distilleries Limited v. Universal Spirits Pvt Ltd
Case Number: OA Nos. 492 & 493 of 2026 and A.No.2183 of 2026 in C.S.(COMM.DIV.)No.147 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 232
The Madras High Court has restrained Universal Spirits Pvt Ltd from manufacturing or selling liquor under the marks “Classic Marco Polo Deluxe Brandy” and “Marco Polo Deluxe XXX Rum”, pending disposal of a commercial suit filed by Empee Distilleries Limited. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu directed Universal Spirits to submit accounts and hand over unsold products within four weeks.
Case Title: Vijay Kothari v. Shri Sairaam Creations & Ors.
Case Number: A No. 442 of 2026 IN C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 211 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 231
The Madras High Court has allowed Vijay Kothari, who claims digital, satellite, and OTT rights over Hari Hara Veera Mallu, to amend his plaint against Mega Surya Productions. He can now seek the return of ₹4 crore under an Assignment Agreement, along with 18% interest. However, Justice K. Kumaresh Babu rejected the request to raise his damages claim from ₹5 lakh to ₹25 lakh due to a lack of supporting pleadings.
Madras High Court Restrains Matrimony.com From Using 'Jodii' Mark For Matchmaking App
Case Title: FreeElective Network Private Limited v. M/s Matrimony.com Limited
Case Number: OSA(CAD) No.159 of 2022 and CMP Nos. 20676, 20680 of 2022 & 19720 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 230
A Division Bench comprising Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi has restrained Matrimony.com Limited from using the mark 'Jodii' for its matchmaking app. The court set aside a 2022 order of a Single Judge and ruled that 'Jodii' was deceptively similar to FreeElective's registered 'Jodi365' trademark, creating likely customer confusion.
Madras High Court Grants Anti-Piracy Injunctions For 'Batwara 1947,' 'Awarapan 2'
Case Title: Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.; Vishesh Pictures Pvt Ltd v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA No. 835 of 2026 AND C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 239 OF 2026,OA NO. 836 OF 2026; OA No. 837 and 838 of 2026 AND C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 240 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 235; 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 236
The Madras High Court has recently granted anti-piracy protection to the Hindi films Batwara 1947 and Awarapan 2 after their producers approached the Court apprehending copyright infringement. The films were scheduled for release on August 13 and August 14, respectively. Justice K. Surender passed separate common orders on August 14 on applications filed by Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd for Batwara 1947 and Vishesh Pictures Pvt Ltd for Awarapan 2.
Madras High Court Rejects Film Archive's Copyright Claim Over 'Aval Appadithan' Production Stills
Case Title: The Cinema Resource Centre & Anr. v. Ms. Ganga Rudraiah & Anr.
Case Number: O.S.A.(CAD)No.17 of 2022 & C.M.P.No.2260 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 247
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Chennai-based film archive, The Cinema Resource Centre, in a dispute over production photographs from the 1978 film Aval Appadithan. A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi upheld a Single Judge's order directing the archive to return the original production photographs, delete all digital/physical duplicates, and cease displaying them on its website.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Kerala High Court Rejects Injunction Plea Against DDRC Agilus Over 'Since 1983' Tagline
Case Title: Ajith K. Joy v. Agilus Diagnostics Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO NO. 81 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 165
The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking to restrain Agilus Diagnostics and DDRC Agilus Pathlabs from representing that DDRC's business has been operating since 1983. Justice S. Manu held that the appellant had not established a prima facie case for an interim injunction, noting that the respondents' tagline, “your lab partner since 1983”, was materially different from the slogan used by the appellant.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case Title: Tinubhai Babubhai Bhalgama & Ors. v. Alpeshbhai Ranchhodbhai Lunagariya & Ors.
Case Number: R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 82 of 2026 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 82 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 105
The Gujarat High Court has set aside a temporary injunction restraining the registered proprietors of the trademark "Aditya Jewellers" from using their own registered mark. The court ruled that the Commercial Court in Rajkot committed "a grave error of law" by granting the relief. The Bench observed that the trial court improperly assessed the reliability of the evidence at the interim stage, noting that "no mini trial can be conducted" when deciding a temporary injunction application.
COMMERCIAL COURTS
Kolkata Court Restrains TV19 From Using Marks Deceptively Similar To TV9
Case Title: Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt Ltd v. TV 19 Network & Ors.
Case Number: TS (Com) – 33/2026
The Commercial Court at Rajarhat, Kolkata, restrained TV19 Network from using the marks "TV19", "TV19 Network", and "TV19 Network Bangla". Judge Ishani Chakravarty Banerjee observed that the overall visual presentation, branding, and color schemes gave rise to a prima facie apprehension of deception among consumers looking for registered "TV9" marks.
Delhi Commercial Court Orders Blocking Of Websites Selling Pirated TrendyTech Course
Case Title: Trendytech Insights LLP v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 405/2026
A Commercial Court in Saket, New Delhi, granted an ex-parte interim injunction restraining the unauthorized sale and distribution of pirated copies of TrendyTech's Master Program course. The court directed DoT, MeitY, and ISPs to block access to the infringing websites.
SEPTEMBER, 2026
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Stays Swiss Company's Patent Suit Against Techfab Before Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: TECHFAB INDIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs GEOBRUGG AG
Case Number: SLP(C) 29151/2026
The Supreme Court stayed further proceedings before the Himachal Pradesh High Court in a patent infringement suit filed by Swiss company Geobrugg AG against Techfab. The dispute concerns the manufacture and sale of high-tensile wire mesh products sold under the "TECCO" brand. A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli issued notice and directed the parties to complete pleadings.
Case Title: I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) No.6793 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 313
The Supreme Court referred to a larger bench the question of whether State notifications designating Civil Judges (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts can override Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which mandates that trademark infringement suits cannot be instituted before a court below the District Court.
Supreme Court Extends Dabur's Deadline To Exhaust 9,020 'Cool King Thanda Tel' Cartons Till November
Case Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED VS. EMAMI LIMITED
Case Number: DIARY NO. - 50163/2026
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe extended by two months (till November 2026) the deadline for Dabur India Limited to exhaust 9,020 cartons of “Cool King Thanda Tel” in its trademark and trade-dress dispute with Emami Limited, while declining to interfere with the underlying Delhi High Court injunction.
Case Title: ITC LIMITED VS. ADYAR GATE HOTELS LIMITED
Case Number: DIARY NO. - 56907/2026
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan dismissed ITC Limited's Special Leave Petition, refusing to interfere with a Delhi High Court interim order that declined to restrain Adyar Gate Hotels Limited from using the “DAKSHIN” mark for its standalone restaurant in Chennai.
Case Title: M/S CHAI SUTTA BAR TRADING PVT. LTD VS. M/S MACHA CONSUMER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD
Case Number: DIARY NO. - 50820/2026
The Supreme Court permitted Chai Sutta Bar Trading Pvt Ltd to withdraw its Special Leave Petition challenging a Delhi High Court order that upheld an interim injunction restraining it from using the 'MAATEA' mark for tea products in a trademark dispute with Macha Consumer Products.
Case Title: Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a special leave petition challenging the constitutional validity of the statutory provision under which a patent's 20-year term runs from the date of filing rather than the date of grant, even where years of that term pass during patent prosecution. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice on the plea and appointed Advocate Kruttika Vijay as amicus curiae to assist the court.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bombay High Court Restrains Cloud Kitchen From Using 'BARBECUE' Mark Over Similarity With Restaurant
Case Title: Tervinder Singh Jhans & Ors. v. Pankaj Rai & Ors.
Case Number: Appeal Against Order 42 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 471
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court temporarily restrained a cloud kitchen from using the marks "BARBECUE" or "BARBEQUE". The order protected the registered trademark of Barbecue and Barbecue Food Services Pvt Ltd, which has operated a restaurant in Nagpur since 1994. Justice Y.G. Khobragade allowed the appeal against the District Judge's order.
Case Title: Zee Learn Limited v. Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust
Case Number: COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.21131 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 472
The Bombay High Court restrained a Dehradun-based school from using the "MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL" and "MLZS" marks pending arbitration. Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed the petition filed by Zee Learn Limited, holding that a former licensee cannot continue using a licensor's mark after the termination of the license agreements.
Bombay High Court Orders Takedown of AI Deepfakes Misusing Actor Shruti Haasan's Personality Rights
Case Title: Shruti Haasan v. Mahalaxmi Arts and Craft Works & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.26123 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 26069 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 488
The Bombay High Court ordered the removal of online content identified in actor Shruti Haasan's suit and restrained the unauthorized use of her name, voice, and image through artificial intelligence. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar granted the ad-interim relief after finding a strong prima facie case of personality rights infringement.
Bombay High Court Refuses Metro Brands Leave To Combine Claims Against Kerala Rival In Mumbai
Case Title: Metro Brands Limited v. Met Brands Private Limited
Case Number: LEAVE PETITION (L) NO. 12067 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IPR SUIT (L) NO. 12028 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 487
The Bombay High Court refused Metro Brands Limited leave to combine its passing-off claim with its trademark infringement suit against Kerala-based Met Brands in Mumbai. Justice Gauri Godse observed that the balance of convenience favoured a trial in Kerala where the alleged passing off occurred and the rival carries on business.
Case Title: Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil v. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 12000 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 503
Observing that prolonged proceedings over a patent application had cost an inventor 13 years out of the 20-year statutory protection period, the Bombay High Court recognized Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil as the sole owner of the invention. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was dealing with a petition filed by Dr. Patil regarding an invention titled “An...” originally filed with IIT Bombay, and directed that his patent application be considered on its merits.
Bombay High Court Directs Trader To Deposit ₹1.32 Crore For Breaching NOVA Trademark Injunction
Case Title: Harichand Nagpal v. Dr. Ashok M. Bhat & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 27799 OF 2026 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 9324 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)500
The Bombay High Court directed a trader appealing an ₹82.42 lakh costs order for violating a trademark injunction to deposit an additional ₹50 lakh, bringing the total deposit to ₹1.32 crore. A Division Bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata passed the order after noting that the appellant failed to comply with the directions issued by the Single Bench on July 13, 2026.
