HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Physicswallah Limited v. Nikhil Kumar Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 70/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 104
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of PhysicsWallah Limited, restraining former employee and rival coaching operator Nikhil Kumar Singh from using deceptively similar trademarks and from publishing disparaging online content. A single-judge of Justice Jyoti Singh held that the videos and social media posts circulated by Singh are prima facie defamatory, disparaging, and abusive and are intended to tarnish PhysicsWallah's goodwill and reputation. Finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and disparagement, the Court observed, “Law in the trademark regime grants protection from infringement to a registered proprietor of the mark and also shields from erosion of goodwill and reputation, which is a common law right associated with the mark. Disparagement through misleading and/or abusive statements, constitutes an unlawful interference in other party's commercial goodwill and is actionable in law.”
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Over Mold-Tek's Tamper-Evident Packaging Patents
Case Title: Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. v Mold-Tek Packaging Limited
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 235/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 102
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday upheld an interim injunction against Neway Industries over alleged infringement of Mold-Tek Packaging Limited's tamper-evident packaging patents and revived interim relief in respect of a second patent. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment delivered on January 28, 2026, dismissed Neway's appeal challenging the grant of injunction over Mold-Tek's patent IN'417, while allowing Mold-Tek's appeal against the vacation of an ad-interim injunction protecting its patent IN'724. The dispute concerns two patents registered in favour of Mold-Tek Packaging Limited - patent IN'417 titled “Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail closure System” and patent IN'724 titled “A Tamper Proof Lid Having Spout for Containers and Process for Its Manufacture.”
Case Title: Jiostar India Private Limited v. Crichdbest.com & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 81/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 99
The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining several rogue websites from illegally streaming and disseminating ongoing 'ICC Under-19 Men's Cricket World Cup 2026' and upcoming 'ICC Men's T20 Cricket World Cup 2026', over which JioStar India Private Limited holds exclusive broadcast and digital rights. The order was passed by Justice Jyoti Singh on January 29, 2026, while hearing an interim injunction application in a suit filed by JioStar seeking protection of its broadcast reproduction rights in relation to the cricket events. Noting the need for immediate relief as the tournaments were ongoing and imminent, the Court observed that, “The issue of rogue websites engaged in piracy of copyrighted content is posing a recurring threat and there is no gainsaying that piracy must be curbed and needs to be dealt with a heavy hand.”
Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Sale Of Products Using 'Happi Planet' Mark And Similar Packaging
Case Title: Happi Planet Eco Products P Ltd v. Ravi Malani Trading as Febway India & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 79/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 98
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Happi Planet, a home and personal care brand, restraining multiple entities from selling products bearing the “Happi Planet” mark and identical packaging and trade dress. By an order dated January 28, 2026, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that Happi Planet had made out a strong prima facie warranting interim protection. Finding the rival products to be deceptively similar, the Court observed that, “Having compared the products, this Court is of the opinion that not only do the infringing products contain the trademark “Happi Planet” of the plaintiff but also are packaged in near identical or deceptively similar packaging and trade dress. The artistic work, the trade dress and packaging is so identical that it took a while for this Court to distinguish between the two. The Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has a prima facie strong case.”
Delhi High Court Orders Refex Hotels to Change Name Over Similarity With Refex Industries
Case Title: Refex Industries Limited v. Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry Of Corporate Affairs & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 27/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 96
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed Refex Hotels Private Limited to change its corporate name, holding that the use of the word “REFEX” is undesirably similar to the name and registered trademark of Refex Industries Limited, a company incorporated much earlier. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in a judgment delivered on January 28, 2026, set aside a 2018 order of the Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which had declined to direct a name change on the ground that the two companies operated in different business sectors. Disagreeing with the Regional Director's reasoning, the Court observed that “the dissimilarity in the businesses of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was not a relevant criterion for the Regional Director to consider for declining to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon him under Section 16 of the Act of 2013.”
Delhi High Court Makes Interim Ban Permanent Against 24 Websites Streaming ICC Champions Trophy 2025
Case Title: Star India Private Limited v. 1xbetcom & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 175/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 92
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained 24 rogue websites from unauthorizedly streaming, disseminating, or communicating matches of the ICC Champions Trophy 2025, holding that the platforms infringed Star India Private Limited's exclusive broadcasting and reproduction rights. In a judgment dated January 15, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh passed a decree of permanent injunction, noting that none of the identified websites appeared before the Court or filed written statements despite being duly served with summons.
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Barring Canva's 'Present and Record' Feature In India
Case Title: Canva Pty Ltd & Ors v. RxPrism Health Systems Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 211/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 91
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday upheld an interim injunction barring Canva from offering its “Present and Record” feature in India. Canva operates a widely used online graphic design and content creation platform. The court rejected the platform's appeal against the Single Judge's July 18, 2023, order passed in favour of RxPrism Health Systems Private Limited A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla pronounced the judgment on January 28, 2026, dismissing Canva's appeal and holding that no case was made out for appellate interference with the interim relief granted by the Single Judge
Case Title: Bajaj Finance Limited v. Manish Singh @ Settlement Guru & Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 63/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 89
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Bajaj Finance. It has restrained the operators of “SettlementGuru” from using the company's name and trademarks and from pushing content that allegedly encourages loan defaults. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on January 22, 2026, while hearing an interim injunction application filed by Bajaj Finance, a registered non-banking financial company, which alleged large-scale misuse of its brand across social media platforms and websites.
