LiveLawBiz IPR Monthly Digest: March, 2026
Riya Rathore
1 April 2026 7:35 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: Sujoy Ghosh vs State of Jharkhand & Ors
Case Number: SLP (Crl) 9452/2025
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment in a plea filed by filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings alleging copyright infringement in connection with the film Kahaani 2, which was declined by the Jharkhand High Court. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard the matter and reserved the verdict. Earlier, on July 2, 2025, the court issued notice and granted interim relief by dispensing with Ghosh's personal appearance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh during the pendency of the case, and also directed that no coercive steps be taken against him.
Supreme Court Directs Status Quo In Zenlab-Latros Pharmaceuticals Trademark Dispute Over “ZENOVIT”
Case Title: Zenlab India (Now Known As Zenlab Ethica Ltd. & Anr. v. Latros Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd
Case Number: SLP (C) 3868 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 107
The Supreme Court recently directed the parties to maintain the status quo in a trademark dispute between Zenlab India and Latros Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., while asking the trial court to expeditiously decide the pending suits. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe passed the order while allowing an appeal filed by Zenlab challenging a judgment of the Bombay High Court dated February 16, 2022, which had granted an injunction in favour of Latros.
Case Title: Sujoy Ghosh vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case Number: SLP (Crl) 9452/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 121
The Supreme Court on Friday quashed criminal proceedings against filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh in a copyright infringement case relating to the film “Kahaani 2," setting aside the summoning order issued against him by the CJM Hazaribagh and the subsequent refusal of the Jharkhand High Court to quash the case. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while allowing Ghosh's petition, said:
“In the result, the summoning order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the CJM and order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the High Court, are quashed and set aside. The proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1267 of 2017, pending before the CJM, Hazaribagh, is quashed and set aside. Accordingly the appeal is allowed.”
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Acharya Balkrishna v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 291/2026
Patanjali Ayurved co-founder and Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna has moved the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights against alleged deepfakes, misleading videos, and online misinformation. The court on Monday expressed reservations over the wide scope of the takedown relief sought. During the hearing, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the prayers in the suit appeared overly broad and cautioned that a public figure must be prepared to face criticism, satire, and commentary along with public praise.
Case Title: Cloud Wellness Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Spa De Soleil Inc
Case Number: CS(COMM) 276/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 293
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Cloud Wellness Pvt Ltd and its director. The Court restrained US-based Spa De Soleil Inc from using the trademark “DERMATOUCH” or any identical or deceptively similar mark. The Court held that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case of prior use, registration, goodwill and reputation in the mark. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on March 20, 2026. The Court observed that the plaintiffs had established prior adoption and registered ownership of the mark “DERMATOUCH”. The mark has been used since April 1, 2017, for cosmetic and skincare products.
Case Title: Gautam Gambhir v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 287/2026
The Delhi High Court on Monday allowed Indian cricket coach Gautam Gambhir to withdraw his application seeking interim injunction in a personality rights suit after the court pointed out serious defects in the pleadings and the absence of specific “takedown” prayers identifying the allegedly infringing content. The application was withdrawn after Justice Jyoti Singh observed during the hearing that the plaintiff had not provided a defendant-wise and URL-wise list of content sought to be removed, making it difficult for the court to grant effective relief.
Case Title: Products And Ideas India Pvt. Ltd. v. Nilkamal Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 111/2025, CM APPL. 41897/2025 & CM APPL. 41898/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 295
The Delhi High Court on Monday set aside a single judge's order and restored an interim injunction protecting the “STELLADEXIN” trademark used for commercial induction cookers. In a judgment pronounced on March 23, 2026, a division bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the single bench incorrectly applied the principles of international exhaustion and prior user to vacate the original injunction order.
Case Title: Acharya Balkrishna v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 291/2026
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday passed an interim order directing removal of specific online content targeting Patanjali Ayurved Co-Founder Acharya Balkrishna after observing that several links appeared to be “defamatory,” “obscene,” and “vulgar” and prima facie infringed his personality rights. During today's hearing, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela examined an abridged 18-page compilation of URLs submitted by the plaintiff and clarified that while satire and parody are protected forms of speech, certain material placed before the Court appeared to cross the permissible limit.
Mohanlal Withdraws Plea For Interim Relief In Personality Rights Suit Before Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mohanlal Viswanathan Nair v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 296/2026
The Delhi High Court on Monday allowed Malayalam actor Mohanlal Viswanathan Nair to withdraw his application seeking an interim injunction in a personality rights suit, after the court indicated that the plea lacked the necessary specificity to enable enforceable takedown directions against intermediaries such as Meta and Google. A single bench of Justice Jyoti Singh permitted the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh application containing detailed particulars, including a defendant-wise classification of allegedly infringing links involving deepfakes, unauthorized merchandise, fake endorsements and voice-cloning tutorials.
Delhi High Court To Pass Interim Order Protecting Gautam Gambhir's Personality Rights
Case Title: Gautam Gambhir v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 287/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday said it will pass an interim order to protect the personality rights of Indian cricket coach Gautam Gambhir. Justice Jyoti Singh observed during the hearing that most of the URLs identified in the suit had already been made inaccessible by intermediaries such as Meta, Google/YouTube, Amazon, and Flipkart, and said the injunction would be confined to specific links placed on record.
Case Title: Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr. v. Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 317/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed status quo on the sale and distribution of Dr. Reddy's anti-diabetic drug marketed under the mark “Olympic”, after Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk filed a trademark infringement suit alleging deceptive similarity with its globally known diabetes drug “Ozempic”. Novo Nordisk approached the court, claiming that Dr. Reddy's had begun promotional activities and was on the verge of launching, or had already launched, a semaglutide injection under the impugned mark, prompting urgent intervention to prevent the product from entering the market during the pendency of the proceedings.
Can Copyright Be Claimed Over AI-Generated Song? Delhi High Court To Examine In Infringement Suit
Case Title: Tarun Chaudhary & Anr. v. Kuldeep Meena & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 297/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday raised doubts over whether a song generated using artificial intelligence can receive copyright protection under Indian law. The court was hearing a copyright infringement suit filed by songwriter-producer Tarun Chaudhary, who claims that a song whose rights he purchased was infringed by the defendants. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed during the hearing that the legal position on AI-generated works remains unsettled, remarking, “There is no judgment on AI," while also questioning whether copyright can be claimed where the composition itself appears to have been generated by an AI tool.
Case Title: Britannia Industries Limited v. Rajat Chawla Sole Proprietor Of Madhve Global Enterprises
Case Number: CS(COMM) 480/2024 & I.A. 31014/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 301
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant a temporary injunction to Britannia Industries Limited in its trademark dispute against a manufacturer using the mark “RENEWTRIA” inside a similar geometric label. In a judgment dated March 24, 2026, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Britannia was unable to show that its five-sided pentagonal device, when used by itself without the well-known “BRITANNIA” wordmark, had acquired a distinctive identity among consumers.
