SUPREME COURT
Case Title: ILAIYARAAJA VS. SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED
Case Number: DIARY NO. - 50668/2026
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to interfere with music composer Ilaiyaraaja's challenge against the Delhi High Court's dismissal of his review petition in the copyright dispute concerning the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the Tamil film Moodu Pani. The Delhi High Court's Single Judge held that while Ilaiyaraaja retained certain rights in the musical work, he had no copyright in the sound recording or lyrics and therefore could not assign those rights to Vels. The Division Bench subsequently upheld the injunction, permitting use of the song only subject to a ₹30 lakh deposit.
Case Title: RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED VS. PICADILLY AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Case Number: DIARY NO. - 60134/2026
The Supreme Court requested the Punjab and Haryana High Court to expedite the hearing of Radico Khaitan Ltd.'s challenge to an injunction restraining it from marketing vodka under the mark 'THE SPIRIT OF KASHMYR'. The dispute arose with Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. over competing marks 'CASHMIR' and 'CASHMERE'. The Karnal Commercial Court had previously ruled in favour of Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd., dismissing Radico Khaitan's applications.
Case Title: SAURASHTRA AAJ TAK VS. TV TODAY NETWORK
Case Number: DIARY NO. - 57080/2026
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court order restraining a Rajkot-based Gujarati newspaper from using the name “Saurashtra Aaj Tak” in a trademark dispute with TV Today Network. A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi, and V. Mohana upheld the High Court's finding that TV Today Network, operator of the news channel “Aaj Tak”, was the prior user of the mark.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case Title: M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. v. Anugya Gupta & Anr.
Case Number: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13309 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 84
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a Commercial Court must decide a challenge to its subject-matter jurisdiction before considering an application to amend a plaint. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal dismissed a petition filed by I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd., owner of the “Sarkari Result” trademark, upholding the Varanasi Commercial Court's decision to hear a jurisdiction challenge filed by the respondents prior to taking up the amendment plea.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Ahmedabad Entities Agree Before Bombay High Court To Stop Using 7 Drug Names In Sun Pharma Suit
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Nectar Life Care & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO.28038 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 558
Ahmedabad-based Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations Private Limited agreed before the Bombay High Court to stop using seven pharmaceutical product names. Sun Pharma had alleged that the names were deceptively similar to its registered Class 5 trademarks “HISTAC” and “OMESEC”. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar recorded the settlement on October 8, 2026, accepting the undertakings.
Case Title: Colgate-Palmolive Company & Anr. v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited
Case Number: CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1085 OF 2019 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 18 OF 1996
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 557
The Bombay High Court permitted Colgate-Palmolive to introduce six renewed trademark registration certificates as evidence in its 1996 infringement suit against Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the documents were relevant to the dispute, observing that Colgate had paid a disproportionate price for its attorneys' earlier failure to submit the legal proceeding certificates in July 2019.
Bombay High Court Restrains Unauthorised Use Of Actor Samantha Prabhu's Persona, Orders Takedowns
Case Title: Samantha Ruth Prabhu v. John Doe (Ashok Kumar) & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.29905 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO.346 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 546
The Bombay High Court has recently granted actor Samantha Ruth Prabhu ad-interim protection against AI-generated deepfakes, morphed and pornographic content, chatbots impersonating her and unauthorised merchandise using her name and likeness. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar passed the order on October 1, finding a “very strong prima facie case” for restraining the unauthorised use of Prabhu's persona and directing the removal or disabling of access to the infringing content.
Bombay High Court Restrains DUNE From Creating Third-Party Rights In 'SNAP', Protects VVAA's 40% IP
Case Title: VVAA Films Private Limited v. DUNE Collective LLP
Case Number: COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.25744 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 555
The Bombay High Court on 5 October restrained DUNE Collective LLP from creating third-party rights in the Hindi feature film “SNAP” that could prejudice co-producer VVAA Films Private Limited's claimed 40% intellectual property interest, pending commencement of arbitration. Justice Amit Borkar also directed DUNE to disclose records showing how it had used VVAA's funds, but declined to order specific performance of the co-production agreement or grant a blanket restraint against DUNE acting on its termination.
Bombay High Court Refuses To Restrain Kangana Ranaut's 'Queen Full Power' Over Copyright Dispute
Case Title: Phantom Studios India Pvt. Ltd. v. Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5177 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 97 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 569
The Bombay High Court refused to restrain the making and release of Queen Full Power, starring Kangana Ranaut and directed by Vikas Bahl. Phantom Studios India Pvt. Ltd., claiming a 50% share in the intellectual property rights in the 2014 film Queen, had sought relief alleging passing off and breach of contract. Justice Sandeep V. Marne found that Phantom had failed to establish a prima facie case warranting an injunction.
Bombay High Court Restrains Ampra Biobact From Using 'PK-BOR' Fertilizer Mark Similar To 'PK MOR'
Case Title: Indian Agro Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Ampra Biobact Private Limited
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 12511 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 585
The Bombay High Court restrained Ampra Biobact Private Limited from using the 'PK-BOR' trademark for water-soluble fertilisers, finding it nearly identical to Indian Agro Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s registered 'PK MOR' mark. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar observed that the competing marks were phonetically, visually and structurally similar, with the substitution of one letter making little difference to their overall impression. The Court also noted that both products targeted the same class of purchasers and were sold through the same trade channels.
Bombay High Court Restores Injunction To Protect Atomberg's Fan Design From Imitation By Stove Kraft
Case Title: Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v. Stove Kraft Limited
Case Number: Commercial Appeal No. (L) 14941 of 2026 in Interim Application No. 88 of 2026 in Commercial (IP) Suit No. 710 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 597
The Bombay High Court restored an interim injunction restraining Stove Kraft Limited from manufacturing and selling its Pigeon Fan-tastic ceiling fan, finding that its design imitated the distinctive appearance of Atomberg Technologies' Renesa Alpha fan. A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande held that the primary test for determining novelty, originality and infringement under the Designs Act, 2000, is the visual 'eye' test. The Court set aside the Single Judge's order refusing interim relief and restored the earlier injunction and the appointment of a Court Receiver.
