HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Delhi HC Restrains Law Prep From Misusing 'LegalEdge' Mark, Orders Take Down AI Defamatory Content
Case Title: Toprankers Edtech Solutions Private Limited & Ors. vs. LPT Edtech Private Limited and Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 344/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 390
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of edtech platform Toprankers, restraining rival CLAT coaching platform Law Prep Tutorial and others from publishing or disseminating defamatory and disparaging content and from unauthorised use of the trademark “LegalEdge.” The court also restrained the use of AI-generated or morphed content involving this year's CLAT topper's name, image, and likeness. A Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the content circulated by the defendants, including videos, blogs, and social media posts, prima facie appeared to be aimed at bringing disrepute to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Mahaveer Udyog's Appeal In Trademark Suit Over “Tiger” Mark
Case Title: Mayank Jain, Proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog v. Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 100/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 389
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog in a trademark dispute, refusing to interfere with the finding that the word “TIGER” is commonly used in the trade for agricultural implements and holding that the marks “TIGER GOLD BRAND” and “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND” are not deceptively similar and do not make out a case of passing off. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the January 9, 2026, order of the Single Judge. The court said the competing label marks must be examined as a whole and found no ground to interfere with the view that they are visually different and unlikely to cause confusion.
Case Title: Acharya Balkrishna v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 291/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday corrected a procedural oversight in the personality rights suit filed by Patanjali's Acharya Balkrishna, clarifying that a restraint on content creation had been inadvertently extended to digital intermediaries, including Meta and Google Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that directions in the Court's March 24 order, which were intended primarily for the main content creators, had mistakenly been applied to all defendants, including intermediaries. The earlier order had restrained Defendants 1 to 10 from “creating, publishing, uploading, sharing, or disseminating” infringing videos and related content.
Delhi High Court To Pass Interim Order Protecting Actor Allu Arjun's Personality Rights
Case Title: Mr. Allu Arjun v. Frankly Retail Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 403/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday said it will pass interim orders in a personality rights suit filed by Telugu actor Allu Arjun, who seeks to restrain the unauthorized use of his name, likeness, and signature for commercial gain. Presiding over the matter, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard arguments on alleged infringement of the actor's personality rights, with the case focusing on specific instances of misuse of artificial intelligence tools such as voice cloning and fake video call applications.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Nippon Paint From Using 'INFINITY' Trademark For Paints
Case Title: Nippon Paint (India) Private Limited v. Glossy Paints India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 169/2025, I.A. 17967/2025, I.A. 17968/2025 & I.A. 17969/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 381
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an interim injunction in favour of Glossy Paints India Pvt. Ltd., restraining Nippon Paint (India) Private Limited from using the impugned mark incorporating “INFINITY” and the infinity symbol “∞”, or any mark identical or deceptively similar, holding that the rival mark is prima facie deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion in the market. In a common judgment delivered on April 10, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia also dismissed a rectification petition filed by Nippon Paint seeking cancellation of Glossy Paints' registered trademark, observing that the plea of invalidity was “an afterthought” raised only after mediation between the parties failed.
Case Title: More Than Water Private Limited v. Nesco Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 125/2026, I.A. 4734/2026, I.A. 6512/2026 & I.A. 7236/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 380
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to grant temporary relief to More Than Water Private Limited against Nesco, finding that the company had not been able to prima facie establish substantial goodwill in its “WATERBOX” marks, a key requirement in a passing off claim. While dismissing the plea, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the plaintiff's material fell short of demonstrating continuous use or meaningful sales that could support a claim of goodwill. The court pointed out that the evidence on record did not convincingly show market reputation for the marks “WATERBOX”, “MORE THAN WATERBOX”, or “WATER BOX IS THE RIGHT CHOICE”.
Case Title: Pepsico Inc. & Anr. v. Parle Agro Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 268/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 379
The Delhi High Court has recently imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on Parle Agro Private Limited for failing to file certificates of sales revenue every two months as directed in a trademark dispute with PepsiCo Inc., holding that while the lapse was not wilful, it constituted a “clear, unambiguous and serious violation” of its order. PepsiCo had moved the court seeking action against Parle and its officers under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a provision that empowers courts to enforce interim injunctions and punish disobedience of such orders, alleging violation of an interim order dated September 18, 2023, passed in its suit over the tagline “For The Bold”.
Case Title: Gurbaaz Pratap Singh Mann v. Kunwar Raghav Bhandari & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 700/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 373
The Delhi High Court on 10 April dismissed an application for an interim injunction filed by professional golfer Gurbaaz Pratap Singh Mann, refusing to restrain entities from operating the “IGPL FLASH GOLF” tournament. Justice Tejas Karia held that while Mann owns a valid copyright in the literary work describing his golf format, he failed to establish a prima facie case of unauthorized copying by the organisers of the Indian Golf Premier League (IGPL).
