SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Stays Delhi High Court Order Restraining Use Of 'Medilice' Mark For Anti-Lice Hair Oil
Case Title: Kirit Bhadiadra v. Wings Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Case Number: SLP (C) Diary No. 15782/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 227
The Supreme Court has stayed the Delhi High Court's December 2025 judgment that upheld a trial court's finding of trademark infringement against Kirit Bhadiadra in a dispute over the mark "Medilice." A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli, hearing the matter on June 18, observed that the controversy "would require a deeper scrutiny." The dispute is between Wings Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, which sells an anti-lice shampoo under the mark "Medilice," and Bhadiadra, proprietor of Rapple Healthcare, who markets an ayurvedic anti-lice and anti-dandruff hair oil under "Medilice Lice Killer."
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Astral Ltd. v. M/S Astral Marketing Syndicate & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 294/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 619
The Delhi High Court has recently refused to throw out a trademark infringement suit filed by Astral Ltd against Astral Marketing Syndicate. The Court observed that the defendant's Justdial listing enabled customers in Delhi to access product information and contact the business, thereby prima facie giving rise to part of the cause of action in the capital. Justice Tejas Karia held that the functionality of the listing could reasonably be construed as facilitating commercial transactions. The Court also noted that Astral Ltd maintains a subordinate office in Delhi.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Novamax's Cooler Design Infringement Claim, Keeps Passing Off Suit Alive
Case Title: Novamax Industries LLP v. Prem Appliances & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 177/2021 & I.A. 13748/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 631
The Delhi High court on Friday dismissed Novamax Industries LLP's claim that Prem Appliances infringed its registered cooler design after finding that Novamax's own invoices and website showed the design had been publicly sold and displayed before the design application was filed. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, however, declined to summarily reject Novamax's passing off claim, holding that the issue would require evidence at trial.
Case Title: Piyush Sapra & Anr. v. Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 643/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 630
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction against several sellers accused of misusing Flipkart's "Latching On" feature to market products under the SHAPERMEN brand. Maps The court observed that their conduct appeared prima facie calculated to "ride upon the goodwill associated with the Subject Marks" and was likely to cause confusion about the origin of the products. Justice Tejas Karia passed the order in a suit filed by Piyush Sapra and another party associated with the SHAPERMEN men's shapewear and compression-garment brand. The suit was brought against Flipkart Internet Private Limited and multiple third-party sellers.
Delhi High Court Cancels 'D-TAN' Trademark, Holds Mark Descriptive And Non-Distinctive
Case Title: Honasa Consumer Ltd v. Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 215/2023 & I.A. 18072/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 629
The Delhi High Court has directed cancellation of the registered trademark 'D-TAN' held by Visage Beauty and Health Care Pvt Ltd, ruling that the mark is descriptive of skin tan removal products and lacks the distinctiveness required for trademark protection. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowed a rectification petition filed by Honasa Consumer Ltd, the company behind 'AQUALOGICA'. The Court ordered the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the mark from the register within four weeks.
Case Title: M/S DRS Logistics (P) Ltd & Anr. v. Google India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1/2017, I.A. 2646/2020, I.A. 2173/2022, I.A. 18605/2025 & I.A. 25645/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 618
Google cannot be held in contempt over third-party advertisements using DRS Logistics' trademarks in ad text, ad titles and URLs, the Delhi High Court has held, ruling that earlier orders did not require the company to "proactively monitor and prevent" such use. Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on Monday. "Therefore, the Judgments do not impose any obligation upon Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 to proactively monitor and prevent the use of the Subject Marks in Ad-Text, Ad-Title, or URL in advertisements of third parties," the Court observed.
Delhi High Court Protects DIZEST Trademark, Bars Use Of “CelsiusDizest” By Celsius Healthcare
Case Title: DWD Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 658/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 620
The Delhi High Court on 5 June granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of DWD Pharmaceuticals, restraining Celsius Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. from using the trademark “CelsiusDizest” or any other mark deceptively similar to DWD Pharmaceuticals' registered DIZEST mark. A Vacation Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that the defendant had incorporated the plaintiff's entire mark for identical pharmaceutical products, and that such use was likely to cause confusion.
Case Title: The Nippon Signal Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 623
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order refusing a patent application for a train-control system developed by Japanese company The Nippon Signal Co., Ltd., after finding that the Patent Office had not adequately dealt with the company's submissions distinguishing the invention from the cited prior-art documents. Geographic Reference Justice Jyoti Singh, in a judgment delivered on May 29, remanded the matter to the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs for fresh consideration and directed that a decision be taken within four months after granting the company an opportunity of hearing.
Delhi High Court Quashes Refusal of 'BIG INDIA' Trademark Registration, Orders Fresh Review
Case Title: Purpos Planet v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2025 & I.As. 15656/2025, 15657/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 624
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order refusing registration of the word mark "BIG INDIA", holding that the Trade Marks Registry failed to consider several submissions made by the firm seeking registration and passed an unreasoned order. Justice Jyoti Singh, in an order dated May 22, directed the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks to reconsider the application within four months after granting Purpos Planet an opportunity of hearing.