Bombay High Court Orders Takedown Of Video Claiming Bisleri Bottles Filtered Drain, Toilet Water
Case Title: Bisleri International Private Limited v. Meta Platforms Inc. & Ors.
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 37662 of 2026 in Suit (L) No. 37659 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 619
The Bombay High Court directed the removal of social media posts alleging that Bisleri's packaged drinking water was made from filtered drain and toilet water. Justice Arif S. Doctor described the video as prima facie disparaging and denigrating and restrained further circulation of the allegations. The Court also granted a dynamic injunction covering substantially identical or similar versions of the video circulated through newly created accounts or URLs.
Bombay High Court Protects Natural Ice Creams From Fake Franchise Offers By Impersonators
Case Title: Siddhant Ice Creams LLP & Anr. v. John Doe(s) & Ors.
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 22104 of 2026 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 328 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 607
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to Siddhant Ice Creams LLP and another plaintiff in a trademark and copyright infringement suit concerning alleged impersonation of the NATURAL Ice Creams brand. The plaintiffs alleged that unknown persons had created websites, emails and other communications resembling the brand and issued forged franchise letters to solicit payments from prospective franchisees.
Bombay High Court Allows USV Chairperson Leena Gandhi Tewari To Sue Over Fake Facebook Accounts
Case Title: Leena Gandhi Tewari v. John Deo/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: Leave Petition (L) No. 36393/2026 in Suit (L) No. 36383/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 600
The Bombay High Court granted USV Private Limited Chairperson Leena Gandhi Tewari permission to institute a suit against Meta Platforms Inc. and others over allegedly fake Facebook accounts impersonating her. Justice Rajesh S. Patil granted leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent after Tewari alleged that the accounts misused her identity, photographs and professional information without consent.
Bombay High Court Finds 'LEFOXIN BIOX' Similar To Glaxo's 'LANOXIN', Directs Removal By December 31
Case Title: Glaxo Group Limited v. Shreya Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 12 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 613
The Bombay High Court directed the removal of Shreya Life Sciences' “LEFOXIN BIOX” trademark from the register with effect from December 31, 2026. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the marks could create a likelihood of confusion despite differences in the medicines' ingredients and medical uses. The Court also held that manufacturing goods in India exclusively for export constitutes trademark use in India under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Bombay High Court Rejects Plea To Stay Trademark Infringement Suit Over 'Pune Mirror' Mark
Case Title: Metropolitan Media Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Kothrud Mitra Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Interim Application No. 2031 of 2026 in Commercial (IP) Suit No. 230 of 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 596
The Bombay High Court rejected a plea to stay a trademark infringement suit concerning the alleged unauthorised use of the names 'Pune Mirror' and 'KM Kothrud Mirror'. Justice Gauri Godse held that the defendant newspaper publisher had failed to establish a prima facie challenge to the validity of the plaintiffs' registered trademarks. The Court also observed that approval of a newspaper title under a separate law does not, by itself, establish that a registered trademark is invalid. Bombay High Court Allows Godwoman Radhe Maa To Pursue Personality Rights Suit Against Google
Case Title: Sukhwinder Kaur @ Radhe Maa v. Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: Leave Petition (L) No. 34593 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 598
The Bombay High Court granted Sukhwinder Kaur, popularly known as Radhe Maa, leave to institute a suit seeking protection of her personality rights and relief against alleged disparagement through online content. Justice Abhay Ahuja allowed the petition under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, 1865, after considering the petition and the proposed plaint. The order concerns the Court's territorial jurisdiction to entertain the proposed suit and does not decide the underlying allegations of infringement or disparagement.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Case Title: NOCIL Ltd v. Finorchem Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: IA NO: GA-COM/1/2024 In IP-COM/25/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 250
The Calcutta High Court held that companies seeking to enter a market with a process potentially covered by an existing patent must remove legal obstacles before commencing operations. The court noted that intending market entrants should "clear the way" rather than waiting to be sued for patent infringement after launching operations.
Case Title: Ramji Lal Agarwal v. Sourav Agarwal
Case Number: CS-COM/178/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 258
The Calcutta High Court held that a dispute over an alleged breach of a family settlement restricting use of the trade name “Sindharam Sanwarmal” fell within its Commercial Division rather than its Intellectual Property Rights Division. Justice Aniruddha Roy declined to grant an interim injunction but directed the defendant to maintain accounts and set apart profits earned from the disputed business.
Case Title: ITC Limited v. SMM Tobacco Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: APDT/24/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 255.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed ITC Limited's appeal against the refusal to exempt its trademark and copyright infringement suit concerning alleged counterfeit cigarettes from pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Division Bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Pratim Roy held that the plaint did not establish the urgency required to bypass mediation. The Court emphasised that a plaintiff must demonstrate an imminent risk of injury and explain why mediation cannot be pursued before seeking urgent judicial intervention.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Delhi High Court Directs Toplad To Change Name, Finds 'TOPLAD' Too Nearly Resembles 'TOPLAND'
Case Title: Topland Engines Private Limited v. Toplad Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 9341/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1058
The Delhi High Court directed Toplad Private Limited to change its company name, holding that "TOPLAD" too nearly resembles the registered "TOPLAND" trademark of Topland Engines Private Limited. Justice Amit Mahajan observed that except for the letter 'N', both words completely resemble each other and would confuse a person of average intelligence, setting aside a May 15, 2023 order of the Regional Director.
Delhi High Court Extends 'THUNDER 15000' Beer Trademark Injunction To Importer Supar SIP Traders
Case Title: Inbrew Beverages Private Limited v. Kinjore Brewery Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 491/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1100
The Delhi High Court extended an interim injunction over the “THUNDER 15000” beer mark to Delhi-based importer Supar SIP Traders LLP. Justice Tejas Karia added the firm as a defendant on Inbrew Beverages' plea after the importer admitted to distributing the product under a contractual arrangement.
