LiveLawBiz IPR Monthly Digest: February, 2026
Riya Rathore
4 March 2026 9:56 AM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: Saregama India Ltd. v. Sreedevi Video Corporation & Ors.
Case Number: SLP (C). 6950/2026
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Madras High Court order that had revived an injunction claim in a copyright dispute between SaReGaMa India Ltd and Sreedevi Video Corporation over the audio rights of iconic Tamil and Telegu films such as Sagara Sangamam, Salangai Oli and Shankara Bharanam. The High Court had held that although Sreedevi's plea seeking declaration of copyright was barred by limitation, its claim for permanent injunction could still be examined independently and remanded the matter to a Single Judge for fresh adjudication.
Case Title: Hero Cycles Ltd & Anr. vs Hero Ecotech Ltd & Ors
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.1478 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 74
The Supreme Court recently revived proceedings for alleged breach of an injunction in the long-running “HERO” trademark dispute between Hero Cycles Limited and Hero Ecotech Limited. A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside a September 3, 2025 judgment of the Patna High Court, which had quashed a 2019 trial court order directing initiation of contempt proceedings against Hero Ecotech and others for alleged breach of an injunction.
Case Title: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar vs A.R. Rahman Case Number: SLP(C) 4742 OF 2026
Music composer A.R. Rahman on Friday undertook before the Supreme Court of India to give credit to Late Ustad Faiyazuddin Dagar and Late Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar in relation to the song “Veera Raja Veera” from Ponniyin Selvan II. The court accordingly closed the appeal filed by Dhrupad vocalist Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar against a division bench order of the Delhi High Court that had modified interim relief granted in the copyright dispute. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi recorded the undertaking that the revised credits would be displayed on all OTT and online platforms within five weeks.
Supreme Court Appoints Former CJI B R Gavai To Mediate Veda Seed- Kohinoor Trademark Dispute
Case Title: Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd vs Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd
Case Number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5850/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 76
The Supreme Court on Friday appointed former Chief Justice of India Justice B.R. Gavai to mediate a trademark dispute between Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd and Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd., while staying further proceedings in the suit before the Delhi High Court. A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Atul S. Chandurkar recorded that the parties had “favourably responded to the suggestion of the Court that an amicable resolution of the dispute be explored through the process of mediation.”
Case Title: E. R. SQUIBB AND SONS LLC & ORS. v. ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED
Case Number: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3267/2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz SC 58
The Supreme Court on Wednesday disposed of a special leave petition filed by E.R. Squibb and Sons LLC against Zydus Lifesciences Ltd in a patent dispute over the anti-cancer immunotherapy drug Nivolumab, arising from a January 12 judgment of the Delhi High Court's Division Bench. A Bench of the Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that since Zydus had already marketed its product and it was readily available in the market, the petitioners would be at liberty to undertake a direct product-to-claim mapping and, depending on the outcome, approach the Division Bench of the High Court for appropriate interim relief.
Case Title: I.S.D.S Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Khemka Food Products Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 60138/2025
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it will examine whether a Commercial Court presided over by a Civil Judge (Senior Division) can entertain trademark infringement and passing-off suits in view of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. The court stayed further proceedings in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit pending before the Commercial Court at Jamshedpur. The issue arises from Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which governs the forum for filing trademark infringement and passing-off suits and bars such suits from being instituted before a court “inferior to a District Court.”
Supreme Court To Hear On Friday Ustad's Plea In 'Veera Raja Veera' Copyright Case Against A R Rahman
Case Title: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar vs A.R. Rahman
Case Number: SLP (C) No. 4742 of 2026
The Supreme Court will hear on Friday an appeal filed by renowned Dhrupad vocalist Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to vacate and dilute interim relief granted in his copyright suit over the song “Veera Raja Veera” from the film Ponniyin Selvan II, composed by A. R. Rahman. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria will hear the matter.
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court Restrains Misuse Of HCL Trademark In Alleged Fraudulent 'HCL Mediclinic' Scheme
Case Title: HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd v. John Does & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 127/2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 143
The Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to protect HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd against unidentified parties who are allegedly misrepresenting themselves as company officials to dupe members of the public and job seekers. According to the suit filed by HCL, the company recently became aware of illegal and fraudulent activities by rogue third parties. HCL alleges that these individuals have been issuing fraudulent emails, calls, and messages while posing as HCL employees.
Delhi High Court Restrains Indian Firm From Using 'SHRM' Trademark Of US HR Organisation
Case Title: Society For Human Resource Management SHRM v. Strategic HRM & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 128/2026, I.A. 3790/2026, I.A. 3791/2026 & I.A. 3792/2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 142
Finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court has barred Strategic HRM from using the “SHRM” mark, observing that failure to grant an ex-parte injunction would cause “irreparable loss and injury” to the US-based Society for Human Resource Management. A single-bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on February 11. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) was established in the United States as the American Society for Personnel Administration (ASPA) in 1948, before adopting its current name in 1989. Beyond its status as a professional membership body, the organisation claimed to have played a role in shaping workplace-related legislation and policy in the USA.
Delhi High Court Closes COBADEX Trademark Case After GlaxoSmithKline Settles With Mensa Futura
Case Title: Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Mensa Futura Life Sciences Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1004/2025
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 137
The Delhi High Court has recently disposed of a trademark suit filed by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited, a major Indian pharmaceutical company, after it reached a settlement with Mensa Futura Life Sciences over the use of the 'COBADEX' brand and look-alike packaging. Under the settlement, Mensa Futura agreed to permanently stop using the mark 'CUBANEX-CZS' and any deceptively similar mark or packaging, consented to a permanent injunction in favour of GlaxoSmithKline, and undertook to recall and destroy products bearing the impugned branding.
Delhi High Court Restrains 'SUPERON' Trademark Use, Orders Takedown Of Infringing Websites
Case Title: Sanjay Mehra v. Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Gupta
Case Number: CS(COMM) 102/2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 136
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Sanjay Mehra, proprietor of the registered “SUPERON” trademark, restraining a Gurugram-based entity from using the mark or any deceptively similar name of the stainless steel consumables brand. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on February 4, 2026, directing the entity's proprietor to immediately cease using the "SUPERON" name in any capacity, whether as a trade name, domain name, or email address.
Delhi High Court Injuncts 23 Rogue Websites Illegaly Streaming UEFA Champions League 2025–26
Case Title: Union Of European Football Associations v. Livetv.Sx & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 106/2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 135
Holding that piracy of live sports poses a “recurring threat” and that any delay would cause irreparable copyright breach and revenue loss, the Delhi High Court on February 5 granted an ex parte ad interim injunction blocking 23 rogue websites from unauthorisedly streaming matches of the ongoing UEFA Champions League 2025–26. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the Champions League season is currently underway and will conclude only in May 2026. Any delay in blocking access to infringing platforms, the court said, would result in continuing violation of copyright and financial loss.
Case Title: Satya Paul v. Alka Industrial Corporation & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 651/2022
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 134
The Delhi High Court on Monday ordered the removal of the word “ARUN” from Alka Industrial Corporation's registered trademark “AiC ARUN,” holding that the mark infringed the six-decade-old “ARUN” brand of Satya Paul & Company used for sewing machines. Allowing a rectification petition filed by Satya Paul & Company, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the firm had continuously and uninterruptedly used the trade name “ARUN” since 1962 and had established substantial goodwill and reputation in the mark over the decades.
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of UPL's Herbicide Patent For Denying Mandatory Hearing
Case Title: UPL Limited v. Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association & Anr.
Case Number: IPDPTA No.116 of 2023
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 49
The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside an order of the Controller of Patents rejecting UPL Limited's patent application for a herbicidal combination, holding that the authority committed a “serious procedural infirmity” by denying the company a mandatory hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act and improperly issuing a composite order in examination and pre-grant opposition proceedings. Allowing the appeal, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur ruled that examination proceedings under Sections 14–15 and pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) are “distinct, separate and independent stages” that must be carried out separately.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited vs Effingut Breweries Private Limited
Case Number: Contempt Petition (CD) 51 of 2025
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 76
The Bombay High Court recently issued bailable warrants against four directors of the Pune-based Effingut Breweries, a popular largest craft beer brand and owners of pubs and lounges operating in major cities like Pune, Delhi, Mumbai, Gurugram etc for failing to appear before the court as ordered in a previous hearing. Single-judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh was hearing a contempt petition against Effingut Breweries and its directors - Vishal Makar, Manish Tandon, Upesh Gulati and Monika Gulati for non-compliance with a previous order of the bench.
Madras High Court Rules Against 7-Eleven in 'Big Bite' Trademark Battle With Indian Company
Case Title: Eleven International LLC v. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors.
Case Number: (T) CMA (TM) Nos.110 & 157 of 2023
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 43
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a batch of appeals filed by a global retail giant, 7-Eleven International LLC, upholding the “Big Bite” trademark in favour of an Indian company, Ravi Foods Private Limited. The court held that "there is no material to show that the appellant has done business on Indian soil, with the aforesaid mark, on the date of the application or at any subsequent point of time prior to the commencement of opposition proceedings."
Case Title: Saregama India Limited v. Ilaiyaraaja
Case Number: CS(COMM) 143/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 149
The Delhi High Court has recently issued an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining music composer Ilaiyaraaja from exploiting, using or issuing licences in respect of sound recordings and underlying works from 134 films claimed by Saregama India Limited, holding that the company has made out a prima facie strong case. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order after noting that assignment agreements and inlay cards placed on record prima facie supported Saregama's claim of exclusive copyright.
