SUPREME COURT
Case Title: Sujoy Ghosh vs State of Jharkhand & Ors
Case Number: SLP (Crl) 9452/2025
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment in a plea filed by filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings alleging copyright infringement in connection with the film Kahaani 2, which was declined by the Jharkhand High Court. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard the matter and reserved the verdict. Earlier, on July 2, 2025, the court issued notice and granted interim relief by dispensing with Ghosh's personal appearance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh during the pendency of the case, and also directed that no coercive steps be taken against him.
Supreme Court Directs Status Quo In Zenlab-Latros Pharmaceuticals Trademark Dispute Over “ZENOVIT”
Case Title: Zenlab India (Now Known As Zenlab Ethica Ltd. & Anr. v. Latros Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd
Case Number: SLP (C) 3868 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 107
The Supreme Court recently directed the parties to maintain the status quo in a trademark dispute between Zenlab India and Latros Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., while asking the trial court to expeditiously decide the pending suits. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe passed the order while allowing an appeal filed by Zenlab challenging a judgment of the Bombay High Court dated February 16, 2022, which had granted an injunction in favour of Latros.
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Novo Nordisk v. Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited and Anr
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 204/2025 & CM APPL. 78607/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 242
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed Danish Pharma Company Novo Nordisk's appeal seeking an interim injunction against Dr Reddy's Laboratories Ltd in a patent infringement dispute over the anti-diabetic drug Semaglutide. The drug is the active ingredient in Novo Nordisk's blockbuster diabetes medicine Ozempic, which has also gained global attention for its weight loss effects. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla upheld a Single Judge's order refusing to grant interim relief restraining Dr. Reddy's from dealing in Semaglutide, holding that the defendants had raised a credible challenge to the validity of the patent.
Sale Of Used HDDs With Disclosure Does Not Amount to Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Western Digital Technologies Inc. & Anr. v. Geonix International Private Limited, Through Its Directors, Mr. Gaurav Jain Mr. Saurabh Jain & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 146/2024, CM APPL. 39898/2024 & CM APPL. 39900/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 243
The Delhi High Court on 9 March, dismissed appeals by Western Digital and Seagate against the sale of refurbished hard disk drives (HDDs), upholding the Single Judge's order permitting such sales. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, held that refurbishers selling end-of-life HDDs do not commit trademark infringement or “reverse passing off,” provided they comply with strict disclosure requirements.
Reverse Passing Off Foreign To Indian Trademark Jurisprudence, Not Enforceable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Western Digital Technologies Inc. & Anr. v. Geonix International Private Limited, Through Its Directors, Mr. Gaurav Jain Mr. Saurabh Jain & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 146/2024, CM APPL. 39898/2024 & CM APPL. 39900/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 243
The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that the tort of “reverse passing off” is foreign to Indian trademark jurisprudence and does not create an enforceable cause of action under the Trade Marks Act. The court dismissed appeals filed by Western Digital and Seagate against refurbishers who remove original brand labels from used hard disk drives and sell them under new brands. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that Indian trademark jurisprudence recognises the traditional doctrine of passing off and does not recognise reverse passing off. The doctrine applies where a trader represents its own goods as those of another. The law does not extend to claims where a trader complains that its goods are being presented as someone else's.
Delhi High Court Restrains Oiltech Engineering From Using Pirated Bentley STAAD, SACS Software
Case Title: Bentley Systems Inc & Anr. v. Oiltech Engineering India Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 49/2023 & I.A. 1674/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 250
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted a permanent injunction to infrastructure engineering software company Bentley Systems Inc., holding that Oiltech Engineering India Private Limited had used pirated versions of its software. The court restrained the company from copying, installing, or using unauthorized versions of Bentley's STAAD and SACS software programs. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “It appears that the defendants rather than procuring genuine licenses have used pirated/unauthorized versions of the said softwares. The defendants have by such use, infringed plaintiff no.1's copyright subsisting in the software programs.”
Case Title: Crocodile International Pte. Ltd. v La Chemise Lacoste & Anr.
Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) 18/2024 & CM APPL. 56314/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 245
The Delhi High Court on Monday modified a single judge ruling in a long-running trademark dispute between Lacoste and Singapore based Crocodile International, holding that the latter's crocodile device infringed both the French fashion house's trademark and its copyright in the iconic saurian emblem. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment pronounced on March 9, 2026, partly allowed cross appeals by the parties and modified the August 14, 2024 ruling of the single judge, which had limited the finding of infringement to trademark alone.
Case Title: Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Mr. Vijay Keshav Wagh & Ors.
Case Number: CO(COMM.IPD-CR) 18/2023 & I.A. 23338/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 251
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the Registrar of Copyrights to remove from the Register a copyright registration obtained by Vijay Keshav Wagh for the artistic work titled “SHREE SAKSHAT,” holding that it copied in its entirety the TIGER beer logo owned by Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that a comparison of the two logos showed that Wagh had reproduced Heineken's tiger device in its entirety, with only minor additions that did not alter the dominant feature of the mark.
Case Title: Parle Products Private Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 49/2025 & I.A.19990/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 249
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Parle Products Pvt Ltd in a trademark dispute over the mark “20-20”. The court held that when competing trademark applications are filed on a “proposed to be used” basis, subsequent commercial use by one applicant cannot defeat the earlier filing date of the other. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks dated April 29, 2025 rejecting Parle's opposition to a rival company's application to register the mark “20-20” for goods in Class 30.
Delhi High Court Quashes 'NAUKRIYAN' Trademark, Says It Is Deceptively Similar To Naukri.com
Case Title: Info Edge (India) Limited v. Pradeep Namdeo & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 34/2025 & I.A. 16734/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 247
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed the trademark registration of "NAUKRIYAN," finding it deceptively similar to the “NAUKRI” mark used by Info Edge (India) Limited for its flagship job portal, Naukri.com. In a judgment delivered on March 10, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said the dominant and essential feature in both marks is the word "naukri." According to the court, “naukriyan” is simply the plural form of the Hindi word “naukri”, meaning job, and that this variation does not create enough distinctiveness to avoid confusion, particularly since both parties offer similar employment-related services.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside 'FISCHBEIN' Trademark Abandonment Order Over Uncommunicated Objections
Case Title: Nvenia LLC v. The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 28/2025, I.A. 15577/2025 & I.A. 22984/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 246
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order by the Registrar of Trade Marks that had declared a trademark application for the mark 'FISCHBEIN' as abandoned. On March 10, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated that the Registrar's decision violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the application based on grounds never communicated to the applicant, nVenia. “It is the bounden duty of the Trade Marks Office while examining the application to place all objections before the applicant so as to enable the applicant to know and be aware of the objections which are to be addressed. It is those very objections alone that the applicant can be expected to respond to at that stage,” the bench remarked.
Delhi High Court Stops Indore Firm From Using Glaxo-Like Drug Packaging, Grants Temporary Injunction
Case Title: Glaxo Group Limited & Anr. v. Anand Jain, Trading As Jain Group/ Jankem Life Science
Case Number: CS(COMM) 215/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 248
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of pharmaceutical company Glaxo Group Limited, restraining an Indore-based trader from using trademarks and packaging deceptively similar to its popular medicinal brands including ZINETAC, AUGMENTIN, CALPOL and BETNESOL, after finding a prima facie case of infringement and breach of an earlier undertaking. In an order passed on March 10, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the defendant, Anand Jain trading as Jain Group/Jankem Life Science, had continued to use marks and trade dress similar to those of the plaintiff despite having undertaken in 2024 to cease such use and destroy the infringing inventory.
