HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Bars Sree Tirumalaa Traders From Using “Lakshmi Srinivasa” Mark & Trade Dress
Case Title: Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods & Anr. v. Sree Tirumalaa Traders
Case Number: CS(COMM) 667/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 642
On June 22, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Sree Tirumalaa Traders from using the mark “LAKSHMI SRINIVASA” and a deceptively similar trade dress for rice products. Justice Tejas Karia held that a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off was established. The court allowed the plaintiffs' application for urgent interim protection to prevent consumer confusion regarding the origin of the goods.
Delhi High Court Cancels 'SHAKTI' Trademark On 'SAKTHI' Mark Owner's Plea
Case Title: P.C. Duraisamy v. Kewal Krishan Kumar & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 180/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 640
The Delhi High Court has directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the trademark "SHAKTI" from the Register of Trade Marks. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the judgment on June 24, holding that the mark was registered without a bona fide intention to use it. The court noted that no evidence was produced showing independent use of the standalone "SHAKTI" mark by the registered proprietor or assignee, subsequently upholding the prior rights of the "SAKTHI" brand.
Delhi High Court Restores Interim Relief For Kumar Foods, Finds “10X SHAKTI” Similar To SHAKTI BHOG
Case Title: Kumar Foods Industries v. GRM Foodkraft Private Limited
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 166/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 643
The Delhi High Court restored interim protection for Kumar Foods Industries, ruling that the use of "10X SHAKTI" for wheat flour is prima facie deceptively similar to the registered mark "SHAKTI BHOG". A Vacation Bench comprising Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Madhu Jain stayed a District Court order that had previously vacated the injunction.
National Biodiversity Authority Approval Has No Bearing On Patentability: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 109/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 635
The Delhi High Court has held that approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) to pursue intellectual property rights does not guarantee that an invention qualifies for patent protection. The court dismissed an appeal by Shaafi Naturcure LLP against the rejection of its patent application for a six-herb asthma treatment. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela clarified that the criteria for patentability under the Patents Act are independent of the NBA's clearance under biodiversity laws.
Case Title: Devans Modern Breweries Limited v. Cartel Bros Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 346/2026, I.A. 9898/2026, I.A. 9911/2026 & I.A. 10797/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 634
The Delhi High Court has passed an interim order restraining the makers of "The Glenwalk" whisky from using the mark "GODFATHER" for their product endorsed by actor Sanjay Dutt. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the use of the word was deceptively similar to the established trademark owned by Devans Modern Breweries. The court directed Cartel Bros. Pvt. Ltd. to immediately remove all advertisements, listings, and social media content featuring the "GODFATHER" mark.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Dismisses Intellectual Property Suit Against Tamil Film 'Saamaniyan' After Release
Case Title: M. M.Viyan Aarman v. Etecetra Entertainment & Ors.
Case Number: C.S(COMM DIV) No. 19 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 160
On June 22, the Madras High Court dismissed a suit seeking to block the release and promotion of the Tamil film "Saamaniyan". Justice K. Kumaresh Babu ruled that the reliefs sought had become infructuous since the film had already been released in 2024. The plaintiff, proprietor of Art Addict, had claimed exclusive trademark and copyright rights over the title "SAAMANIYAN," but the court found that the prayer for an injunction could no longer be granted.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sandip & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1541 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 353
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against two traders accused of selling counterfeit Zara and Calvin Klein clothing. The court held that the allegations disclosed a trademark-related offence rather than a copyright violation, rendering the FIR registered under the Copyright Act improper. Justice M.W. Chandwani observed that since the traders were allegedly selling garments bearing the brand labels, it was a case of trademark infringement, not a case of unauthorised reproduction of a copyrighted work.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Revocation Of SAATHI's Patent For Natural Fibre Absorbent Article
Case Title: Saathi, Inc. v. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 17 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 357
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order revoking a patent granted to SAATHI Inc. for an absorbent article made from natural fibres. Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the Controller of Patents revoked the patent without providing reasons and departed from the Opposition Board's recommendation without explanation. The court also found the Controller failed to decide if the opponent was entitled to maintain the post-grant opposition.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Fraunhofer Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Angewandten Forschunge v. The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark & Anr.
Case Number: IPDPTA/11/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 160
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the German research organisation Fraunhofer Gesellschaft against the rejection of its patent application for a method to stimulate biomass growth in bioreactors. The court ruled that the invention's specification was excessively broad and failed to provide sufficient disclosure for the invention to be performed. Additionally, the court found that the application did not disclose the source and geographical origin of the biological material used, as required by law.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/s Satyam Fashion v. Meesho Technologies Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 224 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 224 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 76
The Gujarat High Court held that a Commercial Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed with an injunction application once a defendant raises a plea for cancellation of a registered design as a defense. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray set aside a lower court order, emphasizing that under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, such suits must be transferred to the High Court for adjudication.