SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Stays Delhi High Court Order Restraining Use Of 'Medilice' Mark For Anti-Lice Hair Oil
Case Title: Kirit Bhadiadra v. Wings Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Case Number: SLP (C) Diary No. 15782/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 227
The Supreme Court has stayed the Delhi High Court's December 2025 judgment that upheld a trial court's finding of trademark infringement against Kirit Bhadiadra in a dispute over the mark "Medilice." A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli, hearing the matter on June 18, observed that the controversy "would require a deeper scrutiny." The dispute is between Wings Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, which sells an anti-lice shampoo under the mark "Medilice," and Bhadiadra, proprietor of Rapple Healthcare, who markets an ayurvedic anti-lice and anti-dandruff hair oil under "Medilice Lice Killer."
Case Title: Amara Raja Energy Mobility Ltd. v. Exide Industries Ltd.
Case Number: PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S).18549/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 225
The Supreme Court has partly modified a Calcutta High Court injunction regarding a trade dress dispute between Exide Industries and Amara Raja Energy and Mobility. While the injunction against the trade dress was largely upheld, the Supreme Court permitted the sale of ELITO-branded batteries already lying with distributors and retailers to prevent massive financial loss. However, the court directed the destruction of all unused cartons bearing the impugned trade dress.
Case Title: The Trustees of Princeton University v. The Vagdevi Educational Society & Ors.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 217
The Supreme Court directed six Telangana-based colleges operating under the 'Princeton' name to prominently display disclaimers on their websites, prospectuses, admission materials, and certificates stating they have 'no connection' with Princeton University, the renowned Ivy League institution in the United States. The direction was passed while the matter of alleged trademark infringement is pending before the Delhi High Court. The Bench was prima facie satisfied that the colleges' use of the Princeton name was capable of misleading prospective students and the public at large into believing they were associated with the American university.
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Bars Sree Tirumalaa Traders From Using “Lakshmi Srinivasa” Mark & Trade Dress
Case Title: M/S Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods & Anr. v. Sree Tirumalaa Traders
Case Number: CS(COMM) 667/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 642
On June 22, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Sree Tirumalaa Traders from using the mark “LAKSHMI SRINIVASA” and a deceptively similar trade dress for rice products. Justice Tejas Karia held that a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off was established. The court allowed the plaintiffs' application for urgent interim protection to prevent consumer confusion regarding the origin of the goods.
Delhi High Court Cancels 'SHAKTI' Trademark On 'SAKTHI' Mark Owner's Plea
Case Title: P.C. Duraisamy v. Kewal Krishan Kumar & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 180/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 640
The Delhi High Court has directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the trademark "SHAKTI" from the Register of Trade Marks. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the judgment on June 24, holding that the mark was registered without a bona fide intention to use it. The court noted that no evidence was produced showing independent use of the standalone "SHAKTI" mark by the registered proprietor or assignee, subsequently upholding the prior rights of the "SAKTHI" brand.
Delhi High Court Restores Interim Relief For Kumar Foods, Finds “10X SHAKTI” Similar To SHAKTI BHOG
Case Title: Kumar Foods Industries v. GRM Foodkraft Private Limited
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 166/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 643
The Delhi High Court restored interim protection for Kumar Foods Industries, ruling that the use of "10X SHAKTI" for wheat flour is prima facie deceptively similar to the registered mark "SHAKTI BHOG". A Vacation Bench comprising Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Madhu Jain stayed a District Court order that had previously vacated the injunction.
National Biodiversity Authority Approval Has No Bearing On Patentability: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 109/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 635
The Delhi High Court has held that approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) to pursue intellectual property rights does not guarantee that an invention qualifies for patent protection. The court dismissed an appeal by Shaafi Naturcure LLP against the rejection of its patent application for a six-herb asthma treatment. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela clarified that the criteria for patentability under the Patents Act are independent of the NBA's clearance under biodiversity laws.
Case Title: Devans Modern Breweries Limited v. Cartel Bros Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 346/2026, I.A. 9898/2026, I.A. 9911/2026 & I.A. 10797/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 634
The Delhi High Court has passed an interim order restraining the makers of "The Glenwalk" whisky from using the mark "GODFATHER" for their product endorsed by actor Sanjay Dutt. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the use of the word was deceptively similar to the established trademark owned by Devans Modern Breweries. The court directed Cartel Bros. Pvt. Ltd. to immediately remove all advertisements, listings, and social media content featuring the "GODFATHER" mark.
Case Title: Robert A. Merry And Co. Ltd. v. Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1164/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 592
The Delhi High Court has restrained Robert A. Merry and Co. Ltd., the Irish whiskey maker behind “The Whistler” brand, from selling its Irish whiskey in India. The court found that the company failed to establish that its transborder goodwill and reputation had spilled over into India before Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. launched its own “Whistler” whiskey in 2018. Justice Jyoti Singh, deciding two cross-suits filed by the rival whiskey makers, dismissed Robert A. Merry's application for an injunction against Piccadily. At the same time, the Court granted an injunction in Piccadily's favour and restrained the Irish company from selling its Irish whiskey in India under the marks “The Whistler” and/or “Whistler” during the pendency of the suits.
Delhi High Court Cancels 'PONTA' Trademark In Plea By Panasonic, Holder Of 'PENTA' Mark
Case Title: Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr. v. Siddharth Vij & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 171/2025, I.A. 18595/2025 & I.A. 18596/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 593
The Delhi High Court has recently ordered the cancellation of the word mark 'PONTA' and its device variant, holding that they are deceptively similar to Panasonic's registered 'PENTA' trademark for electrical goods. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, deciding two rectification petitions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation, directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove both marks from the Register within four weeks.
Delhi High Court Protects 'Safex' Trademark, Bars Deceptively Similar Use By Seed Company
Case Title: Safex Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Defendant Seed Company & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 566
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction protecting the 'SAFEX' trademark of agrochemical company Safex Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. against a seed company that was using a deceptively similar mark. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, holding that the impugned mark was likely to cause confusion among consumers given the overlapping nature of both companies' agricultural-sector products.
