LiveLawBiz IPR Monthly Digest: August, 2026
Riya Rathore
3 Sept 2026 5:07 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Upholds PepsiCo's Lay's Potato Variety Registration
Case Title: Kavitha Kuruganti Versus PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.10320-10321 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 260
The Supreme Court has upheld a Delhi High Court order concerning PepsiCo's registration of its Lay's potato variety. The top court clarified that farmers can claim protection under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights (PPVFR) Act if PepsiCo initiates proceedings against them.
Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Delhi HC Order Restraining Kent RO From Using KENT Mark For Fans
Case Title: KENT RO SYSTEMS LIMITED VS. KENT CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: DIARY NO. - 27701/2026
The Supreme Court refused to stay a Delhi High Court interim order that restrained Kent RO Systems from manufacturing and selling fans under the 'KENT' mark. Concurrently, the court permitted Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. to continue using the mark. The Delhi High Court had held that Kent Cables was the prior adopter of the mark for electrical goods and had prima facie established prior use.
Case Title: BLACK DIAMOND MOTORS PVT. LTD. VERSUS REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & ANR.
Case Number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.26470/2026
The Supreme Court on 24 August issued notice on Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd.'s challenge to a Bombay High Court judgment. The High Court had held that the two-month period prescribed under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, for filing an evidence affidavit is directory and not a mandatory deadline. A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran stayed the underlying rectification proceedings in the interim.
Supreme Court Issues Notice In Embassy Of Peru's Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling On 'PISCO' GI
Case Title: EMBASSY OF PERU Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case Number: SLP(C) No. 26484/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday, 24 August, issued notice on a special leave petition filed by the Embassy of Peru. The plea challenges a Delhi High Court judgment that declined to grant Peru an exclusive, standalone Geographical Indication (GI) registration for the term “PISCO” in India. The High Court had previously held that the term has historically been associated with alcoholic beverages originating from both Peru and Chile, making exclusive protection likely to confuse consumers.
Case Title: ILAIYARAAJA vs SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED
Case Number: DIARY NO. 50668/2026
Music composer Ilaiyaraaja has moved the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Delhi High Court's dismissal of his review petition in a copyright dispute concerning the sound recording of “En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the Tamil film Moodu Pani. The dispute arose after Saregama India Ltd. initiated proceedings against Vels Film International Ltd. (VFIL) over its proposed use of a recreated version of the song in Aghathiyaa. VFIL had relied on an agreement with the composer to justify the use.
Case Title: MATRIMONY.COM LIMITED vs FREEELECTIVE NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: SLP(C) 28561 of 2026
The Supreme Court has asked matchmaking app Matrimony.com Ltd and FreeElective Network Pvt Ltd to explore an amicable settlement in their ongoing trademark dispute concerning Matrimony.com's 'Jodii' matchmaking app and FreeElective's registered 'Jodi365' mark. The Court was hearing Matrimony.com's challenge against a Madras High Court Division Bench order that restrained it from using the mark 'Jodii', which set aside a 2022 Single Judge order. The Division Bench had held that the mark was deceptively similar to 'Jodi365'.
Case Title: Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited vs The Indian Performing Right Society Limited
Case Number: SLP(C) 28489/2026
The Supreme Court stayed a Calcutta High Court judgment holding that providing cable television connections to individual hotel rooms constitutes "communication to the public" under the Copyright Act, 1957, and thus amounts to copyright infringement. A Bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli issued notice and stayed the operation of the judgment while hearing the challenge filed by Hotel Appolo & Tours.
Case Title: Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10260 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 267
The Supreme Court has ruled that a party accused of trademark infringement can question the trademark owner about documents showing when the disputed brand name was first used, even if that party's written statement is not on record. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside a Kerala High Court order that had expunged such a question from the trial record. The court held that this was a factual question within the permissible scope of cross-examination.
HIGH COURTS
DELHI HIGH COURT
Case Title: VISHESH FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED V/S SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 68/2024
T-Series informed the Delhi High Court that it has changed the title of its upcoming Kartik Aaryan and Sai Pallavi-starrer film from “Tu Hi Aashiqui” to “Tu Meri Zindagi Hai” to resolve a trademark dispute with Mukesh Bhatt's Vishesh Films. However, the proposal could not be recorded as a complete consent settlement after the parties disagreed over how far the proposed terms should extend. Justice Jyoti Singh asked them to discuss the issue further.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Alleged Fraudsters In Recruitment Scam From Using HCL Marks
Case Title: HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd v. John Does & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 127/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 894
Justice Jyoti Singh temporarily restrained five newly added defendants from using HCL Corporation's trademarks, holding that the company had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were colluding to operate a fraudulent recruitment racket by impersonating HCL.
Delhi High Court Rejects Reddy Pharmaceuticals' Review Plea In 'REDDY' Trademark Dispute With DRL
Case Title: Reddy Pharmaceuticals v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories
Case Number: RFA(OS) 138/2013
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 893
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed a review petition filed by Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (RPL). The court refused to revisit its earlier judgment that upheld a permanent injunction restraining RPL from using the mark “REDDY” and directing the removal of its registered trademark.
