LiveLawBiz IPR Weekly Digest: April 26 - May 2, 2026
Riya Rathore
4 May 2026 7:37 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. v. The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Case Number: SLP (C) 13704 OF 2026
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a plea challenging a Delhi High Court ruling that a patent revocation petition remains maintainable and survives even after expiry of the patent and is not barred merely because an invalidity defence is raised in a parallel infringement suit. A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice on the special leave petition filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH and listed the matter for final disposal on May 25, 2026.
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bhuvan Bam & Anr. v. INKWYNK & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 23/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 450
The Delhi High Court recently issued interim directions on a plea by content creator Bhuvan Bam seeking removal of infringing content, including deepfake videos, that continued to exploit his personality rights despite an earlier protective order. The court held that a prima facie case was made out, restrained further unauthorised use of his persona, and directed online platforms to take down identified infringing content within 36 hours.
Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection Of Blackberry Patent On Colour-Coding Message Recipients Feature
Case Title: Blackberry Limited v. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 447
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Blackberry Limited, upholding the refusal of a patent application for a feature that colour-coded message recipients meant to help users distinguish between recipients before sending messages. In a judgment pronounced on April 30, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia held that the invention was unpatentable under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act as a computer program per se and also lacked an inventive step.
Delhi High Court Rules 'The House of the Blue Mangoes' Does Not Infringe Sivasundari Bose's Work
Case Title: David Davidar v. Sivassundari Bose
Case Number: CS(COMM) 706/2018 & CS(COMM) 581/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 446
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that the novel 'The House of the Blue Mangoes' by David Davidar does not infringe the copyright claimed by author Sivasundari Bose, bringing an end to a dispute between the two that has stretched on for years. Delivering the judgment on April 30, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia said the similarities pointed out between the two works stemmed from shared historical context, cultural references, and familiar elements of multi-generational family sagas, material that falls outside the scope of copyright protection.
Delhi High Court Grants Temporary Injunction To Google's Waymo, Bars Use Of 'P-WAYMO' Mark
Case Title: Waymo LLC v. P-Waymo Electric Vehicles Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 34/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 441
The Delhi High Court recently granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Waymo LLC, a subsidiary of Google's parent Alphabet Inc., restraining an Indian entity from using the mark “P-WAYMO” or any deceptively similar variant in a trademark dispute. A single-judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh said, “Having heard learned counsel for the Plaintiff and upon perusal of the documents, I am of the view that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ad interim injunction against the Defendants. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the interim injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.”
Case Title: Castrol Limited vs Sanjay Sonavane And Ors.
Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) 38/2025 & CM APPL. 80125/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 438
The Delhi High Court has restored Castrol's suit alleging disparagement against the proprietor of the “3P” mark, Sanjay Sonavane, along with media entities holding that it was not barred by law as it was based on a different set of facts from an earlier case on trademark threats. A bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla said the two cases, though linked to the same dispute, were legally distinct.
Case Title: Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Turio Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 407/2026 & I.As. 10589/2026, 10590/2026, 10593/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 439
The Delhi High Court has recently recorded an undertaking by Turio Pharmaceuticals Private Limited to stop using marks similar to “T-BACT” in a trademark suit filed by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited. Justice Jyoti Singh, on April 21, 2026, accepted an undertaking that Turio Pharmaceuticals, through its director Suresh Chaluvadi, shall not use the marks “TRU-BACT”, “TU-BACT” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to GlaxoSmithKline's registered “T-BACT” mark or its packaging in future.
Case Title: Paper Money Guaranty LLC v. PMGIndia & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 432/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 437
The Delhi High Court recently restrained PMGIndia, a family-run business, and its proprietors from using the marks “PMG”, “PMGIndia”, “Paper Money Grading” or any deceptively similar mark, granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Paper Money Guaranty LLC. Justice Jyoti Singh observed, “I am of the view that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction against the Defendants. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the interim injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.”
