LiveLawBiz IPR Weekly Digest: April 20 - April 25, 2026
Ruchi Shukla
27 April 2026 6:02 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: THE SOUTH INDIA MUSIC COMPANIES ASSOCIATION & ANR vs ASHIT KUKIAN & ANR.
Case Number: Special Leave to Appeal(C) No(s). 11268-11270/2026
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with a Madras High Court ruling that contempt proceedings were not maintainable where royalty claims had not been quantified, holding that non-payment of an unascertained amount cannot amount to willful disobedience. Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions filed by the South India Music Companies Association (SIMCA), a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said, “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) of the High Court; hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed.”
Case Title: OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. IDEAL JAWA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus CLASSIC LEGENDS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.
Case Number: Diary No. 18873 of 2026
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in a plea by the liquidator of Ideal Jawa (India) Ltd. challenging a Karnataka High Court ruling that allowed Classic Legends Pvt. Ltd. and its founder Boman R. Irani to use the 'Yezdi' trademark after holding that the company no longer retained rights over it. The high court had found that the trademark had lapsed and that goodwill could not survive once the underlying business had ceased operations. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, while issuing notice, kept the matter for further hearing on July 15.
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Orders Suspension of Fake 'lumlkai.com' Domain Impersonating Lumikai
Case Title: Lumikai Interactive II LLP & Ors. vs. Registrant of Lumlkai Com & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 419/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 418
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Lumikai, a venture capital firm operating in interactive media and gaming, in a trademark suit. The court directed the suspension of the deceptively similar domain name “lumlkai.com”, observing that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and that the impugned domain appeared to have been created to impersonate them and attempt to defraud. Lumikai Interactive II LLP and its affiliates submitted that the domain name “lumlkai.com”, differing from their official “lumikai.com” by a single letter 'l', had been registered by an unknown party to impersonate the plaintiffs.
Case Title: Saurabh Rawlley v. Pawan Garg & Ors.
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2025 & I.A. 2459/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 417
The Delhi High Court has revoked a copyright registration for the artistic work “Shahi Dinner," used on rice packaging, after noting that the applicant failed to serve a mandatory statutory notice to a rival claimant who had asserted an interest in the same subject matter. Justice Jyoti Singh noted that providing notice to interested parties is a statutory mandate under Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, and in the present case, non-compliance warranted setting aside the registration. The court observed that since the procedural requirement had not been followed, the registration could not be sustained, and the matter required fresh consideration by the Registrar.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Use Of “Liv-82 DS” Mark, Protects Himalaya's 'Liv.52'
Case Title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr. v. Kbir Wellness Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 418/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 415
The Delhi High Court has stepped in to protect Himalaya's liver care brand “Liv.52”, granting an ex parte ad interim injunction against KBIR Wellness Private Limited and those acting on its behalf. The order restrains them from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing in products under the mark “Liv-82 DS” or any deceptively similar name. Passing the order on April 21, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the resemblance between the rival marks, when seen alongside the overall packaging and presentation, was likely to mislead consumers.
Case Title: Grasim Industries Limited & Anr. v. Aryanson Paints Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 215/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 414
The Delhi High Court has brought an end to a trademark dispute between Grasim Industries Limited, Aditya Birla Management Corporation Private Limited, and Aryanson Paints Private Limited after the three companies chose to settle the matter during the proceedings. The case centered on the use of the “BIRLA” name. Grasim and Aditya Birla Management Corporation told the Court that Aryanson Paints was selling products under names such as “BIRLA WHITE CEMENT” and “BIRLA WALLTECH,” which they said were too close to their own registered trademarks and packaging. They also claimed infringement of their artistic works and trade dress.