Delhi High Court Restrains Okaya Dealers From Circulating Defamatory Ads Against Microtek Trademarks
Case Title: Microtek International Private Limited v. Sukhveer Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 660/2026, I.A. 15999-16001/2026 & I.A. 16003/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 621
The Delhi High Court on 10 June granted an interim injunction and restrained several Okaya dealers and employees from circulating disparaging and defamatory advertisements against the registered trademarks of Microtek International Private Limited. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna heard the matter and restrained Defendants 1 to 6, including authorised dealers, distributors and branch personnel of Okaya operating across Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and other States, from displaying or circulating the impugned advertisements on WhatsApp and Facebook.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Declines Interim Relief To Hospital In 'RIO' Trademark Row With Diagnostic Centre
Case Title: Rio Children's Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. Rio Scans and Labs
Case Number: C.M.A(MD)No.287 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 154
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Rio Children's Hospital against the refusal of an interim injunction restraining Tirunelveli-based Rio Scans and Labs from using the mark "RIO". The court held that the parties' rival claims over the trade name could be decided only after a full-fledged trial. Justice P. Vadamalai upheld a September 2024 order of the Principal District Judge, Madurai. The order had declined interim relief sought by the hospital in a trademark dispute pending since 2022.
Madras High Court Temporarily Restrains Telugu Dub Release Of Drishyam 3 On OTT Platforms
Case Title: MS Rajkumar Theatre Pvt Ltd v. Aashirvad Cinemas & Ors.
Case Number: C.S (COMM DIV) 144 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 146
The Madras High Court has restrained the makers of malayalam movie “Drishyam 3” from releasing the Telugu dubbed version of the movie in OTT platforms. Justice K Kumaresh Babu made the interim order on a plea moved by film production company Rajkumar Theatre Pvt Ltd. The company had approached the Madras High Court seeking to restrain the producers and director and their agents, employees, assignees, licensees, and everyone claiming through them from infringing the company's exclusive copyright to remake and exploit the movie in the Telugu language by releasing the dubbed version of the movie in Telugu anywhere in the world.
Case Title: CADD Centre Training Services Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s. CADD Centre Software Systems Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 390 & 391 of 2026 and A.Nos.2005 & 2006 of 2026 in C.S.(COMM DIV).No.125 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 144
The Madras High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining CADD Centre Software Systems Private Limited from using the trademark/logo "CADD CENTRE" and the word "CADD Centre". The court held that the use of the same name by businesses engaged in software-related activities would create confusion in the minds of the public. Justice K Kumaresh Babu passed the order on June 1 while considering applications moved by CADD Centre Training Services Private Limited. The company has been carrying on business under the registered trademark "CADD Centre" since 1989.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Blue Cross Laboratories Private Limited v. Alto Healthcare Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 520 OF 2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 344
The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained Alto Healthcare Private Limited and its manufacturer from using the mark "MEFIAL-SPAS" and associated packaging. The court found that the mark was deceptively similar to Blue Cross Laboratories' registered trademarks and artistic work used for its "MEFTAL-SPAS" product. Justice Arif S. Doctor delivered the judgment on June 17. The Court also directed each defendant to pay costs of ₹5 lakh to Blue Cross Laboratories within eight weeks. If the amount is not paid within that period, it will carry interest at 8% per annum.
Case Title: Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 23 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2089 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 23 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 343
The Bombay High Court has recently held that the two-month deadline for filing an evidence affidavit in trademark opposition and rectification proceedings is directory and not mandatory, finding that the broader scheme of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, does not support treating it as an inflexible limitation period. Courts & Judiciary "One must remember that the scheme of Rules 44 to 51 of the 2017 Rules are procedural provisions to aid in adjudicating the merits of Opposition Proceedings and Rectification Proceedings. The Registrar has been given a free play in the joints with discretion to allow evidence necessary for the adjudication. What is perceived as being simply impermissible under Rule 45, when practically permissible under Rule 47 and Rule 48, makes it only reasonable to conclude that the deadline in Rule 45 is directory and not mandatory." Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Use of 'PIL-LINCTUS', Finds Similarity With 'GRILINCTUS'
Case Title: Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited & Anr. v. Psychotropics India Limited
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4006 OF 2022 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 256 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 342
The Bombay High Court on 15 June granted an interim injunction restraining Psychotropics India Limited from using the mark 'PIL-LINCTUS' for its cough syrup, holding it to be deceptively similar to the registered mark 'GRILINCTUS' owned by Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited. Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the competing marks were aurally, phonetically and structurally similar, with the suffix “LINCTUS” dominating the overall impression of both.