Delhi High Court Declares “MULTANI” A Well-Known Trademark For Ayurvedic Pharma Products
Case Title: Multani Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Mayuri Bhupal Bhamare
Case Number: CS(COMM) 934/2024 and I.A. 43164/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 436
The Delhi High Court has declared Multani Pharmaceuticals Limited's “MULTANI” mark as a well-known trademark for Ayurvedic pharmaceutical products. A single-judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that the mark has acquired extensive recognition over decades of use and promotion.
Case Title: Sanjiv Saraf & Ors. v. Manzar Hasan Mukhatar Hasan Syed & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 409/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 435
The Delhi High Court on 24 April 2026 granted an ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement dispute filed by the Rekhta Foundation, restraining the use of the domain name "www.rekhta.in" by a rival entity and protecting the Foundation's registered mark “REKHTA”. Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the defendants from using the impugned domain and referred the parties to mediation to explore settlement.
Case Title: Sanofi v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 120/2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 434
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction restraining Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from using the mark “CLAVIX” for its medicinal products, holding it deceptively similar to Sanofi's registered mark “PLAVIX” and finding the adoption to be dishonest and infringing. In a judgment pronounced on April 28, 2026, Justice Amit Bansal held that the competing marks differ only by a single letter and are used for identical pharmaceutical products, making confusion highly likely.
Every Content Can't Be Disparaging: Delhi High Court Remarks In Arjun Kapoor's Personality Suit
Case Title: Arjun Kapoor v. Artist Booking Company & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 454/2026
Actor Arjun Kapoor has moved the Delhi High Court alleging widespread unauthorised commercial use of his likeness and circulation of “sexually explicit” deepfake content, with the court cautioning against overbroad restrictions that could stifle satire. Hearing the matter, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela flagged the need to balance personality rights with free expression, observing: “A person who is in the public glare, a lot of things happen… We can understand certain things which will be derogatory, defamatory or disparaging. Everything can't come under that.”
Delhi High Court Orders Suspension of 'ebai.org' Over Lupin QR Codes Redirecting To Porn Content
Case Title: Lupin Limited v. Chhian Sokchea & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 400/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 425
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Lupin Limited, ordering that the domain 'www.ebai.org' be suspended, disabled, or deleted within 36 hours. The direction came after QR codes printed on the company's eye-care products, which link to that website, were found redirecting users to pornographic content. Lupin has alleged that the domain itself had been taken over by an unidentified third party.
Case Title: Digital IP Brand Protection Alliance vs Union of India And Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 4695/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 445
The Delhi High Court has observed that a direction to intermediaries to take down content on the basis of private copyright claims cannot be granted without a prior determination by a court, while dealing with a plea seeking removal of allegedly infringing content. “The private intermediaries cannot be expected to, in the absence of there being a finding rendered by a Court, to take down, suspend or block content, which is contended by an individual to be their intellectual property,” the court observed.
Case Title: Mansueto Ventures LLC v. Dnyaneshwar Ashok Kamble Trading As Prime View Media And Technology
Case Number: CS(COMM) 420/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 424
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a Pune-based entity from using the mark “Inc” for a magazine, website, and related publishing services, finding it identical or deceptively similar to Mansueto Ventures LLC's “Inc.” brand. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in an order dated April 21, 2026, held that the rival marks were identical, observing that there was “no distinction between the two,” and noted material on record showing unauthorised solicitations riding on the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation.
Case Title: Modi Woodspace Private Limited vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 56/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 419
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside the refusal of the trademark “KAMA CASA” for furniture and home décor products and related retail services, holding that the Registrar erred in dissecting a composite wordmark and comparing it with separate prior marks. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held, “In other words, the mark of the appellant “KAMA CASA”, which is a word mark, ought to have been considered as a composite mark and not broken into “KAMA” and “CASA”. In case such dissection is permitted, it would lead to anomalous and incongruous results..."