Case Title: Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corp & Anr. v. Chakr Innovation Private Limited
Case Number : CS(COMM) 1080/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1094
The Delhi High Court on 5 October restrained Chakr Innovation Private Limited from using, installing or distributing pirated or unlicensed versions of SolidWorks design software, and from tampering with data on 12 computer systems allegedly running unauthorised copies. Justice Vikas Mahajan passed the interim injunction in a copyright infringement suit filed by Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corp and its Indian sister company.
Delhi High Court Issues Summons On Actor, BJP MP Kangana Ranaut's Personality Rights Plea
Case Title: KANGANA RANAUT v. META PLATFORMS & ORS
The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued summons in a suit filed by Bollywood actor and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut seeking protection of her personality rights. Justice Vikas Mahajan also issued notice on Ranaut's application seeking an interim injunction against the alleged misuse of her persona. Appearing for Ranaut, her counsel submitted that the actress was being targeted through pornographic and obscene material circulated on social media.
Delhi High Court Protects Actor Vijay Deverakonda's Personality Rights Against AI Deepfakes
Case Title: Vijay Sai Deverakonda v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1098/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1099
The Delhi High Court granted Telugu actor Vijay Sai Deverakonda an ex parte ad interim injunction against unauthorised commercial exploitation of his identity. Justice Vikas Mahajan directed the takedown of 94 listed URLs and ordered domain locking against AI deepfakes, false endorsements, and fake agent impersonation.
Case Title: Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 819/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1097
The Delhi High Court granted actor Amitabh Bachchan additional time to finalise a settlement in his personality rights suit. The court noted that he must personally appear before the court only if the settlement fails and he chooses to pursue the suit further.
Case Title: Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) v. Sphinx Worldbiz Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1073/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1095
The Delhi High Court restrained Sphinx Worldbiz Ltd and a controlled entity from using the “SHRM PRO” mark for their services. Justice Vikas Mahajan granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in a suit filed by the Society for Human Resource Management, finding the adoption non-bona fide and deceptive.
Case Title: Glisten LLC v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 21/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1090
The Delhi High Court set aside the Patent Office's refusal of US-based Glisten LLC's patent application for a gemstone coating invention. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held on October 1 that a patent refusal cannot be sustained if it is founded on grounds not put to the applicant prior to the hearing.
Delhi High Court Bars Fake Medical Videos Using Dr Devi Shetty's Persona, Flags Public Health Risk
Case Title: Dr Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr. v. Medicine Me & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1053/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1088
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained social media channels from misusing cardiac surgeon Dr Devi Prasad Shetty's persona and Narayana Hrudayalaya's registered marks to promote false medical claims. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav highlighted that misleading medical videos create severe public health risks.
Case Title: SALMAN KHAN V/S AMIT JANI & ORS.
Case Number: REVIEW PET. 161/2026 CM 89/2026 CM 198/2026 CM 237/2026 IN CS(COMM) - 986/2026
The Delhi High Court issued notice on an application by film producer Amit Jani challenging the court's territorial jurisdiction in actor Salman Khan's suit over “Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy”. Justice Tejas Karia directed Khan to reply within four weeks and listed the plea for hearing on December 16.
Case Title: The Coca-Cola Company v. M/s Chhabee Nutricos Industries LLP
Case Number: CS(COMM) 32/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1089
The Delhi High Court restrained Chhabee Nutricos Industries LLP from using a redesigned bottle shape for its “Gulpy Orange” drink. Justice Vikas Mahajan examined the bottle designs and held that the defendant's packaging was deceptively similar to Coca-Cola's “Minute Maid Pulpy Orange” bottle.
Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Rahul Meena & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1043/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1087
The Delhi High Court ordered the immediate suspension of 126 rogue websites operating under the "JIO lottery" name. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the ad interim order on October 7, restraining the operators from misusing Reliance Industries' registered "JIO" trademark.
Publisher's Heir Cannot Claim Copyright Without Proof Of Assignment From Authors: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mrs. Shakti Sagar v. The Delhi Law House and Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) No. 492 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1086
The Delhi High Court refused an interim injunction to a claimant asserting copyright over 47 law textbooks published by Delhi Law House. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that a publisher's heir cannot claim copyright without proving a valid, written assignment from the original authors under Section 19 of the Copyright Act.
Case Title: Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 989/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1093
The Delhi High Court has allowed Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which owns the FanCode streaming platform, to notify domain registrars, hosting entities, and internet service providers directly about newly discovered piracy websites streaming Formula One and other sporting events licensed to it. The company need not file a fresh application each time. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order on October 1, supplementing an interim injunction granted on September 10.
Case Title: Digital18 Media Private Limited v. SSRMovies.style & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1083/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1081
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining nine websites from hosting, streaming, or making available online the film Drishyam: The Conclusion without authorization. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order in a suit filed by exclusive rights holder Digital18 Media Private Limited, directing domain registrars and internet service providers to block access to the rogue sites.
Delhi High Court Refuses Japan Tobacco's Plea To Remove 'CAMEL COLLECTION' Copyright Registration
Case Title: Japan Tobacco Inc and Anr. v. The Central Wearhouse and Anr.
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 814/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1073
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition by Japan Tobacco Inc. seeking cancellation of a 1997 copyright registration for the “CAMEL” and “CAMEL COLLECTION” artistic work held by garment company The Central Wearhouse. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that Japan Tobacco failed to establish that it was the “First Owner” of the original artistic work under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, observing that trademark registrations or prior use claims do not automatically confer copyright ownership.
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. RSY News
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1018/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1066
The Delhi High Court held that the wholesale reproduction of ten news videos of news agency ANI on YouTube cannot be regarded as fair dealing for reporting current events when the copied material operates as a substitute for the original works. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav permanently restrained Patna-based RSY News from reproducing ANI's copyrighted content across all digital platforms, including its four YouTube channels.
