LiveLawBiz IPR Monthly Digest: September, 2026
Riya Rathore
1 Oct 2026 7:27 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Stays Swiss Company's Patent Suit Against Techfab Before Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: TECHFAB INDIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs GEOBRUGG AG
Case Number: SLP(C) 29151/2026
The Supreme Court stayed further proceedings before the Himachal Pradesh High Court in a patent infringement suit filed by Swiss company Geobrugg AG against Techfab. The dispute concerns the manufacture and sale of high-tensile wire mesh products sold under the "TECCO" brand. A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli issued notice and directed the parties to complete pleadings.
Case Title: I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) No.6793 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 313
The Supreme Court referred to a larger bench the question of whether State notifications designating Civil Judges (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts can override Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which mandates that trademark infringement suits cannot be instituted before a court below the District Court.
Supreme Court Extends Dabur's Deadline To Exhaust 9,020 'Cool King Thanda Tel' Cartons Till November
Case Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED VS. EMAMI LIMITED
Case Number: DIARY NO. - 50163/2026
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe extended by two months (till November 2026) the deadline for Dabur India Limited to exhaust 9,020 cartons of “Cool King Thanda Tel” in its trademark and trade-dress dispute with Emami Limited, while declining to interfere with the underlying Delhi High Court injunction.
Case Title: ITC LIMITED VS. ADYAR GATE HOTELS LIMITED
Case Number: DIARY NO. - 56907/2026
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan dismissed ITC Limited's Special Leave Petition, refusing to interfere with a Delhi High Court interim order that declined to restrain Adyar Gate Hotels Limited from using the “DAKSHIN” mark for its standalone restaurant in Chennai.
Case Title: M/S CHAI SUTTA BAR TRADING PVT. LTD VS. M/S MACHA CONSUMER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD
Case Number: DIARY NO. - 50820/2026
The Supreme Court permitted Chai Sutta Bar Trading Pvt Ltd to withdraw its Special Leave Petition challenging a Delhi High Court order that upheld an interim injunction restraining it from using the 'MAATEA' mark for tea products in a trademark dispute with Macha Consumer Products.
Case Title: Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a special leave petition challenging the constitutional validity of the statutory provision under which a patent's 20-year term runs from the date of filing rather than the date of grant, even where years of that term pass during patent prosecution. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice on the plea and appointed Advocate Kruttika Vijay as amicus curiae to assist the court.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bombay High Court Restrains Cloud Kitchen From Using 'BARBECUE' Mark Over Similarity With Restaurant
Case Title: Tervinder Singh Jhans & Ors. v. Pankaj Rai & Ors.
Case Number: Appeal Against Order 42 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 471
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court temporarily restrained a cloud kitchen from using the marks "BARBECUE" or "BARBEQUE". The order protected the registered trademark of Barbecue and Barbecue Food Services Pvt Ltd, which has operated a restaurant in Nagpur since 1994. Justice Y.G. Khobragade allowed the appeal against the District Judge's order.
Case Title: Zee Learn Limited v. Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust
Case Number: COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.21131 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 472
The Bombay High Court restrained a Dehradun-based school from using the "MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL" and "MLZS" marks pending arbitration. Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed the petition filed by Zee Learn Limited, holding that a former licensee cannot continue using a licensor's mark after the termination of the license agreements.
Bombay High Court Orders Takedown of AI Deepfakes Misusing Actor Shruti Haasan's Personality Rights
Case Title: Shruti Haasan v. Mahalaxmi Arts and Craft Works & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.26123 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 26069 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 488
The Bombay High Court ordered the removal of online content identified in actor Shruti Haasan's suit and restrained the unauthorized use of her name, voice, and image through artificial intelligence. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar granted the ad-interim relief after finding a strong prima facie case of personality rights infringement.
Bombay High Court Refuses Metro Brands Leave To Combine Claims Against Kerala Rival In Mumbai
Case Title: Metro Brands Limited v. Met Brands Private Limited
Case Number: LEAVE PETITION (L) NO. 12067 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IPR SUIT (L) NO. 12028 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 487
The Bombay High Court refused Metro Brands Limited leave to combine its passing-off claim with its trademark infringement suit against Kerala-based Met Brands in Mumbai. Justice Gauri Godse observed that the balance of convenience favoured a trial in Kerala where the alleged passing off occurred and the rival carries on business.
Case Title: Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil v. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 12000 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 503
Observing that prolonged proceedings over a patent application had cost an inventor 13 years out of the 20-year statutory protection period, the Bombay High Court recognized Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil as the sole owner of the invention. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was dealing with a petition filed by Dr. Patil regarding an invention titled “An...” originally filed with IIT Bombay, and directed that his patent application be considered on its merits.