Delhi High Court Restrains Kent RO From Using 'KENT' Mark For Fans, Notes Prior Use By Kent Cables
Case Title: Kent RO Systems Limited & Ors. v. Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 142/2023 & CM APPL. 35806/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 254
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday upheld an interim injunction restraining Kent RO Systems Limited from manufacturing or selling fans under the trademark “KENT”, affirming a single judge's order passed in favour of Kent Cables Private Limited. In a judgment delivered on March 11, 2026, a division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the appeals filed by the purifier manufacturer and held that the cable company had shown prior adoption of the mark for electrical goods and prima facie use of the mark for fans, disentitling Kent RO from seeking injunctive relief at the interim stage.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Volkswagen's Challenge To Maruti Suzuki's 'Transformotion' Trademark
Case Title: Volkswagen AG v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 257
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by German automobile major Volkswagen AG, allowing Maruti Suzuki India Limited to proceed with registration of the trademark “TRANSFORMOTION” for vehicles. The ruling came in a judgment delivered on March 12, 2026, in which Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the rival marks, when compared as a whole, do not create any plausible likelihood of confusion and appear distinct from each other.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: NEC Corporation & Ors vs The Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr
Case Number: IPDAID/21/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 66
The Calcutta High Court on Monday held that Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) are not automatically excluded from protection under the Designs Act and may qualify as registrable designs if they satisfy the statutory requirements. A GUI is the visual interface of a digital device or software that allows users to interact with it through icons, buttons and menus instead of typing text commands. A single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur ruled that the Controller of Designs had adopted an “incorrect and legally untenable” interpretation of the law while rejecting several applications seeking protection for GUI-based designs.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Elder Project Limited V/s. Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) No.27106 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 120
The Bombay High Court on Monday vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted to Elder Projects Ltd in a trademark infringement suit against its group company, Elder Nutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd., holding that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts while seeking injunction without notice to the opposing party. Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that the injunction, granted on September 26, 2025, restrained Elder Nutraceuticals Pvt Ltd from using the mark “ELDER” or any deceptively similar mark for pharmaceutical products.
Case Title: Rajeev Prakash Agarwal v. Tata Play Limited and Others
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 257 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 121
Observing that the blending of Hindi and English is common in India's linguistic landscape, the Bombay High Court has held that a combination of a clipped English word with a Hindi word does not, prima facie, make a trademark inherently distinctive. “The combination of the clipped version of the English word with the Hindi word prima facie does not make it inherently distinctive in our country where there is tendency of blending Hindi and English and spoken as such,” Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed.
Companies Too Can Claim 'Own Name' Defence Against Trademark Infringement: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhavesh Suresh Kataria
Case Number: Commercial Appeal (L) No. 42036 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 122
The Bombay High Court has held that the defence available under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which protects the bona fide use of one's own name, is not confined only to natural persons and can also be invoked by a corporate entity where the name used reflects the surname of its promoters. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and R. N. Laddha made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. against an interim injunction granted in favour of Bhavesh Suresh Kataria, proprietor of “Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy”.
Bombay High Court Protects Shilpa Shetty's Personality Rights, Orders Removal of AI Deepfakes
Case Title: Shilpa Shetty Kundra v. Getoutlive.in & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 720 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 124
The Bombay High Court has recently granted protection to the personality rights of the renowned actress Shilpa Shetty Kundra, ordering the removal of AI-generated deepfakes and restraining commercial entities from the unauthorized use of her likeness. On March 4, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh stated that the actress's personality attributes are protectable elements that cannot be commercially exploited without her express consent.
Case Title: Century 21 Real Estates LLC Versus Century 21 Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 857 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 125
The Bombay High Court has allowed rectification petitions filed by Century 21 Real Estate LLC and ordered cancellation of four trademark registrations for the mark “C21” obtained by Century 21 Town Planners Pvt Ltd, holding that the respondent's adoption of the mark was dishonest and intended to ride on the petitioner's goodwill. “The contention that the marks are dissimilar needs only to be stated to be rejected. This contention once again brings to the fore the dishonesty and inconsistency in the conduct of Respondent No. 1, since Respondent No. 1 has itself relied upon “CENTURY 21 TOWN PLANNERS” to assert rights in “C21”, thereby acknowledging the association between the two.”, the court observed.
Case Title: Rajiv Suri v. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd.