Case Title: Dr Sanjiv Goenka v. Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 395/2026
Industrialist and owner of the IPL team Lucknow Super Giants, Sanjiv Goenka, has moved the Delhi High Court alleging misuse of his likeness through deepfakes and morphed content. A bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was taken through multiple images and videos in which Goenka's face was allegedly superimposed to depict false incidents, including one suggesting he was “assaulting” team captain KL Rahul. Counsel for Goenka pointed to several URLs where his likeness had been used “to create an incident that will never happen,” including visuals showing a fabricated altercation with Rahul. Describing one such image, counsel submitted that “my face is morphed… and the team captain… has his face on my lap,” calling the material “in very poor taste.”
Case Title: Trimurti Films Private Limited v. B62 Studios Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 378/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday recorded an undertaking on behalf of Trimurti Films Private Limited to refrain from addressing the press or making public allegations in its ongoing copyright dispute with Aditya Dhar's B62 Studios and T-Series over the song “Oye Oye” included in the movie Dhurandhar 2, observing that such statements could derail court-ordered mediation. The undertaking was given during a hearing before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela after T-Series alleged that Trimurti's promoter, Rajiv Rai, had launched a media “rampage” following the previous hearing, using derogatory language and casting aspersions on both the defendants and the judicial process.
Case Title: The Football Association Premier League Limited v. Sportshub.Stream & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 470/2025 & I.A. 12176/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 371
The Delhi High Court has stepped in on a plea by the Premier League, directing the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeITY) to take action within two weeks against Canadian domain name registrar Tucows Domains Inc. for failing to block URLs carrying infringing material related to its copyrighted content. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in an order dated April 10, 2026, said the conduct of the entity showed clear defiance of judicial orders. “This is unpalatable and unacceptable and appears to be a clear defiance of the orders of this Court, as also the previous orders passed by this Court, which were complied with after coercive measures were undertaken by this Court,” the court observed.
Case Title: Arvind Gaur v. Shilpi Marawaha & Anr.
Case Number: CS (COMM) No. : 292/2020
A Delhi court has dismissed a copyright suit by Asmita Theatre Group founder and drama director Arvind Gaur against his former student and actor Shilpi Marwaha and Sukhmanch Theatre, holding that no infringement of his copyrighted street plays is made out in the absence of proof of literal copying. District Judge (Commercial Court), Saket, Vrinda Kumari, in a judgment dated April 10, 2026, held that Gaur failed to establish that the defendants' performances were a “literal imitation” or a scene-by-scene copy of his works.
Case Title: Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd v. Getmohit Cab Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 379/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 370
The Delhi High Court has temporarily barred several entities, including Getmohit Cab Private Limited and Shri Bheru Nath Motor Body, from using the “BHARATBENZ” mark in a trademark infringement suit filed by Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd. The order was passed after the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants and unidentified John Doe entities from using the mark or any deceptively similar mark in relation to buses and allied services. A bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and that it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Ashiana From Using 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' In TMT Bars
Case Title: Ashiana Ispat Limited v. Kamdhenu Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 130/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 369
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Kamdhenu Limited, restraining Ashiana Ispat Limited from using the mark “AL KAMDHENU GOLD” or any mark deceptively similar to its “KAMDHENU” and “KAMDHENU GOLD” formative marks relation to steel products, including TMT bars. In a judgment delivered on April 10, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia held that Ashiana had failed to establish any prima facie proprietary rights in the impugned mark, observing that the 2002 agreement relied upon by it did not effect a present transfer of ownership but was, in substance, a licence arrangement contingent upon registration.
Delhi High Court Cancels 'SOCIAL HOUSE' Mark For Non-Use; 'SOCIAL' Not Generic In Hospitality
Case Title: Impressario Entertainment And Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Vardhaman Choksi & Ors.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & I.A. 4139/2024 & C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 72/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 368
Holding that the mark “SOCIAL” is not generic in the hospitality industry and that the rival mark had not been used for restaurant services, the Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of “SOCIAL HOUSE” from the register of trade marks. Impressario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., which operates the “SOCIAL” chain of restaurants and cafes, approached the Delhi High Court seeking removal of the mark registered in the name of Vardhaman Choksi, arguing that it had not been used for restaurant services for over five years and was therefore liable to be cancelled under the Trade Marks Act.