Bombay High Court Directs Trader To Deposit ₹1.32 Crore For Breaching NOVA Trademark Injunction
Case Title: Harichand Nagpal v. Dr. Ashok M. Bhat & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 27799 OF 2026 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 9324 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)500
The Bombay High Court directed a trader appealing an ₹82.42 lakh costs order for violating a trademark injunction to deposit an additional ₹50 lakh, bringing the total deposit to ₹1.32 crore. A Division Bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata passed the order after noting that the appellant failed to comply with the directions issued by the Single Bench on July 13, 2026.
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Deepak Kumar Panwar
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 25814 OF 2026 IN COMM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT SUIT (L) NO. 25682 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)498
The Bombay High Court directed its Court Receiver to take forcible physical possession of an entire paint manufacturing facility in Ghaziabad operated by Deepak Kumar Panwar under Akshay Paints Industries. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar passed the direction on August 31, 2026, in a commercial IP dispute after an Additional Special Receiver was obstructed while executing an earlier search and injunction order.
Bombay High Court Restrains Sale Of Counterfeit 'CLEAR' Packaged Drinking Water
Case Title: Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs Sabran Enterprises & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.12425 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 11510 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)497
The Bombay High Court restrained a Karnataka-based business from using the “CLEAR/CLEAR AQUA IND” mark after holding its packaged drinking water products to be counterfeit. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar allowed Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd.'s interim application, noting that “AQUA IND” was printed in negligible font while prominence was given to “CLEAR” with identical bottle shapes, label marks, color schemes, and visual arrangements.
Nehle Pe Dehla Rights Row: Bombay High Court Awards ₹1.92 Crore To Ultra Distributors
Case Title: Ultra Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Dhariwal Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 26 OF 2007
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)495
The Bombay High Court declared Ultra Distributors Pvt. Ltd. to be the sole and exclusive rights holder for video, cable television, and video-on-demand rights to the 1976 Hindi film Nehle Pe Dehla. Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the 2005 agreement executed by Dhariwal Films was valid and binding, and awarded ₹1.92 crore in damages to Ultra due to the defendant's failure to deliver commercially usable Digibeta Master tapes.
Bombay High Court Rejects Baskin Robbins Licensee Graviss Foods' 'ICE CREAM ROCKS' Trademark Bid
Case Title: Graviss Foods Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 20 OF 2026 AND COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 10288 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)518
The Bombay High Court on 16 September dismissed petitions filed by Graviss Foods, the Indian licensee of Baskin Robbins, challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of its applications to register “ICE CREAM ROCKS”. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the phrase “ICE CREAM ROCKS” is too generic and descriptive to acquire distinctive character warranting trademark protection.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Pravin Kumar v. ITC Limited & Ors.
Case Number: TEMPAPO-IPD NO. 6 OF 2025 IA NO: GA-COM 2 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 226
The Calcutta High Court has upheld an interim injunction against the use of “IJM Gold Stag” for cigarettes, finding sufficient similarity with ITC Limited's “Gold Flake” marks and packaging to make out a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya delivered the judgment on September 18, 2026. The bench also dismissed ITC's cross-objection, holding that the injunction granted by the Single Judge already covered infringement of ITC's registered trademarks and trade dress.
Case Title: ITC Limited v. SMM Tobacoo Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: IP (COM) No.10 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 232
Justice Arindam Mukherjee refused to dispense with pre-suit mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act for ITC's proposed trademark suit against SMM Tobacco, holding that pursuing criminal remedies first diminished the claim of urgent interim relief.
Calcutta High Court Lifts Gag Order On YouTuber Arpit Mangal Over Emami Zandu Ashwagandha Video
Case Title: Arpit Mangal & Anr v. Emami Limited & Anr
Case Number: F.M.A. No. 1036 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 238
The Calcutta High Court set aside an ex-parte injunction restraining YouTuber Arpit Mangal from publishing videos evaluating Emami's “Zandu Ashwagandha Gold Plus”. A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De held that the YouTuber presented a bona fide defence of truth at the interim stage.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Delhi High Court Revives Patent Bid For Improved Process To Make Sugammadex
Case Title: Fresenius Kabi Ipsum SRL v. The Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 7/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 934
The Delhi High Court set aside the Patent Office's refusal of a patent application for an improved process to prepare sugammadex, a muscle relaxant reversal drug. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the applicant was denied a mandatory opportunity of hearing, noting that pre-grant opposition hearings cannot replace a separate hearing required before rejection.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Review Of Suppression Findings, Says Counsel Cannot Shift Duty To Junior
Case Title: Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 167/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 933
The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the counsel on record for Celagenex. The counsel sought to review findings that material documents were suppressed in a trademark suit over 'RewireX'. The court held that filing counsel cannot shift responsibility to juniors or clients for ensuring full disclosures.