Delhi High Court Declares “DS Group” And Logo Well-Known Trademarks
Case Title: DS Intellectual Properties LLP & Anr. v. Abhinav Singh & Ors.
Case Number: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1065
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1065
The Delhi High Court declared the DS Group trademark and its corresponding logo as well-known trademarks under Indian trademark law. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the judgment on September 25, permanently restraining five entities sued over a website operating fake distributorship schemes for the Rajnigandha mouth-freshener brand.
Delhi High Court To Pass Order On Vijay Deverakonda's Plea Seeking Protection Of Personality Rights
Case Title: VIJAY SAI DEVERAKONDA v. ASHOK KUMAR JOHN DOE & ORS
The Delhi High Court issued summons in a suit and notice on an application filed by Telugu actor Vijay Deverakonda seeking protection of his personality rights. Justice Vikas Mahajan heard arguments regarding fake commercial endorsements, unauthorised AI deepfakes, and impersonation by individuals posing as his booking agents.
Case Title: Tetra Technologies, Inc. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 33/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1143
The Delhi High Court set aside the Patent Office's decision to abandon Tetra Technologies' patent application, holding that merely recording the dispatch of an email containing the First Examination Report was insufficient without proof of effective communication. The Court restored the application and granted the company eight weeks to respond to the objections.
Case Title: Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Vishal Rattewal & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1032/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1141
The Delhi High Court held that an influencer's use of a company's trademark merely to refer to it in critical social media posts did not amount to trademark use in the course of trade under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Justice A.J. Bhambhani held that the dispute did not concern infringement of intellectual property rights and was therefore not maintainable before the Court's Intellectual Property Division.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains RK Cables From Using Packaging Similar To V-Guard Wires
Case Title: V-Guard Industries Limited v. Ashok Kumar Trading as R.K. Industries & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1117/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1140
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained R.K. Industries and associated sellers from dealing in electrical wires using packaging allegedly imitating V-Guard's black-and-yellow trade dress. The Court also directed IndiaMART and TradeIndia to remove specified product listings, finding a prima facie case of infringement and passing off.
Delhi High Court Cancels 'The Brew Bukhara' Trademark On ITC's Plea
Case Title: ITC Limited & Anr. v. Umesh Arora & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 48/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1138
The Delhi High Court cancelled the registration of the “THE BREW BUKHARA” device mark following a challenge by ITC Limited and ITC Hotels Limited, which alleged deceptive similarity with their established “BUKHARA” trademark. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted that the registered proprietor had not filed a reply and that his trademark agent had informed the Court that use of the mark had been discontinued.
Case Title: Kangana Ranaut v. Meta Platforms Inc. & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1100/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1101
The Delhi High Court has recently directed Meta Platforms Inc. to remove, within 72 hours, AI-generated sexual deepfakes, morphed images and fabricated statements attributed to actor and MP Kangana Ranaut. Justice Vikas Mahajan also ordered the offending sites to be blocked. The Court found that her stature “inherently grants her proprietary rights over her personality and associated attributes”.
Actor Kriti Sanon Moves Delhi High Court To Protect Her Personality Rights
Case Title: Kriti Sanon v. BBE Marketing Inc. & Ors.
Actor Kriti Sanon approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of her personality rights, including her image and voice. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav asked her counsel to submit a comprehensive compilation of relevant judgments and legal materials to assist the Court in examining the scope of personality rights.
Case Title: Rakesh Bedi v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1049/2026
The Delhi High Court observed that clear boundaries must be drawn between personality rights and publicity rights, noting that such claims increasingly overlap with defamation, caricatures and independent creative works. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav raised three questions for consideration: what personality rights protect, what constitutes publicity rights, and who can claim these rights. The Court called for compilations of judgments and written submissions to assist its examination of the legal issues.
Delhi High Court Blocks 20 Rogue Websites Streaming DAZN's Serie A Football Matches
Case Title: DAZN Limited v. Stremeo.ru & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1113/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1118.
The Delhi High Court restrained 20 rogue websites from streaming DAZN's exclusively licensed Serie A Football Season 2026–27 matches without authorisation. Justice Tejas Karia directed domain name registrars and internet service providers to block the identified websites and permitted real-time blocking of newly discovered mirror websites. The Court observed that unauthorised streaming threatened DAZN's revenue and undermined its investment in acquiring the broadcast rights.
Case Title: Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/s Domin'd Pizza & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 461/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1124.
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained three pizza outlets from using names deceptively similar to Domino's trademarks, including “Domin'd Pizza”, “Domind's Pizza”, “Domzz Pizza”, “Domi'd Pizza” and “Dom'd Pizza”. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that the outlets' use of confusingly similar names for identical goods could amount to trademark infringement and mislead consumers ordering food through online delivery platforms. The Court decreed the suit after the relevant defendants failed to appear. The plaintiffs did not press their claims for damages and costs.
Delhi High Court Permanently Bars Hisar Coaching Operators From Using 'CAREER POWER' Mark
Case Title: Metis Eduventures Private Limited India v. Career Power Coaching Centre Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 916/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1126.
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained two Hisar-based coaching operators from using the “CAREER POWER” mark and its device, or the name “METIS EDUVANTURES”, in a suit alleging passing off and copyright infringement. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that a final decree was necessary to protect Metis Eduventures' rights, notwithstanding the defendants' compliance with an earlier interim injunction.
Delhi High Court Protects Amazon's Upcoming Film 'Nayyi Naveli' From Online Piracy Ahead Of Release
Case Title: Amazon Seller Services Private Limited v. https://cinemalux.baby/ & Ors.
