HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Acharya Balkrishna v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 291/2026
Patanjali Ayurved co-founder and Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna has moved the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights against alleged deepfakes, misleading videos, and online misinformation. The court on Monday expressed reservations over the wide scope of the takedown relief sought. During the hearing, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the prayers in the suit appeared overly broad and cautioned that a public figure must be prepared to face criticism, satire, and commentary along with public praise.
Case Title: Cloud Wellness Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Spa De Soleil Inc
Case Number: CS(COMM) 276/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 293
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Cloud Wellness Pvt Ltd and its director. The Court restrained US-based Spa De Soleil Inc from using the trademark “DERMATOUCH” or any identical or deceptively similar mark. The Court held that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case of prior use, registration, goodwill and reputation in the mark. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on March 20, 2026. The Court observed that the plaintiffs had established prior adoption and registered ownership of the mark “DERMATOUCH”. The mark has been used since April 1, 2017, for cosmetic and skincare products.
Case Title: Gautam Gambhir v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 287/2026
The Delhi High Court on Monday allowed Indian cricket coach Gautam Gambhir to withdraw his application seeking interim injunction in a personality rights suit after the court pointed out serious defects in the pleadings and the absence of specific “takedown” prayers identifying the allegedly infringing content. The application was withdrawn after Justice Jyoti Singh observed during the hearing that the plaintiff had not provided a defendant-wise and URL-wise list of content sought to be removed, making it difficult for the court to grant effective relief.
Case Title: Products And Ideas India Pvt. Ltd. v. Nilkamal Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 111/2025, CM APPL. 41897/2025 & CM APPL. 41898/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 295
The Delhi High Court on Monday set aside a single judge's order and restored an interim injunction protecting the “STELLADEXIN” trademark used for commercial induction cookers. In a judgment pronounced on March 23, 2026, a division bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the single bench incorrectly applied the principles of international exhaustion and prior user to vacate the original injunction order.
Case Title: Acharya Balkrishna v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 291/2026
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday passed an interim order directing removal of specific online content targeting Patanjali Ayurved Co-Founder Acharya Balkrishna after observing that several links appeared to be “defamatory,” “obscene,” and “vulgar” and prima facie infringed his personality rights. During today's hearing, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela examined an abridged 18-page compilation of URLs submitted by the plaintiff and clarified that while satire and parody are protected forms of speech, certain material placed before the Court appeared to cross the permissible limit.
Mohanlal Withdraws Plea For Interim Relief In Personality Rights Suit Before Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mohanlal Viswanathan Nair v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 296/2026
The Delhi High Court on Monday allowed Malayalam actor Mohanlal Viswanathan Nair to withdraw his application seeking an interim injunction in a personality rights suit, after the court indicated that the plea lacked the necessary specificity to enable enforceable takedown directions against intermediaries such as Meta and Google. A single bench of Justice Jyoti Singh permitted the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh application containing detailed particulars, including a defendant-wise classification of allegedly infringing links involving deepfakes, unauthorized merchandise, fake endorsements and voice-cloning tutorials.
Delhi High Court To Pass Interim Order Protecting Gautam Gambhir's Personality Rights
Case Title: Gautam Gambhir v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 287/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday said it will pass an interim order to protect the personality rights of Indian cricket coach Gautam Gambhir. Justice Jyoti Singh observed during the hearing that most of the URLs identified in the suit had already been made inaccessible by intermediaries such as Meta, Google/YouTube, Amazon, and Flipkart, and said the injunction would be confined to specific links placed on record.
Case Title: Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr. v. Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 317/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed status quo on the sale and distribution of Dr. Reddy's anti-diabetic drug marketed under the mark “Olympic”, after Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk filed a trademark infringement suit alleging deceptive similarity with its globally known diabetes drug “Ozempic”. Novo Nordisk approached the court, claiming that Dr. Reddy's had begun promotional activities and was on the verge of launching, or had already launched, a semaglutide injection under the impugned mark, prompting urgent intervention to prevent the product from entering the market during the pendency of the proceedings.
Can Copyright Be Claimed Over AI-Generated Song? Delhi High Court To Examine In Infringement Suit
Case Title: Tarun Chaudhary & Anr. v. Kuldeep Meena & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 297/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday raised doubts over whether a song generated using artificial intelligence can receive copyright protection under Indian law. The court was hearing a copyright infringement suit filed by songwriter-producer Tarun Chaudhary, who claims that a song whose rights he purchased was infringed by the defendants. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed during the hearing that the legal position on AI-generated works remains unsettled, remarking, “There is no judgment on AI," while also questioning whether copyright can be claimed where the composition itself appears to have been generated by an AI tool.
Case Title: Britannia Industries Limited v. Rajat Chawla Sole Proprietor Of Madhve Global Enterprises
Case Number: CS(COMM) 480/2024 & I.A. 31014/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 301
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant a temporary injunction to Britannia Industries Limited in its trademark dispute against a manufacturer using the mark “RENEWTRIA” inside a similar geometric label. In a judgment dated March 24, 2026, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Britannia was unable to show that its five-sided pentagonal device, when used by itself without the well-known “BRITANNIA” wordmark, had acquired a distinctive identity among consumers.
Delhi High Court Records Settlement In Singh & Singh Law Firm Trademark Dispute Against CA Firm
Case Title: Singh And Singh Law Firm LLP & Anr. v. Singh And Singh Chartered Accountants & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 192/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 302
The Delhi High Court has decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP against Singh and Singh Chartered Accountants after recording a settlement under which the CA firm agreed to change its name to “SINGH M & CO” and transfer the domain name singhandsingh.in to the plaintiffs. Justice Jyoti Singh, in an order dated March 25, 2026, recorded the settlement between the parties and directed that the defendants complete the transfer of the domain name by May 6, 2026.