Case Title: GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Scott Edil Pharmacia Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 816/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 806
The Delhi High Court on 5 August restrained Scott Edil Pharmacia Limited and its affiliate from manufacturing, selling or advertising pharmaceutical products under the marks “Nexporin” and “Zetum”, holding them deceptively similar to GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited's registered trademarks “Neosporin” and “Ceftum”. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order while hearing an application filed by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited (GSK) seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Scott Edil Pharmacia.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Stop TV Channel From Airing SGPC's Live Gurbani Broadcast
Case Title: SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE AND ANR V/S GALACTIC TELEVISION AND COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD AND ORS
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 883/2026
The Delhi High Court refused to pass a temporary order stopping Galactic Television from re-broadcasting the live Gurbani feed from Sri Harmandir Sahib, Amritsar, in a copyright suit filed by the SGPC. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani found prima facie merit in the channel's submissions that the broadcast, which is not offered to viewers for payment, may not fall within the broadcast reproduction right.
Delhi High Court Rejects Trademark Appeal Over “DIGESTO PLUS”, Says Mark Common To Trade
Case Title: Hahnemann Scientific Laboratory India Pvt. Ltd. v. Meera Rastogi Trading As Hahnemann Memorial Laboratory
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 182/2026 CM APPL. 43491/2026 CM APPL. 43489/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 892
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking to restrain the use of the mark “DIGESTO PLUS” in a trademark dispute over digestive formulations. A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the word “DIGESTO” is descriptive and common to the trade, meaning its use alone cannot establish deceptive similarity between competing products.
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Alder Biochem Over 'BIOCHEM' Mark In Zydus' Suit
Case Title: Alder Biochem Private Limited v. Zydus Healthcare Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 268/2024 & CM APPL. 67780/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 820
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by Alder Biochem Private Limited against an injunction restraining it from using 'ALDER BIOCHEM'. A Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal upheld the Single Judge's order, finding the mark deceptively similar to Zydus Healthcare's registered 'BIOCHEM' device mark for pharmaceutical products.
Case Title: Nilesh Dhanukar v. Siemens Industry Software Inc & Anr.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 218/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 818
The Delhi High Court has upheld the civil contempt finding against Nilesh Dhanukar for obstructing a court-appointed Local Commissioner during an inspection into the alleged unauthorised use of Siemens Industry Software's “NX” software. However, a Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora reduced his detention in civil prison from two months to one month, citing his family circumstances.
Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection Of Esteve Pharma's Tramadol-Celecoxib Co-Crystal Patent
Case Title: Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v. Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 118/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 815
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. against the rejection of its patent application for a co-crystal of tramadol and coxibs. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the claimed invention lacked an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, as the prior art documents, when read together, rendered the combination of tramadol and celecoxib obvious.
Case Title: MOHIT KUMAR V/S JOHN DOE/ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 858/2026
The Delhi High Court has asked Meta to place on record its policy, guidelines, and eligibility criteria for access to its "Rights Manager" tool. The court questioned why the anti-plagiarism tool is not available to genuine content creators with large followings, while scammers appear to easily get access to it to initiate fraudulent copyright strikes.
Delhi High Court Grants Khushi Kapoor Relief Against Unauthorised Merchandise, Obscene Content
Case Title: KHUSHI KAPOOR V/S ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 869/2026
The Delhi High Court has indicated it will order the takedown of links carrying obscene and pornographic content, as well as links selling unauthorised merchandise bearing actor Khushi Kapoor's persona. While Justice Jyoti Singh left the larger dispute over "fan pages" open for a later hearing, today's relief was strictly confined to unauthorized commercial exploitation and obscene content.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Mumbai Café Operator From Using 'MOCHA KAFFEE' Trademark
Case Title: Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Mocha Kaffee
Case Number: CS(COMM) 839/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 814
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Mumbai-based café operator Mocha Kaffee from offering, marketing, or advertising its business under the “MOCHA KAFFEE” mark. Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, finding the mark deceptively similar to Impresario's registered “MOCHA” trademarks and noting that "Kaffee" is merely a misspelling of "cafe".
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Rejecting Patent For Carbon Dioxide Capture Device
Case Title: Enviro Ambient Corporation v. Assistant Controller of Patents
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 74/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 808
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting Enviro Ambient Corporation's patent application for a carbon dioxide capture device, finding the rejection “unreasoned and non-speaking”. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the impugned order merely extracted objections from the First Examination Report (FER) without properly analysing Enviro's case.
Delhi High Court Restrains Mohali Restaurant From Using 'GOLA' Marks After Franchise Termination
Case Title: Gola Sizzlers Private Limited v. M/S GM Foods & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 745/2026, I.A. 20627/2026 & I.A. 20628/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 804
The Delhi High Court on 5 August restrained GM Foods and another, operators of a restaurant in Mohali, from using the trademarks "GOLA," "GOLA SIZZLERS" and "GOLA RESTAURANTS" following termination of their franchise arrangement with Gola Sizzlers Private Limited over royalty defaults and alleged sales suppression. Allowing the application, a Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that "prima facie without any right, title or authority and amounts to infringement under Section 29(2)(c) of the 1999 Act."