Case Title: ASR Market Ventures Private Limited v. Fitship Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 93/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 928
The Delhi High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by ASR Market Ventures (the company behind FITPASS) against Fitship's registered 'FITFEAST' trademark. Justice Jyoti Singh held that ASR failed to establish goodwill in 'FITFEAST' as a standalone mark and refused to grant an interim injunction.
Delhi High Court Appoints Amicus Curiae In Janhvi Kapoor's Personality Rights Suit
Case Title: JANHVI KAPOOR v/s ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE AND ORS
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 868/2026
The Delhi High Court appointed Advocate Gautam Bhatia as an amicus curiae to assist the court in the personality rights suit filed by actor Janhvi Kapoor. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani made the appointment to address complex, overarching legal questions around broad personality right claims.
Case Title: Capital Foods Private Limited v. Patson Foods (India) Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 936/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 904
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained Patson Foods from selling its "Rasanand Schezwan Chutney". Justice Jyoti Singh noted that the defendant went back on a written undertaking to stop using Capital Foods' registered "Schezwan Chutney" mark, making out a prima facie case of trademark infringement.
Delhi High Court Restrains YouTube Loan Settlement Channels From Using IDFC First Bank's Marks
Case Title: IDFC First Bank Limited v. Settlement Guru & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 848/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 902
The Delhi High Court restrained individuals running YouTube channels, including “Settlement Guru” and others, from using IDFC First Bank's registered trademarks. The court observed they were allegedly utilizing fabricated bank letterheads and logos to dupe borrowers into defaults.
Delhi High Court Restrains Kollam Hotel From Using 'HILTON' And 'HOTEL HILTON INDIA' Marks
Case Title: Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited & Anr. v. M/S Hotel Hilton India
Case Number: CS(COMM) 913/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 901
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining a Kerala-based establishment from using the marks “HILTON” and “HOTEL HILTON INDIA”. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that Hilton Worldwide had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off.
Delhi High Court Protects Rajat Sharma's Personality Rights, Bars Trademark Misuse of INDIA TV
Case Title: Rajat Sharma & Anr. v. Tamara Doc & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1147/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 954
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained several individuals and YouTube channels from infringing journalist Rajat Sharma's personality and publicity rights and misusing INDIA TV's registered trademarks. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the decree on August 24, 2026, granting permanent injunctions and allowing the plaintiffs to seek declarations regarding well-known trademark status.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Restrain Xiaomi From Using 'Find Device' Feature In Patent Dispute
Case Title: Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. v. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 147/2025 & CM APPL. 60385/2025 CM APPL. 72055/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 952
The Delhi High Court refused to restrain Xiaomi Technology India from using its “Find Device” feature, holding that Conqueror Innovations failed to establish a prima facie case of patent infringement. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the Single Judge's decision, noting that Conqueror's nearly nine-year delay in approaching the court disentitled it to interim relief.
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 904/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 949
The Delhi High Court held that Beco's “War on What's Hidden” campaign against HUL's Vim and Surf Excel products prima facie fails the test of permissible comparative advertising. Justice A. J. Bhambhani granted HUL interim relief, observing that claims asserting LAS and BIT ingredients cause skin irritation alongside directions to "SWITCH TO BECO" exceeded permissible limits.
Delhi High Court Injuncts Beco Ad Claiming Surf Excel, Vim Cause Skin Irritation, Allergies
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 904/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 949
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Kwick Living (I) Private Limited (operating the cleaning brand Beco) from continuing its advertisement campaign alleging that HUL's Surf Excel and Vim cause skin irritation and allergies. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani orally injuncted the campaign after concluding nearly a month of hearings in HUL's disparagement suit.
Case Title: SALMAN KHAN V/S AMIT JANI & ORS.
Case Number: I.A. 12419/2025 I.A. 12420/2025 IN CS(COMM) - 986/2026
The producer of the proposed film Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy, inspired by actor Salman Khan's 1998 blackbuck poaching case, informed the Delhi High Court on September 10 that the film is not currently in a "releasable state" as its contents are yet to be certified by the Censor Board. The bench recorded the submission in a personality rights suit filed by Khan.
