LiveLawBiz IPR Weekly Digest: July 27 - August 02, 2026
Riya Rathore
4 Aug 2026 10:31 AM IST
DELHI HIGH COURT
Delhi High Court Restrains Use Of 'COBEX' Mark In GlaxoSmithKline's Trademark Suit Over 'COBADEX'
Case Title: GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Orion Biotech Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 754/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 774
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Orion Biotech and associated entities from using the mark 'COBEX' for a paediatric antibiotic. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that GSK had made out a prima facie case that 'COBEX' is deceptively similar to its registered multi-vitamin trademark 'COBADEX'.
Delhi High Court Restrains Patna Firm From Using 'Nintendo India Private Limited' Name
Case Title: Nintendo Co. Ltd. v. Nintendo India Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 747/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 772
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained a Patna-registered real estate firm from using the name 'Nintendo India Private Limited'. The court ruled that the adoption of the name was aimed at encashing on the goodwill and reputation of the Japanese gaming giant, Nintendo, and creating a false impression of association.
Case Title: Cipla Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 23/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 771
The court dismissed an application by a third party seeking to be impleaded in Cipla's petition for the restoration of its 'NO DARAR' trademark. Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that the applicant was a "rank outsider" with no locus standi in the matter, being nowhere related or remotely connected to the facts of the case.
Delhi High Court Protects 'ASIAN PAINTS' Trademark, Restrains Use Of Similar 'Asia Paints' Mark
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Saroj Arora and Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 770/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 769
The Delhi High Court on July 23 restrained Saroj Arora and associated entities from using the mark 'Asia Paints' in an infringement and passing off suit. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani found that Asian Paints had established a prima facie case for protection, noting that irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff otherwise.
Case Title: M/s Nava Healthcare Pvt Ltd v. M/s Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd and Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 739/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 768
On July 24, Justice Jyoti Singh restrained Antex Pharma from selling pharmaceutical products under marks and trade dress allegedly similar to Nava Healthcare's registered brands 'HAIRFUL' and 'UDIVIN'. The court held that the defendants were prima facie infringing the plaintiff's registered trademarks.
Delhi High Court Declines Interim Ban On NHM's Use Of Patented Sickle Cell Screening Card
Case Title: Dr. Smita Nisanth Nambison v. National Health Mission India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 29/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 767
The court declined to grant an interim ban on the National Health Mission's use of a patented screening card for sickle cell disease. However, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani restrained government entities from asserting that the patented screening card originated from a state government prototype.
Case Title: Bennett Coleman And Company Limited v. Network18 Media And Investments Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 813/2026
The Delhi High Court issued notice on July 31 in a suit alleging copyright and trademark infringement over the news show 'Desh Ki Paatshala'. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani declined an ad-interim injunction at this stage, noting that the defendants had entered an appearance on caveat and were entitled to a hearing.
Delhi High Court Restrains Gujarati Newspaper From Using 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' In TV Today's Suit
Case Title: TV Today Network v. Saurashtra Aaj Tak & Anr.
Case Number: RFA 320/2012 & CM APPL. 80300/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 764
Justice Mini Pushkarna restrained a Rajkot-based newspaper from using the name 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak', ruling that TV Today Network, operator of the 'Aaj Tak' news channel, is the prior user of the mark. The court set aside a 2012 trial court order that had permitted the use with a disclaimer.
Delhi High Court Restrains Use Of PHENSERYL Mark In Opella Healthcare's Trademark Suit
Case Title: Opella Healthcare Group v. Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 552/2024 & I.A. 32616/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 763
The court restrained a pharmaceutical company from selling a syrup under the mark 'PHENSERYL'. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the name and packaging were visually and phonetically deceptively similar to Opella's registered 'PHENSEDYL' trademark and trade dress.
Case Title: Mohammed Nawaz Shaikh v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors. and Prateek Sahni v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 775/2026 & CS(COMM) - 798/2026
Hearing suits by content creators, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that Meta's copyright enforcement mechanism is being exploited by bad actors for "blackmail" and "extortion". Meta provided an assurance that it would work to ensure user accounts are not blocked due to fraudulent copyright strikes.
Delhi High Court Restrains Unknown Entities From Impersonating Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC, Officials
Case Title: Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 716/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 758
The court restrained unidentified entities from impersonating officials of Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC. Justice Jyoti Singh directed WhatsApp to remove fraudulent groups and suspend the identified profiles within 36 hours of receiving the order.
Case Title: Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v. Aurore Life Sciences Pvt Ltd
Case Number: CS(COMM) 780/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 757
Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling pharmaceutical products containing Ruxolitinib. The court held that the patent holders established a prima facie case of infringement regarding the cancer treatment drug.
Delhi High Court To Order Takedown Of Content Infringing Yuvraj Singh's Personality Rights
Case Title: Yuvraj Singh v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 796/2026
The court indicated it will direct the takedown of content infringing cricketer Yuvraj Singh's personality rights. Justice Jyoti Singh gave uploaders 48 hours to voluntarily remove the material before requiring intermediaries to step in to protect the cricketer's persona.
Case Title: Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.) v. Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
Case Number: CS(COMM) 376/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 749
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the university from using the name "Maharaja Agrasen," finding its adoption was mala fide and dishonest in light of the plaintiff's prior use of the mark for various institutions.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Ahmedabad Firm From Using VOLVO Trademark For Elevator Parts
Case Title: Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. Shree Vishwakarma Engineering Works
Case Number: CS(COMM) 765/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 747
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on July 22 restraining the Ahmedabad-based manufacturer from using the mark "VOLVO" for elevator components. Justice Jyoti Singh held the defendant's use was deceptively similar to the trademarks of the Swedish automotive company.
