SUPREME COURT
Case Title: The Trustees of Princeton University v. The Vagdevi Educational Society & Ors.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 217
The Supreme Court directed six Telangana-based colleges operating under the 'Princeton' name to prominently display disclaimers on their websites, prospectuses, admission materials, and certificates stating they have 'no connection' with Princeton University, the renowned Ivy League institution in the United States. The direction was passed while the matter of alleged trademark infringement is pending before the Delhi High Court. The Bench was prima facie satisfied that the colleges' use of the Princeton name was capable of misleading prospective students and the public at large into believing they were associated with the American university.
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Robert A. Merry And Co. Ltd. v. Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1164/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 592
The Delhi High Court has restrained Robert A. Merry and Co. Ltd., the Irish whiskey maker behind “The Whistler” brand, from selling its Irish whiskey in India. The court found that the company failed to establish that its transborder goodwill and reputation had spilled over into India before Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. launched its own “Whistler” whiskey in 2018. Justice Jyoti Singh, deciding two cross-suits filed by the rival whiskey makers, dismissed Robert A. Merry's application for an injunction against Piccadily. At the same time, the Court granted an injunction in Piccadily's favour and restrained the Irish company from selling its Irish whiskey in India under the marks “The Whistler” and/or “Whistler” during the pendency of the suits.
Delhi High Court Cancels 'PONTA' Trademark In Plea By Panasonic, Holder Of 'PENTA' Mark
Case Title: Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr. v. Siddharth Vij & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 171/2025, I.A. 18595/2025 & I.A. 18596/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 593
The Delhi High Court has recently ordered the cancellation of the word mark 'PONTA' and its device variant, holding that they are deceptively similar to Panasonic's registered 'PENTA' trademark for electrical goods. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, deciding two rectification petitions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation, directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove both marks from the Register within four weeks.
Delhi High Court Protects 'Safex' Trademark, Bars Deceptively Similar Use By Seed Company
Case Title: Safex Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Defendant Seed Company & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 566
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction protecting the 'SAFEX' trademark of agrochemical company Safex Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. against a seed company that was using a deceptively similar mark. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, holding that the impugned mark was likely to cause confusion among consumers given the overlapping nature of both companies' agricultural-sector products.
Case Title: Glossy Color and Paints Pvt. Ltd. v. Elite Court & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 553/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 564
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a firm operating under the mark 'Elitecourt' from manufacturing, selling, or advertising products under that brand, after holding that Glossy Color and Paints Pvt. Ltd. had made out a prima facie case of passing off. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela declined to grant infringement relief, noting that 'Elitecourt' is itself a registered trademark and that the plaintiff has separately moved the High Court for its cancellation through rectification proceedings. The injunction was limited to passing off, restraining the defendant from misrepresenting its products as those of the plaintiff or as associated with it.
Case Title: Alfa Therm Limited v. Scientico & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 552/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 563
The Delhi High Court directed Scientico and its proprietor Vineet Gupta to remove from their website, IndiaMart listings, and other online platforms photographs that waste-management-systems manufacturer Alfa Therm Limited alleged were copied from its own website without authorisation. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela prima facie found that photographs displayed on Scientico's website were identical to those that had earlier appeared on Alfa Therm's website, and that copyright in such original artistic works vested in the plaintiff under Section 17(c) of the Copyright Act. The court passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction while also noting that the plaintiff had complied with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
Delhi High Court Restrains Breakaway Karan Satsang Group From Portraying HDH Bapji As Its Founder
Case Title: Shree Swaminarayan Sarvopari Siddhant Digvijay Trust v. Sukhmay Karan Satsang Foundation & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 607/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 565
The Delhi High Court restrained a breakaway organisation formed by former members of the Shree Swaminarayan Sarvopari Siddhant Digvijay Trust from using the trademark 'Karan Satsang' and from portraying the Trust's founder, His Divine Holiness Devnandandasji Swami (HDH Bapji), as the founder of the breakaway entity. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex-parte ad-interim order in a suit where the Trust alleged that former trustees had incorporated Sukhmay Karan Satsang Foundation and were misappropriating the Trust's registered trademarks, copyrighted works, and the personality rights of HDH Bapji to mislead devotees into believing the splinter group was the legitimate continuation of the original Trust.
