SUPREME COURT
Case Title: Sujoy Ghosh vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case Number: SLP (Crl) 9452/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 121
The Supreme Court on Friday quashed criminal proceedings against filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh in a copyright infringement case relating to the film “Kahani 2," setting aside the summoning order issued against him by the CJM Hazaribagh and the subsequent refusal of the Jharkhand High Court to quash the case. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while allowing Ghosh's petition, said:
“In the result, the summoning order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the CJM and order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the High Court, are quashed and set aside. The proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1267 of 2017, pending before the CJM, Hazaribagh, is quashed and set aside. Accordingly the appeal is allowed.”
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Grants Injunction To Philips Against Geetech For Unauthorized Medical Software
Case Title: Philips Medical Systems Netherland Bv & Anr. v. Geetech Medical Systems And Services & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 233/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 264
The Delhi High Court on 13 March 2026 granted an ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction in favour of the Dutch healthcare conglomerate Philips, restraining several entities from reproducing or selling counterfeit versions of its proprietary medical diagnostic software. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that Philips had established a strong prima facie case regarding the systematic piracy of its Integrated Security Tool (IST) certificates. The Bench noted: “The plaintiffs appear to be the owners of the proprietary software, CSIP materials, IST certificates and associated intellectual property, all of which constitute 'Literary Works' protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. Defendant No.1 appears to be engaged in the systematic counterfeiting and unauthorized reproduction of plaintiffs' IST certificates and proprietary service documentation.”
Case Title: Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v. GGS Group Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 242/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 270
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Tata Sons Private Limited and Tata Consumer Products Limited, restraining a Punjab-based firm from dealing in trademarks and packaging found to be deceptively similar to the well-known “TATA TEA” brand. In an order passed on March 13, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the Tata Group companies had made out a strong prima facie case of infringement in respect of their well-known trademarks.
Case Title: Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Bhaveshbhai Chaturbhai Nakrani Trading As Arvi Tex
Case Number: CS(COMM) 235/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 269
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Lifestyle Equities C.V. and its licensing arm, protecting the intellectual property of the globally recognized Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) brand. In an order dated March 13, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the brand owners had established a prima facie strong case for grant of an injunction against a rival trader.
Case Title: Mahindra And Mahindra Limited & Anr. v. Diksha Sharma Proprietor Of Mahidnra Packers Movers & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 209/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 271
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that there is an “urgent and alarming need” to amend the Code of Civil Procedure and the IT Rules to deal with evolving online infringement, while refusing to grant a post-decree dynamic injunction in a trademark dispute involving Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., holding that courts cannot go beyond the statutory framework even where digital violations continue after judgment.
Case Title: Embassy Of Peru v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number: LPA 577/2025 & CM APPL. 57234-39/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 278
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday affirmed that Peru cannot claim the exclusive, standalone “PISCO” geographical indication (GI) for its national spirit in India, holding that the name is historically associated with alcoholic beverages produced in both Peru and Chile and granting Peru sole rights would lead to consumer confusion. Calling the dispute a “Tale of Two Countries,” a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla was dealing with an appeal filed by the Embassy of Peru against a single-judge ruling that required the spirit to be registered in India only as “PERUVIAN PISCO” instead of the standalone term “PISCO”.
Case Title: Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd. v. Sumitomo Chemical Company Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) 22/2025 & CM APPL. 45700/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 281
The Delhi High Court has set aside a single-judge order that had rejected a lawsuit filed by Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd. concerning the trademark “PADAN” and its associated packaging for insecticides, holding that the plaint disclosed a triable cause of action and could not have been rejected at the threshold. In a judgment dated March 18, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the single judge went beyond the limited scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by examining disputed facts and the merits of the case while deciding whether the suit should be rejected at the outset.
Case Title: Geron Corporation v. The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 244/2022 & I.A. 10126/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 282
The Delhi High Court has upheld the rejection of a patent application filed by the biopharmaceutical firm Geron Corporation for a method aimed at selecting cancer patients for specialized therapy. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, on March 17, 2026, held that the proposed “in vitro screening method” functions as a diagnostic process, which is barred from patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act.
Case Title: GPN Commercial LLC (USA) v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 219/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 283
The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of American sports nutrition company GPN Commercial LLC, restraining several unknown persons from manufacturing, storing, or selling counterfeit products under the popular protein powder brand “ISOPURE” trademark. The court observed that counterfeiting is a “menace which needs to be curbed with strict heads,” and noted that the sale of low-quality products could harm both the plaintiff's reputation and public health.
Case Title: Gautam Gambhir v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 287/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday directed counsel for Indian cricket team head coach Gautam Gambhir to file a corrected memo of parties in his suit seeking protection of his personality rights, after noticing a discrepancy in the numbering and description of defendants in the court filings. Gambhir has approached the court alleging misuse of his likeness/personality through deepfake videos and false news reports circulating online.