Case Number: SUIT NO. 4804 OF 2000
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 132
The Bombay High Court has recently dismissed a decades-old copyright infringement suit filed by filmmaker Rajiv Suri against Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. concerning the Hindi feature films Manzil and Parwana, characterizing the litigation as a “gross abuse of the process of law” and imposing exemplary costs of Rs 10 lakh on the plaintiff. While pronouncing the judgment, Justice Arif S. Doctor held that Rajiv Suri had approached the court with “unclean hands” by suppressing a Memorandum of Understanding and a Deed of Assignment, which showed that disputes relating to Manzil had already been settled after payment of compensation and that the rights in Parwana had been assigned to a third party before the suit was filed.
Case Title: Saurabh Arora v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Anr.
Case Number: COMM. MISC. PETITION NO. 46 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 131
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order of the Deputy Controller of Patents that had dismissed a post-grant opposition, finding that the decision contained no real reasoning and did not include the technical analysis required under the law. In a judgment dated March 10, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor noted that the patent office had rejected the prior-art claim relied on by the opponent without explaining the basis for doing so. The Court said that because the order was appealable, the absence of reasons made it impossible to assess whether the decision was correct.
Case Title: Universal Test Solutions v. Punam Kumari Singh & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 22386 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 20290 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 133
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an interim plea filed by Universal Test Solutions LLP, declining to grant interim relief in a trademark, copyright and passing-off dispute against its former partner Punam Kumari Singh and others. In a judgment dated March 11, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case to restrain the defendants from using the domain name uts-global.com, the acronym “UTS”, the corporate name ODC Universal Technological Solutions Private Limited, or the software alleged to have been copied from the LLP.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited v. Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 27758 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 27133 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 138
The Bombay High Court has granted urgent ad interim protection to Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), restraining Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited, the owner and operator of Legends League Cricket (LLC), from publicly performing its copyrighted sound recordings during its cricket matches without obtaining a valid licence. Absolute Legends Sports conducts Legends League Cricket, a T20 tournament featuring retired international players, and the music licensing body moved the Court apprehending that its copyrighted recordings would be played during the upcoming fixtures without authorisation.
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Tarun Paints Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO. 28196 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (LODGING) NO. 27857 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 140
The Bombay High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Asian Paints Limited, restraining a rival firm from using the mark “ASIA TUFF” for cement paint and wall putty. In an order dated March 13, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the rival marks show deceptive visual as well as phonetic similarity, giving rise to a strong likelihood of consumer confusion.
Madras High Court
Case Title: Sunshine Pictures Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.A.Nos.185 & 186 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.69 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 52
The Madras High Court has granted an ad interim injunction in a case of apprehended infringement of the copyright of the cinematographic film titled “THE KERALA STORY 2”, restraining various Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and cable TV operators from unauthorized broadcasting. In a decision passed on March 2, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy stated that it is necessary to prevent unlawful broadcasts at the very threshold to avoid irreversible injury. However, the Court observed that the wide-reaching nature of the requested relief could potentially impact the legitimate business interests of the respondents.
Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v. Chennai Super Kings Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA 212 of 2026 and CS (Comm Div) 81 of 2026
Sun TV Network has approached the Madras High Court seeking to restrain Chennai Super Kings (CSK) from using its songs from the movies "Jailer," “Jailer 2," and “Coolie” for the team's promotional activities. Sun has also claimed damages to the tune of Rs 1 crore. When the matter came up before Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy on Friday (13th March 2026), Senior Advocate J Ravindran, appearing for the network company, stated that the team had used songs that belonged to Sun for its promotional videos.
District Court
Case Title: Malkans Training Institute Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Vs Telegram Messengers LLP & Ors.
Case Number: CS (COMM)260/2026
The Tis Hazari District Court in Delhi has granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction to protect the intellectual property of Malkans Training Institute Pvt. Ltd. and its founders, Vishal B. Malkan and Meghana V. Malkan, in a trademark and copyright infringement suit against Telegram Messengers LLP and others. The court also issued summons to the defendants, including Telegram, after observing that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case of trademark and copyright infringement as well as passing off.