Case Title: Varun Dhawan v. Artist Booking Company & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 571
The Delhi High Court restrained multiple entities from using Bollywood actor Varun Dhawan's persona for commercial gain after finding a prima facie case that they were offering unauthorised bookings for his personal appearances, selling merchandise bearing his name and likeness without authorisation, and publishing abusive, derogatory, and AI-generated deepfake content involving him. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order while hearing Dhawan's suit against 18 defendants including artist-booking platforms, e-commerce sellers, and social-media accounts. The court directed platforms such as Amazon and various social-media intermediaries to take down the offending content and listings within 24 hours of service of the order.
Delhi High Court Restrains Use Of 'Liv-22', Protects Himalaya's 'Liv.52' Mark
Case Title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr. v. Awadh Bihari Badal Proprietor Of Aloe Care Arogya Life & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 648/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 582
The Delhi High Court on 29 May granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, restraining the makers of a liver care product sold under the mark "Liv-22" from manufacturing, selling or advertising the product pending further hearing. A Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed: "I am of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction against the Defendants. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the interim injunction, as prayed for, is not granted."
Delhi High Court Restrains Surat-Based Sellers From Using 'BOMBAY MUSK' Mark On Counterfeit Perfumes
Case Title: BG Innovators LLP v. Wellness Club & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 569
The Delhi High Court restrained sellers, including Surat-based entities Wellness Club and Krishiv Enterprise, from manufacturing, marketing, advertising, or selling counterfeit perfumes and personal care products under the 'BOMBAY MUSK' mark and deceptively similar variants. The court passed the ex-parte injunction on 7 May (reported 2 June) in a suit filed by BG Innovators LLP, which held the registered 'BOMBAY MUSK' trademark for fragrances. Justice Tejas Karia also appointed a local commissioner to inspect and seize infringing goods, and noted that the defendants appeared to have engaged in ratings manipulation on Flipkart, where they sold the counterfeit products, to gain an unfair commercial advantage.
Case Title: Levi Strauss And Co v. Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 414/2025 & I.A. 11359/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 581
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Levi Strauss and Co., restraining Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited from using stitching designs on its Killer and Integriti jeans that were found prima facie to be deceptively similar to Levi's Arcuate Stitching Design Mark. Relief was, however, denied in respect of the company's Lawman Pg3 stitching design. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora delivered the judgment on May 29, 2026. The court observed that "the Defendant's adoption of deceptively similar stitching designs for their brand INTEGRITI and KILLER, despite prior acknowledgment of the Plaintiff's proprietary rights, prima facie reflects dishonest adoption."
Case Title: Makemytrip (India) Private Limited v. M/S MakeMyIndiaTrip
Case Number: CS(COMM) 650/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 579
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained MakeMyIndiaTrip from using the marks "MakeMyIndiaTrip" and its logo, holding that the addition of the word "India" was insufficient to distinguish the impugned marks from MakeMyTrip's registered trademark. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order on May 29 in a trademark suit filed by online travel platform MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement and observed that the adoption of the impugned marks appeared to be in bad faith.
Case Title: Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 541/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 578
The Delhi High Court on 29 May granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit filed by Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited, after it found that the mark 'ORZIFER-XT' is visually, structurally and phonetically deceptively similar to the registered mark 'OROFER-XT' and is likely to confuse consumers in the iron supplementation segment. Justice Jyoti Singh heard the matter and restrained Orziva Healthcare Private Limited from manufacturing, selling, distributing or promoting products under the mark ORZIFER-XT or any deceptively similar mark until further orders.
Case Title: Jockey International Inc v. M/S D.R. Kuppraj Tex India & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 614/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 577
The Delhi High Court on 29 May 2026 granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Jockey International Inc., restraining multiple sellers from dealing in innerwear products under deceptively similar marks including JOYKE, JOYSKY, JOYSKE and JOJOKE on the e-commerce platform Meesho. Justice Jyoti Singh restrained Defendants 1 to 4 and John Does from manufacturing, marketing, selling, listing or otherwise dealing in products bearing the impugned marks. She also directed Meesho to block the infringing listings within 36 hours and share seller details with the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Restrains Maxx Farmacia From Using 'MAXX-RICH' Mark, Trade Dress In Cipla's Plea
Case Title: Cipla Health Limited & Anr. v. Maxx Farmacia India LLP & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 545/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 576
The Delhi High Court on 29 May granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Cipla Health Limited and restrained Maxx Farmacia India LLP and two other defendants from using the mark 'MAXX-RICH' and its associated trade dress for multivitamins, iron tonics, syrups and antibiotics in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. Justice Jyoti Singh also barred the defendants from marketing, selling or advertising the impugned products under the challenged mark or deceptively similar packaging until the next date of hearing.
