LiveLawBiz IPR Weekly Digest: September 07 - September 13, 2026
Riya Rathore
15 Sept 2026 10:05 PM IST
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Case Title: Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil v. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 12000 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 503
Observing that prolonged proceedings over a patent application had cost an inventor 13 years out of the 20-year statutory protection period, the Bombay High Court recognized Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil as the sole owner of the invention. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was dealing with a petition filed by Dr. Patil regarding an invention titled “An...” originally filed with IIT Bombay, and directed that his patent application be considered on its merits.
Bombay High Court Directs Trader To Deposit ₹1.32 Crore For Breaching NOVA Trademark Injunction
Case Title: Harichand Nagpal v. Dr. Ashok M. Bhat & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 27799 OF 2026 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 9324 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)500
The Bombay High Court directed a trader appealing an ₹82.42 lakh costs order for violating a trademark injunction to deposit an additional ₹50 lakh, bringing the total deposit to ₹1.32 crore. A Division Bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata passed the order after noting that the appellant failed to comply with the directions issued by the Single Bench on July 13, 2026.
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Deepak Kumar Panwar
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 25814 OF 2026 IN COMM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT SUIT (L) NO. 25682 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)498
The Bombay High Court directed its Court Receiver to take forcible physical possession of an entire paint manufacturing facility in Ghaziabad operated by Deepak Kumar Panwar under Akshay Paints Industries. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar passed the direction on August 31, 2026, in a commercial IP dispute after an Additional Special Receiver was obstructed while executing an earlier search and injunction order.
Bombay High Court Restrains Sale Of Counterfeit 'CLEAR' Packaged Drinking Water
Case Title: Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs Sabran Enterprises & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.12425 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 11510 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)497
The Bombay High Court restrained a Karnataka-based business from using the “CLEAR/CLEAR AQUA IND” mark after holding its packaged drinking water products to be counterfeit. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar allowed Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd.'s interim application, noting that “AQUA IND” was printed in negligible font while prominence was given to “CLEAR” with identical bottle shapes, label marks, color schemes, and visual arrangements.
Nehle Pe Dehla Rights Row: Bombay High Court Awards ₹1.92 Crore To Ultra Distributors
Case Title: Ultra Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Dhariwal Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 26 OF 2007
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)495
The Bombay High Court declared Ultra Distributors Pvt. Ltd. to be the sole and exclusive rights holder for video, cable television, and video-on-demand rights to the 1976 Hindi film Nehle Pe Dehla. Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the 2005 agreement executed by Dhariwal Films was valid and binding, and awarded ₹1.92 crore in damages to Ultra due to the defendant's failure to deliver commercially usable Digibeta Master tapes.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Delhi High Court Protects Rajat Sharma's Personality Rights, Bars Trademark Misuse of INDIA TV
Case Title: Rajat Sharma & Anr. v. Tamara Doc & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1147/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 954
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained several individuals and YouTube channels from infringing journalist Rajat Sharma's personality and publicity rights and misusing INDIA TV's registered trademarks. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the decree on August 24, 2026, granting permanent injunctions and allowing the plaintiffs to seek declarations regarding well-known trademark status.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Restrain Xiaomi From Using 'Find Device' Feature In Patent Dispute
Case Title: Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. v. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 147/2025 & CM APPL. 60385/2025 CM APPL. 72055/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 952
The Delhi High Court refused to restrain Xiaomi Technology India from using its “Find Device” feature, holding that Conqueror Innovations failed to establish a prima facie case of patent infringement. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the Single Judge's decision, noting that Conqueror's nearly nine-year delay in approaching the court disentitled it to interim relief.
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 904/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 949
The Delhi High Court held that Beco's “War on What's Hidden” campaign against HUL's Vim and Surf Excel products prima facie fails the test of permissible comparative advertising. Justice A. J. Bhambhani granted HUL interim relief, observing that claims asserting LAS and BIT ingredients cause skin irritation alongside directions to "SWITCH TO BECO" exceeded permissible limits.
Delhi High Court Injuncts Beco Ad Claiming Surf Excel, Vim Cause Skin Irritation, Allergies
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 904/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 949
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Kwick Living (I) Private Limited (operating the cleaning brand Beco) from continuing its advertisement campaign alleging that HUL's Surf Excel and Vim cause skin irritation and allergies. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani orally injuncted the campaign after concluding nearly a month of hearings in HUL's disparagement suit.
