LiveLawBiz IPR Weekly Digest: February 22 - February 28, 2026
Riya Rathore
28 Feb 2026 10:00 AM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: Saregama India Ltd. v. Sreedevi Video Corporation & Ors.
Case Number: SLP (C). 6950/2026
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Madras High Court order that had revived an injunction claim in a copyright dispute between SaReGaMa India Ltd and Sreedevi Video Corporation over the audio rights of iconic Tamil and Telegu films such as Sagara Sangamam, Salangai Oli and Shankara Bharanam. The High Court had held that although Sreedevi's plea seeking declaration of copyright was barred by limitation, its claim for permanent injunction could still be examined independently and remanded the matter to a Single Judge for fresh adjudication.
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Restrains Parth Law House, Others From Selling Counterfeit LexisNexis Law Textbooks
Case Title: LexisNexis v. Parth Law House & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 156/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 176
The Delhi High Court has recently granted a temporary injunction in favour of LexisNexis, restraining Parth Law House and others from printing, distributing, or selling counterfeit copies of its legal textbooks. A coram of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that interim protection was warranted pending further proceedings. “Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff and upon examination of the documents, I am of the view that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction,” the Court held.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains 19 More Entities From Infringing JAQUAR Trademark
Case Title: Jaquar And Company Private Limited v. Jaquar Franchise & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1160/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 174
The Delhi High Court has recently extended an earlier ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Jaquar And Company Private Limited after impleading 22 additional entities, restraining 19 of them from using the trademark “JAQUAR”. The Court restrained them from using the mark and directed banks to freeze accounts opened in a deceptively similar name. The relief was originally granted on November 3, 2025. At that stage, the Court recorded that Jaquar And Company Private Limited, the Indian bathroom fittings and sanitaryware manufacturer, is the registered proprietor of the well-known trademark “JAQUAR”. The mark was declared a well-known trademark on February 19, 2024.
Case Title: Bennett Coleman And Company Limited v. Seera Raja Babu M.R. Seera, & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 172/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 179
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Bennett Coleman and Company Limited restraining the use of the marks TIMES OF INDIA, TOI MOVIES, TOI_MOVIES and TOIMOVIES_, or any identical or deceptively similar mark, by unauthorised social media account operators. The order was passed on February 20, 2026 by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. The court noted that “The Times of India” was recognised as a well-known trademark by the Trade Marks Registry in 2024. It held that the company had made out a strong prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in its favour.
Case Title: Dr Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi Through Power Of Attorney Holder v. John Does Ashok Kumars & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 178/2026
In what it described as a “very surprising suit,” the Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard a personality rights case filed by Mumbai-based godman Dr. Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi, popularly known as Aniruddha Bapu, who is seeking to restrain his own followers from portraying him as a deity. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela remarked during the hearing, “Faith moves mountains… This is something very surprising. You have come up with a very surprising suit,” as the Court considered a plea that does not allege defamation or commercial disparagement, but instead challenges devotional content created by the plaintiff's own followers.
Delhi High Court Questions 'Zora' Trademark Registration, Says Visually Similar To 'Zara'
Case Title: Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A v. Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) - 52/2024
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday questioned the Registrar of Trade Marks action allowing the registration of the mark “Zora,” observing that it is “visually, receptively similar beyond any doubt” to the global fashion brand “Zara”. The matter arises from a challenge filed by Industria De Diseño Textil, S.A., owner of the brand “Zara,” against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks permitting registration of the mark “Zora” in Class 24, which covers textile goods and fabrics.
Delhi High Court Protects Singer Jubin Nautiyal's Personality Rights From Commercial Exploitation
Case Title: Jubin Nautiyal v. Jammable Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 166/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 186
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of singer Jubin Nautiyal, restraining unauthorised commercial exploitation of his personality and publicity rights, including through artificial intelligence tools, deepfakes and voice cloning technologies. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in an order dated February 19, 2026, held: “In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has a prima facie strong case and having regard to his well-known, popular and well-accepted personality, the balance of convenience is tilted in favour of the plaintiff. In case, ex-parte ad-interim injunction and other directions, as sought, are not passed, the irreparable loss and injury which may occasion may not be compensated in monetary terms. The dent and damage to the image and personality of the plaintiff, prima facie, appears to be real and present.”
Patent Revocation Petition Survives Even If Patent Expires By Efflux Of Time: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Case Number: LPA 129/2025, CM APPL. 10551/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 188
Holding that revocation operates retrospectively and in rem, the Delhi High Court has ruled that expiry of a patent does not render a pending revocation petition infructuous. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla on Tuesday held “a revocation petition would be maintainable, and would continue to survive, even after the patent of which revocation is sought expires by efflux of time."
Delhi High Court Protects Swami Ramdev's Personality Rights, Restrains AI Deepfakes
Case Title: Swami Ramdev v. John Doe (s) & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 147/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 193
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of yoga guru Swami Ramdev, restraining the unauthorised use of his name, voice, image, likeness and distinctive style in AI-generated deepfakes, fabricated endorsements and other commercial content. In an order dated February 18, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh held that Ramdev had made out a prima facie case. The Court observed that the material placed on record showed exploitation of his personality rights.
Case Title: Kajol Vishal Devgan v. Kash Collective & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 173/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 196
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to protect the personality rights of Bollywood actress Kajol Vishal Devgan, restraining the unauthorised use of her likeness in AI-generated deepfakes, vulgar chatbots, and commercial merchandise. Presiding over the matter, Justice Jyoti Singh on February, 2026, found that the actress had established a prima facie case for injunction, observing that the alleged unauthorised exploitation of her attributes impacts her right to privacy/personality and live with dignity.
Delhi High Court Grants Levi Strauss Temporary Injunction Against Use of Its Iconic Pocket Tab Mark
Case Title: Levi Strauss And Company v. Beyoung Folks Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 175/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 197
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of US denim and apparel company Levi Strauss and Company, holding that it had made out a strong prima facie case for protection of its registered “Tab Device Mark” and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in its order dated February 23, 2026, observed that the “cumulative effect” of the pleadings, trademark registrations and sales figures tilted the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff.
One-Month Notice Before Suo Motu Trademark Cancellation Is Mandatory: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Landmark Crafts Limited v. Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta & Anr.
Case Number: LPA 575/2025, CM APPL. 57191/2025, 57192/2025, 57194/2025 & 69956/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 198
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday made it clear that if the Registrar decides to cancel or rectify a trademark registration on his own initiative, the registered owner must first be given at least one month's notice under Rule 100(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The Court emphasised that this is not a mere formality. The one-month notice requirement is mandatory and cannot be brushed aside by invoking principles such as estoppel.
Case Title: Singh And Singh Law Firm LLP & Anr. v. Singh And Singh Chartered Accountants & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 192/2026
The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted an ad-interim injunction restraining a chartered accountancy firm from using the name “Singh and Singh Chartered Accountants” in a trademark infringement suit filed by Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP. The order was passed by Justice Jyoti Singh after hearing the submissions of the law firm at the ad-interim stage. During the hearing, the court sought clarification on the nature of the defendants' business, asking, “These are what, chartered accountants?” Counsel for the plaintiffs confirmed that the defendants were operating as “Singh and Singh Chartered Accountants.”
Purva Dhanashree Moves Delhi High Court Amid Trademark Dispute Over 'Vilasini Natyam'
Case Title: Purva Dhanashree v. Guru Swapnasundari & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) - 60/2026
Renowned classical dancer Purva Dhanashree has approached the Delhi High Court seeking permission to continue using the name 'Vilasini Natyam' for her public performances, challenging the exclusive trademark claimed by her guru, Swapnasundari, a Padma Shri awardee, over the traditional dance form. On Thursday 26 February, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela urged the “guru-shishya” duo to resolve the matter through dialogue, noting that while the trademark is registered, the guru's own research indicates the name may not have been personally coined by her.
Case Title: Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited v. Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Landsmill Healthcare Private Limited) & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 111/2024 & CM APPL. 33733/2024, CM APPL. 33736/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 203
Holding there can be no monopoly over the word “FOREST” without stringent proof that it has acquired a secondary meaning, the Delhi High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of the luxury Ayurvedic brand Forest Essentials, allowing a newer entrant, Baby Forest, to continue using 'BABY FOREST' and 'BABY FOREST-SOHAM OF AYUVEDA' marks. In a judgment pronounced on February 27, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain upheld the Single Bench's decision to refuse an interim order of injunction against Baby Forest, finding that the established brand could not claim an exclusive monopoly over the dictionary word “Forest.”