Case Title: Allcargo Logistics Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 806/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 807
The Delhi High Court has restrained 36 operators of rogue websites from offering packing, shifting, and relocation services under marks incorporating the well-known “GATI” mark or deceptively similar variants. Justice Jyoti Singh directed domain registrars to lock and suspend the infringing domains within 36 hours.
Case Title: Emami Limited v. Dabur India Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 177/2026 CM APPL. 45249/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 810
The Delhi High Court held that a Single Judge cannot relax an interim injunction restraining Dabur India Limited from selling its “Cool King Thanda Tel” under a deceptively similar trade dress after a Division Bench has already upheld the injunction in appeal. A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Dabur's application to dispose of existing stock could not have been entertained by the Single Judge.
Delhi High Court Issues Notice On YouTuber's Plea Challenging Meta's Copyright Strike Mechanism
Case Title: SAURABH MAURYA V/S JOHN DOE/ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 870/2026
The Delhi High Court issued notice on an application by stock market trading content creator Saurabh Maurya challenging how his account was suspended due to copyright strikes. Even though Meta restored his account and reversed the strikes, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani issued notice on Maurya's broader challenge regarding how intermediaries act on copyright strikes.
Delhi High Court Grants Jahnvi Kapoor Relief Against Obscene Content, Commercial Misuse Of Persona
Case Title: JANHVI KAPOOR V/S ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE AND ORS
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 868/2026
The Delhi High Court declined to grant a blanket injunction sought by actor Jahnvi Kapoor against 6,884 URLs. However, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted interim relief under three specific categories: content that is ex-facie obscene or pornographic, content that directly monetises Kapoor's personality rights, and content using her name and likeness to sell merchandise or services.
Delhi High Court Orders Restoration Of 'BLUE CHIP' Trademark, Holds Removal Without Notice Invalid
Case Title: Amrit Singh Mehta Trading As Mehta Cosmetics vs. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 5/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 791
On August 4, Justice Jyoti Singh directed the Trade Marks Registry to restore the trademark 'BLUE CHIP' belonging to Amrit Singh Mehta. The court held that the removal of the mark from the Register without issuing the mandatory notice required under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, violated statutory provisions.
Case Title: TABASSUM JAMAL HASHMI V/S ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 812/2026
On Wednesday, August 5, Justice Jyoti Singh directed intermediaries to take down specified online URLs hosting content that actor Tabu alleged was defamatory, pornographic, or otherwise violative of her personality rights. Senior Advocate Swati Sukumar appeared for Tabu.
Delhi High Court Frames Guidelines To Distinguish 'Mental Acts' From Patentable Inventions
Case Title: T-Mobile International AG and Co. Kg. v. The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 149/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 786
On August 4, 2026, a bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela proposed a set of guidelines designed to help patent examiners differentiate between abstract human thought ("mental acts") and genuine technical innovations. The decision arose from an appeal by T-Mobile International against the rejection of its patent application.
Case Title: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors v. Anantara Galleria and Anantara & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 834/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 785
On August 3, Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the Ahmedabad-based real estate project “Anantara Galleria” and its operators from using the mark “ANANTARA” and the domain name “www.anantara.life”. The court held that the marks were deceptively similar to those of the plaintiff, part of the Minor Hotel Group.
Delhi High Court Protects Physics Wallah Founder Alakh Pandey's Personality Rights
Case Title: ALAKH PANDEY V/S JOHN DOE(S) AND ORS
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 835/2026
The Delhi High Court directed intermediaries to remove specified infringing content misusing Physics Wallah founder Alakh Pandey's personality rights. However, the court reserved its decision regarding a YouTube video calling him "Scamwala".
Physics Wallah Founder Alakh Pandey Moves Delhi High Court Over Alleged Misuse Of Personality Rights
Case Title: ALAKH PANDEY V/S JOHN DOE(S) AND ORS
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 835/2026
On Tuesday, August 4, Alakh Pandey moved the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights against unauthorized commercial exploitation. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed the petitioner to submit a defendant-wise tabulated chart classifying the alleged infringements before considering interim relief.
Actor Tabu Moves Delhi High Court Over Alleged Personality Rights Violations
Case Title: TABASSUM JAMAL HASHMI V/S ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 812/2026
On Tuesday, August 4, actor Tabu approached the Delhi High Court seeking the removal of online content that she alleges disparages her and violates her personality rights across social media, websites, and e-commerce portals. Justice Jyoti Singh heard submissions regarding the obligations of intermediaries to remove the disputed content.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown of Videos Disparaging Patanjali, Including 'Cause Cancer' Claims
Case Title: PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED & ORS. V/S DAMIT GALHOT & ORS
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 736/2026
On Tuesday, August 4, Justice Jyoti Singh directed Google and Meta to take down 19 videos that allegedly disparaged Patanjali and its products by calling them "zeher" (poison) and claiming they "cause cancer". The court also restrained the identified uploader from publishing the impugned content further.