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Deepak Kumar Panwar
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 25814 OF 2026 IN COMM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT SUIT (L) NO. 25682 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)498
The Bombay High Court directed its Court Receiver to take forcible physical possession of an entire paint manufacturing facility in Ghaziabad operated by Deepak Kumar Panwar under Akshay Paints Industries. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar passed the direction on August 31, 2026, in a commercial IP dispute after an Additional Special Receiver was obstructed while executing an earlier search and injunction order.
Bombay High Court Restrains Sale Of Counterfeit 'CLEAR' Packaged Drinking Water
Case Title: Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs Sabran Enterprises & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.12425 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 11510 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)497
The Bombay High Court restrained a Karnataka-based business from using the “CLEAR/CLEAR AQUA IND” mark after holding its packaged drinking water products to be counterfeit. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar allowed Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd.'s interim application, noting that “AQUA IND” was printed in negligible font while prominence was given to “CLEAR” with identical bottle shapes, label marks, color schemes, and visual arrangements.
Nehle Pe Dehla Rights Row: Bombay High Court Awards ₹1.92 Crore To Ultra Distributors
Case Title: Ultra Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Dhariwal Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 26 OF 2007
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)495
The Bombay High Court declared Ultra Distributors Pvt. Ltd. to be the sole and exclusive rights holder for video, cable television, and video-on-demand rights to the 1976 Hindi film Nehle Pe Dehla. Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the 2005 agreement executed by Dhariwal Films was valid and binding, and awarded ₹1.92 crore in damages to Ultra due to the defendant's failure to deliver commercially usable Digibeta Master tapes.
Bombay High Court Rejects Baskin Robbins Licensee Graviss Foods' 'ICE CREAM ROCKS' Trademark Bid
Case Title: Graviss Foods Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 20 OF 2026 AND COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 10288 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)518
The Bombay High Court on 16 September dismissed petitions filed by Graviss Foods, the Indian licensee of Baskin Robbins, challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of its applications to register “ICE CREAM ROCKS”. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the phrase “ICE CREAM ROCKS” is too generic and descriptive to acquire distinctive character warranting trademark protection.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Pravin Kumar v. ITC Limited & Ors.
Case Number: TEMPAPO-IPD NO. 6 OF 2025 IA NO: GA-COM 2 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 226
The Calcutta High Court has upheld an interim injunction against the use of “IJM Gold Stag” for cigarettes, finding sufficient similarity with ITC Limited's “Gold Flake” marks and packaging to make out a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya delivered the judgment on September 18, 2026. The bench also dismissed ITC's cross-objection, holding that the injunction granted by the Single Judge already covered infringement of ITC's registered trademarks and trade dress.
Case Title: ITC Limited v. SMM Tobacoo Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: IP (COM) No.10 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 232
Justice Arindam Mukherjee refused to dispense with pre-suit mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act for ITC's proposed trademark suit against SMM Tobacco, holding that pursuing criminal remedies first diminished the claim of urgent interim relief.
Calcutta High Court Lifts Gag Order On YouTuber Arpit Mangal Over Emami Zandu Ashwagandha Video
Case Title: Arpit Mangal & Anr v. Emami Limited & Anr
Case Number: F.M.A. No. 1036 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 238
The Calcutta High Court set aside an ex-parte injunction restraining YouTuber Arpit Mangal from publishing videos evaluating Emami's “Zandu Ashwagandha Gold Plus”. A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De held that the YouTuber presented a bona fide defence of truth at the interim stage.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Delhi High Court Revives Patent Bid For Improved Process To Make Sugammadex
Case Title: Fresenius Kabi Ipsum SRL v. The Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 7/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 934
The Delhi High Court set aside the Patent Office's refusal of a patent application for an improved process to prepare sugammadex, a muscle relaxant reversal drug. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the applicant was denied a mandatory opportunity of hearing, noting that pre-grant opposition hearings cannot replace a separate hearing required before rejection.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Review Of Suppression Findings, Says Counsel Cannot Shift Duty To Junior
Case Title: Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 167/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 933
The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the counsel on record for Celagenex. The counsel sought to review findings that material documents were suppressed in a trademark suit over 'RewireX'. The court held that filing counsel cannot shift responsibility to juniors or clients for ensuring full disclosures.
Case Title: ASR Market Ventures Private Limited v. Fitship Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 93/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 928
The Delhi High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by ASR Market Ventures (the company behind FITPASS) against Fitship's registered 'FITFEAST' trademark. Justice Jyoti Singh held that ASR failed to establish goodwill in 'FITFEAST' as a standalone mark and refused to grant an interim injunction.
Delhi High Court Appoints Amicus Curiae In Janhvi Kapoor's Personality Rights Suit
Case Title: JANHVI KAPOOR v/s ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE AND ORS
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 868/2026
The Delhi High Court appointed Advocate Gautam Bhatia as an amicus curiae to assist the court in the personality rights suit filed by actor Janhvi Kapoor. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani made the appointment to address complex, overarching legal questions around broad personality right claims.
Case Title: Capital Foods Private Limited v. Patson Foods (India) Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 936/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 904
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained Patson Foods from selling its "Rasanand Schezwan Chutney". Justice Jyoti Singh noted that the defendant went back on a written undertaking to stop using Capital Foods' registered "Schezwan Chutney" mark, making out a prima facie case of trademark infringement.
