LiveLawBiz IPR Half-Yearly Digest: January - June, 2026
Riya Rathore
3 July 2026 1:45 PM IST
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Physicswallah Limited v. Nikhil Kumar Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 70/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 104
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of PhysicsWallah Limited, restraining former employee and rival coaching operator Nikhil Kumar Singh from using deceptively similar trademarks and from publishing disparaging online content. A single-judge of Justice Jyoti Singh held that the videos and social media posts circulated by Singh are prima facie defamatory, disparaging, and abusive and are intended to tarnish PhysicsWallah's goodwill and reputation. Finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and disparagement, the Court observed, “Law in the trademark regime grants protection from infringement to a registered proprietor of the mark and also shields from erosion of goodwill and reputation, which is a common law right associated with the mark. Disparagement through misleading and/or abusive statements, constitutes an unlawful interference in other party's commercial goodwill and is actionable in law.”
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Over Mold-Tek's Tamper-Evident Packaging Patents
Case Title: Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. v Mold-Tek Packaging Limited
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 235/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 102
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday upheld an interim injunction against Neway Industries over alleged infringement of Mold-Tek Packaging Limited's tamper-evident packaging patents and revived interim relief in respect of a second patent. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment delivered on January 28, 2026, dismissed Neway's appeal challenging the grant of injunction over Mold-Tek's patent IN'417, while allowing Mold-Tek's appeal against the vacation of an ad-interim injunction protecting its patent IN'724. The dispute concerns two patents registered in favour of Mold-Tek Packaging Limited - patent IN'417 titled “Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail closure System” and patent IN'724 titled “A Tamper Proof Lid Having Spout for Containers and Process for Its Manufacture.”
Case Title: Jiostar India Private Limited v. Crichdbest.com & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 81/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 99
The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining several rogue websites from illegally streaming and disseminating ongoing 'ICC Under-19 Men's Cricket World Cup 2026' and upcoming 'ICC Men's T20 Cricket World Cup 2026', over which JioStar India Private Limited holds exclusive broadcast and digital rights. The order was passed by Justice Jyoti Singh on January 29, 2026, while hearing an interim injunction application in a suit filed by JioStar seeking protection of its broadcast reproduction rights in relation to the cricket events. Noting the need for immediate relief as the tournaments were ongoing and imminent, the Court observed that, “The issue of rogue websites engaged in piracy of copyrighted content is posing a recurring threat and there is no gainsaying that piracy must be curbed and needs to be dealt with a heavy hand.”
Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Sale Of Products Using 'Happi Planet' Mark And Similar Packaging
Case Title: Happi Planet Eco Products P Ltd v. Ravi Malani Trading as Febway India & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 79/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 98
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Happi Planet, a home and personal care brand, restraining multiple entities from selling products bearing the “Happi Planet” mark and identical packaging and trade dress. By an order dated January 28, 2026, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that Happi Planet had made out a strong prima facie warranting interim protection. Finding the rival products to be deceptively similar, the Court observed that, “Having compared the products, this Court is of the opinion that not only do the infringing products contain the trademark “Happi Planet” of the plaintiff but also are packaged in near identical or deceptively similar packaging and trade dress. The artistic work, the trade dress and packaging is so identical that it took a while for this Court to distinguish between the two. The Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has a prima facie strong case.”
Delhi High Court Orders Refex Hotels to Change Name Over Similarity With Refex Industries
Case Title: Refex Industries Limited v. Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry Of Corporate Affairs & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 27/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 96
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed Refex Hotels Private Limited to change its corporate name, holding that the use of the word “REFEX” is undesirably similar to the name and registered trademark of Refex Industries Limited, a company incorporated much earlier. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in a judgment delivered on January 28, 2026, set aside a 2018 order of the Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which had declined to direct a name change on the ground that the two companies operated in different business sectors. Disagreeing with the Regional Director's reasoning, the Court observed that “the dissimilarity in the businesses of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was not a relevant criterion for the Regional Director to consider for declining to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon him under Section 16 of the Act of 2013.”
Delhi High Court Makes Interim Ban Permanent Against 24 Websites Streaming ICC Champions Trophy 2025
Case Title: Star India Private Limited v. 1xbetcom & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 175/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 92
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained 24 rogue websites from unauthorizedly streaming, disseminating, or communicating matches of the ICC Champions Trophy 2025, holding that the platforms infringed Star India Private Limited's exclusive broadcasting and reproduction rights. In a judgment dated January 15, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh passed a decree of permanent injunction, noting that none of the identified websites appeared before the Court or filed written statements despite being duly served with summons.
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Barring Canva's 'Present and Record' Feature In India
Case Title: Canva Pty Ltd & Ors v. RxPrism Health Systems Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 211/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 91
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday upheld an interim injunction barring Canva from offering its “Present and Record” feature in India. Canva operates a widely used online graphic design and content creation platform. The court rejected the platform's appeal against the Single Judge's July 18, 2023, order passed in favour of RxPrism Health Systems Private Limited A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla pronounced the judgment on January 28, 2026, dismissing Canva's appeal and holding that no case was made out for appellate interference with the interim relief granted by the Single Judge
Case Title: Bajaj Finance Limited v. Manish Singh @ Settlement Guru & Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 63/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 89
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Bajaj Finance. It has restrained the operators of “SettlementGuru” from using the company's name and trademarks and from pushing content that allegedly encourages loan defaults. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on January 22, 2026, while hearing an interim injunction application filed by Bajaj Finance, a registered non-banking financial company, which alleged large-scale misuse of its brand across social media platforms and websites.
Delhi High Court Says Rohini Commercial Court Has Jurisdiction In 'AMRAPALI' Trademark Dispute
Case Title: Raju Kumar v. Vinod Sah
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 260/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 86
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Commercial Court at Rohini, which had prima facie held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear a trademark dispute relating to the spice brand “AMRAPALI” and, while doing so, declined to grant interim relief against the rival mark “QUEEN AAMRAPALI.” A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment delivered on January 13, 2026, ruled that the Commercial Court had erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. The Bench remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the plea seeking interim relief.
Delhi High Court Bars “EMSURE” Pharma Mark For Infringing Emcure Trademark
Case Title: Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Emsure Pharmaceutical Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 524/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 84
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained Emsure Pharmaceutical Private Limited from using the mark “EMSURE” or any other deceptively similar mark, holding that it infringes the trademark “EMCURE” owned by Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited. Justice Jyoti Singh delivered the judgment on January 13, 2026, while deciding a trademark infringement and passing-off suit filed by Emcure Pharmaceuticals. As Emsure Pharmaceutical failed to appear before the Court despite service of summons, the matter proceeded ex-parte.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Cancel 'REKIN-SP' Trademark Registration In Rexcin Pharma Plea
Case Title: Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v. Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 111/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 83
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to cancel the registration of the pharmaceutical trademark 'REKIN-SP,' dismissing a rectification plea filed by rival company Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, which claimed rights over the mark 'REXCIN.' The Court also declined to restrain the use of the 'REKIN-SP' mark at the interim stage in the infringement suit. In a judgment dated January 27, 2026, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Rexcin Pharmaceuticals had failed to establish any use of 'REXCIN' as a trademark for pharmaceutical products and therefore, could not seek removal of the 'REKIN-SP' mark.
Delhi High Court Bars Rival Manufacturer From Using 'NOVA' Name on Ghee, Dairy Products
Case Title: Sterling Agro Industries Ltd v. Giriraj Gupta
Case Number: CS(COMM) 58/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 80
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained a manufacturer from making, selling, or advertising ghee and other dairy products under the “NOVA” name, after finding that the branding was likely to infringe Sterling Agro's trademark. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on January 21, 2026, while hearing an interim injunction application in a suit filed by Sterling Agro Industries, a Delhi-based dairy products company that markets its products under the “NOVA” trademark.
Delhi High Court Grants Injunction Against Imposters Misusing 'Delhivery' Trademark
Case Title: Delhivery Limited v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 61/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 79
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained several known and unknown persons from misusing the name and brand of Delhivery, a logistics and supply chain company, to run fake franchise and delivery service scams. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order on January 22, 2026, while hearing an interim injunction application in a suit filed by Delhivery after it discovered that fraudsters were impersonating the company to cheat members of the public.
Case Title: Mr Akira Desai Alias Akira Nandan v. Sambhawaami Studios LLP & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 68/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 76
The Delhi High Court on Friday ordered the immediate takedown of an AI-generated film and related deepfake content depicting Akira Nandan alias Akira Desai, son of Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, holding, prima facie, that the AI-generated use of his name, image, likeness and voice violated his personality and privacy rights The Court had earlier also protected Pawan Kalyan's personality rights in an interim order passed on December 22, 2025.
Delhi High Court Revives ITC's Challenge To Philip Morris's Non-Tobacco Nicotine Patent
Case Title: ITC Limited v. The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 44/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 74
The Delhi High Court has revived ITC Limited's challenge to a Philip Morris patent covering a non-tobacco nicotine product after setting aside a 2024 Patent Office order that had rejected ITC's opposition. In a judgment dated January 12, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh allowed an appeal filed by ITC, holding that the impugned order suffered from a lack of independent application of mind and was largely a verbatim reproduction of the patentee's submissions and the recommendations of the Opposition Board. The Court remanded the matter to the Patent Office for reconsideration.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Comforter System Patent, Orders Fresh Review
Case Title: Jesal Vimal Jetha v. Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 233/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 72
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Patent Office order rejecting a patent application filed by Jesal Vimal Jetha for a therapeutic comforter system, holding that the refusal suffered from procedural infirmities and violation of principles of natural justice for non-consideration of applicant's responses to subsequent objections raised by Patent Office. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela delivered the judgment on January 23, 2026, while allowing an appeal against a 2020 order by which the Patent Office had refused application on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act.
Delhi High Court Awards ₹81 Lakh to Merck, Sun Pharma In Diabetes Drug Patent Infringement Case
Case Title: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. & Anr. v. Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1075/2018
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 70
The Delhi High Court on Friday awarded over Rs 81 lakh in damages and costs to US-based pharmaceutical company Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and its Indian licensee, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., in a patent infringement suit concerning the anti-diabetic drug Sitagliptin and its pharmaceutical combinations. In a judgment dated January 23, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela decreed the suit in favour of the pharmaceutical companies, holding that unauthorized manufacture and export of the patented drug stood established on the basis of unchallenged evidence. The Court also noted that the infringing conduct continued even after injunctive relief had been granted.
Case Title: Loreal India Private Limited v. Shanaz Bariz
Case Number: CS(COMM) 51/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 69
The Delhi High Court has restrained a social media content creator from circulating an allegedly AI-generated video or any other posts targeting Maybelline products, holding that the unsubstantiated claims could irreparably damage L'Oréal India's brand and consumer trust. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order on January 20, 2026, observing that the continued circulation of the disputed content would cause irreparable harm to the goodwill and reputation of L'Oréal India Private Limited and its globally recognised brands.
Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Ban on Jaipur Restaurant Chain's Use Of 'DASAPRAKASH' Trademark
Case Title: Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt Ltd v. Mysore Dasaprakash
Case Number: FAO(OS)(IPD) 1/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 67
The Delhi High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining a Jaipur-based company, Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Private Limited, from using the “DASAPRAKASH” trademark. The restraint covers ice creams, restaurants, and allied goods and services. The court held that the continued use of the mark was prima facie unauthorized and amounted to trademark infringement. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla delivered the judgment on January 21, 2026. The bench dismissed a batch of appeals in a long-running trademark dispute that began before the Madras High Court in 2008.
Case Title: Khadi And Village Industries Commission v. Enduring Body Care LLP & Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 22/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 65
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained an Ahmedabad-based cosmetic goods manufacturer, Enduring Body Care LLP, and its associated entities from using the mark “KHADI VEDA” or any other deceptively similar variant of “KHADI” for any goods or services. The Court held that the use of the disputed mark prima facie infringed the registered and well-known 'KHADI' trademarks of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC). Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order on January 13, 2026, observing that the continued use of the disputed mark would lead to consumer confusion and cause irreparable harm to KVIC.
Case Title: Vishal Choudhary v. SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 64/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 63
The Delhi High Court has refused to lift an interim injunction in a patent dispute over mobile brick-making machines, holding that while the rival machines are not identical, they appear to share the core patented concept of making and laying bricks as the machine moves. A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav pronounced the judgment on January 16, 2026, dismissing an appeal filed by Choudhary against a 2024 interim order passed in favour of SNPC, a Haryana-based manufacturer alleging infringement of its mobile brick-making machine patents.
Case Title: Twin Brothers v. Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 57/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned Flipkart on whether its “more sellers” or latching-on feature can be considered legitimate when, in the facts of the case, it is alleged to enable the sale of counterfeit goods linked to a genuine product listing. Justice Jyoti Singh raised the issue while hearing a suit filed by a seller alleging that counterfeit sellers had latched on to its product listing as “more sellers” and offered non-genuine goods at lower prices, thereby misleading consumers.
Delhi High Court Lifts Injunction On BONERICH In Dispute With Pharma Mark BONRICH
Case Title: Kedar Nath Mishra v. Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 159/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 58
The Delhi High Court has set aside an interim injunction granted in favour of Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a Bengaluru-based pharmaceutical company using the mark “BONRICH,” which had restrained Kedar Nath Mishra, the proprietor of the “BONERICH” mark, from using that mark for competing pharmaceutical products. In a judgment dated January 13, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla allowed the appeals filed by Mishra against the order of the Commercial Court at Saket, ruling that a claim of passing off cannot be sustained merely on the basis of prior use of the “BONRICH” mark unless goodwill and reputation in the mark are clearly established.
Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection of Japanese Firm's Patent Bid For Worm-Based Cancer Detection
Case Title: Hirotsu Bio Science Inc v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 45/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 57
The Delhi High Court has upheld the rejection of a patent application for a cancer detection technique that relies on the smell responses of worms, holding that it is a non-patentable diagnostic method under Indian law. In a judgment delivered on January 17, 2026, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the appeal filed by Hirotsu Bio Science Inc., holding that the company's cancer detection method amounts to a diagnostic process barred from patent protection under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.
'A To Z' Is Generic For Multivitamins, Cannot Be Monopolised: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Alkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare And Research Pvt Ltd
Case Number: CS(COMM) 84/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 53
Holding that “A TO Z” is generic and descriptive for nutraceutical products, the Delhi High Court has lifted an interim injunction against Prevego Healthcare. The Court ruled that Alkem Laboratories cannot claim exclusive rights over the letters “A” and “Z” in relation to multivitamin supplements. In a judgment delivered on January 17, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia allowed Prevego's application seeking vacation of the injunction and dismissed Alkem's plea for interim relief in a suit alleging trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Case Title: Indospirit Beverages Private Limited v. Ravi Mohan Studios Private Limited
Case No.: CS(COMM) - 1104/2025
The Delhi High Court on Thursday referred a trademark infringement dispute between Indospirit Beverages Private Limited and actor Ravi Mohan's production house over the use of the title “BRO CODE” for an upcoming Tamil film to mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on January 15, 2026, while hearing the matter arising from Indospirit's suit alleging infringement and passing off of its “BROCODE” trademark through the film's title.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited v. Pass Code Hospitality P Ltd & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 267/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 43
The Delhi High Court has directed the continuation of an ad-hoc licence fee arrangement in a copyright infringement suit filed by copyright society Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) against Pass Code Hospitality Private Limited, a Delhi-based company that owns and operates various well-known high-profile pubs and bars. The order was passed by Justice Tejas Karia on January 9, 2026, while considering applications relating to continuation of interim licence fee deposits and a plea seeking refund of amounts already paid by the hospitality company for playing sound recordings at its outlets. The Court held that the interim arrangement should remain in force until pending applications in the matter are finally decided.
Case Title: Bhole Nath Foods Ltd v. Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt Ltd
Case Number.: FAO (COMM) 79/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 40
The Delhi High Court has set aside an interim injunction restraining Bhole Nath Foods Ltd., a Delhi-based rice manufacturer, from using the “CHEETAL” word and device marks, holding that no prima facie case of trademark infringement or passing off was made out in favour of Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt. Ltd., the Chennai-based owner of the “DOUBLE DEER” mark for rice products. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, by a judgment dated January 9, 2026, allowed an appeal filed by Bhole Nath Foods Ltd. against an order of the Commercial Court at Tis Hazari, which had granted interim protection to Kirorimal Kashiram pending disposal of its trademark infringement suit.
Delhi High Court Restrains “Charcha Aaj Ki” From Using Deceptively Similar Aaj Tak Device Mark
Case Title: Living Media India Limited And Anr v. Charcha Aaj Ki
Case Number: CS(COMM) 15/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 42
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Living Media India Limited, the company behind the Hindi news channel AAJ TAK. The Court restrained a digital news platform operating under the name “Charcha Aaj Ki” from using a device mark and colour combination found to be deceptively similar to the “AAJ TAK” trademark. In an order dated January 9, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh held that Living Media had made out a prima facie case. The court directed that the disputed mark, to the extent it resembles the “AAJ TAK” mark, shall not be used until the next date of hearing.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Unauthorized Images of YouTuber Bhuvan Bam
Case Title: Bhuvan Bam & Anr. v. Inkwynk & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) - 23/2026
Bhuvan Bam, a popular YouTube content creator and web-series actor, approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights and restraint against the unauthorized use of his images by various unknown individuals and entities. Justice Jyoti Singh, while hearing the matter on January 13, 2026, directed the takedown of the unauthorized images but declined to record any prima facie finding on the issue of personality rights at this stage.
Case Title: Ashish Sharma v. M/S Maruti International & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 4/2026
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday recorded an undertaking by the makers of Mastiii 4 to remove a disputed scene from its OTT and satellite releases following a copyright suit by comedian and content creator Ashish Sharma. The undertaking was given before a single-judge bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela during the hearing of an interim injunction application in Sharma's copyright infringement suit, in which he has accused the filmmakers of lifting a scene from his Instagram skit titled “Shaq Karne Ka Nateeja” without authorization.
Delhi High Court Rejects Colgate Plea To Amend Suit Against Dabur Over Fluoride Ads
Case Title: Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr v. Dabur India Ltd.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 567/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 38
The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to allow Colgate-Palmolive to amend its 2019 plaint to specifically challenge Dabur's later newspaper advertisements, holding that fresh versions of an advertising campaign do not warrant repeated amendments when the issue is already pleaded. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in an order dated January 12, 2026, clarified that Colgate's 2019 plaint contains detailed allegations accusing Dabur of spreading misleading information and disparaging fluoride as an ingredient in toothpaste. Therefore, the Court held that there was no legal requirement to amend the plaint each time a new version of the advertisement was released.
Delhi High Court Lifts Injunction, Allows Zydus To Manufacture And Market Lifesaving Cancer Drug
Case Title: Zydus Lifesciences Limited v. E.R. Squibb And Sons, LLC & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 120/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 37
The Delhi High Court on Monday cleared Zydus Lifesciences Limited to manufacture and market its cancer drug ZRC 3276. The court set aside an injunction that had barred the drug's launch over alleged patent infringement of a medicine owned by US-based pharmaceutical major E.R. Squibb. A Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla modified an earlier order passed by a single judge. The Bench held that Zydus could not be restrained from launching a life-saving anti-cancer drug in the absence of clear product-to-claim mapping showing patent infringement, especially in light of paramount public interest.
Case Title: Gautami Kawale & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(OS)-33/2026
Digital content creators Gautami Kawale and Abhyudaya Mohan, who run the popular YouTube channel Slayy Point, have moved the Delhi High Court seeking urgent protection against the alleged creation and circulation of AI-generated, morphed and pornographic deepfake content falsely portraying them. The matter is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday before Justice Vikas Mahajan. In their plea, the creators said they are widely recognised public figures with significant goodwill and an online following, noting that their YouTube channel has more than 10 million subscribers. They asserted that their personality and privacy rights are protected under the Constitution, as well as under statutory and common law.
Case Title: Mayank Jain, Proprietor Of Mahaveer Udyog v. M/S Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 412/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 35
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to an agricultural equipment maker that sought to stop a rival from using the word “Tiger” as part of its brand name for farm implements. In a judgment delivered on January 9, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court held that the words “Tiger” and “Brand” are common to the trade and that no case of deceptive similarity was made out at the interim stage.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trade Marks Registry Order Refusing Mankind Pharma's PETKIND Trademark
Case Title: Mankind Pharma Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 13/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 34
The Delhi High Court has overturned an order of the Trade Marks Registry refusing registration of Mankind Pharma Limited's trademark “PETKIND” for animal and agricultural products. The relief was earlier denied on the ground of similarity with an earlier “PETKIND” mark filed by Petkind Pet Products Inc. Justice Tejas Karia, by a judgment dated January 9, 2026, allowed the appeal filed by Mankind Pharma, holding that the refusal of the trademark was unjustified in view of the company's long-standing use and reputation associated with its “KIND” family of marks.
Delhi High Court Declines To Cancel 'Patanjali Gonyle' Trademark On Plea By Holy Cow Foundation
Case Title: Holy Cow Foundation v. Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas (Trust) & Ors.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 85/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 31
The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to cancel the trademark registration of “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner,” holding that the mark lawfully belongs to Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas and does not infringe the rights claimed by Holy Cow Foundation. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia, in a judgment delivered on January 9, 2026, dismissed a trademark rectification plea filed by Holy Cow Foundation, which also sells a cow-urine-based cleaner product under the same name, seeking removal of Patanjali's “Gonyle” mark over claims of deceptive similarity.
Case Title: Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S The Shake Social Through Its Proprietor
Case Number: CS(COMM) 121/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 29
The Delhi High Court has declared Impresario Entertainment's “SOCIAL” mark a well-known trademark in India and barred a Gujarat-based café from using the name “The Shake Social.” Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on January 9, 2026, in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit against a café operating in Valsad and Navsari, Gujarat. Granting permanent injunctive relief in favour of Impresario, the Court observed, “A clear case of infringement of the Plaintiff's Marks is made out. The Defendant has taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff's Marks and has also deceived the unwary consumers into believing their association with the Plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the Impugned without any plausible explanation.”
Delhi High Court Rejects Former Cineyug Employee's Claim Over 'IPL Awards' Copyright, Moral Rights
Case Title: Gaurav Garg v. Aly Morani & Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 200/2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 30
The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a long-running copyright dispute over the “IPL Awards”, holding that Gaurav Garg, a former employee of Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd., cannot claim authorship or moral rights over the event's concept and presentations. The court ruled that the copyright vested in the company, not in Garg. A single-judge bench of Justice Tejas Karia delivered made the ruling while deciding a suit filed by Garg against filmmaker Aly Morani, Mohomed Morani, and Cineyug Films, which organised the IPL Awards.
Case Title: Living Media India Limited v. Zee Media Corporation Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 826/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 26
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Zee Media Corporation Limited from using the “Duniyadari” label for its news programme in a manner that is deceptively similar to the registered device mark of Living Media India Limited, part of the India Today Group. A single-judge bench of Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on January 9, 2026, while deciding an interim injunction plea filed by Living Media. The Court held that Zee Media's use of the disputed label was likely to cause confusion among viewers.
Case Title: Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors. v. Ferrero S.P.A & Ors.
Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) 1/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 24
The Delhi High Court has partly modified an order directing the handover of over three lakh seized infringing Nutella-shaped glass jars to registered proprietor Ferrero S.p.A. The court held that while seizure and delivery-up of the jars was justified, they must be destroyed and not put to any commercial or other use. A division bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment dated January 6, 2026, disposed of an appeal filed by Firozabad-based glass jar manufacturers.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Trackon Couriers Private Limited v. B. N. Srinivas
Case Number: IA (L) No. 35022/2024 in Comm IP Suit No. 11/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 48
The Bombay High Court has recently granted an interim injunction restraining the use of the mark “TRACK-ON” or any other deceptively similar variant for courier services, holding that such use is prima facie infringing of the registered “TRACKON” trademark. By an order dated January 22, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor allowed an interim application in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit instituted by Trackon Couriers Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the “TRACKON” marks.
Case Title: The Supreme Industries Limited v. Moorthi Rabeha
Case Number: IA No. 4642/2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 336/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 41
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained PVC pipe maker Moorthi Rabeha from using the mark “SUPREMES GOLD” after finding a prima facie infringement of Supreme Industries' “SUPREME” trademark. The order was passed on January 19, 2026, by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh while deciding an interim application in a suit filed by Supreme Industries alleging trademark and copyright infringement, as well as passing off, by the rival manufacturer.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Bars Zee Laboratories From Using “GLYZET” Mark, Imposes ₹50 Lakh Costs
Case Title: Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited & Anr. v. Rajiv Mukul & Ors.
Case Number: IA No. 3540/2022 in COMM IP Suit No. 213/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 32
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained Zee Laboratories and its associated entities from manufacturing, selling or marketing diabetes medicines under the mark “GLYZET,” holding that the mark is deceptively similar to “GLIMET,” a registered trademark used by Laboratoires Griffon Pvt. Ltd. for its anti-diabetic medicine. The Court has also imposed exemplary costs of ₹50 lakh on Zee Laboratories for adopting the disputed mark in breach of earlier Court orders and for making false statements on oath. In a judgment dated January 13, 2026, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor, while deciding an interim injunction application, observed that “GLIMET” and “GLYZET” are phonetically, structurally and visually similar and that an average consumer with imperfect recollection is likely to be confused between the two.
No Bar On Trademarking Hindu Deity Names If Distinctive: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v. M/s. Stanford Siyaram Fashion P Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: Notice of Motion No. 22/2013 in Commercial IP Suit No. 23/2008
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 30
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday observed that there is nothing in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, that prevents the registration or enforcement of trademarks merely because they contain the names of Hindu gods or deities. Granting interim relief to Mumbai-based Siyaram Silk Mills Limited, the court held that such marks are entitled to protection once they are validly registered and have acquired distinctiveness through use. Justice Arif S Doctor, while restraining Delhi-based Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited from using “Siyaram” as part of its corporate name or trademark, observed, “There is no provision in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, prohibiting registration or enforcement of marks comprising names of the Hindu Gods or Deities.”
Case Title: People Interactive India Private Limited v. Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial IP Suit No. 225/2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 25
The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained the operators of www.getshaadi.com, a matrimonial and matchmaking website, holding that it infringes and passes off the trademark Shaadi.com. In a judgment delivered on January 6, 2026, Justice Arif S Doctor ruled in favour of People Interactive, which operates the popular matrimonial platform “Shaadi.com.” The court held that the rival operator's adoption and use of “getshaadi.com” for identical matrimonial and matchmaking services violated People Interactive's trademark rights and amounted to passing off.
Bombay High Court Declares Radhakrishna Productions Sole Owner of Rights Of 'Will You Marry Me' Film
Case Title: Radhakrishna Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ikkon Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial IP Suit No. 98 of 2012
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 13
The Bombay High Court has declared Radhakrishna Productions Pvt. Ltd. as the lawful owner of copyright and allied rights of the 2012 Hindi film Will You Marry Me, permanently restraining Ikkon Films Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliates from exploiting the film or creating any third-party rights. A single-judge bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor passed the judgment on January 5, 2026. He held that the copyright assignment and financing agreements placed on record by Radhakrishna Productions clearly vested all rights of the film with it, and that breaches of these agreements by rival companies had resulted in infringement.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd. v. Smt. Archana Debnath & Anr.
Case Number: FMAT 18 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 32
The Calcutta High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt. Ltd., a Kolkata-based publishing house, from publishing, selling or distributing the literary and artistic works of late author and cartoonist Narayan Debnath, holding that no legal infirmity existed in the trial court's order granting protection to the author's legal heirs. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya passed the order on January 21, 2026, while dismissing an appeal filed by the publishing house against an ad-interim injunction dated January 9, 2026, issued by the District Judge at Alipore.
Email Service Of Patent Examination Report Valid, Postal Service Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Dr. Dulal Kumar De v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA-IPD No.2 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 24
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the rejection of a patent application on the ground of abandonment, ruling that service of the First Examination Report (FER) through email constitutes valid service under the Patents Act, 1970, and that postal service is not mandatory. In an order passed on January 19, 2026, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur dismissed a writ petition challenging the abandonment of a patent application titled “Herbal Anti-Venom against Catfish Sting,” holding that the Patents Act and Rules permit electronic service of documents and that the applicant had failed to respond to the FER within the prescribed statutory timelines.
Calcutta High Court Removes Rival 'TANA TAN' Trademark, Rules Bikaji Foods Is Prior User
Case Title: Bikaji Foods International Limited v. Jagaranath Prasad & Anr.
Case Number: IPDATM/31/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 17
The Calcutta High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark “TANA TAN” from the Trade Marks Register. The Court held that the mark was deceptively identical to the long-standing “TANA TAN” trademark owned by snack food manufacturer Bikaji Foods International Limited. It found that the rival registration, secured in the name of Jagaranath Prasad, had been obtained in bad faith. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur passed the order on January 7, 2026, while allowing a trademark rectification plea filed by Bikaji Foods.
Bioreactor Invention Involving Human Embryonic Stem Cells Not Patentable: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Viacyte Inc v. Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: IPDPTA/7/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 16
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the Patent Office's refusal to grant a patent to US-based biotechnology company Viacyte Inc., holding that the claimed bioreactor invention was primarily directed at biological material, including human embryonic stem cell-derived aggregates and therefore fell within non-patentable subject matter under the Patents Act, 1970. In a judgment dated January 16, 2026, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, affirming the decision of the Deputy Controller of Patents, noted that inventions whose substance lies in biological material or parts of animals are excluded from patent protection under Section 3(j) of the Act.