Case Title: Wirtgen Gmbh v. Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks And Ors
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 303
The Delhi High Court has quashed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents refusing a patent application by Wirtgen GMBH, ruling that the introduction of new technical objections for the first time in a final refusal order violates the fundamental principles of natural justice. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held on March 23, 2026, that the impugned order was procedurally infirm as it deprived the applicant of a fair opportunity to address the specific grounds of refusal.
Delhi High Court Grants Temporary Dynamic Injunction Against Illegal Streaming Of TATA IPL 2026
Case Title: Jiostar India Private Limited v. Https//Daddylives.Nl & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 313/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 304
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of JioStar India Private Limited restraining unauthorized streaming and broadcasting of the TATA IPL 2026 event, holding that the company had made out a prima facie case for protection of its exclusive broadcast rights. The 2026 IPL season is scheduled to commence in two days on March 28.
Case Title: Marriott International Inc. v. Savya Realty LLP & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 311/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 305
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Savya Realty LLP and its partners from using the mark "EDITION" for realty projects, holding it to be “completely identical” to Marriott International Inc.'s registered trademark 'THE EDITION' and likely to mislead consumers. On March 25, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that “the plaintiff has made out a prima facie strong case in its favour,” noting that “the overwhelming documents on record tilt the balance in favour of the plaintiff” and that it is “likely to suffer great loss and injury which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms if the defendants are not injuncted immediately.”
Delhi High Court To Pass Interim Orders To Protect Actor Mohanlal's Personality Rights
Case Title: Mohanlal Viswanathan Nair v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 296/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday indicated that it will grant interim protection to the personality rights of Malayalam actor Mohanlal, while asking him to first place the allegedly infringing material on record. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed Mohanlal's request to bring additional parties into the case. The court also directed him to circulate a compilation of the offending links to all defendants. The matter returns after the court had earlier permitted the actor to withdraw his interim plea, with liberty to move a fresh application supported by fuller details.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Cancels “Tractorjunction” Trademark, Finds Registration Obtained In Bad Faith
Case Title: Rajat Kumar v. Shivankar Gupta & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 479 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 162
The Bombay High Court has allowed a petition seeking cancellation of the trademark “TRACTORJUNCTION” registered in the name of Shivankar Gupta, holding that the registration was obtained in bad faith and was wrongly remaining on the register. In a judgment dated March 23, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the impugned registration was liable to be removed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Bombay High Court Quashes Patent Refusal To Medipack, Says Reasons Are 'Heart And Soul' Of Orders
Case Title: Medipack Global Ventures Private Limited v. Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 19258 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 163
The Bombay High Court on 23 March set aside the Patent Office's refusal to grant a patent for a single-use safety syringe to Medipack Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd., holding that the order was unreasoned and violated the principles of natural justice. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Controller.
'Kaithi' Makers Move Bombay High Court Over 'Bholaa' Remake Rights Dispute
Case Title: Dream Warrior Pictures v Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: COMIP SUIT NO. (L) 3739 OF 2026
Chennai-based production house Dream Warrior Pictures has moved the Bombay High Court seeking a permanent injunction to restrain Reliance Entertainment Studios and others from further exploiting, streaming, or monetizing the Ajay Devgn-starrer 'Bholaa', after claiming that the underlying remake rights have reverted to it following the termination of remake rights agreements. During the hearing on Wednesday, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh heard arguments on the issue of jurisdiction and reserved orders on that aspect.
Madras High Court
Case Title: Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/s Rasnam Foods Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: C.S(COMM DIV) No. 116 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 89
The Madras High Court has recently held that former franchisees of the Sangeetha restaurant chain were liable for passing off for about 17 months after ending their association but ruled that their use of the name “Geetham” did not amount to trademark infringement. In a judgment pronounced on March 25, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the defendants had dishonestly adopted a trade dress identical to the plaintiff's iconic red-and-green color scheme to mislead the public into believing that the famous "Sangeetha" restaurants had simply "metamorphosed" into "Geetham.
Madras High Court Orders Removal of 'Sugar Pop' Device Mark On Plea By Sugar Cosmetics Brand
Case Title: Sugar Brands Pvt. Ltd v. M/s. Sugar Pop Bath And Body LLP & Anr.
Case Number: (T)OP(TM) No. 375 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 90
The Madras High Court has recently directed the removal of the 'SUGAR POP' device mark from the Register of Trade Marks on a plea by Sugar Brands Pvt. Ltd., holding that it was entered without sufficient cause due to lack of due diligence by the Registrar. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in an order dated March 25, 2026, observed that the Registrar failed to properly search for conflicting marks despite the petitioner's existing registrations, leading to the wrongful entry of the impugned mark.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Jallan Enterprises v. M/S. Sarathi International Inc.
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5183 OF 2025 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5220 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 40
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an injunction restraining the use of the “TULSI” mark for agarbattis, holding that it is prima facie deceptively similar to the long-standing “TULASI” mark and not merely descriptive of fragrance. In a judgment delivered on March 25, 2026, Justice Ravi V. Hosmani held that Jallan Enterprises' use of the word “TULSI” was displayed in a trademark-like manner that prima facie infringed the long-standing registered mark “TULASI” of Sarathi International Inc.