Delhi High Court Says Rohini Commercial Court Has Jurisdiction In 'AMRAPALI' Trademark Dispute
Case Title: Raju Kumar v. Vinod Sah
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 260/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 86
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Commercial Court at Rohini, which had prima facie held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear a trademark dispute relating to the spice brand “AMRAPALI” and, while doing so, declined to grant interim relief against the rival mark “QUEEN AAMRAPALI.” A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment delivered on January 13, 2026, ruled that the Commercial Court had erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. The Bench remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the plea seeking interim relief.
Delhi High Court Bars “EMSURE” Pharma Mark For Infringing Emcure Trademark
Case Title: Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Emsure Pharmaceutical Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 524/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 84
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained Emsure Pharmaceutical Private Limited from using the mark “EMSURE” or any other deceptively similar mark, holding that it infringes the trademark “EMCURE” owned by Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited. Justice Jyoti Singh delivered the judgment on January 13, 2026, while deciding a trademark infringement and passing-off suit filed by Emcure Pharmaceuticals. As Emsure Pharmaceutical failed to appear before the Court despite service of summons, the matter proceeded ex-parte.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Cancel 'REKIN-SP' Trademark Registration In Rexcin Pharma Plea
Case Title: Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v. Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 111/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 83
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to cancel the registration of the pharmaceutical trademark 'REKIN-SP,' dismissing a rectification plea filed by rival company Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, which claimed rights over the mark 'REXCIN.' The Court also declined to restrain the use of the 'REKIN-SP' mark at the interim stage in the infringement suit. In a judgment dated January 27, 2026, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Rexcin Pharmaceuticals had failed to establish any use of 'REXCIN' as a trademark for pharmaceutical products and therefore, could not seek removal of the 'REKIN-SP' mark.
Delhi High Court Bars Rival Manufacturer From Using 'NOVA' Name on Ghee, Dairy Products
Case Title: Sterling Agro Industries Ltd v. Giriraj Gupta
Case Number: CS(COMM) 58/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 80
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained a manufacturer from making, selling, or advertising ghee and other dairy products under the “NOVA” name, after finding that the branding was likely to infringe Sterling Agro's trademark. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on January 21, 2026, while hearing an interim injunction application in a suit filed by Sterling Agro Industries, a Delhi-based dairy products company that markets its products under the “NOVA” trademark.
Delhi High Court Grants Injunction Against Imposters Misusing 'Delhivery' Trademark
Case Title: Delhivery Limited v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 61/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 79
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained several known and unknown persons from misusing the name and brand of Delhivery, a logistics and supply chain company, to run fake franchise and delivery service scams. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order on January 22, 2026, while hearing an interim injunction application in a suit filed by Delhivery after it discovered that fraudsters were impersonating the company to cheat members of the public.
Case Title: Mr Akira Desai Alias Akira Nandan v. Sambhawaami Studios LLP & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 68/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 76
The Delhi High Court on Friday ordered the immediate takedown of an AI-generated film and related deepfake content depicting Akira Nandan alias Akira Desai, son of Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, holding, prima facie, that the AI-generated use of his name, image, likeness and voice violated his personality and privacy rights The Court had earlier also protected Pawan Kalyan's personality rights in an interim order passed on December 22, 2025.
Delhi High Court Revives ITC's Challenge To Philip Morris's Non-Tobacco Nicotine Patent
Case Title: ITC Limited v. The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 44/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 74
The Delhi High Court has revived ITC Limited's challenge to a Philip Morris patent covering a non-tobacco nicotine product after setting aside a 2024 Patent Office order that had rejected ITC's opposition. In a judgment dated January 12, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh allowed an appeal filed by ITC, holding that the impugned order suffered from a lack of independent application of mind and was largely a verbatim reproduction of the patentee's submissions and the recommendations of the Opposition Board. The Court remanded the matter to the Patent Office for reconsideration.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Comforter System Patent, Orders Fresh Review
Case Title: Jesal Vimal Jetha v. Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 233/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 72
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Patent Office order rejecting a patent application filed by Jesal Vimal Jetha for a therapeutic comforter system, holding that the refusal suffered from procedural infirmities and violation of principles of natural justice for non-consideration of applicant's responses to subsequent objections raised by Patent Office. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela delivered the judgment on January 23, 2026, while allowing an appeal against a 2020 order by which the Patent Office had refused application on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act.
