LiveLawBiz IPR Weekly Digest: July 13 - July 19, 2026
Riya Rathore
20 July 2026 2:50 PM IST
HIGH COURTS
DELHI HIGH COURT
Delhi High Court Cancels 'ZORA' Trademark, Holds It Deceptively Similar To Well-Known ZARA Mark
Case Title: Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 52/2024, I.A. 33885/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 702
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark 'ZORA', ruling it deceptively similar to the well-known Spanish fashion brand ZARA. Justice Jyoti Singh set aside the Registrar's order dismissing ZARA's opposition and directed the removal of the 'ZORA' mark from the Register within two months. The court found phonetic and visual similarities likely to cause consumer confusion.
Case Title: New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Astormueller AG and Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 962/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 710
Justice Jyoti Singh has temporarily restrained Swiss footwear company Astormueller AG from manufacturing or selling products bearing the standalone "n:" logo or "nu:beat" mark. The court held that New Balance established a prima facie case for passing off, finding the impugned marks deceptively similar to New Balance's established identity.
Case Title: Loreal SA v. Vekariya Nikunj Arvindbhai & Ors.
Case Number: CM(M)-IPD 21/2026 & CMs 91/2026, 92/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 704
On July 13, 2026, the Delhi High Court set aside a trial court order that refused L'Oréal permission to amend its passing-off suit to include trademark infringement. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the subsequent registration of the 'GARNIER BRIGHT COMPLETE' mark did not constitute a fresh cause of action that would bar an amendment.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains MDL Herbal From Using “HAJMOLA” Mark In Dispute With Dabur
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Sameer Das Shastri Proprietor of MS MDL Herbal Dhanvanatri Ayurvedic Mahamritunjay
Case Number: CS(COMM) 708/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 715
The Delhi High Court on July 8 granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining an Ayurvedic firm from using the mark “HAJMOLA” or any deceptively similar mark. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that Dabur had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off.
Delhi High Court Protects “BATA” From Counterfeiters, Directs Flipkart To Remove Infringing Listings
Case Title: Bata India Limited v. Lalli Devi & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 712/2026
Citation: LLBiz HC (DEL) 712
Justice Jyoti Singh on July 8 granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining individuals from selling footwear under the BATA trademark. The court also directed Flipkart to remove the infringing listings, noting that identical marks for identical goods constitute prima facie infringement and are likely to cause confusion.
Delhi High Court Refers SOCIAL HOUSE-SOCIAL Trademark Row To Mediation
Case Title: Vardhaman Choksi v. Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: LPA 480/2026, CM APPL. 41723-41727/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 705
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has referred a trademark dispute between "SOCIAL HOUSE" and "SOCIAL" to mediation. The court also issued notice on an appeal by SOCIAL HOUSE proprietor Vardhaman Choksi against a judgment that had ordered the removal of his trademark.
Case Title: Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 44/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 699
The Delhi High Court set aside an order allowing the registration of "GHOST BUSTER" for pharmaceuticals, finding the Registrar failed to examine the "well-known" status claim of the "GHOSTBUSTERS" mark. Justice Jyoti Singh remanded the matter for fresh consideration within three months.
Delhi HC Restrains 'Electroford' From Selling ORS Products In Packaging Similar To FDC's 'Electral'
Case Title: FDC Limited v. Wellford Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 707/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 700
On July 7, the Delhi High Court restrained Wellford Pharmaceutical from selling ORS products under trade dress deceptively similar to FDC Limited's well-known “ELECTRAL” packaging. Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in the suit alleging copyright infringement and passing off.
Delhi High Court Makes Permanent Injunction Against MaxLife Diagnostic's Use of 'MAX' Trademark
Case Title: Maxlife Diagnostic And Research Center & Ors. v. Max Health Care Institute Ltd.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 97/2025 & CM APPL. 23724/2025
Citation: LLBiz HC (DEL) 711
The court confirmed a permanent injunction against MaxLife Diagnostic for using the 'MAX' trademark following a settlement. The defendant agreed to pay ₹5 lakh in one-time damages to Max Healthcare Institute Ltd.
Case Title: Pushkar Raj Thakur v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 647/2026, I.A. 15834/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 708
Two content creators have alleged that Meta's copyright system is being exploited via Facebook's “Edit Post” feature to backdate stolen videos. They claim these backdated posts are used to file false copyright complaints, leading to the permanent disabling of verified accounts.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Case Title: Dr. Ashok M. Bhat v. Harichand Nagpal & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 9324 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 378 OF 2021 ALONG WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1269 OF 2016 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 378 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 401
The Bombay High Court has imposed costs exceeding ₹82 lakh on Harichand Nagpal, proprietor of Ravi Industries, for the wilful violation of a 2010 injunction. The court found that the defendant continued to market hair cream under the 'NONI' label and 'NOVA MINI' mark despite being restrained from using the registered 'NOVA' trademark. Justice Arif S. Doctor directed the defendant to pay ₹32.42 lakh to the plaintiff and ₹50 lakh to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.
Bombay HC Restrains Use Of 'LAVIE LUXURY' Mark For Perfumes Over Similarity With Bagzone's 'LAVIE'
Case Title: Bagzone Lifestyles Pvt Ltd v. Shweta Agrawal
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.20382 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO.20200 OF 2026 WITH LEAVE PETITION NO.211 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 399
On July 7, 2026, the Bombay High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a seller from using the mark “LAVIE LUXURY” for perfumes and colognes. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar held the mark was deceptively similar to the registered “LAVIE” family of marks owned by Bagzone Lifestyles. The court also appointed a Court Receiver to seize the allegedly counterfeit goods.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Madras High Court Restrains Karnataka Bar From Using 'TVS' Mark
Case Title: TVS Holdings Limited & Anr. v. TVS Bar and Restaurant
Case Number: OA Nos. 693 to 695 of 2026 in C.S.(COMM DIV) NO. 199 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 183
On July 10, the Madras High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction restraining a Karnataka-based establishment from using the name "TVS Bar and Restaurant". Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the applicants had established registered rights over the "TVS" trademark.
Madras High Court Holds 'KONGU ELITE MATRIMONY' Infringes 'ELITE MATRIMONY' Mark, Grants Injunction
Case Title: Matrimony.com Limited v. Bharathi, Trading as Kongu Elite Matrimony
Case Number: OA Nos. 667, 668 and 669 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 189 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 182
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted an interim injunction on July 8 against a matchmaking service using the name “KONGU ELITE MATRIMONY”. The court found the name and identical domain name to be visually and phonetically similar to the registered “ELITE MATRIMONY” mark.
COMMERCIAL COURTS
Saket Court Protects “ANTARA” Trademark, Restrains Kapiraj Corporation From Using “Shivant Antara”
Case Title: Antara Senior Living Limited v. Kapiraj Corporation & Ors.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 520/2025
The Commercial Court at Saket on July 10 awarded ₹5 lakh in damages against Kapiraj Corporation for using the mark “Shivant Antara”. District Judge Vrinda Kumari held the mark deceptively similar to the “ANTARA” trademark owned by the Max Group.