Delhi High Court Allows Oswaal Books To Register 'ONE FOR ALL' As Trademark
Case Title: Oswaal Books And Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: LPA 571/2025 & CM APPL. 56791/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 151
The Delhi High Court on 10 February cleared the way for Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Ltd. to register “ONE FOR ALL” as their trademark, observing that the phrase is a protectable suggestive mark rather than a merely descriptive slogan. The Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed: “We find that the applied mark “ONE FOR ALL” does not evoke a connect, in the mind, between the mark and books. The mark has no relation with books and can be used in any situation to communicate broad coverage or universality.”
Delhi High Court Reiterates Limited Interference In Appeals Against Interim IPR Orders
Case Title: Sanjay Gupta & Anr v. Vineet Jain
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 44/2026, CM APPL. 9539/2026, CM APPL. 9540/2026, CM APPL. 9541/2026, CM APPL. 9542/2026 & CM APPL. 9543/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 152
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that appellate courts must remain highly circumspect before overturning discretionary orders issued by commercial courts in intellectual property matters. The bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed an appeal in limine by the owners of the “Golden Eagle” brand against a rival “Golden Kingfisher” product, upholding the decision of the Commercial Court at Tis Hazari to refuse ex parte ad-interim injunction and appointment of a local commissioner.
Case Title: Lotus Herbals Private Limited v. DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 45/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 158
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction restraining actress Deepika Padukone's DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited, the entity behind the skincare brand 82°E, from manufacturing, advertising or selling its "Lotus Splash" facial cleanser until final disposal of the suit. The Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar held that the use of the mark "Lotus Splash" by the defendants was not merely descriptive of an ingredient but was being used as a trademark.
Baba Ramdev Approaches Delhi High Court Over Deepfakes, Seeks Protection of Personality Rights
Case Title: Swami Ramdev v. John Doe (S) & Ors.
Yoga guru and Patanjali Ayurved co-founder Baba Ramdev has moved the Delhi High Court on Tuesday (February 17) seeking protection of his personality rights. The matter was listed before Justice Jyoti Singh and was briefly heard. It has now been kept for further hearing on Wednesday. Ramdev seeks an injunction against the unauthorised use of his name, likeness, voice and distinctive style of discourse on digital platforms. The plea targets “John Doe” defendants allegedly using artificial intelligence-generated content, deepfake videos and voice cloning to exploit his identity without consent.
Case Title: Coldsmiths Retail Services Private Limited v. Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 37/2025, CM 162/2025 & CM 164/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 162
The Delhi High Court has permitted renewal of eight trademarks after holding that expiry notices sent to an unauthorized agent do not amount to compliance with the Trade Marks Act. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that issuing notices to a person who was no longer authorised does not satisfy Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act.
Case Title: Getmyuni Education Services Private Limited v. Mangalayatan University
Case Number: FAO 126/2023 and CM APPL. 27117/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 164
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday set aside a trial court order restraining an education-technology start-up from using the names, information, and details of two universities on its website, holding that it has a right to use publicly available information so long as it is not presented disparagingly. A single-judge bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the respondents were “unable to make out a prima facie case” and termed it “an unconvincing argument” that rankings displayed on the website were disparaging when they were referenced to rankings available in the public domain and were open-sourced.
Delhi High Court Imposes ₹50,000 Costs On Patent Owner For “Unnecessary Litigation”
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Goel v. Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 672/2022, CC(COMM) 16/2023 & I.A. 13948/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 163
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to allow Pawan Kumar Goel to withdraw his patent infringement suit over a patented process for extracting Alpha Yohimbine, a plant-derived compound used in dietary supplements, and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 for “unnecessary litigation.” Justice Tushar Rao Gedela declined Goel's request under Order XXIII Rule (1)(3)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action.
Delhi High Court Refers Patanjali–Britannia 'Milk Bikis' Ad Disparagement Dispute To Mediation
Case Title: Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr. v. Britannia Industries Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM)-162/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday referred to mediation a trademark disparagement dispute between Patanjali Ayurved Limited and Britannia Industries Limited over Britannia's “Milk Bikis” advertisement. The matter was listed today before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. After hearing preliminary submissions, the court referred the parties to the Delhi Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Patanjali has sought an injunction against the allegedly disparaging ad. It contends that the advertisement disparages its milk biscuits. It objects to the depiction of its packaging. It also challenges the use of the word “Baba”.
Case Title: Karan Johar v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 974/2025
The Delhi High Court on Thursday questioned the legal basis for retaining social media intermediaries as parties in filmmaker Karan Johar's personality rights suit after they have complied with its takedown directions, asking, “Why have more the merrier attitude?” Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing submissions from platforms including Meta (Defendant 15), X Corp. (Defendant 16) and Etsy (Defendant 12), which were impleaded as proforma parties in the suit.