Case Title: PULKIT MANI V/S META PLATFORMS INC & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 982/2026
The Delhi High Court on September 9 orally observed that copyright strike disputes are increasingly taking precedence over personality rights cases. Justice Jyoti Singh made the observation while hearing a suit filed by stand-up comedian Pulkit Mani challenging copyright strikes against content on his Instagram page (@hunnywhoisfunny) and alleging extortion attempts.
Delhi High Court Blocks Websites Offering Fake MG Motor Dealerships, Orders ₹14.55 Lakh Lien
Case Title: JSW MG Motor India Private Limited & Anr. v. Anant Kumar Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 962/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 937
The Delhi High Court blocked three websites impersonating MG Motor and offering fraudulent car dealerships to the public. Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the operators from misusing MG's trademarks, directed domain registrars to suspend the websites within 36 hours, and ordered Indian Overseas Bank to mark a lien of ₹14.55 lakh on the fraudulent bank account.
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED V/S KWICK LIVING (I) PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 904/2026
The Delhi High Court reserved its verdict on HUL's application for an interim injunction against Kwick Living (Beco) over advertisements claiming Surf Excel and Vim cause skin allergies. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani recorded that judgment was reserved following detailed arguments on comparative disparagement.
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI Inc & Anr.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court issued notice on Asian News International's (ANI) appeal against the rejection of its interim injunction application against OpenAI Inc. in a copyright infringement suit. Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora sought OpenAI's response and listed the appeal for further hearing on December 8. ANI filed the suit alleging that ChatGPT was trained on its copyrighted news content without authorization.
Case Title: Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 989/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 962
The Delhi High Court ordered the blocking of four rogue websites accused of illegally streaming Formula 1, ATP Tour, and Saudi Pro League sporting events in India. Justice Jyoti Singh passed an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Sporta Technologies, owner of FanCode, holding that the platform possesses exclusive broadcasting rights for these events.
Delhi High Court Restrains Real Estate Websites Using SignatureGlobal Marks And Project Material
Case Title: SignatureGlobal (India) Limited v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 922/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 967
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained a group of operators from running lookalike websites copying real estate developer SignatureGlobal's registered trademarks, branding, and copyrighted project content. Justice Jyoti Singh directed domain registrars, including GoDaddy, Hostinger, Namecheap, and Wix, to immediately lock and suspend nine rogue websites impersonating SignatureGlobal's official portals.
Bombay Shaving Co. Takes Down Allegedly Disparaging Ad After Gillette Suit In Delhi High Court
Case Title: GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED V/S VISAGE LINES PERSONAL CARE PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1007/2026
Visage Lines Personal Care Private Limited, parent company of Bombay Shaving Company, agreed to take down a disputed advertisement featuring a mock courtroom setting after Gillette India filed a product disparagement suit in the Delhi High Court. Justice Jyoti Singh characterized the advertisement sequence as an "outright mockery" of the court. The court declined Gillette's request to immediately restrain a newly released separate advertisement without a formal challenge being brought before it.
Case Title: Amazon Seller Services Private Limited vs https//cinevood.love/ & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1002/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 970
The Delhi High Court restrained 11 piracy websites from hosting, streaming, or distributing Amazon's upcoming film VIBE online without authorization prior to its theatrical release. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the ex parte ad-interim dynamic injunction on September 15 in a suit instituted by Amazon Seller Services Private Limited.
Case Title: GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED V/S VISAGE LINES PERSONAL CARE PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1007/2026
Bombay Shaving Company on Wednesday agreed to take down an advertisement featuring a mock courtroom setting and a judge character after the Delhi High Court questioned the company over what it described as “outright mockery” of the court. Justice Jyoti Singh said, “I don't know what your client's definition of mockery is if this is not mocking the court,” after counsel for Bombay Shaving Company sought to defend the courtroom sequence.
Case Title: Basant Lal vs Shakti Hydraulic Engineers & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 190/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 971
The Delhi High Court cancelled the trademark "LNK", registered by Shakti Hydraulic Engineers for sanitary products, after holding it deceptively similar to Basant Lal's registered mark "L&K". Justice Jyoti Singh allowed Lal's petition and directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the "LNK" mark from the register within eight weeks.
Case Title: GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED V/S VISAGE LINES PERSONAL CARE PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1007/2026
The Delhi High Court indicated that it would pass an order against Visage Lines Personal Care Private Limited, the parent company of Bombay Shaving Company, if the company failed to satisfactorily revise an advertisement that Gillette India alleged disparages its products. Justice Jyoti Singh gave the company until the afternoon of 16 September to return with revised versions of the advertisement. The judge made clear that the company could either modify the advertisement or face an order from the Court.