Delhi High Court Awards ₹81 Lakh to Merck, Sun Pharma In Diabetes Drug Patent Infringement Case
Case Title: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. & Anr. v. Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1075/2018
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 70
The Delhi High Court on Friday awarded over Rs 81 lakh in damages and costs to US-based pharmaceutical company Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and its Indian licensee, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., in a patent infringement suit concerning the anti-diabetic drug Sitagliptin and its pharmaceutical combinations. In a judgment dated January 23, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela decreed the suit in favour of the pharmaceutical companies, holding that unauthorized manufacture and export of the patented drug stood established on the basis of unchallenged evidence. The Court also noted that the infringing conduct continued even after injunctive relief had been granted.
Case Title: Loreal India Private Limited v. Shanaz Bariz
Case Number: CS(COMM) 51/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 69
The Delhi High Court has restrained a social media content creator from circulating an allegedly AI-generated video or any other posts targeting Maybelline products, holding that the unsubstantiated claims could irreparably damage L'Oréal India's brand and consumer trust. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order on January 20, 2026, observing that the continued circulation of the disputed content would cause irreparable harm to the goodwill and reputation of L'Oréal India Private Limited and its globally recognised brands.
Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Ban on Jaipur Restaurant Chain's Use Of 'DASAPRAKASH' Trademark
Case Title: Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt Ltd v. Mysore Dasaprakash
Case Number: FAO(OS)(IPD) 1/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 67
The Delhi High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining a Jaipur-based company, Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Private Limited, from using the “DASAPRAKASH” trademark. The restraint covers ice creams, restaurants, and allied goods and services. The court held that the continued use of the mark was prima facie unauthorized and amounted to trademark infringement. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla delivered the judgment on January 21, 2026. The bench dismissed a batch of appeals in a long-running trademark dispute that began before the Madras High Court in 2008.
Case Title: Khadi And Village Industries Commission v. Enduring Body Care LLP & Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 22/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 65
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained an Ahmedabad-based cosmetic goods manufacturer, Enduring Body Care LLP, and its associated entities from using the mark “KHADI VEDA” or any other deceptively similar variant of “KHADI” for any goods or services. The Court held that the use of the disputed mark prima facie infringed the registered and well-known 'KHADI' trademarks of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC). Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order on January 13, 2026, observing that the continued use of the disputed mark would lead to consumer confusion and cause irreparable harm to KVIC.
Case Title: Vishal Choudhary v. SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 64/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 63
The Delhi High Court has refused to lift an interim injunction in a patent dispute over mobile brick-making machines, holding that while the rival machines are not identical, they appear to share the core patented concept of making and laying bricks as the machine moves. A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav pronounced the judgment on January 16, 2026, dismissing an appeal filed by Choudhary against a 2024 interim order passed in favour of SNPC, a Haryana-based manufacturer alleging infringement of its mobile brick-making machine patents.
Case Title: Twin Brothers v. Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 57/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned Flipkart on whether its “more sellers” or latching-on feature can be considered legitimate when, in the facts of the case, it is alleged to enable the sale of counterfeit goods linked to a genuine product listing. Justice Jyoti Singh raised the issue while hearing a suit filed by a seller alleging that counterfeit sellers had latched on to its product listing as “more sellers” and offered non-genuine goods at lower prices, thereby misleading consumers.
Delhi High Court Lifts Injunction On BONERICH In Dispute With Pharma Mark BONRICH
Case Title: Kedar Nath Mishra v. Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 159/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 58
The Delhi High Court has set aside an interim injunction granted in favour of Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a Bengaluru-based pharmaceutical company using the mark “BONRICH,” which had restrained Kedar Nath Mishra, the proprietor of the “BONERICH” mark, from using that mark for competing pharmaceutical products. In a judgment dated January 13, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla allowed the appeals filed by Mishra against the order of the Commercial Court at Saket, ruling that a claim of passing off cannot be sustained merely on the basis of prior use of the “BONRICH” mark unless goodwill and reputation in the mark are clearly established.
Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection of Japanese Firm's Patent Bid For Worm-Based Cancer Detection
Case Title: Hirotsu Bio Science Inc v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 45/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 57
The Delhi High Court has upheld the rejection of a patent application for a cancer detection technique that relies on the smell responses of worms, holding that it is a non-patentable diagnostic method under Indian law. In a judgment delivered on January 17, 2026, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the appeal filed by Hirotsu Bio Science Inc., holding that the company's cancer detection method amounts to a diagnostic process barred from patent protection under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.