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Flipkart's 'MARQ' Mark in Trademark Dispute
Case Title: M/s Flipkart India Private Limited Vs. M/s Marc Enterprises Pvt Ltd
Case Number: FAO-IPD 46/2021, CM APPL. 46817/2018 & CM APPL. 54484/2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 409
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an interim injunction against e-commerce platform Flipkart, finding that its mark “MARQ” used for electrical appliances is phonetically, structurally, and visually similar to Marc Enterprises' registered mark “MARC” and likely to cause confusion among consumers. A single-judge bench of Justice Tejas Karia held that the order of the trial court did not suffer from any arbitrariness or perversity and therefore warranted no interference. The Court observed:
“At this prima facie stage and considering the settled law laid down in Wander Ltd. (supra) and Mohd. Mehtab Khan (supra), there is no justification for diverging from the conclusions reached by the learned Trial Court in the Impugned Order. The Impugned Order exhibits no manifest error, nor does the Trial Court's evaluation of the facts and legal principles present any irregularity. Accordingly, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, it is not expedient to re-examine the sufficiency of evidence considered by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, the Appellant has failed to show any arbitrariness or perversity with the Impugned Order and, accordingly, the Appeal is without any merit.”
Case Title: Akash Arora Trading as M/S Grand Chemical Works vs Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Limited & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 and CM APPL. 22574/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 403
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday allowed the maker of 'GAINDA' cleaners to exhaust its existing stock despite an injunction over bottle designs similar to Reckitt's Harpic and Colin, holding that the relief was necessary to balance the equities and avoid financial loss and environmental waste.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed, “We are not persuaded that any undue loss will be caused to the Respondent if Appellant is permitted to exhaust its finished and unfinished stock in a time-bound manner. Such a direction would be merited even if we were to reject the appeal and uphold the impugned judgment.”
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains 'POSITIVE MIND' Mark, Directs Meesho, Meta To Remove Listings
Case Title: PstGems Private Limited vs. Dharmesh Mohanbhai Kalsariya Trading as M/S Positive Mind & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 357/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 398
The Delhi High Court has recently restrained the use of the mark “POSITIVE MIND” for sexual wellness products such as delay sprays and lubricants, and directed intermediaries, including Meesho and Meta, to remove listings and disable accounts, after finding a prima facie case of infringement and passing off.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of PstGems Pvt. Ltd., observing, “Prima facie Defendant No.1 is not only infringing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff but is also guilty of passing off its goods by misrepresenting to the public that its goods have some association with the Plaintiff by use of identical/deceptively similar marks for identical goods. Resultantly, Defendant No.1 is not only damaging Plaintiff's formidable goodwill and reputation but also adversely impacting public interest by the sale of counterfeit products.”
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Leela Entertainment From Using 'THE LEELA' Mark
Case Title: Schloss HMA Private Limited vs. Leela Entertainment Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 298/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 397
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Leela Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. from using “THE LEELA”, a popular hospitality mark, till the next hearing, holding that it prima facie amounts to infringement of Schloss HMA Pvt. Ltd.'s trademark and passing off of its goodwill.
A bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed, “Plaintiff has built an immense reputation for itself in the hospitality industry and adoption of identical/deceptively similar marks for identical services by the Defendant is a dishonest adoption and only to misrepresent to the public that its services have a nexus with or are affiliated to the Plaintiff, which is causing irreparable harm and injury to Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation, as brought forth in the plaint.”
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Nippon Steel Patent Rejection, Says Orders Must Give Reasons
Case Title: Nippon Steel Corporation vs The Controller of Patents
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 488/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 395
The Delhi High Court has set aside the refusal of a patent application filed by Nippon Steel Corporation, holding that an order which merely reproduces prior art documents without analyzing the claimed invention or giving reasons cannot be sustained in law. A bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela emphasised that patent authorities act as quasi-judicial bodies and must pass reasoned orders.
“It is apparent that the Assistant Controller/Controller are quasi judicial authorities from whom it is expected that the orders shall contain reasons for either acceptance or refusal. Any order which has no reasoning cannot become the bedrock of a decision of this nature. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and is quashed and set aside,” the Court said.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs Satej M. Katekar, Proprietor of Absun Pharma
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 111 OF 2013 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 27 OF 2013 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 111 OF 2013
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 229
The Bombay High Court has granted a permanent injunction against Absun Pharma in an over-decade-long trademark dispute with Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., holding that the use of the marks “ABSUN” and “ABSUN PHARMA” infringes its registered marks “SUN” and “SUN PHARMA”. The court also imposed costs of Rs 10 lakh on Absun Pharma payable to Sun Pharma. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that merely prefixing letters to a registered mark does not create a distinction where its essential feature is retained. The bench held that Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act squarely applies, observing that in “ABSUN” and “ABSUN PHARMA”, the plaintiff's marks “SUN” and “SUN PHARMA” are subsumed, and the prefix “AB” is insufficient to distinguish them.