Case Title: House Of Diagnostics LLP & Ors. v. Home Of Diagnostics Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 416/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 420
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of House of Diagnostics LLP and its sister concerns, restraining Home of Diagnostics Limited from using the marks “HOD”, “HOD DIAGNOSTICS”, “HOME OF DIAGNOSTICS” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks. On April 21, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the deceptive similarities between the rival marks were “more than apparent”.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Grasim Industries Limited & Anr. v. Saboo Tor Private Limited & Ors. Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.2849 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.39319 OF 2025
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 253
The Bombay High Court has allowed Grasim Industries and UltraTech Cement to place additional evidence on record in their trademark dispute with Saboo Tor Pvt Ltd over the use of the word “BIRLA”. The court said the documents are relevant for deciding the appeal and could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande passed the order while hearing an appeal against the refusal to grant an interim injunction. The earlier decision had declined to restrain Saboo Tor from using marks such as “BIRLA TMT” during the pendency of the suit.
Case Title: UltraTech Cement Limited & Anr. v. M/s. Shiv Cement Co.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 126 OF 2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 249
The Bombay High Court has granted a permanent injunction restraining a rival cement maker from using marks deceptively similar to UltraTech, holding that the adoption was “entirely dishonest” and “actuated in bad faith.” In a judgment pronounced on April 28, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor decreed the suit in favour of UltraTech Cement Limited and Grasim Industries Limited, while also awarding more than Rs. 66 lakh towards costs and litigation expenses.
Case Title: DBS Bank India Ltd. v. John Doe(s)/Ashok Kumar(s) & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 13639 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 12187 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 245
Observing that the “gullible public” is being misled and that “time is of essence” as delays can cause “irreversible loss” in cases of financial fraud, the Bombay High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction restraining unidentified persons from impersonating DBS Bank India Limited and its officials. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, in an order dated April 21, 2026, directed platforms including WhatsApp and domain registrars to disable fraudulent profiles, groups, and websites used to mislead the public into making investments under the bank's name.
Bombay High Court Removes 'PAXIL' Mark From Trade Marks Register Over 20 Years Of Non-Use
Case Title: Glaxo Group Limited v. Shreya Life Sciences Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 10 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 238
The Bombay High Court recently ordered the removal of the trademark 'PAXIL' from the Register of Trade Marks, holding that its proprietor, Shreya Life Sciences Private Limited, had held on to the mark without using it for nearly twenty years. Justice Arif S. Doctor observed that internal business decisions such as “expansion of business” cannot be used as a valid excuse for not using a trademark for long periods.
Madras High Court
Case Title: Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Case Number: O.A.Nos.414 & 415 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.131 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 121
The Madras High Court recently protected Ayushmann Khurrana and Sara Ali Khan's Pati Patni Aur Woh Do from apprehended unauthorised broadcast by granting an ad interim injunction in favour of its producer. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy restrained internet service providers and cable TV operators from facilitating the unlawful broadcast of the film, which is slated for release on May 15, 2026.
Madras High Court Protects “Krishnavataram Part 1: The Heart” From Piracy Ahead of Release
Case Title: Creativeland Studios Entertainment LLP v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Case Number: O.A.Nos.416 & 417 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.132 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 122
The Madras High Court has protected the upcoming Hindi film “Krishnavataram Part 1: The Heart (Hridayam)” from apprehended piracy, observing that failure to prevent unlawful broadcast could result in “irreversible injury.” In an order dated April 30, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy granted interim injunctions against internet service providers and cable TV operators arrayed as respondents in a suit filed by Creativeland Studios Entertainment LLP.
Madras High Court Restrains Piracy Of Aamir Khan Productions' 'Ek Din' Ahead of Release
Case Title: Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 384 and 385 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 123 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 120
The Madras High Court recently estrained apprehended infringement of copyright in the film Ek Din, slated for release today, by granting an ad-interim injunction in a suit filed by Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order noting that the film was scheduled to release on May 1, 2026 (today). The Court observed that in matters of this nature, “irreversible injury” is likely to occur unless unlawful broadcast is prevented.
Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 398 and 399 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 127 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 117
The Madras High Court on Wednesday restrained apprehended copyright infringement of the Riteish Deshmukh-starrer “RAJA SHIVAJI,” observing that “irreversible injury would occur unless unlawful broadcast is prevented.” In an order dated April 29, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy granted ad-interim relief against internet service providers and cable TV operators arrayed as respondents in the suit.