'A To Z' Is Generic For Multivitamins, Cannot Be Monopolised: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Alkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare And Research Pvt Ltd
Case Number: CS(COMM) 84/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 53
Holding that “A TO Z” is generic and descriptive for nutraceutical products, the Delhi High Court has lifted an interim injunction against Prevego Healthcare. The Court ruled that Alkem Laboratories cannot claim exclusive rights over the letters “A” and “Z” in relation to multivitamin supplements. In a judgment delivered on January 17, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia allowed Prevego's application seeking vacation of the injunction and dismissed Alkem's plea for interim relief in a suit alleging trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Case Title: Indospirit Beverages Private Limited v. Ravi Mohan Studios Private Limited
Case No.: CS(COMM) - 1104/2025
The Delhi High Court on Thursday referred a trademark infringement dispute between Indospirit Beverages Private Limited and actor Ravi Mohan's production house over the use of the title “BRO CODE” for an upcoming Tamil film to mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on January 15, 2026, while hearing the matter arising from Indospirit's suit alleging infringement and passing off of its “BROCODE” trademark through the film's title.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited v. Pass Code Hospitality P Ltd & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 267/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 43
The Delhi High Court has directed the continuation of an ad-hoc licence fee arrangement in a copyright infringement suit filed by copyright society Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) against Pass Code Hospitality Private Limited, a Delhi-based company that owns and operates various well-known high-profile pubs and bars. The order was passed by Justice Tejas Karia on January 9, 2026, while considering applications relating to continuation of interim licence fee deposits and a plea seeking refund of amounts already paid by the hospitality company for playing sound recordings at its outlets. The Court held that the interim arrangement should remain in force until pending applications in the matter are finally decided.
Case Title: Bhole Nath Foods Ltd v. Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt Ltd
Case Number.: FAO (COMM) 79/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 40
The Delhi High Court has set aside an interim injunction restraining Bhole Nath Foods Ltd., a Delhi-based rice manufacturer, from using the “CHEETAL” word and device marks, holding that no prima facie case of trademark infringement or passing off was made out in favour of Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt. Ltd., the Chennai-based owner of the “DOUBLE DEER” mark for rice products. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, by a judgment dated January 9, 2026, allowed an appeal filed by Bhole Nath Foods Ltd. against an order of the Commercial Court at Tis Hazari, which had granted interim protection to Kirorimal Kashiram pending disposal of its trademark infringement suit.
Delhi High Court Restrains “Charcha Aaj Ki” From Using Deceptively Similar Aaj Tak Device Mark
Case Title: Living Media India Limited And Anr v. Charcha Aaj Ki
Case Number: CS(COMM) 15/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 42
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Living Media India Limited, the company behind the Hindi news channel AAJ TAK. The Court restrained a digital news platform operating under the name “Charcha Aaj Ki” from using a device mark and colour combination found to be deceptively similar to the “AAJ TAK” trademark. In an order dated January 9, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh held that Living Media had made out a prima facie case. The court directed that the disputed mark, to the extent it resembles the “AAJ TAK” mark, shall not be used until the next date of hearing.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Unauthorized Images of YouTuber Bhuvan Bam
Case Title: Bhuvan Bam & Anr. v. Inkwynk & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) - 23/2026
Bhuvan Bam, a popular YouTube content creator and web-series actor, approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights and restraint against the unauthorized use of his images by various unknown individuals and entities. Justice Jyoti Singh, while hearing the matter on January 13, 2026, directed the takedown of the unauthorized images but declined to record any prima facie finding on the issue of personality rights at this stage.
Case Title: Ashish Sharma v. M/S Maruti International & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 4/2026
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday recorded an undertaking by the makers of Mastiii 4 to remove a disputed scene from its OTT and satellite releases following a copyright suit by comedian and content creator Ashish Sharma. The undertaking was given before a single-judge bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela during the hearing of an interim injunction application in Sharma's copyright infringement suit, in which he has accused the filmmakers of lifting a scene from his Instagram skit titled “Shaq Karne Ka Nateeja” without authorization.
Delhi High Court Rejects Colgate Plea To Amend Suit Against Dabur Over Fluoride Ads
Case Title: Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr v. Dabur India Ltd.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 567/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 38
The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to allow Colgate-Palmolive to amend its 2019 plaint to specifically challenge Dabur's later newspaper advertisements, holding that fresh versions of an advertising campaign do not warrant repeated amendments when the issue is already pleaded. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in an order dated January 12, 2026, clarified that Colgate's 2019 plaint contains detailed allegations accusing Dabur of spreading misleading information and disparaging fluoride as an ingredient in toothpaste. Therefore, the Court held that there was no legal requirement to amend the plaint each time a new version of the advertisement was released.
Delhi High Court Lifts Injunction, Allows Zydus To Manufacture And Market Lifesaving Cancer Drug
Case Title: Zydus Lifesciences Limited v. E.R. Squibb And Sons, LLC & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 120/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 37
The Delhi High Court on Monday cleared Zydus Lifesciences Limited to manufacture and market its cancer drug ZRC 3276. The court set aside an injunction that had barred the drug's launch over alleged patent infringement of a medicine owned by US-based pharmaceutical major E.R. Squibb. A Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla modified an earlier order passed by a single judge. The Bench held that Zydus could not be restrained from launching a life-saving anti-cancer drug in the absence of clear product-to-claim mapping showing patent infringement, especially in light of paramount public interest.
Case Title: Gautami Kawale & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(OS)-33/2026
Digital content creators Gautami Kawale and Abhyudaya Mohan, who run the popular YouTube channel Slayy Point, have moved the Delhi High Court seeking urgent protection against the alleged creation and circulation of AI-generated, morphed and pornographic deepfake content falsely portraying them. The matter is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday before Justice Vikas Mahajan. In their plea, the creators said they are widely recognised public figures with significant goodwill and an online following, noting that their YouTube channel has more than 10 million subscribers. They asserted that their personality and privacy rights are protected under the Constitution, as well as under statutory and common law.