Delhi High Court Restrains YouTube Loan Settlement Channels From Using IDFC First Bank's Marks
Case Title: IDFC First Bank Limited v. Settlement Guru & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 848/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 902
The Delhi High Court restrained individuals running YouTube channels, including “Settlement Guru” and others, from using IDFC First Bank's registered trademarks. The court observed they were allegedly utilizing fabricated bank letterheads and logos to dupe borrowers into defaults.
Delhi High Court Restrains Kollam Hotel From Using 'HILTON' And 'HOTEL HILTON INDIA' Marks
Case Title: Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited & Anr. v. M/S Hotel Hilton India
Case Number: CS(COMM) 913/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 901
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining a Kerala-based establishment from using the marks “HILTON” and “HOTEL HILTON INDIA”. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that Hilton Worldwide had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off.
Delhi High Court Protects Rajat Sharma's Personality Rights, Bars Trademark Misuse of INDIA TV
Case Title: Rajat Sharma & Anr. v. Tamara Doc & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1147/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 954
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained several individuals and YouTube channels from infringing journalist Rajat Sharma's personality and publicity rights and misusing INDIA TV's registered trademarks. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the decree on August 24, 2026, granting permanent injunctions and allowing the plaintiffs to seek declarations regarding well-known trademark status.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Restrain Xiaomi From Using 'Find Device' Feature In Patent Dispute
Case Title: Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. v. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 147/2025 & CM APPL. 60385/2025 CM APPL. 72055/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 952
The Delhi High Court refused to restrain Xiaomi Technology India from using its “Find Device” feature, holding that Conqueror Innovations failed to establish a prima facie case of patent infringement. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the Single Judge's decision, noting that Conqueror's nearly nine-year delay in approaching the court disentitled it to interim relief.
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 904/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 949
The Delhi High Court held that Beco's “War on What's Hidden” campaign against HUL's Vim and Surf Excel products prima facie fails the test of permissible comparative advertising. Justice A. J. Bhambhani granted HUL interim relief, observing that claims asserting LAS and BIT ingredients cause skin irritation alongside directions to "SWITCH TO BECO" exceeded permissible limits.
Delhi High Court Injuncts Beco Ad Claiming Surf Excel, Vim Cause Skin Irritation, Allergies
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 904/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 949
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Kwick Living (I) Private Limited (operating the cleaning brand Beco) from continuing its advertisement campaign alleging that HUL's Surf Excel and Vim cause skin irritation and allergies. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani orally injuncted the campaign after concluding nearly a month of hearings in HUL's disparagement suit.
Case Title: SALMAN KHAN V/S AMIT JANI & ORS.
Case Number: I.A. 12419/2025 I.A. 12420/2025 IN CS(COMM) - 986/2026
The producer of the proposed film Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy, inspired by actor Salman Khan's 1998 blackbuck poaching case, informed the Delhi High Court on September 10 that the film is not currently in a "releasable state" as its contents are yet to be certified by the Censor Board. The bench recorded the submission in a personality rights suit filed by Khan.
Case Title: PULKIT MANI V/S META PLATFORMS INC & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 982/2026
The Delhi High Court on September 9 orally observed that copyright strike disputes are increasingly taking precedence over personality rights cases. Justice Jyoti Singh made the observation while hearing a suit filed by stand-up comedian Pulkit Mani challenging copyright strikes against content on his Instagram page (@hunnywhoisfunny) and alleging extortion attempts.
Delhi High Court Blocks Websites Offering Fake MG Motor Dealerships, Orders ₹14.55 Lakh Lien
Case Title: JSW MG Motor India Private Limited & Anr. v. Anant Kumar Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 962/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 937
The Delhi High Court blocked three websites impersonating MG Motor and offering fraudulent car dealerships to the public. Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the operators from misusing MG's trademarks, directed domain registrars to suspend the websites within 36 hours, and ordered Indian Overseas Bank to mark a lien of ₹14.55 lakh on the fraudulent bank account.
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED V/S KWICK LIVING (I) PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 904/2026
The Delhi High Court reserved its verdict on HUL's application for an interim injunction against Kwick Living (Beco) over advertisements claiming Surf Excel and Vim cause skin allergies. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani recorded that judgment was reserved following detailed arguments on comparative disparagement.
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI Inc & Anr.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court issued notice on Asian News International's (ANI) appeal against the rejection of its interim injunction application against OpenAI Inc. in a copyright infringement suit. Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora sought OpenAI's response and listed the appeal for further hearing on December 8. ANI filed the suit alleging that ChatGPT was trained on its copyrighted news content without authorization.
Case Title: Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 989/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 962
The Delhi High Court ordered the blocking of four rogue websites accused of illegally streaming Formula 1, ATP Tour, and Saudi Pro League sporting events in India. Justice Jyoti Singh passed an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Sporta Technologies, owner of FanCode, holding that the platform possesses exclusive broadcasting rights for these events.
Delhi High Court Restrains Real Estate Websites Using SignatureGlobal Marks And Project Material
Case Title: SignatureGlobal (India) Limited v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 922/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 967
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained a group of operators from running lookalike websites copying real estate developer SignatureGlobal's registered trademarks, branding, and copyrighted project content. Justice Jyoti Singh directed domain registrars, including GoDaddy, Hostinger, Namecheap, and Wix, to immediately lock and suspend nine rogue websites impersonating SignatureGlobal's official portals.