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of KREOFLAT Trademark Over Similarity To Abbott's PANKREOFLAT
Case Title: Abbott Products Operations AG v. Ms. Aprajita Sushma Proprietor Of Alrom Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 163/2025 & I.A.16868/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 204
The Delhi High Court has ordered removal of the registered trademark “KREOFLAT” from the Register of Trade Marks after holding it deceptively similar to Abbott Products Operations AG's mark “PANKREOFLAT.” In a judgment delivered on February 26, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowed a rectification petition filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court held that in the case of medicinal and pharmaceutical products, the “threshold laid down for deciding deceptive similarity is very low.”
Case Title: Sauss Home Products Private Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 145/2025, CM APPL. 60016/2025 & CM APPL. 75892/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 206
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an interim injunction restraining Sauss Home Products Private Limited from using a “Flying Bird” device mark in relation to washing soap, washing powder, detergent powder and cake, and cleaning starch. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the company's appeal on February 7, 2026. The court held that the “Flying Bird marks of the appellant and respondent were practically identical in appearance, in shape, colour scheme and lay out” and were used for identical goods.
Delhi High Court Recalls Stay On 'THE BREW BUKHARA' Trademark In ITC Dispute
Case Title: ITC Limited & Anr. v. Umesh Arora & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 48/2026 & I.A. 4244/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 207
The Delhi High Court recently recalled an ex-parte stay it had earlier granted to ITC Limited concerning the trademark registration of 'THE BREW BUKHARA'. In contrast to the Court's view just days earlier, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on 19 February held that since the respondent, Umesh Arora, is the registered proprietor of the disputed mark, an ad interim injunction could be considered only after he has been given an opportunity to file a reply.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of 'Accko' Trademark, Finds It Deceptively Similar to 'ACKO' Brand
Case Title: Acko Technology And Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandra Mohan Mishra & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 48/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 208
The Delhi High Court on 10 February, directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the trademark registration for 'ACCKO' observing that the mark is deceptively similar to the well-known 'ACKO' brand. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the rectification petition filed by Acko Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd. under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court remarked: “Similarity in the rival marks leaves little doubt that the intention of Respondent No. 1 was dishonest and the impugned mark was adopted in bad faith to encash on the goodwill of the trademark of the Petitioner.”
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Permanently Injuncts 'SUPER ASIAN PLUS' Trademark In Asian Paints Suit
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Smt. Manju Rani Jindal & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 271 OF 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 90
The Bombay High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Asian Paints, holding that the use of the mark “SUPER ASIAN PLUS” was “entirely dishonest and actuated by bad faith” and amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. Justice Arif S. Doctor, on 20 February 2026 also directed three of the defendants to each pay Rs 3 lakh in compensatory costs. Asian Paints submitted that it had been using its house mark “ASIAN PAINTS” continuously since 1952 and the mark “ASIAN” since 1965.
Bombay High Court Restrains Use Of 'ZEKODOL-P', Finds It Deceptively Similar To IPCA's 'ZERODOL'
Case Title: IPCA Laboratories Limited v. Rikon Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 218 OF 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 92
The Bombay High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of IPCA Laboratories Limited, restraining Rikon Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd from using the mark “ZEKODOL-P”, after holding that it infringes IPCA's registered trademark “ZERODOL” and amounts to passing off. Justice Arif S. Doctor, in a judgment pronounced on February 23, 2026, held that the impugned mark is “phonetically, visually and structurally almost identical” to the plaintiff's mark. The court also imposed a cost of Rs 15 Lakh on Rikon.
No Separate Disclosure Standard For IP Disputes Under Commercial Courts Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: FinTree Education Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Fintree Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 8377 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 234 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 93
The Bombay High Court has partly rejected a trademark owner's attempt to introduce additional documents nearly six years after filing suit, holding that intellectual property disputes are not entitled to any special procedural indulgence under the Commercial Courts Act. In a judgment pronounced on February 20, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor said the disclosure requirements under amended Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code are “mandatory and must be strictly enforced” in commercial suits.
Bombay High Court Confirms Ad-Interim Relief For Jawed Habib In Trademark Dispute With Ex-Franchisee
Case Title: Jawed Habib Hair & Beauty Limited v. Kavita Janki Services Private Limited
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4660 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 179 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 104
The Bombay High Court on 17 February, confirmed the ad-interim relief granted to Jawed Habib Hair and Beauty Limited in its dispute with an ex-franchisee, Kavita Janki Services Pvt Ltd, over trademark and copyright infringement. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh noted that Kavita Janki Services had failed to respond to the court's earlier prima facie findings and upheld the protections originally granted in favour of the popular hair salon franchise on 6 January 2026.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Mangrol Oil Mill & Ors. v. Vikas Oil Industries & Anr.