Delhi High Court Records Settlement In Singh & Singh Law Firm Trademark Dispute Against CA Firm
Case Title: Singh And Singh Law Firm LLP & Anr. v. Singh And Singh Chartered Accountants & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 192/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 302
The Delhi High Court has decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP against Singh and Singh Chartered Accountants after recording a settlement under which the CA firm agreed to change its name to “SINGH M & CO” and transfer the domain name singhandsingh.in to the plaintiffs. Justice Jyoti Singh, in an order dated March 25, 2026, recorded the settlement between the parties and directed that the defendants complete the transfer of the domain name by May 6, 2026.
Case Title: Wirtgen Gmbh v. Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks And Ors
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 303
The Delhi High Court has quashed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents refusing a patent application by Wirtgen GMBH, ruling that the introduction of new technical objections for the first time in a final refusal order violates the fundamental principles of natural justice. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held on March 23, 2026, that the impugned order was procedurally infirm as it deprived the applicant of a fair opportunity to address the specific grounds of refusal.
Delhi High Court Grants Temporary Dynamic Injunction Against Illegal Streaming Of TATA IPL 2026
Case Title: Jiostar India Private Limited v. Https//Daddylives.Nl & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 313/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 304
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of JioStar India Private Limited restraining unauthorized streaming and broadcasting of the TATA IPL 2026 event, holding that the company had made out a prima facie case for protection of its exclusive broadcast rights. The 2026 IPL season is scheduled to commence in two days on March 28.
Case Title: Marriott International Inc. v. Savya Realty LLP & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 311/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 305
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Savya Realty LLP and its partners from using the mark "EDITION" for realty projects, holding it to be “completely identical” to Marriott International Inc.'s registered trademark 'THE EDITION' and likely to mislead consumers. On March 25, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that “the plaintiff has made out a prima facie strong case in its favour,” noting that “the overwhelming documents on record tilt the balance in favour of the plaintiff” and that it is “likely to suffer great loss and injury which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms if the defendants are not injuncted immediately.”
Delhi High Court To Pass Interim Orders To Protect Actor Mohanlal's Personality Rights
Case Title: Mohanlal Viswanathan Nair v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 296/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday indicated that it will grant interim protection to the personality rights of Malayalam actor Mohanlal, while asking him to first place the allegedly infringing material on record. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed Mohanlal's request to bring additional parties into the case. The court also directed him to circulate a compilation of the offending links to all defendants. The matter returns after the court had earlier permitted the actor to withdraw his interim plea, with liberty to move a fresh application supported by fuller details.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Reviving Opposition To IBM's “TIVOLI” Trademark Application
Case Title: International Business Machines Corporation v. Tivoli Gardens & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 45/2025 & IA Nos.19415/2025 & 26937/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 214
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside an order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks that permitted Tivoli Gardens to revive its opposition to International Business Machines Corporation's application for registration of the mark “TIVOLI”. Justice Tejas Karia allowed IBM's appeal. The court held that the statutory timeline for filing evidence in support of opposition admits of no discretion.
Case Title: Dr Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi Through Power Of Attorney Holder v. John Does Ashok Kumars & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 178/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 215
Calling the threat to his image “real and present”, the Delhi High Court has protected Maharashtra-based spiritual leader Dr Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi's Persinlaity Rights Against AI-generated deepfakes. The court restrained the unauthorized use of his name, voice, and persona and ordered Google, Meta and X to take down infringing content within 48 hours and disclose subscriber information of those responsible. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction on February 24, observing that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case. “The dent and damage to the image and personality of the plaintiff, prima facie, appears to be real and present,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Finds 'Huge Counterfeiting Operation', Awards ₹2.5 Lakh Damages To HUL, P&G
Case Title: Hindustan Lever Ltd. & Anr. v. Rakesh Goyal & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 256/2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 216
The Delhi High Court has recently decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (now HUL) and another plaintiff, a subsidiary of Procter & Gamble Company, USA, awarding Rs 2,50,000 in damages against individuals found to be engaged in counterfeiting fast-moving consumer goods. In a judgment delivered on February 28, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia held that the defendants were running a “huge counterfeiting operation” involving fake shampoos, creams, detergents and other FMCG products sold under the plaintiffs' well-known marks.
Case Title: Britannia Industries Ltd v. Desi Bites Snacks P Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 983/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 217
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against Britannia Industries Ltd and its authorised representative in a trademark dispute over the mark “GOOD DAY”. The plea was filed by Desibites Snacks Pvt Ltd and its director. The applicants alleged that Britannia had falsely stated on oath that it first became aware of their products only in the third week of October 2024. They also alleged that Britannia suppressed the fact that it had filed a rectification petition in 2018 against a trademark registration for “GOOD DAY” held by the director of Desi Bites, Roop Chand Agarwal, for papad.
Case Title: Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Zee Laboratories Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 896/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 219
Calling it “a case of triple identity,” the Delhi High Court has restrained Zee Laboratories from using the marks 'FEXIT', 'FEXIT-B' and 'FEXIT-M', holding them deceptively similar to GlaxoSmithKline's registered antibiotic brand 'PHEXIN'. Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on February 28, 2026, on an interim application by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. seeking restraint against infringement of its mark 'PHEXIN', passing off, unfair competition and dilution.
Delhi High Court Bars Groundless Copyright Threats Against TV9 Over Brief Use Of Third-Party Footage
Case Title: Associated Broadcasting Company Limited v. Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 9/2024 & I.A. 260/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 227
The Delhi High Court has declared that certain TV9 Network news videos uploaded on its YouTube channels do not infringe the copyright of third parties and restrained four foreign entities from issuing further groundless copyright threats against the broadcaster. The videos covered events such as Hurricane Laura in the United States, heavy snowfall and floods, the Israel–Hamas conflict, and the 2023 Chinese balloon incident.
Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection Of Crystal Crop's Herbicidal Composition Patent
Case Title: Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 19/2023 & I.A. 20715/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 228
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Crystal Crop Protection Ltd., upholding a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to reject a patent application for a herbicidal composition designed for field crops. Justice Tejas Karia upheld the Assistant Controller's finding that the proposed invention lacked an inventive step and fell under the statutory bar of Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, as it constituted a 'mere admixture' of known substances.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction To Novartis Against 'NOVIETS' For Trademark Infringement
Case Title: Novartis AG & Ors. Noviets Pharma & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 218/2024 & I.A. 24963/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 229
The Delhi High Court on 28 February granted an interim injunction in favour of the global healthcare company Novartis, restraining several Bihar-based entities, including Noviets Pharma and Noviets Veterinary Private Limited, from using the marks 'NOVIETS' and its associated logos. Justice Tejas Karia observed that the contested marks were deceptively similar to the well-known 'NOVARTIS' trademark and logo, noting a likelihood of confusion among the public.
Case Title: Radico Khaitan Ltd v. Mohit Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 & I.A. 13752/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 230
The Delhi High Court recently allowed a rectification petition filed by Radico Khaitan Ltd., formerly Rampur Distillery & Chemical Company Ltd., directing the removal and cancellation of the 'GRAND MASTI' trademark registration held by Mohit Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd. from the Trade Marks Register. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in a judgment delivered on 27 February 2026, observed that the registered mark was deceptively similar to Radico Khaitan's established 'MASTIH' brand, in use since 1969.