Case Title: SALMAN KHAN V/S AMIT JANI & ORS.
Case Number: I.A. 12419/2025 I.A. 12420/2025 IN CS(COMM) - 986/2026
The producer of the proposed film Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy, inspired by actor Salman Khan's 1998 blackbuck poaching case, informed the Delhi High Court on September 10 that the film is not currently in a "releasable state" as its contents are yet to be certified by the Censor Board. The bench recorded the submission in a personality rights suit filed by Khan.
Case Title: PULKIT MANI V/S META PLATFORMS INC & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 982/2026
The Delhi High Court on September 9 orally observed that copyright strike disputes are increasingly taking precedence over personality rights cases. Justice Jyoti Singh made the observation while hearing a suit filed by stand-up comedian Pulkit Mani challenging copyright strikes against content on his Instagram page (@hunnywhoisfunny) and alleging extortion attempts.
Delhi High Court Blocks Websites Offering Fake MG Motor Dealerships, Orders ₹14.55 Lakh Lien
Case Title: JSW MG Motor India Private Limited & Anr. v. Anant Kumar Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 962/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 937
The Delhi High Court blocked three websites impersonating MG Motor and offering fraudulent car dealerships to the public. Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the operators from misusing MG's trademarks, directed domain registrars to suspend the websites within 36 hours, and ordered Indian Overseas Bank to mark a lien of ₹14.55 lakh on the fraudulent bank account.
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED V/S KWICK LIVING (I) PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 904/2026
The Delhi High Court reserved its verdict on HUL's application for an interim injunction against Kwick Living (Beco) over advertisements claiming Surf Excel and Vim cause skin allergies. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani recorded that judgment was reserved following detailed arguments on comparative disparagement.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case Title: Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Kriplani v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 21846 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 124
The Gujarat High Court quashed a copyright infringement FIR against a shopkeeper accused of selling counterfeit Apple accessories. Justice P. M. Raval held that the dispute essentially concerned trademark falsification rather than copyright infringement, noting that neither the FIR nor the seizure memo identified any specific artistic or literary work copied from Apple.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Trademark Suits Cannot Be Tried By Courts Below District Court: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Cutis International Cosmetics Clinic Ltd & Ors. v. Cutis Institute of Medicine and Surgery Private Limited
Case Number: CRP NO. 284 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 180
The Kerala High Court held that a trademark infringement suit cannot be tried by a court below the District Court, regardless of whether its pecuniary valuation falls within the jurisdiction of a Munsiff Court. Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. held that under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act read with Section 15 of the CPC, the District Court is the lowest grade competent court to try a trademark suit.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Madras High Court Refuses Preethi Hospitals Permission To Sue Over 'S. Preethi' College Name
Case Title: Blossom Global Trust & Anr. v. Augustine Educational and Charitable Trust
Case Number: A. No. 3544 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 260
The Madras High Court refused leave to Madurai-based Preethi Hospitals Private Limited to sue an educational trust in Sivagangai over its use of the name “S. Preethi” for a group of colleges. Justice A. D. Maria Clete held that no part of the cause of action arose within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court in Chennai.
Case Title: Vikas Mandoth vs Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: A Nos. 446 & 447 of 2026 in OA Nos. 1120 & 1121 of 2025 in C.S.(COMM.DIV.)No.307 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 256
The Madras High Court refused to vacate an injunction restraining Chennai trader Vikas Mandoth from using the “GLOBE” mark on padlocks and hardware goods. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company was the prior user with established market goodwill, observing that Mandoth's mark was phonetically and visually deceptively similar.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Case Title: Sanjay Bhatt v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1728/2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 44
The Rajasthan High Court held that prior copyright registration is not mandatory for initiating criminal proceedings alleging copyright infringement. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, in an order dated August 17, 2026, refused to quash a 2012 criminal case concerning alleged infringement of copyright and trademark rights over “Dandi Salt” and “Dandi Namak”.
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Sai Silks (Kalamandir) Limited vs. SKP B Gopinath Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.441 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 69
The Telangana High Court observed that in the social media era, the traditional test of assessing trademark confusion through the lens of a “person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection” should evolve toward that of a “perceptive consumer with informed associations”. The observation came during a silk saree trademark dispute over the marks “Kancheepuram Vara Mahalakshmi Silks” and “Vara Mahalakshmi”.