Bombay Shaving Co. Takes Down Allegedly Disparaging Ad After Gillette Suit In Delhi High Court
Case Title: GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED V/S VISAGE LINES PERSONAL CARE PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1007/2026
Visage Lines Personal Care Private Limited, parent company of Bombay Shaving Company, agreed to take down a disputed advertisement featuring a mock courtroom setting after Gillette India filed a product disparagement suit in the Delhi High Court. Justice Jyoti Singh characterized the advertisement sequence as an "outright mockery" of the court. The court declined Gillette's request to immediately restrain a newly released separate advertisement without a formal challenge being brought before it.
Case Title: Amazon Seller Services Private Limited vs https//cinevood.love/ & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1002/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 970
The Delhi High Court restrained 11 piracy websites from hosting, streaming, or distributing Amazon's upcoming film VIBE online without authorization prior to its theatrical release. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the ex parte ad-interim dynamic injunction on September 15 in a suit instituted by Amazon Seller Services Private Limited.
Case Title: GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED V/S VISAGE LINES PERSONAL CARE PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1007/2026
Bombay Shaving Company on Wednesday agreed to take down an advertisement featuring a mock courtroom setting and a judge character after the Delhi High Court questioned the company over what it described as “outright mockery” of the court. Justice Jyoti Singh said, “I don't know what your client's definition of mockery is if this is not mocking the court,” after counsel for Bombay Shaving Company sought to defend the courtroom sequence.
Case Title: Basant Lal vs Shakti Hydraulic Engineers & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 190/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 971
The Delhi High Court cancelled the trademark "LNK", registered by Shakti Hydraulic Engineers for sanitary products, after holding it deceptively similar to Basant Lal's registered mark "L&K". Justice Jyoti Singh allowed Lal's petition and directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the "LNK" mark from the register within eight weeks.
Case Title: GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED V/S VISAGE LINES PERSONAL CARE PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1007/2026
The Delhi High Court indicated that it would pass an order against Visage Lines Personal Care Private Limited, the parent company of Bombay Shaving Company, if the company failed to satisfactorily revise an advertisement that Gillette India alleged disparages its products. Justice Jyoti Singh gave the company until the afternoon of 16 September to return with revised versions of the advertisement. The judge made clear that the company could either modify the advertisement or face an order from the Court.
Case Title: MEENAKSHI CHAUDHARY V/S JOHN DOE/ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1029/2026
The Delhi High Court ordered the removal of specified obscene online content in a personality rights suit filed by actor Meenakshi Chaudhary. The court left claims regarding commercial exploitation of her personality rights open, observing that blanket relief could not be granted without evidence of actual monetisation.
Delhi High Court Restrains Doora Express Services' Former General Manager From Using 'DURA' Mark
Case Title: Doora Express Services v. Dura Logistics India Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 983/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1020
Justice A.J. Bhambhani restrained a former General Manager and his company from using “DURA” for logistics and transportation services, holding that Doora Express Services made out a prima facie case of similarity to its registered “DOORA” trademarks.
Delhi High Court Finds 'Herbawish' Deceptively Similar To Herbalife, Temporarily Restrains Use
Case Title: Herbalife International, Inc. v. Ashish Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 997/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1015
Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using “Herbawish” and “Herbawish Nutrition” alongside a similar three-leaf logo and trade dress, observing that the common prefix "Herba" enhanced consumer deception.
Case Title: ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED V/S JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 475/2026
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani issued notice to JioStar India on a contempt plea filed by Zee Entertainment over alleged continued unauthorized use of Zee's copyrighted music library despite a May 2026 injunction.
Case Title: Gillette India Limited v. Visage Lines Personal Care Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1007/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1014
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani restrained Bombay Shaving Company from airing a revised advertisement in a product disparagement action, observing no perceptible difference in commercial impact between the revised ad and the original version the company had previously agreed to withdraw.
Case Title: Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt Ltd v. M/s Social Circle Through Its Proprietor
Case Number: CS(COMM) 985/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1012
Justice Vikas Mahajan granted an interim injunction on September 21 restraining a Dehradun restaurant from operating as “Social Circle”, holding the mark deceptively similar to Impresario's well-known “SOCIAL” brand.
Case Title: Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 985/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1011
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained anonymous operators from running a fraudulent franchise scheme soliciting ₹15 lakh by impersonating beauty platform Purplle, and directed Meta and WhatsApp to block the associated profiles and accounts.
Case Title: JITENDAR SINGH V/S JOHN DOE ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1052/2026
Justice A.J. Bhambhani declined to pass a blanket order protecting a content creator against future copyright strikes, holding that each strike's genuineness must be evaluated individually, while orally remarking that a dedicated "META court" may soon be needed given the surge in platform disputes.
Drishti IAS Founder Vikas Divyakirti Moves Delhi High Court Seeking Protection Of Personality Rights
Case Title: DR VIKAS DIVYAKIRTI V/S META PLATFORMS INC & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1015/2026
Drishti IAS founder Vikas Divyakirti filed a personality rights suit seeking protection against commercial exploitation and deepfakes; the matter was transferred to a coordinate IPD bench handling personality rights cases.