Case Title: MEENAKSHI CHAUDHARY V/S JOHN DOE/ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1029/2026
The Delhi High Court ordered the removal of specified obscene online content in a personality rights suit filed by actor Meenakshi Chaudhary. The court left claims regarding commercial exploitation of her personality rights open, observing that blanket relief could not be granted without evidence of actual monetisation.
Delhi High Court Restrains Doora Express Services' Former General Manager From Using 'DURA' Mark
Case Title: Doora Express Services v. Dura Logistics India Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 983/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1020
Justice A.J. Bhambhani restrained a former General Manager and his company from using “DURA” for logistics and transportation services, holding that Doora Express Services made out a prima facie case of similarity to its registered “DOORA” trademarks.
Delhi High Court Finds 'Herbawish' Deceptively Similar To Herbalife, Temporarily Restrains Use
Case Title: Herbalife International, Inc. v. Ashish Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 997/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1015
Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using “Herbawish” and “Herbawish Nutrition” alongside a similar three-leaf logo and trade dress, observing that the common prefix "Herba" enhanced consumer deception.
Case Title: ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED V/S JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 475/2026
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani issued notice to JioStar India on a contempt plea filed by Zee Entertainment over alleged continued unauthorized use of Zee's copyrighted music library despite a May 2026 injunction.
Case Title: Gillette India Limited v. Visage Lines Personal Care Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1007/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1014
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani restrained Bombay Shaving Company from airing a revised advertisement in a product disparagement action, observing no perceptible difference in commercial impact between the revised ad and the original version the company had previously agreed to withdraw.
Case Title: Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt Ltd v. M/s Social Circle Through Its Proprietor
Case Number: CS(COMM) 985/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1012
Justice Vikas Mahajan granted an interim injunction on September 21 restraining a Dehradun restaurant from operating as “Social Circle”, holding the mark deceptively similar to Impresario's well-known “SOCIAL” brand.
Case Title: Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 985/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1011
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained anonymous operators from running a fraudulent franchise scheme soliciting ₹15 lakh by impersonating beauty platform Purplle, and directed Meta and WhatsApp to block the associated profiles and accounts.
Case Title: JITENDAR SINGH V/S JOHN DOE ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1052/2026
Justice A.J. Bhambhani declined to pass a blanket order protecting a content creator against future copyright strikes, holding that each strike's genuineness must be evaluated individually, while orally remarking that a dedicated "META court" may soon be needed given the surge in platform disputes.
Drishti IAS Founder Vikas Divyakirti Moves Delhi High Court Seeking Protection Of Personality Rights
Case Title: DR VIKAS DIVYAKIRTI V/S META PLATFORMS INC & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1015/2026
Drishti IAS founder Vikas Divyakirti filed a personality rights suit seeking protection against commercial exploitation and deepfakes; the matter was transferred to a coordinate IPD bench handling personality rights cases.
Delhi High Court Dismisses ITC Challenge To Philip Morris Heat-Not-Burn Cigarette Patent
Case Title: ITC Limited v. Philip Morris Products S.A. & Ors.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 24/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1008
Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed ITC's challenge to a patent held by Philip Morris for heat-not-burn tobacco technology used in devices like IQOS, upholding the patent for a "heated aerosol generating article".
Delhi High Court Grants Temporary Injunction Against Unauthorised Use Of Bentley Software
Case Title: Bentley Systems Inc and Anr. v. Ahmed Ibrahim Abdelsalam Ahmed Elshorbagy and Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 993/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1007
Justice A.J. Bhambhani granted an ad-interim injunction restraining a structural design firm from infringing copyright in Bentley Systems' engineering software suite, including RAM Concept, iTwin, and STAAD.
Case Title: FabIndia Limited v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe and Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 861/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1006
Justice A.J. Bhambhani clarified that a December 2023 interim order protecting FabIndia's trademarks applies explicitly to major social media platforms including Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, and X.
Case Title: MakeMyTrip India Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 41/2026 & CM 241/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1003
Justice Vikas Mahajan issued notice on a petition by MakeMyTrip India Limited seeking directions to the Trade Marks Registry to decide its well-known trademark application, which had remained unaddressed for over six years.
Case Title: P.J. SIKAND (ALSO KNOWN AS PARAMJEET SINGH) V/S GURUJI KA ASHRAM TRUST AND ORS.
Case Number: CM(M)-IPD - 51/2026
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed a petition seeking threshold rejection of a copyright and passing-off suit filed by Guruji Ka Ashram Trust over a Rajasthan structure allegedly replicating its Delhi Bade Mandir.