Case Title: Mayank Jain, Proprietor Of Mahaveer Udyog v. M/S Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 412/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 35
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to an agricultural equipment maker that sought to stop a rival from using the word “Tiger” as part of its brand name for farm implements. In a judgment delivered on January 9, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court held that the words “Tiger” and “Brand” are common to the trade and that no case of deceptive similarity was made out at the interim stage.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trade Marks Registry Order Refusing Mankind Pharma's PETKIND Trademark
Case Title: Mankind Pharma Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 13/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 34
The Delhi High Court has overturned an order of the Trade Marks Registry refusing registration of Mankind Pharma Limited's trademark “PETKIND” for animal and agricultural products. The relief was earlier denied on the ground of similarity with an earlier “PETKIND” mark filed by Petkind Pet Products Inc. Justice Tejas Karia, by a judgment dated January 9, 2026, allowed the appeal filed by Mankind Pharma, holding that the refusal of the trademark was unjustified in view of the company's long-standing use and reputation associated with its “KIND” family of marks.
Delhi High Court Declines To Cancel 'Patanjali Gonyle' Trademark On Plea By Holy Cow Foundation
Case Title: Holy Cow Foundation v. Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas (Trust) & Ors.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 85/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 31
The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to cancel the trademark registration of “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner,” holding that the mark lawfully belongs to Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas and does not infringe the rights claimed by Holy Cow Foundation. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia, in a judgment delivered on January 9, 2026, dismissed a trademark rectification plea filed by Holy Cow Foundation, which also sells a cow-urine-based cleaner product under the same name, seeking removal of Patanjali's “Gonyle” mark over claims of deceptive similarity.
Case Title: Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S The Shake Social Through Its Proprietor
Case Number: CS(COMM) 121/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 29
The Delhi High Court has declared Impresario Entertainment's “SOCIAL” mark a well-known trademark in India and barred a Gujarat-based café from using the name “The Shake Social.” Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on January 9, 2026, in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit against a café operating in Valsad and Navsari, Gujarat. Granting permanent injunctive relief in favour of Impresario, the Court observed, “A clear case of infringement of the Plaintiff's Marks is made out. The Defendant has taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff's Marks and has also deceived the unwary consumers into believing their association with the Plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the Impugned without any plausible explanation.”
Delhi High Court Rejects Former Cineyug Employee's Claim Over 'IPL Awards' Copyright, Moral Rights
Case Title: Gaurav Garg v. Aly Morani & Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 200/2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 30
The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a long-running copyright dispute over the “IPL Awards”, holding that Gaurav Garg, a former employee of Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd., cannot claim authorship or moral rights over the event's concept and presentations. The court ruled that the copyright vested in the company, not in Garg. A single-judge bench of Justice Tejas Karia delivered made the ruling while deciding a suit filed by Garg against filmmaker Aly Morani, Mohomed Morani, and Cineyug Films, which organised the IPL Awards.
Case Title: Living Media India Limited v. Zee Media Corporation Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 826/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 26
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Zee Media Corporation Limited from using the “Duniyadari” label for its news programme in a manner that is deceptively similar to the registered device mark of Living Media India Limited, part of the India Today Group. A single-judge bench of Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on January 9, 2026, while deciding an interim injunction plea filed by Living Media. The Court held that Zee Media's use of the disputed label was likely to cause confusion among viewers.
Case Title: Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors. v. Ferrero S.P.A & Ors.
Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) 1/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 24
The Delhi High Court has partly modified an order directing the handover of over three lakh seized infringing Nutella-shaped glass jars to registered proprietor Ferrero S.p.A. The court held that while seizure and delivery-up of the jars was justified, they must be destroyed and not put to any commercial or other use. A division bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment dated January 6, 2026, disposed of an appeal filed by Firozabad-based glass jar manufacturers.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Trackon Couriers Private Limited v. B. N. Srinivas
Case Number: IA (L) No. 35022/2024 in Comm IP Suit No. 11/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 48
The Bombay High Court has recently granted an interim injunction restraining the use of the mark “TRACK-ON” or any other deceptively similar variant for courier services, holding that such use is prima facie infringing of the registered “TRACKON” trademark. By an order dated January 22, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor allowed an interim application in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit instituted by Trackon Couriers Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the “TRACKON” marks.
Case Title: The Supreme Industries Limited v. Moorthi Rabeha
Case Number: IA No. 4642/2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 336/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 41
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained PVC pipe maker Moorthi Rabeha from using the mark “SUPREMES GOLD” after finding a prima facie infringement of Supreme Industries' “SUPREME” trademark. The order was passed on January 19, 2026, by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh while deciding an interim application in a suit filed by Supreme Industries alleging trademark and copyright infringement, as well as passing off, by the rival manufacturer.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Bars Zee Laboratories From Using “GLYZET” Mark, Imposes ₹50 Lakh Costs
Case Title: Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited & Anr. v. Rajiv Mukul & Ors.
