LiveLawBiz IPR Monthly Digest: April, 2026
Riya Rathore
3 May 2026 7:30 PM IST
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.