Delhi High Court Restrains 'HOTEL JEROME'S HOLIDAY INN' From Using 'HOLIDAY INN' Trademark
Case Title: Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Mr. Jerome Fernandes
Case Number: CS(COMM) 887/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 861
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining hotel operator Jerome Fernandes from using the name “HOTEL JEROME'S HOLIDAY INN” or any deceptively similar mark. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed Fernandes to remove advertisements and listings of the hotel from third-party online platforms, including Goibibo, following a trademark infringement and passing-off suit by Six Continents Hotels, Inc., proprietor of the registered "HOLIDAY INN" mark.
Delhi High Court Cancels 'DAPLOGIN' Trademark Registration Over Similarity With Dr. Reddy's 'DAPLO'
Case Title: Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v. M/S Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 122/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 856
The Delhi High Court has cancelled Razenta Pharmaceuticals' trademark registration for “DAPLOGIN”. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed Dr. Reddy's Laboratories' rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register by removing the mark within six weeks. The court held that the mark "DAPLO" is neither publici juris nor common to the trade, and "DAPLOGIN" is deceptively similar to it.
HUL Drags Beco To Delhi High Court Over Ads Claiming Surf Excel, Vim Cause Skin Allergies
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED V/S KWICK LIVING (I) PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 904/2026
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) has dragged cleaning products brand Beco (run by Kwick Living (I) Private Limited) to the Delhi High Court over allegations of trademark infringement and product disparagement. HUL moved the court alleging that Beco's advertisements disparage its detergent brands Surf Excel and Vim by falsely claiming they contain chemicals that cause skin irritation and allergies. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani heard submissions and issued notice in the matter.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains MVP Healthcare From Using 'House Of Doctors' Mark
Case Title: House of Diagnostics LLP & Ors. v. MVP Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 872/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 846
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained MVP Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. from using “HOD House of Doctors” or any other mark deceptively similar to the "H.O.D." and "House of Diagnostics" trademarks of the HOD Group. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the ex parte ad interim order in a suit filed by the HOD Group, which provides diagnostic and healthcare services.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Sale Of 'THUNDER 15000' Beer In InBrew's Trademark Suit
Case Title: InBrew Beverages Private Limited v. Kinjore Brewery Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 491/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 845
The Delhi High Court restrained the Bhutan-based manufacturer of 'THUNDER 15000' and its distributor in Jharkhand from dealing in products under that mark. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the interim order in a trademark infringement suit filed by InBrew Beverages Private Limited to protect its registered 'THUNDERBOLT' beer brand, with the restraint remaining in force until December 21, 2026.
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against 'Noviets' Pharma In Trademark Dispute With Novartis
Case Title: Noviets Pharma & Ors. v. Novartis AG & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 143/2026 & CM APPL. 35368/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 844
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Noviets Pharma against an interim order restraining it from using the mark 'NOVIETS'. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the Single Judge's order, finding prima facie that the mark was deceptively similar to Novartis AG's registered 'NOVARTIS' trademark.
Case Title: KRBL Limited v. M/s J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 701/2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 843
The Delhi High Court has allowed KRBL Limited to amend its 2016 suit against J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd., allowing it to add a claim of trademark infringement over the use of “ROYAL GATE” with a device of “INDIA GATE." The suit originally sought relief on the ground of passing off. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the amendment on August 12, 2026, while directing KRBL to pay Rs. 50,000 to the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust within two weeks. The cost was imposed as the court found that no plausible explanation had been given for the delay in seeking the amendment.
Case Title: Rakesh Jain v. Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP
Case Number: CS(COMM) 856/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 857
The Delhi High Court on 10 August granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining FMCG company Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP from using “RANI SAHIBA” or any deceptively similar mark for rice products, and from passing off its goods as those of Rakesh Jain. A Bench comprising Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani also directed the takedown of an infringing Amazon listing and other online references bearing the mark.
Delhi High Court Directs Sun Pharma To Seek Prior Approval Before Launching Semaglutide Tablets
Case Title: Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 837/2026 & I.A. 21265/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 858
The Delhi High Court on 11 August directed Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited to seek prior approval from the Court before commercially manufacturing or launching its Semaglutide Tablets, in a patent infringement suit filed by Novo Nordisk A/S. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani did not grant an interim injunction at this stage.
Case Title: AB SKF vs. M/S B.M. Bearing Sales & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 918/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 890
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained two Delhi-based traders from selling counterfeit ball bearings under the “SKF” mark. Justice Jyoti Singh passed an ad-interim injunction, observing that selling inferior-quality bearings poses a severe safety hazard for vehicle drivers. The court also directed Bank of Baroda to freeze proceeds traced to the defendants.