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Patent Office Order Rejecting US Company's Glass Fibre Patent
Case Title: OCV Intellectual Capital LLC v. The Controller General Of Patents
Case Number: IPDPTA/34/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 5
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a Patent Office order rejecting a patent application filed by OCV Intellectual Capital LLC, a subsidiary of Owens Corning. The court held that the refusal was passed without proper analysis of novelty and inventive step. A single-judge bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, in a judgment dated January 6, 2026, held that the Patent Office rejected the application without engaging with the technical submissions made by the company or recording clear reasons explaining how the invention was covered by prior art.
Gujarat High Court
How Can Trademark Registry Restrict Use Of A Mark Without Reasons, Gujarat High Court Orally Asks?
Case title: Kunvarji Growth Corporation LLP v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: R/CIA/99/2022
The Gujarat High Court on Friday (January 16) orally questioned the Registrar of Trademarks on why the adjudicating authority had permitted advertisement of a trademark in the Trademark Journal with restrictions, without recording any reasons for imposing such conditions. Justice Niral R. Mehta was hearing an appeal arising from a 2020 order of the trademark authority, which had conditionally accepted an application for registration of the “Family Farms” logo with the tagline “Ye Ghar Ki Baat Hai” in Class 31, covering agricultural and horticultural products.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title: Davinder Pal Bakshi v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Case Number: CRM-M-11221-2025 (O&M)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 4
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against an Ambala-based garment trader for allegedly selling fake clothing branded as “Raymond,” holding that garments do not constitute a “work” protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. Justice Manisha Batra, in an order dated January 23, 2026, allowed a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by Davinder Pal Bakshi, proprietor of Ambala-based garment business Bakshi Enterprises, and set aside an FIR registered under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act for infringement, along with all consequential proceedings.
Madras High Court
Case Title: Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Case Number: O.A. Nos. 60 & 61 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 34
The Madras High Court on Wednesday granted ad-interim protection to Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., restraining the unauthorised broadcast of the Hindi film Mardaani 3, starring Rani Mukerji, released theatrically on January 30, 2026. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the interim order on January 28, 2026, in a suit filed by the production house against internet service providers and cable television operators, apprehending infringement of its copyright in the film. While granting the interim relief, the Court observed that irreparable injury would be caused unless unlawful broadcast was restrained.
Madras High Court Quashes Cancellation Of 'SAKTHI' Trademark Without Prior Notice
Case Title: Perundurai Chennimalai Gounder v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: CMA (TM) No.16 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 29
The Madras High Court on Tuessay set aside the cancellation of a registered trademark by the Trade Marks Registry without prior notice to the trademark owner, holding that such action is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, in a judgment delivered on January 27, 2026, allowed an appeal filed by Perundurai Chennimalai Gounder Duraisamy, a Tamil Nadu-based food products manufacturer and the proprietor of 'SAKTHI' trademark, directing the Trade Marks Registry to restore the trademark registration.
'VAPORIN' Doesn't Infringe 'VICKS VAPORUB' Mark: Madras High Court Dismisses P&G's Plea
Case Title: The Procter @ Gamble Company v. IPI India Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: O.P. (TM) Nos. 48, 49, and 50 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 28
The Madras High Court has rejected Procter & Gamble's attempt to cancel the trademarks “VAPORIN” and “VAPORIN COLD RUB,” holding that the marks are validly registered in favour of IPI India and are not deceptively similar to P&G's well-known product “VICKS VAPORUB”. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice N. Senthilkumar, in an order dated January 6, 2026, dismissed a batch of trademark rectification pleas filed by P&G seeking removal of IPI's registrations on the ground of deceptive similarity.
Case Title: Shambhunath & Bros v. Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: LPA Nos. 27 & 28 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 25
The Madras High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark “THUFAN” in Telugu and Tamil, holding that failure to provide mandatory transliteration and translation while advertising the mark deprived affected parties of their statutory right to oppose it. In a judgment dated December 12, 2025, a Division Bench of Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar allowed appeals filed by Kolkata-based fan maker Shambhunath & Bros., which uses the mark “TOOFAN”. The court set aside a single judge order that had upheld Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd.'s registrations for the mark “THUFAN” in Class 11, which covers lighting, heating, and other electrical appliances.
Madras High Court Upholds KMF's Opposition To Registration of 'NANDINI' Mark For Agarbattis
Case Title: Karnataka Cooperative v. Vinod Kanji Shah & Anr.
Case Number: (T)CMA(TM) No.112/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 23
The Madras High Court on Monday set aside a Trade Marks Registry order and upheld Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation's objection to the 'NANDINI' trademark for agarbattis. In a judgment dated January 19, 2026, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh allowed KMF's appeal and overturned an order passed by the Trade Marks Registry in April 2010, observing that the objection had been rejected without proper consideration of the deceptive similarity between the rival marks and the long-standing reputation acquired by KMF in the “NANDINI” mark.
Patent Opposition Board Recommendations Are Advisory, Not Binding Decision: Madras High Court
Case Title: E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number.: W.P. No.8451 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 17
The Madras High Court has refused to step in midway in a patent dispute over a cancer drug, holding that a recommendation made by the Opposition Board during post-grant opposition proceedings is only advisory and does not create anu valid binding rights. Dismissing the writ petition filed by two foreign pharma firms, Justice N. Senthilkumar said the patent holders must place all their objections before the Controller of Patents, who alone takes the final call.
Case Title: Flipkart Internet Private Ltd v The Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: CMA(PT) No. 9 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 16
The Madras High Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Patent Office's rejection of Flipkart's post-grant opposition, allowing a US company's patent on virtual agents used in online customer interactions to continue. In an order dated January 5, 2026, Justice N. Senthilkumar refused to interfere with the decision of the Patent Office, which had dismissed Flipkart's post-grant opposition and allowed the patent titled “Systems and Methods for Virtual Agents to Help Customers and Business” to continue.
Madras High Court Temporarily Bars Use Of “URG-9”, Finds It Deceptively Similar To “ARG-9”
Case Title: Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v. Foregen Healthcare Ltd.
Case Number: C.S. (COMM DIV) NO. 184 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 15
The Madras High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Foregen Healthcare Ltd. from using the pharmaceutical mark “URG-9.” The court held that it was prima facie deceptively similar to the registered trademark “ARG-9” owned by Nouveau Medicament Private Limited. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order on January 7, 2026, while deciding the interim injunction application in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit concerning pharmaceutical products.
Case Title: Versuni Holding BV v. Maya Appliances Private Limited
Case Number: (PT) A No. 3 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 12
The Madras High Court has dismissed a patent revocation plea filed by Maya Appliances Private Limited, a Chennai-based company, seeking to revoke a food processor patent held by Versuni Holding B.V., a Netherlands-based home appliances company. In an order passed on December 19, 2025, Justice N. Senthilkumar allowed Versuni's application seeking rejection of the revocation proceedings, holding that the challenge was not maintainable since the very same issue had already been raised in a pending patent infringement suit before the Delhi High Court.
Madras High Court Orders Removal Of Wipro's 'PREMIO' Trademark On Crompton Greaves Plea
Case Title: Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Wipro Enterprises Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: (T)OP(TM) No. 411 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 10
The Madras High Court has ordered the removal of the “PREMIO” trademark registered in favour of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited. The Court found that the mark had not been put to genuine commercial use for more than five years. Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on December 16, 2025. He allowed a rectification plea filed by Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited, a Mumbai-based consumer electricals manufacturer.
Delhi Commercial Court
Case Title: Bongchie India Private Ltd. v. Mrs. Chandra Kumari & Anr.
Case Number.: CS (COMM.) 953/2023
A Commercial Court in Delhi has permanently restrained Ish Nagpal, a Faridabad-based manufacturer, from using the trademarks “BONGCHIE” and “PERFECT ROLL” on smoking paper products. The court made the ruling after counterfeit goods bearing the marks were recovered from his premises. In a judgment dated January 5, 2026, District Judge Harish Kumar of the Commercial Court at Tis Hazari partly allowed a suit filed by Bongchie India Private Limited. The plaintiff is a Delhi-based company engaged in the manufacture and sale of pre-rolled cones, rolling papers and smoking accessories.
Notifications
Government Proposes Protection For Metaverse Designs, Virtual Products Under Designs Act
The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry has proposed bringing metaverse-based and other virtual designs within the scope of India's design protection law under amendments to the Designs Act, 2000. The proposal forms part of a concept note issued by the department on Friday and placed in the public domain for stakeholder consultation. DPIIT has invited comments within 30 days The concept note states that the Designs Act was drafted in a “markedly different industrial and technological environment” when design protection was closely linked to physical products.
IP Office Issues Public Notice Against Misleading Online Trademark Registration Platforms
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) has issued a public notice warning businesses and individuals against online platforms that advertise and solicit clients by offering assured trademark registration services, terming such practices misleading and illegal. In the notice dated January 7, 2026, the CGPDTM said it has taken serious note of several entities engaging in the solicitation of prospective trademark applicants through digital platforms, in violation of the Advocates Act, 1961, which prohibits advertising and solicitation of legal services.
News
Taj Hotels Secures Sound Mark Registration For Hospitality Services
Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL), a Tata Group company operating hospitality brands such as Taj, Vivanta, Ginger and SeleQtions, has secured trademark registration for the “Taj” sonic sound, marking the first instance of a sound mark being registered in the hospitality sector in India. According to the registration certificate, the sound mark was registered by the Trade Marks Registry on January 7, 2026, with a registration date of April 17, 2025 and is valid for a period of ten years. The registration grants IHCL exclusive statutory rights over the sound mark and protection against unauthorized use or commercial exploitation.
February, 2026
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Allows Product-To-Claim Mapping In Nivolumab Patent Dispute Between ER Squibb and Zydus
Case Title: E. R. Squibb And Sons LLC & Ors. v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited
Case Number: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3267/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 58
The Supreme Court on Wednesday disposed of a special leave petition filed by E.R. Squibb and Sons LLC against Zydus Lifesciences Ltd in a patent dispute over the anti-cancer immunotherapy drug Nivolumab, arising from a January 12 judgment of the Delhi High Court's Division Bench. A Bench of the Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that since Zydus had already marketed its product and it was readily available in the market, the petitioners would be at liberty to undertake a direct product-to-claim mapping and, depending on the outcome, approach the Division Bench of the High Court for appropriate interim relief.
Supreme Court To Examine If Civil Judge (Senior Division) As Commercial Court Can Hear Trademark Suits
Case Title: I.S.D.S Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Khemka Food Products Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 60138/2025
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it will examine whether a Commercial Court presided over by a Civil Judge (Senior Division) can entertain trademark infringement and passing-off suits in view of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. The court stayed further proceedings in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit pending before the Commercial Court at Jamshedpur. The issue arises from Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which governs the forum for filing trademark infringement and passing-off suits and bars such suits from being instituted before a court “inferior to a District Court.”
Supreme Court To Hear On Friday Ustad's Plea In 'Veera Raja Veera' Copyright Case Against A R Rahman
Case Title: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar vs A.R. Rahman
Case Number: SLP (C) No. 4742 of 2026
The Supreme Court will hear on Friday an appeal filed by renowned Dhrupad vocalist Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to vacate and dilute interim relief granted in his copyright suit over the song “Veera Raja Veera” from the film Ponniyin Selvan II, composed by A. R. Rahman. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria will hear the matter.
Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Reviving Sreedevi Video-Saregama Dispute Over Tamil Telugu Film Music
Case Title: Saregama India Ltd. v. Sreedevi Video Corporation & Ors.
Case Number: SLP (C). 6950/2026
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Madras High Court order that had revived an injunction claim in a copyright dispute between SaReGaMa India Ltd and Sreedevi Video Corporation over the audio rights of iconic Tamil and Telegu films such as Sagara Sangamam, Salangai Oli and Shankara Bharanam. The High Court had held that although Sreedevi's plea seeking declaration of copyright was barred by limitation, its claim for permanent injunction could still be examined independently and remanded the matter to a Single Judge for fresh adjudication.
Supreme Court Restores Breach-Of-Injunction Proceedings In 'HERO' Trademark Dispute Between Hero Cycles and Hero Ecotech
Case Title: Hero Cycles Ltd & Anr. vs Hero Ecotech Ltd & Ors
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.1478 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 74
The Supreme Court recently revived proceedings for alleged breach of an injunction in the long-running “HERO” trademark dispute between Hero Cycles Limited and Hero Ecotech Limited. A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside a September 3, 2025 judgment of the Patna High Court, which had quashed a 2019 trial court order directing initiation of contempt proceedings against Hero Ecotech and others for alleged breach of an injunction.
A.R. Rahman Undertakes To Credit Dagar Brothers In 'Veera Raja Veera' Song; Supreme Court Closes Dagar's Appeal
Case Title: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar vs A.R. Rahman Case Number: SLP(C) 4742 OF 2026
Music composer A.R. Rahman on Friday undertook before the Supreme Court of India to give credit to Late Ustad Faiyazuddin Dagar and Late Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar in relation to the song “Veera Raja Veera” from Ponniyin Selvan II. The court accordingly closed the appeal filed by Dhrupad vocalist Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar against a division bench order of the Delhi High Court that had modified interim relief granted in the copyright dispute. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi recorded the undertaking that the revised credits would be displayed on all OTT and online platforms within five weeks.
Supreme Court Appoints Former CJI B R Gavai To Mediate Veda Seed- Kohinoor Trademark Dispute
Case Title: Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd vs Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd
Case Number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5850/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 76
The Supreme Court on Friday appointed former Chief Justice of India Justice B.R. Gavai to mediate a trademark dispute between Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd and Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd., while staying further proceedings in the suit before the Delhi High Court. A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Atul S. Chandurkar recorded that the parties had “favourably responded to the suggestion of the Court that an amicable resolution of the dispute be explored through the process of mediation.”
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Ilaiyaraaja From Licensing Songs Across 134 Films In Copyright Dispute With Saregama
Case Title: Saregama India Limited v. Ilaiyaraaja
Case Number: CS(COMM) 143/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 149
The Delhi High Court has recently issued an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining music composer Ilaiyaraaja from exploiting, using or issuing licences in respect of sound recordings and underlying works from 134 films claimed by Saregama India Limited, holding that the company has made out a prima facie strong case. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order after noting that assignment agreements and inlay cards placed on record prima facie supported Saregama's claim of exclusive copyright.
Delhi High Court Allows Oswaal Books To Register 'ONE FOR ALL' As Trademark
Case Title: Oswaal Books And Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: LPA 571/2025 & CM APPL. 56791/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 151
The Delhi High Court on 10 February cleared the way for Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Ltd. to register “ONE FOR ALL” as their trademark, observing that the phrase is a protectable suggestive mark rather than a merely descriptive slogan. The Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed: “We find that the applied mark “ONE FOR ALL” does not evoke a connect, in the mind, between the mark and books. The mark has no relation with books and can be used in any situation to communicate broad coverage or universality.”
Delhi High Court Reiterates Limited Interference In Appeals Against Interim IPR Orders
Case Title: Sanjay Gupta & Anr v. Vineet Jain
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 44/2026, CM APPL. 9539/2026, CM APPL. 9540/2026, CM APPL. 9541/2026, CM APPL. 9542/2026 & CM APPL. 9543/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 152
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that appellate courts must remain highly circumspect before overturning discretionary orders issued by commercial courts in intellectual property matters. The bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed an appeal in limine by the owners of the “Golden Eagle” brand against a rival “Golden Kingfisher” product, upholding the decision of the Commercial Court at Tis Hazari to refuse ex parte ad-interim injunction and appointment of a local commissioner.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Deepika Padukone's 82°E From Using “Lotus Splash” Mark In Dispute With Lotus Herbals
Case Title: Lotus Herbals Private Limited v. DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 45/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 158
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction restraining actress Deepika Padukone's DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited, the entity behind the skincare brand 82°E, from manufacturing, advertising or selling its "Lotus Splash" facial cleanser until final disposal of the suit. The Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar held that the use of the mark "Lotus Splash" by the defendants was not merely descriptive of an ingredient but was being used as a trademark.
Baba Ramdev Approaches Delhi High Court Over Deepfakes, Seeks Protection of Personality Rights
Case Title: Swami Ramdev v. John Doe (S) & Ors.
Yoga guru and Patanjali Ayurved co-founder Baba Ramdev has moved the Delhi High Court on Tuesday (February 17) seeking protection of his personality rights. The matter was listed before Justice Jyoti Singh and was briefly heard. It has now been kept for further hearing on Wednesday. Ramdev seeks an injunction against the unauthorised use of his name, likeness, voice and distinctive style of discourse on digital platforms. The plea targets “John Doe” defendants allegedly using artificial intelligence-generated content, deepfake videos and voice cloning to exploit his identity without consent.
Expiry Notice To Unauthorized Agent Not Compliant With Trade Marks Act: Delhi High Court Allows Renewal Of 8 Marks
Case Title: Coldsmiths Retail Services Private Limited v. Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 37/2025, CM 162/2025 & CM 164/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 162
The Delhi High Court has permitted renewal of eight trademarks after holding that expiry notices sent to an unauthorized agent do not amount to compliance with the Trade Marks Act. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that issuing notices to a person who was no longer authorised does not satisfy Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act.
Public University Data Can Be Used If Not Disparaging: Delhi High Court Lifts Injunction Against EdTech Site
Case Title: Getmyuni Education Services Private Limited v. Mangalayatan University
Case Number: FAO 126/2023 and CM APPL. 27117/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 164
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday set aside a trial court order restraining an education-technology start-up from using the names, information, and details of two universities on its website, holding that it has a right to use publicly available information so long as it is not presented disparagingly. A single-judge bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the respondents were “unable to make out a prima facie case” and termed it “an unconvincing argument” that rankings displayed on the website were disparaging when they were referenced to rankings available in the public domain and were open-sourced.
Delhi High Court Imposes ₹50,000 Costs On Patent Owner For “Unnecessary Litigation”
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Goel v. Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 672/2022, CC(COMM) 16/2023 & I.A. 13948/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 163
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to allow Pawan Kumar Goel to withdraw his patent infringement suit over a patented process for extracting Alpha Yohimbine, a plant-derived compound used in dietary supplements, and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 for “unnecessary litigation.” Justice Tushar Rao Gedela declined Goel's request under Order XXIII Rule (1)(3)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action.
Delhi High Court Refers Patanjali–Britannia 'Milk Bikis' Ad Disparagement Dispute To Mediation
Case Title: Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr. v. Britannia Industries Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM)-162/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday referred to mediation a trademark disparagement dispute between Patanjali Ayurved Limited and Britannia Industries Limited over Britannia's “Milk Bikis” advertisement. The matter was listed today before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. After hearing preliminary submissions, the court referred the parties to the Delhi Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Patanjali has sought an injunction against the allegedly disparaging ad. It contends that the advertisement disparages its milk biscuits. It objects to the depiction of its packaging. It also challenges the use of the word “Baba”.
'More The Merrier?': Delhi High Court Questions Insistence On Retaining Social Media Platforms In Karan Johar's Personality Rights Suit
Case Title: Karan Johar v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 974/2025
The Delhi High Court on Thursday questioned the legal basis for retaining social media intermediaries as parties in filmmaker Karan Johar's personality rights suit after they have complied with its takedown directions, asking, “Why have more the merrier attitude?” Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing submissions from platforms including Meta (Defendant 15), X Corp. (Defendant 16) and Etsy (Defendant 12), which were impleaded as proforma parties in the suit.
Delhi High Court Asks Singer Jubin Nautiyal Why He Filed Personality Rights Suit In Delhi Despite Being Based in Uttarakhand
Case Title: Jubin Nautiyal v. Jammable Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 166/2026
The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked singer Jubin Nautiyal why he had approached it for protection of his personality rights when he is based in Uttarakhand. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela questioned the choice of forum. “Why are you here? What is accessible here is accessible there. The courts there aren't abolished yet…,” the judge remarked. At the outset, the Court asked how it could entertain the suit.
Delhi High Court Restrains 20 Rogue Websites Streaming Barrios vs Ryan Garcia Fight, Grants DAZN Dynamic Injunction
Case Title: Dazn Limited & Anr. v. Olympicstreams.Co & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 152/2026 & I.A. 4277/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 168
The Delhi High Court has recently restrained 20 rogue websites from illegally streaming the “Mario Barrios vs. Ryan Garcia” boxing match scheduled for February 21, 2026. The court held that DAZN Limited had made out a strong case for urgent protection of its exclusive broadcast rights. Granting an ex parte ad interim injunction, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “In such case, the plaintiffs, appears to have a prima facie strong case for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.”
Delhi High Court Tells Vivek Oberoi To Accept 'Bouquets and Brickbats' In His Personality Rights Suit
Case Title: Vivek Anand Oberoi v. Collector Bazar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 105/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that public figures must be prepared to accept both “bouquets and brickbats”, cautioning actor Vivek Anand Oberoi against becoming “hyper-sensitive” while hearing an application filed by Reddit seeking vacation of an ad-interim injunction earlier granted in his favour. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the remarks during proceedings in the personality suit filed by the actor, where the actor has sought protection of his personality and publicity rights. The court had previously passed an ad interim order directing certain websites and online platforms to take down links listed in the annexure to the order and to furnish user information within 72 hours.
Delhi High Court Restrains Misuse Of HCL Trademark In Alleged Fraudulent 'HCL Mediclinic' Scheme
Case Title: HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd v. John Does & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 127/2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 143
The Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to protect HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd against unidentified parties who are allegedly misrepresenting themselves as company officials to dupe members of the public and job seekers. According to the suit filed by HCL, the company recently became aware of illegal and fraudulent activities by rogue third parties. HCL alleges that these individuals have been issuing fraudulent emails, calls, and messages while posing as HCL employees.
Delhi High Court Restrains Indian Firm From Using 'SHRM' Trademark Of US HR Organisation
Case Title: Society For Human Resource Management SHRM v. Strategic HRM & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 128/2026, I.A. 3790/2026, I.A. 3791/2026 & I.A. 3792/2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 142
Finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court has barred Strategic HRM from using the “SHRM” mark, observing that failure to grant an ex-parte injunction would cause “irreparable loss and injury” to the US-based Society for Human Resource Management. A single-bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on February 11. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) was established in the United States as the American Society for Personnel Administration (ASPA) in 1948, before adopting its current name in 1989. Beyond its status as a professional membership body, the organisation claimed to have played a role in shaping workplace-related legislation and policy in the USA.
Delhi High Court Closes COBADEX Trademark Case After GlaxoSmithKline Settles With Mensa Futura
Case Title: Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Mensa Futura Life Sciences Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1004/2025
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 137
The Delhi High Court has recently disposed of a trademark suit filed by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited, a major Indian pharmaceutical company, after it reached a settlement with Mensa Futura Life Sciences over the use of the 'COBADEX' brand and look-alike packaging. Under the settlement, Mensa Futura agreed to permanently stop using the mark 'CUBANEX-CZS' and any deceptively similar mark or packaging, consented to a permanent injunction in favour of GlaxoSmithKline, and undertook to recall and destroy products bearing the impugned branding.
Delhi High Court Restrains 'SUPERON' Trademark Use, Orders Takedown Of Infringing Websites
Case Title: Sanjay Mehra v. Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Gupta
Case Number: CS(COMM) 102/2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 136
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Sanjay Mehra, proprietor of the registered “SUPERON” trademark, restraining a Gurugram-based entity from using the mark or any deceptively similar name of the stainless steel consumables brand. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on February 4, 2026, directing the entity's proprietor to immediately cease using the "SUPERON" name in any capacity, whether as a trade name, domain name, or email address.
Delhi High Court Injuncts 23 Rogue Websites Illegaly Streaming UEFA Champions League 2025–26
Case Title: Union Of European Football Associations v. Livetv.Sx & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 106/2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 135
Holding that piracy of live sports poses a “recurring threat” and that any delay would cause irreparable copyright breach and revenue loss, the Delhi High Court on February 5 granted an ex parte ad interim injunction blocking 23 rogue websites from unauthorisedly streaming matches of the ongoing UEFA Champions League 2025–26. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the Champions League season is currently underway and will conclude only in May 2026. Any delay in blocking access to infringing platforms, the court said, would result in continuing violation of copyright and financial loss.
Delhi High Court Protects 60-Year-Old Trademark Rights, Orders Removal of 'ARUN' From 'AiC ARUN' Mark
Case Title: Satya Paul v. Alka Industrial Corporation & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 651/2022
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 134
The Delhi High Court on Monday ordered the removal of the word “ARUN” from Alka Industrial Corporation's registered trademark “AiC ARUN,” holding that the mark infringed the six-decade-old “ARUN” brand of Satya Paul & Company used for sewing machines. Allowing a rectification petition filed by Satya Paul & Company, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the firm had continuously and uninterruptedly used the trade name “ARUN” since 1962 and had established substantial goodwill and reputation in the mark over the decades.
Delhi High Court Restrains Parth Law House, Others From Selling Counterfeit LexisNexis Law Textbooks
Case Title: LexisNexis v. Parth Law House & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 156/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 176
The Delhi High Court has recently granted a temporary injunction in favour of LexisNexis, restraining Parth Law House and others from printing, distributing, or selling counterfeit copies of its legal textbooks. A coram of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that interim protection was warranted pending further proceedings. “Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff and upon examination of the documents, I am of the view that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction,” the Court held.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains 19 More Entities From Infringing JAQUAR Trademark
Case Title: Jaquar And Company Private Limited v. Jaquar Franchise & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1160/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 174
The Delhi High Court has recently extended an earlier ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Jaquar And Company Private Limited after impleading 22 additional entities, restraining 19 of them from using the trademark “JAQUAR”. The Court restrained them from using the mark and directed banks to freeze accounts opened in a deceptively similar name. The relief was originally granted on November 3, 2025. At that stage, the Court recorded that Jaquar And Company Private Limited, the Indian bathroom fittings and sanitaryware manufacturer, is the registered proprietor of the well-known trademark “JAQUAR”. The mark was declared a well-known trademark on February 19, 2024.
Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction Protecting 'TOI' Mark Against Impersonating Social Media Accounts
Case Title: Bennett Coleman And Company Limited v. Seera Raja Babu M.R. Seera, & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 172/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 179
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Bennett Coleman and Company Limited restraining the use of the marks TIMES OF INDIA, TOI MOVIES, TOI_MOVIES and TOIMOVIES_, or any identical or deceptively similar mark, by unauthorised social media account operators. The order was passed on February 20, 2026 by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. The court noted that “The Times of India” was recognised as a well-known trademark by the Trade Marks Registry in 2024. It held that the company had made out a strong prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in its favour.
"I Am Not A God": Godman Aniruddha Bapu Moves Delhi High Court To Restrain Devotees From Portraying Him With Gods
Case Title: Dr Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi Through Power Of Attorney Holder v. John Does Ashok Kumars & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 178/2026
In what it described as a “very surprising suit,” the Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard a personality rights case filed by Mumbai-based godman Dr. Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi, popularly known as Aniruddha Bapu, who is seeking to restrain his own followers from portraying him as a deity. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela remarked during the hearing, “Faith moves mountains… This is something very surprising. You have come up with a very surprising suit,” as the Court considered a plea that does not allege defamation or commercial disparagement, but instead challenges devotional content created by the plaintiff's own followers.
Delhi High Court Questions 'Zora' Trademark Registration, Says Visually Similar To 'Zara'
Case Title: Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A v. Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) - 52/2024
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday questioned the Registrar of Trade Marks action allowing the registration of the mark “Zora,” observing that it is “visually, receptively similar beyond any doubt” to the global fashion brand “Zara”. The matter arises from a challenge filed by Industria De Diseño Textil, S.A., owner of the brand “Zara,” against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks permitting registration of the mark “Zora” in Class 24, which covers textile goods and fabrics.
Delhi High Court Protects Singer Jubin Nautiyal's Personality Rights From Commercial Exploitation
Case Title: Jubin Nautiyal v. Jammable Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 166/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 186
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of singer Jubin Nautiyal, restraining unauthorised commercial exploitation of his personality and publicity rights, including through artificial intelligence tools, deepfakes and voice cloning technologies. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in an order dated February 19, 2026, held: “In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has a prima facie strong case and having regard to his well-known, popular and well-accepted personality, the balance of convenience is tilted in favour of the plaintiff. In case, ex-parte ad-interim injunction and other directions, as sought, are not passed, the irreparable loss and injury which may occasion may not be compensated in monetary terms. The dent and damage to the image and personality of the plaintiff, prima facie, appears to be real and present.”
Patent Revocation Petition Survives Even If Patent Expires By Efflux Of Time: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Case Number: LPA 129/2025, CM APPL. 10551/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 188
Holding that revocation operates retrospectively and in rem, the Delhi High Court has ruled that expiry of a patent does not render a pending revocation petition infructuous. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla on Tuesday held “a revocation petition would be maintainable, and would continue to survive, even after the patent of which revocation is sought expires by efflux of time."
Delhi High Court Protects Swami Ramdev's Personality Rights, Restrains AI Deepfakes
Case Title: Swami Ramdev v. John Doe (s) & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 147/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 193
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of yoga guru Swami Ramdev, restraining the unauthorised use of his name, voice, image, likeness and distinctive style in AI-generated deepfakes, fabricated endorsements and other commercial content. In an order dated February 18, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh held that Ramdev had made out a prima facie case. The Court observed that the material placed on record showed exploitation of his personality rights.
Delhi High Court Protects Actress Kajol's Personality Rights, Orders Takedown Of AI Deepfakes, Vulgar Chatbots
Case Title: Kajol Vishal Devgan v. Kash Collective & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 173/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 196
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to protect the personality rights of Bollywood actress Kajol Vishal Devgan, restraining the unauthorised use of her likeness in AI-generated deepfakes, vulgar chatbots, and commercial merchandise. Presiding over the matter, Justice Jyoti Singh on February, 2026, found that the actress had established a prima facie case for injunction, observing that the alleged unauthorised exploitation of her attributes impacts her right to privacy/personality and live with dignity.
