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).