Case Title: Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited v. Anondita Medicare Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 184/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 233
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited, restraining Anondita Medicare Limited and the other entities behind the impugned Instagram pages from using social media content that allegedly copies the original artistic works and taglines of its popular 'MANFORCE' condom brand. On February 25, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that a side-by-side comparison of the Instagram posts “clearly would depict, prima facie, infringement of the copyrights of the plaintiff.” The Court said the material on record showed an “almost complete and identical imitation of the original artistic works and the tagline” of the plaintiff.
Case Title: Novo Nordisk v. Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited and Anr
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 204/2025 & CM APPL. 78607/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 242
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed Danish Pharma Company Novo Nordisk's appeal seeking an interim injunction against Dr Reddy's Laboratories Ltd in a patent infringement dispute over the anti-diabetic drug Semaglutide. The drug is the active ingredient in Novo Nordisk's blockbuster diabetes medicine Ozempic, which has also gained global attention for its weight loss effects. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla upheld a Single Judge's order refusing to grant interim relief restraining Dr. Reddy's from dealing in Semaglutide, holding that the defendants had raised a credible challenge to the validity of the patent.
Sale Of Used HDDs With Disclosure Does Not Amount to Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Western Digital Technologies Inc. & Anr. v. Geonix International Private Limited, Through Its Directors, Mr. Gaurav Jain Mr. Saurabh Jain & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 146/2024, CM APPL. 39898/2024 & CM APPL. 39900/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 243
The Delhi High Court on 9 March, dismissed appeals by Western Digital and Seagate against the sale of refurbished hard disk drives (HDDs), upholding the Single Judge's order permitting such sales. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, held that refurbishers selling end-of-life HDDs do not commit trademark infringement or “reverse passing off,” provided they comply with strict disclosure requirements.
Reverse Passing Off Foreign To Indian Trademark Jurisprudence, Not Enforceable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Western Digital Technologies Inc. & Anr. v. Geonix International Private Limited, Through Its Directors, Mr. Gaurav Jain Mr. Saurabh Jain & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 146/2024, CM APPL. 39898/2024 & CM APPL. 39900/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 243
The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that the tort of “reverse passing off” is foreign to Indian trademark jurisprudence and does not create an enforceable cause of action under the Trade Marks Act. The court dismissed appeals filed by Western Digital and Seagate against refurbishers who remove original brand labels from used hard disk drives and sell them under new brands. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that Indian trademark jurisprudence recognises the traditional doctrine of passing off and does not recognise reverse passing off. The doctrine applies where a trader represents its own goods as those of another. The law does not extend to claims where a trader complains that its goods are being presented as someone else's.
Delhi High Court Restrains Oiltech Engineering From Using Pirated Bentley STAAD, SACS Software
Case Title: Bentley Systems Inc & Anr. v. Oiltech Engineering India Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 49/2023 & I.A. 1674/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 250
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted a permanent injunction to infrastructure engineering software company Bentley Systems Inc., holding that Oiltech Engineering India Private Limited had used pirated versions of its software. The court restrained the company from copying, installing, or using unauthorized versions of Bentley's STAAD and SACS software programs. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “It appears that the defendants rather than procuring genuine licenses have used pirated/unauthorized versions of the said softwares. The defendants have by such use, infringed plaintiff no.1's copyright subsisting in the software programs.”
Case Title: Crocodile International Pte. Ltd. v La Chemise Lacoste & Anr.
Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) 18/2024 & CM APPL. 56314/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 245
The Delhi High Court on Monday modified a single judge ruling in a long-running trademark dispute between Lacoste and Singapore based Crocodile International, holding that the latter's crocodile device infringed both the French fashion house's trademark and its copyright in the iconic saurian emblem. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment pronounced on March 9, 2026, partly allowed cross appeals by the parties and modified the August 14, 2024 ruling of the single judge, which had limited the finding of infringement to trademark alone.
Case Title: K.S. Oils Limited v. Shivang Edibles Oils Limited & Anr.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 69/2026 & CM APPL. 14636/2026, CM APPL. 14639- 14642/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 315
The Delhi High Court on Monday set aside an ex parte ad interim injunction that had restrained K.S. Oils Limited from using the 'KALASH' trademark and has asked the Trial Court to take a fresh call on the injunction application. This allows them to use the mark for edible oils. The ruling came on March 30, 2026, from a division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, which found that the trial court's conclusion on a prima facie case could not be sustained.
Case Title: Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Mr. Vijay Keshav Wagh & Ors.
Case Number: CO(COMM.IPD-CR) 18/2023 & I.A. 23338/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 251
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the Registrar of Copyrights to remove from the Register a copyright registration obtained by Vijay Keshav Wagh for the artistic work titled “SHREE SAKSHAT,” holding that it copied in its entirety the TIGER beer logo owned by Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that a comparison of the two logos showed that Wagh had reproduced Heineken's tiger device in its entirety, with only minor additions that did not alter the dominant feature of the mark.
Case Title: Parle Products Private Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 49/2025 & I.A.19990/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 249
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Parle Products Pvt Ltd in a trademark dispute over the mark “20-20”. The court held that when competing trademark applications are filed on a “proposed to be used” basis, subsequent commercial use by one applicant cannot defeat the earlier filing date of the other. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks dated April 29, 2025 rejecting Parle's opposition to a rival company's application to register the mark “20-20” for goods in Class 30.
Delhi High Court Quashes 'NAUKRIYAN' Trademark, Says It Is Deceptively Similar To Naukri.com
Case Title: Info Edge (India) Limited v. Pradeep Namdeo & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 34/2025 & I.A. 16734/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 247
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed the trademark registration of "NAUKRIYAN," finding it deceptively similar to the “NAUKRI” mark used by Info Edge (India) Limited for its flagship job portal, Naukri.com. In a judgment delivered on March 10, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said the dominant and essential feature in both marks is the word "naukri." According to the court, “naukriyan” is simply the plural form of the Hindi word “naukri”, meaning job, and that this variation does not create enough distinctiveness to avoid confusion, particularly since both parties offer similar employment-related services.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside 'FISCHBEIN' Trademark Abandonment Order Over Uncommunicated Objections
Case Title: Nvenia LLC v. The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 28/2025, I.A. 15577/2025 & I.A. 22984/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 246
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order by the Registrar of Trade Marks that had declared a trademark application for the mark 'FISCHBEIN' as abandoned. On March 10, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated that the Registrar's decision violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the application based on grounds never communicated to the applicant, nVenia. “It is the bounden duty of the Trade Marks Office while examining the application to place all objections before the applicant so as to enable the applicant to know and be aware of the objections which are to be addressed. It is those very objections alone that the applicant can be expected to respond to at that stage,” the bench remarked.