Case Title: Jubin Nautiyal v. Jammable Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 166/2026
The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked singer Jubin Nautiyal why he had approached it for protection of his personality rights when he is based in Uttarakhand. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela questioned the choice of forum. “Why are you here? What is accessible here is accessible there. The courts there aren't abolished yet…,” the judge remarked. At the outset, the Court asked how it could entertain the suit.
Case Title: Dazn Limited & Anr. v. Olympicstreams.Co & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 152/2026 & I.A. 4277/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 168
The Delhi High Court has recently restrained 20 rogue websites from illegally streaming the “Mario Barrios vs. Ryan Garcia” boxing match scheduled for February 21, 2026. The court held that DAZN Limited had made out a strong case for urgent protection of its exclusive broadcast rights. Granting an ex parte ad interim injunction, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “In such case, the plaintiffs, appears to have a prima facie strong case for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.”
Case Title: Vivek Anand Oberoi v. Collector Bazar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 105/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that public figures must be prepared to accept both “bouquets and brickbats”, cautioning actor Vivek Anand Oberoi against becoming “hyper-sensitive” while hearing an application filed by Reddit seeking vacation of an ad-interim injunction earlier granted in his favour. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the remarks during proceedings in the personality suit filed by the actor, where the actor has sought protection of his personality and publicity rights. The court had previously passed an ad interim order directing certain websites and online platforms to take down links listed in the annexure to the order and to furnish user information within 72 hours.
Case Title: Shatrughan Prasad Sinha v. John Doe & Ors.
Veteran Bollywood actor and Member of Parliament Shatrughan Sinha has moved the Bombay High Court seeking to protect his personality and publicity rights. The commercial suit, heard by a single-judge bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, alleges the unauthorised use of Sinha's name, image, likeness, and his signature catchphrase, "Khamosh!" The court has reserved the matter for ad-interim orders on Monday.
Bombay High Court Restrains 'ACERIL' Trademark For Phonetic Similarity With Glenmark's 'ASCORIL'
Case Title: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Venkata Subbarao & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 716 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 31 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 80
The Bombay High Court on 16 February granted ad-interim relief to Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, temporarily restraining the use of the trademark “ACERIL” by Venkata Subbarao, after finding it visually and phonetically similar to Glenmark's registered mark “ASCORIL.” Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that although the two medicinal products treat different ailments, the similarity between the marks, if not restrained, could have a disastrous effect.
Khamosh! Bombay High Court Protects Shatrughan Sinha's Catchphrase, Personality Rights
Case Title: Shatrughan Prasad Sinha v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 2870 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 2167 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 87
The Bombay High Court has granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction to veteran actor and politician Shatrughan Sinha, restraining the unauthorised commercial exploitation of his personality rights. The Court also restrained use of his signature catchphrase “Khamosh” and his distinctive vocal mannerisms, observing that the expression, delivered in his unique and distinct style, is associated exclusively with his persona.
Case Title: Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V v. The Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (IPD) No. 24 of 2025 and W.M.P.(IPD) Nos.19 and 20 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 49
The Madras High Court on 12 February observed that the Intellectual Property Office cannot mechanically issue notices or summons whenever pre-grant patent oppositions are received, warning that such an approach makes it “very easy to defeat the rights” of patent applicants. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh issued directions in a case involving a 14-year-old patent application filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. for a cancer drug. Noting that by “postponing the same for one reason and the other” officials allowed oppositions to accumulate instead of taking a final decision, he directed the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs to decide all four pending pre-grant oppositions within three months.
Madras High Court Restrains Unauthorised Broadcast Of Taapsee Pannu Starrer 'Assi' On Release Day
Case Title: Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited
Case Number: O.A.Nos.144 & 145 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 52
The Madras High Court on Friday restrained the unauthorised broadcast of the Taapsee Pannu-starrer Bollywood film 'Assi' on the day of its release, granting ad-interim relief to its producer. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, by order dated February 20, 2026, observed that “in matters of this nature, it is likely that irreversible injury will occur unless unlawful broadcast is prevented.” At the same time, the Court noted that “in view of the expansive nature of the relief claimed, it is possible that the legitimate business interest of one or more respondents may be affected.”
Madras High Court Restrains Unauthorised Broadcast Of Zee's 'Do Deewane Seher Mein' On Release Date
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.A.Nos.151 & 152 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.59 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 53
On the date the film “DO DEEWANE SEHER MEIN” was slated for release, the Madras High Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining unlawful broadcast of the movie in a suit alleging apprehended infringement of copyright. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order on Friday in two applications filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, the producers of the film, which has arrayed 33 defendants, including Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and others.
Delhi High Court Restrains Parth Law House, Others From Selling Counterfeit LexisNexis Law Textbooks
Case Title: LexisNexis v. Parth Law House & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 156/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 176
The Delhi High Court has recently granted a temporary injunction in favour of LexisNexis, restraining Parth Law House and others from printing, distributing, or selling counterfeit copies of its legal textbooks. A coram of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that interim protection was warranted pending further proceedings. “Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff and upon examination of the documents, I am of the view that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction,” the Court held.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains 19 More Entities From Infringing JAQUAR Trademark
Case Title: Jaquar And Company Private Limited v. Jaquar Franchise & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1160/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 174
The Delhi High Court has recently extended an earlier ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Jaquar And Company Private Limited after impleading 22 additional entities, restraining 19 of them from using the trademark “JAQUAR”. The Court restrained them from using the mark and directed banks to freeze accounts opened in a deceptively similar name. The relief was originally granted on November 3, 2025. At that stage, the Court recorded that Jaquar And Company Private Limited, the Indian bathroom fittings and sanitaryware manufacturer, is the registered proprietor of the well-known trademark “JAQUAR”. The mark was declared a well-known trademark on February 19, 2024.
Case Title: Bennett Coleman And Company Limited v. Seera Raja Babu M.R. Seera, & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 172/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 179
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Bennett Coleman and Company Limited restraining the use of the marks TIMES OF INDIA, TOI MOVIES, TOI_MOVIES and TOIMOVIES_, or any identical or deceptively similar mark, by unauthorised social media account operators. The order was passed on February 20, 2026 by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. The court noted that “The Times of India” was recognised as a well-known trademark by the Trade Marks Registry in 2024. It held that the company had made out a strong prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in its favour.
Case Title: Dr Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi Through Power Of Attorney Holder v. John Does Ashok Kumars & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 178/2026
In what it described as a “very surprising suit,” the Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard a personality rights case filed by Mumbai-based godman Dr. Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi, popularly known as Aniruddha Bapu, who is seeking to restrain his own followers from portraying him as a deity. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela remarked during the hearing, “Faith moves mountains… This is something very surprising. You have come up with a very surprising suit,” as the Court considered a plea that does not allege defamation or commercial disparagement, but instead challenges devotional content created by the plaintiff's own followers.
Delhi High Court Questions 'Zora' Trademark Registration, Says Visually Similar To 'Zara'
Case Title: Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A v. Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) - 52/2024
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday questioned the Registrar of Trade Marks action allowing the registration of the mark “Zora,” observing that it is “visually, receptively similar beyond any doubt” to the global fashion brand “Zara”. The matter arises from a challenge filed by Industria De Diseño Textil, S.A., owner of the brand “Zara,” against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks permitting registration of the mark “Zora” in Class 24, which covers textile goods and fabrics.
Delhi High Court Protects Singer Jubin Nautiyal's Personality Rights From Commercial Exploitation
Case Title: Jubin Nautiyal v. Jammable Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 166/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 186
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of singer Jubin Nautiyal, restraining unauthorised commercial exploitation of his personality and publicity rights, including through artificial intelligence tools, deepfakes and voice cloning technologies. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in an order dated February 19, 2026, held: “In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has a prima facie strong case and having regard to his well-known, popular and well-accepted personality, the balance of convenience is tilted in favour of the plaintiff. In case, ex-parte ad-interim injunction and other directions, as sought, are not passed, the irreparable loss and injury which may occasion may not be compensated in monetary terms. The dent and damage to the image and personality of the plaintiff, prima facie, appears to be real and present.”
Patent Revocation Petition Survives Even If Patent Expires By Efflux Of Time: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Case Number: LPA 129/2025, CM APPL. 10551/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 188
Holding that revocation operates retrospectively and in rem, the Delhi High Court has ruled that expiry of a patent does not render a pending revocation petition infructuous. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla on Tuesday held “a revocation petition would be maintainable, and would continue to survive, even after the patent of which revocation is sought expires by efflux of time."
Delhi High Court Protects Swami Ramdev's Personality Rights, Restrains AI Deepfakes
Case Title: Swami Ramdev v. John Doe (s) & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 147/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 193
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of yoga guru Swami Ramdev, restraining the unauthorised use of his name, voice, image, likeness and distinctive style in AI-generated deepfakes, fabricated endorsements and other commercial content. In an order dated February 18, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh held that Ramdev had made out a prima facie case. The Court observed that the material placed on record showed exploitation of his personality rights.
Case Title: Kajol Vishal Devgan v. Kash Collective & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 173/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 196
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to protect the personality rights of Bollywood actress Kajol Vishal Devgan, restraining the unauthorised use of her likeness in AI-generated deepfakes, vulgar chatbots, and commercial merchandise. Presiding over the matter, Justice Jyoti Singh on February, 2026, found that the actress had established a prima facie case for injunction, observing that the alleged unauthorised exploitation of her attributes impacts her right to privacy/personality and live with dignity.