Delhi High Court To Pass Order Protecting Crocs' Designs, Trademarks, and Patent Over Jibbitz Charms
Case Title: Crocs Inc. & Anr. v. Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 388/2026
The Delhi High Court on Monday indicated that it will pass ad-interim relief orders in an infringement suit filed by Crocs Inc. against Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited. Crocs Inc. alleged that the defendant has copied its three registered designs and two trademarks and infringed one patent, while also engaging in passing off. During the hearing before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, Crocs submitted that the defendant has replicated a range of its footwear products and placed on record side-by-side comparisons to demonstrate similarity. At the centre of the dispute is Crocs' patented "Jibbitz Charms," which allows decorative attachments to be plugged into holes on the upper portion of its footwear.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Protects Kartik Aaryan's Personality Rights, Orders Removal Of Infringing Content
Case Title: Kartik Aaryan Versus Vinsm Globe Private Limited and Ors
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 9466 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 9465 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 214
The Bombay High Court has granted temporary relief to actor Kartik Aaryan, restraining identified and unidentified defendants from unauthorised use of his name, image, voice, and likeness across websites, social media platforms, AI-generated content, and chatbots, holding that such use prima facie violates his personality/publicity rights and right to privacy. In an order dated April 15, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh found a prima facie case of violation of personality and publicity rights, observing that such unauthorised use leads to unjust commercial enrichment and harms the actor's reputation.
Case Title: National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. John Doe S Ashok Kumar (s) & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 9564 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 9452 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 212
The Bombay High Court has recently granted an ad interim relief to the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, restraining unknown persons from infringing its “NSE” trademark and directing social media intermediaries and domain name registrars to remove or disable infringing accounts, channels, and domain names. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, in an order dated April 10, 2026, held that such a measure was necessary in the public interest. “Considering the fact that an unsuspecting investor can be drawn into investing substantial amounts based on the contents of the infringing accounts purportedly giving guidance pertaining to the stock market and using the Plaintiff's registered trade mark, the use of such infringing activity is liable to be restrained in the larger public interest.”
Case Title: Laser Shaving India Pvt Ltd v. RKM International Products Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 26994 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL (ST) NO.26806 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 199
The Bombay High Court has recently declined to step in against a Single Judge's refusal to grant interim relief to Laser Shaving India Pvt Ltd in its dispute over the “SETMAX” mark, noting that the company had suppressed key facts and taken inconsistent positions. In a judgment delivered on April 6, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande said there was no reason to disturb the Single Judge's exercise of discretion. The court pointed out that the plaintiff had not approached the court with clean hands, which by itself was enough to deny equitable relief.
Case Title: Dream Warrior Pictures v. Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 10646 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 3739 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 198
The Bombay High Court has recently declined to return the plaint in a copyright dispute over the Hindi remake of the Tamil film “Kaithi,” holding that the suit can proceed before courts in Mumbai. By an order pronounced on April 10, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh rejected a plea by Reliance Entertainment Studios Private Limited seeking to have the plaint sent back for presentation before courts in Chennai. At the heart of the dispute was where the case should be heard. Reliance pointed to an earlier agreement that placed jurisdiction in Chennai. The court, however, found that the controversy could not be viewed in isolation from a later agreement between the parties, which provided for Mumbai as the forum. Given that the claims stem from this subsequent arrangement, the court held that Mumbai courts would have jurisdiction to try the suit.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Temporarily Restrains Illegal Broadcast Of Vijay Starrer “Jana Nayagan” Movie
Case Title: KVN Productions v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others
Case Number: OA 330 of 2026 in CS (Comm Div) 110 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (16 April), granted an interim injunction restraining internet service providers (ISPs) and cable operators from illegally streaming the “Jana Nayagan” movie, starring Actor Vijay. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy granted the interim relief in a suit moved by the movie's producers, KVN Productions. The production company had approached the court seeking a permanent injunction restraining the ISPs and cable operators from infringing on the movie and blocking all websites and web pages hosting content related to the movie.
Case Title: R.Kishore Kumar v. M/s R.R.Cine Productions & Ors.
Case Number: C.S. No. 362 of 2016 & C.S. (Comm Div) No.237 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 98
The Madras High Court has recently held that a Central Board of Film Certification certificate is only “prima facie evidence” of who produced a film and cannot be determinative in a copyright suit when weighed against other material on record. A bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy made the observation while deciding a copyright dispute between R. Kishore Kumar, proprietor of Anna Therasa International Films, and Durairajan and Rafiq of R.R. Cine Productions over the ownership of a Tamil film released under multiple titles, including “MANI”, “MONEY”, and later “DHADHA”.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Taste Box v. JSF Holdings Private Limited
Case Number: FAO No. 1 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 66
The Kerala High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining the use of the mark “HAZZA” in a trademark dispute, holding that the rival mark is prima facie deceptively similar to “LAZZA” and likely to cause confusion among consumers. A single-judge bench of Justice S. Manu was hearing an appeal filed by Taste Box challenging an order of the Additional District Court, Ernakulam, which had granted interim injunction in favour of JSF Holdings Pvt Ltd. “in my view, the appellant, by adopting and using the mark 'HAZZA' that is similar to the registered trademark 'LAZZA' of the respondent in Class 43, for running a restaurant close to the factory of the respondent, has prima facie infringed the registered trademark of the respondent,” the Court held.