Actor Rakesh Bedi Moves Delhi High Court Seeking Protection Of Personality Rights
Case Title: RAKESH BEDI V/S JOHN DOE/ ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1049/2026
Actor Rakesh Bedi approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection against unauthorized commercial exploitation of his name, likeness, and persona.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Copyright Registration For 'Radhey Radhey Barsane Wali Radhey'
Case Title: Vipul Music Company Proprietorship Firm of Ms. Santosh Goswami v. Registrar of Copyright & Anr.
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 21/2025 & I.A. 9511/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 997
Justice Jyoti Singh set aside a 2020 copyright registration for the sound recording “Radhey Radhey Barsane Wali Radhey”, remanding the matter to the Copyright Office because the registration had been granted without prior notice to rival claimant Vipul Music Company.
Delhi High Court Restrains Gold Flake Counterfeiters After Police Seize 11.28 Lakh Cigarettes
Case Title: ITC Limited v. Ravi Kishor & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1019/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 998
Justice Jyoti Singh granted ITC Limited an ad-interim injunction against an illegal counterfeiting unit manufacturing fake "Gold Flake" cigarettes inside a premise disguised as a cattle shed following police seizures worth ₹1.44 crore.
Delhi High Court Bars Anonymous Parties From Using JCB Branding Over Alleged False Arrest Claims
Case Title: JCB India Limited & Ors. vs John Doe(s) & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 999/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 992
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained parties associated with a former dealer from using JCB branding and directed Google and Meta to take down videos falsely claiming JCB officials had been arrested.
Delhi High Court Restrains Clothing Business From Using 'Men's Darzi' Mark
Case Title: Darzi (India) LLP & Anr. v. Mr. Akhil Jain
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1027/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1044
The Delhi High Court restrained a clothing business from using the "Men's Darzi" mark, its accompanying logo, or any identical or deceptively similar mark in relation to clothing and apparel. Justice A. J. Bhambhani passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction after finding that Darzi (India) LLP had made out a prima-facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour.
Case Title: Punam Chand Kedia v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 44/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1041
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by trademark owner Punam Chand Kedia seeking revival of his “HMP” mark after the Trade Marks Registry rejected his renewal application on the ground of expiration. Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that in the absence of reliable evidence showing that mandatory O-3 notices were dispatched prior to expiration, the Registry could not deny renewal.
Case Title: Global Health Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Denish P Kalariya & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1005/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1040
The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Global Health Limited, operator of Medanta hospitals, in its trademark infringement suit against a seller marketing an ayurvedic weight management medicine as “Medanta Capsule”. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav decreed the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC after the sole contesting defendant failed to file a written statement or oppose the relief sought.
Case Title: JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED V/S HTTPS//CRICHD.CH/ & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1074/2026
The Delhi High Court granted JioStar a temporary dynamic injunction against rogue websites illegally streaming its coverage of the India-West Indies cricket series. Justice A.J. Bhambhani permitted JioStar to have newly discovered pirate sites carrying identical content blocked directly through ISPs without approaching the court afresh each time.
Case Title: Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. M/s Pooja Lubricant
Case Number: CS(COMM) 940/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1033
The Delhi High Court restrained a Pune-based lubricant seller from manufacturing or selling engine oil, gear oil, and other lubricants under the marks "Max Volvo" and "Max Volwo". Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the ad-interim injunction, holding that these marks infringed Swedish auto major Volvo's registered trademarks.
Case Title: DR VIKAS DIVYAKIRTI V/S META PLATFORMS INC & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1015/2026
The Delhi High Court ordered the takedown of fake social media profiles, deepfake endorsements, and unauthorised lecture clips misusing Drishti IAS founder Vikas Divya Kirti's identity. Expressing grave concern over AI deepfakes, Justice A.J. Bhambhani directed intermediaries to take down infringing content while leaving open arguments on re-captioned lecture clips.
Delhi High Court Modifies Google, Meta Takedown Directions In Aniruddha Bapu Personality Rights Case
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) 1026
The Delhi High Court modified its earlier directions to Google, Meta, and X regarding spiritual leader Dr. Aniruddha Joshi, limiting mandatory takedowns of newly identified content to material that is "identical" to content previously covered. For content that is merely "similar," the court directed platforms to evaluate takedowns under their respective content policies.
Delhi High Court Restrains 70 Businesses From Using Agarwal Packers & Movers Trademark
Case Title: Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd & Anr. v. Agarwal Packers and Movers Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1021/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1025
The Delhi High Court restrained 70 defendants from using the “AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS” trademark or deceptively similar variants, including across Google Search and Google Business Profile listings. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that third-party listings using the name created likelihood of consumer confusion in packing and relocation services.