Delhi High Court Stops Indore Firm From Using Glaxo-Like Drug Packaging, Grants Temporary Injunction
Case Title: Glaxo Group Limited & Anr. v. Anand Jain, Trading As Jain Group/ Jankem Life Science
Case Number: CS(COMM) 215/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 248
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of pharmaceutical company Glaxo Group Limited, restraining an Indore-based trader from using trademarks and packaging deceptively similar to its popular medicinal brands including ZINETAC, AUGMENTIN, CALPOL and BETNESOL, after finding a prima facie case of infringement and breach of an earlier undertaking. In an order passed on March 10, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the defendant, Anand Jain trading as Jain Group/Jankem Life Science, had continued to use marks and trade dress similar to those of the plaintiff despite having undertaken in 2024 to cease such use and destroy the infringing inventory.
Delhi High Court Restrains Kent RO From Using 'KENT' Mark For Fans, Notes Prior Use By Kent Cables
Case Title: Kent RO Systems Limited & Ors. v. Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 142/2023 & CM APPL. 35806/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 254
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday upheld an interim injunction restraining Kent RO Systems Limited from manufacturing or selling fans under the trademark “KENT”, affirming a single judge's order passed in favour of Kent Cables Private Limited. In a judgment delivered on March 11, 2026, a division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the appeals filed by the purifier manufacturer and held that the cable company had shown prior adoption of the mark for electrical goods and prima facie use of the mark for fans, disentitling Kent RO from seeking injunctive relief at the interim stage.
Delhi High Court Cancels Copyright On Bicycle Parts Label For Lack Of Originality
Case Title: Bombay Metals Pvt Ltd vs Tara Singh and Anr.
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 770/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 311
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the copyright registration of a product packaging label used by one Tara Singh for bicycle parts, holding that the sticker was a substantial imitation of Bombay Metal Works Pvt. Ltd.'s label in its layout, colour scheme and arrangement, despite bearing a different trade name. “It is trite law that Copyright protection is granted to an artistic work under the Act, only if the said artistic work satisfies the standard of originality,” Justice Tejas Karia said in an order dated March 28, 2026.
Case Title: Lawrence School Sanawar Society vs. Mr. Subodh Sinha & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 245/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 312
The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of Lawrence School Sanawar Society, which runs The Lawrence School in Sanawar, Himachal Pradesh, in a dispute over allegedly defamatory content posted about the institution on Facebook. The order targets a Facebook page and certain individuals. Educator Subodh Sinha, the page IPSC & Indian Top Schools Alumni (IITSA), and Ankit Kumar Gupta have been restrained, along with anyone acting on their behalf, from using the school's registered trademarks. Meta Platforms Inc. has also been directed to take down the impugned content.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Volkswagen's Challenge To Maruti Suzuki's 'Transformotion' Trademark
Case Title: Volkswagen AG v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 257
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by German automobile major Volkswagen AG, allowing Maruti Suzuki India Limited to proceed with registration of the trademark “TRANSFORMOTION” for vehicles. The ruling came in a judgment delivered on March 12, 2026, in which Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the rival marks, when compared as a whole, do not create any plausible likelihood of confusion and appear distinct from each other.
Delhi High Court Grants Injunction To Philips Against Geetech For Unauthorized Medical Software
Case Title: Philips Medical Systems Netherland Bv & Anr. v. Geetech Medical Systems And Services & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 233/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 264
The Delhi High Court on 13 March 2026 granted an ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction in favour of the Dutch healthcare conglomerate Philips, restraining several entities from reproducing or selling counterfeit versions of its proprietary medical diagnostic software. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that Philips had established a strong prima facie case regarding the systematic piracy of its Integrated Security Tool (IST) certificates. The Bench noted: “The plaintiffs appear to be the owners of the proprietary software, CSIP materials, IST certificates and associated intellectual property, all of which constitute 'Literary Works' protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. Defendant No.1 appears to be engaged in the systematic counterfeiting and unauthorized reproduction of plaintiffs' IST certificates and proprietary service documentation.”
Case Title: Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v. GGS Group Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 242/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 270
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Tata Sons Private Limited and Tata Consumer Products Limited, restraining a Punjab-based firm from dealing in trademarks and packaging found to be deceptively similar to the well-known “TATA TEA” brand. In an order passed on March 13, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the Tata Group companies had made out a strong prima facie case of infringement in respect of their well-known trademarks.
Case Title: Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Bhaveshbhai Chaturbhai Nakrani Trading As Arvi Tex
Case Number: CS(COMM) 235/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 269
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Lifestyle Equities C.V. and its licensing arm, protecting the intellectual property of the globally recognized Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) brand. In an order dated March 13, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the brand owners had established a prima facie strong case for grant of an injunction against a rival trader.
Case Title: Mahindra And Mahindra Limited & Anr. v. Diksha Sharma Proprietor Of Mahidnra Packers Movers & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 209/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 271
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that there is an “urgent and alarming need” to amend the Code of Civil Procedure and the IT Rules to deal with evolving online infringement, while refusing to grant a post-decree dynamic injunction in a trademark dispute involving Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., holding that courts cannot go beyond the statutory framework even where digital violations continue after judgment.
Case Title: Embassy Of Peru v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number: LPA 577/2025 & CM APPL. 57234-39/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 278
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday affirmed that Peru cannot claim the exclusive, standalone “PISCO” geographical indication (GI) for its national spirit in India, holding that the name is historically associated with alcoholic beverages produced in both Peru and Chile and granting Peru sole rights would lead to consumer confusion. Calling the dispute a “Tale of Two Countries,” a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla was dealing with an appeal filed by the Embassy of Peru against a single-judge ruling that required the spirit to be registered in India only as “PERUVIAN PISCO” instead of the standalone term “PISCO”.
Case Title: Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd. v. Sumitomo Chemical Company Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) 22/2025 & CM APPL. 45700/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 281
The Delhi High Court has set aside a single-judge order that had rejected a lawsuit filed by Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd. concerning the trademark “PADAN” and its associated packaging for insecticides, holding that the plaint disclosed a triable cause of action and could not have been rejected at the threshold. In a judgment dated March 18, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the single judge went beyond the limited scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by examining disputed facts and the merits of the case while deciding whether the suit should be rejected at the outset.
Case Title: Geron Corporation v. The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 244/2022 & I.A. 10126/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 282
The Delhi High Court has upheld the rejection of a patent application filed by the biopharmaceutical firm Geron Corporation for a method aimed at selecting cancer patients for specialized therapy. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, on March 17, 2026, held that the proposed “in vitro screening method” functions as a diagnostic process, which is barred from patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act.
Case Title: GPN Commercial LLC (USA) v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 219/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 283
The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of American sports nutrition company GPN Commercial LLC, restraining several unknown persons from manufacturing, storing, or selling counterfeit products under the popular protein powder brand “ISOPURE” trademark. The court observed that counterfeiting is a “menace which needs to be curbed with strict heads,” and noted that the sale of low-quality products could harm both the plaintiff's reputation and public health.
Case Title: Gautam Gambhir v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 287/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday directed counsel for Indian cricket team head coach Gautam Gambhir to file a corrected memo of parties in his suit seeking protection of his personality rights, after noticing a discrepancy in the numbering and description of defendants in the court filings. Gambhir has approached the court alleging misuse of his likeness/personality through deepfake videos and false news reports circulating online.