Delhi High Court Dismisses ITC Challenge To Philip Morris Heat-Not-Burn Cigarette Patent
Case Title: ITC Limited v. Philip Morris Products S.A. & Ors.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 24/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1008
Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed ITC's challenge to a patent held by Philip Morris for heat-not-burn tobacco technology used in devices like IQOS, upholding the patent for a "heated aerosol generating article".
Delhi High Court Grants Temporary Injunction Against Unauthorised Use Of Bentley Software
Case Title: Bentley Systems Inc and Anr. v. Ahmed Ibrahim Abdelsalam Ahmed Elshorbagy and Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 993/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1007
Justice A.J. Bhambhani granted an ad-interim injunction restraining a structural design firm from infringing copyright in Bentley Systems' engineering software suite, including RAM Concept, iTwin, and STAAD.
Case Title: FabIndia Limited v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe and Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 861/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1006
Justice A.J. Bhambhani clarified that a December 2023 interim order protecting FabIndia's trademarks applies explicitly to major social media platforms including Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, and X.
Case Title: MakeMyTrip India Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 41/2026 & CM 241/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1003
Justice Vikas Mahajan issued notice on a petition by MakeMyTrip India Limited seeking directions to the Trade Marks Registry to decide its well-known trademark application, which had remained unaddressed for over six years.
Case Title: P.J. SIKAND (ALSO KNOWN AS PARAMJEET SINGH) V/S GURUJI KA ASHRAM TRUST AND ORS.
Case Number: CM(M)-IPD - 51/2026
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed a petition seeking threshold rejection of a copyright and passing-off suit filed by Guruji Ka Ashram Trust over a Rajasthan structure allegedly replicating its Delhi Bade Mandir.
Actor Rakesh Bedi Moves Delhi High Court Seeking Protection Of Personality Rights
Case Title: RAKESH BEDI V/S JOHN DOE/ ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1049/2026
Actor Rakesh Bedi approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection against unauthorized commercial exploitation of his name, likeness, and persona.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Copyright Registration For 'Radhey Radhey Barsane Wali Radhey'
Case Title: Vipul Music Company Proprietorship Firm of Ms. Santosh Goswami v. Registrar of Copyright & Anr.
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 21/2025 & I.A. 9511/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 997
Justice Jyoti Singh set aside a 2020 copyright registration for the sound recording “Radhey Radhey Barsane Wali Radhey”, remanding the matter to the Copyright Office because the registration had been granted without prior notice to rival claimant Vipul Music Company.
Delhi High Court Restrains Gold Flake Counterfeiters After Police Seize 11.28 Lakh Cigarettes
Case Title: ITC Limited v. Ravi Kishor & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1019/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 998
Justice Jyoti Singh granted ITC Limited an ad-interim injunction against an illegal counterfeiting unit manufacturing fake "Gold Flake" cigarettes inside a premise disguised as a cattle shed following police seizures worth ₹1.44 crore.
Delhi High Court Bars Anonymous Parties From Using JCB Branding Over Alleged False Arrest Claims
Case Title: JCB India Limited & Ors. vs John Doe(s) & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 999/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 992
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained parties associated with a former dealer from using JCB branding and directed Google and Meta to take down videos falsely claiming JCB officials had been arrested.
Delhi High Court Restrains Clothing Business From Using 'Men's Darzi' Mark
Case Title: Darzi (India) LLP & Anr. v. Mr. Akhil Jain
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1027/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1044
The Delhi High Court restrained a clothing business from using the "Men's Darzi" mark, its accompanying logo, or any identical or deceptively similar mark in relation to clothing and apparel. Justice A. J. Bhambhani passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction after finding that Darzi (India) LLP had made out a prima-facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour.
Case Title: Punam Chand Kedia v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 44/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1041
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by trademark owner Punam Chand Kedia seeking revival of his “HMP” mark after the Trade Marks Registry rejected his renewal application on the ground of expiration. Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that in the absence of reliable evidence showing that mandatory O-3 notices were dispatched prior to expiration, the Registry could not deny renewal.
Case Title: Global Health Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Denish P Kalariya & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1005/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1040
The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Global Health Limited, operator of Medanta hospitals, in its trademark infringement suit against a seller marketing an ayurvedic weight management medicine as “Medanta Capsule”. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav decreed the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC after the sole contesting defendant failed to file a written statement or oppose the relief sought.
Case Title: JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED V/S HTTPS//CRICHD.CH/ & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1074/2026
The Delhi High Court granted JioStar a temporary dynamic injunction against rogue websites illegally streaming its coverage of the India-West Indies cricket series. Justice A.J. Bhambhani permitted JioStar to have newly discovered pirate sites carrying identical content blocked directly through ISPs without approaching the court afresh each time.
Case Title: Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. M/s Pooja Lubricant
Case Number: CS(COMM) 940/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1033
The Delhi High Court restrained a Pune-based lubricant seller from manufacturing or selling engine oil, gear oil, and other lubricants under the marks "Max Volvo" and "Max Volwo". Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the ad-interim injunction, holding that these marks infringed Swedish auto major Volvo's registered trademarks.