Case Title: Glossy Color and Paints Pvt. Ltd. v. Elite Court & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 553/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 564
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a firm operating under the mark 'Elitecourt' from manufacturing, selling, or advertising products under that brand, after holding that Glossy Color and Paints Pvt. Ltd. had made out a prima facie case of passing off. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela declined to grant infringement relief, noting that 'Elitecourt' is itself a registered trademark and that the plaintiff has separately moved the High Court for its cancellation through rectification proceedings. The injunction was limited to passing off, restraining the defendant from misrepresenting its products as those of the plaintiff or as associated with it.
Case Title: Alfa Therm Limited v. Scientico & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 552/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 563
The Delhi High Court directed Scientico and its proprietor Vineet Gupta to remove from their website, IndiaMart listings, and other online platforms photographs that waste-management-systems manufacturer Alfa Therm Limited alleged were copied from its own website without authorisation. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela prima facie found that photographs displayed on Scientico's website were identical to those that had earlier appeared on Alfa Therm's website, and that copyright in such original artistic works vested in the plaintiff under Section 17(c) of the Copyright Act. The court passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction while also noting that the plaintiff had complied with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
Delhi High Court Restrains Breakaway Karan Satsang Group From Portraying HDH Bapji As Its Founder
Case Title: Shree Swaminarayan Sarvopari Siddhant Digvijay Trust v. Sukhmay Karan Satsang Foundation & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 607/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 565
The Delhi High Court restrained a breakaway organisation formed by former members of the Shree Swaminarayan Sarvopari Siddhant Digvijay Trust from using the trademark 'Karan Satsang' and from portraying the Trust's founder, His Divine Holiness Devnandandasji Swami (HDH Bapji), as the founder of the breakaway entity. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex-parte ad-interim order in a suit where the Trust alleged that former trustees had incorporated Sukhmay Karan Satsang Foundation and were misappropriating the Trust's registered trademarks, copyrighted works, and the personality rights of HDH Bapji to mislead devotees into believing the splinter group was the legitimate continuation of the original Trust.
Case Title: Varun Dhawan v. Artist Booking Company & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 571
The Delhi High Court restrained multiple entities from using Bollywood actor Varun Dhawan's persona for commercial gain after finding a prima facie case that they were offering unauthorised bookings for his personal appearances, selling merchandise bearing his name and likeness without authorisation, and publishing abusive, derogatory, and AI-generated deepfake content involving him. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order while hearing Dhawan's suit against 18 defendants including artist-booking platforms, e-commerce sellers, and social-media accounts. The court directed platforms such as Amazon and various social-media intermediaries to take down the offending content and listings within 24 hours of service of the order.
Delhi High Court Restrains Use Of 'Liv-22', Protects Himalaya's 'Liv.52' Mark
Case Title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr. v. Awadh Bihari Badal Proprietor Of Aloe Care Arogya Life & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 648/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 582
The Delhi High Court on 29 May granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, restraining the makers of a liver care product sold under the mark "Liv-22" from manufacturing, selling or advertising the product pending further hearing. A Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed: "I am of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction against the Defendants. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the interim injunction, as prayed for, is not granted."
Delhi High Court Restrains Surat-Based Sellers From Using 'BOMBAY MUSK' Mark On Counterfeit Perfumes
Case Title: BG Innovators LLP v. Wellness Club & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 569
The Delhi High Court restrained sellers, including Surat-based entities Wellness Club and Krishiv Enterprise, from manufacturing, marketing, advertising, or selling counterfeit perfumes and personal care products under the 'BOMBAY MUSK' mark and deceptively similar variants. The court passed the ex-parte injunction on 7 May (reported 2 June) in a suit filed by BG Innovators LLP, which held the registered 'BOMBAY MUSK' trademark for fragrances. Justice Tejas Karia also appointed a local commissioner to inspect and seize infringing goods, and noted that the defendants appeared to have engaged in ratings manipulation on Flipkart, where they sold the counterfeit products, to gain an unfair commercial advantage.
Case Title: Levi Strauss And Co v. Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 414/2025 & I.A. 11359/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 581
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Levi Strauss and Co., restraining Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited from using stitching designs on its Killer and Integriti jeans that were found prima facie to be deceptively similar to Levi's Arcuate Stitching Design Mark. Relief was, however, denied in respect of the company's Lawman Pg3 stitching design. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora delivered the judgment on May 29, 2026. The court observed that "the Defendant's adoption of deceptively similar stitching designs for their brand INTEGRITI and KILLER, despite prior acknowledgment of the Plaintiff's proprietary rights, prima facie reflects dishonest adoption."
Case Title: Makemytrip (India) Private Limited v. M/S MakeMyIndiaTrip
Case Number: CS(COMM) 650/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 579
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained MakeMyIndiaTrip from using the marks "MakeMyIndiaTrip" and its logo, holding that the addition of the word "India" was insufficient to distinguish the impugned marks from MakeMyTrip's registered trademark. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order on May 29 in a trademark suit filed by online travel platform MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement and observed that the adoption of the impugned marks appeared to be in bad faith.
Case Title: Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 541/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 578
The Delhi High Court on 29 May granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit filed by Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited, after it found that the mark 'ORZIFER-XT' is visually, structurally and phonetically deceptively similar to the registered mark 'OROFER-XT' and is likely to confuse consumers in the iron supplementation segment. Justice Jyoti Singh heard the matter and restrained Orziva Healthcare Private Limited from manufacturing, selling, distributing or promoting products under the mark ORZIFER-XT or any deceptively similar mark until further orders.
Case Title: Jockey International Inc v. M/S D.R. Kuppraj Tex India & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 614/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 577
The Delhi High Court on 29 May 2026 granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Jockey International Inc., restraining multiple sellers from dealing in innerwear products under deceptively similar marks including JOYKE, JOYSKY, JOYSKE and JOJOKE on the e-commerce platform Meesho. Justice Jyoti Singh restrained Defendants 1 to 4 and John Does from manufacturing, marketing, selling, listing or otherwise dealing in products bearing the impugned marks. She also directed Meesho to block the infringing listings within 36 hours and share seller details with the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Restrains Maxx Farmacia From Using 'MAXX-RICH' Mark, Trade Dress In Cipla's Plea
Case Title: Cipla Health Limited & Anr. v. Maxx Farmacia India LLP & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 545/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 576
The Delhi High Court on 29 May granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Cipla Health Limited and restrained Maxx Farmacia India LLP and two other defendants from using the mark 'MAXX-RICH' and its associated trade dress for multivitamins, iron tonics, syrups and antibiotics in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. Justice Jyoti Singh also barred the defendants from marketing, selling or advertising the impugned products under the challenged mark or deceptively similar packaging until the next date of hearing.
Case Title: Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. M/S Zikra Hotels And Restaurants LLP & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 502/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 568
The Delhi High Court on 14 May granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Zikra Hotels and Restaurants LLP, a former franchisee of the Moti Mahal restaurant chain from running, advertising, or marketing its restaurant under the 'Moti Mahal' marks after it terminated the franchise agreement for non-payment of fees.
Case Title: Akkineni Naga Chaitanya v. WWW.SEXVID.XXX & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 644/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 574
The Delhi High Court directed multiple pornographic websites, Google LLC, IndiaMart, and a merchandise seller to take down specified content and listings misusing Telugu actor Akkineni Naga Chaitanya's name, image, and likeness without his consent. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the directions after finding a prima facie case for interim protection in a personality rights suit filed by the actor who sought relief against pornographic websites misusing his identity, AI-generated deepfake content, unauthorised merchandise, and YouTube videos allegedly infringing his personality rights.
Case Title: Fortune Marketing v. Gujarat Pesticides Ltd.
Case Number: IP (C) Petition
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 573
The Delhi High Court revoked a copyright registration granted to Gujarat Pesticides for an artistic work titled 'ZOOOK', after finding procedural flaws in the registration process. Justice Jyoti Singh, adjudicating a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, held that the registration was founded on a Trade Marks Search Certificate that was contrary to the Trade Marks Register, as it incorrectly stated there were no conflicting trademark applications.
Delhi High Court Grants Zee Temporary Injunction Against Illegal Streaming Of FIFA World Cup 2026
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Soccerbox.me & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 585
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. restraining rogue websites, including Soccerbox.me, from illegally streaming the FIFA World Cup 2026, for which Zee holds exclusive broadcasting rights in India. Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed domain name registrars and internet service providers to take down and block the infringing websites and also granted a dynamic injunction extending the order to any newly discovered infringing links during the pendency of the suit.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Rogue Website Misusing 'GOLDIEE' Trademark In Investment Scam
Case Title: Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 587
The Delhi High Court on 1 June granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of spice manufacturer Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. and ordered action against a rogue website that misused its 'GOLDIEE' well-known trademark to perpetrate an investment scam. The fraudulent website falsely presented itself as affiliated with the Goldiee Masala brand and solicited investments from the public under false pretences. Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed Dynadot Inc. (the domain registrar) and Cloudflare to take down the domain, and also directed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) to block access to the phishing website across Indian internet networks.
Case Title: Greenhorn Wellness Pvt. Ltd. (StoryTV) v. MicroTV & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 588
The Delhi High Court on 29 May (reported 5 June) granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Greenhorn Wellness Private Limited, the company behind the short-form drama platform 'StoryTV', restraining rogue websites including 'MicroTV' and 'ReelTV' from streaming its proprietary micro-drama and vertical web-series content without authorisation. Justice Jyoti Singh found a prima facie case of copyright infringement and passing off, as the infringing platforms were distributing StoryTV's content — which is specifically formatted for mobile-first viewing — and also using confusingly similar branding. The court also directed Telegram to take down channels distributing the pirated content.
Delhi High Court Holds 'Glass Skin' Descriptive, Orders Cancellation Of Trademark Registration
Case Title: Renee Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v. Rupali Sharma
Case Number: Rectification Petition (Comm. IP)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 591
The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of the trademark registration for 'GLASS SKIN', holding that the term is purely descriptive of cosmetic products and incapable of functioning as a distinctive trademark. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowed the rectification petition filed by Renee Cosmetics, finding that 'Glass Skin' — a term popularised by the Korean beauty (K-beauty) trend to describe flawless, clear skin — describes the desired result or quality of the cosmetic products in Class 03 for which it was registered. The court held that registrant Rupali Sharma could not monopolise a widely-used descriptive phrase and directed its removal from the Trade Marks Register under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
Delhi High Court Rules Intas' BEVATAS Does Not Infringe Sun Pharma's BEVETEX Trademark
Case Title: Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) (Appeal from commercial IP suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 594
The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Intas Pharmaceuticals, setting aside a permanent injunction that had restrained the company from using its trademark 'BEVATAS' for its anti-cancer drug Bevacizumab. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Intas' mark 'BEVATAS' does not infringe Sun Pharma Laboratories' registered trademark 'BEVETEX' (Paclitaxel), and allowed the appeal while dismissing Sun Pharma's suit. The dispute originated in December 2017 when Sun Pharma obtained an injunction against Intas.
Case Title: Astral Ltd. v. M/S Astral Marketing Syndicate & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 294/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 619
The Delhi High Court has recently refused to throw out a trademark infringement suit filed by Astral Ltd against Astral Marketing Syndicate. The Court observed that the defendant's Justdial listing enabled customers in Delhi to access product information and contact the business, thereby prima facie giving rise to part of the cause of action in the capital. Justice Tejas Karia held that the functionality of the listing could reasonably be construed as facilitating commercial transactions. The Court also noted that Astral Ltd maintains a subordinate office in Delhi.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Novamax's Cooler Design Infringement Claim, Keeps Passing Off Suit Alive
Case Title: Novamax Industries LLP v. Prem Appliances & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 177/2021 & I.A. 13748/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 631
The Delhi High court on Friday dismissed Novamax Industries LLP's claim that Prem Appliances infringed its registered cooler design after finding that Novamax's own invoices and website showed the design had been publicly sold and displayed before the design application was filed. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, however, declined to summarily reject Novamax's passing off claim, holding that the issue would require evidence at trial.
Case Title: Piyush Sapra & Anr. v. Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 643/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 630
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction against several sellers accused of misusing Flipkart's "Latching On" feature to market products under the SHAPERMEN brand. Maps The court observed that their conduct appeared prima facie calculated to "ride upon the goodwill associated with the Subject Marks" and was likely to cause confusion about the origin of the products. Justice Tejas Karia passed the order in a suit filed by Piyush Sapra and another party associated with the SHAPERMEN men's shapewear and compression-garment brand. The suit was brought against Flipkart Internet Private Limited and multiple third-party sellers.
Delhi High Court Cancels 'D-TAN' Trademark, Holds Mark Descriptive And Non-Distinctive
Case Title: Honasa Consumer Ltd v. Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 215/2023 & I.A. 18072/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 629
The Delhi High Court has directed cancellation of the registered trademark 'D-TAN' held by Visage Beauty and Health Care Pvt Ltd, ruling that the mark is descriptive of skin tan removal products and lacks the distinctiveness required for trademark protection. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowed a rectification petition filed by Honasa Consumer Ltd, the company behind 'AQUALOGICA'. The Court ordered the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the mark from the register within four weeks.
Case Title: M/S DRS Logistics (P) Ltd & Anr. v. Google India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1/2017, I.A. 2646/2020, I.A. 2173/2022, I.A. 18605/2025 & I.A. 25645/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 618
Google cannot be held in contempt over third-party advertisements using DRS Logistics' trademarks in ad text, ad titles and URLs, the Delhi High Court has held, ruling that earlier orders did not require the company to "proactively monitor and prevent" such use. Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on Monday. "Therefore, the Judgments do not impose any obligation upon Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 to proactively monitor and prevent the use of the Subject Marks in Ad-Text, Ad-Title, or URL in advertisements of third parties," the Court observed.
Delhi High Court Protects DIZEST Trademark, Bars Use Of “CelsiusDizest” By Celsius Healthcare
Case Title: DWD Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 658/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 620
The Delhi High Court on 5 June granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of DWD Pharmaceuticals, restraining Celsius Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. from using the trademark “CelsiusDizest” or any other mark deceptively similar to DWD Pharmaceuticals' registered DIZEST mark. A Vacation Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that the defendant had incorporated the plaintiff's entire mark for identical pharmaceutical products, and that such use was likely to cause confusion.
Case Title: The Nippon Signal Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 623
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order refusing a patent application for a train-control system developed by Japanese company The Nippon Signal Co., Ltd., after finding that the Patent Office had not adequately dealt with the company's submissions distinguishing the invention from the cited prior-art documents. Geographic Reference Justice Jyoti Singh, in a judgment delivered on May 29, remanded the matter to the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs for fresh consideration and directed that a decision be taken within four months after granting the company an opportunity of hearing.
Delhi High Court Quashes Refusal of 'BIG INDIA' Trademark Registration, Orders Fresh Review
Case Title: Purpos Planet v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2025 & I.As. 15656/2025, 15657/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 624
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order refusing registration of the word mark "BIG INDIA", holding that the Trade Marks Registry failed to consider several submissions made by the firm seeking registration and passed an unreasoned order. Justice Jyoti Singh, in an order dated May 22, directed the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks to reconsider the application within four months after granting Purpos Planet an opportunity of hearing.
Delhi High Court Restrains Okaya Dealers From Circulating Defamatory Ads Against Microtek Trademarks
Case Title: Microtek International Private Limited v. Sukhveer Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 660/2026, I.A. 15999-16001/2026 & I.A. 16003/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 621
The Delhi High Court on 10 June granted an interim injunction and restrained several Okaya dealers and employees from circulating disparaging and defamatory advertisements against the registered trademarks of Microtek International Private Limited. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna heard the matter and restrained Defendants 1 to 6, including authorised dealers, distributors and branch personnel of Okaya operating across Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and other States, from displaying or circulating the impugned advertisements on WhatsApp and Facebook.
Case Title: Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr. v. Microsoft Corporation
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 223/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 611
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award that had directed the transfer of the domain name "exceltotally.in" to Microsoft Corporation. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that a confusing similarity with the "EXCEL" trademark is not, by itself, proof of bad faith under the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP). The court held that the arbitrator failed to independently examine whether the registrants intended to deceive users or exploit Microsoft's goodwill.
Delhi High Court Refers Zee-Zivore Copyright Dispute Over Instagram Music To Mediation
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Zivore Apparel Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 651/2026 & I.A. 15855/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 612
The Delhi High Court has referred a copyright dispute between Zee Entertainment and Zivore Apparel to mediation regarding the use of Zee's musical repertoire in Instagram Reels. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that music available in Instagram's licensed library is prima facie restricted for personal use and cannot be used for commercial purposes by business accounts. The defendant undertook not to use the repertoire pending adjudication, leading to the mediation referral.
Delhi High Court Grants Ex Parte Injunction Against Clone Websites Impersonating Signature Global
Case Title: Signature Global (India) Limited v. Ashok Kumar (John Doe) & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 616/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 607
The Delhi High Court has issued an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of real estate developer Signature Global, restraining several clone websites and social media accounts from impersonating the brand. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of fraud where the defendants were using identical marks to deceive and defraud prospective homebuyers.
Case Title: SpeechGears India Pvt Ltd v. MJ Talk Tools & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 637/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 609
The Delhi High Court has directed IndiaMart to delist specific tool kits sold by MJ Talk Tools that allegedly copy the shape and trade dress of SpeechGears' specialized autism therapy tools. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela found that the defendants had allegedly copied the plaintiff's copyrighted brochure literature and "slavishly" imitated the shape of the tools. The court ordered the takedown of specified listings pending further hearing.