Case Title: Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. M/S Zikra Hotels And Restaurants LLP & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 502/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 568
The Delhi High Court on 14 May granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Zikra Hotels and Restaurants LLP, a former franchisee of the Moti Mahal restaurant chain from running, advertising, or marketing its restaurant under the 'Moti Mahal' marks after it terminated the franchise agreement for non-payment of fees.
Case Title: Akkineni Naga Chaitanya v. WWW.SEXVID.XXX & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 644/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 574
The Delhi High Court directed multiple pornographic websites, Google LLC, IndiaMart, and a merchandise seller to take down specified content and listings misusing Telugu actor Akkineni Naga Chaitanya's name, image, and likeness without his consent. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the directions after finding a prima facie case for interim protection in a personality rights suit filed by the actor who sought relief against pornographic websites misusing his identity, AI-generated deepfake content, unauthorised merchandise, and YouTube videos allegedly infringing his personality rights.
Case Title: Fortune Marketing v. Gujarat Pesticides Ltd.
Case Number: IP (C) Petition
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 573
The Delhi High Court revoked a copyright registration granted to Gujarat Pesticides for an artistic work titled 'ZOOOK', after finding procedural flaws in the registration process. Justice Jyoti Singh, adjudicating a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, held that the registration was founded on a Trade Marks Search Certificate that was contrary to the Trade Marks Register, as it incorrectly stated there were no conflicting trademark applications.
Delhi High Court Grants Zee Temporary Injunction Against Illegal Streaming Of FIFA World Cup 2026
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Soccerbox.me & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 585
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. restraining rogue websites, including Soccerbox.me, from illegally streaming the FIFA World Cup 2026, for which Zee holds exclusive broadcasting rights in India. Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed domain name registrars and internet service providers to take down and block the infringing websites and also granted a dynamic injunction extending the order to any newly discovered infringing links during the pendency of the suit.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Rogue Website Misusing 'GOLDIEE' Trademark In Investment Scam
Case Title: Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 587
The Delhi High Court on 1 June granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of spice manufacturer Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. and ordered action against a rogue website that misused its 'GOLDIEE' well-known trademark to perpetrate an investment scam. The fraudulent website falsely presented itself as affiliated with the Goldiee Masala brand and solicited investments from the public under false pretences. Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed Dynadot Inc. (the domain registrar) and Cloudflare to take down the domain, and also directed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) to block access to the phishing website across Indian internet networks.
Case Title: Greenhorn Wellness Pvt. Ltd. (StoryTV) v. MicroTV & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 588
The Delhi High Court on 29 May (reported 5 June) granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Greenhorn Wellness Private Limited, the company behind the short-form drama platform 'StoryTV', restraining rogue websites including 'MicroTV' and 'ReelTV' from streaming its proprietary micro-drama and vertical web-series content without authorisation. Justice Jyoti Singh found a prima facie case of copyright infringement and passing off, as the infringing platforms were distributing StoryTV's content — which is specifically formatted for mobile-first viewing — and also using confusingly similar branding. The court also directed Telegram to take down channels distributing the pirated content.