Case Number: R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 192 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 192 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 20
The Gujarat High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by Mangrol Oil Mill in its trademark dispute over “GULAB” groundnut oil. The Court refused to interfere with a Commercial Court order that denied interim injunction against Vikas Oil Industries, which markets edible oil under the mark “ROSE”. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker upheld the November 30, 2024 order of the Commercial Court at Morbi. The trial court had rejected the plaintiffs' application for ad-interim relief on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence.
Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court Finds 'Spic' Bottle 'Virtually Identical' To Harpic, Restrains Godrej
Case Title: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v. Godrej Consumer Products Limited
Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/1/2026 IP-COM/3/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 59
The Calcutta High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction against Godrej Consumer Products Limited, restraining the company from selling its 'Godrej Spic' toilet cleaner in bottles that allegedly infringe upon the registered trademark shape of Reckitt Benckiser's 'HARPIC'. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, on February 25, 2026, explained that the cancellation or expiry of a design monopoly does not prevent a party from claiming trademark protection over a registered shape.
Kerala High Court
Kerala High Court Restrains Former G-TEC Franchisee From Using GIO TECH Mark
Case Title: G-Tec Education Private Limited v. Mr.Binu A.Joy
Case Number: FAO NO.72 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 32
Holding that “G-TEC” and “GIO TECH” are phonetically similar and confusion is likely to be caused, the Kerala High Court has restrained a former franchisee from using the marks “GIO TECH” and “GIO TECH COMPUTER ACADEMY,” setting aside a trial court order that had refused interim relief. Justice S. Manu, in a judgment delivered on February 18, 2026, held that the analysis made by the court below was “by dissecting the trademarks” and that such an exercise “is not in consonance with the settled principles regarding infringement.”
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Approves Settlement Favouring SNS Movies In 'Think Studio' Trademark Dispute
Case Title: M/s.SNS Movies Productions LLP v. Mr.Manjunath
Case Number: C.S(COMM DIV) No. 283 of 2025 and O.A.Nos.1059 & 1060 of 2025 and A.No.5555 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 58
The Madras High Court on 23 February decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of SNS Movies Productions LLP, owner of Think Studios, after Manjunath, the proprietor of a rival firm, named Think Studio, undertook to permanently cease using the contested mark. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy recorded a settlement in which the defendant agreed to withdraw its pending trademark application and remove the infringing name from all digital and physical platforms by 10 April 2026. He noted: “Subject to the above limited exemption, learned counsel for the defendant submits that a decree may be issued in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 38 of the plaint. Learned counsel for the plaintiff agrees to give up claims in terms of clauses (c) and (d) of paragraph 38.”
DISTRICT COURT
Delhi Court Orders Takedown Of YouTube Shorts Infringing Karl Rock's Copyright
Case Title: Karl Edward Rice v. Adam El-Megrisi, Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Suit (Comm.) No.706/2025
A Delhi Commercial Court has recently granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining UK-based YouTuber Adam El-Megrisi, who operates the channel “VidBrew”, from reproducing or monetising content belonging to Karl Edward Rice, also known as Karl Rock, in a copyright infringement and passing off suit. District Judge Vinod Yadav held that a prima facie case of infringement of copyrighted works and passing off was made out against El-Megrisi.
Jammu Court Grants Interim Relief To JioStar India, Restrains Unauthorised Cable Transmission
Case Title: JioStar India Private Limited v. M/S Take One JK Media Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: Original Suits OS/148/2026
Principal District Judge R.N. Watal, Jammu on 24 February protected the broadcast reproduction rights of JioStar India Private Limited by issuing an ad interim injunction against several regional cable networks. The judge directed that, until the next date of hearing, the defendants shall refrain from “retransmitting, rebroadcasting, disseminating, exhibiting and/or communicating” its content, including popular television shows and exclusive sporting events notified as being of national importance.
Delhi Court Awards ₹20 Lakh Damages To Siemens In NX Software Piracy Case
Case Title: Siemens Industry Software Inc. & Anr. v. Mr. Niilesh Dhanukar & Ors.
Case Number: CS (Comm) 470/2023
A Commercial Court at Saket, New Delhi, has decreed a copyright infringement suit in favour of Siemens Industry Software Inc.and its Indian subsidiary, restraining Maharashtra-based mould maker Om Sai Moulds and Plastics and its promoters from using unlicensed copies of its NX (Unigraphics) software. In a judgment dated February 19, 2026, District Judge Anuradha Shukla granted a permanent injunction and awarded 20 lakh in damages.