Delhi High Court Restrains Ajmer Spa From Using "ANANTARA" For Similarity With MHG IP Holding's Mark
Case Title: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors. vs. Anantara Spa and Massage
Case Number: CS(COMM) 914/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 879
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained Ajmer-based Anantara Spa and Massage from using the mark “ANANTARA” or deceptively similar variants. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the ex-parte ad interim injunction in a suit filed by MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd (part of the Minor Hotel Group), noting the group's valid and subsisting registrations for the mark.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Sale Of 'SCALP SAYY' Hair Care Products For Similar To 'SAYY'
Case Title: M/s Sayy Partnership Firm v. Bhuva Ankitkumar Jaysukhbhai
Case Number: CS(COMM) 912/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 874
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained a sole proprietor from manufacturing or marketing cosmetic products under the mark “SCALP SAYY”. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark “SAYY” and subsumed the plaintiff's trademark in its entirety.
Case Title: Stonex India Private Limited vs. Mohit Kumawat & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 284/2025 & I.A. 32460/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 881
The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of the trademark “STONEX WORLD” held by individual proprietor Mohit Kumawat. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the rectification petition filed by Stonex India, ruling that the mark was deceptively similar to the registered “STONEX” marks, and flagged a lapse by the Trade Marks Registry in verifying conflicting marks during registration.
Delhi High Court Restrains Use Of 'COBEX' Mark In GlaxoSmithKline's Trademark Suit Over 'COBADEX'
Case Title: GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Orion Biotech Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 754/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 774
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Orion Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and two other entities associated with the manufacture of a paediatric antibiotic sold under the mark 'COBEX' from using the mark. The order came in a trademark infringement suit filed by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited (GSK), which claims that 'COBEX' is deceptively similar to its registered trademark 'COBADEX', used for its multi-vitamin drug. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that GSK had made out a prima facie case.
Delhi High Court Restrains Patna Firm From Using 'Nintendo India Private Limited' Name
Case Title: Nintendo Co. Ltd. v. Nintendo India Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 747/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 772
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained a Patna-registered real estate company from using the name 'Nintendo India Private Limited'. The ruling came in a trademark infringement suit filed by Japanese gaming company Nintendo Co. Ltd. Justice Jyoti Singh ruled that the company's adoption of the name was with an objective of encashing on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff, attempting to create a false impression of association.
Case Title: Cipla Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 23/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 771
The Delhi High Court has dismissed applications filed by a third party seeking to be impleaded in a writ petition filed by Cipla Limited over the restoration of its 'NO DARAR' trademark. Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that the applicant was "a rank outsider nowhere related and/or even remotely connected with the facts" of the case, finding that it had no locus standi to be added as a party.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trademark Registry Order Refusing “AYU LIFESCIENCE” Registration
Case Title: Ayu Lifescience Industries FZE vs. The Controller General of Trademarks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 74/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 880
The Delhi High Court set aside the Trade Marks Registry's order refusing to register the device mark “AYU LIFESCIENCE”. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the Registry cannot rely on cited conflicting marks without first verifying whether those registrations are validly subsisting on the register, remanding the matter for fresh examination.
Case Title: Novartis AG & Anr. v. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 293/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 875
The Delhi High Court directed BDR Pharmaceuticals to seek the court's prior approval before taking any steps toward the commercial manufacture or launch of Dabrafenib. Justice A. J. Bhambhani issued the direction in a quia timet patent infringement suit filed by Novartis AG.
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 904/2026 & I.A.22515/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 876
The Delhi High Court has referred the question of territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property suits based solely on website accessibility to a larger bench. Justice A. J. Bhambhani referred the matter while hearing HUL's disparagement suit against Kwick Living (which runs the cleaning brand Beco) over its “War on What's Hidden” campaign, noting conflicting precedents on the issue.
Delhi High Court Restrains Healing Pharma From Using Trade Dress Similar To Himalaya Products
Case Title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr. v. Healing Pharma India Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 892/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 872
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Healing Pharma from using packaging and trade dress deceptively similar to Himalaya's Liv.52, Cystone, Mentat, Speman, Pilex, and Confido products. Justice A. J. Bhambhani passed the order in a suit protecting Himalaya's signature herbal ranges.
Case Title: Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd & Anr. v. M/s. Wear and Glow & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 845/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 871
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining several entities from selling counterfeit skincare and dermatological products bearing Sun Pharma's registered marks 'PHOTOSTABLE' and 'BELLO'. Justice A. J. Bhambhani observed that the plaintiff had successfully established a prima facie case of trademark infringement.
Personality Rights Cannot Extinguish Parody, Caricature Or Lampooning: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Alakh Pandey v. Unauthorised Social Media Accounts & Others
Case Number: CS(COMM) 835/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 870
The Delhi High Court held that personality rights cannot be used to extinguish entire genres of expression such as caricature, lampooning, or parody. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted PhysicsWallah founder Alakh Pandey interim protection against three specific forms of commercial misuse of his persona, while declining to block comedic or satirical content.