Delhi High Court Grants Levi Strauss Temporary Injunction Against Use of Its Iconic Pocket Tab Mark
Case Title: Levi Strauss And Company v. Beyoung Folks Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 175/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 197
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of US denim and apparel company Levi Strauss and Company, holding that it had made out a strong prima facie case for protection of its registered “Tab Device Mark” and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in its order dated February 23, 2026, observed that the “cumulative effect” of the pleadings, trademark registrations and sales figures tilted the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff.
One-Month Notice Before Suo Motu Trademark Cancellation Is Mandatory: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Landmark Crafts Limited v. Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta & Anr.
Case Number: LPA 575/2025, CM APPL. 57191/2025, 57192/2025, 57194/2025 & 69956/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 198
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday made it clear that if the Registrar decides to cancel or rectify a trademark registration on his own initiative, the registered owner must first be given at least one month's notice under Rule 100(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The Court emphasised that this is not a mere formality. The one-month notice requirement is mandatory and cannot be brushed aside by invoking principles such as estoppel.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains 'Singh and Singh Chartered Accountants' In Trademark Suit Filed By Law Firm
Case Title: Singh And Singh Law Firm LLP & Anr. v. Singh And Singh Chartered Accountants & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 192/2026
The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted an ad-interim injunction restraining a chartered accountancy firm from using the name “Singh and Singh Chartered Accountants” in a trademark infringement suit filed by Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP. The order was passed by Justice Jyoti Singh after hearing the submissions of the law firm at the ad-interim stage. During the hearing, the court sought clarification on the nature of the defendants' business, asking, “These are what, chartered accountants?” Counsel for the plaintiffs confirmed that the defendants were operating as “Singh and Singh Chartered Accountants.”
Purva Dhanashree Moves Delhi High Court Amid Trademark Dispute Over 'Vilasini Natyam'
Case Title: Purva Dhanashree v. Guru Swapnasundari & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) - 60/2026
Renowned classical dancer Purva Dhanashree has approached the Delhi High Court seeking permission to continue using the name 'Vilasini Natyam' for her public performances, challenging the exclusive trademark claimed by her guru, Swapnasundari, a Padma Shri awardee, over the traditional dance form. On Thursday 26 February, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela urged the “guru-shishya” duo to resolve the matter through dialogue, noting that while the trademark is registered, the guru's own research indicates the name may not have been personally coined by her.
No Monopoly Over Word 'Forest' Unless It Has Secondary Meaning: Delhi High Court Refuses To Halt Baby Forest
Case Title: Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited v. Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Landsmill Healthcare Private Limited) & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 111/2024 & CM APPL. 33733/2024, CM APPL. 33736/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 203
Holding there can be no monopoly over the word “FOREST” without stringent proof that it has acquired a secondary meaning, the Delhi High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of the luxury Ayurvedic brand Forest Essentials, allowing a newer entrant, Baby Forest, to continue using 'BABY FOREST' and 'BABY FOREST-SOHAM OF AYUVEDA' marks. In a judgment pronounced on February 27, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain upheld the Single Bench's decision to refuse an interim order of injunction against Baby Forest, finding that the established brand could not claim an exclusive monopoly over the dictionary word “Forest.”
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of KREOFLAT Trademark Over Similarity To Abbott's PANKREOFLAT
Case Title: Abbott Products Operations AG v. Ms. Aprajita Sushma Proprietor Of Alrom Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 163/2025 & I.A.16868/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 204
The Delhi High Court has ordered removal of the registered trademark “KREOFLAT” from the Register of Trade Marks after holding it deceptively similar to Abbott Products Operations AG's mark “PANKREOFLAT.” In a judgment delivered on February 26, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowed a rectification petition filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court held that in the case of medicinal and pharmaceutical products, the “threshold laid down for deciding deceptive similarity is very low.”
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Sauss Home's 'Flying Bird' Mark On Detergent, Washing Soap Products
Case Title: Sauss Home Products Private Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 145/2025, CM APPL. 60016/2025 & CM APPL. 75892/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 206
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an interim injunction restraining Sauss Home Products Private Limited from using a “Flying Bird” device mark in relation to washing soap, washing powder, detergent powder and cake, and cleaning starch. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the company's appeal on February 7, 2026. The court held that the “Flying Bird marks of the appellant and respondent were practically identical in appearance, in shape, colour scheme and lay out” and were used for identical goods.
Delhi High Court Recalls Stay On 'THE BREW BUKHARA' Trademark In ITC Dispute
Case Title: ITC Limited & Anr. v. Umesh Arora & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 48/2026 & I.A. 4244/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 207
The Delhi High Court recently recalled an ex-parte stay it had earlier granted to ITC Limited concerning the trademark registration of 'THE BREW BUKHARA'. In contrast to the Court's view just days earlier, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on 19 February held that since the respondent, Umesh Arora, is the registered proprietor of the disputed mark, an ad interim injunction could be considered only after he has been given an opportunity to file a reply.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of 'Accko' Trademark, Finds It Deceptively Similar to 'ACKO' Brand
Case Title: Acko Technology And Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandra Mohan Mishra & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 48/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 208
The Delhi High Court on 10 February, directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the trademark registration for 'ACCKO' observing that the mark is deceptively similar to the well-known 'ACKO' brand. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the rectification petition filed by Acko Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd. under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court remarked: “Similarity in the rival marks leaves little doubt that the intention of Respondent No. 1 was dishonest and the impugned mark was adopted in bad faith to encash on the goodwill of the trademark of the Petitioner.”
Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Dabur's Cool King Thanda Tael Over Navratna-Like Trade Dress
Case Title: Emami Limited v. Dabur India Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 532/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 106
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Dabur India Limited from selling its cooling oil product, “Cool King Thanda Tael,” after finding, at the interim stage, that its packaging is deceptively similar to the trade dress of Emami Limited's “Navratna” cooling oil. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia, in an order dated January 31, 2026, allowed Emami's application for interim injunction in a passing off action against Dabur India. The Court held that Dabur's impugned packaging closely imitates the essential and distinctive features of Emami's packaging and is likely to cause consumer confusion.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains One-Person Company From Using 'Media Monk' Name
Case Title: Mediamonks Multimedia Holding B.V v. Systemry Global Tech (OPC) Pvt. Ltd
Case Number: CS(COMM) 71/2026, I.A. 2042/2026, I.A. 2043/2026, I.A. 2044/2026 I.A. 2045/2026, I.A. 2046/2026 & I.A. 2047/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 111
The Delhi High Court has temporarily barred a one-person company from using the name “Media Monk” after finding it deceptively similar to the global digital brand MediaMonks and likely to mislead consumers. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against Systemry Global Tech (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. The court restrained the company from using the marks “Media Monk”, “MediaMonk”, the domain name mediamonk.ai, or any other mark or domain that is deceptively similar to “MediaMonks”.
Delhi High Court Bars “Divine Miss India” For Infringing Times Group's “Miss India” Trademark
Case Title: Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd & Anr. v. Seraphic Divine Beauty P Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 252/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 113
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained Seraphic Divine Beauty Pvt. Ltd. from organising or promoting a beauty pageant under the name “Divine Miss India,” holding that the mark infringes and passes off the iconic “Miss India” trademark owned by Bennett, Coleman & Company Ltd. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, by a judgment dated January 21, 2026, ruled in favour of Bennett, holding that use of the impugned mark amounted to trademark infringement and passing off and was intended to exploit the goodwill associated with the “Miss India” mark.
Vivek Oberoi Moves Delhi High Court Over AI, Deepfake Misuse of Personality Rights
Actor Vivek Oberoi has filed a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court seeking an injunction against the alleged infringement of his publicity and personality rights, including the unauthorised use of his name, image, voice, and likeness for commercial and personal gain. The suit has been filed through Advocate Sana Raees Khan. The suit has been instituted against several entities, including Collector Bazar, ZoomMantra, Indiacontent, WattPad and Bollywood Movie Posters, alleging impersonation of the actor on social media platforms, sale of unauthorised merchandise bearing his name and image, and the creation and dissemination of AI-generated and deepfake content falsely depicting him in insulting and demeaning ways.
Case Title: Allied Blenders and Distillers Ltd. v. Batra Brewries and Disttilleries Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 551/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 115
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of Allied Blenders and Distillers Ltd., granting a permanent injunction restraining Batra Breweries and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. from using the marks “Officer's Choice”, “Officer's Choice Blue”, “Choice”, or any other identical or deceptively similar mark. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the final decree disposing of the commercial suit filed by Allied Blenders alleging infringement of its well-known whisky trademark by Batra's use of the marks “Principal Choice” and “Principal Choice Premium Whisky.”
Case Title: Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Nitish Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 104/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 116
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday awarded Rs 20 lakh in damages and Rs 3 lakh in litigation costs to Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited while decreeing a trademark infringement suit over a dealership scam run through a rogue website. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela also granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from unauthorised use of Hero Electric's registered trademarks and copyrighted works. The court found that the defendants had posed as the company and cheated innocent investors by falsely offering exclusive dealerships.
Delhi High Court To Pass Interim Order Protecting Vivek Oberoi's Personality Rights
The Delhi High Court on Friday said it would issue an interim order safeguarding the personality rights of actor and entrepreneur Vivek Oberoi. The observation was made by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela when advocate Sana Raees Khan appeared on behalf of Oberoi in a suit seeking protection against misuse of his identity. At the beginning of the hearing, the judge remarked, “We will pass orders.” When Khan asked whether submissions were required, the court replied, “Do you need to make any submission when the Court is saying it will pass orders?”
Case Title: Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr. v. Rajesh Sharma & Ors.
Case Number: CP No. 58/245/PB/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 124
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a copyright suit cannot be dismissed merely because the Local Commissioner appointed visited the additional premises beyond judicial mandate. A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla said that it is normal for a court to authorise the Local Commissioner not only to visit the premises disclosed in the plaint but also any other premises at which infringing goods may be found to be present.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against Rogue Websites Misusing 'VIMAL' Trademark
Case Title: Vishnu and Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v. Mr. Dharmani Deni and Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1341/ 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 123
The Delhi High Court, in a recent order, has temporarily restrained rogue websites and social media pages that were selling VIMAL gutka without authorisation, after finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing a commercial suit filed by Vishnu and Company Trademarks Private Limited seeking protection of its trademark rights.
Case Title: Thukral Mechanical Works v. PM Diesels Private Limited and Anr.
Case Number: LPA 320/2024 & other connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 126
The Delhi High Court has brought a five-decade dispute over the “FIELDMARSHAL” trademark to an unusual end by barring both rival manufacturers from using the mark for centrifugal pumps, after finding that one held a valid registration while the other had built prior market goodwill. A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla delivered the judgment on February 6, 2026, in a long-running battle between PM Diesels Private Limited (PMD) and Thukral Mechanical Works, holding that neither side could lawfully use the “FIELDMARSHAL” brand in the centrifugal pump market.
Delhi High Court Bars Unauthorised Use Of Vivek Oberoi's Name, Image and Voice
Case Title: Vivek Anand Oberoi v. Collector Bazaar & Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 105/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 127 The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of actor Vivek Oberoi, restraining the unauthorised use of his name, image, likeness, and voice, including through AI-generated content. A coram of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that a prima facie case had been made out, noting that “the dent and damage to the image and personality of the plaintiff, prima facie, appears to be real and present.”
Bombay High Court
Actor Shatrughan Sinha Moves Bombay High Court To Protect 'Personality Rights' And Iconic Dialogue 'Khamosh'
Case Title: Shatrughan Prasad Sinha v. John Doe & Ors.
Veteran Bollywood actor and Member of Parliament Shatrughan Sinha has moved the Bombay High Court seeking to protect his personality and publicity rights. The commercial suit, heard by a single-judge bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, alleges the unauthorised use of Sinha's name, image, likeness, and his signature catchphrase, "Khamosh!" The court has reserved the matter for ad-interim orders on Monday.
Bombay High Court Restrains 'ACERIL' Trademark For Phonetic Similarity With Glenmark's 'ASCORIL'
Case Title: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Venkata Subbarao & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 716 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 31 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 80
The Bombay High Court on 16 February granted ad-interim relief to Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, temporarily restraining the use of the trademark “ACERIL” by Venkata Subbarao, after finding it visually and phonetically similar to Glenmark's registered mark “ASCORIL.” Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that although the two medicinal products treat different ailments, the similarity between the marks, if not restrained, could have a disastrous effect.
Khamosh! Bombay High Court Protects Shatrughan Sinha's Catchphrase, Personality Rights
Case Title: Shatrughan Prasad Sinha v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 2870 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 2167 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 87
The Bombay High Court has granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction to veteran actor and politician Shatrughan Sinha, restraining the unauthorised commercial exploitation of his personality rights. The Court also restrained use of his signature catchphrase “Khamosh” and his distinctive vocal mannerisms, observing that the expression, delivered in his unique and distinct style, is associated exclusively with his persona.
Bombay High Court Issues Bailable Warrants Against 4 Effingut Directors In Copyright Contempt Case By PPL
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited vs Effingut Breweries Private Limited
Case Number: Contempt Petition (CD) 51 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 76
The Bombay High Court recently issued bailable warrants against four directors of the Pune-based Effingut Breweries, a popular largest craft beer brand and owners of pubs and lounges operating in major cities like Pune, Delhi, Mumbai, Gurugram etc for failing to appear before the court as ordered in a previous hearing. Single-judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh was hearing a contempt petition against Effingut Breweries and its directors - Vishal Makar, Manish Tandon, Upesh Gulati and Monika Gulati for non-compliance with a previous order of the bench.
Bombay High Court Permanently Injuncts 'SUPER ASIAN PLUS' Trademark In Asian Paints Suit
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Smt. Manju Rani Jindal & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 271 OF 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 90
The Bombay High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Asian Paints, holding that the use of the mark “SUPER ASIAN PLUS” was “entirely dishonest and actuated by bad faith” and amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. Justice Arif S. Doctor, on 20 February 2026 also directed three of the defendants to each pay Rs 3 lakh in compensatory costs. Asian Paints submitted that it had been using its house mark “ASIAN PAINTS” continuously since 1952 and the mark “ASIAN” since 1965.
Bombay High Court Restrains Use Of 'ZEKODOL-P', Finds It Deceptively Similar To IPCA's 'ZERODOL'
Case Title: IPCA Laboratories Limited v. Rikon Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 218 OF 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 92
The Bombay High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of IPCA Laboratories Limited, restraining Rikon Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd from using the mark “ZEKODOL-P”, after holding that it infringes IPCA's registered trademark “ZERODOL” and amounts to passing off. Justice Arif S. Doctor, in a judgment pronounced on February 23, 2026, held that the impugned mark is “phonetically, visually and structurally almost identical” to the plaintiff's mark. The court also imposed a cost of Rs 15 Lakh on Rikon.
No Separate Disclosure Standard For IP Disputes Under Commercial Courts Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: FinTree Education Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Fintree Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 8377 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 234 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 93
The Bombay High Court has partly rejected a trademark owner's attempt to introduce additional documents nearly six years after filing suit, holding that intellectual property disputes are not entitled to any special procedural indulgence under the Commercial Courts Act. In a judgment pronounced on February 20, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor said the disclosure requirements under amended Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code are “mandatory and must be strictly enforced” in commercial suits.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Warns Against Mechanical Notices, Orders Decision On 14-Year-Old Cancer Drug Patent
Case Title: Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V v. The Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (IPD) No. 24 of 2025 and W.M.P.(IPD) Nos.19 and 20 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 49
The Madras High Court on 12 February observed that the Intellectual Property Office cannot mechanically issue notices or summons whenever pre-grant patent oppositions are received, warning that such an approach makes it “very easy to defeat the rights” of patent applicants. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh issued directions in a case involving a 14-year-old patent application filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. for a cancer drug. Noting that by “postponing the same for one reason and the other” officials allowed oppositions to accumulate instead of taking a final decision, he directed the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs to decide all four pending pre-grant oppositions within three months.
Madras High Court Restrains Unauthorised Broadcast Of Taapsee Pannu Starrer 'Assi' On Release Day
Case Title: Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited
Case Number: O.A.Nos.144 & 145 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 52
The Madras High Court on Friday restrained the unauthorised broadcast of the Taapsee Pannu-starrer Bollywood film 'Assi' on the day of its release, granting ad-interim relief to its producer. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, by order dated February 20, 2026, observed that “in matters of this nature, it is likely that irreversible injury will occur unless unlawful broadcast is prevented.” At the same time, the Court noted that “in view of the expansive nature of the relief claimed, it is possible that the legitimate business interest of one or more respondents may be affected.”
Madras High Court Restrains Unauthorised Broadcast Of Zee's 'Do Deewane Seher Mein' On Release Date
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.A.Nos.151 & 152 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.59 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 53
On the date the film “DO DEEWANE SEHER MEIN” was slated for release, the Madras High Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining unlawful broadcast of the movie in a suit alleging apprehended infringement of copyright. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order on Friday in two applications filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, the producers of the film, which has arrayed 33 defendants, including Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and others.
Madras High Court Rules Against 7-Eleven in 'Big Bite' Trademark Battle With Indian Company
Case Title: Eleven International LLC v. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors.
Case Number: (T) CMA (TM) Nos.110 & 157 of 2023
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 43
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a batch of appeals filed by a global retail giant, 7-Eleven International LLC, upholding the “Big Bite” trademark in favour of an Indian company, Ravi Foods Private Limited. The court held that "there is no material to show that the appellant has done business on Indian soil, with the aforesaid mark, on the date of the application or at any subsequent point of time prior to the commencement of opposition proceedings."
Madras High Court Approves Settlement Favouring SNS Movies In 'Think Studio' Trademark Dispute
Case Title: M/s.SNS Movies Productions LLP v. Mr.Manjunath
Case Number: C.S(COMM DIV) No. 283 of 2025 and O.A.Nos.1059 & 1060 of 2025 and A.No.5555 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 58
The Madras High Court on 23 February decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of SNS Movies Productions LLP, owner of Think Studios, after Manjunath, the proprietor of a rival firm, named Think Studio, undertook to permanently cease using the contested mark. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy recorded a settlement in which the defendant agreed to withdraw its pending trademark application and remove the infringing name from all digital and physical platforms by 10 April 2026. He noted: “Subject to the above limited exemption, learned counsel for the defendant submits that a decree may be issued in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 38 of the plaint. Learned counsel for the plaintiff agrees to give up claims in terms of clauses (c) and (d) of paragraph 38.”
Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court Upholds Injunction Over 'DURGA' Mustard Oil Trademark, Cites Public Interest
Case Title: Mupub Mehta v Vinayak Corporation & Anr.
Case Number: D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3815/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 2
The Rajasthan High Court has declined to interfere with an interim injunction restraining the use of the trademark “DURGA” for mustard oil. The court said trademark infringement affects not just the parties to the dispute but also consumers and the wider public, as it can cause confusion and deception. A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit dismissed an appeal challenging an order of the commercial court that had granted a temporary injunction against the appellant, restraining him from manufacturing or selling mustard oil under the mark “DURGA” or any deceptively similar trademark or packing label.
Gujarat High Court
Gujarat High Court Dismissed Appeal In GULAB vs ROSE Trademark Dispute, Warns Trial Court Against Superfluous Judgments
Case Title: Mangrol Oil Mill & Ors. v. Vikas Oil Industries & Anr.
Case Number: R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 192 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 192 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 20
The Gujarat High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by Mangrol Oil Mill in its trademark dispute over “GULAB” groundnut oil. The Court refused to interfere with a Commercial Court order that denied interim injunction against Vikas Oil Industries, which markets edible oil under the mark “ROSE”. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker upheld the November 30, 2024 order of the Commercial Court at Morbi. The trial court had rejected the plaintiffs' application for ad-interim relief on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence.
Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court Finds 'Spic' Bottle 'Virtually Identical' To Harpic, Restrains Godrej
Case Title: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v. Godrej Consumer Products Limited
Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/1/2026 IP-COM/3/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 59
The Calcutta High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction against Godrej Consumer Products Limited, restraining the company from selling its 'Godrej Spic' toilet cleaner in bottles that allegedly infringe upon the registered trademark shape of Reckitt Benckiser's 'HARPIC'. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, on February 25, 2026, explained that the cancellation or expiry of a design monopoly does not prevent a party from claiming trademark protection over a registered shape.
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of UPL's Herbicide Patent For Denying Mandatory Hearing
Case Title: UPL Limited v. Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association & Anr.
Case Number: IPDPTA No.116 of 2023
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 49
The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside an order of the Controller of Patents rejecting UPL Limited's patent application for a herbicidal combination, holding that the authority committed a “serious procedural infirmity” by denying the company a mandatory hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act and improperly issuing a composite order in examination and pre-grant opposition proceedings. Allowing the appeal, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur ruled that examination proceedings under Sections 14–15 and pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) are “distinct, separate and independent stages” that must be carried out separately.
Case Title: TopoTarget UK Ltd v. The Controller General of Patent and Designs
Case Number: IPDPTA/50/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 37
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a Patent Office order rejecting a cancer drug patent filed by TopoTarget UK Limited, observing that the decision was taken without a proper and independent assessment of the invention. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, in a judgment dated January 30, 2026, allowed TopoTarget's appeal and quashed an order dated November 29, 2019, passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Juneja & Anr. v. Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Case Number: CR No.6252 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 6
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently reiterated that once a trial court comes to the conclusion that a plea challenging the validity of a registered trademark is prima facie tenable, it must not proceed with the infringement suit and is bound to grant time to the concerned party to approach the Registrar or the High Court for rectification. A single bench of Justice Pankaj Jain clarified that under section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a trial court does not have the jurisdiction to try the issue with respect to rectification after recording such a prima facie finding.
Kerala High Court
Kerala High Court Restrains Former G-TEC Franchisee From Using GIO TECH Mark
Case Title: G-Tec Education Private Limited v. Mr.Binu A.Joy
Case Number: FAO NO.72 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 32
Holding that “G-TEC” and “GIO TECH” are phonetically similar and confusion is likely to be caused, the Kerala High Court has restrained a former franchisee from using the marks “GIO TECH” and “GIO TECH COMPUTER ACADEMY,” setting aside a trial court order that had refused interim relief. Justice S. Manu, in a judgment delivered on February 18, 2026, held that the analysis made by the court below was “by dissecting the trademarks” and that such an exercise “is not in consonance with the settled principles regarding infringement.”
Commercial Court
Belagavi Court Refuses Ex Parte Injunction Against US AI Company Anthropic In Trademark Dispute
Case Title: Anthropic Softwares Private Limited v. Anthropic PBC
Case Number: Com.OS No.02/2026
A Commercial Court in Belagavi, Karnataka has refused to grant an ex parte interim injunction to an Indian company in a trademark dispute over the mark “Anthropic” against a US AI company Anthropic PBC. The court held that there is no “imminent threat” of infringement at this stage. The court, however, issued summons to the San Francisco-based defendant and directed that emergent notice be sent in accordance with the applicable guidelines
Delhi Court Orders Takedown Of YouTube Shorts Infringing Karl Rock's Copyright
Case Title: Karl Edward Rice v. Adam El-Megrisi, Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Suit (Comm.) No.706/2025
A Delhi Commercial Court has recently granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining UK-based YouTuber Adam El-Megrisi, who operates the channel “VidBrew”, from reproducing or monetising content belonging to Karl Edward Rice, also known as Karl Rock, in a copyright infringement and passing off suit. District Judge Vinod Yadav held that a prima facie case of infringement of copyrighted works and passing off was made out against El-Megrisi.
Jammu Court Grants Interim Relief To JioStar India, Restrains Unauthorised Cable Transmission
Case Title: JioStar India Private Limited v. M/S Take One JK Media Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: Original Suits OS/148/2026
Principal District Judge R.N. Watal, Jammu on 24 February protected the broadcast reproduction rights of JioStar India Private Limited by issuing an ad interim injunction against several regional cable networks. The judge directed that, until the next date of hearing, the defendants shall refrain from “retransmitting, rebroadcasting, disseminating, exhibiting and/or communicating” its content, including popular television shows and exclusive sporting events notified as being of national importance.
Delhi Court Awards ₹20 Lakh Damages To Siemens In NX Software Piracy Case
Case Title: Siemens Industry Software Inc. & Anr. v. Mr. Niilesh Dhanukar & Ors.
Case Number: CS (Comm) 470/2023
A Commercial Court at Saket, New Delhi, has decreed a copyright infringement suit in favour of Siemens Industry Software Inc.and its Indian subsidiary, restraining Maharashtra-based mould maker Om Sai Moulds and Plastics and its promoters from using unlicensed copies of its NX (Unigraphics) software. In a judgment dated February 19, 2026, District Judge Anuradha Shukla granted a permanent injunction and awarded 20 lakh in damages.
Trade Marks Registry
United Breweries Secures Trade Mark Registration For Kingfisher Sound Mark “Oo La La La La Le O”
United Breweries Limited has secured a registration for the sound trade mark associated with its Kingfisher brand, with the Trade Marks Registry issuing a certificate of registration for the jingle popularly rendered as “Oo La La La La Le O” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The registration, granted by the Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai, confers statutory exclusive rights on United Breweries Limited over the auditory brand asset, which has been extensively deployed in advertising and brand communication across India. The certificate has been issued under Section 23(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 56(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.
March, 2026
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.
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
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.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Reviving Opposition To IBM's “TIVOLI” Trademark Application
Case Title: International Business Machines Corporation v. Tivoli Gardens & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 45/2025 & IA Nos.19415/2025 & 26937/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 214
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside an order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks that permitted Tivoli Gardens to revive its opposition to International Business Machines Corporation's application for registration of the mark “TIVOLI”. Justice Tejas Karia allowed IBM's appeal. The court held that the statutory timeline for filing evidence in support of opposition admits of no discretion.
Case Title: Dr Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi Through Power Of Attorney Holder v. John Does Ashok Kumars & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 178/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 215
Calling the threat to his image “real and present”, the Delhi High Court has protected Maharashtra-based spiritual leader Dr Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi's Persinlaity Rights Against AI-generated deepfakes. The court restrained the unauthorized use of his name, voice, and persona and ordered Google, Meta and X to take down infringing content within 48 hours and disclose subscriber information of those responsible. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction on February 24, observing that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case. “The dent and damage to the image and personality of the plaintiff, prima facie, appears to be real and present,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Finds 'Huge Counterfeiting Operation', Awards ₹2.5 Lakh Damages To HUL, P&G
Case Title: Hindustan Lever Ltd. & Anr. v. Rakesh Goyal & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 256/2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 216
The Delhi High Court has recently decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (now HUL) and another plaintiff, a subsidiary of Procter & Gamble Company, USA, awarding Rs 2,50,000 in damages against individuals found to be engaged in counterfeiting fast-moving consumer goods. In a judgment delivered on February 28, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia held that the defendants were running a “huge counterfeiting operation” involving fake shampoos, creams, detergents and other FMCG products sold under the plaintiffs' well-known marks.
Case Title: Britannia Industries Ltd v. Desi Bites Snacks P Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 983/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 217
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against Britannia Industries Ltd and its authorised representative in a trademark dispute over the mark “GOOD DAY”. The plea was filed by Desibites Snacks Pvt Ltd and its director. The applicants alleged that Britannia had falsely stated on oath that it first became aware of their products only in the third week of October 2024. They also alleged that Britannia suppressed the fact that it had filed a rectification petition in 2018 against a trademark registration for “GOOD DAY” held by the director of Desi Bites, Roop Chand Agarwal, for papad.
Case Title: Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Zee Laboratories Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 896/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 219
Calling it “a case of triple identity,” the Delhi High Court has restrained Zee Laboratories from using the marks 'FEXIT', 'FEXIT-B' and 'FEXIT-M', holding them deceptively similar to GlaxoSmithKline's registered antibiotic brand 'PHEXIN'. Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on February 28, 2026, on an interim application by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. seeking restraint against infringement of its mark 'PHEXIN', passing off, unfair competition and dilution.
Delhi High Court Bars Groundless Copyright Threats Against TV9 Over Brief Use Of Third-Party Footage
Case Title: Associated Broadcasting Company Limited v. Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 9/2024 & I.A. 260/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 227
The Delhi High Court has declared that certain TV9 Network news videos uploaded on its YouTube channels do not infringe the copyright of third parties and restrained four foreign entities from issuing further groundless copyright threats against the broadcaster. The videos covered events such as Hurricane Laura in the United States, heavy snowfall and floods, the Israel–Hamas conflict, and the 2023 Chinese balloon incident.
Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection Of Crystal Crop's Herbicidal Composition Patent
Case Title: Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 19/2023 & I.A. 20715/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 228
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Crystal Crop Protection Ltd., upholding a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to reject a patent application for a herbicidal composition designed for field crops. Justice Tejas Karia upheld the Assistant Controller's finding that the proposed invention lacked an inventive step and fell under the statutory bar of Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, as it constituted a 'mere admixture' of known substances.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction To Novartis Against 'NOVIETS' For Trademark Infringement
Case Title: Novartis AG & Ors. Noviets Pharma & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 218/2024 & I.A. 24963/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 229
The Delhi High Court on 28 February granted an interim injunction in favour of the global healthcare company Novartis, restraining several Bihar-based entities, including Noviets Pharma and Noviets Veterinary Private Limited, from using the marks 'NOVIETS' and its associated logos. Justice Tejas Karia observed that the contested marks were deceptively similar to the well-known 'NOVARTIS' trademark and logo, noting a likelihood of confusion among the public.