Delhi High Court Grants Levi Strauss Temporary Injunction Against Use of Its Iconic Pocket Tab Mark
Case Title: Levi Strauss And Company v. Beyoung Folks Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 175/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 197
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of US denim and apparel company Levi Strauss and Company, holding that it had made out a strong prima facie case for protection of its registered “Tab Device Mark” and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in its order dated February 23, 2026, observed that the “cumulative effect” of the pleadings, trademark registrations and sales figures tilted the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff.
One-Month Notice Before Suo Motu Trademark Cancellation Is Mandatory: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Landmark Crafts Limited v. Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta & Anr.
Case Number: LPA 575/2025, CM APPL. 57191/2025, 57192/2025, 57194/2025 & 69956/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 198
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday made it clear that if the Registrar decides to cancel or rectify a trademark registration on his own initiative, the registered owner must first be given at least one month's notice under Rule 100(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The Court emphasised that this is not a mere formality. The one-month notice requirement is mandatory and cannot be brushed aside by invoking principles such as estoppel.
Case Title: Singh And Singh Law Firm LLP & Anr. v. Singh And Singh Chartered Accountants & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 192/2026
The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted an ad-interim injunction restraining a chartered accountancy firm from using the name “Singh and Singh Chartered Accountants” in a trademark infringement suit filed by Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP. The order was passed by Justice Jyoti Singh after hearing the submissions of the law firm at the ad-interim stage. During the hearing, the court sought clarification on the nature of the defendants' business, asking, “These are what, chartered accountants?” Counsel for the plaintiffs confirmed that the defendants were operating as “Singh and Singh Chartered Accountants.”
Purva Dhanashree Moves Delhi High Court Amid Trademark Dispute Over 'Vilasini Natyam'
Case Title: Purva Dhanashree v. Guru Swapnasundari & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) - 60/2026
Renowned classical dancer Purva Dhanashree has approached the Delhi High Court seeking permission to continue using the name 'Vilasini Natyam' for her public performances, challenging the exclusive trademark claimed by her guru, Swapnasundari, a Padma Shri awardee, over the traditional dance form. On Thursday 26 February, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela urged the “guru-shishya” duo to resolve the matter through dialogue, noting that while the trademark is registered, the guru's own research indicates the name may not have been personally coined by her.
Case Title: Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited v. Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Landsmill Healthcare Private Limited) & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 111/2024 & CM APPL. 33733/2024, CM APPL. 33736/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 203
Holding there can be no monopoly over the word “FOREST” without stringent proof that it has acquired a secondary meaning, the Delhi High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of the luxury Ayurvedic brand Forest Essentials, allowing a newer entrant, Baby Forest, to continue using 'BABY FOREST' and 'BABY FOREST-SOHAM OF AYUVEDA' marks. In a judgment pronounced on February 27, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain upheld the Single Bench's decision to refuse an interim order of injunction against Baby Forest, finding that the established brand could not claim an exclusive monopoly over the dictionary word “Forest.”
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of KREOFLAT Trademark Over Similarity To Abbott's PANKREOFLAT
Case Title: Abbott Products Operations AG v. Ms. Aprajita Sushma Proprietor Of Alrom Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 163/2025 & I.A.16868/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 204
The Delhi High Court has ordered removal of the registered trademark “KREOFLAT” from the Register of Trade Marks after holding it deceptively similar to Abbott Products Operations AG's mark “PANKREOFLAT.” In a judgment delivered on February 26, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowed a rectification petition filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court held that in the case of medicinal and pharmaceutical products, the “threshold laid down for deciding deceptive similarity is very low.”
Case Title: Sauss Home Products Private Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 145/2025, CM APPL. 60016/2025 & CM APPL. 75892/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 206
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an interim injunction restraining Sauss Home Products Private Limited from using a “Flying Bird” device mark in relation to washing soap, washing powder, detergent powder and cake, and cleaning starch. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the company's appeal on February 7, 2026. The court held that the “Flying Bird marks of the appellant and respondent were practically identical in appearance, in shape, colour scheme and lay out” and were used for identical goods.
Delhi High Court Recalls Stay On 'THE BREW BUKHARA' Trademark In ITC Dispute
Case Title: ITC Limited & Anr. v. Umesh Arora & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 48/2026 & I.A. 4244/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 207
The Delhi High Court recently recalled an ex-parte stay it had earlier granted to ITC Limited concerning the trademark registration of 'THE BREW BUKHARA'. In contrast to the Court's view just days earlier, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on 19 February held that since the respondent, Umesh Arora, is the registered proprietor of the disputed mark, an ad interim injunction could be considered only after he has been given an opportunity to file a reply.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of 'Accko' Trademark, Finds It Deceptively Similar to 'ACKO' Brand
Case Title: Acko Technology And Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandra Mohan Mishra & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 48/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 208
The Delhi High Court on 10 February, directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the trademark registration for 'ACCKO' observing that the mark is deceptively similar to the well-known 'ACKO' brand. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the rectification petition filed by Acko Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd. under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court remarked: “Similarity in the rival marks leaves little doubt that the intention of Respondent No. 1 was dishonest and the impugned mark was adopted in bad faith to encash on the goodwill of the trademark of the Petitioner.”