The Delhi High Court protected Amazon's upcoming film Nayyi Naveli against unauthorised online distribution. Justice Vikas Mahajan directed rogue websites not to broadcast or stream the film without authorisation following its release. Amazon argued that it was the first owner and distributor of the film and held the copyright under its production arrangements. The Court granted protection against anticipated online piracy ahead of the film's October 16, 2026 theatrical release.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Refusal To Register 'COBBLE STONE' Trademark
Case Title: Cobble Stone Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 79/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1106
The Delhi High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register “COBBLE STONE” for non-metallic building materials and remanded the application for fresh consideration. Justice Vikas Mahajan directed the Registrar to decide the application within 60 days. Cobble Stone had argued that the Registrar failed to consider documents supporting its use of the mark since 2011 and its claim of honest concurrent use.
Delhi High Court Restrains Imperia Decor From Using 'ALUMAC' Trademark For Building Materials
Case Title: Alucopanel Industries v. Imperia Decor Industries & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1095/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1105.
The Delhi High Court restrained Imperia Decor Industries and another company from using “ALUMAC” for aluminium composite panels and related building materials, finding the mark deceptively similar to Alucopanel Industries' registered “ALOMAX” trademark. Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that a director of the defendant company had previously been associated with the plaintiff, suggesting that the adoption of the competing mark was not bona fide. The Court found a likelihood of consumer confusion and granted an interim injunction.
Case Title: Archian Foods Private Limited v. Goldenstuff and Beverages Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1105/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1103
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained Goldenstuff and Beverages Private Limited and other defendants from selling soft drinks using packaging allegedly imitating Archian Foods' “Lahori Zeera” products. Justice Vikas Mahajan found that similarities in labels, colour schemes, bottle shapes and branding could deceive consumers. The injunction protects the plaintiff's relevant trademarks, copyrights, trade dress and registered bottle design. The Court deferred deciding whether the defendants could continue using the word “Indian” in their marks.
Delhi High Court Permanently Bars Capital Airgun From Using 'KIEHBERG' Mark, Cancels Registration
Case Title: Kiehberg GmbH & Anr. v. Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 808/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1145
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained Capital Airgun Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. from using the 'KIEHBERG' trademark, holding that registration does not confer a right to pass off goods as those of a prior user. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted that the plaintiffs were prior users of the mark and that its adoption by another trader dealing in identical goods could not be a mere coincidence. The Court also directed the defendants to surrender material bearing the mark for destruction and cancelled the trademark registration.
Case Title: Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited v. Alaina Healthcare Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 280/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1144
The Delhi High Court restrained A. Menarini India Pvt. Ltd. and Alaina Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. from using 'ACNE SCAR', 'ACNE+SCAR' and 'ACNESCAR' for scar serum products in a trademark infringement suit filed by Mankind Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found that 'ACNESTAR' and 'ACNE SCAR' were nearly indistinguishable phonetically. The Court clarified that the injunction would not prevent the defendants from selling their product under a different name or using 'HEXILAK' or 'MENARINI'.
Case Title: Universal City Studios LLC & Ors. v. 123MoviesHub.tc & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 116/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1146
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained 63 websites, including 123MoviesHub and Putlocker domains, from hosting, streaming, reproducing or distributing copyrighted films belonging to major entertainment studios, including Universal City Studios, Warner Bros., Netflix, Paramount Pictures and Disney Enterprises.
Delhi High Court Rejects Godrej's ₹1 Crore Contempt Claim Against Geeken Over Registered Designs
Case Title: Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Geeken Seating Collection Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 424/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1151
The Delhi High Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings against Geeken Seating Collection Pvt. Ltd. in a design infringement dispute with Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that Godrej had failed to establish wilful disobedience of the Court's orders. The Court observed that disobedience under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure must be conclusively established and cannot be presumed or inferred. It permitted Godrej to raise its damages claim at trial and seek further relief if additional violations were discovered.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Fake Website Misusing Experion's 'Emerelle Reserve' Mark
Case Title: Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Ishu Singh & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1152/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1150
The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. against the alleged unauthorised use of its 'EXPERION' trademark and the name of its upcoming project, 'EXPERION EMERELLE RESERVE'. Justice Tejas Karia found that the disputed website was prima facie using the marks dishonestly and falsely portraying itself as an authorised channel partner. The Court restrained the website operator from using the marks and directed the domain registrar to remove, disable and block the website within 72 hours of receiving notice.
Delhi High Court Restrains Benne Delhi From Using 'BENNE' Trademark In South Indian Cuisine Business
Case Title: Shimow Hospitality Private Limited v. M/s Benne Delhi Through Its Proprietor
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1131/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1153
The Delhi High Court restrained Benne Delhi from using the trademarks 'BENNE' and 'BENNE DELHI', or any identical or deceptively similar mark, for South Indian cuisine services. Justice Vikas Mahajan found that Shimow Hospitality Private Limited had established a prima facie case, noting that the competing businesses operated in the same field and that use of an identical mark could confuse consumers about the origin or affiliation of the services.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Fake Kotak Trading Accounts From Social Media
Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1075/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1152
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction to Kotak Mahindra Bank and Kotak Securities against unidentified persons allegedly impersonating the financial institutions on social media to lure investors into fraudulent trading schemes. Justice Vikas Mahajan directed Meta Platforms, WhatsApp, Google, Telegram, X Corp and LinkedIn to remove identified infringing accounts and disclose the operators' KYC details. The Court also directed the relevant government departments to instruct internet service providers and telecom operators to block access to the listed websites.
Delhi High Court Restrains Rishikesh Hotel From Using Mark Similar To Ananda Resort's Trademark
Case Title: IHHR Hospitality Ananda Pvt. Ltd. v. Ishanee Villas Tech Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1124/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1154
The Delhi High Court restrained Ishanee Villas Tech Private Limited from using 'ANANDAM IN THE HIMALAYAS' or any deceptively or confusingly similar mark that infringes IHHR Hospitality Ananda Private Limited's registered 'ANANDA' trademark and the tagline 'IN THE HIMALAYAS'. Justice Vikas Mahajan found a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff had alleged that customers booked the defendant's Rishikesh hotel believing it was affiliated with its Ananda resort.