Delhi High Court Holds 'Glass Skin' Descriptive, Orders Cancellation Of Trademark Registration
Case Title: Renee Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v. Rupali Sharma
Case Number: Rectification Petition (Comm. IP)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 591
The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of the trademark registration for 'GLASS SKIN', holding that the term is purely descriptive of cosmetic products and incapable of functioning as a distinctive trademark. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowed the rectification petition filed by Renee Cosmetics, finding that 'Glass Skin' — a term popularised by the Korean beauty (K-beauty) trend to describe flawless, clear skin — describes the desired result or quality of the cosmetic products in Class 03 for which it was registered. The court held that registrant Rupali Sharma could not monopolise a widely-used descriptive phrase and directed its removal from the Trade Marks Register under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
Delhi High Court Rules Intas' BEVATAS Does Not Infringe Sun Pharma's BEVETEX Trademark
Case Title: Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) (Appeal from commercial IP suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 594
The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Intas Pharmaceuticals, setting aside a permanent injunction that had restrained the company from using its trademark 'BEVATAS' for its anti-cancer drug Bevacizumab. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Intas' mark 'BEVATAS' does not infringe Sun Pharma Laboratories' registered trademark 'BEVETEX' (Paclitaxel), and allowed the appeal while dismissing Sun Pharma's suit. The dispute originated in December 2017 when Sun Pharma obtained an injunction against Intas. The Division Bench found that both drugs are Schedule H prescription medicines dispensed exclusively through trained oncologists and noted that in the specialised pharmaceutical context, the relevant purchasers — oncologists and medical professionals — would be unlikely to confuse the two marks, which differ in their active pharmaceutical ingredients.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Says 2003 MoU Did Not Permit Additional Beardsell Companies To Use Corporate Name
Case Title: Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Beardsell Limited & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial IP Appeal (Madras HC)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 134
The Madras High Court upheld a permanent injunction restraining two companies incorporated as sister concerns of Beardsell Eastern Pvt Ltd from using the corporate name 'Beardsell'. A Division Bench dismissed the intra-court appeal, holding that the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding between the parties permitted only the establishment of 'a new company' — which was Beardsell Eastern — and could not be construed as authorising the incorporation of additional entities using the 'Beardsell' name. The court held that Beardsell Limited, which has used the name and mark for decades in the insulation and packaging sector, was entitled to protect its long-standing goodwill and reputation against use of the mark by entities not named or contemplated in the MoU.
Case Title: Novartis AG v. Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CS (Commercial IP Suit), Madras HC
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 137
The Madras High Court held that Chennai-based active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) manufacturer Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Pvt. Ltd. infringed Novartis AG's Indian patent by manufacturing and exporting large quantities of the Type-2 diabetes drug Vildagliptin to companies in Egypt between 2016 and 2018. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the defendant failed to discharge the burden of showing that its exports fell within the statutory Bolar exception under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970, which permits use of a patented invention solely to obtain regulatory approvals in India or abroad. The court found there was no credible evidence that the exported API was meant for generating regulatory data, and directed the defendant to render an account of profits as part of the relief granted to Novartis.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Puja Films v. Tips Industries Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Copyright Suit (Bombay HC Vacation Court)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 307
The Bombay High Court declined to entertain an urgent copyright infringement plea seeking to restrain the release of the Varun Dhawan-starrer film 'Hai Jawani Toh Ishq Hona Hai' and two songs — 'Chunnari Chunnari' and 'Ishq Sona Hai' — featured in it. Justice Farhan P. Dubash refused to stay the film's release and flagged the plea as an instance of forum shopping, noting that the petitioner had already approached the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court on the same cause of action without disclosing those proceedings to the Bombay court. The court noted that the petitioner's conduct disentitled it to urgent equitable relief, and directed proper disclosure of all prior proceedings before the matter could be heard on merit.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: V.Sree Pathi Reddy v. The State of Telangana
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.12250 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 34
The Telangana High Court has directed Telangana's education authorities to consider a representation seeking cancellation of permissions and recognition granted to a rival school operating under the name "SPR High School". The petitioner contended that the name infringed his registered trademarks and was being used despite an injunction granted by a civil court.
COMMERCIAL COURTS
Case Title: Burberry Limited v. Krishan Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 332/19
A Delhi district court has largely rejected Burberry's trademark infringement claims against traders in Karol Bagh's Gaffar Market, though it granted a permanent injunction and ₹3 lakh in damages against one trader who failed to produce allegedly infringing goods seized during a court-appointed commission. The court held that the company failed to establish infringement against most of the traders and had instituted the suit through a person whose authority had expired before the case was filed.
Mumbai Court Refuses To Stay OTT Release of 'Dhurandhar 2' In Writer's Suit Alleging Plagiarism
Case Title: Santosh Kumar R.S. v. Aditya Dhar & Ors.
Case Number: NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1841 OF 2026 IN S. C. SUIT NO. 1128 OF 2026
A Mumbai civil court on Thursday has rejected the ad-interim relief sought by a writer who alleged that filmmaker Aditya Dhar and others had copied his story and script. The court declined to restrain the film's release on an OTT platform after finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish similarity between the competing works and had not impleaded the OTT platform as a party. Santosh Kumar R.S. filed a suit for a declaration and an injunction, alleging that the defendants, including filmmaker Aditya Dhar, had copied his story. He sought the appointment of a Court Commissioner and a stay on the film's OTT release.