Case Title: Amber Nutrition Private Limited v. Neetu Choudhary & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 629/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 608
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained the sale and marketing of confectionery products under the name "Milan's Kreamy Toffee". The court found the product's trade dress and name to be deceptively similar to Amber Nutrition's registered "Amber Kream Toffee". Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the defendants' packaging infringed upon the plaintiff's trademark and copyrighted artistic work.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Medical Device Firms From Using 'MOTHERSON' Trademark
Case Title: M/S. Motherson v. Motherson Industries Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 623/2026, I.A. 15414/2026, I.A. 15415/2026, I.A. 15416/2026 & I.A. 15417/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 607
The Delhi High Court has granted temporary relief to the global auto giant Motherson, restraining a medical device firm from using the "MOTHERSON" trademark and device mark. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that the word "Motherson" is the prominent and dominant part of the plaintiff's trademark. The court found that the unauthorized use by the defendants established a prima facie case of infringement despite the difference in product sectors.
Case Title: GRM Foodkraft Pvt Ltd v. KS Agro Impex
Case Number: CS(COMM) 637/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 604
The Delhi High Court has refused to lift an interim injunction restraining KS Agro Impexfrom using packaging for its "Golden Sella Basmati Rice" that imitates GRM Foodkraft's "Zarda King" branding. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the packaging was deceptively similar and that GRM Foodkraft had established a prima facie case of copyright infringement and passing off.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Acharya Manish Against AI-Generated Fake Endorsements
Case Title: Manish Grover & Anr. v. John Doe & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 659/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 602
The Delhi High Court has protected the personality rights of Manish Grover (Acharya Manish) after finding that unknown persons used artificial intelligence to create fake health product endorsements. A vacation bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the perpetrators used AI-cloned voices and modified videos of the plaintiff to deceive the public. The court restrained the use of his identifiable persona, noting the potential for irreparable harm to his professional reputation.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Fake IndiaMart Websites, Blocks WhatsApp Accounts
Case Title: Indiamart Intermesh Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 600/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 598
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to IndiaMart against unidentified perpetrators operating fake websites and social media accounts. Justice Jyoti Singh directed the takedown of specified URLs and the blocking of identified WhatsApp and bank accounts used to defraud customers by misusing the INDIAMART brand name. The court observed that the defendants were misappropriating the company's goodwill for unlawful gain.
Case Title: Modern Pipe Industries v. Raj Kumar Maurya Proprietor Of M/S Satyam Industries & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 283/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 597
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining a Jaunpur-based manufacturer from using the mark "Konaflex" for its water storage tanks. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela found the mark deceptively similar to the "Koanaflex" mark and logo used by Modern Pipe Industries. Rejecting the defendant's territorial jurisdiction objections, the court held that the visual and phonetic similarities between the two marks were likely to cause consumer confusion.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Social Media Posts Alleging Amul Supplies Cow Meat
Case Title: Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited & Anr. v. R K Singh Rajput & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 636/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 599
The Delhi High Court has ordered the immediate removal of social media posts and videos claiming that Amul supplies cow meat. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the content was prima facie disparaging and appeared designed to provoke public sentiment and harm the reputation of the dairy cooperative. The court held that the narrative demonstrated a deliberate attempt to associate the brand with a sensitive subject to inflame public opinion.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Dismisses Intellectual Property Suit Against Tamil Film 'Saamaniyan' After Release
Case Title: M. M.Viyan Aarman v. Etecetra Entertainment & Ors.
Case Number: C.S(COMM DIV) No. 19 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 160
On June 22, the Madras High Court dismissed a suit seeking to block the release and promotion of the Tamil film "Saamaniyan". Justice K. Kumaresh Babu ruled that the reliefs sought had become infructuous since the film had already been released in 2024. The plaintiff, proprietor of Art Addict, had claimed exclusive trademark and copyright rights over the title "SAAMANIYAN," but the court found that the prayer for an injunction could no longer be granted.
Madras High Court Declines Interim Relief To Hospital In 'RIO' Trademark Row With Diagnostic Centre
Case Title: Rio Children's Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. Rio Scans and Labs
Case Number: C.M.A(MD)No.287 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 154
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Rio Children's Hospital against the refusal of an interim injunction restraining Tirunelveli-based Rio Scans and Labs from using the mark "RIO". The court held that the parties' rival claims over the trade name could be decided only after a full-fledged trial. Justice P. Vadamalai upheld a September 2024 order of the Principal District Judge, Madurai. The order had declined interim relief sought by the hospital in a trademark dispute pending since 2022.
Madras High Court Temporarily Restrains Telugu Dub Release Of Drishyam 3 On OTT Platforms
Case Title: MS Rajkumar Theatre Pvt Ltd v. Aashirvad Cinemas & Ors.
Case Number: C.S (COMM DIV) 144 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 146
The Madras High Court has restrained the makers of malayalam movie “Drishyam 3” from releasing the Telugu dubbed version of the movie in OTT platforms. Justice K Kumaresh Babu made the interim order on a plea moved by film production company Rajkumar Theatre Pvt Ltd. The company had approached the Madras High Court seeking to restrain the producers and director and their agents, employees, assignees, licensees, and everyone claiming through them from infringing the company's exclusive copyright to remake and exploit the movie in the Telugu language by releasing the dubbed version of the movie in Telugu anywhere in the world.
Case Title: CADD Centre Training Services Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s. CADD Centre Software Systems Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 390 & 391 of 2026 and A.Nos.2005 & 2006 of 2026 in C.S.(COMM DIV).No.125 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 144
The Madras High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining CADD Centre Software Systems Private Limited from using the trademark/logo "CADD CENTRE" and the word "CADD Centre". The court held that the use of the same name by businesses engaged in software-related activities would create confusion in the minds of the public. Justice K Kumaresh Babu passed the order on June 1 while considering applications moved by CADD Centre Training Services Private Limited. The company has been carrying on business under the registered trademark "CADD Centre" since 1989.
Case Title: M/s. V.V.V and Sons Edible Oils Ltd v. Meenakshi Overseas LLC & Ors.
Case Number: O.S.A.No.63 of 2019 & connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 140
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has revived several trademark suits filed by the maker of “Idhayam” sesame oil. The court held that the unauthorized affixing of a registered trademark in India on goods meant for export constitutes a triable cause of action for infringement. Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi set aside previous orders that had rejected the plaints and ordered a joint trial.