Case Number: IA No. 3540/2022 in COMM IP Suit No. 213/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 32
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained Zee Laboratories and its associated entities from manufacturing, selling or marketing diabetes medicines under the mark “GLYZET,” holding that the mark is deceptively similar to “GLIMET,” a registered trademark used by Laboratoires Griffon Pvt. Ltd. for its anti-diabetic medicine. The Court has also imposed exemplary costs of ₹50 lakh on Zee Laboratories for adopting the disputed mark in breach of earlier Court orders and for making false statements on oath. In a judgment dated January 13, 2026, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor, while deciding an interim injunction application, observed that “GLIMET” and “GLYZET” are phonetically, structurally and visually similar and that an average consumer with imperfect recollection is likely to be confused between the two.
No Bar On Trademarking Hindu Deity Names If Distinctive: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v. M/s. Stanford Siyaram Fashion P Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: Notice of Motion No. 22/2013 in Commercial IP Suit No. 23/2008
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 30
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday observed that there is nothing in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, that prevents the registration or enforcement of trademarks merely because they contain the names of Hindu gods or deities. Granting interim relief to Mumbai-based Siyaram Silk Mills Limited, the court held that such marks are entitled to protection once they are validly registered and have acquired distinctiveness through use. Justice Arif S Doctor, while restraining Delhi-based Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited from using “Siyaram” as part of its corporate name or trademark, observed, “There is no provision in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, prohibiting registration or enforcement of marks comprising names of the Hindu Gods or Deities.”
Case Title: People Interactive India Private Limited v. Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial IP Suit No. 225/2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 25
The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained the operators of www.getshaadi.com, a matrimonial and matchmaking website, holding that it infringes and passes off the trademark Shaadi.com. In a judgment delivered on January 6, 2026, Justice Arif S Doctor ruled in favour of People Interactive, which operates the popular matrimonial platform “Shaadi.com.” The court held that the rival operator's adoption and use of “getshaadi.com” for identical matrimonial and matchmaking services violated People Interactive's trademark rights and amounted to passing off.
Bombay High Court Declares Radhakrishna Productions Sole Owner of Rights Of 'Will You Marry Me' Film
Case Title: Radhakrishna Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ikkon Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial IP Suit No. 98 of 2012
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 13
The Bombay High Court has declared Radhakrishna Productions Pvt. Ltd. as the lawful owner of copyright and allied rights of the 2012 Hindi film Will You Marry Me, permanently restraining Ikkon Films Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliates from exploiting the film or creating any third-party rights. A single-judge bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor passed the judgment on January 5, 2026. He held that the copyright assignment and financing agreements placed on record by Radhakrishna Productions clearly vested all rights of the film with it, and that breaches of these agreements by rival companies had resulted in infringement.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd. v. Smt. Archana Debnath & Anr.
Case Number: FMAT 18 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 32
The Calcutta High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt. Ltd., a Kolkata-based publishing house, from publishing, selling or distributing the literary and artistic works of late author and cartoonist Narayan Debnath, holding that no legal infirmity existed in the trial court's order granting protection to the author's legal heirs. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya passed the order on January 21, 2026, while dismissing an appeal filed by the publishing house against an ad-interim injunction dated January 9, 2026, issued by the District Judge at Alipore.
Email Service Of Patent Examination Report Valid, Postal Service Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Dr. Dulal Kumar De v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA-IPD No.2 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 24
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the rejection of a patent application on the ground of abandonment, ruling that service of the First Examination Report (FER) through email constitutes valid service under the Patents Act, 1970, and that postal service is not mandatory. In an order passed on January 19, 2026, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur dismissed a writ petition challenging the abandonment of a patent application titled “Herbal Anti-Venom against Catfish Sting,” holding that the Patents Act and Rules permit electronic service of documents and that the applicant had failed to respond to the FER within the prescribed statutory timelines.
Calcutta High Court Removes Rival 'TANA TAN' Trademark, Rules Bikaji Foods Is Prior User
Case Title: Bikaji Foods International Limited v. Jagaranath Prasad & Anr.
Case Number: IPDATM/31/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 17
The Calcutta High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark “TANA TAN” from the Trade Marks Register. The Court held that the mark was deceptively identical to the long-standing “TANA TAN” trademark owned by snack food manufacturer Bikaji Foods International Limited. It found that the rival registration, secured in the name of Jagaranath Prasad, had been obtained in bad faith. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur passed the order on January 7, 2026, while allowing a trademark rectification plea filed by Bikaji Foods.
Bioreactor Invention Involving Human Embryonic Stem Cells Not Patentable: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Viacyte Inc v. Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: IPDPTA/7/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 16
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the Patent Office's refusal to grant a patent to US-based biotechnology company Viacyte Inc., holding that the claimed bioreactor invention was primarily directed at biological material, including human embryonic stem cell-derived aggregates and therefore fell within non-patentable subject matter under the Patents Act, 1970. In a judgment dated January 16, 2026, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, affirming the decision of the Deputy Controller of Patents, noted that inventions whose substance lies in biological material or parts of animals are excluded from patent protection under Section 3(j) of the Act.