Case Title: Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd v. Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 661/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1189
The Delhi High Court referred a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Singapore-based Utracon Corporation against its former Indian subsidiary and others to arbitration. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that a party cannot avoid an arbitration agreement merely by including a claim for relief that may not independently be arbitrable. The dispute concerned the continued use of the UTRACON trademark after the licence expired.
Case Title: M/s Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt. Ltd. v. Vyom Foodcraft Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1008/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1188
The Delhi High Court rejected Cafe Brown Sugar's application to place additional documents on record in its trademark dispute with Vyom Foodcraft and Richa Jalani. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that the company had failed to establish reasonable cause for the late filing, observing that the documents had remained in its own godown and storerooms when the suit was filed. The Court rejected the explanation that the documents were discovered during Diwali cleaning.
Delhi High Court Restrains Agro Orbit Hub From Selling Unauthorised Products Bearing UPL Trademarks
Case Title: UPL Limited & Anr. v. Agro Orbit Hub Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1130/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1168
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained Agro Orbit Hub Private Limited from selling or advertising unauthorised products bearing UPL's trademarks. Justice Tejas Karia directed the platform to remove the disputed listings within 72 hours of receiving the order and disclose details of the sellers and others involved in the supply chain.
Delhi High Court Restrains Plywood Sellers From Using Goldmedal Mark To Exploit Brand Goodwill
Case Title: Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Jimmy Thoppilan & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 445/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1169
The Delhi High Court restrained Jimmy Thoppilan and others from manufacturing, selling or advertising plywood, block boards, PVC boards and related goods under the mark “GOLDMEDAL PLY AND BOARDS” or any deceptively similar mark. Justice Tejas Karia observed that the defendants had prima facie adopted the mark dishonestly to exploit Goldmedal Electricals' goodwill and reputation.
Delhi High Court Restrains Antara Resort From Using Mark Similar To Minor Hotel Group's “ANANTARA”
Case Title: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors. v. Antara Resorts and Banquets
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1155/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1182
The Delhi High Court restrained Antara Resort and Banquets from using “ANTARA”, “ANTARA RESORT & BANQUETS” or deceptively similar marks for hospitality services. Justice Tejas Karia found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, noting the similarity between the rival marks, overlapping services and common trade channels. The Court observed that the defendant's adoption appeared to be an attempt to exploit the plaintiffs' goodwill and reputation.
Delhi High Court Bars Jabsons Foods From Using 'HOT MIX' Mark, Upholds Shah Namkeen's Rights
Case Title: Mr. Sunit Shah, Proprietor of M/s Shah Namkeen v. M/s Jabsons Foods Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 641/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1180
The Delhi High Court continued an injunction restraining Jabsons Foods from using the “HOT MIX” mark for namkeen and allied products. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that adding the defendant's house mark or changing the packaging did not overcome the use of the expression that formed the prominent feature of Shah Namkeen's registered label. The Court dismissed Jabsons' application to vacate the injunction, while clarifying that the company could use the words “hot” or “mix” individually in their ordinary descriptive sense.
Case Title: Sourav Ganguly & Anr. v. Masha Sajdeh & Ors.
Case Number: Not verified from the available article listing
Citation: Not verified from the available article listing
The Delhi High Court directed former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly to identify the scenes in the film Doosra that he objects to, along with timestamps and reasons for each objection. Justice Tejas Karia asked Ganguly's side to provide the details before the Court considers whether to grant interim relief in his personality rights dispute with the filmmakers.
Case Title: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte. Ltd. & Ors. v. Evergreen Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 267/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1164
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained Evergreen Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. and other defendants from using the 'ANANTARA' trademark or any identical or deceptively similar mark for real estate, hospitality, residential and allied services. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the defendants had incorporated 'ANANTARA' in its entirety as the leading and essential feature of their marks. The Court found that the additional descriptive expressions did not dispel the likelihood of confusion and that the unrebutted pleadings established a case of infringement and passing off.
Delhi High Court Directs Bikanervala To Remove 'ANANDAM' Products From Website Within 24 Hours
Case Title: Anandam Sweets Private Limited v. Bikanervala Foods Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1075/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1160
The Delhi High Court directed Bikanervala Foods Private Limited to remove all products bearing the 'ANANDAM' mark from its website within 24 hours in a dispute with Anandam Sweets Private Limited. Justice Vikas Mahajan noted that the defendant had not disputed that the gift pack remained listed on its website, despite an earlier undertaking to discontinue the use of the mark. The Court issued notice on the contempt application but did not record a finding of contempt.
Case Title: Ritvik Bansal (Proprietor of M/s 7R) v. Arshu Technologies LLP & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1076/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1161
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining multiple defendants from using Ritvik Bansal's copyrighted marketing material and 'REZONI' trademarks. Justice A. J. Bhambhani found that Bansal had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favoured him. However, the order did not expressly grant the separate takedown and dynamic injunction reliefs sought against e-commerce platforms.
Delhi High Court Restrains Herbax Ayurveda From Selling Joint Pain Products Under 'FASTACTIVE' Mark
Case Title: MS Nectar Biopharma Private Limited v. Herbax Ayurveda & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1119/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1159
The Delhi High Court restrained Herbax Ayurveda and others from manufacturing, selling, advertising or dealing in pharmaceutical preparations under the 'FASTACTIVE' mark, allegedly infringing Nectar Biopharma Private Limited's registered trademark. Justice Vikas Mahajan found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, holding that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff and that it would suffer irreparable harm without interim protection.
Case Title: Arjun Kapoor v. Artist Booking Company & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 454/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1167
The Delhi High Court decreed actor Arjun Kapoor's personality rights suit and made its earlier directions against unauthorised commercial exploitation of his identity absolute against several defendants. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav directed the relevant authorities to take down specified infringing links and allowed Kapoor to approach Meta and Google over subsequently discovered material. The Court held that no disputed question of fact required a trial, as the defendants had not controverted the plaint's factual averments.