Case Title: Radico Khaitan Ltd v. Mohit Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 & I.A. 13752/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 230
The Delhi High Court recently allowed a rectification petition filed by Radico Khaitan Ltd., formerly Rampur Distillery & Chemical Company Ltd., directing the removal and cancellation of the 'GRAND MASTI' trademark registration held by Mohit Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd. from the Trade Marks Register. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in a judgment delivered on 27 February 2026, observed that the registered mark was deceptively similar to Radico Khaitan's established 'MASTIH' brand, in use since 1969.
Case Title: Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited v. Anondita Medicare Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 184/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 233
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited, restraining Anondita Medicare Limited and the other entities behind the impugned Instagram pages from using social media content that allegedly copies the original artistic works and taglines of its popular 'MANFORCE' condom brand. On February 25, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that a side-by-side comparison of the Instagram posts “clearly would depict, prima facie, infringement of the copyrights of the plaintiff.” The Court said the material on record showed an “almost complete and identical imitation of the original artistic works and the tagline” of the plaintiff.
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: K.S. Oils Limited v. Shivang Edibles Oils Limited & Anr.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 69/2026 & CM APPL. 14636/2026, CM APPL. 14639- 14642/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 315
The Delhi High Court on Monday set aside an ex parte ad interim injunction that had restrained K.S. Oils Limited from using the 'KALASH' trademark and has asked the Trial Court to take a fresh call on the injunction application. This allows them to use the mark for edible oils. The ruling came on March 30, 2026, from a division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, which found that the trial court's conclusion on a prima facie case could not be sustained.
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 Cancels Copyright On Bicycle Parts Label For Lack Of Originality
Case Title: Bombay Metals Pvt Ltd vs Tara Singh and Anr.
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 770/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 311
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the copyright registration of a product packaging label used by one Tara Singh for bicycle parts, holding that the sticker was a substantial imitation of Bombay Metal Works Pvt. Ltd.'s label in its layout, colour scheme and arrangement, despite bearing a different trade name. “It is trite law that Copyright protection is granted to an artistic work under the Act, only if the said artistic work satisfies the standard of originality,” Justice Tejas Karia said in an order dated March 28, 2026.
Case Title: Lawrence School Sanawar Society vs. Mr. Subodh Sinha & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 245/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 312
The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of Lawrence School Sanawar Society, which runs The Lawrence School in Sanawar, Himachal Pradesh, in a dispute over allegedly defamatory content posted about the institution on Facebook. The order targets a Facebook page and certain individuals. Educator Subodh Sinha, the page IPSC & Indian Top Schools Alumni (IITSA), and Ankit Kumar Gupta have been restrained, along with anyone acting on their behalf, from using the school's registered trademarks. Meta Platforms Inc. has also been directed to take down the impugned content.
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.
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.
Delhi High Court Says Patent Amendments Permissible At Appellate Stage, Sets Aside Daikin Refusal
Case Title: Daikin Industries Ltd v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 56/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 237
The Delhi High Court on 26 February reiterated that patent amendments are permissible even at the appellate stage, so long as they fall within the statutory framework of the Patents Act. Justice Jyoti Singh partially allowed the appeal filed by Daikin Industries Ltd, setting aside the Patent Office order that had earlier denied the company a patent for its 'Shell-And-Plate Heat Exchanger.'
Case Title: Fertin Pharma A/S v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 25/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 238
The Delhi High Court on 18 February set aside an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that had rejected a patent application from Fertin Pharma A/S, observing that the regulator failed to provide the requisite reasoning expected of a quasi-judicial authority. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the original refusal was “cryptic,” whereas reasoning is “the bedrock of all orders, including those passed by quasi-judicial authorities.”
Delhi High Court Bars Ex-Franchisee From Using 'Moti Mahal' Trademark After Franchise Termination
Case Title: Moti Mahal Legendary Hospitality Through Its Sole Proprietor & Anr. v. M/S Sant Foods Through Its Proprietor Mr Ravi Gupta & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 189/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 240
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Moti Mahal Legendary Hospitality, restraining Sant Foods, a former franchisee, from using the “MOTI MAHAL” trademark after the termination of their commercial agreement. The Court observed that once a franchise agreement is terminated, the former franchisee retains no legal right to operate a restaurant using the trademarked name.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Refusal Of Jindal Steel's 'JSP' Trademark, Orders Fresh Consideration
Case Title: Jindal Steel Limited v. Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 75/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 241
The Delhi High Court has partially allowed an appeal filed by Jindal Steel Limited against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing registration of the trademark “JSP,” holding that the decision was a “non-speaking order” passed without considering the arguments and material placed on record. In a judgment delivered on February 17, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the Registrar had failed to consider several issues raised by the company, including its reliance on Sections 34 and 55 of the Trade Marks Act.
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.
Calcutta High Court Protects 'SWASTIK' Rice Label Against Deceptive Packaging By Competitor
Case Title: Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v. Deepak Kumar Barnwal
Case Number: IP-COM/59/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 63
The Calcutta High Court has decreed a suit in favour of Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited against an individual, Deepak Kumar Barnwal, over the use of the “SWASTIK” label mark for rice products. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed that the respondent's packaging was “strikingly similar and deceptively identical” to that of the petitioner and held that the rival marks appeared to be identical.
Case Title: Neelam Gupta v. Esme Consumer Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/1/2025 In IP-COM/47/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 65
The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that once the proprietor of a trademark or copyright institutes an infringement suit with due diligence, the cause of action in a suit alleging groundless threats automatically extinguishes. On January 30, 2026, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur dismissed a 'threat suit' filed by Neelam Gupta against Esme Consumer Private Limited because the company had, subsequent to the filing of the suit, commenced a formal infringement action in a Delhi 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
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.
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.
Bombay High Court Refuses MINCO Injunction Against Sister Concern Over 13-Year Acquiescence
Case Title: Minco India Private Limited v. Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 1600 OF 2006 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 12616 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 236 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 170
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal by Minco India Private Limited, affirming a Single Judge's decision to deny an interim injunction against Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited, a company run by the appellant's director's brother. The court found that the plaintiff had been aware of the defendant's use of the “MINCO” mark since 2012 yet chose not to act for over 13 years. That prolonged inaction, the bench held, amounted to clear acquiescence, a complete defence in a trademark infringement claim.
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.
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”.
Patent Examination Cannot Be Skipped Due To Pre-Grant Opposition: Bombay High Court
Case Title: AIC246 AG & Co. KG v. The Patent Office of India & Ors.
Case Number: COMM. MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 72 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 109
The Bombay High Court has set aside the rejection of a fungicide patent application, reiterating that examination proceedings under the Patents Act cannot be bypassed merely because a pre-grant opposition is pending. In a judgment delivered on February 27, Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the Controller acted “plainly arbitrary, unexplained, and contrary to the statutory scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder” by cancelling a scheduled examination hearing, assuring the applicant that a fresh hearing would be granted, and then rejecting the patent application without granting that hearing.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Bars Delhi Hospital From Infringing 'SAIFEE HOSPITAL' Mark
Case Title: Saifee Hospital Trust v. Saifi Hospital Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 41547 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 41524 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 110
The Bombay High Court has recently granted ad-interim relief to Saifee Hospital Trust, restraining a Delhi-based company from infringing its registered trademark “SAIFEE HOSPITAL” after finding that the rival mark “SAIFI HOSPITAL” is “visually, structurally and phonetically deceptively similar”. In an order dated February 10, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the defendant company, Saifi Hospital Private Limited, was offering similar medical services under the impugned mark even though the trust is the registered proprietor of the word mark.
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 Rejects Lahari Recording's Claim Over Satellite Telecast of Telugu-Dubbed 'Roja'
Case Title: Lahari Recording Co. P. Ltd. v. Jain Television (Mala Publicity Service P Ltd) & Ors.
Case Number: OSA No. 206 of 2016 and OSA No.207 of 2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 64
The Madras High Court has dismissed appeals filed by Lahari Recording Co. Pvt. Ltd. over the satellite telecast of the Telugu-dubbed version of Roja, the Mani Ratnam-directed Tamil film that became one of Indian cinema's most recognisable titles of the 1990s. The company had sought to block the broadcast and claim Rs 1 crore in damages, arguing that the telecast infringed its rights in the dubbed version.
Madras High Court Protects '777 Oil' Trademark, Sets Aside Order Dismissing Infringement Suit
Case Title: M/s. J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd v. M/s. Sanjeevi Pharma
Case Number: OSA(CAD) No. 1 of 2025 & C.M.P.No. 7 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 65
The Madras High Court on Friday protected the trademark “777 Oil” used for a Siddha medicinal oil to treat psoriasis, setting aside a single judge's decision that had dismissed an infringement suit filed by J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals against Sanjeevi Pharma. In a judgment pronounced on March 6, 2026, Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu allowed the company's appeal, holding that the earlier judgment suffered from “perversity,” and decreed the suit with a permanent injunction restraining Sanjeevi Pharma from using the mark “777 Oil” or any deceptively similar mark.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Case Title: Wacom Company Limited v. Cirel Systems Private Limited
Case Number: CIVIL PETITION NO.426 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 29
The Karnataka High Court has recently allowed Japanese technology firm Wacom Company Limited to collect documents and testimony from Bengaluru-based semiconductor manufacturer Cirel Systems Pvt Ltd. The evidence will be used in a patent infringement lawsuit pending in the United States between Wacom and Chinese company Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co Ltd, in which the Indian firm is not a party.
Orissa High Court
Orissa High Court Allows Application For Patent Restoration As Expiry Was Within Covid-19 Period
Case Title: M/S.Green Energy Resources v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.19128 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 12
The Orissa High Court on 12 February, allowed a writ petition filed by Green Energy Resources, a Sambalpur-based firm, permitting it to apply for the restoration of a patent that had ceased to have effect due to the non-payment of renewal fees. Justice B.P. Routray observed that the company's explanation for the lapse was convincing and noted that the patent's expiry occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court remarked that under the given facts, there was “no difficulty... for considering the application of the Petitioner for restoration of the Patent by the Controller”.
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.
April, 2026
Supreme Court
Case Title: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. v. The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Case Number: SLP (C) 13704 OF 2026
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a plea challenging a Delhi High Court ruling that a patent revocation petition remains maintainable and survives even after expiry of the patent and is not barred merely because an invalidity defence is raised in a parallel infringement suit. A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice on the special leave petition filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH and listed the matter for final disposal on May 25, 2026.
Case Title: Official Liquidator Of M/S. Ideal Jawa Private Limited v. Classic Legends Private Limited And Ors.
Case Number: Diary No. 18873 of 2026
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in a plea by the liquidator of Ideal Jawa (India) Ltd. challenging a Karnataka High Court ruling that allowed Classic Legends Pvt. Ltd. and its founder Boman R. Irani to use the 'Yezdi' trademark after holding that the company no longer retained rights over it. The high court had found that the trademark had lapsed and that goodwill could not survive once the underlying business had ceased operations. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, while issuing notice, kept the matter for further hearing on July 15.
Case Title: The South India Music Companies Association & Anr. v. Ashit Kukian & Anr.
Case Number: Special Leave to Appeal(C) No(s). 11268-11270/2026
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with a Madras High Court ruling that contempt proceedings were not maintainable where royalty claims had not been quantified, holding that non-payment of an unascertained amount cannot amount to willful disobedience. Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions filed by the South India Music Companies Association (SIMCA), a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said, “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) of the High Court; hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed.”
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Grants Temporary Injunction To Google's Waymo, Bars Use Of 'P-WAYMO' Mark
Case Title: Waymo LLC v. P-Waymo Electric Vehicles Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 34/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 441
The Delhi High Court recently granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Waymo LLC, a subsidiary of Google's parent Alphabet Inc., restraining an Indian entity from using the mark “P-WAYMO” or any deceptively similar variant in a trademark dispute. A single-judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh said, “Having heard learned counsel for the Plaintiff and upon perusal of the documents, I am of the view that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ad interim injunction against the Defendants. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the interim injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.”
Case Title: Castrol Limited vs Sanjay Sonavane And Ors.
Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) 38/2025 & CM APPL. 80125/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 438
The Delhi High Court has restored Castrol's suit alleging disparagement against the proprietor of the “3P” mark, Sanjay Sonavane, along with media entities holding that it was not barred by law as it was based on a different set of facts from an earlier case on trademark threats. A bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla said the two cases, though linked to the same dispute, were legally distinct.
Case Title: Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Turio Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 407/2026 & I.As. 10589/2026, 10590/2026, 10593/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 439
The Delhi High Court has recently recorded an undertaking by Turio Pharmaceuticals Private Limited to stop using marks similar to “T-BACT” in a trademark suit filed by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited. Justice Jyoti Singh, on April 21, 2026, accepted an undertaking that Turio Pharmaceuticals, through its director Suresh Chaluvadi, shall not use the marks “TRU-BACT”, “TU-BACT” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to GlaxoSmithKline's registered “T-BACT” mark or its packaging in future.
Case Title: Paper Money Guaranty LLC v. PMGIndia & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 432/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 437
The Delhi High Court recently restrained PMGIndia, a family-run business, and its proprietors from using the marks “PMG”, “PMGIndia”, “Paper Money Grading” or any deceptively similar mark, granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Paper Money Guaranty LLC. Justice Jyoti Singh observed, “I am of the view that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction against the Defendants. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the interim injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.”
Delhi High Court Declares “MULTANI” A Well-Known Trademark For Ayurvedic Pharma Products
Case Title: Multani Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Mayuri Bhupal Bhamare
Case Number: CS(COMM) 934/2024 and I.A. 43164/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 436
The Delhi High Court has declared Multani Pharmaceuticals Limited's “MULTANI” mark as a well-known trademark for Ayurvedic pharmaceutical products. A single-judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that the mark has acquired extensive recognition over decades of use and promotion.
Case Title: Sanjiv Saraf & Ors. v. Manzar Hasan Mukhatar Hasan Syed & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 409/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 435
The Delhi High Court on 24 April 2026 granted an ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement dispute filed by the Rekhta Foundation, restraining the use of the domain name "www.rekhta.in" by a rival entity and protecting the Foundation's registered mark “REKHTA”. Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the defendants from using the impugned domain and referred the parties to mediation to explore settlement.
Case Title: Sanofi v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 120/2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 434
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction restraining Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from using the mark “CLAVIX” for its medicinal products, holding it deceptively similar to Sanofi's registered mark “PLAVIX” and finding the adoption to be dishonest and infringing. In a judgment pronounced on April 28, 2026, Justice Amit Bansal held that the competing marks differ only by a single letter and are used for identical pharmaceutical products, making confusion highly likely.
Every Content Can't Be Disparaging: Delhi High Court Remarks In Arjun Kapoor's Personality Suit
Case Title: Arjun Kapoor v. Artist Booking Company & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 454/2026
Actor Arjun Kapoor has moved the Delhi High Court alleging widespread unauthorised commercial use of his likeness and circulation of “sexually explicit” deepfake content, with the court cautioning against overbroad restrictions that could stifle satire. Hearing the matter, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela flagged the need to balance personality rights with free expression, observing: “A person who is in the public glare, a lot of things happen… We can understand certain things which will be derogatory, defamatory or disparaging. Everything can't come under that.”
Delhi High Court Orders Suspension of 'ebai.org' Over Lupin QR Codes Redirecting To Porn Content
Case Title: Lupin Limited v. Chhian Sokchea & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 400/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 425
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Lupin Limited, ordering that the domain 'www.ebai.org' be suspended, disabled, or deleted within 36 hours. The direction came after QR codes printed on the company's eye-care products, which link to that website, were found redirecting users to pornographic content. Lupin has alleged that the domain itself had been taken over by an unidentified third party.
Case Title: Mansueto Ventures LLC v. Dnyaneshwar Ashok Kamble Trading As Prime View Media And Technology
Case Number: CS(COMM) 420/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 424
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a Pune-based entity from using the mark “Inc” for a magazine, website, and related publishing services, finding it identical or deceptively similar to Mansueto Ventures LLC's “Inc.” brand. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in an order dated April 21, 2026, held that the rival marks were identical, observing that there was “no distinction between the two,” and noted material on record showing unauthorised solicitations riding on the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation.
Case Title: Modi Woodspace Private Limited vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 56/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 419
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside the refusal of the trademark “KAMA CASA” for furniture and home décor products and related retail services, holding that the Registrar erred in dissecting a composite wordmark and comparing it with separate prior marks. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held, “In other words, the mark of the appellant “KAMA CASA”, which is a word mark, ought to have been considered as a composite mark and not broken into “KAMA” and “CASA”. In case such dissection is permitted, it would lead to anomalous and incongruous results..."
Case Title: House Of Diagnostics LLP & Ors. v. Home Of Diagnostics Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 416/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 420
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of House of Diagnostics LLP and its sister concerns, restraining Home of Diagnostics Limited from using the marks “HOD”, “HOD DIAGNOSTICS”, “HOME OF DIAGNOSTICS” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks. On April 21, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the deceptive similarities between the rival marks were “more than apparent”.
Delhi HC Restrains Law Prep From Misusing 'LegalEdge' Mark, Orders Take Down AI Defamatory Content
Case Title: Toprankers Edtech Solutions Private Limited & Ors. vs. LPT Edtech Private Limited and Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 344/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 390
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of edtech platform Toprankers, restraining rival CLAT coaching platform Law Prep Tutorial and others from publishing or disseminating defamatory and disparaging content and from unauthorised use of the trademark “LegalEdge.” The court also restrained the use of AI-generated or morphed content involving this year's CLAT topper's name, image, and likeness. A Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the content circulated by the defendants, including videos, blogs, and social media posts, prima facie appeared to be aimed at bringing disrepute to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Mahaveer Udyog's Appeal In Trademark Suit Over “Tiger” Mark
Case Title: Mayank Jain, Proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog v. Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 100/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 389
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog in a trademark dispute, refusing to interfere with the finding that the word “TIGER” is commonly used in the trade for agricultural implements and holding that the marks “TIGER GOLD BRAND” and “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND” are not deceptively similar and do not make out a case of passing off. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the January 9, 2026, order of the Single Judge. The court said the competing label marks must be examined as a whole and found no ground to interfere with the view that they are visually different and unlikely to cause confusion.
Case Title: Acharya Balkrishna v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 291/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday corrected a procedural oversight in the personality rights suit filed by Patanjali's Acharya Balkrishna, clarifying that a restraint on content creation had been inadvertently extended to digital intermediaries, including Meta and Google Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that directions in the Court's March 24 order, which were intended primarily for the main content creators, had mistakenly been applied to all defendants, including intermediaries. The earlier order had restrained Defendants 1 to 10 from “creating, publishing, uploading, sharing, or disseminating” infringing videos and related content.
Delhi High Court To Pass Interim Order Protecting Actor Allu Arjun's Personality Rights
Case Title: Mr. Allu Arjun v. Frankly Retail Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 403/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday said it will pass interim orders in a personality rights suit filed by Telugu actor Allu Arjun, who seeks to restrain the unauthorized use of his name, likeness, and signature for commercial gain. Presiding over the matter, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard arguments on alleged infringement of the actor's personality rights, with the case focusing on specific instances of misuse of artificial intelligence tools such as voice cloning and fake video call applications.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Nippon Paint From Using 'INFINITY' Trademark For Paints
Case Title: Nippon Paint (India) Private Limited v. Glossy Paints India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 169/2025, I.A. 17967/2025, I.A. 17968/2025 & I.A. 17969/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 381
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an interim injunction in favour of Glossy Paints India Pvt. Ltd., restraining Nippon Paint (India) Private Limited from using the impugned mark incorporating “INFINITY” and the infinity symbol “∞”, or any mark identical or deceptively similar, holding that the rival mark is prima facie deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion in the market. In a common judgment delivered on April 10, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia also dismissed a rectification petition filed by Nippon Paint seeking cancellation of Glossy Paints' registered trademark, observing that the plea of invalidity was “an afterthought” raised only after mediation between the parties failed.
Case Title: More Than Water Private Limited v. Nesco Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 125/2026, I.A. 4734/2026, I.A. 6512/2026 & I.A. 7236/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 380
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to grant temporary relief to More Than Water Private Limited against Nesco, finding that the company had not been able to prima facie establish substantial goodwill in its “WATERBOX” marks, a key requirement in a passing off claim. While dismissing the plea, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the plaintiff's material fell short of demonstrating continuous use or meaningful sales that could support a claim of goodwill. The court pointed out that the evidence on record did not convincingly show market reputation for the marks “WATERBOX”, “MORE THAN WATERBOX”, or “WATER BOX IS THE RIGHT CHOICE”.
Case Title: Pepsico Inc. & Anr. v. Parle Agro Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 268/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 379
The Delhi High Court has recently imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on Parle Agro Private Limited for failing to file certificates of sales revenue every two months as directed in a trademark dispute with PepsiCo Inc., holding that while the lapse was not wilful, it constituted a “clear, unambiguous and serious violation” of its order. PepsiCo had moved the court seeking action against Parle and its officers under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a provision that empowers courts to enforce interim injunctions and punish disobedience of such orders, alleging violation of an interim order dated September 18, 2023, passed in its suit over the tagline “For The Bold”.
Case Title: Gurbaaz Pratap Singh Mann v. Kunwar Raghav Bhandari & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 700/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 373
The Delhi High Court on 10 April dismissed an application for an interim injunction filed by professional golfer Gurbaaz Pratap Singh Mann, refusing to restrain entities from operating the “IGPL FLASH GOLF” tournament. Justice Tejas Karia held that while Mann owns a valid copyright in the literary work describing his golf format, he failed to establish a prima facie case of unauthorized copying by the organisers of the Indian Golf Premier League (IGPL).
Case Title: Dr Sanjiv Goenka v. Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 395/2026
Industrialist and owner of the IPL team Lucknow Super Giants, Sanjiv Goenka, has moved the Delhi High Court alleging misuse of his likeness through deepfakes and morphed content. A bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was taken through multiple images and videos in which Goenka's face was allegedly superimposed to depict false incidents, including one suggesting he was “assaulting” team captain KL Rahul. Counsel for Goenka pointed to several URLs where his likeness had been used “to create an incident that will never happen,” including visuals showing a fabricated altercation with Rahul. Describing one such image, counsel submitted that “my face is morphed… and the team captain… has his face on my lap,” calling the material “in very poor taste.”
Case Title: Trimurti Films Private Limited v. B62 Studios Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 378/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday recorded an undertaking on behalf of Trimurti Films Private Limited to refrain from addressing the press or making public allegations in its ongoing copyright dispute with Aditya Dhar's B62 Studios and T-Series over the song “Oye Oye” included in the movie Dhurandhar 2, observing that such statements could derail court-ordered mediation. The undertaking was given during a hearing before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela after T-Series alleged that Trimurti's promoter, Rajiv Rai, had launched a media “rampage” following the previous hearing, using derogatory language and casting aspersions on both the defendants and the judicial process.
Case Title: The Football Association Premier League Limited v. Sportshub.Stream & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 470/2025 & I.A. 12176/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 371
The Delhi High Court has stepped in on a plea by the Premier League, directing the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeITY) to take action within two weeks against Canadian domain name registrar Tucows Domains Inc. for failing to block URLs carrying infringing material related to its copyrighted content. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in an order dated April 10, 2026, said the conduct of the entity showed clear defiance of judicial orders. “This is unpalatable and unacceptable and appears to be a clear defiance of the orders of this Court, as also the previous orders passed by this Court, which were complied with after coercive measures were undertaken by this Court,” the court observed.
Case Title: Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd v. Getmohit Cab Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 379/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 370
The Delhi High Court has temporarily barred several entities, including Getmohit Cab Private Limited and Shri Bheru Nath Motor Body, from using the “BHARATBENZ” mark in a trademark infringement suit filed by Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd. The order was passed after the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants and unidentified John Doe entities from using the mark or any deceptively similar mark in relation to buses and allied services. A bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and that it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Ashiana From Using 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' In TMT Bars
Case Title: Ashiana Ispat Limited v. Kamdhenu Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 130/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 369
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Kamdhenu Limited, restraining Ashiana Ispat Limited from using the mark “AL KAMDHENU GOLD” or any mark deceptively similar to its “KAMDHENU” and “KAMDHENU GOLD” formative marks relation to steel products, including TMT bars. In a judgment delivered on April 10, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia held that Ashiana had failed to establish any prima facie proprietary rights in the impugned mark, observing that the 2002 agreement relied upon by it did not effect a present transfer of ownership but was, in substance, a licence arrangement contingent upon registration.
Delhi High Court Cancels 'SOCIAL HOUSE' Mark For Non-Use; 'SOCIAL' Not Generic In Hospitality
Case Title: Impressario Entertainment And Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Vardhaman Choksi & Ors.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & I.A. 4139/2024 & C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 72/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 368
Holding that the mark “SOCIAL” is not generic in the hospitality industry and that the rival mark had not been used for restaurant services, the Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of “SOCIAL HOUSE” from the register of trade marks. Impressario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., which operates the “SOCIAL” chain of restaurants and cafes, approached the Delhi High Court seeking removal of the mark registered in the name of Vardhaman Choksi, arguing that it had not been used for restaurant services for over five years and was therefore liable to be cancelled under the Trade Marks Act.
Delhi High Court To Pass Order Protecting Crocs' Designs, Trademarks, and Patent Over Jibbitz Charms
Case Title: Crocs Inc. & Anr. v. Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 388/2026
The Delhi High Court on Monday indicated that it will pass ad-interim relief orders in an infringement suit filed by Crocs Inc. against Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited. Crocs Inc. alleged that the defendant has copied its three registered designs and two trademarks and infringed one patent, while also engaging in passing off. During the hearing before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, Crocs submitted that the defendant has replicated a range of its footwear products and placed on record side-by-side comparisons to demonstrate similarity. At the centre of the dispute is Crocs' patented "Jibbitz Charms," which allows decorative attachments to be plugged into holes on the upper portion of its footwear.
Delhi High Court Orders Suspension Of Fake 'lumlkai.com' Domain Impersonating Lumikai
Case Title: Lumikai Interactive II LLP & Ors. vs. Registrant of Lumlkai Com & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 419/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 418
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Lumikai, a venture capital firm operating in interactive media and gaming, in a trademark suit. The court directed the suspension of the deceptively similar domain name “lumlkai.com”, observing that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and that the impugned domain appeared to have been created to impersonate them and attempt to defraud. Lumikai Interactive II LLP and its affiliates submitted that the domain name “lumlkai.com”, differing from their official “lumikai.com” by a single letter 'l', had been registered by an unknown party to impersonate the plaintiffs.
Case Title: Saurabh Rawlley v. Pawan Garg & Ors.
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2025 & I.A. 2459/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 417
The Delhi High Court has revoked a copyright registration for the artistic work “Shahi Dinner," used on rice packaging, after noting that the applicant failed to serve a mandatory statutory notice to a rival claimant who had asserted an interest in the same subject matter. Justice Jyoti Singh noted that providing notice to interested parties is a statutory mandate under Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, and in the present case, non-compliance warranted setting aside the registration. The court observed that since the procedural requirement had not been followed, the registration could not be sustained, and the matter required fresh consideration by the Registrar.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Use Of “Liv-82 DS” Mark, Protects Himalaya's 'Liv.52'
Case Title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr. v. Kbir Wellness Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 418/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 415
The Delhi High Court has stepped in to protect Himalaya's liver care brand “Liv.52”, granting an ex parte ad interim injunction against KBIR Wellness Private Limited and those acting on its behalf. The order restrains them from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing in products under the mark “Liv-82 DS” or any deceptively similar name. Passing the order on April 21, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the resemblance between the rival marks, when seen alongside the overall packaging and presentation, was likely to mislead consumers.
Case Title: Grasim Industries Limited & Anr. v. Aryanson Paints Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 215/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 414
The Delhi High Court has brought an end to a trademark dispute between Grasim Industries Limited, Aditya Birla Management Corporation Private Limited, and Aryanson Paints Private Limited after the three companies chose to settle the matter during the proceedings. The case centered on the use of the “BIRLA” name. Grasim and Aditya Birla Management Corporation told the Court that Aryanson Paints was selling products under names such as “BIRLA WHITE CEMENT” and “BIRLA WALLTECH,” which they said were too close to their own registered trademarks and packaging. They also claimed infringement of their artistic works and trade dress.
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Flipkart's 'MARQ' Mark in Trademark Dispute
Case Title: M/s Flipkart India Private Limited Vs. M/s Marc Enterprises Pvt Ltd
Case Number: FAO-IPD 46/2021, CM APPL. 46817/2018 & CM APPL. 54484/2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 409
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an interim injunction against e-commerce platform Flipkart, finding that its mark “MARQ” used for electrical appliances is phonetically, structurally, and visually similar to Marc Enterprises' registered mark “MARC” and likely to cause confusion among consumers. A single-judge bench of Justice Tejas Karia held that the order of the trial court did not suffer from any arbitrariness or perversity and therefore warranted no interference.
Case Title: Akash Arora Trading as M/S Grand Chemical Works vs Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 and CM APPL. 22574/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 403
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday allowed the maker of 'GAINDA' cleaners to exhaust its existing stock despite an injunction over bottle designs similar to Reckitt's Harpic and Colin, holding that the relief was necessary to balance the equities and avoid financial loss and environmental waste.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed, “We are not persuaded that any undue loss will be caused to the Respondent if Appellant is permitted to exhaust its finished and unfinished stock in a time-bound manner. Such a direction would be merited even if we were to reject the appeal and uphold the impugned judgment.”
