LiveLawBiz IPR Weekly Digest: August 24 - August 30, 2026
Riya Rathore
31 Aug 2026 11:35 AM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: BLACK DIAMOND MOTORS PVT. LTD. VERSUS REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & ANR.
Case Number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.26470/2026
The Supreme Court on 24 August issued notice on Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd.'s challenge to a Bombay High Court judgment. The High Court had held that the two-month period prescribed under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, for filing an evidence affidavit is directory and not a mandatory deadline. A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran stayed the underlying rectification proceedings in the interim.
Supreme Court Issues Notice In Embassy Of Peru's Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling On 'PISCO' GI
Case Title: EMBASSY OF PERU Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case Number: SLP(C) No. 26484/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday, 24 August, issued notice on a special leave petition filed by the Embassy of Peru. The plea challenges a Delhi High Court judgment that declined to grant Peru an exclusive, standalone Geographical Indication (GI) registration for the term “PISCO” in India. The High Court had previously held that the term has historically been associated with alcoholic beverages originating from both Peru and Chile, making exclusive protection likely to confuse consumers.
Case Title: ILAIYARAAJA vs SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED
Case Number: DIARY NO. 50668/2026
Music composer Ilaiyaraaja has moved the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Delhi High Court's dismissal of his review petition in a copyright dispute concerning the sound recording of “En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the Tamil film Moodu Pani. The dispute arose after Saregama India Ltd. initiated proceedings against Vels Film International Ltd. (VFIL) over its proposed use of a recreated version of the song in Aghathiyaa. VFIL had relied on an agreement with the composer to justify the use.
HIGH COURTS
DELHI HIGH COURT
Case Title: AB SKF vs. M/S B.M. Bearing Sales & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 918/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 890
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained two Delhi-based traders from selling counterfeit ball bearings under the “SKF” mark. Justice Jyoti Singh passed an ad-interim injunction, observing that selling inferior-quality bearings poses a severe safety hazard for vehicle drivers. The court also directed Bank of Baroda to freeze proceeds traced to the defendants.
Delhi High Court Restrains Ajmer Spa From Using "ANANTARA" For Similarity With MHG IP Holding's Mark
Case Title: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors. vs. Anantara Spa and Massage
Case Number: CS(COMM) 914/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 879
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained Ajmer-based Anantara Spa and Massage from using the mark “ANANTARA” or deceptively similar variants. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the ex-parte ad interim injunction in a suit filed by MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd (part of the Minor Hotel Group), noting the group's valid and subsisting registrations for the mark.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Sale Of 'SCALP SAYY' Hair Care Products For Similar To 'SAYY'
Case Title: M/s Sayy Partnership Firm v. Bhuva Ankitkumar Jaysukhbhai
Case Number: CS(COMM) 912/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 874
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained a sole proprietor from manufacturing or marketing cosmetic products under the mark “SCALP SAYY”. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark “SAYY” and subsumed the plaintiff's trademark in its entirety.
Case Title: Stonex India Private Limited vs. Mohit Kumawat & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 284/2025 & I.A. 32460/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 881
The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of the trademark “STONEX WORLD” held by individual proprietor Mohit Kumawat. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the rectification petition filed by Stonex India, ruling that the mark was deceptively similar to the registered “STONEX” marks, and flagged a lapse by the Trade Marks Registry in verifying conflicting marks during registration.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trademark Registry Order Refusing “AYU LIFESCIENCE” Registration
Case Title: Ayu Lifescience Industries FZE vs. The Controller General of Trademarks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 74/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 880
The Delhi High Court set aside the Trade Marks Registry's order refusing to register the device mark “AYU LIFESCIENCE”. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the Registry cannot rely on cited conflicting marks without first verifying whether those registrations are validly subsisting on the register, remanding the matter for fresh examination.