Case Title: Parle Products Pvt Ltd v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: LPA 316/2026 & CM APPL. 27819-20/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 748
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held on July 28 that Parle's subsequent commercial use of the "20-20" mark could not defeat the rival company's earlier trademark application. The court dismissed Parle's challenge to the registration.
Delhi High Court Orders Meta To Share User Details, IP Logs In Suit Over Fake Copyright Strikes
Case Title: Mohammed Nawaz Shaikh v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar and Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 775/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 746
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed Meta Platforms Inc. to furnish subscriber information and IP logs relating to individuals alleged to have misused the copyright reporting system to extort digital content creator Mohammed Nawaz Shaikh.
Case Title: DNA Forensics Test Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 9684/2026 and CM APPL. 45118-45119/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 740
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order directing a DNA testing company to change its name, holding that the Central Government's power to rectify similar company names under the Companies Act is not rendered invalid merely because its opinion was triggered by an application from another company. "The order being passed under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, even though triggered by an application, cannot be considered to be invalid or without jurisdiction, for the simple reason that it was triggered on the basis of information given by an applicant," the court said.
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against 'DYNAFRESH' In Trademark Dispute With Anchor's 'DYNA'
Case Title: Jagdish Dahyalal Patel v. Anchor Consumer Products Private Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 CM APPL. 45867/2026 CM APPL. 45868/2026 CM APPL. 45869/2026 CM APPL. 45870/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 739
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Jagdish Dahyalal Patel against an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining him from using the trademark 'DYNAFRESH' for air fresheners. Relying on the Registrar of Trade Marks' unchallenged finding that 'DYNAFRESH' was deceptively similar to Anchor Consumer Products Private Limited's registered trademark 'DYNA', the court held that Patel's adoption of the mark was not bona fide.
Case Title: Nitin Joshi v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) - 9441/2026
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora issued notice on July 28 on a PIL alleging that organized cyber criminals are exploiting Instagram's automated copyright-strike system to extort digital content creators.
Delhi High Court Grants HBO Temporary Injunction Against 30 Rogue Websites In Copyright Suit
Case Title: Home Box Office Inc & Ors. v. Streamzy.To & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 740/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 738
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Home Box Office Inc. (HBO) against 30 rogue websites allegedly streaming its copyrighted films and shows without authorisation. The court has also directed internet service providers (ISPs) and domain name registrars (DNRs) to technically verify whether any newly identified website is a mirror, redirect or alphanumeric version of the injuncted websites and, if so, enforce the injunction against it as a pro-tem measure, while HBO moves the court to implead those websites.
Case Title: Salman Khan v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1322/2025
The Delhi High Court on Monday directed that all disputed links, including the teaser of movie Kala Hiran and other online content identified by actor Salman Khan in his personality rights suit, be taken down within 24 hours. The court further directed that if the uploaders failed to remove the content within that period, the platforms hosting it would take it down within the next 24 hours.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bombay High Court Rejects EYETEX DIVYA Owner's Plea Against DIVYAM Trademark
Case Title: Aravind Laboratories v. Manoj Agrawal & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO.17853 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 418
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a plea to cancel the registration of a device mark featuring the word "DIVYAM". Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the prefix "EYETEX" is the dominant feature of the petitioner's registered mark "EYETEX DIVYA", and the company cannot claim exclusive rights over the word "DIVYA" standalone.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Madras High Court Sets Aside Order Reviving Kangaro's Trademark Opposition Against V-Guard
Case Title: V-Guard Industries Limited v. M/s.Kangaro Industries & Another
Case Number: LPA No.18 of 2026 AND CMP No.12387 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 211
The Madras High Court ruled that a trademark opponent cannot be granted extra time to file evidence after missing the two-month deadline. The court restored the Assistant Registrar's decision treating Kangaro's opposition as abandoned.
Madras High Court Restrains Edible Oil Firm, Holds 'CYCLE' Mark Has Reputation Beyond Agarbattis
Case Title: N. Ranga Rao & Sons Private Ltd. v. Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods
Case Number: O.SA.(CAD)No.3 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 208
A Division Bench restrained an edible oil firm from using the "CYCLE" trademark. The court held that the reputation of the "Cycle" brand agarbattis extends beyond incense sticks, granting it protection even against dissimilar goods.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case Title: Tinubhai Babubhai Bhalgama & Ors. v. Alpeshbhai Ranchhodbhai Lunagariya & Ors.
Case Number: R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 82 of 2026 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 82 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 105
The Gujarat High Court set aside a temporary injunction that had restrained the registered owners of the "Aditya Jewellers" trademark from using their mark. The court ruled that the trial court committed a grave error by conducting a "mini trial" at the interim stage.
Case Title: M/S Raj Abhushan Bhandar v. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 619 of 2026 with R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 620 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 100
A Division Bench held that an intra-court Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is not maintainable against a Single Judge's decision in a statutory appeal under the Trade Marks Act. The court cited Section 100A of the CPC as a bar to such appeals.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Priya Industries & Anr. v. Vishwanatha K
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.351 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 130
The court set aside an ex-parte injunction that had barred Priya Industries from selling an areca nut dehusking machine. The court found that the lower court failed to analyze the patent claims or provide sufficient reasons for concluding that infringement had occurred.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Trade Marks Registry Cannot Remove Trademark Without Mandatory Notice: Kerala High Court
Case Title: S. Prasannan v. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 7528 OF 2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 145
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen held that the Trade Marks Registry cannot delete a registered mark from the register without first complying with the mandatory notice requirements under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act.