Bombay High Court Permanently Injuncts 'SUPER ASIAN PLUS' Trademark In Asian Paints Suit
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Smt. Manju Rani Jindal & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 271 OF 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 90
The Bombay High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Asian Paints, holding that the use of the mark “SUPER ASIAN PLUS” was “entirely dishonest and actuated by bad faith” and amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. Justice Arif S. Doctor, on 20 February 2026 also directed three of the defendants to each pay Rs 3 lakh in compensatory costs. Asian Paints submitted that it had been using its house mark “ASIAN PAINTS” continuously since 1952 and the mark “ASIAN” since 1965.
Bombay High Court Restrains Use Of 'ZEKODOL-P', Finds It Deceptively Similar To IPCA's 'ZERODOL'
Case Title: IPCA Laboratories Limited v. Rikon Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 218 OF 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 92
The Bombay High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of IPCA Laboratories Limited, restraining Rikon Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd from using the mark “ZEKODOL-P”, after holding that it infringes IPCA's registered trademark “ZERODOL” and amounts to passing off. Justice Arif S. Doctor, in a judgment pronounced on February 23, 2026, held that the impugned mark is “phonetically, visually and structurally almost identical” to the plaintiff's mark. The court also imposed a cost of Rs 15 Lakh on Rikon.
No Separate Disclosure Standard For IP Disputes Under Commercial Courts Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: FinTree Education Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Fintree Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 8377 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 234 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 93
The Bombay High Court has partly rejected a trademark owner's attempt to introduce additional documents nearly six years after filing suit, holding that intellectual property disputes are not entitled to any special procedural indulgence under the Commercial Courts Act. In a judgment pronounced on February 20, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor said the disclosure requirements under amended Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code are “mandatory and must be strictly enforced” in commercial suits.
Case Title: Mangrol Oil Mill & Ors. v. Vikas Oil Industries & Anr.
Case Number: R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 192 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 192 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 20
The Gujarat High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by Mangrol Oil Mill in its trademark dispute over “GULAB” groundnut oil. The Court refused to interfere with a Commercial Court order that denied interim injunction against Vikas Oil Industries, which markets edible oil under the mark “ROSE”. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker upheld the November 30, 2024 order of the Commercial Court at Morbi. The trial court had rejected the plaintiffs' application for ad-interim relief on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence.
Calcutta High Court Finds 'Spic' Bottle 'Virtually Identical' To Harpic, Restrains Godrej
Case Title: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v. Godrej Consumer Products Limited
Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/1/2026 IP-COM/3/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 59
The Calcutta High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction against Godrej Consumer Products Limited, restraining the company from selling its 'Godrej Spic' toilet cleaner in bottles that allegedly infringe upon the registered trademark shape of Reckitt Benckiser's 'HARPIC'. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, on February 25, 2026, explained that the cancellation or expiry of a design monopoly does not prevent a party from claiming trademark protection over a registered shape.
Kerala High Court Restrains Former G-TEC Franchisee From Using GIO TECH Mark
Case Title: G-Tec Education Private Limited v. Mr.Binu A.Joy
Case Number: FAO NO.72 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 32
Holding that “G-TEC” and “GIO TECH” are phonetically similar and confusion is likely to be caused, the Kerala High Court has restrained a former franchisee from using the marks “GIO TECH” and “GIO TECH COMPUTER ACADEMY,” setting aside a trial court order that had refused interim relief. Justice S. Manu, in a judgment delivered on February 18, 2026, held that the analysis made by the court below was “by dissecting the trademarks” and that such an exercise “is not in consonance with the settled principles regarding infringement.”
Madras High Court Approves Settlement Favouring SNS Movies In 'Think Studio' Trademark Dispute
Case Title: M/s.SNS Movies Productions LLP v. Mr.Manjunath
Case Number: C.S(COMM DIV) No. 283 of 2025 and O.A.Nos.1059 & 1060 of 2025 and A.No.5555 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 58
The Madras High Court on 23 February decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of SNS Movies Productions LLP, owner of Think Studios, after Manjunath, the proprietor of a rival firm, named Think Studio, undertook to permanently cease using the contested mark. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy recorded a settlement in which the defendant agreed to withdraw its pending trademark application and remove the infringing name from all digital and physical platforms by 10 April 2026. He noted: “Subject to the above limited exemption, learned counsel for the defendant submits that a decree may be issued in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 38 of the plaint. Learned counsel for the plaintiff agrees to give up claims in terms of clauses (c) and (d) of paragraph 38.”