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Patent Office Order Rejecting US Company's Glass Fibre Patent
Case Title: OCV Intellectual Capital LLC v. The Controller General Of Patents
Case Number: IPDPTA/34/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 5
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a Patent Office order rejecting a patent application filed by OCV Intellectual Capital LLC, a subsidiary of Owens Corning. The court held that the refusal was passed without proper analysis of novelty and inventive step. A single-judge bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, in a judgment dated January 6, 2026, held that the Patent Office rejected the application without engaging with the technical submissions made by the company or recording clear reasons explaining how the invention was covered by prior art.
Gujarat High Court
How Can Trademark Registry Restrict Use Of A Mark Without Reasons, Gujarat High Court Orally Asks?
Case title: Kunvarji Growth Corporation LLP v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: R/CIA/99/2022
The Gujarat High Court on Friday (January 16) orally questioned the Registrar of Trademarks on why the adjudicating authority had permitted advertisement of a trademark in the Trademark Journal with restrictions, without recording any reasons for imposing such conditions. Justice Niral R. Mehta was hearing an appeal arising from a 2020 order of the trademark authority, which had conditionally accepted an application for registration of the “Family Farms” logo with the tagline “Ye Ghar Ki Baat Hai” in Class 31, covering agricultural and horticultural products.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title: Davinder Pal Bakshi v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Case Number: CRM-M-11221-2025 (O&M)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 4
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against an Ambala-based garment trader for allegedly selling fake clothing branded as “Raymond,” holding that garments do not constitute a “work” protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. Justice Manisha Batra, in an order dated January 23, 2026, allowed a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by Davinder Pal Bakshi, proprietor of Ambala-based garment business Bakshi Enterprises, and set aside an FIR registered under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act for infringement, along with all consequential proceedings.
Madras High Court
Case Title: Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Case Number: O.A. Nos. 60 & 61 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 34
The Madras High Court on Wednesday granted ad-interim protection to Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., restraining the unauthorised broadcast of the Hindi film Mardaani 3, starring Rani Mukerji, released theatrically on January 30, 2026. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the interim order on January 28, 2026, in a suit filed by the production house against internet service providers and cable television operators, apprehending infringement of its copyright in the film. While granting the interim relief, the Court observed that irreparable injury would be caused unless unlawful broadcast was restrained.
Madras High Court Quashes Cancellation Of 'SAKTHI' Trademark Without Prior Notice
Case Title: Perundurai Chennimalai Gounder v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: CMA (TM) No.16 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 29
The Madras High Court on Tuessay set aside the cancellation of a registered trademark by the Trade Marks Registry without prior notice to the trademark owner, holding that such action is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, in a judgment delivered on January 27, 2026, allowed an appeal filed by Perundurai Chennimalai Gounder Duraisamy, a Tamil Nadu-based food products manufacturer and the proprietor of 'SAKTHI' trademark, directing the Trade Marks Registry to restore the trademark registration.
'VAPORIN' Doesn't Infringe 'VICKS VAPORUB' Mark: Madras High Court Dismisses P&G's Plea
Case Title: The Procter @ Gamble Company v. IPI India Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: O.P. (TM) Nos. 48, 49, and 50 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 28
The Madras High Court has rejected Procter & Gamble's attempt to cancel the trademarks “VAPORIN” and “VAPORIN COLD RUB,” holding that the marks are validly registered in favour of IPI India and are not deceptively similar to P&G's well-known product “VICKS VAPORUB”. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice N. Senthilkumar, in an order dated January 6, 2026, dismissed a batch of trademark rectification pleas filed by P&G seeking removal of IPI's registrations on the ground of deceptive similarity.
Case Title: Shambhunath & Bros v. Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: LPA Nos. 27 & 28 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 25
The Madras High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark “THUFAN” in Telugu and Tamil, holding that failure to provide mandatory transliteration and translation while advertising the mark deprived affected parties of their statutory right to oppose it. In a judgment dated December 12, 2025, a Division Bench of Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar allowed appeals filed by Kolkata-based fan maker Shambhunath & Bros., which uses the mark “TOOFAN”. The court set aside a single judge order that had upheld Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd.'s registrations for the mark “THUFAN” in Class 11, which covers lighting, heating, and other electrical appliances.
Madras High Court Upholds KMF's Opposition To Registration of 'NANDINI' Mark For Agarbattis
Case Title: Karnataka Cooperative v. Vinod Kanji Shah & Anr.
Case Number: (T)CMA(TM) No.112/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 23
The Madras High Court on Monday set aside a Trade Marks Registry order and upheld Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation's objection to the 'NANDINI' trademark for agarbattis. In a judgment dated January 19, 2026, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh allowed KMF's appeal and overturned an order passed by the Trade Marks Registry in April 2010, observing that the objection had been rejected without proper consideration of the deceptive similarity between the rival marks and the long-standing reputation acquired by KMF in the “NANDINI” mark.