Case Title: Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v. Melody Healthcare Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1054/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1024
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained Melody Healthcare Private Limited from manufacturing, stockpiling, importing, selling, or exporting pharmaceutical drug products containing Ruxolitinib. Justice Vikas Mahajan held that Incyte Holdings made out a prima facie case of patent infringement regarding its cancer treatment drug.
Case Title: VIVEK ANAND OBEROI v/s COLLECTOR BAZAR & ORS. and Connected Matters
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 105/2026 and Connected Matters
The Delhi High Court decided to club and hear the personality rights suits filed by actors Vivek Oberoi, Janhvi Kapoor, and Aaradhya Bachchan together as a batch. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani noted that these matters raise recurring questions on the scope and legal limits of personality rights protections.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case Title: Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Kriplani v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 21846 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 124
The Gujarat High Court quashed a copyright infringement FIR against a shopkeeper accused of selling counterfeit Apple accessories. Justice P. M. Raval held that the dispute essentially concerned trademark falsification rather than copyright infringement, noting that neither the FIR nor the seizure memo identified any specific artistic or literary work copied from Apple.
Case Title: Bhupatbhai Manjibhai Sindhav & Anr. vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 21985 of 2014
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 139
The Gujarat High Court quashed a criminal copyright FIR against cable operators accused of transmitting Zee and Turner pay channels beyond licensed boundaries. Justice P. M. Raval held that transmitting cable signals across administrative boundaries constitutes a regulatory or commercial breach rather than criminal copyright piracy under the Copyright Act, 1957.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Trademark Suits Cannot Be Tried By Courts Below District Court: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Cutis International Cosmetics Clinic Ltd & Ors. v. Cutis Institute of Medicine and Surgery Private Limited
Case Number: CRP NO. 284 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 180
The Kerala High Court held that a trademark infringement suit cannot be tried by a court below the District Court, regardless of whether its pecuniary valuation falls within the jurisdiction of a Munsiff Court. Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. held that under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act read with Section 15 of the CPC, the District Court is the lowest grade competent court to try a trademark suit.
Case Title: Kandamkulathi Ayurveda Vaidyasala (P) Ltd. vs Regional Director, Southern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 31973 OF 2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 182
The Kerala High Court quashed two Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) orders directing companies run by Kandamkulathy Francis Paul to change their corporate names under Section 16(1)(b) of the Companies Act. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that Kandamkulathy Vaidyasala Pvt. Ltd. did not itself hold the registered "Kandamkulathy" trademark and therefore could not maintain rectification applications under Section 16(1)(b).
Case Title: In Re Exorbitant Pricing of Life Saving Patented Medicines
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 18999 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 186
The Kerala High Court held that Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970 permits the Central Government to authorize the manufacture and non-commercial sale of patented medicines to needy patients when prices charged by patent holders are exorbitant. Justice Harisankar V. Menon held that Section 100 imposes no restriction on who the purchaser could be.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Case Title: M/s. Screen Scene Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr. S. Venkatesh
Case Number: A.No.3144 & 3145 of 2026 & O.A.Nos.626 & 627 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 251
The Madras High Court permitted Screen Scene Media to proceed with the theatrical release of the Tamil film Karathey Babu starring Jayam Ravi. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu modified a previous interim injunction that had restrained the producer from releasing or distributing the film.
Case Title: Eros Technologies Digital FZE v. Ayngaran International Media Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA No. 454 of 2026 and A No. 2680 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 140 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 253
The Madras High Court ruled that a copyright infringement dispute can be resolved through arbitration when the parties have agreed to that mode of dispute resolution. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the statutory civil remedies available under the Copyright Act do not bar arbitration.
Madras High Court Rejects Vinbros Plea To Sue Rivals Over 'Blue Grape' Trademark
Case Title: M/s Vinbros and Co. v. M/s Chamundi Winery and Distillery & Anr.
Case Number: A No. 2575 of 2026 in C.S(Comm.Div.) 19644 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 249
The Madras High Court rejected liquor manufacturer Vinbros' plea to sue two rival entities in Chennai. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that the mere registration situs of the trademark being in Chennai does not give rise to a cause of action if no part of the infringement occurred there.
Madras High Court Rejects YouTube's Summary Dismissal Plea In Sri Eshwar College Disparagement Case
Case Title: Youtube (Google LLC) v. Sri Eshwar College of Engineering
Case Number: A No. 191 of 2026 IN C.S(COMM DIV) No. 253 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 250
The Madras High Court declined YouTube's application seeking threshold dismissal of a disparagement suit. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu ruled that the issue of non-joinder of the actual video creators could not be decided at the summary stage and directed the matter to proceed to trial.