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains 'POSITIVE MIND' Mark, Directs Meesho, Meta To Remove Listings
Case Title: PstGems Private Limited vs. Dharmesh Mohanbhai Kalsariya Trading as M/S Positive Mind & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 357/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 398
The Delhi High Court has recently restrained the use of the mark “POSITIVE MIND” for sexual wellness products such as delay sprays and lubricants, and directed intermediaries, including Meesho and Meta, to remove listings and disable accounts, after finding a prima facie case of infringement and passing off.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of PstGems Pvt. Ltd., observing, “Prima facie Defendant No.1 is not only infringing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff but is also guilty of passing off its goods by misrepresenting to the public that its goods have some association with the Plaintiff by use of identical/deceptively similar marks for identical goods. Resultantly, Defendant No.1 is not only damaging Plaintiff's formidable goodwill and reputation but also adversely impacting public interest by the sale of counterfeit products.”
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Leela Entertainment From Using 'THE LEELA' Mark
Case Title: Schloss HMA Private Limited vs. Leela Entertainment Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 298/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 397
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Leela Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. from using “THE LEELA”, a popular hospitality mark, till the next hearing, holding that it prima facie amounts to infringement of Schloss HMA Pvt. Ltd.'s trademark and passing off of its goodwill.
A bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed, “Plaintiff has built an immense reputation for itself in the hospitality industry and adoption of identical/deceptively similar marks for identical services by the Defendant is a dishonest adoption and only to misrepresent to the public that its services have a nexus with or are affiliated to the Plaintiff, which is causing irreparable harm and injury to Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation, as brought forth in the plaint.”
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Nippon Steel Patent Rejection, Says Orders Must Give Reasons
Case Title: Nippon Steel Corporation vs The Controller of Patents
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 488/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 395
The Delhi High Court has set aside the refusal of a patent application filed by Nippon Steel Corporation, holding that an order which merely reproduces prior art documents without analyzing the claimed invention or giving reasons cannot be sustained in law. A bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela emphasised that patent authorities act as quasi-judicial bodies and must pass reasoned orders.
“It is apparent that the Assistant Controller/Controller are quasi judicial authorities from whom it is expected that the orders shall contain reasons for either acceptance or refusal. Any order which has no reasoning cannot become the bedrock of a decision of this nature. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and is quashed and set aside,” the Court said.
Case Title: NEC Corporation v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 486/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 341
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by NEC Corporation challenging the rejection of its patent application relating to video coding and decoding technologies, holding that the claimed invention lacks an inventive step and is rendered obvious in light of prior art documents. A Bench of Justice Tejas Karia held: “the contentions advanced by the Appellant that D1 to D3 are confined merely to colour space conversion or switching, akin to transformation in the present invention, and do not disclose the concept of selecting a colour space from among a plurality of colour spaces, is found to be untenable and is, accordingly, rejected.”
Delhi High Court Warns News Channel Against Disparagement Over Unverified Britannia Claims
Case Title: Britannia Industries Limited v. Information TV Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 356/2026
The Delhi High Court on 6 April warned Information TV Private Limited for airing segments criticising Britannia Industries' products without independent laboratory verification, noting that such reporting can appear prima facie disparaging. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela emphasised that relying solely on medical opinions cannot defend a disparagement claim. He observed: “We can understand if you're conducting some kind of a test... and you're giving credible actual test results.”
Case Title: Varun Chopra & Anr. vs Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 291/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 342
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in a trademark dispute over the “NATRAJ” mark used for saffron and edible silver foil, holding that the case arises from a family ownership conflict requiring trial and that no prima facie case for exclusive rights was made out. In an order delivered on March 28, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia observed, “The present case is not one where a stranger or an undisputed infringer is misusing Subject Mark. The present dispute is a dispute between members of the same family, each claiming a right in the Subject Mark and goodwill associated therewith. The core issue, therefore, is also one of ownership, which remains to be finally adjudicated. The balance of convenience, thus, does not favour grant of disruptive relief such as an interim injunction.”
Delhi High Court Grants Temporary Injunction Against 'Bait-and-Switch' News Site Using TOI Mark
Case Title: Bennett Coleman And Company Limited v. www.timesofindiaa.news & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 342/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 344
The Delhi High Court has restrained an infringing website (www.timesofindiaa.news & ors.) from using the “TIMES OF INDIA” and “TOI” marks, granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Bennett Coleman and Company Limited. On April 1, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that a prima facie case was made out in favour of the media house and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour.
Case Title: Devans Modern Breweries Limited v. Cartel Bros Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 346/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 347
The Delhi High Court has recently directed Sanjay Dutt-backed Cartel Bros Private Limited not to release any fresh social media posts in relation to its “Glenwalk Godfather Whiskey” in a trademark suit filed by Devans Modern Breweries Limited. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the interim direction on April 2, recording a statement made on behalf of Cartel Bros that the product was already in the distribution channel up to the stage of retailers in Mumbai and Thane, Maharashtra. The defendant further stated that retailers in the two cities had been instructed not to offer the product for sale until the next date of hearing.
Case Title: MS CMYK Printech Limited v. MS Ideal Multi Media Network Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 338/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 346
The Delhi High Court on 1 April, granted an ex-parte, ad-interim injunction in favour of MS CMYK Printech Limited and restrained Ideal Multi Media Network from unauthorised use of the trademark and copyrighted material of the newspaper “The Pioneer”. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that a comparison of the plaintiff's and defendant's publications indicated deliberate copying, imitation, and publication of Pioneer's content by the defendant.
Case Title: Dr Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi Through Power Of Attorney Holder v. John Does Ashok Kumars & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 178/2026
Google LLC has moved the Delhi High Court seeking modification of a John Doe interim injunction in a personality rights suit filed by Dr Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi, arguing that directions requiring it to act on plaintiff-flagged “similar content” effectively force the platform to adjudicate legality under the “pain of contempt." A single-judge bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the matter.
Delhi High Court Refers Copyright Row Over 'Oye Oye' Song Used in Dhurandhar 2 To Mediation
Case Title: Trimurti Films Private Limited v. B62 Studios Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 378/2026
In a move to resolve the dispute over the iconic song 'Oye Oye' appearing as 'Rang De lal' in 'Dhurandhar: The Revenge,' the Delhi High Court has referred the copyright infringement suit between Trimurti Films and Aditya Dhar's B62 Studios AND T-Series to mediation. The plea is filed by Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd., the copyright owner of the 1989 film Tridev, alleging unauthorized use and repurposing of its song Rang De lal (Oye Oye) in the impugned film.
Delhi High Court Restrains Rival From Using JVCO 2024's 'Mother Care' Mark For Baby Products
Case Title: JVCO 2024 Limited v. Syed Jalaluddin Alias Afzal Trading As A.M Agencies & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 365/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 354
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of JVCO 2024 Limited, restraining a rival from using the mark “MOTHER CARE” for baby products, holding it to be identical and deceptively similar to its registered trademark “MOTHERCARE”. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in an order dated April 7, 2026, observed, “It is apparent from the above that the defendant has dishonestly adopted the mark MOTHER CARE without any justifiable reasons. As noted above, the two marks are identical, visually and phonetically. It is most likely to cause confusion with the unwary consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection. The consumer would associate the products of the defendant as those of the plaintiff or be under an impression that such goods are associated with the plaintiff somehow. Every purchase would cause financial loss to the plaintiff and unlawful financial gain to the defendant.”
Case Title: Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v. Mr. Ashraful Islam
Case Number: CS(COMM) 337/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 355
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained an individual from using the mark “HIMALAYA THE NUTRA HEALTH CARE” or any deceptively similar mark, protecting Himalaya Wellness Company's “HIMALAYA” trademark for pharmaceutical and allied products. A single bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, in an order dated March 30, 2026, held that Himalaya Wellness Company had made out a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, observing that the defendant had adopted deceptively similar marks and trade dress “with a view to encash the reputation of the Plaintiffs” and misrepresent to the public that its products emanate from them or are associated with them.
Case Title: M/S Bharati Bhawan Publishers And Distributors v. Yashimani & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 325/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 357
The Delhi High Court has directed Flipkart to refrain from listing counterfeit or pirated copies of Bharati Bhawan's educational books while granting an ex parte ad interim injunction against 17 online sellers. The 80-year-old publishing house approached the court after discovering that its most popular academic titles, authored by renowned specialists like Dr. H.C. Verma and Dr. R.S. Aggarwal, were being sold as pirated counterfeits on the platform.
Delhi High Court Blocks Rogue Websites From Streaming HBO's 'Euphoria' Ahead Of Season 3 Release
Case Title: Home Box Office Inc v. Moviebox.Ph & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 358/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 364
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Home Box Office Inc. (HBO), restraining 43 defendants, including 20 “rogue” websites, from unauthorisedly streaming or distributing its series “Euphoria” ahead of the imminent release of its third season. The order was passed on April 6, 2026 by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, who observed that any delay in blocking access to infringing websites could result in financial losses and an irreparable breach of HBO's copyright.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of 'Goldi' Mark For Infringing Shubham Goldiee Masale's Trademark
Case Title: Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd v. Jai Shiv Oil Industries & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 365
The Delhi High Court has ordered the cancellation and removal of the trademark “GOLDI” (label) from the Register of Trade Marks in petitions filed by Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. In a judgment delivered on April 8, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the GOLDI mark was phonetically, visually, and structurally nearly identical to the registered “GOLDIEE” trademark. The court observed that allowing two deceptively similar marks to coexist in the same trade channels for similar goods, including edible oils, foodstuffs, and related products, would likely lead to confusion among unwary consumers.
Delhi High Court Grants Dassault Relief Against SOLIDWORKS Piracy, Awards Rs 64.7 Lakh
Case Title: Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation v. Zoneonne Venture Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 334/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 366
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Dassault Systemes SolidWorks Corporation, passing a permanent injunction against the unauthorised use of its “SOLIDWORKS” software, a computer-aided design (CAD) program used to create 3D models and engineering designs, and holding that a group of businesses and individuals accused of using pirated copies failed to contest the case. By its order dated April 8, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the company had established copyright infringement through its “Phone Home” security technology, which recorded 474 instances of unauthorised use across seven computer systems linked to those entities.
Case Title: M/S Dux Naturals Through Its Partners Ms. Meena Valecha, Mr. Anshul Valecha And Mr. Ankit Valecha v. Babu G Store And Co & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 321/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 367
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Babu G Store and Co. from using the mark “Babu ji DUKK Darling” or any deceptively similar trademark, label, packaging, or trade dress for cosmetic products in a suit filed by Dux Naturals. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the defendants' mark and overall packaging closely mirrored Dux Naturals' registered “DUX DARLING” brand. The way the logo was positioned at the centre, along with the styling and design, was such that an average buyer relying on memory rather than careful scrutiny could easily mistake one for the other.
Case Title: Yesha Sant Designs Pvt Ltd v. Vidhi Singhal Trading As Varie In & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 299/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 337
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Yesha Sant Designs Pvt. Ltd., restraining an e-commerce seller from using the registered trademark “YESHA SANT” and directing it to remove infringing listings and content across platforms. The court held that there was a prima facie case of unauthorised adoption and infringement of the registered trademark, noting that customers appeared to be confused about whether the defendants' products originated from or were associated with the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Rejects Sujata Home Appliances' Plea To Use 'SUJATA' As Corporate Name
Case Title: Mittal Electronics v. Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 60/2020, I.A. 5528/2020, I.A. 5751/2020, CCP(O) 4/2021, REVIEW PET.89/2021, I.A. 2866/2021, I.A. 2875/2021 & I.A. 2884/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 335
The Delhi High Court has refused to allow Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd. to use the mark “SUJATA” as its corporate identity, holding that a limited exception granted in 2020 for specific products did not dilute the broader restraint under earlier orders. The suit was filed by Mittal Electronics, the registered proprietor of the “SUJATA” trademark. Sujata Home Appliances had approached the court seeking clarification of a September 9, 2020 order to permit use of “SUJATA” as its trade and corporate name for water filters, water purifiers, and RO systems.
Delhi High Court Bars Sale Of Water Purifiers Infringing 'KENT' Trademark And Design
Case Title: Kent RO Systems Ltd & Anr. v. Kanchan Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 681/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 334
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Kent RO Systems Ltd., restraining several entities from making or selling water purifiers that infringe its “KENT” trademark and registered design. In a judgment delivered on March 13, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh recorded that the defendants did not appear to contest the case and were proceeded against ex parte. The material placed on record, the Court noted, showed that the plaintiffs' marks and design had been copied.
Case Title: Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc. v. Brewholik Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1394/2025, I.A. 32351/2025 & I.A. 2059/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 332
The Delhi High Court has refused to permit the sale of seized whiskey stocks bearing the trademark “OLD FORESTER”, holding that goods found in violation of trademark rights fall within the definition of “counterfeit liquor” under excise law. In an order delivered on April 2, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed an application by Brewholik Private Limited seeking to release 3,464 boxes of seized inventory and complete the importation of an additional 2,600 boxes to fulfill government contracts.
Delhi High Court Injuncts 'HALESAGA' Mark, Finds It Similar To Saga Lifesciences' 'SAGA'
Case Title: Saga Lifesciences Limited v. M/S Anaadi Global Co. & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 574/2023, I.A. 15667/2023 & I.A. 19731/2023 2026
Citation: LLBiz HC (DEL) 329
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Saga Lifesciences Limited, restraining Anaadi Global from using the mark 'HALESAGA / ' or any other mark deceptively similar to 'SAGA' for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. The court held that the rival mark is prima facie deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion. Justice Tejas Karia held that the defendants' mark incorporates the plaintiff's mark in its entirety and cannot be distinguished merely by adding a prefix or stylistic elements.
Case Title: Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 39/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 328
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction restraining Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited from using 'BEVATAS' for its cancer drug, finding it deceptively similar to Sun Pharma's 'BEVETEX', used to treat cancers such as breast and lung cancer. Justice Tejas Karia held that the rival marks are structurally and phonetically similar and likely to confuse consumers, particularly in the context of cancer drugs used to treat different kinds of cancers, where public health concerns demand a stricter approach.
Delhi High Court Injuncts 'Gainda' Cleaning Products For Copying Harpic, Colin, Lizol Trade Dress
Case Title: Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygience Home Limited & Ors. v. Mr. Akash Arora Trading As M/S Grand Chemical Works.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1052/2024 & 5358/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 326
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Grand Chemical Works from manufacturing and selling cleaning products under its 'Gainda' mark that deceptively resemble Reckitt's Harpic, Colin, and Lizol brands. Passing the order on March 28, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia held that the defendant's products imitate the essential features of the plaintiffs' trade dress and are likely to mislead consumers into believing they originate from the same source.
Delhi High Court Upholds Canadian Company's Antenna Patent, Finds Rosenberger In Infringement
Case Title: Communication Components Antenna Inc v. Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmBH & Co. Kg & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 653/2019 and CC(COMM) 22/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 325
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Canadian firm Communication Components Antenna Inc. in a patent infringement dispute, turning down the defendants' challenge to the validity of its patent covering split-sector antenna technology that uses asymmetrical beams. The Court also held that companies within the Rosenberger Group had infringed the invention. In a judgment delivered on March 30, 2026, Justice Prathiba M. Singh upheld the patent as valid and enforceable. The Court found that Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH & Co. KG, Prose Technologies India Private Limited, Rosenberger Asia Pacific Electronic Co. Ltd., and Prose Technologies (Suzhou) Co. Ltd. were unable to make out any legally sustainable ground for revoking it under the Patents Act.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Refusing Patent For Harvard's Insulin-Producing Pancreatic Cells
Case Title: President And Fellows Of Harvard College v. Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademarks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 493/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 324
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order by the Controller General of Patents that refused a patent to Harvard College for its stem-cell-derived insulin-producing pancreatic cells used for diabetes treatment. Justice Tejas Karia held that the Patent Office committed an error by failing to consider the university's amended claims, which had significantly altered the nature of the application.
Delhi High Court Protects Personality Rights Of 'Pookie Baba' Aniruddhacharya Ji Maharaj
Case Title: Anil Kumar Tiwari Anirudhacharya v. John Doe Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 336/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 323
The Delhi High Court has recently granted a temporary injunction restraining the unauthorised use of the persona of spiritual preacher Aniruddhacharya Ji Maharaj (Anil Kumar Tiwari) popularly known as 'Pookie Baba', observing that the threat to his reputation was “real and present.” Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, by an order dated March 30, 2026, passed directions against various unknown defendants while also directing social media platforms Meta, X and Google to take down identified infringing content.
Delhi High Court Finds Mehra Brothers In Breach Of Settlement Concerning SUPERON Trademark
Case Title: Sanjay Mehra v. Sharad Mehra & Ors.
Case Number: CONT.CAS(C) 1476/2023, CM APPLs. 63072/2023, 1251/2024, 12553/2024, 15624/2024, 19806/2024, 37040/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 320
The Delhi High Court has found that brothers Sanjay Mehra and Sharad Mehra breached the court-recorded Terms of Settlement (family settlement) governing the “SUPERON” trademark, holding them guilty of wilful disobedience of the agreed intellectual property and territorial restrictions. The findings came on cross-contempt petitions filed by both sides, each accusing the other of violating the settlement. Consequently, it directed both of them to comply with the requirements of the settlement.
Case Title: M/S MRT Music v. Paramvah Studios Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 680/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 319
The Delhi High Court has directed Kannada actor-director Rakshit Shetty's production house, Paramvah Studios, to deposit Rs 20 lakh as licence fee and imposed Rs 5 lakh as costs for contempt, holding that the unauthorised use of two Kannada film songs in Bachelor Party was purposeful and not trivial. A Bench of Justice Tejas Karia rejected the studio's de minimis defence, holding that “the application of the 'de minimis' or fair use standard is determined primarily by qualitative aspects rather than quantitative measures.”
Bombay High Court
Case Title: DBS Bank India Ltd. v. John Doe(s)/Ashok Kumar(s) & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 13639 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 12187 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 245
Observing that the “gullible public” is being misled and that “time is of essence” as delays can cause “irreversible loss” in cases of financial fraud, the Bombay High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction restraining unidentified persons from impersonating DBS Bank India Limited and its officials. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, in an order dated April 21, 2026, directed platforms including WhatsApp and domain registrars to disable fraudulent profiles, groups, and websites used to mislead the public into making investments under the bank's name.
Bombay High Court Removes 'PAXIL' Mark From Trade Marks Register Over 20 Years Of Non-Use
Case Title: Glaxo Group Limited v. Shreya Life Sciences Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 10 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 238
The Bombay High Court recently ordered the removal of the trademark 'PAXIL' from the Register of Trade Marks, holding that its proprietor, Shreya Life Sciences Private Limited, had held on to the mark without using it for nearly twenty years. Justice Arif S. Doctor observed that internal business decisions such as “expansion of business” cannot be used as a valid excuse for not using a trademark for long periods.
Bombay High Court Protects Kartik Aaryan's Personality Rights, Orders Removal Of Infringing Content
Case Title: Kartik Aaryan Versus Vinsm Globe Private Limited and Ors
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 9466 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 9465 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 214
The Bombay High Court has granted temporary relief to actor Kartik Aaryan, restraining identified and unidentified defendants from unauthorised use of his name, image, voice, and likeness across websites, social media platforms, AI-generated content, and chatbots, holding that such use prima facie violates his personality/publicity rights and right to privacy. In an order dated April 15, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh found a prima facie case of violation of personality and publicity rights, observing that such unauthorised use leads to unjust commercial enrichment and harms the actor's reputation.
Case Title: National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. John Doe S Ashok Kumar (s) & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 9564 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 9452 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 212
The Bombay High Court has recently granted an ad interim relief to the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, restraining unknown persons from infringing its “NSE” trademark and directing social media intermediaries and domain name registrars to remove or disable infringing accounts, channels, and domain names. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, in an order dated April 10, 2026, held that such a measure was necessary in the public interest. “Considering the fact that an unsuspecting investor can be drawn into investing substantial amounts based on the contents of the infringing accounts purportedly giving guidance pertaining to the stock market and using the Plaintiff's registered trade mark, the use of such infringing activity is liable to be restrained in the larger public interest.”
Case Title: Laser Shaving India Pvt Ltd v. RKM International Products Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 26994 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL (ST) NO.26806 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 199
The Bombay High Court has recently declined to step in against a Single Judge's refusal to grant interim relief to Laser Shaving India Pvt Ltd in its dispute over the “SETMAX” mark, noting that the company had suppressed key facts and taken inconsistent positions. In a judgment delivered on April 6, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande said there was no reason to disturb the Single Judge's exercise of discretion. The court pointed out that the plaintiff had not approached the court with clean hands, which by itself was enough to deny equitable relief.
Case Title: Dream Warrior Pictures v. Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 10646 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 3739 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 198
The Bombay High Court has recently declined to return the plaint in a copyright dispute over the Hindi remake of the Tamil film “Kaithi,” holding that the suit can proceed before courts in Mumbai. By an order pronounced on April 10, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh rejected a plea by Reliance Entertainment Studios Private Limited seeking to have the plaint sent back for presentation before courts in Chennai. At the heart of the dispute was where the case should be heard. Reliance pointed to an earlier agreement that placed jurisdiction in Chennai. The court, however, found that the controversy could not be viewed in isolation from a later agreement between the parties, which provided for Mumbai as the forum. Given that the claims stem from this subsequent arrangement, the court held that Mumbai courts would have jurisdiction to try the suit.
Bombay High Court Restrains BlackShrantac, Unknown Parties From Leaking Adfactors Data
Case Title: Adfactors PR Private Ltd v. Ashok Kumar or John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 11529 OF 2026 WITH SUIT (L) NO. 11528 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 234
The Bombay High Court has granted urgent ad interim relief to Adfactors PR Private Ltd., restraining unknown parties, including the 'BlackShrantac' ransomware group, from using, copying, publishing, or leaking its internal data. Justice Milind N. Jadhav held that Adfactors had made out a prima facie arguable case for protection of its confidential and commercially sensitive information. The court observed that if the exfiltrated data, stated to be about 1 TB, were made public, leaked, or traded, it would lead to “disastrous and catastrophic consequences” for the firm and its clients, noting that the balance of convenience lay in favour of Adfactors.
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs Satej M. Katekar, Proprietor of Absun Pharma
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 111 OF 2013 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 27 OF 2013 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 111 OF 2013
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 229
The Bombay High Court has granted a permanent injunction against Absun Pharma in an over-decade-long trademark dispute with Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., holding that the use of the marks “ABSUN” and “ABSUN PHARMA” infringes its registered marks “SUN” and “SUN PHARMA”. The court also imposed costs of Rs 10 lakh on Absun Pharma payable to Sun Pharma. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that merely prefixing letters to a registered mark does not create a distinction where its essential feature is retained. The bench held that Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act squarely applies, observing that in “ABSUN” and “ABSUN PHARMA”, the plaintiff's marks “SUN” and “SUN PHARMA” are subsumed, and the prefix “AB” is insufficient to distinguish them.
Case Title: Atomberg Technologies Pvt Ltd vs. Stove Kraft Ltd
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 88 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL (IP) SUIT NO. 710 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 219
The Bombay High Court has recently declined to continue the interim protection granted earlier to Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in its design infringement suit against Stove Kraft Limited's “Pigeon” brand, finding that the rival ceiling fan is visually distinct and that the plaintiff's design does not show any real novelty beyond that of a standard ceiling fan. Justice Gauri Godse was deciding an application seeking to confirm an earlier ad-interim injunction passed on July 24, 2025, which had restrained Stove Kraft from manufacturing and selling the impugned fan. A Court Receiver had also been appointed at that stage to seize the products.
Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction In Favour Of Exide Industries In Battery Trade Dress Dispute
Case Title: Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited v. Exide Industries Limited
Case Number: TEMPAPO-IPD/7/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 81
The Calcutta High Court has upheld an interim injunction in favour of Exide Industries Limited, holding that Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited's red trade dress for automotive batteries is prima facie deceptively similar in overall get-up and likely to mislead consumers. A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi, in a judgment delivered on April 02, 2026, dismissed an appeal filed by Amara Raja challenging the Single Judge's order granting interim relief in favour of Exide.
Madras High Court
Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 398 and 399 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 127 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 117
The Madras High Court on Wednesday restrained apprehended copyright infringement of the Riteish Deshmukh-starrer “RAJA SHIVAJI,” observing that “irreversible injury would occur unless unlawful broadcast is prevented.” In an order dated April 29, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy granted ad-interim relief against internet service providers and cable TV operators arrayed as respondents in the suit.
Case Title: T.T.Krishnamachari & Co. & Anr. v. Godrej Agrovet Limited
Case Number: C.S. No. 759 of 2007 and A.No.1654 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 116
The Madras High Court has dismissed a suit filed by T.T. Krishnamachari & Co. seeking passing off relief against Godrej Agrovet Limited over the mark “YUMMIEZ”, and directed it to pay Rs.5 lakh as costs, noting the suit had been pending since 2007. On April 20, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that TTK failed to establish the case for passing off, observing: “Effectively, none of the elements constituting the classical trinity have been made out by the plaintiffs.”
Madras High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Hatsun 'Arokya' Trademark Suit Against Patanjali 'Aarogya'
Case Title: Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v. M/s. Patanjali Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: OSA No.263 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 111
The Madras High Court on 21 April 2026 dismissed an appeal filed by Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., upholding a summary judgment rejecting its trademark infringement and passing off claims against Patanjali Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that the use of the mark “PATANJALI AAROGYA” for biscuits does not infringe Hatsun's “AROKYA” mark used for dairy products.
Madras High Court Temporarily Restrains Illegal Broadcast Of Vijay Starrer “Jana Nayagan” Movie
Case Title: KVN Productions v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA 330 of 2026 in CS (Comm Div) 110 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (16 April), granted an interim injunction restraining internet service providers (ISPs) and cable operators from illegally streaming the “Jana Nayagan” movie, starring Actor Vijay. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy granted the interim relief in a suit moved by the movie's producers, KVN Productions. The production company had approached the court seeking a permanent injunction restraining the ISPs and cable operators from infringing on the movie and blocking all websites and web pages hosting content related to the movie.
Case Title: R.Kishore Kumar v. M/s R.R.Cine Productions & Ors.
Case Number: C.S. No. 362 of 2016 & C.S. (Comm Div) No.237 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 98
The Madras High Court has recently held that a Central Board of Film Certification certificate is only “prima facie evidence” of who produced a film and cannot be determinative in a copyright suit when weighed against other material on record. A bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy made the observation while deciding a copyright dispute between R. Kishore Kumar, proprietor of Anna Therasa International Films, and Durairajan and Rafiq of R.R. Cine Productions over the ownership of a Tamil film released under multiple titles, including “MANI”, “MONEY”, and later “DHADHA”.
Madras High Court Rejects Challenge To 'GANESHA' Trademark, Allows Coexistence Of Similar Marks
Case Title: Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd. vs. Assistant Registrar of Trademarks and Ors.
Case Number: CMA (TM) No.21 of 2025 and CMP.No.32352 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 103
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed an appeal by Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd. against the registration of the “GANESHA” trademark in favour of Shankar Industries, holding that similar marks can coexist in limited situations, including where territorial restrictions reduce the likelihood of conflict. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy upheld the September 11, 2024, order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, which granted registration of device mark No. 1831646 in Class 30 to Shankar Industries, a partnership firm represented by K.R. Nagendra and K.N. Shobha. The class covers staple food products, including flour, and the mark is used for gram flour.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Ele Animations (P) Ltd., Bhubaneswar v. Satya Swagat Mohanty
Case Number: CRP No. 47 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 14
The Orissa High Court has allowed a copyright infringement suit to go ahead without pre-institution mediation, brushing aside the defendant's argument that a year-long delay stripped the case of any real urgency. In an order, delivered on March 31, 2026, Justice Sashikanta Mishra dismissed a revision petition filed by Ele Animations (P) Ltd., which had sought to have the suit rejected at the outset.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Taste Box v. JSF Holdings Private Limited
Case Number: FAO No. 1 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 66
The Kerala High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining the use of the mark “HAZZA” in a trademark dispute, holding that the rival mark is prima facie deceptively similar to “LAZZA” and likely to cause confusion among consumers. A single-judge bench of Justice S. Manu was hearing an appeal filed by Taste Box challenging an order of the Additional District Court, Ernakulam, which had granted interim injunction in favour of JSF Holdings Pvt Ltd. “in my view, the appellant, by adopting and using the mark 'HAZZA' that is similar to the registered trademark 'LAZZA' of the respondent in Class 43, for running a restaurant close to the factory of the respondent, has prima facie infringed the registered trademark of the respondent,” the Court held.
Patna High Court
Patna High Court Temporarily Restrains Local Company From Using 'Johnson' Mark For Paint Products
Case Title: Johnson Paints Co. v. Johnson Paints Private Limited
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL No.2 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 9
The Patna High Court has recently restrained Johnson Paints Private Limited from using the “JOHNSON” brand name, granting temporary relief to Johnson Paints Co. Setting aside a Commercial Court order that had refused an injunction, a Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Praveen Kumar found that the lower court erred in concluding that no prima facie case of prior use or goodwill was made out.
Commercial Courts
Case Title: Anamika Sood v. Google LLC, D/B/A Youtube & Anr.
Case Number: CS (COMM) No. 170/2021
The District Court at Saket, New Delhi, has recently awarded Rs. 5 lakh in nominal damages to singer Anamika Sood after her song “Ferrareee” was wrongfully taken down following a copyright strike by Saregama. The court also declared her the author and owner of the sound recording, turning down Saregama India Ltd's claim of infringement.
Case Title: Arvind Gaur v. Shilpi Marawaha & Anr.
Case Number: CS (COMM) No. : 292/2020
A Delhi court has dismissed a copyright suit by Asmita Theatre Group founder and drama director Arvind Gaur against his former student and actor Shilpi Marwaha and Sukhmanch Theatre, holding that no infringement of his copyrighted street plays is made out in the absence of proof of literal copying. District Judge (Commercial Court), Saket, Vrinda Kumari, in a judgment dated April 10, 2026, held that Gaur failed to establish that the defendants' performances were a “literal imitation” or a scene-by-scene copy of his works.