Case Title: DR VIKAS DIVYAKIRTI V/S META PLATFORMS INC & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1015/2026
The Delhi High Court ordered the takedown of fake social media profiles, deepfake endorsements, and unauthorised lecture clips misusing Drishti IAS founder Vikas Divya Kirti's identity. Expressing grave concern over AI deepfakes, Justice A.J. Bhambhani directed intermediaries to take down infringing content while leaving open arguments on re-captioned lecture clips.
Delhi High Court Modifies Google, Meta Takedown Directions In Aniruddha Bapu Personality Rights Case
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) 1026
The Delhi High Court modified its earlier directions to Google, Meta, and X regarding spiritual leader Dr. Aniruddha Joshi, limiting mandatory takedowns of newly identified content to material that is "identical" to content previously covered. For content that is merely "similar," the court directed platforms to evaluate takedowns under their respective content policies.
Delhi High Court Restrains 70 Businesses From Using Agarwal Packers & Movers Trademark
Case Title: Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd & Anr. v. Agarwal Packers and Movers Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1021/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1025
The Delhi High Court restrained 70 defendants from using the “AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS” trademark or deceptively similar variants, including across Google Search and Google Business Profile listings. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that third-party listings using the name created likelihood of consumer confusion in packing and relocation services.
Case Title: Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v. Melody Healthcare Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1054/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1024
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained Melody Healthcare Private Limited from manufacturing, stockpiling, importing, selling, or exporting pharmaceutical drug products containing Ruxolitinib. Justice Vikas Mahajan held that Incyte Holdings made out a prima facie case of patent infringement regarding its cancer treatment drug.
Case Title: VIVEK ANAND OBEROI v/s COLLECTOR BAZAR & ORS. and Connected Matters
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 105/2026 and Connected Matters
The Delhi High Court decided to club and hear the personality rights suits filed by actors Vivek Oberoi, Janhvi Kapoor, and Aaradhya Bachchan together as a batch. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani noted that these matters raise recurring questions on the scope and legal limits of personality rights protections.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case Title: Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Kriplani v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 21846 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 124
The Gujarat High Court quashed a copyright infringement FIR against a shopkeeper accused of selling counterfeit Apple accessories. Justice P. M. Raval held that the dispute essentially concerned trademark falsification rather than copyright infringement, noting that neither the FIR nor the seizure memo identified any specific artistic or literary work copied from Apple.
Case Title: Bhupatbhai Manjibhai Sindhav & Anr. vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 21985 of 2014
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 139
The Gujarat High Court quashed a criminal copyright FIR against cable operators accused of transmitting Zee and Turner pay channels beyond licensed boundaries. Justice P. M. Raval held that transmitting cable signals across administrative boundaries constitutes a regulatory or commercial breach rather than criminal copyright piracy under the Copyright Act, 1957.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Trademark Suits Cannot Be Tried By Courts Below District Court: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Cutis International Cosmetics Clinic Ltd & Ors. v. Cutis Institute of Medicine and Surgery Private Limited
Case Number: CRP NO. 284 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 180
The Kerala High Court held that a trademark infringement suit cannot be tried by a court below the District Court, regardless of whether its pecuniary valuation falls within the jurisdiction of a Munsiff Court. Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. held that under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act read with Section 15 of the CPC, the District Court is the lowest grade competent court to try a trademark suit.
Case Title: Kandamkulathi Ayurveda Vaidyasala (P) Ltd. vs Regional Director, Southern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 31973 OF 2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 182
The Kerala High Court quashed two Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) orders directing companies run by Kandamkulathy Francis Paul to change their corporate names under Section 16(1)(b) of the Companies Act. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that Kandamkulathy Vaidyasala Pvt. Ltd. did not itself hold the registered "Kandamkulathy" trademark and therefore could not maintain rectification applications under Section 16(1)(b).
Case Title: In Re Exorbitant Pricing of Life Saving Patented Medicines
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 18999 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 186
The Kerala High Court held that Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970 permits the Central Government to authorize the manufacture and non-commercial sale of patented medicines to needy patients when prices charged by patent holders are exorbitant. Justice Harisankar V. Menon held that Section 100 imposes no restriction on who the purchaser could be.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Case Title: M/s. Screen Scene Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr. S. Venkatesh
Case Number: A.No.3144 & 3145 of 2026 & O.A.Nos.626 & 627 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 251
The Madras High Court permitted Screen Scene Media to proceed with the theatrical release of the Tamil film Karathey Babu starring Jayam Ravi. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu modified a previous interim injunction that had restrained the producer from releasing or distributing the film.
Case Title: Eros Technologies Digital FZE v. Ayngaran International Media Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA No. 454 of 2026 and A No. 2680 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 140 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 253
The Madras High Court ruled that a copyright infringement dispute can be resolved through arbitration when the parties have agreed to that mode of dispute resolution. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the statutory civil remedies available under the Copyright Act do not bar arbitration.
Madras High Court Rejects Vinbros Plea To Sue Rivals Over 'Blue Grape' Trademark
Case Title: M/s Vinbros and Co. v. M/s Chamundi Winery and Distillery & Anr.
Case Number: A No. 2575 of 2026 in C.S(Comm.Div.) 19644 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 249
The Madras High Court rejected liquor manufacturer Vinbros' plea to sue two rival entities in Chennai. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that the mere registration situs of the trademark being in Chennai does not give rise to a cause of action if no part of the infringement occurred there.