Delhi High Court To View Hindi Film Doosra In Sourav Ganguly's Personality Rights Case
Case Title: Sourav Ganguly & Anr. v. Masha Sajdeh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed the makers of the Hindi film Doosra to arrange a screening before the Court to assess whether the film infringes former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly's personality rights. Justice Vinod Kumar directed the defendants to file their written statements and replies to the interim injunction application before the next hearing. The Court deferred consideration of the injunction plea after the film's theatrical release on October 23, with the matter listed for October 29.
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Title: SML Limited v. Mohan & Company and Another
Case Number: OMP No. 324 of 2023 in COMS No. 7 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 36
The Himachal Pradesh High Court refused interim relief to SML Limited in its patent infringement suit concerning the agrochemical product 'ZeekaSulf', holding that invoices alone were insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction. Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that the alleged purchases from a retailer in Theog appeared to have been arranged to establish jurisdiction, but there was no material showing that the manufacturer had supplied the product to the retailer in Himachal Pradesh. The Court dismissed the injunction application while clarifying that it had not examined whether ZeekaSulf infringed the patent.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case Title: M/s Series 5 Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Transhelp Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1102 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 182
The Karnataka High Court held that using the Tummoc app for e-ticketing in Goa did not constitute contempt of court. The bench observed that the trial court's interim injunction in the underlying patent suit filed by Series 5 Labs was confined to BMTC/DTC and had already been stayed by the High Court in appeal, meaning no contempt was made out for using the app in Goa.
Karnataka High Court Upholds Injunction Against ACC Steel's Use Of 'ACC' Trademark
Case Title: ACC Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. ACC Limited
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 273 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 187
The Karnataka High Court dismissed ACC Steel Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against a commercial court decree restraining it from using “ACC” as a trademark or corporate name. A Division Bench of Justices D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan held that ACC Steel could not reduce the dispute to classification differences between steel and cement, recognizing the substantial goodwill associated with ACC Limited's mark.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Trade Mark Agent Authorisation Must Be Stamped Like Power Of Attorney: Kerala High Court
Case Title: John Vadassery v. The Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 17 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 189
The Kerala High Court has recently ruled that an authorisation allowing a trade mark agent to represent an applicant before the Trade Marks Registry must be stamped under the applicable Stamp Act, holding that the document has “all the trappings of a power of attorney”. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the authorisation creates a right for the agent to represent another person.
Kerala High Court Upholds Injunction On Greenmount's 'Brahmin Sambar Powder' In Wipro Trademark Case
Case Title: Greenmount Spices Private Limited v. Wipro Enterprises Private Limited
Case Number: FAO No. 95 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 205
The Kerala High Court upheld an interim injunction restraining Greenmount Spices from using “Brahmin Sambar Powder” on its products in a trademark dispute with Wipro Enterprises, which owns the Brahmins food products business. Justice C.S. Dias held that whether an expression describes a product or suggests a commercial association must be assessed in the context of the overall packaging. The Court dismissed Greenmount's appeal, finding that Wipro had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favoured it.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Pre-Institution Mediation Not Mandatory In Trademark Suits Seeking Urgent Relief: M.P. High Court
Case Title: Naivedya Associates v. M/s Kriti Nutrients Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: MISC. PETITION No. 2934 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 75
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed Naivedya Associates' petition challenging the maintainability of a trademark infringement suit filed by Kriti Nutrients Private Limited before the Commercial Court in Indore. A Division Bench of Justices Subodh Abhyankar and Jai Kumar Pillai held that pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was not mandatory where the suit contemplated urgent interim relief.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Case Title: M/s Arunachalaa Enterprises v. M/s R. Sukumar (trading as M/s Sri Sustainable Recycling) & Anr.
Case Number: REV.PET(IPD) No. 2 of 2026 and (PT) A No. 7 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 294
The Madras High Court ruled that a party facing a patent infringement suit can seek revocation of the patent either through an independent revocation petition or by filing a counterclaim in the infringement suit. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that this statutory right cannot be whittled down by forcing the litigant to choose a remedy only through a counterclaim.
Case Title: Rajkumar Theatres Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Wide Angle Creations & Ors.
Case Number: OA (C.D.)No. 1050 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 293
The Madras High Court refused to restrain the worldwide release and commercial exploitation of the Hindi remake of Malayalam film Drishyam 3, starring Ajay Devgn. Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed Rajkumar Theatres' application on October 1, 2026, holding that the applicant failed to establish that it continued to hold an exclusive or joint copyright in the Hindi remake rights.
Case Title: The President Match Company & Ors. v. Sri Balamurugan Match Works & Anr.
Case Number: CRP(MD) NO. 933 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 289
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order that allowed an amendment of pleadings in a trademark suit concerning the “Acha Dholak” safety match brand. Justice R. Poornima held on October 1 that the mere framing of issues does not by itself establish that the trial has substantially commenced.
Madras High Court Refuses To Transfer 'RIO' Trade Mark Suit For Joint Trial With Rectification Plea
Case Title: Rio Children's Hospital Pvt Ltd v. Rajesh Jayaraj (trading as Rio Scans and Labs)
Case Number: (TM) A No. 8 of 2026 IN OP(TM) NO. 64 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 287
The Madras High Court on 30 September dismissed Rio Children's Hospital Pvt Ltd's plea to transfer its trade mark infringement and passing off suit against Rajesh Jayaraj from the Principal District Court, Madurai, to the High Court's Intellectual Property Division for joint trial with a rectification petition concerning the “RIO” mark. Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that Rule 14 of the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022 cannot be invoked “as a matter of course” merely because the suit and rectification petition concern the same mark.