Delhi Court Dismisses 'Krishi Kalyan Seeds' Trademark Suit For Lack Of Cause Of Action
Case Title: Deepti Patel v. C.P Patel Farm Seeds Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CS (COMM.) N. 873/2024
A Commercial Court in Delhi has dismissed a trademark suit over the “Krishi Kalyan Seeds” mark arising from a family-run business dispute, holding that Deepti Patel failed to prove she was the proprietor of the business and had no cause of action. The court, presided over by District Judge Rajesh Kumar Goel, held that “...since, the plaintiff has failed to establish that she is the proprietor of Krishi Kalyan Seeds Corporation, which is the main foundation of the present claim filed by the plaintiff, therefore, there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant company, hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.”
Delhi Commercial Court Holds URL Alteration To Bypass Injunction Is Contempt In “MAHILA KALP” Case
Case Title: Meenu Agrawal, Trading As Vansh Trading v. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal & Ors.
Case Number: CS (Comm.) No.504/2024
A Commercial Court at Delhi has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Vansh Trading and restrained the defendants from using the mark “MAHILA KALP” for Ayurvedic medicines. District Judge Vinod Yadav held that the defendants' use of an identical mark and trade dress amounted to infringement, and that continuing sales by altering URLs despite an earlier injunction overreached the Court's authority and warranted contempt action.
Case Title: Surya Roshni Limited vs. Dhuri Plastic Private Limited and Anr.
Case Number: CS (COMM) No. 953/2023
A Commercial Court in Delhi has decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of Surya Roshni Ltd., holding that Dhuri Plastic Pvt. Ltd. infringed its registered “SURYA” mark by using the mark “SURYA GOLD” for PVC pipes, thereby subsuming the essential element “SURYA”.
Delhi Court Dismisses Rado, Swatch Group Trademark Suit Against Local Trader
Case Title: Rado Uhren AG and Ors. vs. Lalit Jain and Anr.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 621/23 CNR No. DLST01-011705-2023
A commercial court in Saket, New Delhi, has dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by Rado along with other Swatch Group companies, finding that they failed to establish infringement or any likelihood of confusion even on a preponderance of probabilities, in the absence of cogent evidence. District Judge Lokesh Kumar Sharma said the case was built on unsubstantiated claims, remarking that it amounted to “nothing beyond a mere lip service done by PW1 in the air.” Rado Uhren AG, Tissot SA, Omega SA, and Longines Watch Co. had asserted statutory as well as common law rights over their trademarks, pointing to decades of global use, goodwill, and reputation associated with their brands.
Delhi Court Restrains Siliguri Traders From Dealing In Fake “GARNIER” Products
Case Title: Laboratoire Garnier & CIE vs. Vijay Stores and Ors.
Case Number: TM No. 39/2016 (CNR No. DLST010002752010)
A Delhi Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Laboratoire Garnier, restraining multiple Siliguri traders from manufacturing and selling counterfeit products bearing the identical “GARNIER” trademark, ruling that such use reflected a mala fide attempt to leverage the company's established market presence and amounted to infringement. The court presided over by District Judge Arul Varma held, “There is irrefragable evidence on record to demonstrate that the Defendants have taken advantage of the Plaintiff's ingenuity, and have infringed the trade mark of the Plaintiff with impunity, and have nonchalantly sold off their counterfeit goods in the market to credulous buyers. Such knavery cannot be brooked. The issues are therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff.
May, 2026
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Declines To Entertain Western Digital Challenge Over Refurbished Hard Drive Sales
Case Title: Western Digital Technologies, Inc & Anr. v. Hansraj Dugar
Case Number: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17783/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 204
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 27 May declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court ruling permitting the sale of refurbished hard disk drives bearing Western Digital's trademarks, holding that removal of the original marks before resale does not amount to trademark “use” under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the Delhi High Court's 9 March 2026 judgment.
Supreme Court Refuses Flipkart Relief In MARQ Trademark Dispute, Gives 8 Weeks To Clear Stock
Case Title: Flipkart India Private Limited v. M/S Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: SLP(C) No. 16438/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 192
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with orders restraining Flipkart from using the 'MARQ' trademark in its dispute with Marc Enterprises, but gave the company eight weeks to sell off existing products bearing the mark The Delhi High Court on April 10, 2026 had dismissed Flipkart's appeal and upheld the injunction in favour of Marc Enterprises. It held that “MARC” and “MARQ” were phonetically, structurally, and visually similar and likely to cause confusion among consumers.
Supreme Court of India Upholds HC Order Allowing Grasim Additional Evidence In BIRLA Trademark Row
Case Title: Saboo Tor Pvt Ltd v. Grasim Industries Ltd & Ors
Case Number: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14099/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 175
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court's order permitting Grasim Industries to place additional documents on record in its trademark dispute with Saboo Tor Pvt Ltd over the use of the “BIRLA” mark. A bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and S.V.N. Bhatti held that the high court, in its April 6, 2026 order, had rightly exercised its discretion under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits additional evidence at the appellate stage in certain circumstances, finding no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Bombay HC Order Protecting 'GERMINATOR' Trade Dress
Case Title: Anannya Agro Products & Anr. v. Dr. Bawaskar Technology (Agro) Pvt.Ltd.
Case Number: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).15386/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 177
The Supreme Court recently (May 4) dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Anannya Agro Products challenging a Bombay High Court order granting interim injunction in favour of Dr. Bawaskar Technology (Agro) Pvt. Ltd. in a trademark and trade dress dispute concerning the mark “GERMINATOR”. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi found no error in the High Court's March 16 order, stating: “We find no error, not to speak of any error of law said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned order.”
Case Title: Johnson Paints Private Limited v. Johnson Paints Co.
Case Number: SLP(C) No. 16523/2026
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the Patna High Court's April 24, 2026 order granting a temporary injunction restraining Johnson Paints Pvt. Ltd. from manufacturing, selling, or advertising paint and cement paint products under the “JOHNSON” mark or any deceptively similar variant in an ongoing trademark dispute with Johnson Paints Co.
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Revives University Of North Texas' Patent Bid For Marijuana Detection Breathalyser
Case Title: University Of North Texas & Anr. v. Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 32/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 538
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside the Indian Patent Office's refusal of a patent application filed by the University of North Texas for a breathalyser technology intended to detect cannabinoids, including THC, from breath samples. Justice Jyoti Singh, who heard the appeal, held that the rejection order could not be sustained as it failed to properly assess the claimed invention's patentability.
Delhi High Court Restrains Google From Using Hindware Trademark As Ad Keyword, Awards ₹30 Lakh
Case Title: Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 591/2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 541
The Delhi High Court has recently permanently restrained Google LLC and Google India from using the registered trademark “HINDWARE” as advertising keywords, holding that Google could not avoid responsibility for enabling infringement through its keyword advertising tools. Justice Mini Pushkarna, in a judgment pronounced on May 22, also directed Google LLC and Google India to jointly pay ₹30 lakh as nominal damages to Hindware Limited.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Patent Rejection Of Biotyx Medical, Slams Hindsight Analysis
Case Title: Biotyx Medical Shenzhen Co., Ltd v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 47/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 542
The Delhi High Court on 19 May set aside an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that had refused to grant a patent to Biotyx Medical Shenzhen Co. Ltd for its invention titled “Absorbable Stent.” A Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that the rejection relied on hindsight analysis and failed to follow settled principles of patent law, and remanded the matter to the Controller for fresh consideration within four months.
Case Title: AB SKF v. M/S SNKB Bearings & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 558/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 544
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained five known entities and several unknown entities from using Swedish bearing manufacturer AB SKF's registered “SKF” trademark after finding a prima facie case that they were allegedly dealing in counterfeit bearings, while also directing Kotak Mahindra Bank to freeze three bank accounts linked to some of them. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the entities appeared to be making “unlawful financial gains” at AB SKF's expense.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Ilaiyaraaja's Review Plea In 'En Iniya Pon Nilave' Copyright Dispute
Case Title: Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) - 52/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed composer Ilaiyaraaja's review petition against its May 21, 2026 judgment that upheld Saregama India Ltd.'s copyright claim over the sound recording of the iconic song En Iniya Pon Nilave from the Tamil film Moodu Pani, holding that no ground for review was made out. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla rejected the plea after hearing Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar for Ilaiyaraaja.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Patent For VIB's Oral Protein Delivery Invention
Case Title: VIB VZW & Anr v. The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 30/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 548
The Delhi High Court has set aside the Controller of Patents' refusal of a patent application filed by VIB VZW, a Belgium-based life sciences research institute for an invention relating to oral delivery of therapeutic proteins, holding that the patent authority failed to consider the applicant's submissions and passed an unreasoned order. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the failure to engage with the applicant's detailed response defeated the patent examination process itself.
Case Title: Kent RO Systems Ltd & Anr. v. Urban Company Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 593/2026
Urban Company (UC), maker of the Native RO water purifier, agreed before the Delhi High Court on Tuesday to edit one of three advertisements that Kent RO Systems alleged were disparaging its products, without agreeing to take it down entirely. The matter was heard by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, with Senior Advocate Amit Sibal appearing for Urban Company and counsel for Kent RO walking the court through the three advertisements frame by frame. The Court, however, did not pass any takedown orders.
Case Title: Shree Swaminarayan Sarvopari Siddhant Digvijay Trust v. Sukhmay Karan Satsang Foundation & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 607/2026
Meta, on Tuesday, questioned before the Delhi High Court whether personality rights can be asserted for a deceased person, during the hearing of a suit by the Shree Swaminarayan Sarvopari Siddhant Digvijay Trust against a breakaway faction allegedly using the likeness and personality of its founder, Sadguru Shri Devnandandasji Swami, popularly known as Babji. During the hearing before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, counsel for Meta, while addressing the reliefs sought against intermediary platforms, submitted that the maintainability of such a claim may require consideration.
Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Relief To Vajiram & Ravi, Slams It For Delaying Main Trademark Suit
Case Title: M/S Vajiram and Ravi ISA Study Centre LLP v. M/S Vajirao and Reddy Institute Pvt Ltd
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 7/2024 & CM APPL. 2820/2024, CM APPL. 14739/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 551
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to civil services coaching institute Vajiram & Ravi in its trademark dispute with rival Vajirao & Reddy, while warning that the suit could face dismissal if the plaintiff fails to prosecute the trial. A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the judgment on Tuesday while dismissing Vajiram & Ravi's appeal against a September 2023 single judge order refusing an interim injunction.
Case Title: Capital Foods Private Limited v. Kishan Rameshbhai Kaswala Trading As K3 Masala
Case Number: CS(COMM) 562/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 555
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Kishan Rameshbhai Kaswala, trading as K3 Masala, from dealing in products under the marks 'Schezwan Chutney' and 'Schezwan Dipping Chutney' in a trademark infringement suit filed by Capital Foods Private Limited, the maker of Ching's Secret products. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order on May 22 after observing that the defendant's products were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark and that adoption of the mark was “clearly not honest or bonafide.”
Delhi High Court To Pass Orders In Personality Rights Suit Filed By Actor Naga Chaitanya
Case Title: AKKINENI NAGA CHAITANYA V/S WWW.SEXVID.XXX & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 644/2026
The Delhi High Court on Thursday indicated that it is likely to pass orders in a personality rights suit filed by Telugu actor Akkineni Naga Chaitanya. The actor has sought protection against a range of alleged online violations, including pornographic websites using his name, unauthorized merchandise, AI-generated content featuring him and his former spouse, and YouTube videos he claims infringe his personality rights.
Delhi High Court To Pass Orders In Personality Rights Suit Of Actor Varun Dhawan
Case Title: VARUN DHAWAN V/S ARTIST BOOKING COMPANY & ORS
The Delhi High Court has indicated it will issue an interim order in favor of Bollywood actor Varun Dhawan to protect his personality rights. Justice Jyoti Singh today indicated that the court would direct the removal of offending links tied to defendants allegedly involved in the unlicensed sale of merchandise, the creation of deepfake content, and the circulation of pornographic material misusing the actor's likeness.
Case Title: Avaia Ventures Private Limited & Anr. v. Wildship Enterprises Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 478/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 559
The Delhi High Court recently (May 5) directed Amazon to reinstate certain deactivated listings of silver-plated Kamdhenu cow idols and restrained a rival seller operating under the brand name 'Svastika' from issuing further marketplace complaints alleging copyright or other intellectual property infringement against those products. Justice Tejas Karia passed the ex-parte ad-interim order in a suit filed by Avaia Ventures Private Limited and Dev Aastha Impex against Wildship Enterprises Private Limited.
Case Title: Satish Sanpal v. Jagran Prakashan Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(OS) 335/2026 and I.A. 10423/2026 and I.A. 10424/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 561
The Delhi High Court on May 6 granted interim protection to Dubai-based businessman Satish Sanpal by restraining 21 media houses, digital news portals, and journalists from publishing posts branding him a hawala operator, bookie, fraudster, "Satta King," or absconder. The court also directed them to take down specified existing posts. Sanpal, Chairman of ANAX Holding and a cast member of the Netflix reality series Dubai Bling, filed the suit against Jagran Prakashan Limited and 25 others. He alleged that since around 2014 he had been the target of a coordinated campaign portraying him as a hawala operator, bookie and absconding fugitive across multiple digital platforms.
Telangana School Agrees To Drop 'Vasant Valley' Name In Trademark Suit Filed By Delhi School
Case Title: Education Today v. Vasant Valley Concept School & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 474/2026 & I.A. 12491/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 562
The Delhi High Court has decreed a trademark suit filed by Education Today, which runs Vasant Valley School in New Delhi. The decree came after a Telangana-based school agreed under a settlement to change its name by June 30, 2026, remove the registered mark "Vasant Valley" from its name, and stop using the mark or any deceptively similar mark.
Delhi High Court Declares GSK's Calpol A Well-Known Trademark For Pharma Products
Case Title: Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Walter Healthcare Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 403/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 505
The Delhi High Court has declared GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals' Calpol a well-known trademark for medicinal and pharmaceutical products under the Trade Marks Act. The ruling came in a suit against Walter Healthcare Private Limited, which had marketed pharmaceutical products under the mark 'Walpol', a near-identical mark differing from Calpol only in the replacement of the first letter.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Pirated Copies Of Sanjay Dutt-Starrer Aakhri Sawal
Case Title: Nikhil Nanda Motion Pictures LLP v. Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 518/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 507
A day after its theatrical release, the Delhi High Court protected the Sanjay Dutt-starrer Aakhri Sawal from online piracy, directing Google and Telegram to take down infringing content within 72 hours and granting a dynamic+ injunction to tackle newly discovered infringing links during the pendency of the suit. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex parte ad interim order on May 16, 2026, on a suit filed by Nikhil Nanda Motion Pictures LLP, the film's production house, after it alleged that pirated copies and infringing content were circulating across YouTube channels, Telegram groups, and file-sharing platforms including TeraBox and Internet Archive, while promotional material such as posters, teasers, and trailers had also been used without authorisation even before the film's release.
Case Title: Ivy Entertainment Private Limited v. Rahul Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 510/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 508
The Delhi High Court has granted temporary relief to Ivy Entertainment Private Limited in its copyright suit over the song Bachpan Ka Pyar and its hook line “jaane meri janeman bachpan ka pyar bhool nahi jaana re”. The court restrained certain YouTube channel operators and unidentified infringers from using it without authorisation, and directed three named channel operators to disclose revenue earned from exploiting the song.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Royalty Order Against DVD Makers Over Philips' DVD Decoding Patent
Case Title: KK Bansal v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV
Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) 17/2018, CM APPL. 31483/2018, CM APPL. 26137/2023, CM APPL. 38867/2023, CM APPL. 38868/2023 & CM APPL. 66350/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 509
The Delhi High Court has set aside a 2018 decree that had directed two DVD player makers to pay royalty to Dutch electronics company Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV for alleged infringement of its DVD decoding technology patent while also quashing punitive damages awarded against one of them. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla allowed appeals by K.K. Bansal of Bhagirathi Electronics and his son Rajesh Bansal of Mangalam Technology, holding that Philips had failed to establish infringement.
Case Title: JFE Steel Corporation vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 483/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 493
The Delhi High Court has set aside a patent rejection order passed against JFE Steel Corporation. It held that the Controller of Patents should ordinarily not reject a patent application on a single technical ground while leaving other objections undecided, as such an approach could unfairly consume the limited 20-year patent term through repeated remands and appeals. A bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that patent applications must be considered as a whole. It said the Controller ought to adjudicate on all objections raised in a hearing notice, including novelty and inventive step, rather than rejecting applications solely on preliminary or technical grounds.
Case Title: Ravinder Singh v. Regoshin Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 383/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 511
The Delhi High Court has recently refused to return a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Amritsar-based businessman Ravinder Singh against Regoshin Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others. Singh has alleged infringement of his registered 'ROYAL' and 'ROYU' trademarks through the use of allegedly deceptively similar marks for pharmaceutical and allied products.
Delhi High Court Upholds Dr. Reddy's Rights Over “REDDY” Mark, Rejects Acquiescence Defence
Case Title: Reddy Pharmaceuticals v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories
Case Number: RFA(OS) 138/2013, W.P.(C) 654/2014
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 512
The Delhi High Court on 18 May dismissed proceedings filed by Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and upheld reliefs granted in favour of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories (DRL) Ltd. in a long-running dispute over the mark “REDDY”, affirming both the permanent injunction and the order directing removal of the trademark. A Division Bench Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla dismissed Reddy Pharmaceuticals' appeal against the Single Judge's decree and rejected its writ petition challenging the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order directing removal of its registered mark.
Case Title: AbbVie Ireland Unlimited Company v. Deputy Controller Of Patents and Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 65/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 513
The Delhi High Court on 29 April set aside an order of the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs refusing a patent application filed by Abbvie Ireland Unlimited Company, holding that refusal orders must be reasoned and that divisional applications cannot be rejected on inconsistent maintainability grounds without proper analysis of the record. Justice Jyoti Singh quashed the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Case Title: Nxtquantum Shift Technologies India Private Limited (Trading As AI+ Smartphones) & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 429/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the personal appearance of Madhav Sheth, founder of NxtQuantum Shift Technologies India Pvt Ltd, trading as AI+ Smartphones, after hearing allegations that the company suppressed material facts and used incorrect contact details while obtaining an ex parte injunction against tech reviewer Prateek Rai of TechWiser. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the direction while hearing Rai's application seeking vacation of the April 28 order restraining him from publishing allegedly disparaging content about AI+ Smartphones.
Case Title: Hugo Boss AG v. Shubham Jain
Case Number: CS(COMM) 507/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 519
The Delhi High Court has recently granted temporary relief to Hugo Boss AG in a trademark infringement suit against a Delhi trader operating as Panipat Handlooms. The court restrained him from manufacturing and selling products such as luxury bedding, linen, and bath towels bearing allegedly infringing BOSS and HUGO BOSS marks. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order on May 14 in the suit against Shubham Jain, who operates from Ashok Vihar in Delhi.
Case Title: Rajinder Singh vs The Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 494
The Delhi High Court has allowed trademark proprietor Rajinder Singh to file a fresh renewal application for his “B.P.R.” mark despite a delay of over six years. It held that the Trade Marks Registry could not rely on technical procedural non-compliance after having consistently sent communications to his updated address. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled the Registry could not take such a stand after its own conduct showed it had recognised the changed address. “Once the Trade Marks Registry, for all intents and purposes has noted the fresh address of the Agent and has by its conduct of corresponding, even to the extent of sending the Registration Certificate of the petitioner, to the Agent on the new address, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent to now contend that the petitioner has not complied with the prescribed Rules.”
Delhi High Court Restrains Two Rivals From Using Marks Similar To 'Schezwan Chutney'
Case Title: Capital Foods Private Limited v. Fivestar Dehydration Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 501/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 521
The Delhi High Court has restrained Fivestar Dehydration Pvt Ltd and another from using the mark 'Schezwan Chutney' or deceptively similar variants. It held that merely inserting the word 'Hot' between 'Schezwan' and 'Chutney' would not distinguish the rival products for an average consumer. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex-parte ad-interim order on May 14 in a suit filed by Capital Foods Private Limited, an associate of the Tata Group.
Case Title: Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 525
The Delhi High Court has dismissed music composer Ilaiyaraaja's appeal against a single-judge order that had, at an interim stage, recognised Saregama India Limited's rights over the classic Tamil song En Iniya Pon Nilave from the 1980 film Moodu Pani. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla pronounced the judgment on Thursday.
Case Title: Raghav Chadha v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved orders on BJP MP Raghav Chadha's plea seeking interim relief against social media posts that allegedly portrayed him as having “sold himself for money” after his switch from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to the BJP. Chadha has approached the court claiming that the posts unlawfully used his photographs and personal attributes, framing the dispute as one involving personality rights.
Case Title: Sadhvi Deepika Bharti & Anr. v. Satlok Ashram Foundation & Ors.
Case Number: CS(OS) 511/2025 & I.A. No. 13895/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 530
The Delhi High Court has directed YouTube to take down a video that allegedly used morphed versions of Hindu preacher Sadhvi Deepika Bharti's original religious discourse without authorisation, while falsely portraying her as endorsing Sant Rampal Singh and Satlok Ashram Foundation. Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order on May 18, 2026, in a suit filed by Sadhvi Deepika Bharti and Divya Jyoti Jagrati Sansthan.
Delhi HC Upholds Temporary Injunction Against Dabur's Cool King Thanda Tael In Dispute With Emami
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Emami Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 23/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 534
The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld a temporary injunction restraining Dabur India Limited from selling its 'Cool King Thanda Tael' cooling hair oil in a trade dress passing-off dispute with Emami Limited over its Navratna Oil. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora made the ruling observing, "Our aforesaid conclusion is based on the finding that the trade dress encompassing the overall visual appearance of the product including the lay-out, colour scheme of the products of the appellant vis-à-vis those of the respondent, has been rightly injuncted because it is deceptively similar to the trade dress of the products of the respondent /plaintiff and there is every likelihood of misleading the consumers and constitutes passing off."
Delhi High Court Restrains “keiekae.store” From Using IKEA Name, Logo And Website Interface
Case Title: Inter Ikea Systems BV v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 205/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 533
The Delhi High Court on 20 May passed the order in a suit filed by Inter IKEA Systems BV and granted interim protection against trademark and copyright infringement. Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the registrant of the domain name “keiekae.store” from using IKEA's registered trademarks and from replicating the layout and user interface of IKEA's official website. She directed that until the next date of hearing, the defendant shall not use the IKEA name or logo in any manner, including as part of domain names, websites, mobile applications, social media handles, promotional activities, bank accounts, or business correspondence.
Case Title: Neurocentria Inc v. Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 5/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 527
The Delhi High Court on 18 May dismissed the appeal filed by US-based pharmaceutical company Neurocentria Inc and upheld the October 2024 order of the Deputy Controller of Patents treating the Indian patent application as deemed withdrawn. Justice Jyoti Singh held that a patent applicant cannot seek to retrospectively disclaim its earliest priority date through a belated amendment in order to bypass mandatory statutory timelines under the Patents Act, 1970, including deadlines for national phase entry and filing of a Request for Examination.
Delhi High Court Protects boAt Co-Founder Aman Gupta's Personality Rights From Online Misuse
Case Title: Aman Gupta v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 462/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 476
The Delhi High Court has passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining multiple entities from unauthorised use of Aman Gupta's name, voice, image, likeness, and persona, including through AI and deepfake technology. “The manner in which the defendants are exploiting his name, voice, persona, slogans, registered trade marks of the plaintiff positively assert the underlying fact of plaintiffs' personality which are exclusive to him and none else. At this stage, these qualities and the aforesaid attributes are sufficient for the Court to prima facie reach an opinion that the registered trade marks and the personality rights of the plaintiff are being infringed.”, the court observed.
Case Title: Trimurti Films Private Limited v. B62 Studios Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 378/2026
After mediation between the parties failed on May 6, T-Series on Monday told the Delhi High Court that the 1988 assignment agreement gave it broad rights in the underlying works of the Tridev song Oye Oye, including the right to use them in another film, as it defended the use of the track as Rang De Lal in Dhurandhar: The Revenge. Senior Counsel Akhil Sibal, appearing for T-Series, continued his submissions before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela by taking the court through the 1988 assignment agreement between Trimurti Films and T-Series.
Case Title: Cinefil Producers Performance Ltd. v. Hari Om Retail Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 486/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 480
The Delhi High Court has recently temporarily restrained an electronics retail chain from playing films from copyright society Cinefil Producers Performance Limited's repertoire at its Delhi stores without a licence. It has also directed the retailer to suspend satellite, cable, and internet-enabled transmission systems used for such screenings until it obtains a valid licence. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on May 7, 2026, in a suit filed by Cinefil Producers Performance Limited against Hari Om Retail Private Limited.
Delhi High Court Protects Select CityWalk, Bars Use of Deceptively Similar “Global CityWalk” Mark
Case Title: Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited & Anr. v. Garg Realtech Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 493/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 479
The Delhi High Court on 8 May granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a real estate company from using the mark “Global CityWalk” for its proposed commercial project, holding that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the registered trademarks of Select CityWalk. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while allowing the application, restrained Garg Realtech from using the impugned mark pending adjudication of the suit.
Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection Of Patent Application For Counterfeit Product Detection System
Case Title: Arti Srivastava v. The Assistant Controller Of Patents
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 252/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 483
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a patent application for a counterfeit product detection system, holding that the invention failed to meet statutory disclosure requirements because the complete specification did not sufficiently explain how it would actually work. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in a judgment delivered on May 11, held that while the invention proposed a consumer-friendly mechanism to verify genuine products using visible and hidden codes, the complete specification left critical operational details to be worked out by a person skilled in the art, which was impermissible under the Patents Act.
Case Title: Hanmi Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 464/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 484
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Controller of Patents order refusing South Korean pharmaceutical company Hanmi Pharm Co. Ltd.'s patent application for a pharmaceutical compound and its manufacturing process, finding that the Controller had entirely failed to consider the process claims submitted by the applicant. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in an order dated May 11, 2026, remanded the matter to the Patent Office for fresh consideration. The Court directed that Hanmi Pharm be given a fresh hearing before any decision is taken on the application.
Delhi High Court Questions Merchandiser's Authority To Sell Akkineni Nagarjuna-Branded T-Shirts
Case Title: Akkineni Nagarjuna v. WWW.BFXXX.Org & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1023/2025
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday questioned a merchandise seller's claim that it was lawfully selling Akkineni Nagarjuna-branded T-shirts, after the defendant admitted it had no direct agreement with either the actor or the production house and could not immediately produce documents establishing its claimed authority. The exchange took place before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in veteran Telugu actor Akkineni Nagarjuna's personality rights suit against entities allegedly using his name, image, and persona without authorisation.
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited vs Jiostar India Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 475/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 491
The Delhi High Court has recently granted ad-interim relief to Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited in its copyright suit against JioStar India Private Limited, while also referring the parties to mediation to explore an amicable settlement. The court directed JioStar to ensure that it does not use, publish, broadcast, stream, upload, or make copies of Zee's licensed works within 15 days in a dispute over the alleged continued hosting of content after expiry of licensing agreements.
Delhi HC Grants Temporary Relief To Universal City Studios Against PlayIMDb, StreamIMDb Pirate Sites
Case Title: Universal City Studios Productions LLLP vs PlayIMDb.Com & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 492/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 492
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Universal City Studios Productions LLLP against several alleged rogue streaming websites, including playimdb.com and streamimdb.ru, which were accused of facilitating unauthorized streaming of copyrighted films such as Fast X, F9: The Fast Saga, and The Secret Life of Pets 2.
Delhi High Court Directs Meta To Take Down Ads Using StoryTV Content To Promote Bullet App
Case Title: Greenhorn Wellness Private Limited v. Zbullet Enterprises Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 496/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 496
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained the entities allegedly behind misleading online advertisements from using StoryTV's copyrighted content and marks to promote rival short-drama app Bullet. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on May 11, 2026, in a suit filed by Greenhorn Wellness Private Limited, which owns and operates StoryTV. The Court also directed Meta to immediately take down the identified infringing advertisements across Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, Threads, Audience Network, and other platforms under its control.
Delhi High Court Restrains Sale Of Crompton's Grace Ceiling Fans In Orient Design Infringement Suit
Case Title: Orient Electric Limited v. Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 331/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 498
The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted an interim injunction in favour of Orient Electric Limited, restraining Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited from dealing in its 'Grace' series of ceiling fans after finding a prima facie case of infringement of Orient's registered ceiling fan design. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, after physically examining both the rival products in court, held that the visual similarity between the two fans was “unmistakable” and noted that Crompton had nowhere in its reply denied that its design was similar to Orient's registered design.
Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Injunction Against Geeta Publishing House Over Subhash Dey Books
Case Title: Geeta Publishing House vs Subhash Dey
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 152/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 495
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld a District Judge's refusal to vacate an interim injunction restraining Geeta Publishing House from publishing, selling, revising, editing, circulating, or advertising Subhash Dey's Business Studies books for Classes XI and XII, or any other books authored by him. It held that the dispute over whether the publishing agreement was validly terminated must be decided at trial.
Delhi High Court Restrains Use Of Protex, Protrilex Marks In Danone's Protinex Trademark Suit
Case Title: Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. v. M/S Rockwell Pharmaceuticals & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 905/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 503
The Delhi High Court has decreed Danone's trademark infringement suit against Rockwell Pharmaceuticals, Deepali Enterprises, Vikas Nutrisciences Private Limited, Ankit Arora, and Deepak Arora, holding that their use of the marks 'Protex' and 'Protrilex' for nutritional products infringed Danone's registered 'Protinex' trademark.
Delhi High Court Restrains EaseMyBiz From Launching App, Website In MakeMyTrip Trademark Dispute
Case Title: Makemytrip India Private Limited v. Easemybiz Technologies LLP
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 464/2026
The Delhi High Court on Monday restrained EaseMyBiz Technologies LLP, by an interim order, from launching its proposed courier services app or activating its website under the name “EaseMyBiz” in a trademark suit by MakeMyTrip India. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela clarified that the restriction is limited to the defendant's digital platforms, noting that the app is still under development and the domain remains inactive. The court made it clear that the defendant's courier business can continue.
Delhi High Court Refuses Doctors Without Borders' Plea to Restrain Use of Its Mark In Jigra Film
Case Title: Médecins Sans Frontieres International v. Dharma Productions Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1134/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 452
The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), the Nobel Peace Prize-winning humanitarian organisation also known as Doctors Without Borders, an interim injunction against Dharma Productions over the use of its trademark in the 2024 Bollywood film Jigra. The High Court instead directed the makers to display an acknowledgement at the start of the film clarifying that the use of the Doctors Without Borders mark was not intended to harm its reputation.
Delhi High Court Directs Xiaomi To Deposit ₹272 Crore In SEP Infringement Suit By Malikie
Case Title: Malikie Innovations Ltd & Anr. v. Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 734/2025 & I.A. 17509/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 453
The Delhi High Court has asked Xiaomi Corporation to deposit around ₹272 crore (about $28.7 million) as pro tem security in a patent infringement suit involving cellular Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) brought by Malikie Innovations. In its April 30, 2026 judgment, Justice Tejas Karia said a temporary arrangement of this kind was needed to balance the equities between the parties as the case proceeds.
Case Title: Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 944/2024, CC(COMM) 31/2024, CRL.M.A. 32922/2024, I.A. 43924/2024, I.A. 43928/2024 & I.A. 43929/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 454
The Delhi High Court has granted and continued an interim injunction in favour of Mold-Tek Packaging Limited, restraining Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. and its agents from manufacturing or selling plastic containers and lids that prima facie infringe two patents held by Mold-Tek. Justice Tejas Karia, in a judgment pronounced on April 30, 2026, held that Mold-Tek had made out a prima facie case of patent infringement and that permitting Pronton to continue dealing in the impugned products would result in irreparable harm.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains TechWiser, TechBar From Disparaging AI+ Smartphones
Case Title: Nxtquantum Shift Technologies India Private Limited (Trading As Ai+ Smartphones) & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 429/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 457
The Delhi High Court recently granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of NxtQuantum Shift Technologies India Private Limited, which trades as AI+ Smartphones, and its founder, Madhav Sheth. The order was passed on April 28, 2026. The court restrained unknown parties and the YouTube channels TechWiser and TechBar from publishing or spreading any content that amounts to disparagement of the plaintiffs on YouTube or any other social media or digital platform.
Case Title: Pstgems Private Limited v. M/S Brahmastra Pharmacy & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 461/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 460
The Delhi High Court on 30 April restrained Brahmastra Pharmacy from using the mark 'STAND UP' along with its label and trade dress in a suit filed by PSTGems Private Limited and found prima facie similarity warranting injunctive relief. A Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that interim protection can be granted against adoption of a deceptively similar trademark and trade dress when visual comparison indicates a likelihood of consumer confusion.
Case Title: Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: LPA 176/2023 & CM APPL. 11804/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 466
The Delhi High Court has allowed Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha's appeal and directed removal of the trademark 'ALPHARD' from the Indian Trade Marks Register, holding that the Japanese automaker had established spill-over reputation of the mark in India prior to Tech Square Engineering Pvt. Ltd.'s registration of the mark. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment pronounced on May 4, cancelled Tech Square's ALPHARD trademark registrations covering automobile-related goods and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove them from the register.
Jioo Organics Agrees To Drop Reliance, Jio-Like Marks In Settlement Before Delhi High Court
Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 675/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 470
The Delhi High Court has restrained a trader accused of using marks deceptively similar to Reliance Industries' registered trademarks “RELIANCE” and “JIO”. after both the parties entered into settlement. A bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela recorded a settlement between Reliance Industries and a trader, who was operating under the trade name “Jioo Organics”. Reliance Industries had filed the suit against Pawan Kumar Gupta and others, alleging trademark infringement and passing off.
Case Title: Universal City Studios Productions LLP v. Playimdb.Com & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 492/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday indicated that it would pass orders in a copyright infringement suit filed by Universal City Studios Productions LLLP against PlayIMDb.com and several other alleged rogue streaming platforms. During the hearing before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, Universal City Studios detailed what it described as an “ingenious” piracy mechanism through which rogue websites exploit IMDb's infrastructure to facilitate unauthorized streaming of films, including Fast X, the tenth main installment and eleventh overall film in the Fast & Furious franchise, produced by Universal Pictures.
Case Title: Trimurti Films Private Limited v. B62 Studios Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 378/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday sharply questioned Trimurti Films on Friday over its nearly decade-long inaction after objecting in 2016 to the same alleged copyright infringement, asking why it had kept quiet for years before seeking to restrain the OTT release of Dhurandhar: The Revenge over the use of the iconic Tridev song Oye Oye. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was openly skeptical of the plaintiff's case and remarked, “In spite of sending a notice in 2016 in respect of Azhar, you are keeping quiet thereafter. Does it come in your favour?”
Case Title: Shashi Tharoor v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(OS) 414/2026 & I.A. Nos. 12907/2026, 12908/2026, 12909/2026, 12910/2026, 12911/2026 & 12912/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 475
The Delhi High Court on Friday granted an interim injunction to Congress MP and former diplomat Shashi Tharoor, restraining unknown parties from using artificial intelligence and related technologies to create and circulate deepfake videos falsely attributing politically sensitive statements to him. Justice Mini Pushkarna on May 8 directed X (formerly Twitter) to forthwith take down and block access to the infringing content identified in the suit while directing Meta to ensure that the Instagram URLs already made inaccessible remain so.
Case Title: Bhuvan Bam & Anr. v. INKWYNK & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 23/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 450
The Delhi High Court recently issued interim directions on a plea by content creator Bhuvan Bam seeking removal of infringing content, including deepfake videos, that continued to exploit his personality rights despite an earlier protective order. The court held that a prima facie case was made out, restrained further unauthorised use of his persona, and directed online platforms to take down identified infringing content within 36 hours.
Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection Of Blackberry Patent On Colour-Coding Message Recipients Feature
Case Title: Blackberry Limited v. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 447
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Blackberry Limited, upholding the refusal of a patent application for a feature that colour-coded message recipients meant to help users distinguish between recipients before sending messages. In a judgment pronounced on April 30, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia held that the invention was unpatentable under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act as a computer program per se and also lacked an inventive step.
Delhi High Court Rules 'The House of the Blue Mangoes' Does Not Infringe Sivasundari Bose's Work
Case Title: David Davidar v. Sivassundari Bose
Case Number: CS(COMM) 706/2018 & CS(COMM) 581/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 446
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that the novel 'The House of the Blue Mangoes' by David Davidar does not infringe the copyright claimed by author Sivasundari Bose, bringing an end to a dispute between the two that has stretched on for years. Delivering the judgment on April 30, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia said the similarities pointed out between the two works stemmed from shared historical context, cultural references, and familiar elements of multi-generational family sagas, material that falls outside the scope of copyright protection.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Kamats Worldwide Food Services Pvt Ltd v. Musa Bhai Nadaf
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L)NO.12432 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO.12303 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 305
The Bombay High Court on May 13, 2026, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit filed by Kamats Worldwide Food Services Private Limited. It restrained Musa Bhai Nadaf, who runs a restaurant under the mark 'Kranti Kamat', from using the mark 'Kranti Kamat', any other mark containing the word 'Kamat', or any mark identical or similar to 'KAMATS'. Justice Advait M. Sethna, sitting in vacation court, passed the order after finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case. The court also found that the balance of convenience tilted in its favour.
Bombay High Court Orders Meta To Suspend SWISSTOURS Trademark-Infringing Instagram Account
Case Title: Airline Marketing Services India Private Limited v. John Doe Ashok Kumar
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.37049 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO.36992 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 302
The Bombay High Court has ordered Meta to suspend an account accused of infringing the 'SWISSTOURS' trademark after finding that the handle continued operating despite an earlier restraining order. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, in an order passed on May 4, directed the social media platform to take all steps within its power to suspend, lock, or disable public access to the impugned Instagram handle after noting that it remained active despite an ad-interim injunction granted in December last year.
Case Title: Unilever Plc v. Ashok Kumar
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 36579 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 36456 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 306
The Bombay High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police, Ambala, to take action in relation to the assault on a court-appointed receiver during a court-ordered search-and-seizure operation in Haryana that allegedly uncovered a huge quantity of goods bearing Unilever Plc's trademarks, labels, and artwork. The court has also ordered police protection for the receiver during further execution proceedings.
Case Title: Bharat Bhogilal Patel v. M/s. TVS Electronics Ltd.
Case Number: NOTICE OF MOTION CD NO. 820 OF 2018 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION CD NO. 1604 OF 2019 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 359 OF 2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 289
The Bombay High Court has refused to throw out patent infringement suits over laser marking and engraving technology filed by inventor Bharat Bhogilal Patel against TVS Electronics Limited and Kalelkar Surgicals Private Limited, holding that the dispute must go to trial. The court also imposed ₹1 lakh costs on both.
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Namgial Enterprise & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 16993 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 16992 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 291
The Bombay High Court has restrained the circulation of a Berger Paints advertisement comparing its Easy Clean product with an Asian Paints paint, after finding a prima facie case of product disparagement and flagging a meme in the clip that exclaimed “Fraud!”. Justice Arif S. Doctor held that a “clear case of disparagement” was made out. The ad-interim order was passed on May 8 in a commercial intellectual property suit filed by Asian Paints Limited against Namgial Enterprise and others, including Berger Paints India Limited.
Case Title: Harukado Co Ltd & Anr. v. Gautam Sanjay Mane & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 5602 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 4928 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 294
The Bombay High Court has granted an interim injunction against several online retailers and importer Gautam Sanjay Mane, who were accused of selling "CARALL" car perfume products on e-commerce platforms without authorisation from trademark owner Harukado Co. Ltd. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh's May 7 order extended protection that had earlier been granted on April 29 to the remaining parties, none of whom appeared before the court or filed a response despite being served.
Case Title: Grasim Industries Limited & Anr. v. Saboo Tor Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.2849 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.39319 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 253
The Bombay High Court has allowed Grasim Industries and UltraTech Cement to place additional evidence on record in their trademark dispute with Saboo Tor Pvt Ltd over the use of the word “BIRLA”. The court said the documents are relevant for deciding the appeal and could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande passed the order while hearing an appeal against the refusal to grant an interim injunction. The earlier decision had declined to restrain Saboo Tor from using marks such as “BIRLA TMT” during the pendency of the suit.
Bombay High Court Restrains United Biotech From Using 'OTIDE' Mark In Dispute With Sun Pharma
Case Title: Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v. United Biotech Private Limited
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 19536 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 19268 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 260
The Bombay High Court on 4 May granted an interim injunction in favour of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited and restrained United Biotech Private Limited from using the mark OTIDE. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, held that phonetic similarity between pharmaceutical marks OCTRIDE and OTIDE is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of passing off. However, she declined relief on the infringement claim. She observed: “The incorrect pronunciation of trade marks used for marketing medicines is not uncommon.”
Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Masterchow Foods Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 14751 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 261
A dispute over the use of the Dhurandhar film character 'Jameel Jamali' in an advertisement has been settled before the Bombay High Court, with Reliance Industries Limited's Jio Studios resolving its case against MasterChow Foods Private Limited. Jio Studios had objected to an advertisement created by MasterChow that featured the character 'Jameel Jamali' from Dhurandhar, along with behind-the-scenes footage from the film. The company said this amounted to copyright infringement in the character.
Case Title: Ahmed Perfumes LLC & Anr. v. Mohammed Faisal Rehman Sultan Ahmed Shamsi & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1405 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 711 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 277
The Bombay High Court has granted an interim copyright protection to UAE-based Ahmed Perfumes against a Mumbai perfume trader over alleged copying of its Arabic calligraphic logo but refused interim passing off relief after finding the company had failed to show goodwill and a customer base in India. In an order pronounced on May 7, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh restrained Mohammed Faisal Rehman Sultan Ahmed Shamsi and his associated entities, Al Ahmed India and Ahmed Al Maghribi LLP, from reproducing the plaintiffs' Arabic calligraphic logo, holding that it qualified as an original artistic work protected in India.
Case Title: Grasim Industries Limited & Anr. v. Saboo Tor Private Limited & Ors. Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.2849 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.39319 OF 2025
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 253
The Bombay High Court has allowed Grasim Industries and UltraTech Cement to place additional evidence on record in their trademark dispute with Saboo Tor Pvt Ltd over the use of the word “BIRLA”. The court said the documents are relevant for deciding the appeal and could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande passed the order while hearing an appeal against the refusal to grant an interim injunction. The earlier decision had declined to restrain Saboo Tor from using marks such as “BIRLA TMT” during the pendency of the suit.
Case Title: UltraTech Cement Limited & Anr. v. M/s. Shiv Cement Co.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 126 OF 2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 249
The Bombay High Court has granted a permanent injunction restraining a rival cement maker from using marks deceptively similar to UltraTech, holding that the adoption was “entirely dishonest” and “actuated in bad faith.” In a judgment pronounced on April 28, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor decreed the suit in favour of UltraTech Cement Limited and Grasim Industries Limited, while also awarding more than Rs. 66 lakh towards costs and litigation expenses.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Grants ITC Interim Injunction Over Alleged Infringement Of Classmate Trademark
Case Title: ITC Limited v. Shree Ramdev Notebook & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 457. 458,459,460, 461. 462 and 463 OF 202 in C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 141 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 133
The Madras High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of ITC Limited. The injunction restrains traders from manufacturing, selling, marketing or otherwise dealing in products bearing the mark "CLASSMAN" or any mark alleged to be identical or deceptively similar to ITC's registered trademark "CLASSMATE", pending disposal of the suit. Justice N. Senthilkumar passed the order on May 13 in seven applications filed by ITC. The applications sought reliefs relating to trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement and trade dress violations.
Madras High Court Restrains MRF's Former Dealer, Another Delhi Entity From Using Its Trademark
Case Title: MRF Limited v. M/s Conveyo Belt Centre & Anr.
Case Number: OA Nos. 386 to 389 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 124 of 2026 and A No. 2004 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 131
The Madras High Court has granted temporary relief to MRF restraining two Delhi-based entities from using its trademarks in relation to their business after MRF alleged that one of them continued displaying the marks at trade exhibitions despite a written undertaking not to do so. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order on April 29 in a suit filed by MRF seeking relief for alleged trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off against Conveyo Belt Centre and Shri Ram Machinery.
Madras High Court Refuses To Reject Seven Arts' Copyright Suit In Hera Pheri Remake Rights Dispute
Case Title: Firoz A Nadiadwala v. Seven Arts International Limited
Case Number: A No. 1827 of 2026 IN C.S(COMM DIV) No. 267 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 132
The Madras High Court has dismissed filmmaker Firoz Nadiadwala's plea seeking rejection of a copyright infringement suit filed by Seven Arts International Limited. The suit concerns alleged remake rights to the Malayalam films Ramji Rao Speaking and Mannar Mathai Speaking, which Seven Arts claims form the basis of the Bollywood Hera Pheri franchise. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order on April 24.
Madras High Court Issues Notice On Plea To Stop Telugu Dub Release of Mohanlal's Drishyam 3
Case Title: MS Rajkumar Theatre Pvt Ltd v Aashirvad Cinemas and Others
Case Number: C.S (COMM DIV) 144 of 2026
Film production company Rajkumar Theatre Pvt. Ltd. has approached the Madras High Court seeking to restrain the producers and director of Malayalam movie “Drishyam 3." When the case came up before the vacation court, Justice V Lakshminarayanan admitted the plea and issued notice to the defendants. Notices have been issued to Aashirvad Cinemas (producer of the movie), director Jeethu Joseph and Panorama Studio, which has acquired the worldwide theatrical and digital rights of the movie.
Case Title: Tips Films Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Case Number: Original Application Nos.428 & 429 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm Div) No.136 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 128
The Madras High Court has restrained unauthorised broadcast of Tips Films' upcoming Varun Dhawan-starrer Hindi film 'Hai Jawani Toh Ishq Hona Hai' after the company apprehended copyright infringement ahead of its May 22 release. Justice P.B. Balaji passed the ruling on May 6.
Case Title: Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Case Number: O.A.Nos.414 & 415 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.131 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 121
The Madras High Court recently protected Ayushmann Khurrana and Sara Ali Khan's Pati Patni Aur Woh Do from apprehended unauthorised broadcast by granting an ad interim injunction in favour of its producer. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy restrained internet service providers and cable TV operators from facilitating the unlawful broadcast of the film, which is slated for release on May 15, 2026.
Madras High Court Protects “Krishnavataram Part 1: The Heart” From Piracy Ahead of Release
Case Title: Creativeland Studios Entertainment LLP v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Case Number: O.A.Nos.416 & 417 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.132 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 122
The Madras High Court has protected the upcoming Hindi film “Krishnavataram Part 1: The Heart (Hridayam)” from apprehended piracy, observing that failure to prevent unlawful broadcast could result in “irreversible injury.” In an order dated April 30, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy granted interim injunctions against internet service providers and cable TV operators arrayed as respondents in a suit filed by Creativeland Studios Entertainment LLP.
Madras High Court Restrains Piracy Of Aamir Khan Productions' 'Ek Din' Ahead of Release
Case Title: Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 384 and 385 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 123 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 120
The Madras High Court recently estrained apprehended infringement of copyright in the film Ek Din, slated for release today, by granting an ad-interim injunction in a suit filed by Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order noting that the film was scheduled to release on May 1, 2026 (today). The Court observed that in matters of this nature, “irreversible injury” is likely to occur unless unlawful broadcast is prevented.
Case Title: Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi SpA v. Lehry Instrumentation & Valves Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: O.SA.Nos.241 & 255 of 2020 & C.M.P.Nos.12328 of 2021, 12340 of 2021 & 12334 of 2021 and 12339 of 2021 & 8669 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 119
The Madras High Court recently granted a permanent injunction in favour of Italian plumbing products manufacturer Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi SpA, restraining its former Indian distributor, Lehry Instrumentation, from using its trademark. The court set aside a Single Judge's judgment that had dismissed the company's passing-off suit and decreed Lehry's defamation claim.
Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court Refuses Interim Injunction Against 'ON & ON' In ONN's Trademark Suit
Case Title: Biswanath Hosiery Mills Limited v. Anila Kedia
Case Number: FMAT-IPD/2/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 141
The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed an appeal by Biswanath Hosiery Mills Limited, which uses the registered 'ONN' mark for its hosiery products, seeking a trademark injunction against Anila Kedia, who was using the mark 'ON & ON'. A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the Commercial Court at Rajarhat's December 23, 2025 order refusing interim injunction to the appellant.
Copyright Registration Cannot Be Granted Automatically If No Objection Is Filed: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Rajkumar Aggarwal, Proprietor of M/S. Petro Product vs. Nand Kishore Bhimsariya and Anr.
Case Number: IPDCR/12/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 115
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that copyright registration cannot be granted merely because no objection is received within the statutory period, holding that the Registrar of Copyright must independently verify the correctness of the application before granting registration. Interpreting the Registrar's obligations under the Copyright Rules in cases where no objection is received to a registration application, Justice Arindam Mukherjee observed, “On a conjoint reading of the two parts of Rule 70(10) with the two parts of Rule 70(11) of the 2013 Rules, the legislative intent is crystal clear. Whether there is an objection or not, the registration is subject to the substantive satisfaction of the Registrar of Copyright as to the correctness of the particulars of the application.”
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Avanish Agarwal & Ors.
Case Number: IP-COM/6/2026, IA NO: GA-COM/1/2026.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 130
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday issued notice to Avanish Agarwal and other respondents on a suit filed by Dabur India Ltd alleging that videos posted by Agarwal about its REAL Fruit Power brand were misleading, malicious, disparaging, and defamatory, while declining immediate interim relief. Justice Sugato Majumdar, hearing the matter on May 19, observed that while Dabur's right to seek legal recourse could not be denied, consumer interest and the dissemination of information relevant to consumers also required consideration before any injunction could be granted.
Calcutta High Court Refuses Interim Plea To Direct OpenAI To Show IndiaMart Links On ChatGPT
Case Title: Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited v. Open Ai Inc. & Ors.
Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/1/2025 In IP-COM/57/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 131
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday refused to direct OpenAI to show IndiaMart links in ChatGPT responses, holding that the B2B platform has no prima facie legal right to demand visibility on the AI platform. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, in an order dated May 20, dismissed IndiaMart InterMesh Ltd's application for interim relief, holding that the company had failed to establish a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury also weighed against granting any interim order.
Case Title: Gourdas Saha & Anr. v. Dipankar Majumdar
Case Number: F.M.A. 25 of 2026, IA No: CAN 1 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 116
The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside an interim injunction granted without hearing the publishers in a dispute over authorship of two chapters in a Chemistry textbook, holding that the plaintiff's suit could not be entertained as an ordinary declaratory action since its core claim arose from alleged copyright rights. A division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury held, “The foundation of the suit is comprised of rights flowing from the Copyright Act, 1957, thus, coming within the purview of Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, particularly since, as per the valuation of the suit disclosed in the plaint itself, it is above the “specified value” stipulated for the City Civil Court at Calcutta.”
Calcutta High Court Upholds Rejection Of Suit For Skipping Mediation Under Commercial Courts Act
Case Title: Indian Explosives Pvt Ltd v. Ideal Detonators Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: APD/13/2023 WITH CS/48/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 117
The Calcutta High Court on 5 May dismissed the appeal filed by Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd., upholding the order rejecting its suit for non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that courts cannot permit parties to bypass the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement on vague or unsupported claims of urgency, and that a dispensation once granted can be revisited where the circumstances justify such scrutiny.
Calcutta High Court Says Vodafone Needs IPRS Licence To Use Songs As Caller Tunes
Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited v. The Indian Performing Right Society Limited
Case Number: A.O (COM) No. 17 of 2024, CS-COM 140 OF 2024, IA NO. GA-COM 1 OF 2024, GA-COM 2 OF 2024, GA-COM 3 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 108
The Calcutta High Court on Friday held that Vodafone Idea Limited cannot commercially exploit the underlying musical and literary works embedded in sound recordings used for caller tunes and ringtones without obtaining permission from the Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS). IPRS is a copyright society that manages copyright licences for musical and literary works on behalf of rights holders.
Case Title: ARS Steels And Alloy International Private Limited v. The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Case Number: IPDAID/43/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 106
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday set aside an order of the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting ARS Steels and Alloy International Private Limited's application to cancel the registered design of a double “XX-Rib” pattern on construction rods held by Souvik Steels Private Limited. Holding the order unsustainable, the court said the Controller's finding that there was “no scope of enquiry” into similar products already being available in the market was “perverse.”
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: M/s. Dhanvarsha Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mill)
Case Number: S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 283/2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 20
The Rajasthan High Court on 19 May set aside a 2016 Trial Court judgment that had restrained Dhanvarsha Oil Mills from using the mark “METRO ENGINE” for its mustard oil products. Justice Sameer Jain held that registration of a trademark under Section 31 of the Trade Marks Act only raises a rebuttable presumption of validity and cannot, by itself, sustain a decree for infringement without a full trial on contested issues and remanded the suit for fresh adjudication on a de novo basis.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Geobrugg AG v. Techfab (India) Industries Limited
Case Number: OMP No. 343 of 2025 in Civil Suit No. 23 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 16
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to throw out a patent infringement suit filed by Swiss company Geobrugg AG against Indian manufacturer Techfab (India) Industries Limited. The suit alleges that Techfab infringed its patented wire mesh technology used to protect against rockfalls, landslides, and avalanches. Justice Sandeep Sharma rejected Techfab's plea seeking dismissal of the suit at the threshold. Techfab had argued that the case was filed in the wrong court, that the buyer of the product should also have been made a party, and that Geobrugg should have first gone through pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act.
Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Garhwa Shop Owner In Duplicate Castrol Oil Case
Case Title: Ravindra Kumar Kashyap v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Number: A. B. A. No. 2088 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (JHAR) 10
The Jharkhand High Court on 12 May reiterated that anticipatory bail may be granted where the circumstances and record justify protection from arrest, while considering an application arising from allegations of stocking duplicate motor oil. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi granted anticipatory bail to Ravindra Kumar Kashyap, an automobile shop owner from Garhwa, who had been booked under Sections 318(4) and 349 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Patna High Court
Case Title: Prashant Kishor v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.271 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 11
The Patna High Court has quashed an FIR against political strategist Prashant Kishor in a case over allegations that he used campaign materials claimed as intellectual property by Shashwat Gautam, a data analytics professional associated with the Indian National Congress. The court held that criminal law cannot be invoked merely by invoking the phrase “intellectual property” where the allegations do not disclose any offense. The bench further found that the material claimed by Gautam was substantially derived from publicly available sources.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Santosh Kumar .R.S v. Aditya Dhar & Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.10911/2026 (C)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 59
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition filed by Bengaluru-based filmmaker Santosh Kumar R.S., who had alleged that the Aditya Dhar-directed Hindi film Dhurandhar-2 was a plagiarised version of his original script titled D-Saheb. Justice K.S. Hemalekha held that the petition was not maintainable, observing that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and ordinarily not exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, and directing the petitioner to pursue remedies before a civil court under the Copyright Act of 1957.
Telangana High Court
Telangana High Court Temporarily Bars PPL From Coercing Hyderabad Bar To Obtain Music Licence
Case Title: Dark Horse Hospitality And Events LLP v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WP 14603/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 29
The Telangana High Court on May 4, 2026 granted interim protection to a Hyderabad restaurant and bar, restraining Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) from coercing it to obtain a music licence until the next hearing on June 19. Justice Renuka Yara was hearing a writ petition filed by Dark Horse Hospitality and Events LLP, which runs Babylon Bar and Kitchen in Jubilee Hills. The establishment has challenged what it describes as an unlawful attempt by PPL to compel businesses to obtain licences for publicly communicating sound recordings.
COMMERCIAL COURTS
Saket Court Rejects Jagran Prakashan's Trademark Claim Over “JAGRAN”, Imposes ₹10 Lakh Costs
Case Title: M/s Jagran Prakashan Limited v. M/s Krishi Jagran & Anr.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 267/2019
The Saket District Court at New Delhi, on 25 May dismissed Jagran Prakashan Limited's trademark infringement and passed off suit against agricultural magazine Krishi Jagran, holding that a proprietor cannot monopolise a commonly used word through trademark registration when another party has established prior and continuous use. District Judge Arul Varma vacated the injunction order dated 29 September 2020, and imposed costs of Rs. 10 lakhs on Jagran Prakashan for dragging the defendants into “unnecessary and protracted litigation.”
Case Title: Relaxo Footwears Limited v. Praveen Yadav
Case Number: CS (COMM) No. 1041/2025
A Delhi commercial court on May 15, 2026, passed a decree of permanent injunction in favour of Relaxo Footwears Limited against a Nangloi-based footwear manufacturer after he undertook before the court that he had shut down his manufacturing unit and would not use Relaxo's trademarks, including 'Sparx', 'Flite', 'Bahamas' and 'Kids Fun', or any identical, confusingly similar or deceptively similar trademarks in future.
Delhi Court Dismisses Louis Vuitton Trademark Infringement Suit Against Karol Bagh Traders
Case Title: Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Majeet Singh & Anr.
Case Number: TM No. 115/17
A Delhi court has recently dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by French luxury fashion house Louis Vuitton Malletier against two Karol Bagh traders over the alleged use of the company's trademarks on goods sold by them. District Judge Prabh Deep Kaur of the Saket District Court passed the judgment on May 8, 2026, dismissing the suit against Manjeet Singh of Dashmesh Footwear and Kapil Kumar of Gaffar Market.
Case Title: Karl Edward Rice v. Adam El-Megrisi & Ors.
Case Number: CS (Comm.) No.706/2025
A Delhi commercial court has permanently restrained a UK-based YouTube operator and Google entities from infringing YouTuber Karl Rock's copyrighted videos. The court also awarded him ₹5 lakh in damages, holding that the defendant systematically republished portions of his videos as Shorts without authorisation or transformation. The judgment dated May 13, 2026 was passed by District Judge Vinod Yadav in a summary judgment suit filed by Karl Edward Rice, popularly known as Karl Rock. The defendants were Adam El-Megrisi, who operated the YouTube channel “VidBrew”, Google LLC, Google LLC's India liaison office; and other unknown defendants.
Case Title: The Polo/Lauren Company L.P v. M/s Buti Button & Ors.
Case Number: TM No. 71/2016
A Delhi district court has permanently restrained nine Gandhi Nagar traders from selling counterfeit Polo Ralph Lauren products and awarded ₹5 lakh in damages to The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. District Judge Arul Varma of the Saket district court, in a judgment dated May 19, 2026, granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or otherwise dealing in products bearing the plaintiff's trademarks or deceptively similar marks. The court also directed that the seized counterfeit goods be handed over to the plaintiff for destruction and awarded Rs 5 lakh in damages.
Case Title: Rishi Raj v. Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 715/2021
A Delhi commercial court has dismissed a copyright infringement suit filed by film producer Rishi Raj over alleged unauthorised streaming of films including Vairi, Kanch Ki Diwaar, Laajo, Main Nashe Main Hoon and Ankh Ka Tara. The films were allegedly streamed on YouTube channels run by Chandigarh-based Gaurav Trehan. District Judge Anil Kumar Sisodia of the Tis Hazari Courts, in a judgment delivered on May 4, held that Raj had failed to prove infringement with admissible evidence.