Rajasthan High Court Upholds Injunction Over 'DURGA' Mustard Oil Trademark, Cites Public Interest
Case Title: Mupub Mehta v Vinayak Corporation & Anr.
Case Number: D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3815/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 2
The Rajasthan High Court has declined to interfere with an interim injunction restraining the use of the trademark “DURGA” for mustard oil. The court said trademark infringement affects not just the parties to the dispute but also consumers and the wider public, as it can cause confusion and deception. A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit dismissed an appeal challenging an order of the commercial court that had granted a temporary injunction against the appellant, restraining him from manufacturing or selling mustard oil under the mark “DURGA” or any deceptively similar trademark or packing label.
Case Title: TopoTarget UK Ltd v. The Controller General of Patent and Designs
Case Number: IPDPTA/50/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 37
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a Patent Office order rejecting a cancer drug patent filed by TopoTarget UK Limited, observing that the decision was taken without a proper and independent assessment of the invention. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, in a judgment dated January 30, 2026, allowed TopoTarget's appeal and quashed an order dated November 29, 2019, passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata.
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Juneja & Anr. v. Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Case Number: CR No.6252 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 6
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently reiterated that once a trial court comes to the conclusion that a plea challenging the validity of a registered trademark is prima facie tenable, it must not proceed with the infringement suit and is bound to grant time to the concerned party to approach the Registrar or the High Court for rectification. A single bench of Justice Pankaj Jain clarified that under section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a trial court does not have the jurisdiction to try the issue with respect to rectification after recording such a prima facie finding.
COMMERCIAL COURT
Belagavi Court Refuses Ex Parte Injunction Against US AI Company Anthropic In Trademark Dispute
Case Title: Anthropic Softwares Private Limited v. Anthropic PBC
Case Number: Com.OS No.02/2026
A Commercial Court in Belagavi, Karnataka has refused to grant an ex parte interim injunction to an Indian company in a trademark dispute over the mark “Anthropic” against a US AI company Anthropic PBC. The court held that there is no “imminent threat” of infringement at this stage. The court, however, issued summons to the San Francisco-based defendant and directed that emergent notice be sent in accordance with the applicable guidelines
Delhi Court Orders Takedown Of YouTube Shorts Infringing Karl Rock's Copyright
Case Title: Karl Edward Rice v. Adam El-Megrisi, Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Suit (Comm.) No.706/2025
A Delhi Commercial Court has recently granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining UK-based YouTuber Adam El-Megrisi, who operates the channel “VidBrew”, from reproducing or monetising content belonging to Karl Edward Rice, also known as Karl Rock, in a copyright infringement and passing off suit. District Judge Vinod Yadav held that a prima facie case of infringement of copyrighted works and passing off was made out against El-Megrisi.
Jammu Court Grants Interim Relief To JioStar India, Restrains Unauthorised Cable Transmission
Case Title: JioStar India Private Limited v. M/S Take One JK Media Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: Original Suits OS/148/2026
Principal District Judge R.N. Watal, Jammu on 24 February protected the broadcast reproduction rights of JioStar India Private Limited by issuing an ad interim injunction against several regional cable networks. The judge directed that, until the next date of hearing, the defendants shall refrain from “retransmitting, rebroadcasting, disseminating, exhibiting and/or communicating” its content, including popular television shows and exclusive sporting events notified as being of national importance.
Delhi Court Awards ₹20 Lakh Damages To Siemens In NX Software Piracy Case
Case Title: Siemens Industry Software Inc. & Anr. v. Mr. Niilesh Dhanukar & Ors.
Case Number: CS (Comm) 470/2023
A Commercial Court at Saket, New Delhi, has decreed a copyright infringement suit in favour of Siemens Industry Software Inc.and its Indian subsidiary, restraining Maharashtra-based mould maker Om Sai Moulds and Plastics and its promoters from using unlicensed copies of its NX (Unigraphics) software. In a judgment dated February 19, 2026, District Judge Anuradha Shukla granted a permanent injunction and awarded 20 lakh in damages.
TRADE MARKS REGISTRY
United Breweries Secures Trade Mark Registration For Kingfisher Sound Mark “Oo La La La La Le O”
United Breweries Limited has secured a registration for the sound trade mark associated with its Kingfisher brand, with the Trade Marks Registry issuing a certificate of registration for the jingle popularly rendered as “Oo La La La La Le O” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The registration, granted by the Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai, confers statutory exclusive rights on United Breweries Limited over the auditory brand asset, which has been extensively deployed in advertising and brand communication across India. The certificate has been issued under Section 23(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 56(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.