Madras High Court Says 2003 MoU Did Not Permit Additional Beardsell Companies To Use Corporate Name
Case Title: Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Beardsell Limited & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial IP Appeal (Madras HC)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 134
The Madras High Court upheld a permanent injunction restraining two companies incorporated as sister concerns of Beardsell Eastern Pvt Ltd from using the corporate name 'Beardsell'. A Division Bench dismissed the intra-court appeal, holding that the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding between the parties permitted only the establishment of 'a new company' — which was Beardsell Eastern — and could not be construed as authorising the incorporation of additional entities using the 'Beardsell' name. The court held that Beardsell Limited, which has used the name and mark for decades in the insulation and packaging sector, was entitled to protect its long-standing goodwill and reputation against use of the mark by entities not named or contemplated in the MoU.
Case Title: Novartis AG v. Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CS (Commercial IP Suit), Madras HC
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 137
The Madras High Court held that Chennai-based active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) manufacturer Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Pvt. Ltd. infringed Novartis AG's Indian patent by manufacturing and exporting large quantities of the Type-2 diabetes drug Vildagliptin to companies in Egypt between 2016 and 2018. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the defendant failed to discharge the burden of showing that its exports fell within the statutory Bolar exception under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970, which permits use of a patented invention solely to obtain regulatory approvals in India or abroad. The court found there was no credible evidence that the exported API was meant for generating regulatory data, and directed the defendant to render an account of profits as part of the relief granted to Novartis.
Case Title: Padmavathi Films v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors. and Base Industries Group v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 623 & 624 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) NO.176 of 2026 and OA Nos. 621 & 622 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) NO.175 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 162 and 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 163
The Madras High Court has granted ad-interim injunctions restraining internet service providers and cable TV operators from infringing the copyright of two films ahead of their theatrical release. The films are the Kannada movie "Balaramana Dinagalu," starring Vinod Prabhakar and Priya Anand, and the Hindi comedy "Welcome to the Jungle," headlined by Akshay Kumar. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu passed separate common orders in each case on June 25, 2026, a day before both films were scheduled to hit theatres on June 26, 2026.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sandip & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1541 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 353
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against two traders accused of selling counterfeit Zara and Calvin Klein clothing. The court held that the allegations disclosed a trademark-related offence rather than a copyright violation, rendering the FIR registered under the Copyright Act improper. Justice M.W. Chandwani observed that since the traders were allegedly selling garments bearing the brand labels, it was a case of trademark infringement, not a case of unauthorised reproduction of a copyrighted work.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Revocation Of SAATHI's Patent For Natural Fibre Absorbent Article
Case Title: Saathi, Inc. v. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 17 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 357
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order revoking a patent granted to SAATHI Inc. for an absorbent article made from natural fibres. Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the Controller of Patents revoked the patent without providing reasons and departed from the Opposition Board's recommendation without explanation. The court also found the Controller failed to decide if the opponent was entitled to maintain the post-grant opposition.
Case Title: Shailesh R. Gandhi & Ors. v. Late Ramchandra R. Gandhi & Ors.
Case Number: COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.18386 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 363
The Bombay High Court has recently granted interim protection to one branch of the Gandhi family behind the Vadilal brand. It restrained Vadilal Industries Ltd., Vadilal International Pvt. Ltd. and other Ahmedabad Group entities from interfering with the Bombay Group's continued use of the "Vadilal" trademark in Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana until arbitration over a family settlement is decided. Justice Amit Borkar held that the Bombay Group had established a prima facie case for interim relief while deciding a petition arising from a family settlement executed in 1993.
Case Title: Blue Cross Laboratories Private Limited v. Alto Healthcare Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 520 OF 2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 344
The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained Alto Healthcare Private Limited and its manufacturer from using the mark "MEFIAL-SPAS" and associated packaging. The court found that the mark was deceptively similar to Blue Cross Laboratories' registered trademarks and artistic work used for its "MEFTAL-SPAS" product. Justice Arif S. Doctor delivered the judgment on June 17. The Court also directed each defendant to pay costs of ₹5 lakh to Blue Cross Laboratories within eight weeks. If the amount is not paid within that period, it will carry interest at 8% per annum.
Case Title: Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 23 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2089 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 23 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 343
The Bombay High Court has recently held that the two-month deadline for filing an evidence affidavit in trademark opposition and rectification proceedings is directory and not mandatory, finding that the broader scheme of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, does not support treating it as an inflexible limitation period. Courts & Judiciary "One must remember that the scheme of Rules 44 to 51 of the 2017 Rules are procedural provisions to aid in adjudicating the merits of Opposition Proceedings and Rectification Proceedings. The Registrar has been given a free play in the joints with discretion to allow evidence necessary for the adjudication. What is perceived as being simply impermissible under Rule 45, when practically permissible under Rule 47 and Rule 48, makes it only reasonable to conclude that the deadline in Rule 45 is directory and not mandatory." Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Use of 'PIL-LINCTUS', Finds Similarity With 'GRILINCTUS'
Case Title: Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited & Anr. v. Psychotropics India Limited
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4006 OF 2022 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 256 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 342
The Bombay High Court on 15 June granted an interim injunction restraining Psychotropics India Limited from using the mark 'PIL-LINCTUS' for its cough syrup, holding it to be deceptively similar to the registered mark 'GRILINCTUS' owned by Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited. Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the competing marks were aurally, phonetically and structurally similar, with the suffix “LINCTUS” dominating the overall impression of both.
Well-Known Trademark List Not Immune From Rectification Proceedings: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Raman Kwatra v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 23211 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 36812 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 340
The Bombay High Court has held that the list of well-known trademarks is amenable to rectification proceedings. It cannot be insulated from challenge merely because it is maintained separately from the Register of Trade Marks. Justice Arif S. Doctor, however, declined to entertain a petition seeking removal of the 'KEI' marks from the list. The judge held that the Delhi High Court was the more appropriate forum to decide the dispute.