Madras High Court Rejects YouTube's Summary Dismissal Plea In Sri Eshwar College Disparagement Case
Case Title: Youtube (Google LLC) v. Sri Eshwar College of Engineering
Case Number: A No. 191 of 2026 IN C.S(COMM DIV) No. 253 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 250
The Madras High Court declined YouTube's application seeking threshold dismissal of a disparagement suit. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu ruled that the issue of non-joinder of the actual video creators could not be decided at the summary stage and directed the matter to proceed to trial.
Madras High Court Refuses Preethi Hospitals Permission To Sue Over 'S. Preethi' College Name
Case Title: Blossom Global Trust & Anr. v. Augustine Educational and Charitable Trust
Case Number: A. No. 3544 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 260
The Madras High Court refused leave to Madurai-based Preethi Hospitals Private Limited to sue an educational trust in Sivagangai over its use of the name “S. Preethi” for a group of colleges. Justice A. D. Maria Clete held that no part of the cause of action arose within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court in Chennai.
Case Title: Vikas Mandoth vs Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: A Nos. 446 & 447 of 2026 in OA Nos. 1120 & 1121 of 2025 in C.S.(COMM.DIV.)No.307 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 256
The Madras High Court refused to vacate an injunction restraining Chennai trader Vikas Mandoth from using the “GLOBE” mark on padlocks and hardware goods. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company was the prior user with established market goodwill, observing that Mandoth's mark was phonetically and visually deceptively similar.
Case Title: GRB Dairy Foods Private Limited v. Sri Lakshmi Industries
Case Number: A No. 4013 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 270
The Madras High Court granted GRB Dairy Foods leave to file a suit against Sri Lakshmi Industries (producers of "NG Ghee") over an Instagram reel allegedly making false and disparaging statements about "GRB" brand ghee. Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi passed the order on September 17 in a suit brought to protect the plaintiff's commercial goodwill.
Case Title: M/s. Shanti Telefilms vs M/s. Amma Creations
Case Number: OA No. 372 of 2026 and Arb Appln.Nos.944 & 945 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 265
The Madras High Court disposed of three applications seeking to restrain the release of the Tamil film Agni Siragugal after producer Amma Creations undertook not to release or commercially exploit the film without clearing claimed dues. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu recorded the undertaking on September 15 and ordered strict compliance pending disposal of arbitral proceedings.
Case Title: Ashique Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Koyenco Soaps and Detergents Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: CS No. 687 of 2017 and (T)OP(TM) No. 340 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 272
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed an infringement suit filed by Ashique Exports against Koyenco Soaps over its "Dr. Bright" washing soap, holding that its overall packaging and trade dress were not deceptively similar to "Dr. WASH".
Case Title: RPG Enterprises Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks & Ors.
Case Number: (T)OP(TM) No. 482 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 281
The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark rectification petition filed by RPG Enterprises seeking cancellation of the mark "RPG Marble Pvt. Ltd.". Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the petitioner sat on its rights for nearly 15 years after learning of the mark and was barred by the doctrine of acquiescence.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Case Title: Sanjay Bhatt v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1728/2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 44
The Rajasthan High Court held that prior copyright registration is not mandatory for initiating criminal proceedings alleging copyright infringement. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, in an order dated August 17, 2026, refused to quash a 2012 criminal case concerning alleged infringement of copyright and trademark rights over “Dandi Salt” and “Dandi Namak”.
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Sai Silks (Kalamandir) Limited vs. SKP B Gopinath Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.441 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 69
The Telangana High Court observed that in the social media era, the traditional test of assessing trademark confusion through the lens of a “person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection” should evolve toward that of a “perceptive consumer with informed associations”. The observation came during a silk saree trademark dispute over the marks “Kancheepuram Vara Mahalakshmi Silks” and “Vara Mahalakshmi”.
Case Title: M/s. Vaidehi Agro Oils Private Limited and another v. M/s. Sri Tulasi Industries & Anr.
Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.161 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 75
The Telangana High Court upheld a temporary injunction restraining Vaidehi Agro Oils from using the mark "Namaskar Tasty Nutts" for edible oil. The court held that the mark and packaging were deceptively similar to Sri Tulasi Industries' "Tasty Gold" brand and were likely to confuse semi-literate consumers.
COMMERCIAL COURT
Bengaluru Court Orders Instagram To Restore Account Suspended Over IPL-Related Posts
Case Title: QEscapades Pvt. Ltd. v. Instagram Inc. & Anr.
Case Number: ORIGINAL SUIT No.5023/2026
A Bengaluru civil court directed the restoration of an Instagram account suspended over alleged trademark infringement relating to the IPL. The court held that permanent suspension was wholly disproportionate to the nature of the posts.
COPYRIGHT OFFICE
Copyright Office Says AI System DABUS Can't Be Copyright 'Author' Under Indian Law
Case Number: 9356/2022-CO/A
The Indian Copyright Office rejected an application seeking copyright registration for an artwork listing DABUS, an AI system, as its author. Registrar of Copyrights Prof. (Dr.) Unnat P. Pandit held that an AI system cannot be recognized as an "author" under the Copyright Act, 1957.