Delhi High Court Directs Sonakshi Sinha To File List Of Infringing URLs In Personality Rights Suit
Case Title: Sonakshi Sinha v. Character Technologies Inc & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 275/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday directed actor Sonakshi Sinha to file a clear, defendant-wise table of infringing URLs in her suit seeking protection of her personality rights against alleged misuse by AI-based platforms after finding a lack of clarity in the material placed on record. During the hearing, Justice Jyoti Singh expressed concern over websites that allow users to generate chatbots using the actor's likeness, but cautioned that the court would grant only legally recognised reliefs, observing, “Prayer can ask for the moon, but I'm not going to grant it. I will grant what has been granted by this court from time to time.”
Delhi High Court Restrains Sale Of “ELECTROCAD” ORS For Imitating FDC's “ELECTRAL”
Case Title: FDC Limited v. Neeraj Agarwal & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 221/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 285
The Delhi High Court on 11 March, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of FDC Limited, restraining Neeraj Agarwal and a third-party manufacturer from manufacturing or selling oral rehydration salts under the mark Electrocad, whose packaging was alleged to imitate the trade dress of FDC's Electral. Justice Jyoti Singh held that when a product is sold over the counter to consumers who may rely on visual memory rather than reading brand names, imitation of a well-known product's trade dress can cause significant consumer confusion and warrants injunctive protection.
Delhi High Court Orders Newslaundry To Remove “Shit Reporters”, “Shit Show” Remarks Against TV Today
Case Title: TV Today Network Limited v. News Laundry Media Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 268/2022, CM APPL. 18933/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 287
The Delhi High Court on Friday partly allowed an appeal filed by TV Today Network Limited, directing News Laundry Media Private Limited to remove specific derogatory remarks from its digital platforms at the interim stage. A division bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that while the defence of fair dealing in copyright law involves fact-intensive examination requiring trial, the use of expressions such as “shit reporters” and “shit show” was prima facie disparaging and defamatory.
Case Title: Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 272/2026, I.A. 7118/2026, I.A. 7117/2026, I.A. 7119/2026, I.A. 7120/2026, I.A. 7121/2026, I.A. 7122/2026, I.A. 7123/2026 & I.A. 7124/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 291
The Delhi High Court has recorded an interim arrangement between Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk and Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited in a patent infringement suit concerning semaglutide, a compound used in the popular diabetes and weight-loss drug Ozempic. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on March 20, 2026, recorded that the parties had agreed to an interim arrangement under which the Torrent would ensure that the concentration of a specific chemical component in its product does not fall within the range claimed under the Danish Pharms's patent.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Prosenjit Chatterjee v. Masala Mamaji & Ors.
Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/1/2026 IN IP-COM/54/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 74
The Calcutta High Court has granted an interim injunction to safeguard the personality rights of actor Prosenjit Chatterjee, restraining Masala Mamaji and another defendant from using his name or photographs, including those generated through Artificial Intelligence (AI), to imply his endorsement of their products without any agreement with him. On March 11, 2026, Justice Arindam Mukherjee held, “However, keeping in mind the stature of the plaintiff and that his image may be tarnished by indiscriminate use of his photographs to portray that he is associated with the products of entities who have no agreement or arrangement with him, a limited protection is granted to the plaintiff at this stage. This limited protection is to prevent multiplicity of judicial proceedings and in view of the fact that refusing an order of restraint will create more inconvenience and cause further prejudice to the plaintiff.”
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Delhi Zaika through Partners Mr. Aamir Siddiqui v. Zidz Hospitality LLP & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 39269 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 31885 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 142
The Bombay High Court has granted ad-interim relief to the restaurant chain Delhi Zaika in a trademark dispute involving family members, restraining Zidz Hospitality LLP and others from using the registered trademark “DELHI ZAIKA”, after noting that one of the defendants, who is the biological brother of the plaintiff, had earlier been permitted to use the mark only under a conditional arrangement.
On March 11, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed, “The Plaintiff's proprietary right in the registered trade mark of “DELHI ZAIKA” is prima facie demonstrated from the registration certificate which has been placed on record. The registration has been secured by the Plaintiff in the year 2011. Considering the proprietary right of the Plaintiff in the registered trademark, without the consent of the Plaintiff, the Defendants are prima facie not entitled to use the registered trade mark.”
Case Title: Dr. Bawaskar Technology (Agro) Pvt. Ltd. v. Anannya Agro Products & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.28 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.9 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12806 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 146
The Bombay High Court on Monday granted interim injunction in a trademark dispute over the mark “GERMINATOR” but directed the parties to maintain the status quo for four weeks to allow the defendants to challenge the ruling. A Division Bench of Justice R. I. Chagla and Justice Advait M. Sethna restrained Anannya Agro Products and Avishkar Agro Chem from using the mark “GERMINATOR” or any deceptively similar trade dress in a suit filed by Dr. Bawaskar Technology (Agro) Pvt. Ltd.