Bombay High Court Allows Preity Zinta To Pursue Suit Against Google, Meta Over AI Deepfakes
Case Title: Preity G. Zinta v. Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: LEAVE PETITION (L) NO. 19882 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 339
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted actress Preity Zinta leave to institute a suit against Google LLC, Meta and other entities over AI-generated deepfake videos, manipulated images, chatbot personas, and other digital content that she claims infringes her rights. The proposed suit alleges infringement of her personality rights, copyright, and moral rights. Justice Abhay Ahuja allowed Zinta's petition seeking leave to file the suit before the Bombay High Court and disposed of the matter.
Bombay High Court Restrains Mas Pharmachem's 'BON K2 FORTE', Protects Integrace 'BON-K2' Mark
Case Title: Integrace Private Limited v. Mas Pharmachem And Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 238 OF 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 337
The Bombay High Court on 15 June granted a permanent injunction restraining Mas Pharmachem from using the mark 'BON K2 FORTE', holding it to be deceptively similar to Integrace Private Limited's registered mark 'BON-K2'. Justice Arif S. Doctor found the defendants' adoption of the mark to be “plainly dishonest, malafide and with a clear intent to deceive” and directed them to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000 each to the Plaintiff within eight weeks, with interest at 8% per annum in case of default.
Case Title: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Zenlabs India & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 535 OF 2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 338
The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained Zenlabs India from using the trademark "ZENOX" for medicinal and pharmaceutical products after finding that it was deceptively similar to Glenmark Pharmaceuticals' registered mark "ZINOX". The court held that use of the rival mark was likely to cause confusion among consumers and members of the trade. Justice Arif S. Doctor, while decreeing Glenmark's trademark infringement and passing off suit on June 15, held that the competing marks were almost identical. The Court also found that Zenlabs had failed to justify its adoption of the impugned mark.
Bombay High Court Cancels DUPHACHRIT Trademark, Finds It Similar To Abbott's DUPHA Marks
Case Title: Abbott Product Operations AG v. Menschlich Healthcare (OPC) Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 14697 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 12147 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 335
The Bombay High Court has ordered the cancellation of the trademark "DUPHACHRIT", holding that it was deceptively similar to Abbott Product Operations AG's family of "DUPHA" marks used for pharmaceutical products. Justice Arif S. Doctor passed the order on June 15, 2026, while allowing a rectification petition filed by Abbott seeking removal of the mark from the Register of Trade Marks.
Patent Office Cannot Raise New Objections Beyond Scope Of Remand: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Qualyst Transporter Solutions LLC v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1778 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 61 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 334
The Bombay High Court has held that a patent matter remanded solely to cure a breach of natural justice cannot be treated as a fresh examination proceeding, and the Patent Office cannot use such a remand to introduce entirely new prior art references or fresh grounds of objection. Justice Arif S. Doctor passed the ruling while allowing an application filed by Qualyst Transporter Solutions LLC, a United States-based company whose patent application has been under prosecution in India for nearly a decade.
Case Title: Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Indian Express (P) Ltd.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.41053 of 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.41851 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 350
The Bombay High Court on Monday upheld an interim injunction restraining Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd., publisher of 'The New Indian Express,' from using the "New Indian Express" name for events, programs, or business activities outside the five southern states and Union Territories specified in a 1995 Memorandum of Settlement (MoS). The court dismissed the company's appeal against a November 2025 order passed by a Single Judge.
'Bare Possibility Of Confusion' Enough In Pharma Marks: Bombay High Court Restrains Use Of 'ACIPROX'
Case Title: Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Numen Pharma Private Limited
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1606 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 679 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 323
The Bombay High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Numen Pharma from using the trademark 'ACIPROX', finding it phonetically similar to Alkem's registered mark 'ALCIPRO'. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that in pharmaceutical cases, the court must apply a stricter standard to prevent medical errors. The court emphasized that even a "bare possibility of confusion" in medicinal brands is sufficient to warrant an injunction to protect public health.
Case Title: Anil Srichand Kundnani v. Pruthvi Ishwar Patel & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 13908 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 434 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5393 OF 2025 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 13908 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 314
The Bombay High Court has confirmed an interim injunction against the makers of "Utsaha" tea, holding that the product's packaging prima facie infringes the copyright and trade dress of the "Umang" tea label. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh made absolute an ad-interim order from June 2024, observing that the striking visual similarities between the two brands' packaging were not a matter of coincidence but indicated a deliberate attempt at imitation.
Case Title: Puja Films v. Tips Industries Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Copyright Suit (Bombay HC Vacation Court)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 307
The Bombay High Court declined to entertain an urgent copyright infringement plea seeking to restrain the release of the Varun Dhawan-starrer film 'Hai Jawani Toh Ishq Hona Hai' and two songs — 'Chunnari Chunnari' and 'Ishq Sona Hai' — featured in it. Justice Farhan P. Dubash refused to stay the film's release and flagged the plea as an instance of forum shopping, noting that the petitioner had already approached the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court on the same cause of action without disclosing those proceedings to the Bombay court. The court noted that the petitioner's conduct disentitled it to urgent equitable relief, and directed proper disclosure of all prior proceedings before the matter could be heard on merit.
Punjab And Haryana High Court
Case Title: Maninderjeet Singh v. Facebook Meta Platform INC
Case Number: CWP-11308-2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 32
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently declined to intervene in Meta's removal of a song from a Facebook page. The court noted that the song had been uploaded without the copyright owner's consent. It also found that the page owner had not placed any material on record to dispute that position. Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed that the Facebook page owner had been informed that the song was removed because it was uploaded without the copyright owner's consent.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/s Satyam Fashion v. Meesho Technologies Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 224 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 224 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 76
The Gujarat High Court held that a Commercial Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed with an injunction application once a defendant raises a plea for cancellation of a registered design as a defense. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray set aside a lower court order, emphasizing that under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, such suits must be transferred to the High Court for adjudication.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M.R. Pavan Kumar (Proprietor of MRN Agro Industries) v. Shri Prasanna Anjaneya Agrotech
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7600 OF 2024 (IPR) IN CRP NO.614/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 81
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a trademark suit involving 'MRN GOLD' rice, finding that the plaintiff deliberately undervalued the suit at ₹1,000 to bypass the Commercial Courts Act. Justice Ravi V. Hosmani held that this constituted "forum shopping" and an abuse of process, as the plaintiff had earlier claimed damages of ₹25 lakhs in a legal notice. The court ruled that the suit should have been instituted before a specialized Commercial Court.