Religious Significance Of 'Annapurna' Does Not Bar Trademark Protection: Madras High Court
Case Title: Annapurna Swadisht Limited v. GEF Foods India Private Limited
Case Number: A. Nos. 3875 & 3876 of 2026 & O.A. Nos. 778 & 779 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm.Div.) No. 223 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 309
The Madras High Court held that the religious significance of the name “Annapurna” does not, by itself, disentitle a registered trademark from protection. Justice A.D. Maria Clete refused to vacate an interim injunction against snacks manufacturer Annapurna Swadisht Limited, upholding GEF Foods' registered rights.
Madras High Court Upholds Refusal To Register INEXO's FEDEXO Mark Over FedEx's Well-Known Trade Mark
Case Title: INEXO Cast Metal Solutions Pvt Ltd v. Federal Express Corporation & Anr.
Case Number: CMA(TM) No. 4 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 325
The Madras High Court upheld the refusal to register “FEDEXO”, finding that FedEx's trademark had acquired well-known status in India before INEXO applied for registration in 2009. Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that adding the letter “O” did not sufficiently distinguish the mark from FEDEX and clarified that formal recognition as a well-known trademark does not necessarily determine when the mark acquired its reputation.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Refusal Of 'THE SKIN COMPANY' Trademark, Orders Advertisement
Case Title: Tregum Remedies Private Limited v. The Senior Examiner of Trademarks
Case Number: CMA(TM) No. 1 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 315.
The Madras High Court set aside the refusal of Tregum Remedies' application to register “THE SKIN COMPANY” in Class 3 and directed the Trade Marks Registry to advertise the mark in the Trade Marks Journal. Justice P.B. Balaji held that the Registry had failed to give adequate reasons, consider the applicant's reply and assess the composite mark as a whole. The Court reiterated that a composite trademark should not be dissected by focusing on individual words in isolation.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Refusal To Register Exponent Energy's 'EXPONENT' Trademark
Case Title: Exponent Energy Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks
Case Number: C.M.A. (T.M.) No. 5 of 2026 and C.M.P. No. 1615 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 322
The Madras High Court set aside the refusal to register “EXPONENT” as a word mark for Exponent Energy Private Limited. Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that the Registrar had not adequately explained the likelihood of confusion or considered a relevant statutory exception under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The application was remitted for fresh consideration within three months of the first hearing.
Madras High Court Grants Injunction Against Piracy Of Vijay Deverakonda's Ranaballi
Case Title: Mythri Movie Makers v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.A. No. 1144 of 2026 and C.S. (COMM DIV) No. 288 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 321
The Madras High Court granted an interim injunction restraining unauthorised recording, reproduction and distribution of Ranaballi, starring Vijay Deverakonda and Rashmika Mandanna. Justice P.B. Balaji passed the order on October 15, ahead of the film's theatrical release on October 16, after the producer raised concerns about online piracy.
Madras High Court Closes Aamir Khan Productions' Copyright Suit Over “Batwara 1947” After Withdrawal
Case Title: Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: C.S. (COMM DIV) No. 239 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 320
The Madras High Court dismissed as withdrawn Aamir Khan Productions' copyright suit seeking protection of Batwara 1947 against online piracy. Justice P.B. Balaji recorded the withdrawal on October 13, following instructions from the production house's counsel. The connected interim applications were also dismissed.
Madras High Court Restrains Online Piracy Of Rajinikanth's 'Jailer 2' Ahead Of Release
Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.A. Nos. 1130 and 1131 of 2026 and A. No. 4432 of 2026 in C.S. (COMM DIV) No. 284 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 317.
The Madras High Court restrained unauthorised copying, uploading, streaming and distribution of Rajinikanth-starrer Jailer 2 ahead of its scheduled release. Justice P.B. Balaji granted an interim injunction in favour of producer Sun TV Network Limited and directed internet service providers and other concerned service providers to block identified piracy websites, including mirror, redirect and alphanumeric URL variants notified by the producer or its authorised agents.
Madras High Court Orders Patent Grant To North Face, Says Invisible Marker Technology Was Overlooked
Case Title: The North Face Apparel Corp. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: CMA(PT) No. 22 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 329
The Madras High Court set aside the refusal of a patent application filed by The North Face Apparel Corp. for its invention titled Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the Patent Office had failed to properly assess the inventive step involved in the claimed technology. The Court allowed the company's appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, and directed the Controller of Patents and Designs to grant the patent.
Madras High Court Upholds Registration Of 'NICE' Mark Despite Dr Reddy's 'NISE' Trademark Objection
Case Title: Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.
Case Number: CMA(TM) No. 31 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 330
The Madras High Court upheld registration of the “NICE” trademark for neonatal medical equipment, rejecting Dr. Reddy's Laboratories' objection based on its “NISE” mark for medicines. Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that although the marks were phonetically similar, the differences between the products and their purchasers reduced the likelihood of confusion. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Dr. Reddy's had not established the requirements for refusing registration or for protection of a well-known trademark across different goods.
Madras High Court Restrains Thanjavur Restaurant From Using 'Sangethas' Name, Quotes Avvaiyar
Case Title: M/s. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/s. Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg
Case Number: OA No. 673 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 333
The Madras High Court restrained Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg in Thanjavur from operating under the name “Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg Restaurant” or a similar name. Justice P.B. Balaji found that customers could mistake the restaurant for the Sangeetha Veg Restaurant chain. Referring to Tamil poet Avvaiyar's saying that hunger can make even the ten virtues disappear, the Court observed that customers might be drawn to the similar name without noticing differences in spelling or logos.
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Uttarakhand High Court Restrains Use Of 'SWARNIKA' Mark Pending Suit Over Similarity With 'SUNAREKA'
Case Title: Deepanshu Bansal v. Poonam Bhatt
Case Number: Appeal From Order No. 332 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (UTT) 13
The Uttarakhand High Court restrained jeweller Poonam Bhatt from using the trademark “SWARNIKA” pending disposal of a suit alleging infringement of Deepanshu Bansal's registered “SUNAREKA” mark. Justice Ravindra Maithani held that competing trademarks must be assessed as a whole when determining deceptive similarity, rather than treating differences in spelling as decisive.