Case Title: Novartis AG & Anr. v. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 293/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 875
The Delhi High Court directed BDR Pharmaceuticals to seek the court's prior approval before taking any steps toward the commercial manufacture or launch of Dabrafenib. Justice A. J. Bhambhani issued the direction in a quia timet patent infringement suit filed by Novartis AG.
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 904/2026 & I.A.22515/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 876
The Delhi High Court has referred the question of territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property suits based solely on website accessibility to a larger bench. Justice A. J. Bhambhani referred the matter while hearing HUL's disparagement suit against Kwick Living (which runs the cleaning brand Beco) over its “War on What's Hidden” campaign, noting conflicting precedents on the issue.
Delhi High Court Restrains Healing Pharma From Using Trade Dress Similar To Himalaya Products
Case Title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr. v. Healing Pharma India Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 892/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 872
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Healing Pharma from using packaging and trade dress deceptively similar to Himalaya's Liv.52, Cystone, Mentat, Speman, Pilex, and Confido products. Justice A. J. Bhambhani passed the order in a suit protecting Himalaya's signature herbal ranges.
Case Title: Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd & Anr. v. M/s. Wear and Glow & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 845/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 871
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining several entities from selling counterfeit skincare and dermatological products bearing Sun Pharma's registered marks 'PHOTOSTABLE' and 'BELLO'. Justice A. J. Bhambhani observed that the plaintiff had successfully established a prima facie case of trademark infringement.
Personality Rights Cannot Extinguish Parody, Caricature Or Lampooning: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Alakh Pandey v. Unauthorised Social Media Accounts & Others
Case Number: CS(COMM) 835/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 870
The Delhi High Court held that personality rights cannot be used to extinguish entire genres of expression such as caricature, lampooning, or parody. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted PhysicsWallah founder Alakh Pandey interim protection against three specific forms of commercial misuse of his persona, while declining to block comedic or satirical content.
Delhi High Court Reserves Order On Jurisdiction In HUL's Disparagement Suit Against Beco
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED V/S KWICK LIVING (I) PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 904/2026
The Delhi High Court reserved its order on the preliminary question of territorial jurisdiction in HUL's suit against Beco's parent company. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani made it clear that no interim or ad-interim orders would be passed before deciding the question of jurisdiction.
Case Title: Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 167/2026 CM APPL. 43226/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 869
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Nugenesys from selling nutraceuticals under the mark “RewireX”. Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the respondent (Celagenex) had obtained the order by wilfully suppressing material facts and imposed costs of ₹2 lakh.
Delhi High Court Restrains 'ANANTARA SPA' From Using 'ANANTARA' For Spa And Wellness Services
Case Title: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors. v. Anantara Spa & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 876/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 864
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a wellness and spa business operating as “ANANTARA SPA” from using the "ANANTARA" marks. Justice A. J. Bhambhani passed the order, noting that a domain name arbitrator had already ruled against the defendants' deceptive adoption of the mark.
Delhi High Court Holds Varun Beverages' 'SMOOTH' Deceptively Similar To 'SMOODH', Restrains Use
Case Title: Parle Agro Private Limited v. Varun Beverages Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 897/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 863
The Delhi High Court restrained Varun Beverages from using the mark “SMOOTH” for its dairy-based yoghurt drink, finding it deceptively similar to Parle Agro's “SMOODH” trademark. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the defendant had engaged in "smart copying" by substituting the letter 'D' in “SMOODH” with 'T'.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Fox and Mandal and Anr. v. Somabrata Mandal and Ors.
Case Number: IA NO. GA/4/2023 [OLD NO CS/269/2022] In IP-COM/6/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 199
The Calcutta High Court permanently restrained Somabrata Mandal and his law firm from holding themselves out as connected with Fox & Mandal or using the marks “Fox & Mandal,” “Fox and Mandal,” and “F&M”. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the goodwill generated by a partnership is a partnership asset belonging to the firm, and individual partners or their heirs have no independent right to trade on its name.