Case Title: Kanpur Flowercycling Private Limited v. M/S. Sarathi International Inc.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.30565 OF 2025 (IPR)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 80
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order that returned a trademark infringement suit to a regular civil court. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that the Commercial Court had failed to independently assess the "specified value" of the intangible trademark rights before declining jurisdiction. The matter has been remanded for a fresh enquiry into the valuation of the rights asserted by Sarathi International Inc.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: M.Manuel, Malabar Fashion Jewellery v. Malabar Gold Private Ltd.
Case Number: RFA NO. 7 OF 2016 (A)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 117
The Kerala High Court has partly allowed an appeal filed by the proprietor of Delhi-based Malabar Fashion Jewellery, setting aside a trial court's finding that the business had passed off its goods as those of Malabar Gold. It, however, retained the injunction restraining the jeweller from using a deceptively similar trademark and clarified that no exclusive rights can be claimed over the geographical expression "Malabar" by itself.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court Vacates Injunction Against Safex Chemicals In Patent Dispute
Case Title: Safex Chemicals Private Limited v. SML Limited & Anr.
Case Number: COMAP No.2 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 25
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has vacated an interim injunction restraining Safex Chemicals Private Limited in a patent infringement suit. A division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi passed the order after finding, prima facie, that no cause of action or legal wrong occurred within the state to invoke the court's territorial jurisdiction. The ruling sets aside a previous single-judge order from June 2025.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: V.Sree Pathi Reddy v. The State of Telangana
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.12250 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 34
The Telangana High Court has directed Telangana's education authorities to consider a representation seeking cancellation of permissions and recognition granted to a rival school operating under the name "SPR High School". The petitioner contended that the name infringed his registered trademarks and was being used despite an injunction granted by a civil court.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Fraunhofer Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Angewandten Forschunge v. The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark & Anr.
Case Number: IPDPTA/11/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 160
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the German research organisation Fraunhofer Gesellschaft against the rejection of its patent application for a method to stimulate biomass growth in bioreactors. The court ruled that the invention's specification was excessively broad and failed to provide sufficient disclosure for the invention to be performed. Additionally, the court found that the application did not disclose the source and geographical origin of the biological material used, as required by law.
COMMERCIAL COURTS
Case Title: Burberry Limited v. Krishan Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 332/19
A Delhi district court has largely rejected Burberry's trademark infringement claims against traders in Karol Bagh's Gaffar Market, though it granted a permanent injunction and ₹3 lakh in damages against one trader who failed to produce allegedly infringing goods seized during a court-appointed commission. The court held that the company failed to establish infringement against most of the traders and had instituted the suit through a person whose authority had expired before the case was filed.
Mumbai Court Refuses To Stay OTT Release of 'Dhurandhar 2' In Writer's Suit Alleging Plagiarism
Case Title: Santosh Kumar R.S. v. Aditya Dhar & Ors.
Case Number: NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1841 OF 2026 IN S. C. SUIT NO. 1128 OF 2026
A Mumbai civil court on Thursday has rejected the ad-interim relief sought by a writer who alleged that filmmaker Aditya Dhar and others had copied his story and script. The court declined to restrain the film's release on an OTT platform after finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish similarity between the competing works and had not impleaded the OTT platform as a party. Santosh Kumar R.S. filed a suit for a declaration and an injunction, alleging that the defendants, including filmmaker Aditya Dhar, had copied his story. He sought the appointment of a Court Commissioner and a stay on the film's OTT release.
Delhi Court Restrains Use Of 'Ayurland' Trademark, Awards ₹2 Lakh Damages To 'Ayur' Products Maker.
Case Title: Three-N-Products Private Limited v. Teamex Retail Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS (COMM) No.986/2025
A Delhi commercial court has permanently restrained Teamex Retail Limited and its directors from using the mark "Ayurland" or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark "Ayur." The court granted relief to Three-N-Products Private Limited, the maker of the Ayur range of products, and awarded damages of ₹2 lakh along with costs. District Judge (Commercial Court) Dr. Neera Bharihoke of the Saket Courts delivered the judgment on June 8, 2026.
Case Title: Pathways Foundation v. Arpit Roy
Case Number: Com.OS.No.40/2025
A Bengaluru commercial court has dismissed a ₹2 crore copyright infringement suit filed by the Chicago-based Pathways Foundation against an Indian app developer. Judge Arjun S. Mallur held that the foundation utterly failed to prove any infringement of its copyrighted resources or videos by the defendant. Consequently, the court rejected the claim for punitive damages and dismissed the suit with costs.
CGPDTM Notification
On 23 June 2026, the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks issued a public notice announcing the schedule and key details for the Patent Agent Examination 2027 and the Trade Marks Agent Examination 2027. The notice states that the Trade Marks Agent Examination is likely to take place on 9 January 2027 and the Patent Agent Examination is likely to take place on 10 January 2027. The authority will conduct both examinations across 15 centres, including Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai and Pune.
More News
California Northern District Court Rejects Uber's Eligibility Challenge To LBT GPS Tracking Patents
Case Title: LBT IP II LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc
Case Number: Case No. 22-cv-03985-RFL
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California on 26 June 2026 held that Uber Technologies Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings against LBT IP II LLC could not be sustained, finding that the asserted GPS tracking and location-display patents were not directed to abstract ideas and were patent-eligible. Rita F. Lin rejected Uber's plea to invalidate LBT's patents at the pleadings stage. She held that the claim "involves more than merely gathering data, using that data to perform calculations, and presenting the result," and instead discloses "a non-abstract technological solution to a technological problem" by improving tracking accuracy when GPS line of sight is unavailable.