Madras High Court Refuses Preethi Hospitals Permission To Sue Over 'S. Preethi' College Name
Case Title: Blossom Global Trust & Anr. v. Augustine Educational and Charitable Trust
Case Number: A. No. 3544 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 260
The Madras High Court refused leave to Madurai-based Preethi Hospitals Private Limited to sue an educational trust in Sivagangai over its use of the name “S. Preethi” for a group of colleges. Justice A. D. Maria Clete held that no part of the cause of action arose within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court in Chennai.
Case Title: Vikas Mandoth vs Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: A Nos. 446 & 447 of 2026 in OA Nos. 1120 & 1121 of 2025 in C.S.(COMM.DIV.)No.307 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 256
The Madras High Court refused to vacate an injunction restraining Chennai trader Vikas Mandoth from using the “GLOBE” mark on padlocks and hardware goods. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company was the prior user with established market goodwill, observing that Mandoth's mark was phonetically and visually deceptively similar.
Case Title: GRB Dairy Foods Private Limited v. Sri Lakshmi Industries
Case Number: A No. 4013 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 270
The Madras High Court granted GRB Dairy Foods leave to file a suit against Sri Lakshmi Industries (producers of "NG Ghee") over an Instagram reel allegedly making false and disparaging statements about "GRB" brand ghee. Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi passed the order on September 17 in a suit brought to protect the plaintiff's commercial goodwill.
Case Title: M/s. Shanti Telefilms vs M/s. Amma Creations
Case Number: OA No. 372 of 2026 and Arb Appln.Nos.944 & 945 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 265
The Madras High Court disposed of three applications seeking to restrain the release of the Tamil film Agni Siragugal after producer Amma Creations undertook not to release or commercially exploit the film without clearing claimed dues. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu recorded the undertaking on September 15 and ordered strict compliance pending disposal of arbitral proceedings.
Case Title: Ashique Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Koyenco Soaps and Detergents Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: CS No. 687 of 2017 and (T)OP(TM) No. 340 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 272
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed an infringement suit filed by Ashique Exports against Koyenco Soaps over its "Dr. Bright" washing soap, holding that its overall packaging and trade dress were not deceptively similar to "Dr. WASH".
Case Title: RPG Enterprises Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks & Ors.
Case Number: (T)OP(TM) No. 482 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 281
The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark rectification petition filed by RPG Enterprises seeking cancellation of the mark "RPG Marble Pvt. Ltd.". Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the petitioner sat on its rights for nearly 15 years after learning of the mark and was barred by the doctrine of acquiescence.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Case Title: Sanjay Bhatt v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1728/2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 44
The Rajasthan High Court held that prior copyright registration is not mandatory for initiating criminal proceedings alleging copyright infringement. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, in an order dated August 17, 2026, refused to quash a 2012 criminal case concerning alleged infringement of copyright and trademark rights over “Dandi Salt” and “Dandi Namak”.
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Sai Silks (Kalamandir) Limited vs. SKP B Gopinath Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.441 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 69
The Telangana High Court observed that in the social media era, the traditional test of assessing trademark confusion through the lens of a “person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection” should evolve toward that of a “perceptive consumer with informed associations”. The observation came during a silk saree trademark dispute over the marks “Kancheepuram Vara Mahalakshmi Silks” and “Vara Mahalakshmi”.
Case Title: M/s. Vaidehi Agro Oils Private Limited and another v. M/s. Sri Tulasi Industries & Anr.
Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.161 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 75
The Telangana High Court upheld a temporary injunction restraining Vaidehi Agro Oils from using the mark "Namaskar Tasty Nutts" for edible oil. The court held that the mark and packaging were deceptively similar to Sri Tulasi Industries' "Tasty Gold" brand and were likely to confuse semi-literate consumers.
COMMERCIAL COURT
Bengaluru Court Orders Instagram To Restore Account Suspended Over IPL-Related Posts
Case Title: QEscapades Pvt. Ltd. v. Instagram Inc. & Anr.
Case Number: ORIGINAL SUIT No.5023/2026
A Bengaluru civil court directed the restoration of an Instagram account suspended over alleged trademark infringement relating to the IPL. The court held that permanent suspension was wholly disproportionate to the nature of the posts.
COPYRIGHT OFFICE
Copyright Office Says AI System DABUS Can't Be Copyright 'Author' Under Indian Law
Case Number: 9356/2022-CO/A
The Indian Copyright Office rejected an application seeking copyright registration for an artwork listing DABUS, an AI system, as its author. Registrar of Copyrights Prof. (Dr.) Unnat P. Pandit held that an AI system cannot be recognized as an "author" under the Copyright Act, 1957.