Well-Known Trademark List Not Immune From Rectification Proceedings: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Raman Kwatra v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 23211 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 36812 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 340
The Bombay High Court has held that the list of well-known trademarks is amenable to rectification proceedings. It cannot be insulated from challenge merely because it is maintained separately from the Register of Trade Marks. Justice Arif S. Doctor, however, declined to entertain a petition seeking removal of the 'KEI' marks from the list. The judge held that the Delhi High Court was the more appropriate forum to decide the dispute.
Bombay High Court Allows Preity Zinta To Pursue Suit Against Google, Meta Over AI Deepfakes
Case Title: Preity G. Zinta v. Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: LEAVE PETITION (L) NO. 19882 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 339
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted actress Preity Zinta leave to institute a suit against Google LLC, Meta and other entities over AI-generated deepfake videos, manipulated images, chatbot personas, and other digital content that she claims infringes her rights. The proposed suit alleges infringement of her personality rights, copyright, and moral rights. Justice Abhay Ahuja allowed Zinta's petition seeking leave to file the suit before the Bombay High Court and disposed of the matter.
Bombay High Court Restrains Mas Pharmachem's 'BON K2 FORTE', Protects Integrace 'BON-K2' Mark
Case Title: Integrace Private Limited v. Mas Pharmachem And Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 238 OF 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 337
The Bombay High Court on 15 June granted a permanent injunction restraining Mas Pharmachem from using the mark 'BON K2 FORTE', holding it to be deceptively similar to Integrace Private Limited's registered mark 'BON-K2'. Justice Arif S. Doctor found the defendants' adoption of the mark to be “plainly dishonest, malafide and with a clear intent to deceive” and directed them to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000 each to the Plaintiff within eight weeks, with interest at 8% per annum in case of default.
Case Title: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Zenlabs India & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 535 OF 2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 338
The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained Zenlabs India from using the trademark "ZENOX" for medicinal and pharmaceutical products after finding that it was deceptively similar to Glenmark Pharmaceuticals' registered mark "ZINOX". The court held that use of the rival mark was likely to cause confusion among consumers and members of the trade. Justice Arif S. Doctor, while decreeing Glenmark's trademark infringement and passing off suit on June 15, held that the competing marks were almost identical. The Court also found that Zenlabs had failed to justify its adoption of the impugned mark.
Bombay High Court Cancels DUPHACHRIT Trademark, Finds It Similar To Abbott's DUPHA Marks
Case Title: Abbott Product Operations AG v. Menschlich Healthcare (OPC) Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 14697 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 12147 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 335
The Bombay High Court has ordered the cancellation of the trademark "DUPHACHRIT", holding that it was deceptively similar to Abbott Product Operations AG's family of "DUPHA" marks used for pharmaceutical products. Justice Arif S. Doctor passed the order on June 15, 2026, while allowing a rectification petition filed by Abbott seeking removal of the mark from the Register of Trade Marks.
Patent Office Cannot Raise New Objections Beyond Scope Of Remand: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Qualyst Transporter Solutions LLC v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1778 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 61 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 334
The Bombay High Court has held that a patent matter remanded solely to cure a breach of natural justice cannot be treated as a fresh examination proceeding, and the Patent Office cannot use such a remand to introduce entirely new prior art references or fresh grounds of objection. Justice Arif S. Doctor passed the ruling while allowing an application filed by Qualyst Transporter Solutions LLC, a United States-based company whose patent application has been under prosecution in India for nearly a decade.
Case Title: Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Indian Express (P) Ltd.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.41053 of 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.41851 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 350
The Bombay High Court on Monday upheld an interim injunction restraining Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd., publisher of 'The New Indian Express,' from using the "New Indian Express" name for events, programs, or business activities outside the five southern states and Union Territories specified in a 1995 Memorandum of Settlement (MoS). The court dismissed the company's appeal against a November 2025 order passed by a Single Judge.
Punjab And Haryana High Court
Case Title: Maninderjeet Singh v. Facebook Meta Platform INC
Case Number: CWP-11308-2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 32
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently declined to intervene in Meta's removal of a song from a Facebook page. The court noted that the song had been uploaded without the copyright owner's consent. It also found that the page owner had not placed any material on record to dispute that position. Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed that the Facebook page owner had been informed that the song was removed because it was uploaded without the copyright owner's consent.
COMMERCIAL COURTS
Delhi Court Restrains Use Of 'Ayurland' Trademark, Awards ₹2 Lakh Damages To 'Ayur' Products Maker.
Case Title: Three-N-Products Private Limited v. Teamex Retail Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS (COMM) No.986/2025
A Delhi commercial court has permanently restrained Teamex Retail Limited and its directors from using the mark "Ayurland" or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark "Ayur." The court granted relief to Three-N-Products Private Limited, the maker of the Ayur range of products, and awarded damages of ₹2 lakh along with costs. District Judge (Commercial Court) Dr. Neera Bharihoke of the Saket Courts delivered the judgment on June 8, 2026.