Bombay High Court Rejects Rynox Gears' Interim Plea To Injunct Steelite From Using 'RHYNOX' Mark
Case Title: Rynox Gears v. Steelite India
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO.897 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (LODGING) NO.35513 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 148
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused interim relief to motorcycle gear company Rynox Gears in its trademark dispute with Steelite India, holding that the firm made false statements on oath and failed to establish a case for either infringement or passing off. Rynox had sought to stop the rival from using the mark “RHYNOX” for helmets. In an order dated March 17, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh said the pleadings were based on “false statements on oath” and observed that a party seeking equitable relief cannot approach the court without clean hands.
Case Title: Procter & Gamble Health Limited & Anr v. Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO.39102 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (LODGING) NO.38975 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 147
The Bombay High Court has recently granted an interim injunction in favour of Procter & Gamble Health Limited and its German affiliate, restraining the use of a rival mark found to be deceptively similar to their registered trademarks “LIVOGEN” and “LIVOGEN-Z”. On March 17, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of trademark infringement against Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Curewell Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. over their adoption of the mark “LIVOGEM”.
Madras High Court
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
The Madras High Court on Monday (March 16) disposed of Sun TV's applications after Chennai Super Kings undertook not to use songs from Sun TV-owned films, including Coolie and Jailer, in promotional content without obtaining prior licence. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy closed the interim pleas after taking note of the affidavit filed by KS Viswanathan, Managing Director of CSK, undertaking not to use the songs without obtaining a license.
Madras High Court Restrains “Sri Aachi Mess” From Using Registered AACHI Trademark
Case Title: Mr.A.D.Padmasingh Isaac & Ors. v. Mr.A.D.Padmasingh Isaac
Case Number: C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.208 of 2025 and A.No.822 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 76
The Madras High Court on 9 March 2026, held that a restaurant in Ulundurpet cannot use the name “SRI AACHI MESS”, permanently restraining it in favour of Mr. A.D. Padmasingh Isaac and his firms, Aachi Masala Foods and Flora Foods. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed: “The nature of food served in the defendant's restaurant is insufficient to conclude that services are not similar. Thus, the defendant is the later user of a deceptively similar mark in respect of similar services.”
Case Title: Solariz Healthcare Private Limited v. The Deputy Registrar (Head of Office) & Anr.
Case Number: WP(IPD) No. 3 of 2026 and WMP.(IPD)No.2 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 79
While Section 18(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which requires a trademark application to be filed in the Trade Marks Registry office within whose territorial limits the applicant's principal place of business in India is situated, governs the place of filing, the Madras High Court has clarified that the statute does not require that the application must be examined only by an officer attached to that very office.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in an order dated March 4, 2026, held that under Section 3(2) of the Act, the Registrar is empowered to authorize officers to discharge the functions of the Registrar, and neither the Act nor the Trade Marks Rules restrict such authorization to officers attached to the “appropriate office”.
Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Case Number: OA Nos. 242 & 243 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm Div) No.90 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 82
The Madras High Court has protected the streaming rights of Reliance Industries Limited (Jio Studios), granting an interim injunction against dozens of internet service providers and cable operators to prevent the unlawful broadcast of the film 'Dhurandhar The Revenge'. On March 18, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that such preventive measures are necessary to avoid irreversible injury to the creators just before the movie's scheduled theatrical release.
Madras High Court Grants Interim Injunction To Block Unauthorized Broadcast Of 'Jab Khuli Kitab'
Case Title: Applause Entertainment Private Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.A.Nos.220 & 221 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.83 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 84
The Madras High Court on 16 March, held that preventive measures are necessary to protect copyright owners from irreparable harm and granted an ad‑interim injunction restraining unauthorized broadcasting of the film Jab Khuli Kitab. A single‑judge Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy allowed the injunction against dozens of internet service providers (ISPs) and cable TV operators.
Case Title: Sree Lakshmi Balaji Industries v. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Industries & Anr.
Case Number: (T)OP(TM) No. 234 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 85
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Sree Lakshmi Balaji Industries seeking removal of the trademark “Ayyappan Brand” owned by Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Industries from the Register of Trade Marks on the ground that the user date recorded for the mark was inconsistent and that the trademark owner had not used the mark in the form in which it was registered. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in an order dated March 11, 2026, said the petitioner had not shown sufficient grounds to remove the trademark, either for non-use under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, or for rectification under Section 57, which allows the Court to correct or remove an entry from the register.
Case Title: Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd v. Molla Karimunnisabi
Case Number: OA Nos. 137 to 139 of 2026 and A.No.847 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.55 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 86
The Madras High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd., restraining a Kurnool-based trader from using the mark “Freedum” for edible oils. In an order dated March 16, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the applicant had established a prima facie case showing the rival trader had adopted a mark deceptively similar to Gemini's registered trademark for identical products.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Mr. Anil Gopalji Thacker v. Mr. Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra
Case Number: R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 207 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 207 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 39
The Gujarat High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal filed by Anil Gopalji Thacker, upholding a trial court's refusal to grant an interim injunction against Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra for using the trade name “Kshetrapal Construction.” In a judgment delivered on March 16, 2026, Justice Niral R. Mehta held that the applicant was not entitled to equitable relief because he had suppressed material facts regarding a prior business relationship with the rival developer.