Delhi High Court Reserves Order On Jurisdiction In HUL's Disparagement Suit Against Beco
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED V/S KWICK LIVING (I) PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 904/2026
The Delhi High Court reserved its order on the preliminary question of territorial jurisdiction in HUL's suit against Beco's parent company. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani made it clear that no interim or ad-interim orders would be passed before deciding the question of jurisdiction.
Case Title: Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 167/2026 CM APPL. 43226/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 869
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Nugenesys from selling nutraceuticals under the mark “RewireX”. Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the respondent (Celagenex) had obtained the order by wilfully suppressing material facts and imposed costs of ₹2 lakh.
Delhi High Court Restrains 'ANANTARA SPA' From Using 'ANANTARA' For Spa And Wellness Services
Case Title: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors. v. Anantara Spa & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 876/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 864
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a wellness and spa business operating as “ANANTARA SPA” from using the "ANANTARA" marks. Justice A. J. Bhambhani passed the order, noting that a domain name arbitrator had already ruled against the defendants' deceptive adoption of the mark.
Delhi High Court Holds Varun Beverages' 'SMOOTH' Deceptively Similar To 'SMOODH', Restrains Use
Case Title: Parle Agro Private Limited v. Varun Beverages Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 897/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 863
The Delhi High Court restrained Varun Beverages from using the mark “SMOOTH” for its dairy-based yoghurt drink, finding it deceptively similar to Parle Agro's “SMOODH” trademark. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the defendant had engaged in "smart copying" by substituting the letter 'D' in “SMOODH” with 'T'.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bombay High Court Restrains 'Bislie' Water Maker From Using Mark In Bisleri Trademark Suit
Case Title: Bisleri International Private Limited v. Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 18664 OF 2026 WITH LEAVE PETITION NO. 208 OF 2026 WITH COURT RECEIVER'S REPORT NO. 292 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L.) NO. 18582 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 443
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained a Karnataka-based packaged drinking water manufacturer from using the mark “Bislie”. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar found the mark to be prima facie deceptively similar to Bisleri International's registered “Bisleri” trademark.
Case Title: Khadi & Village Industries Commission v. Jaishukh N. Bhuta & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5867 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO.580 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 442
The Bombay High Court held that the Mumbai Khadi & Village Industries Association (MKVIA) wilfully breached a 2022 injunction restraining it from manufacturing, selling, or advertising products under the “Khadi” mark. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that MKVIA did exactly what it was prohibited from doing and imposed costs of ₹2.5 lakh.
Bombay High Court Directs Meta To Remove AI Deepfake Video Impersonating Delta Corp Promoter
Case Title: Delta Corp Limited v. Meta Platforms Inc.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3875 OF 2026 IN SUIT NO. 167 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 439
On August 6, Justice Abhay Ahuja directed Meta Platforms to take down an AI-generated deepfake video showing Delta Corp promoter Jaydev Mody announcing the launch of an online casino application. The court also ordered the removal of social media pages allegedly impersonating the company.
Bombay High Court Pulls Up Masala Maker For Only Paying 'Lip Service' To Trademark Injunction
Case Title: Sky Enterprise Private Limited v. Abaad Masala & Co.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 2372 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 279 OF 2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 434
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that cosmetic changes to a trademark cannot be used to sidestep an injunction. The court ruled that Abaad Masala & Co.'s revised branding failed to maintain a "safe distance" from Sky Enterprise's registered marks, noting that "lip service" to a court order renders it ineffective.
Actor Shruti Haasan Moves Bombay High Court Over AI Deepfakes, Personality Rights Violations
Case Title: Shruti Haasan v. Mahalaxmi Arts And Craft Works & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 26069 of 2026
Actress Shruti Haasan has moved the Bombay High Court with a commercial suit seeking ₹15 crore in damages. She alleges that unauthorised merchandise sellers, online platforms, and unidentified parties have violated her personality and publicity rights by using her identity without consent. She also alleged the creation and circulation of sexually explicit AI-generated deepfake content featuring her likeness. Justice Abhay Ahuja heard the matter.
Case Title: Jyothy Labs Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1880 OF 2021 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 240 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 455
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained Dabur India Ltd. from using its toothpaste label featuring 'NEEM' as the leading and essential feature. Justice Arif S. Doctor, while allowing the interim application in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit, clarified that Dabur was not barred from using the word 'NEEM' descriptively, but could not use it as a prominent, source-identifying feature on the label.
Case Title: Comite International Olympique v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO.9556 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 451
The Bombay High Court has set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of the International Olympic Committee's application to register “Faster, Higher, Stronger-Together” and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing a petition challenging the rejection of the phrase, which the committee had adopted as a further improvisation of its historic motto.
Bombay High Court Allows Kataria Insurance Brokers To Retain Name, Bars Gems Jewellery Insurance
Case Title: Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v. Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 215 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 466
The Bombay High Court has allowed Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. to continue using its corporate name “KATARIA INSURANCE”. However, the court permanently restrained the company from providing insurance services relating to the gems and jewellery sector. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed the company's application to vacate an interim injunction dated December 8, 2025, which had previously barred the company from using "KATARIA" in its corporate name.