Case Title: T.T.Krishnamachari & Co. & Anr. v. Godrej Agrovet Limited
Case Number: C.S. No. 759 of 2007 and A.No.1654 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 116
The Madras High Court has dismissed a suit filed by T.T. Krishnamachari & Co. seeking passing off relief against Godrej Agrovet Limited over the mark “YUMMIEZ”, and directed it to pay Rs.5 lakh as costs, noting the suit had been pending since 2007. On April 20, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that TTK failed to establish the case for passing off, observing: “Effectively, none of the elements constituting the classical trinity have been made out by the plaintiffs.”
Madras High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Hatsun 'Arokya' Trademark Suit Against Patanjali 'Aarogya'
Case Title: Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v. M/s. Patanjali Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: OSA No.263 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 111
The Madras High Court on 21 April 2026 dismissed an appeal filed by Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., upholding a summary judgment rejecting its trademark infringement and passing off claims against Patanjali Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that the use of the mark “PATANJALI AAROGYA” for biscuits does not infringe Hatsun's “AROKYA” mark used for dairy products.
Case Title: Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi SpA v. Lehry Instrumentation & Valves Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: O.SA.Nos.241 & 255 of 2020 & C.M.P.Nos.12328 of 2021, 12340 of 2021 & 12334 of 2021 and 12339 of 2021 & 8669 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 119
The Madras High Court recently granted a permanent injunction in favour of Italian plumbing products manufacturer Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi SpA, restraining its former Indian distributor, Lehry Instrumentation, from using its trademark. The court set aside a Single Judge's judgment that had dismissed the company's passing-off suit and decreed Lehry's defamation claim.
Patna High Court
Patna High Court Temporarily Restrains Local Company From Using 'Johnson' Mark For Paint Products
Case Title: Johnson Paints Co. v. Johnson Paints Private Limited
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL No.2 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 9
The Patna High Court has recently restrained Johnson Paints Private Limited from using the “JOHNSON” brand name, granting temporary relief to Johnson Paints Co. Setting aside a Commercial Court order that had refused an injunction, a Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Praveen Kumar found that the lower court erred in concluding that no prima facie case of prior use or goodwill was made out.
COMMERCIAL COURTS
Case Title: Anamika Sood v. Google LLC, D/B/A Youtube & Anr.
Case Number: CS (COMM) No. 170/2021
The District Court at Saket, New Delhi, has recently awarded Rs. 5 lakh in nominal damages to singer Anamika Sood after her song “Ferrareee” was wrongfully taken down following a copyright strike by Saregama. The court also declared her the author and owner of the sound recording, turning down Saregama India Ltd's claim of infringement.
Delhi Court Dismisses 'Krishi Kalyan Seeds' Trademark Suit For Lack Of Cause Of Action
Case Title: Deepti Patel v. C.P Patel Farm Seeds Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CS (COMM.) N. 873/2024
A Commercial Court in Delhi has dismissed a trademark suit over the “Krishi Kalyan Seeds” mark arising from a family-run business dispute, holding that Deepti Patel failed to prove she was the proprietor of the business and had no cause of action. The court, presided over by District Judge Rajesh Kumar Goel, held that “...since, the plaintiff has failed to establish that she is the proprietor of Krishi Kalyan Seeds Corporation, which is the main foundation of the present claim filed by the plaintiff, therefore, there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant company, hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.”
Delhi Commercial Court Holds URL Alteration To Bypass Injunction Is Contempt In “MAHILA KALP” Case
Case Title: Meenu Agrawal, Trading As Vansh Trading v. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal & Ors.
Case Number: CS (Comm.) No.504/2024
A Commercial Court at Delhi has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Vansh Trading and restrained the defendants from using the mark “MAHILA KALP” for Ayurvedic medicines. District Judge Vinod Yadav held that the defendants' use of an identical mark and trade dress amounted to infringement, and that continuing sales by altering URLs despite an earlier injunction overreached the Court's authority and warranted contempt action.