Delhi High Court Directs Sonakshi Sinha To File List Of Infringing URLs In Personality Rights Suit
Case Title: Sonakshi Sinha v. Character Technologies Inc & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 275/2026
The Delhi High Court on Friday directed actor Sonakshi Sinha to file a clear, defendant-wise table of infringing URLs in her suit seeking protection of her personality rights against alleged misuse by AI-based platforms after finding a lack of clarity in the material placed on record. During the hearing, Justice Jyoti Singh expressed concern over websites that allow users to generate chatbots using the actor's likeness, but cautioned that the court would grant only legally recognised reliefs, observing, “Prayer can ask for the moon, but I'm not going to grant it. I will grant what has been granted by this court from time to time.”
Delhi High Court Restrains Sale Of “ELECTROCAD” ORS For Imitating FDC's “ELECTRAL”
Case Title: FDC Limited v. Neeraj Agarwal & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 221/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 285
The Delhi High Court on 11 March, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of FDC Limited, restraining Neeraj Agarwal and a third-party manufacturer from manufacturing or selling oral rehydration salts under the mark Electrocad, whose packaging was alleged to imitate the trade dress of FDC's Electral. Justice Jyoti Singh held that when a product is sold over the counter to consumers who may rely on visual memory rather than reading brand names, imitation of a well-known product's trade dress can cause significant consumer confusion and warrants injunctive protection.
Delhi High Court Orders Newslaundry To Remove “Shit Reporters”, “Shit Show” Remarks Against TV Today
Case Title: TV Today Network Limited v. News Laundry Media Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 268/2022, CM APPL. 18933/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 287
The Delhi High Court on Friday partly allowed an appeal filed by TV Today Network Limited, directing News Laundry Media Private Limited to remove specific derogatory remarks from its digital platforms at the interim stage. A division bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that while the defence of fair dealing in copyright law involves fact-intensive examination requiring trial, the use of expressions such as “shit reporters” and “shit show” was prima facie disparaging and defamatory.
Case Title: Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 272/2026, I.A. 7118/2026, I.A. 7117/2026, I.A. 7119/2026, I.A. 7120/2026, I.A. 7121/2026, I.A. 7122/2026, I.A. 7123/2026 & I.A. 7124/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 291
The Delhi High Court has recorded an interim arrangement between Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk and Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited in a patent infringement suit concerning semaglutide, a compound used in the popular diabetes and weight-loss drug Ozempic. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on March 20, 2026, recorded that the parties had agreed to an interim arrangement under which the Torrent would ensure that the concentration of a specific chemical component in its product does not fall within the range claimed under the Danish Pharms's patent.
Delhi High Court Says Patent Amendments Permissible At Appellate Stage, Sets Aside Daikin Refusal
Case Title: Daikin Industries Ltd v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 56/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 237
The Delhi High Court on 26 February reiterated that patent amendments are permissible even at the appellate stage, so long as they fall within the statutory framework of the Patents Act. Justice Jyoti Singh partially allowed the appeal filed by Daikin Industries Ltd, setting aside the Patent Office order that had earlier denied the company a patent for its 'Shell-And-Plate Heat Exchanger.'
Case Title: Fertin Pharma A/S v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 25/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 238
The Delhi High Court on 18 February set aside an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that had rejected a patent application from Fertin Pharma A/S, observing that the regulator failed to provide the requisite reasoning expected of a quasi-judicial authority. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the original refusal was “cryptic,” whereas reasoning is “the bedrock of all orders, including those passed by quasi-judicial authorities.”
Delhi High Court Bars Ex-Franchisee From Using 'Moti Mahal' Trademark After Franchise Termination
Case Title: Moti Mahal Legendary Hospitality Through Its Sole Proprietor & Anr. v. M/S Sant Foods Through Its Proprietor Mr Ravi Gupta & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 189/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 240
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Moti Mahal Legendary Hospitality, restraining Sant Foods, a former franchisee, from using the “MOTI MAHAL” trademark after the termination of their commercial agreement. The Court observed that once a franchise agreement is terminated, the former franchisee retains no legal right to operate a restaurant using the trademarked name.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Refusal Of Jindal Steel's 'JSP' Trademark, Orders Fresh Consideration
Case Title: Jindal Steel Limited v. Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 75/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 241
The Delhi High Court has partially allowed an appeal filed by Jindal Steel Limited against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing registration of the trademark “JSP,” holding that the decision was a “non-speaking order” passed without considering the arguments and material placed on record. In a judgment delivered on February 17, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the Registrar had failed to consider several issues raised by the company, including its reliance on Sections 34 and 55 of the Trade Marks Act.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: NEC Corporation & Ors vs The Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr
Case Number: IPDAID/21/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 66
The Calcutta High Court on Monday held that Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) are not automatically excluded from protection under the Designs Act and may qualify as registrable designs if they satisfy the statutory requirements. A GUI is the visual interface of a digital device or software that allows users to interact with it through icons, buttons and menus instead of typing text commands. A single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur ruled that the Controller of Designs had adopted an “incorrect and legally untenable” interpretation of the law while rejecting several applications seeking protection for GUI-based designs.
Calcutta High Court Protects 'SWASTIK' Rice Label Against Deceptive Packaging By Competitor
Case Title: Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v. Deepak Kumar Barnwal
Case Number: IP-COM/59/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 63
The Calcutta High Court has decreed a suit in favour of Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited against an individual, Deepak Kumar Barnwal, over the use of the “SWASTIK” label mark for rice products. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed that the respondent's packaging was “strikingly similar and deceptively identical” to that of the petitioner and held that the rival marks appeared to be identical.
Case Title: Neelam Gupta v. Esme Consumer Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/1/2025 In IP-COM/47/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 65
The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that once the proprietor of a trademark or copyright institutes an infringement suit with due diligence, the cause of action in a suit alleging groundless threats automatically extinguishes. On January 30, 2026, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur dismissed a 'threat suit' filed by Neelam Gupta against Esme Consumer Private Limited because the company had, subsequent to the filing of the suit, commenced a formal infringement action in a Delhi court.
Case Title: Prosenjit Chatterjee v. Masala Mamaji & Ors.
Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/1/2026 IN IP-COM/54/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 74
The Calcutta High Court has granted an interim injunction to safeguard the personality rights of actor Prosenjit Chatterjee, restraining Masala Mamaji and another defendant from using his name or photographs, including those generated through Artificial Intelligence (AI), to imply his endorsement of their products without any agreement with him. On March 11, 2026, Justice Arindam Mukherjee held, “However, keeping in mind the stature of the plaintiff and that his image may be tarnished by indiscriminate use of his photographs to portray that he is associated with the products of entities who have no agreement or arrangement with him, a limited protection is granted to the plaintiff at this stage. This limited protection is to prevent multiplicity of judicial proceedings and in view of the fact that refusing an order of restraint will create more inconvenience and cause further prejudice to the plaintiff.”
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Cancels “Tractorjunction” Trademark, Finds Registration Obtained In Bad Faith
Case Title: Rajat Kumar v. Shivankar Gupta & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 479 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 162
The Bombay High Court has allowed a petition seeking cancellation of the trademark “TRACTORJUNCTION” registered in the name of Shivankar Gupta, holding that the registration was obtained in bad faith and was wrongly remaining on the register. In a judgment dated March 23, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the impugned registration was liable to be removed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Bombay High Court Quashes Patent Refusal To Medipack, Says Reasons Are 'Heart And Soul' Of Orders
Case Title: Medipack Global Ventures Private Limited v. Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 19258 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 163
The Bombay High Court on 23 March set aside the Patent Office's refusal to grant a patent for a single-use safety syringe to Medipack Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd., holding that the order was unreasoned and violated the principles of natural justice. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Controller.
'Kaithi' Makers Move Bombay High Court Over 'Bholaa' Remake Rights Dispute
Case Title: Dream Warrior Pictures v Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: COMIP SUIT NO. (L) 3739 OF 2026
Chennai-based production house Dream Warrior Pictures has moved the Bombay High Court seeking a permanent injunction to restrain Reliance Entertainment Studios and others from further exploiting, streaming, or monetizing the Ajay Devgn-starrer 'Bholaa', after claiming that the underlying remake rights have reverted to it following the termination of remake rights agreements. During the hearing on Wednesday, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh heard arguments on the issue of jurisdiction and reserved orders on that aspect.
Case Title: Elder Project Limited V/s. Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) No.27106 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 120
The Bombay High Court on Monday vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted to Elder Projects Ltd in a trademark infringement suit against its group company, Elder Nutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd., holding that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts while seeking injunction without notice to the opposing party. Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that the injunction, granted on September 26, 2025, restrained Elder Nutraceuticals Pvt Ltd from using the mark “ELDER” or any deceptively similar mark for pharmaceutical products.
Case Title: Rajeev Prakash Agarwal v. Tata Play Limited and Others
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 257 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 121
Observing that the blending of Hindi and English is common in India's linguistic landscape, the Bombay High Court has held that a combination of a clipped English word with a Hindi word does not, prima facie, make a trademark inherently distinctive. “The combination of the clipped version of the English word with the Hindi word prima facie does not make it inherently distinctive in our country where there is tendency of blending Hindi and English and spoken as such,” Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed.
Bombay High Court Refuses MINCO Injunction Against Sister Concern Over 13-Year Acquiescence
Case Title: Minco India Private Limited v. Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 1600 OF 2006 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 12616 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 236 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 170
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal by Minco India Private Limited, affirming a Single Judge's decision to deny an interim injunction against Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited, a company run by the appellant's director's brother. The court found that the plaintiff had been aware of the defendant's use of the “MINCO” mark since 2012 yet chose not to act for over 13 years. That prolonged inaction, the bench held, amounted to clear acquiescence, a complete defence in a trademark infringement claim.
Companies Too Can Claim 'Own Name' Defence Against Trademark Infringement: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhavesh Suresh Kataria
Case Number: Commercial Appeal (L) No. 42036 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 122
The Bombay High Court has held that the defence available under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which protects the bona fide use of one's own name, is not confined only to natural persons and can also be invoked by a corporate entity where the name used reflects the surname of its promoters. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and R. N. Laddha made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. against an interim injunction granted in favour of Bhavesh Suresh Kataria, proprietor of “Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy”.
Bombay High Court Protects Shilpa Shetty's Personality Rights, Orders Removal of AI Deepfakes
Case Title: Shilpa Shetty Kundra v. Getoutlive.in & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 720 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 124
The Bombay High Court has recently granted protection to the personality rights of the renowned actress Shilpa Shetty Kundra, ordering the removal of AI-generated deepfakes and restraining commercial entities from the unauthorized use of her likeness. On March 4, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh stated that the actress's personality attributes are protectable elements that cannot be commercially exploited without her express consent.
Case Title: Century 21 Real Estates LLC Versus Century 21 Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 857 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 125
The Bombay High Court has allowed rectification petitions filed by Century 21 Real Estate LLC and ordered cancellation of four trademark registrations for the mark “C21” obtained by Century 21 Town Planners Pvt Ltd, holding that the respondent's adoption of the mark was dishonest and intended to ride on the petitioner's goodwill. “The contention that the marks are dissimilar needs only to be stated to be rejected. This contention once again brings to the fore the dishonesty and inconsistency in the conduct of Respondent No. 1, since Respondent No. 1 has itself relied upon “CENTURY 21 TOWN PLANNERS” to assert rights in “C21”, thereby acknowledging the association between the two.”, the court observed.
Case Title: Rajiv Suri v. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd.
Case Number: SUIT NO. 4804 OF 2000
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 132
The Bombay High Court has recently dismissed a decades-old copyright infringement suit filed by filmmaker Rajiv Suri against Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. concerning the Hindi feature films Manzil and Parwana, characterizing the litigation as a “gross abuse of the process of law” and imposing exemplary costs of Rs 10 lakh on the plaintiff. While pronouncing the judgment, Justice Arif S. Doctor held that Rajiv Suri had approached the court with “unclean hands” by suppressing a Memorandum of Understanding and a Deed of Assignment, which showed that disputes relating to Manzil had already been settled after payment of compensation and that the rights in Parwana had been assigned to a third party before the suit was filed.
Case Title: Saurabh Arora v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Anr.
Case Number: COMM. MISC. PETITION NO. 46 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 131
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order of the Deputy Controller of Patents that had dismissed a post-grant opposition, finding that the decision contained no real reasoning and did not include the technical analysis required under the law. In a judgment dated March 10, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor noted that the patent office had rejected the prior-art claim relied on by the opponent without explaining the basis for doing so. The Court said that because the order was appealable, the absence of reasons made it impossible to assess whether the decision was correct.
Case Title: Universal Test Solutions v. Punam Kumari Singh & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 22386 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 20290 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 133
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an interim plea filed by Universal Test Solutions LLP, declining to grant interim relief in a trademark, copyright and passing-off dispute against its former partner Punam Kumari Singh and others. In a judgment dated March 11, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case to restrain the defendants from using the domain name uts-global.com, the acronym “UTS”, the corporate name ODC Universal Technological Solutions Private Limited, or the software alleged to have been copied from the LLP.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited v. Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 27758 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 27133 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 138
The Bombay High Court has granted urgent ad interim protection to Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), restraining Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited, the owner and operator of Legends League Cricket (LLC), from publicly performing its copyrighted sound recordings during its cricket matches without obtaining a valid licence. Absolute Legends Sports conducts Legends League Cricket, a T20 tournament featuring retired international players, and the music licensing body moved the Court apprehending that its copyrighted recordings would be played during the upcoming fixtures without authorisation.
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Tarun Paints Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO. 28196 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (LODGING) NO. 27857 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 140
The Bombay High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Asian Paints Limited, restraining a rival firm from using the mark “ASIA TUFF” for cement paint and wall putty. In an order dated March 13, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the rival marks show deceptive visual as well as phonetic similarity, giving rise to a strong likelihood of consumer confusion.
Case Title: Delhi Zaika through Partners Mr. Aamir Siddiqui v. Zidz Hospitality LLP & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 39269 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 31885 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 142
The Bombay High Court has granted ad-interim relief to the restaurant chain Delhi Zaika in a trademark dispute involving family members, restraining Zidz Hospitality LLP and others from using the registered trademark “DELHI ZAIKA”, after noting that one of the defendants, who is the biological brother of the plaintiff, had earlier been permitted to use the mark only under a conditional arrangement.
On March 11, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed, “The Plaintiff's proprietary right in the registered trade mark of “DELHI ZAIKA” is prima facie demonstrated from the registration certificate which has been placed on record. The registration has been secured by the Plaintiff in the year 2011. Considering the proprietary right of the Plaintiff in the registered trademark, without the consent of the Plaintiff, the Defendants are prima facie not entitled to use the registered trade mark.”
Case Title: Dr. Bawaskar Technology (Agro) Pvt. Ltd. v. Anannya Agro Products & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.28 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.9 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12806 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 146
The Bombay High Court on Monday granted interim injunction in a trademark dispute over the mark “GERMINATOR” but directed the parties to maintain the status quo for four weeks to allow the defendants to challenge the ruling. A Division Bench of Justice R. I. Chagla and Justice Advait M. Sethna restrained Anannya Agro Products and Avishkar Agro Chem from using the mark “GERMINATOR” or any deceptively similar trade dress in a suit filed by Dr. Bawaskar Technology (Agro) Pvt. Ltd.
Bombay High Court Rejects Rynox Gears' Interim Plea To Injunct Steelite From Using 'RHYNOX' Mark
Case Title: Rynox Gears v. Steelite India
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO.897 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (LODGING) NO.35513 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 148
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused interim relief to motorcycle gear company Rynox Gears in its trademark dispute with Steelite India, holding that the firm made false statements on oath and failed to establish a case for either infringement or passing off. Rynox had sought to stop the rival from using the mark “RHYNOX” for helmets. In an order dated March 17, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh said the pleadings were based on “false statements on oath” and observed that a party seeking equitable relief cannot approach the court without clean hands.
Case Title: Procter & Gamble Health Limited & Anr v. Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO.39102 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (LODGING) NO.38975 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 147
The Bombay High Court has recently granted an interim injunction in favour of Procter & Gamble Health Limited and its German affiliate, restraining the use of a rival mark found to be deceptively similar to their registered trademarks “LIVOGEN” and “LIVOGEN-Z”. On March 17, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of trademark infringement against Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Curewell Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. over their adoption of the mark “LIVOGEM”.
Patent Examination Cannot Be Skipped Due To Pre-Grant Opposition: Bombay High Court
Case Title: AIC246 AG & Co. KG v. The Patent Office of India & Ors.
Case Number: COMM. MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 72 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 109
The Bombay High Court has set aside the rejection of a fungicide patent application, reiterating that examination proceedings under the Patents Act cannot be bypassed merely because a pre-grant opposition is pending. In a judgment delivered on February 27, Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the Controller acted “plainly arbitrary, unexplained, and contrary to the statutory scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder” by cancelling a scheduled examination hearing, assuring the applicant that a fresh hearing would be granted, and then rejecting the patent application without granting that hearing.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Bars Delhi Hospital From Infringing 'SAIFEE HOSPITAL' Mark
Case Title: Saifee Hospital Trust v. Saifi Hospital Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 41547 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 41524 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 110
The Bombay High Court has recently granted ad-interim relief to Saifee Hospital Trust, restraining a Delhi-based company from infringing its registered trademark “SAIFEE HOSPITAL” after finding that the rival mark “SAIFI HOSPITAL” is “visually, structurally and phonetically deceptively similar”. In an order dated February 10, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the defendant company, Saifi Hospital Private Limited, was offering similar medical services under the impugned mark even though the trust is the registered proprietor of the word mark.
Madras High Court
Case Title: Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/s Rasnam Foods Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: C.S(COMM DIV) No. 116 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 89
The Madras High Court has recently held that former franchisees of the Sangeetha restaurant chain were liable for passing off for about 17 months after ending their association but ruled that their use of the name “Geetham” did not amount to trademark infringement. In a judgment pronounced on March 25, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the defendants had dishonestly adopted a trade dress identical to the plaintiff's iconic red-and-green color scheme to mislead the public into believing that the famous "Sangeetha" restaurants had simply "metamorphosed" into "Geetham.
Madras High Court Rejects Lahari Recording's Claim Over Satellite Telecast of Telugu-Dubbed 'Roja'
Case Title: Lahari Recording Co. P. Ltd. v. Jain Television (Mala Publicity Service P Ltd) & Ors.
Case Number: OSA No. 206 of 2016 and OSA No.207 of 2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 64
The Madras High Court has dismissed appeals filed by Lahari Recording Co. Pvt. Ltd. over the satellite telecast of the Telugu-dubbed version of Roja, the Mani Ratnam-directed Tamil film that became one of Indian cinema's most recognisable titles of the 1990s. The company had sought to block the broadcast and claim Rs 1 crore in damages, arguing that the telecast infringed its rights in the dubbed version.
Madras High Court Protects '777 Oil' Trademark, Sets Aside Order Dismissing Infringement Suit
Case Title: M/s. J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd v. M/s. Sanjeevi Pharma
Case Number: OSA(CAD) No. 1 of 2025 & C.M.P.No. 7 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 65
The Madras High Court on Friday protected the trademark “777 Oil” used for a Siddha medicinal oil to treat psoriasis, setting aside a single judge's decision that had dismissed an infringement suit filed by J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals against Sanjeevi Pharma. In a judgment pronounced on March 6, 2026, Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu allowed the company's appeal, holding that the earlier judgment suffered from “perversity,” and decreed the suit with a permanent injunction restraining Sanjeevi Pharma from using the mark “777 Oil” or any deceptively similar mark.
Madras High Court Orders Removal of 'Sugar Pop' Device Mark On Plea By Sugar Cosmetics Brand
Case Title: Sugar Brands Pvt. Ltd v. M/s. Sugar Pop Bath And Body LLP & Anr.
Case Number: (T)OP(TM) No. 375 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 90
The Madras High Court has recently directed the removal of the 'SUGAR POP' device mark from the Register of Trade Marks on a plea by Sugar Brands Pvt. Ltd., holding that it was entered without sufficient cause due to lack of due diligence by the Registrar. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in an order dated March 25, 2026, observed that the Registrar failed to properly search for conflicting marks despite the petitioner's existing registrations, leading to the wrongful entry of the impugned mark.
Case Title: Sunshine Pictures Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.A.Nos.185 & 186 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.69 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 52
The Madras High Court has granted an ad interim injunction in a case of apprehended infringement of the copyright of the cinematographic film titled “THE KERALA STORY 2”, restraining various Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and cable TV operators from unauthorized broadcasting. In a decision passed on March 2, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy stated that it is necessary to prevent unlawful broadcasts at the very threshold to avoid irreversible injury. However, the Court observed that the wide-reaching nature of the requested relief could potentially impact the legitimate business interests of the respondents.
Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v. Chennai Super Kings Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA 212 of 2026 and CS (Comm Div) 81 of 2026
Sun TV Network has approached the Madras High Court seeking to restrain Chennai Super Kings (CSK) from using its songs from the movies "Jailer," “Jailer 2," and “Coolie” for the team's promotional activities. Sun has also claimed damages to the tune of Rs 1 crore. When the matter came up before Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy on Friday (13th March 2026), Senior Advocate J Ravindran, appearing for the network company, stated that the team had used songs that belonged to Sun for its promotional videos.
Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v. Chennai Super Kings Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA 212 of 2026 and CS (Comm Div) 81 of 2026
The Madras High Court on Monday (March 16) disposed of Sun TV's applications after Chennai Super Kings undertook not to use songs from Sun TV-owned films, including Coolie and Jailer, in promotional content without obtaining prior licence. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy closed the interim pleas after taking note of the affidavit filed by KS Viswanathan, Managing Director of CSK, undertaking not to use the songs without obtaining a license.
Madras High Court Restrains “Sri Aachi Mess” From Using Registered AACHI Trademark
Case Title: Mr.A.D.Padmasingh Isaac & Ors. v. Mr.A.D.Padmasingh Isaac
Case Number: C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.208 of 2025 and A.No.822 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 76
The Madras High Court on 9 March 2026, held that a restaurant in Ulundurpet cannot use the name “SRI AACHI MESS”, permanently restraining it in favour of Mr. A.D. Padmasingh Isaac and his firms, Aachi Masala Foods and Flora Foods. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed: “The nature of food served in the defendant's restaurant is insufficient to conclude that services are not similar. Thus, the defendant is the later user of a deceptively similar mark in respect of similar services.”
Case Title: Solariz Healthcare Private Limited v. The Deputy Registrar (Head of Office) & Anr.
Case Number: WP(IPD) No. 3 of 2026 and WMP.(IPD)No.2 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 79
While Section 18(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which requires a trademark application to be filed in the Trade Marks Registry office within whose territorial limits the applicant's principal place of business in India is situated, governs the place of filing, the Madras High Court has clarified that the statute does not require that the application must be examined only by an officer attached to that very office.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in an order dated March 4, 2026, held that under Section 3(2) of the Act, the Registrar is empowered to authorize officers to discharge the functions of the Registrar, and neither the Act nor the Trade Marks Rules restrict such authorization to officers attached to the “appropriate office”.
Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Case Number: OA Nos. 242 & 243 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm Div) No.90 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 82
The Madras High Court has protected the streaming rights of Reliance Industries Limited (Jio Studios), granting an interim injunction against dozens of internet service providers and cable operators to prevent the unlawful broadcast of the film 'Dhurandhar The Revenge'. On March 18, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that such preventive measures are necessary to avoid irreversible injury to the creators just before the movie's scheduled theatrical release.
Madras High Court Grants Interim Injunction To Block Unauthorized Broadcast Of 'Jab Khuli Kitab'
Case Title: Applause Entertainment Private Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.A.Nos.220 & 221 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.83 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 84
The Madras High Court on 16 March, held that preventive measures are necessary to protect copyright owners from irreparable harm and granted an ad‑interim injunction restraining unauthorized broadcasting of the film Jab Khuli Kitab. A single‑judge Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy allowed the injunction against dozens of internet service providers (ISPs) and cable TV operators.
Case Title: Sree Lakshmi Balaji Industries v. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Industries & Anr.
Case Number: (T)OP(TM) No. 234 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 85
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Sree Lakshmi Balaji Industries seeking removal of the trademark “Ayyappan Brand” owned by Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Industries from the Register of Trade Marks on the ground that the user date recorded for the mark was inconsistent and that the trademark owner had not used the mark in the form in which it was registered. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in an order dated March 11, 2026, said the petitioner had not shown sufficient grounds to remove the trademark, either for non-use under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, or for rectification under Section 57, which allows the Court to correct or remove an entry from the register.
Case Title: Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd v. Molla Karimunnisabi
Case Number: OA Nos. 137 to 139 of 2026 and A.No.847 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.55 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 86
The Madras High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd., restraining a Kurnool-based trader from using the mark “Freedum” for edible oils. In an order dated March 16, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the applicant had established a prima facie case showing the rival trader had adopted a mark deceptively similar to Gemini's registered trademark for identical products.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Mr. Anil Gopalji Thacker v. Mr. Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra
Case Number: R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 207 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 207 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 39
The Gujarat High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal filed by Anil Gopalji Thacker, upholding a trial court's refusal to grant an interim injunction against Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra for using the trade name “Kshetrapal Construction.” In a judgment delivered on March 16, 2026, Justice Niral R. Mehta held that the applicant was not entitled to equitable relief because he had suppressed material facts regarding a prior business relationship with the rival developer.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Jallan Enterprises v. M/S. Sarathi International Inc.
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5183 OF 2025 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5220 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 40
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an injunction restraining the use of the “TULSI” mark for agarbattis, holding that it is prima facie deceptively similar to the long-standing “TULASI” mark and not merely descriptive of fragrance. In a judgment delivered on March 25, 2026, Justice Ravi V. Hosmani held that Jallan Enterprises' use of the word “TULSI” was displayed in a trademark-like manner that prima facie infringed the long-standing registered mark “TULASI” of Sarathi International Inc.
Case Title: Wacom Company Limited v. Cirel Systems Private Limited
Case Number: CIVIL PETITION NO.426 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 29
The Karnataka High Court has recently allowed Japanese technology firm Wacom Company Limited to collect documents and testimony from Bengaluru-based semiconductor manufacturer Cirel Systems Pvt Ltd. The evidence will be used in a patent infringement lawsuit pending in the United States between Wacom and Chinese company Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co Ltd, in which the Indian firm is not a party.
Orissa High Court
Orissa High Court Allows Application For Patent Restoration As Expiry Was Within Covid-19 Period
Case Title: M/S.Green Energy Resources v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.19128 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 12
The Orissa High Court on 12 February, allowed a writ petition filed by Green Energy Resources, a Sambalpur-based firm, permitting it to apply for the restoration of a patent that had ceased to have effect due to the non-payment of renewal fees. Justice B.P. Routray observed that the company's explanation for the lapse was convincing and noted that the patent's expiry occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court remarked that under the given facts, there was “no difficulty... for considering the application of the Petitioner for restoration of the Patent by the Controller”.
District Court
Case Title: Malkans Training Institute Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Vs Telegram Messengers LLP & Ors.
Case Number: CS (COMM)260/2026
The Tis Hazari District Court in Delhi has granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction to protect the intellectual property of Malkans Training Institute Pvt. Ltd. and its founders, Vishal B. Malkan and Meghana V. Malkan, in a trademark and copyright infringement suit against Telegram Messengers LLP and others. The court also issued summons to the defendants, including Telegram, after observing that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case of trademark and copyright infringement as well as passing off.