Sonu Nigam Namesake Agrees Before Bombay High Court To Stop Using Singer's Name On Social Media
Case Title: Sonu Nigam v. Sonu Nigam Singh & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO.20577 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 463
A man who ran a social media account under the name “Sonu Nigam” has agreed before the Bombay High court to stop using the singer's name, photograph, likeness, and other personality attributes in a manner that exploits or misappropriates his personality and publicity rights, bringing a year-long dispute between the two men to an end. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar recorded the settlement on August 13 and decreed the suit in terms of the Consent Terms. Sonu Nigam Singh can continue operating the account under the handle “@SonuNigamSingh”, subject to the undertakings given to the court.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Case Title: The Indian Performing Right Society Limited v. Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited
Case Number: FMA 322 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 187
A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and another judge restrained Hotel Appolo from communicating IPRS-owned literary and musical works to guests through TV sets in hotel rooms without a licence. The court held that routing cable television connections to hotel rooms constitutes "communication to the public" under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Calcutta High Court Rejects Injunction Against New Central Book Agency After Years Of Inaction
Case Title: Pares Chandra Das & Anr. v. New Central Book Agency Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: G.A. No. 1 of 2023 In I.P. (COM) No. 11 of 2024 (Old No. CS 216 of 2023)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 203
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an interim injunction application filed by textbook author Pares Chandra Das and his son Amitava Das against their long-time publisher, New Central Book Agency Private Limited. Justice Krishna Rao held that authors cannot seek an interim injunction to halt the continued publication of their books after actively allowing the publisher to distribute them for years despite claiming the agreement had expired.
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v. Emami Limited & Ors.
Case Number: F.M.A.T. No. 56 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 198
The Calcutta High Court set aside a temporary injunction that restrained Sun Pharmaceutical Industries from airing an advertisement that Emami alleged disparaged its “Zandu Balm”, “Mentho Plus Balm”, and “Zandu Ultra Power Balm”. A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the advertisement did not specifically target Emami's products, and the company had failed to establish a prima facie case for an injunction.
Case Title: Fox and Mandal and Anr. v. Somabrata Mandal and Ors.
Case Number: IA NO. GA/4/2023 [OLD NO CS/269/2022] In IP-COM/6/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 199
The Calcutta High Court permanently restrained Somabrata Mandal and his law firm from holding themselves out as connected with Fox & Mandal or using the marks “Fox & Mandal,” “Fox and Mandal,” and “F&M”. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the goodwill generated by a partnership is a partnership asset belonging to the firm, and individual partners or their heirs have no independent right to trade on its name.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Pare Innovations Private Limited v. Vox Building Products Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 20090 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 134
The Karnataka High Court set aside a commercial court's order refusing to reject a plaint in a commercial disparagement suit, observing that the order was "bereft of reasons". Justice Lalitha Kanneganti heard the writ petition challenging the lower court's decision in the underlying suit filed by Vox Building Products and Vox Interior.
Karnataka High Court Refuses Plea Seeking $2.5 Million From eBay Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
Case Title: Lt. Col. D.K. Havanoor (Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 8530 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 144
The Karnataka High Court has recently declined to entertain a writ petition by retired Army officer Lt. Col. D.K. Havanoor seeking USD 2.5 million in damages from eBay entities over alleged copyright infringement. Justice M.G.S. Kamal passed the order on August 3, 2026, while giving Havanoor liberty to pursue his grievance before a competent court. Havanoor's grievance concerned a book that he claimed belonged to him and which, according to the order, was displayed and sold through eBay.com for USD 12.53.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Madras High Court Restrains Piracy Of Lokesh Kanagaraj-Starrer 'DC' Ahead Of Release
Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 805 & 806 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 233 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 225
The Madras High Court restrained internet service providers and cable TV operators from facilitating the apprehended copyright violation of Sun TV Network's Tamil film DC. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu on August 5 passed the order on two applications ahead of the film's theatrical release.
Madras High Court Restrains Three Pharma Companies From Using 'ORG-9' Trademark
Case Title: Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v. Orange Biotech Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 724 to 726 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 209 OF 2026 and A NO. 3151 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 216
On July 27, Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted an ad-interim temporary injunction restraining three Haryana-based pharmaceutical companies from using the mark "ORG-9". The court found that the mark prima facie infringed the registered trademark "ARG-9" owned by Chennai-based Nouveau Medicament Private Limited.
Madras High Court Refuses To Stall Release Of AI-Enhanced Kochadaiiyaan Over 2014 Financing Dispute
Case Title: Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: O.A.No.181 of 2026 in C.S.No.545 of 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 215
The Madras High Court refused to stop the release of an AI-enhanced version of the 2014 Rajinikanth film Kochadaiiyaan. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the film's financier could not seek to restrain its release because it had failed to seek relief against the fifth defendant, who is the current assignee of the film.