Delhi High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost On Dior, Dismisses 'Poison Pot' Trademark Suit
Case Title: Parfums Christian Dior v. M/s. Maja Health Care Division & Ors.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 355/2019
A Delhi district court has dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by luxury French perfume house Parfums Christian Dior against Indian cosmetics maker Maja Health Care Division and two others over the 'Poison Pot' mark. The court held that Dior failed to establish its legal identity and proper authorisation to sue. It also failed to prove infringement and passing off on their merits.
TRADEMARK REGISTRY
Trademark Applications Filed For 'Cockroach Janta Party' As Satirical Movement Goes Viral
Two trademark applications have been filed for “Cockroach Janta Party,” the satirical political movement born out of viral remarks by the Chief Justice of India, before the Indian trademark registry. However, the applications were not filed by Abhijeet Dipke, the former social media strategist who launched the movement. The Cockroach Janta Party was launched on May 16 as a direct satirical response to remarks made a day earlier in the Supreme Court.
June, 2026
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."
Case Title: Amara Raja Energy Mobility Ltd. v. Exide Industries Ltd.
Case Number: PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S).18549/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 225
The Supreme Court has partly modified a Calcutta High Court injunction regarding a trade dress dispute between Exide Industries and Amara Raja Energy and Mobility. While the injunction against the trade dress was largely upheld, the Supreme Court permitted the sale of ELITO-branded batteries already lying with distributors and retailers to prevent massive financial loss. However, the court directed the destruction of all unused cartons bearing the impugned trade dress.
Case Title: The Trustees of Princeton University v. The Vagdevi Educational Society & Ors.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 217
The Supreme Court directed six Telangana-based colleges operating under the 'Princeton' name to prominently display disclaimers on their websites, prospectuses, admission materials, and certificates stating they have 'no connection' with Princeton University, the renowned Ivy League institution in the United States. The direction was passed while the matter of alleged trademark infringement is pending before the Delhi High Court. The Bench was prima facie satisfied that the colleges' use of the Princeton name was capable of misleading prospective students and the public at large into believing they were associated with the American university.
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Bars Sree Tirumalaa Traders From Using “Lakshmi Srinivasa” Mark & Trade Dress
Case Title: M/S 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.
Case Title: Robert A. Merry And Co. Ltd. v. Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1164/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 592
The Delhi High Court has restrained Robert A. Merry and Co. Ltd., the Irish whiskey maker behind “The Whistler” brand, from selling its Irish whiskey in India. The court found that the company failed to establish that its transborder goodwill and reputation had spilled over into India before Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. launched its own “Whistler” whiskey in 2018. Justice Jyoti Singh, deciding two cross-suits filed by the rival whiskey makers, dismissed Robert A. Merry's application for an injunction against Piccadily. At the same time, the Court granted an injunction in Piccadily's favour and restrained the Irish company from selling its Irish whiskey in India under the marks “The Whistler” and/or “Whistler” during the pendency of the suits.
Delhi High Court Cancels 'PONTA' Trademark In Plea By Panasonic, Holder Of 'PENTA' Mark
Case Title: Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr. v. Siddharth Vij & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 171/2025, I.A. 18595/2025 & I.A. 18596/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 593
The Delhi High Court has recently ordered the cancellation of the word mark 'PONTA' and its device variant, holding that they are deceptively similar to Panasonic's registered 'PENTA' trademark for electrical goods. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, deciding two rectification petitions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation, directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove both marks from the Register within four weeks.
Delhi High Court Protects 'Safex' Trademark, Bars Deceptively Similar Use By Seed Company
Case Title: Safex Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Defendant Seed Company & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 566
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction protecting the 'SAFEX' trademark of agrochemical company Safex Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. against a seed company that was using a deceptively similar mark. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, holding that the impugned mark was likely to cause confusion among consumers given the overlapping nature of both companies' agricultural-sector products.
Case Title: Glossy Color and Paints Pvt. Ltd. v. Elite Court & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 553/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 564
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a firm operating under the mark 'Elitecourt' from manufacturing, selling, or advertising products under that brand, after holding that Glossy Color and Paints Pvt. Ltd. had made out a prima facie case of passing off. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela declined to grant infringement relief, noting that 'Elitecourt' is itself a registered trademark and that the plaintiff has separately moved the High Court for its cancellation through rectification proceedings. The injunction was limited to passing off, restraining the defendant from misrepresenting its products as those of the plaintiff or as associated with it.
Case Title: Alfa Therm Limited v. Scientico & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 552/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 563
The Delhi High Court directed Scientico and its proprietor Vineet Gupta to remove from their website, IndiaMart listings, and other online platforms photographs that waste-management-systems manufacturer Alfa Therm Limited alleged were copied from its own website without authorisation. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela prima facie found that photographs displayed on Scientico's website were identical to those that had earlier appeared on Alfa Therm's website, and that copyright in such original artistic works vested in the plaintiff under Section 17(c) of the Copyright Act. The court passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction while also noting that the plaintiff had complied with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
Delhi High Court Restrains Breakaway Karan Satsang Group From Portraying HDH Bapji As Its Founder
Case Title: Shree Swaminarayan Sarvopari Siddhant Digvijay Trust v. Sukhmay Karan Satsang Foundation & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 607/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 565
The Delhi High Court restrained a breakaway organisation formed by former members of the Shree Swaminarayan Sarvopari Siddhant Digvijay Trust from using the trademark 'Karan Satsang' and from portraying the Trust's founder, His Divine Holiness Devnandandasji Swami (HDH Bapji), as the founder of the breakaway entity. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex-parte ad-interim order in a suit where the Trust alleged that former trustees had incorporated Sukhmay Karan Satsang Foundation and were misappropriating the Trust's registered trademarks, copyrighted works, and the personality rights of HDH Bapji to mislead devotees into believing the splinter group was the legitimate continuation of the original Trust.
Case Title: Varun Dhawan v. Artist Booking Company & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 571
The Delhi High Court restrained multiple entities from using Bollywood actor Varun Dhawan's persona for commercial gain after finding a prima facie case that they were offering unauthorised bookings for his personal appearances, selling merchandise bearing his name and likeness without authorisation, and publishing abusive, derogatory, and AI-generated deepfake content involving him. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order while hearing Dhawan's suit against 18 defendants including artist-booking platforms, e-commerce sellers, and social-media accounts. The court directed platforms such as Amazon and various social-media intermediaries to take down the offending content and listings within 24 hours of service of the order.
Delhi High Court Restrains Use Of 'Liv-22', Protects Himalaya's 'Liv.52' Mark
Case Title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr. v. Awadh Bihari Badal Proprietor Of Aloe Care Arogya Life & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 648/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 582
The Delhi High Court on 29 May granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, restraining the makers of a liver care product sold under the mark "Liv-22" from manufacturing, selling or advertising the product pending further hearing. A Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed: "I am of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction against the Defendants. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the interim injunction, as prayed for, is not granted."
Delhi High Court Restrains Surat-Based Sellers From Using 'BOMBAY MUSK' Mark On Counterfeit Perfumes
Case Title: BG Innovators LLP v. Wellness Club & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 569
The Delhi High Court restrained sellers, including Surat-based entities Wellness Club and Krishiv Enterprise, from manufacturing, marketing, advertising, or selling counterfeit perfumes and personal care products under the 'BOMBAY MUSK' mark and deceptively similar variants. The court passed the ex-parte injunction on 7 May (reported 2 June) in a suit filed by BG Innovators LLP, which held the registered 'BOMBAY MUSK' trademark for fragrances. Justice Tejas Karia also appointed a local commissioner to inspect and seize infringing goods, and noted that the defendants appeared to have engaged in ratings manipulation on Flipkart, where they sold the counterfeit products, to gain an unfair commercial advantage.
Case Title: Levi Strauss And Co v. Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 414/2025 & I.A. 11359/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 581
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Levi Strauss and Co., restraining Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited from using stitching designs on its Killer and Integriti jeans that were found prima facie to be deceptively similar to Levi's Arcuate Stitching Design Mark. Relief was, however, denied in respect of the company's Lawman Pg3 stitching design. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora delivered the judgment on May 29, 2026. The court observed that "the Defendant's adoption of deceptively similar stitching designs for their brand INTEGRITI and KILLER, despite prior acknowledgment of the Plaintiff's proprietary rights, prima facie reflects dishonest adoption."
Case Title: Makemytrip (India) Private Limited v. M/S MakeMyIndiaTrip
Case Number: CS(COMM) 650/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 579
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained MakeMyIndiaTrip from using the marks "MakeMyIndiaTrip" and its logo, holding that the addition of the word "India" was insufficient to distinguish the impugned marks from MakeMyTrip's registered trademark. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order on May 29 in a trademark suit filed by online travel platform MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement and observed that the adoption of the impugned marks appeared to be in bad faith.
Case Title: Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 541/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 578
The Delhi High Court on 29 May granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit filed by Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited, after it found that the mark 'ORZIFER-XT' is visually, structurally and phonetically deceptively similar to the registered mark 'OROFER-XT' and is likely to confuse consumers in the iron supplementation segment. Justice Jyoti Singh heard the matter and restrained Orziva Healthcare Private Limited from manufacturing, selling, distributing or promoting products under the mark ORZIFER-XT or any deceptively similar mark until further orders.
Case Title: Jockey International Inc v. M/S D.R. Kuppraj Tex India & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 614/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 577
The Delhi High Court on 29 May 2026 granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Jockey International Inc., restraining multiple sellers from dealing in innerwear products under deceptively similar marks including JOYKE, JOYSKY, JOYSKE and JOJOKE on the e-commerce platform Meesho. Justice Jyoti Singh restrained Defendants 1 to 4 and John Does from manufacturing, marketing, selling, listing or otherwise dealing in products bearing the impugned marks. She also directed Meesho to block the infringing listings within 36 hours and share seller details with the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Restrains Maxx Farmacia From Using 'MAXX-RICH' Mark, Trade Dress In Cipla's Plea
Case Title: Cipla Health Limited & Anr. v. Maxx Farmacia India LLP & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 545/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 576
The Delhi High Court on 29 May granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Cipla Health Limited and restrained Maxx Farmacia India LLP and two other defendants from using the mark 'MAXX-RICH' and its associated trade dress for multivitamins, iron tonics, syrups and antibiotics in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. Justice Jyoti Singh also barred the defendants from marketing, selling or advertising the impugned products under the challenged mark or deceptively similar packaging until the next date of hearing.
Case Title: Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. M/S Zikra Hotels And Restaurants LLP & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 502/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 568
The Delhi High Court on 14 May granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Zikra Hotels and Restaurants LLP, a former franchisee of the Moti Mahal restaurant chain from running, advertising, or marketing its restaurant under the 'Moti Mahal' marks after it terminated the franchise agreement for non-payment of fees.
Case Title: Akkineni Naga Chaitanya v. WWW.SEXVID.XXX & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 644/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 574
The Delhi High Court directed multiple pornographic websites, Google LLC, IndiaMart, and a merchandise seller to take down specified content and listings misusing Telugu actor Akkineni Naga Chaitanya's name, image, and likeness without his consent. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the directions after finding a prima facie case for interim protection in a personality rights suit filed by the actor who sought relief against pornographic websites misusing his identity, AI-generated deepfake content, unauthorised merchandise, and YouTube videos allegedly infringing his personality rights.
Case Title: Fortune Marketing v. Gujarat Pesticides Ltd.
Case Number: IP (C) Petition
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 573
The Delhi High Court revoked a copyright registration granted to Gujarat Pesticides for an artistic work titled 'ZOOOK', after finding procedural flaws in the registration process. Justice Jyoti Singh, adjudicating a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, held that the registration was founded on a Trade Marks Search Certificate that was contrary to the Trade Marks Register, as it incorrectly stated there were no conflicting trademark applications.
Delhi High Court Grants Zee Temporary Injunction Against Illegal Streaming Of FIFA World Cup 2026
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Soccerbox.me & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 585
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. restraining rogue websites, including Soccerbox.me, from illegally streaming the FIFA World Cup 2026, for which Zee holds exclusive broadcasting rights in India. Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed domain name registrars and internet service providers to take down and block the infringing websites and also granted a dynamic injunction extending the order to any newly discovered infringing links during the pendency of the suit.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Rogue Website Misusing 'GOLDIEE' Trademark In Investment Scam
Case Title: Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 587
The Delhi High Court on 1 June granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of spice manufacturer Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. and ordered action against a rogue website that misused its 'GOLDIEE' well-known trademark to perpetrate an investment scam. The fraudulent website falsely presented itself as affiliated with the Goldiee Masala brand and solicited investments from the public under false pretences. Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed Dynadot Inc. (the domain registrar) and Cloudflare to take down the domain, and also directed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) to block access to the phishing website across Indian internet networks.
Case Title: Greenhorn Wellness Pvt. Ltd. (StoryTV) v. MicroTV & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) (Comm. IP Suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 588
The Delhi High Court on 29 May (reported 5 June) granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Greenhorn Wellness Private Limited, the company behind the short-form drama platform 'StoryTV', restraining rogue websites including 'MicroTV' and 'ReelTV' from streaming its proprietary micro-drama and vertical web-series content without authorisation. Justice Jyoti Singh found a prima facie case of copyright infringement and passing off, as the infringing platforms were distributing StoryTV's content — which is specifically formatted for mobile-first viewing — and also using confusingly similar branding. The court also directed Telegram to take down channels distributing the pirated content.
Delhi High Court Holds 'Glass Skin' Descriptive, Orders Cancellation Of Trademark Registration
Case Title: Renee Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v. Rupali Sharma
Case Number: Rectification Petition (Comm. IP)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 591
The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of the trademark registration for 'GLASS SKIN', holding that the term is purely descriptive of cosmetic products and incapable of functioning as a distinctive trademark. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowed the rectification petition filed by Renee Cosmetics, finding that 'Glass Skin' — a term popularised by the Korean beauty (K-beauty) trend to describe flawless, clear skin — describes the desired result or quality of the cosmetic products in Class 03 for which it was registered. The court held that registrant Rupali Sharma could not monopolise a widely-used descriptive phrase and directed its removal from the Trade Marks Register under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
Delhi High Court Rules Intas' BEVATAS Does Not Infringe Sun Pharma's BEVETEX Trademark
Case Title: Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) (Appeal from commercial IP suit)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 594
The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Intas Pharmaceuticals, setting aside a permanent injunction that had restrained the company from using its trademark 'BEVATAS' for its anti-cancer drug Bevacizumab. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Intas' mark 'BEVATAS' does not infringe Sun Pharma Laboratories' registered trademark 'BEVETEX' (Paclitaxel), and allowed the appeal while dismissing Sun Pharma's suit. The dispute originated in December 2017 when Sun Pharma obtained an injunction against Intas.
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.
Case Title: Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr. v. Microsoft Corporation
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 223/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 611
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award that had directed the transfer of the domain name "exceltotally.in" to Microsoft Corporation. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that a confusing similarity with the "EXCEL" trademark is not, by itself, proof of bad faith under the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP). The court held that the arbitrator failed to independently examine whether the registrants intended to deceive users or exploit Microsoft's goodwill.
Delhi High Court Refers Zee-Zivore Copyright Dispute Over Instagram Music To Mediation
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Zivore Apparel Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 651/2026 & I.A. 15855/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 612
The Delhi High Court has referred a copyright dispute between Zee Entertainment and Zivore Apparel to mediation regarding the use of Zee's musical repertoire in Instagram Reels. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that music available in Instagram's licensed library is prima facie restricted for personal use and cannot be used for commercial purposes by business accounts. The defendant undertook not to use the repertoire pending adjudication, leading to the mediation referral.
Delhi High Court Grants Ex Parte Injunction Against Clone Websites Impersonating Signature Global
Case Title: Signature Global (India) Limited v. Ashok Kumar (John Doe) & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 616/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 607
The Delhi High Court has issued an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of real estate developer Signature Global, restraining several clone websites and social media accounts from impersonating the brand. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of fraud where the defendants were using identical marks to deceive and defraud prospective homebuyers.
Case Title: SpeechGears India Pvt Ltd v. MJ Talk Tools & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 637/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 609
The Delhi High Court has directed IndiaMart to delist specific tool kits sold by MJ Talk Tools that allegedly copy the shape and trade dress of SpeechGears' specialized autism therapy tools. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela found that the defendants had allegedly copied the plaintiff's copyrighted brochure literature and "slavishly" imitated the shape of the tools. The court ordered the takedown of specified listings pending further hearing.
Case Title: Amber Nutrition Private Limited v. Neetu Choudhary & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 629/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 608
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained the sale and marketing of confectionery products under the name "Milan's Kreamy Toffee". The court found the product's trade dress and name to be deceptively similar to Amber Nutrition's registered "Amber Kream Toffee". Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the defendants' packaging infringed upon the plaintiff's trademark and copyrighted artistic work.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Medical Device Firms From Using 'MOTHERSON' Trademark
Case Title: M/S. Motherson v. Motherson Industries Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 623/2026, I.A. 15414/2026, I.A. 15415/2026, I.A. 15416/2026 & I.A. 15417/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 607
The Delhi High Court has granted temporary relief to the global auto giant Motherson, restraining a medical device firm from using the "MOTHERSON" trademark and device mark. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that the word "Motherson" is the prominent and dominant part of the plaintiff's trademark. The court found that the unauthorized use by the defendants established a prima facie case of infringement despite the difference in product sectors.
Case Title: GRM Foodkraft Pvt Ltd v. KS Agro Impex
Case Number: CS(COMM) 637/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 604
The Delhi High Court has refused to lift an interim injunction restraining KS Agro Impexfrom using packaging for its "Golden Sella Basmati Rice" that imitates GRM Foodkraft's "Zarda King" branding. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the packaging was deceptively similar and that GRM Foodkraft had established a prima facie case of copyright infringement and passing off.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Acharya Manish Against AI-Generated Fake Endorsements
Case Title: Manish Grover & Anr. v. John Doe & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 659/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 602
The Delhi High Court has protected the personality rights of Manish Grover (Acharya Manish) after finding that unknown persons used artificial intelligence to create fake health product endorsements. A vacation bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the perpetrators used AI-cloned voices and modified videos of the plaintiff to deceive the public. The court restrained the use of his identifiable persona, noting the potential for irreparable harm to his professional reputation.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Fake IndiaMart Websites, Blocks WhatsApp Accounts
Case Title: Indiamart Intermesh Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 600/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 598
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to IndiaMart against unidentified perpetrators operating fake websites and social media accounts. Justice Jyoti Singh directed the takedown of specified URLs and the blocking of identified WhatsApp and bank accounts used to defraud customers by misusing the INDIAMART brand name. The court observed that the defendants were misappropriating the company's goodwill for unlawful gain.
Case Title: Modern Pipe Industries v. Raj Kumar Maurya Proprietor Of M/S Satyam Industries & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 283/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 597
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining a Jaunpur-based manufacturer from using the mark "Konaflex" for its water storage tanks. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela found the mark deceptively similar to the "Koanaflex" mark and logo used by Modern Pipe Industries. Rejecting the defendant's territorial jurisdiction objections, the court held that the visual and phonetic similarities between the two marks were likely to cause consumer confusion.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Social Media Posts Alleging Amul Supplies Cow Meat
Case Title: Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited & Anr. v. R K Singh Rajput & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 636/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 599
The Delhi High Court has ordered the immediate removal of social media posts and videos claiming that Amul supplies cow meat. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the content was prima facie disparaging and appeared designed to provoke public sentiment and harm the reputation of the dairy cooperative. The court held that the narrative demonstrated a deliberate attempt to associate the brand with a sensitive subject to inflame public opinion.
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.
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.
Case Title: M/s. V.V.V and Sons Edible Oils Ltd v. Meenakshi Overseas LLC & Ors.
Case Number: O.S.A.No.63 of 2019 & connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 140
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has revived several trademark suits filed by the maker of “Idhayam” sesame oil. The court held that the unauthorized affixing of a registered trademark in India on goods meant for export constitutes a triable cause of action for infringement. Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi set aside previous orders that had rejected the plaints and ordered a joint trial.
Madras High Court Says 2003 MoU Did Not Permit Additional Beardsell Companies To Use Corporate Name
Case Title: Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Beardsell Limited & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial IP Appeal (Madras HC)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 134
The Madras High Court upheld a permanent injunction restraining two companies incorporated as sister concerns of Beardsell Eastern Pvt Ltd from using the corporate name 'Beardsell'. A Division Bench dismissed the intra-court appeal, holding that the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding between the parties permitted only the establishment of 'a new company' — which was Beardsell Eastern — and could not be construed as authorising the incorporation of additional entities using the 'Beardsell' name. The court held that Beardsell Limited, which has used the name and mark for decades in the insulation and packaging sector, was entitled to protect its long-standing goodwill and reputation against use of the mark by entities not named or contemplated in the MoU.
Case Title: Novartis AG v. Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CS (Commercial IP Suit), Madras HC
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 137
The Madras High Court held that Chennai-based active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) manufacturer Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Pvt. Ltd. infringed Novartis AG's Indian patent by manufacturing and exporting large quantities of the Type-2 diabetes drug Vildagliptin to companies in Egypt between 2016 and 2018. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the defendant failed to discharge the burden of showing that its exports fell within the statutory Bolar exception under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970, which permits use of a patented invention solely to obtain regulatory approvals in India or abroad. The court found there was no credible evidence that the exported API was meant for generating regulatory data, and directed the defendant to render an account of profits as part of the relief granted to Novartis.
Case Title: Padmavathi Films v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors. and Base Industries Group v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 623 & 624 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) NO.176 of 2026 and OA Nos. 621 & 622 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) NO.175 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 162 and 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 163
The Madras High Court has granted ad-interim injunctions restraining internet service providers and cable TV operators from infringing the copyright of two films ahead of their theatrical release. The films are the Kannada movie "Balaramana Dinagalu," starring Vinod Prabhakar and Priya Anand, and the Hindi comedy "Welcome to the Jungle," headlined by Akshay Kumar. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu passed separate common orders in each case on June 25, 2026, a day before both films were scheduled to hit theatres on June 26, 2026.
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.
Case Title: Shailesh R. Gandhi & Ors. v. Late Ramchandra R. Gandhi & Ors.
Case Number: COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.18386 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 363
The Bombay High Court has recently granted interim protection to one branch of the Gandhi family behind the Vadilal brand. It restrained Vadilal Industries Ltd., Vadilal International Pvt. Ltd. and other Ahmedabad Group entities from interfering with the Bombay Group's continued use of the "Vadilal" trademark in Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana until arbitration over a family settlement is decided. Justice Amit Borkar held that the Bombay Group had established a prima facie case for interim relief while deciding a petition arising from a family settlement executed in 1993.
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.
'Bare Possibility Of Confusion' Enough In Pharma Marks: Bombay High Court Restrains Use Of 'ACIPROX'
Case Title: Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Numen Pharma Private Limited
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1606 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 679 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 323
The Bombay High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Numen Pharma from using the trademark 'ACIPROX', finding it phonetically similar to Alkem's registered mark 'ALCIPRO'. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that in pharmaceutical cases, the court must apply a stricter standard to prevent medical errors. The court emphasized that even a "bare possibility of confusion" in medicinal brands is sufficient to warrant an injunction to protect public health.
Case Title: Anil Srichand Kundnani v. Pruthvi Ishwar Patel & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 13908 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 434 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5393 OF 2025 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 13908 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 314
The Bombay High Court has confirmed an interim injunction against the makers of "Utsaha" tea, holding that the product's packaging prima facie infringes the copyright and trade dress of the "Umang" tea label. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh made absolute an ad-interim order from June 2024, observing that the striking visual similarities between the two brands' packaging were not a matter of coincidence but indicated a deliberate attempt at imitation.
Case Title: Puja Films v. Tips Industries Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Copyright Suit (Bombay HC Vacation Court)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 307
The Bombay High Court declined to entertain an urgent copyright infringement plea seeking to restrain the release of the Varun Dhawan-starrer film 'Hai Jawani Toh Ishq Hona Hai' and two songs — 'Chunnari Chunnari' and 'Ishq Sona Hai' — featured in it. Justice Farhan P. Dubash refused to stay the film's release and flagged the plea as an instance of forum shopping, noting that the petitioner had already approached the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court on the same cause of action without disclosing those proceedings to the Bombay court. The court noted that the petitioner's conduct disentitled it to urgent equitable relief, and directed proper disclosure of all prior proceedings before the matter could be heard on merit.
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.
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.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M.R. Pavan Kumar (Proprietor of MRN Agro Industries) v. Shri Prasanna Anjaneya Agrotech
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7600 OF 2024 (IPR) IN CRP NO.614/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 81
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a trademark suit involving 'MRN GOLD' rice, finding that the plaintiff deliberately undervalued the suit at ₹1,000 to bypass the Commercial Courts Act. Justice Ravi V. Hosmani held that this constituted "forum shopping" and an abuse of process, as the plaintiff had earlier claimed damages of ₹25 lakhs in a legal notice. The court ruled that the suit should have been instituted before a specialized Commercial Court.
Case Title: Kanpur Flowercycling Private Limited v. M/S. Sarathi International Inc.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.30565 OF 2025 (IPR)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 80
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order that returned a trademark infringement suit to a regular civil court. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that the Commercial Court had failed to independently assess the "specified value" of the intangible trademark rights before declining jurisdiction. The matter has been remanded for a fresh enquiry into the valuation of the rights asserted by Sarathi International Inc.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: M.Manuel, Malabar Fashion Jewellery v. Malabar Gold Private Ltd.
Case Number: RFA NO. 7 OF 2016 (A)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 117
The Kerala High Court has partly allowed an appeal filed by the proprietor of Delhi-based Malabar Fashion Jewellery, setting aside a trial court's finding that the business had passed off its goods as those of Malabar Gold. It, however, retained the injunction restraining the jeweller from using a deceptively similar trademark and clarified that no exclusive rights can be claimed over the geographical expression "Malabar" by itself.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court Vacates Injunction Against Safex Chemicals In Patent Dispute
Case Title: Safex Chemicals Private Limited v. SML Limited & Anr.
Case Number: COMAP No.2 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 25
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has vacated an interim injunction restraining Safex Chemicals Private Limited in a patent infringement suit. A division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi passed the order after finding, prima facie, that no cause of action or legal wrong occurred within the state to invoke the court's territorial jurisdiction. The ruling sets aside a previous single-judge order from June 2025.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: V.Sree Pathi Reddy v. The State of Telangana
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.12250 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 34
The Telangana High Court has directed Telangana's education authorities to consider a representation seeking cancellation of permissions and recognition granted to a rival school operating under the name "SPR High School". The petitioner contended that the name infringed his registered trademarks and was being used despite an injunction granted by a civil court.
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.
COMMERCIAL COURTS
Case Title: Burberry Limited v. Krishan Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 332/19
A Delhi district court has largely rejected Burberry's trademark infringement claims against traders in Karol Bagh's Gaffar Market, though it granted a permanent injunction and ₹3 lakh in damages against one trader who failed to produce allegedly infringing goods seized during a court-appointed commission. The court held that the company failed to establish infringement against most of the traders and had instituted the suit through a person whose authority had expired before the case was filed.
Mumbai Court Refuses To Stay OTT Release of 'Dhurandhar 2' In Writer's Suit Alleging Plagiarism
Case Title: Santosh Kumar R.S. v. Aditya Dhar & Ors.
Case Number: NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1841 OF 2026 IN S. C. SUIT NO. 1128 OF 2026
A Mumbai civil court on Thursday has rejected the ad-interim relief sought by a writer who alleged that filmmaker Aditya Dhar and others had copied his story and script. The court declined to restrain the film's release on an OTT platform after finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish similarity between the competing works and had not impleaded the OTT platform as a party. Santosh Kumar R.S. filed a suit for a declaration and an injunction, alleging that the defendants, including filmmaker Aditya Dhar, had copied his story. He sought the appointment of a Court Commissioner and a stay on the film's OTT release.
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.
Case Title: Pathways Foundation v. Arpit Roy
Case Number: Com.OS.No.40/2025
A Bengaluru commercial court has dismissed a ₹2 crore copyright infringement suit filed by the Chicago-based Pathways Foundation against an Indian app developer. Judge Arjun S. Mallur held that the foundation utterly failed to prove any infringement of its copyrighted resources or videos by the defendant. Consequently, the court rejected the claim for punitive damages and dismissed the suit with costs.
CGPDTM Notification
On 23 June 2026, the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks issued a public notice announcing the schedule and key details for the Patent Agent Examination 2027 and the Trade Marks Agent Examination 2027. The notice states that the Trade Marks Agent Examination is likely to take place on 9 January 2027 and the Patent Agent Examination is likely to take place on 10 January 2027. The authority will conduct both examinations across 15 centres, including Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai and Pune.
More News
California Northern District Court Rejects Uber's Eligibility Challenge To LBT GPS Tracking Patents
Case Title: LBT IP II LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc
Case Number: Case No. 22-cv-03985-RFL
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California on 26 June 2026 held that Uber Technologies Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings against LBT IP II LLC could not be sustained, finding that the asserted GPS tracking and location-display patents were not directed to abstract ideas and were patent-eligible. Rita F. Lin rejected Uber's plea to invalidate LBT's patents at the pleadings stage. She held that the claim "involves more than merely gathering data, using that data to perform calculations, and presenting the result," and instead discloses "a non-abstract technological solution to a technological problem" by improving tracking accuracy when GPS line of sight is unavailable.