Patent Opposition Board Recommendations Are Advisory, Not Binding Decision: Madras High Court
Case Title: E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number.: W.P. No.8451 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 17
The Madras High Court has refused to step in midway in a patent dispute over a cancer drug, holding that a recommendation made by the Opposition Board during post-grant opposition proceedings is only advisory and does not create anu valid binding rights. Dismissing the writ petition filed by two foreign pharma firms, Justice N. Senthilkumar said the patent holders must place all their objections before the Controller of Patents, who alone takes the final call.
Case Title: Flipkart Internet Private Ltd v The Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: CMA(PT) No. 9 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 16
The Madras High Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Patent Office's rejection of Flipkart's post-grant opposition, allowing a US company's patent on virtual agents used in online customer interactions to continue. In an order dated January 5, 2026, Justice N. Senthilkumar refused to interfere with the decision of the Patent Office, which had dismissed Flipkart's post-grant opposition and allowed the patent titled “Systems and Methods for Virtual Agents to Help Customers and Business” to continue.
Madras High Court Temporarily Bars Use Of “URG-9”, Finds It Deceptively Similar To “ARG-9”
Case Title: Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v. Foregen Healthcare Ltd.
Case Number: C.S. (COMM DIV) NO. 184 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 15
The Madras High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Foregen Healthcare Ltd. from using the pharmaceutical mark “URG-9.” The court held that it was prima facie deceptively similar to the registered trademark “ARG-9” owned by Nouveau Medicament Private Limited. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order on January 7, 2026, while deciding the interim injunction application in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit concerning pharmaceutical products.
Case Title: Versuni Holding BV v. Maya Appliances Private Limited
Case Number: (PT) A No. 3 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 12
The Madras High Court has dismissed a patent revocation plea filed by Maya Appliances Private Limited, a Chennai-based company, seeking to revoke a food processor patent held by Versuni Holding B.V., a Netherlands-based home appliances company. In an order passed on December 19, 2025, Justice N. Senthilkumar allowed Versuni's application seeking rejection of the revocation proceedings, holding that the challenge was not maintainable since the very same issue had already been raised in a pending patent infringement suit before the Delhi High Court.
Madras High Court Orders Removal Of Wipro's 'PREMIO' Trademark On Crompton Greaves Plea
Case Title: Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Wipro Enterprises Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: (T)OP(TM) No. 411 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 10
The Madras High Court has ordered the removal of the “PREMIO” trademark registered in favour of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited. The Court found that the mark had not been put to genuine commercial use for more than five years. Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on December 16, 2025. He allowed a rectification plea filed by Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited, a Mumbai-based consumer electricals manufacturer.
Delhi Commercial Court
Case Title: Bongchie India Private Ltd. v. Mrs. Chandra Kumari & Anr.
Case Number.: CS (COMM.) 953/2023
A Commercial Court in Delhi has permanently restrained Ish Nagpal, a Faridabad-based manufacturer, from using the trademarks “BONGCHIE” and “PERFECT ROLL” on smoking paper products. The court made the ruling after counterfeit goods bearing the marks were recovered from his premises. In a judgment dated January 5, 2026, District Judge Harish Kumar of the Commercial Court at Tis Hazari partly allowed a suit filed by Bongchie India Private Limited. The plaintiff is a Delhi-based company engaged in the manufacture and sale of pre-rolled cones, rolling papers and smoking accessories.
Notifications
Government Proposes Protection For Metaverse Designs, Virtual Products Under Designs Act
The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry has proposed bringing metaverse-based and other virtual designs within the scope of India's design protection law under amendments to the Designs Act, 2000. The proposal forms part of a concept note issued by the department on Friday and placed in the public domain for stakeholder consultation. DPIIT has invited comments within 30 days The concept note states that the Designs Act was drafted in a “markedly different industrial and technological environment” when design protection was closely linked to physical products.
IP Office Issues Public Notice Against Misleading Online Trademark Registration Platforms
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) has issued a public notice warning businesses and individuals against online platforms that advertise and solicit clients by offering assured trademark registration services, terming such practices misleading and illegal. In the notice dated January 7, 2026, the CGPDTM said it has taken serious note of several entities engaging in the solicitation of prospective trademark applicants through digital platforms, in violation of the Advocates Act, 1961, which prohibits advertising and solicitation of legal services.
News
Taj Hotels Secures Sound Mark Registration For Hospitality Services
Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL), a Tata Group company operating hospitality brands such as Taj, Vivanta, Ginger and SeleQtions, has secured trademark registration for the “Taj” sonic sound, marking the first instance of a sound mark being registered in the hospitality sector in India. According to the registration certificate, the sound mark was registered by the Trade Marks Registry on January 7, 2026, with a registration date of April 17, 2025 and is valid for a period of ten years. The registration grants IHCL exclusive statutory rights over the sound mark and protection against unauthorized use or commercial exploitation.