Madras High Court Temporarily Restrains Universal Spirits From Using 'Marco Polo' For Liquor
Case Title: Empee Distilleries Limited v. Universal Spirits Pvt Ltd
Case Number: OA Nos. 492 & 493 of 2026 and A.No.2183 of 2026 in C.S.(COMM.DIV.)No.147 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 232
The Madras High Court has restrained Universal Spirits Pvt Ltd from manufacturing or selling liquor under the marks “Classic Marco Polo Deluxe Brandy” and “Marco Polo Deluxe XXX Rum”, pending disposal of a commercial suit filed by Empee Distilleries Limited. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu directed Universal Spirits to submit accounts and hand over unsold products within four weeks.
Case Title: Vijay Kothari v. Shri Sairaam Creations & Ors.
Case Number: A No. 442 of 2026 IN C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 211 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 231
The Madras High Court has allowed Vijay Kothari, who claims digital, satellite, and OTT rights over Hari Hara Veera Mallu, to amend his plaint against Mega Surya Productions. He can now seek the return of ₹4 crore under an Assignment Agreement, along with 18% interest. However, Justice K. Kumaresh Babu rejected the request to raise his damages claim from ₹5 lakh to ₹25 lakh due to a lack of supporting pleadings.
Madras High Court Restrains Matrimony.com From Using 'Jodii' Mark For Matchmaking App
Case Title: FreeElective Network Private Limited v. M/s Matrimony.com Limited
Case Number: OSA(CAD) No.159 of 2022 and CMP Nos. 20676, 20680 of 2022 & 19720 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 230
A Division Bench comprising Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi has restrained Matrimony.com Limited from using the mark 'Jodii' for its matchmaking app. The court set aside a 2022 order of a Single Judge and ruled that 'Jodii' was deceptively similar to FreeElective's registered 'Jodi365' trademark, creating likely customer confusion.
Madras High Court Grants Anti-Piracy Injunctions For 'Batwara 1947,' 'Awarapan 2'
Case Title: Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.; Vishesh Pictures Pvt Ltd v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA No. 835 of 2026 AND C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 239 OF 2026,OA NO. 836 OF 2026; OA No. 837 and 838 of 2026 AND C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 240 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 235; 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 236
The Madras High Court has recently granted anti-piracy protection to the Hindi films Batwara 1947 and Awarapan 2 after their producers approached the Court apprehending copyright infringement. The films were scheduled for release on August 13 and August 14, respectively. Justice K. Surender passed separate common orders on August 14 on applications filed by Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd for Batwara 1947 and Vishesh Pictures Pvt Ltd for Awarapan 2.
Madras High Court Rejects Film Archive's Copyright Claim Over 'Aval Appadithan' Production Stills
Case Title: The Cinema Resource Centre & Anr. v. Ms. Ganga Rudraiah & Anr.
Case Number: O.S.A.(CAD)No.17 of 2022 & C.M.P.No.2260 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 247
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Chennai-based film archive, The Cinema Resource Centre, in a dispute over production photographs from the 1978 film Aval Appadithan. A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi upheld a Single Judge's order directing the archive to return the original production photographs, delete all digital/physical duplicates, and cease displaying them on its website.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Kerala High Court Rejects Injunction Plea Against DDRC Agilus Over 'Since 1983' Tagline
Case Title: Ajith K. Joy v. Agilus Diagnostics Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO NO. 81 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 165
The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking to restrain Agilus Diagnostics and DDRC Agilus Pathlabs from representing that DDRC's business has been operating since 1983. Justice S. Manu held that the appellant had not established a prima facie case for an interim injunction, noting that the respondents' tagline, “your lab partner since 1983”, was materially different from the slogan used by the appellant.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case Title: Tinubhai Babubhai Bhalgama & Ors. v. Alpeshbhai Ranchhodbhai Lunagariya & Ors.
Case Number: R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 82 of 2026 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 82 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 105
The Gujarat High Court has set aside a temporary injunction restraining the registered proprietors of the trademark "Aditya Jewellers" from using their own registered mark. The court ruled that the Commercial Court in Rajkot committed "a grave error of law" by granting the relief. The Bench observed that the trial court improperly assessed the reliability of the evidence at the interim stage, noting that "no mini trial can be conducted" when deciding a temporary injunction application.
COMMERCIAL COURTS
Kolkata Court Restrains TV19 From Using Marks Deceptively Similar To TV9
Case Title: Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt Ltd v. TV 19 Network & Ors.
Case Number: TS (Com) – 33/2026
The Commercial Court at Rajarhat, Kolkata, restrained TV19 Network from using the marks "TV19", "TV19 Network", and "TV19 Network Bangla". Judge Ishani Chakravarty Banerjee observed that the overall visual presentation, branding, and color schemes gave rise to a prima facie apprehension of deception among consumers looking for registered "TV9" marks.
Delhi Commercial Court Orders Blocking Of Websites Selling Pirated TrendyTech Course
Case Title: Trendytech Insights LLP v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 405/2026
A Commercial Court in Saket, New Delhi, granted an ex-parte interim injunction restraining the unauthorized sale and distribution of pirated copies of TrendyTech's Master Program course. The court directed DoT, MeitY, and ISPs to block access to the infringing websites.