Case Title: Atomberg Technologies Pvt Ltd vs. Stove Kraft Ltd
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 88 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL (IP) SUIT NO. 710 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 219
The Bombay High Court has recently declined to continue the interim protection granted earlier to Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in its design infringement suit against Stove Kraft Limited's “Pigeon” brand, finding that the rival ceiling fan is visually distinct and that the plaintiff's design does not show any real novelty beyond that of a standard ceiling fan. Justice Gauri Godse was deciding an application seeking to confirm an earlier ad-interim injunction passed on July 24, 2025, which had restrained Stove Kraft from manufacturing and selling the impugned fan. A Court Receiver had also been appointed at that stage to seize the products.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Rejects Challenge To 'GANESHA' Trademark, Allows Coexistence Of Similar Marks
Case Title: Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd. vs. Assistant Registrar of Trademarks and Ors.
Case Number: CMA (TM) No.21 of 2025 and CMP.No.32352 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 103
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed an appeal by Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd. against the registration of the “GANESHA” trademark in favour of Shankar Industries, holding that similar marks can coexist in limited situations, including where territorial restrictions reduce the likelihood of conflict. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy upheld the September 11, 2024, order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, which granted registration of device mark No. 1831646 in Class 30 to Shankar Industries, a partnership firm represented by K.R. Nagendra and K.N. Shobha. The class covers staple food products, including flour, and the mark is used for gram flour.
Delhi Commercial Court
Case Title: Surya Roshni Limited vs. Dhuri Plastic Private Limited and Anr.
Case Number: CS (COMM) No. 953/2023
A Commercial Court in Delhi has decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of Surya Roshni Ltd., holding that Dhuri Plastic Pvt. Ltd. infringed its registered “SURYA” mark by using the mark “SURYA GOLD” for PVC pipes, thereby subsuming the essential element “SURYA”.
The court, presided over by District Judge Devendra Kumar Sharma, held, “...In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the plaintiff has proved its case on preponderance of probability that there was infringement of trademark/copyright of the plaintiff qua the PVC pipes, therefore, plaintiff is held entitled to decree of permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 from manufacturing, trading, selling, marketing, printing, offering for sale, displaying, advertising, promoting on the internet through any website or through any social media channels or through any physical store/locations or by any other mode or manner, any goods including PVC Pipes, PVC pipe fittings and/or any other identical, similar and/or allied and cognate goods bearing infringed trade mark or copyright of the plaintiff, directly or indirectly and in any manner.”
Delhi Court Dismisses Rado, Swatch Group Trademark Suit Against Local Trader
Case Title: Rado Uhren AG and Ors. vs. Lalit Jain and Anr.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 621/23 CNR No. DLST01-011705-2023
A commercial court in Saket, New Delhi, has dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by Rado along with other Swatch Group companies, finding that they failed to establish infringement or any likelihood of confusion even on a preponderance of probabilities, in the absence of cogent evidence. District Judge Lokesh Kumar Sharma said the case was built on unsubstantiated claims, remarking that it amounted to “nothing beyond a mere lip service done by PW1 in the air.” Rado Uhren AG, Tissot SA, Omega SA, and Longines Watch Co. had asserted statutory as well as common law rights over their trademarks, pointing to decades of global use, goodwill, and reputation associated with their brands.
Delhi Court Restrains Siliguri Traders From Dealing In Fake “GARNIER” Products
Case Title: Laboratoire Garnier & CIE vs. Vijay Stores and Ors.
Case Number: TM No. 39/2016 (CNR No. DLST010002752010)
A Delhi Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Laboratoire Garnier, restraining multiple Siliguri traders from manufacturing and selling counterfeit products bearing the identical “GARNIER” trademark, ruling that such use reflected a mala fide attempt to leverage the company's established market presence and amounted to infringement. The court presided over by District Judge Arul Varma held, “There is irrefragable evidence on record to demonstrate that the Defendants have taken advantage of the Plaintiff's ingenuity, and have infringed the trade mark of the Plaintiff with impunity, and have nonchalantly sold off their counterfeit goods in the market to credulous buyers. Such knavery cannot be brooked. The issues are therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff."