HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Case Title: NEC Corporation v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 486/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 341
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by NEC Corporation challenging the rejection of its patent application relating to video coding and decoding technologies, holding that the claimed invention lacks an inventive step and is rendered obvious in light of prior art documents. A Bench of Justice Tejas Karia held: “the contentions advanced by the Appellant that D1 to D3 are confined merely to colour space conversion or switching, akin to transformation in the present invention, and do not disclose the concept of selecting a colour space from among a plurality of colour spaces, is found to be untenable and is, accordingly, rejected.”
Delhi High Court Warns News Channel Against Disparagement Over Unverified Britannia Claims
Case Title: Britannia Industries Limited v. Information TV Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 356/2026
The Delhi High Court on 6 April warned Information TV Private Limited for airing segments criticising Britannia Industries' products without independent laboratory verification, noting that such reporting can appear prima facie disparaging. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela emphasised that relying solely on medical opinions cannot defend a disparagement claim. He observed: “We can understand if you're conducting some kind of a test... and you're giving credible actual test results.”
Case Title: Varun Chopra & Anr. vs Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 291/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 342
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in a trademark dispute over the “NATRAJ” mark used for saffron and edible silver foil, holding that the case arises from a family ownership conflict requiring trial and that no prima facie case for exclusive rights was made out. In an order delivered on March 28, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia observed, “The present case is not one where a stranger or an undisputed infringer is misusing Subject Mark. The present dispute is a dispute between members of the same family, each claiming a right in the Subject Mark and goodwill associated therewith. The core issue, therefore, is also one of ownership, which remains to be finally adjudicated. The balance of convenience, thus, does not favour grant of disruptive relief such as an interim injunction.”
Delhi High Court Grants Temporary Injunction Against 'Bait-and-Switch' News Site Using TOI Mark
Case Title: Bennett Coleman And Company Limited v. www.timesofindiaa.news & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 342/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 344
The Delhi High Court has restrained an infringing website (www.timesofindiaa.news & ors.) from using the “TIMES OF INDIA” and “TOI” marks, granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Bennett Coleman and Company Limited. On April 1, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that a prima facie case was made out in favour of the media house and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour.
Case Title: Devans Modern Breweries Limited v. Cartel Bros Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 346/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 347
The Delhi High Court has recently directed Sanjay Dutt-backed Cartel Bros Private Limited not to release any fresh social media posts in relation to its “Glenwalk Godfather Whiskey” in a trademark suit filed by Devans Modern Breweries Limited. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the interim direction on April 2, recording a statement made on behalf of Cartel Bros that the product was already in the distribution channel up to the stage of retailers in Mumbai and Thane, Maharashtra. The defendant further stated that retailers in the two cities had been instructed not to offer the product for sale until the next date of hearing.
Case Title: MS CMYK Printech Limited v. MS Ideal Multi Media Network Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 338/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 346
The Delhi High Court on 1 April, granted an ex-parte, ad-interim injunction in favour of MS CMYK Printech Limited and restrained Ideal Multi Media Network from unauthorised use of the trademark and copyrighted material of the newspaper “The Pioneer”. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that a comparison of the plaintiff's and defendant's publications indicated deliberate copying, imitation, and publication of Pioneer's content by the defendant.
Case Title: Dr Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi Through Power Of Attorney Holder v. John Does Ashok Kumars & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 178/2026
Google LLC has moved the Delhi High Court seeking modification of a John Doe interim injunction in a personality rights suit filed by Dr Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi, arguing that directions requiring it to act on plaintiff-flagged “similar content” effectively force the platform to adjudicate legality under the “pain of contempt." A single-judge bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the matter.
Delhi High Court Refers Copyright Row Over 'Oye Oye' Song Used in Dhurandhar 2 To Mediation
Case Title: Trimurti Films Private Limited v. B62 Studios Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 378/2026
In a move to resolve the dispute over the iconic song 'Oye Oye' appearing as 'Rang De lal' in 'Dhurandhar: The Revenge,' the Delhi High Court has referred the copyright infringement suit between Trimurti Films and Aditya Dhar's B62 Studios AND T-Series to mediation. The plea is filed by Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd., the copyright owner of the 1989 film Tridev, alleging unauthorized use and repurposing of its song Rang De lal (Oye Oye) in the impugned film.
Delhi High Court Restrains Rival From Using JVCO 2024's 'Mother Care' Mark For Baby Products
Case Title: JVCO 2024 Limited v. Syed Jalaluddin Alias Afzal Trading As A.M Agencies & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 365/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 354
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of JVCO 2024 Limited, restraining a rival from using the mark “MOTHER CARE” for baby products, holding it to be identical and deceptively similar to its registered trademark “MOTHERCARE”. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in an order dated April 7, 2026, observed, “It is apparent from the above that the defendant has dishonestly adopted the mark MOTHER CARE without any justifiable reasons. As noted above, the two marks are identical, visually and phonetically. It is most likely to cause confusion with the unwary consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection. The consumer would associate the products of the defendant as those of the plaintiff or be under an impression that such goods are associated with the plaintiff somehow. Every purchase would cause financial loss to the plaintiff and unlawful financial gain to the defendant.”
Case Title: Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v. Mr. Ashraful Islam
Case Number: CS(COMM) 337/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 355
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained an individual from using the mark “HIMALAYA THE NUTRA HEALTH CARE” or any deceptively similar mark, protecting Himalaya Wellness Company's “HIMALAYA” trademark for pharmaceutical and allied products. A single bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, in an order dated March 30, 2026, held that Himalaya Wellness Company had made out a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, observing that the defendant had adopted deceptively similar marks and trade dress “with a view to encash the reputation of the Plaintiffs” and misrepresent to the public that its products emanate from them or are associated with them.
Case Title: M/S Bharati Bhawan Publishers And Distributors v. Yashimani & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 325/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 357
The Delhi High Court has directed Flipkart to refrain from listing counterfeit or pirated copies of Bharati Bhawan's educational books while granting an ex parte ad interim injunction against 17 online sellers. The 80-year-old publishing house approached the court after discovering that its most popular academic titles, authored by renowned specialists like Dr. H.C. Verma and Dr. R.S. Aggarwal, were being sold as pirated counterfeits on the platform.
Delhi High Court Blocks Rogue Websites From Streaming HBO's 'Euphoria' Ahead Of Season 3 Release
Case Title: Home Box Office Inc v. Moviebox.Ph & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 358/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 364
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Home Box Office Inc. (HBO), restraining 43 defendants, including 20 “rogue” websites, from unauthorisedly streaming or distributing its series “Euphoria” ahead of the imminent release of its third season. The order was passed on April 6, 2026 by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, who observed that any delay in blocking access to infringing websites could result in financial losses and an irreparable breach of HBO's copyright.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of 'Goldi' Mark For Infringing Shubham Goldiee Masale's Trademark
Case Title: Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd v. Jai Shiv Oil Industries & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 365
The Delhi High Court has ordered the cancellation and removal of the trademark “GOLDI” (label) from the Register of Trade Marks in petitions filed by Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. In a judgment delivered on April 8, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the GOLDI mark was phonetically, visually, and structurally nearly identical to the registered “GOLDIEE” trademark. The court observed that allowing two deceptively similar marks to coexist in the same trade channels for similar goods, including edible oils, foodstuffs, and related products, would likely lead to confusion among unwary consumers.
Delhi High Court Grants Dassault Relief Against SOLIDWORKS Piracy, Awards Rs 64.7 Lakh
Case Title: Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation v. Zoneonne Venture Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 334/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 366
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Dassault Systemes SolidWorks Corporation, passing a permanent injunction against the unauthorised use of its “SOLIDWORKS” software, a computer-aided design (CAD) program used to create 3D models and engineering designs, and holding that a group of businesses and individuals accused of using pirated copies failed to contest the case. By its order dated April 8, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the company had established copyright infringement through its “Phone Home” security technology, which recorded 474 instances of unauthorised use across seven computer systems linked to those entities.
Case Title: M/S Dux Naturals Through Its Partners Ms. Meena Valecha, Mr. Anshul Valecha And Mr. Ankit Valecha v. Babu G Store And Co & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 321/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 367
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Babu G Store and Co. from using the mark “Babu ji DUKK Darling” or any deceptively similar trademark, label, packaging, or trade dress for cosmetic products in a suit filed by Dux Naturals. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the defendants' mark and overall packaging closely mirrored Dux Naturals' registered “DUX DARLING” brand. The way the logo was positioned at the centre, along with the styling and design, was such that an average buyer relying on memory rather than careful scrutiny could easily mistake one for the other.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction To Sun Pharma, Restrains Zawadi From Using “PANTOZED-40”
Case Title: Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v. Zawadi Healthcare Limited
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 4610 OF 2023 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 183 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 183
The Bombay High Court on 1 April, granted an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited, restraining Zawadi Healthcare Limited from using the trademark “PANTOZED-40” for pharmaceutical preparations. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that Zawadi's mark was structurally, phonetically, and visually similar to Sun Pharma's registered mark “PANTOCID”, which has been in use since 1998.
Bombay High Court Vacates Temporary Trademark Injunction Granted To Asian Paints Over Suppression
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Apex Metchem Private Limited
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7417 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 28791 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 191
The Bombay High Court has recently vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction previously granted to Asian Paints Limited against Apex Metchem, holding that the company suppressed material facts, including the defendant's incorporation in 1995 and its use of the mark “APEX” as part of its trade name in relation to identical goods. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, on March 30, 2026, observed that Asian Paints failed in its duty of full and fair disclosure by not specifically bringing to the Court's attention that the defendant had been incorporated in 1995 and was engaged in the same line of business.
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Meghmani Lifesciences Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.42382 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.42454 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.42382 OF 2025 WITH COMMERCIAL APPEAL(L) NO.42382 OF 2025 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.9484 OF 2025 WITH COURT RECEIVER REPORT NO.220 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO.9352 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 197
The Bombay High Court has restored an interim injunction restraining Meghmani Lifesciences Ltd. from using the trademark “ESIRAFT”, finding it too similar to Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.'s drug brand “RACIRAFT”. A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, in its April 8, 2026 order, allowed Sun Pharma's appeal and set aside a single judge's December 23, 2025 decision that had refused interim relief.