Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: January 19-25, 2026
Ayushi Shukla
26 Jan 2026 11:32 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Karnataka Cooperative v. Vinod Kanji Shah & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 23
Shambhunath & Bros v. Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 25
The Procter @ Gamble Company v. IPI India Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 28
Dr. Dulal Kumar De v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 24
The Supreme Industries Limited v. Moorthi Rabeha, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 41
Alkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 53
X and Anr v. John Doe and Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 56
Hirotsu Bio Science Inc v. Assistant Controller of Patents, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 57
Kedar Nath Mishra v. Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 58
Vishal Choudhary v. SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 63
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v. Enduring Body Care, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 65
Dasaprakash Restaurant v. Mysore Dasaprakash, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 67
Loreal India Private Limited v. Shanaz Bariz, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 69
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 70
Jesal Vimal Jetha v. Controller General Of Patents, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 72
ITC Limited v. The Assistant Controller Of Patents, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 74
Twin Brothers v. Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors., CS(COMM) - 57/2026
HIGH COURT REPORTS
Patents Act, 1970
Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection of Japanese Firm's Patent Bid For Worm-Based Cancer Detection
Case Title: Hirotsu Bio Science Inc v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 57
The Delhi High Court has upheld the rejection of a patent application for a cancer detection technique that relies on the smell responses of worms, holding that the method amounts to a diagnostic process barred from patent protection under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Email Service Of Patent Examination Report Valid, Postal Service Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Dr. Dulal Kumar De v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 24
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the rejection of a patent application on the ground of abandonment, ruling that service of the First Examination Report (FER) through email constitutes valid service under the Patents Act, 1970, and that postal service is not mandatory.
Case Title: Vishal Choudhary v. SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 63
The Delhi High Court has refused to lift an interim injunction in a patent dispute over mobile brick-making machines, holding that while the rival machines are not identical, they appear to share the core patented concept of making and laying bricks as the machine moves.
Delhi High Court Awards ₹81 Lakh to Merck, Sun Pharma In Diabetes Drug Patent Infringement Case
Case Title: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. & Anr. v. Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 70
The Delhi High Court awarded over Rs 81 lakh in damages and costs to US-based pharma company Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and its Indian licensee, Sun Pharmaceutical, in a patent infringement suit concerning the anti-diabetic drug Sitagliptin, holding that unauthorized manufacture and export of the patented drug stood established.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Comforter System Patent, Orders Fresh Review
Case Title: Jesal Vimal Jetha v. Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trade Marks
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 72
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Patent Office order rejecting a patent application filed by Jesal Vimal Jetha for a therapeutic comforter system, holding that the refusal suffered from procedural infirmities and violation of principles of natural justice for non-consideration of applicant's responses to subsequent objections raised by Patent Office.
Delhi High Court Revives ITC's Challenge To Philip Morris's Non-Tobacco Nicotine Patent
Case Title: ITC Limited v. The Assistant Controller Of Patents
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 74
The Delhi High Court has revived ITC Limited's challenge to a Philip Morris patent covering a non-tobacco nicotine product after setting aside a 2024 Patent Office order that had rejected ITC's opposition. Court held that the impugned order suffered from a lack of independent application of mind and was largely a verbatim reproduction of the patentee's submissions and the recommendations of the Opposition Board.
Trademarks Act, 1999
'A To Z' Is Generic For Multivitamins, Cannot Be Monopolised: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Alkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare And Research Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 53
Holding that “A TO Z” is generic and descriptive for nutraceutical products, the Delhi High Court has lifted an interim injunction against Prevego Healthcare that had restrained the use of the mark “MULTIVEIN AZ.” The Court ruled that Alkem Laboratories cannot claim exclusive rights over the letters “A” and “Z” in relation to multivitamin supplements.
Madras High Court Upholds KMF's Opposition To Registration of 'NANDINI' Mark For Agarbattis
Case Title: Karnataka Cooperative v. Vinod Kanji Shah & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 23
The Madras High Court set aside a Trade Marks Registry order and upheld Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation's objection to the 'NANDINI' trademark for agarbattis, observing that objection had been rejected without proper consideration of deceptive similarity between rival marks and long-standing reputation acquired by KMF in the “NANDINI” mark.
Delhi High Court Lifts Injunction On BONERICH In Dispute With Pharma Mark BONRICH
Case Title: Kedar Nath Mishra v. Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 58
The Delhi High Court has set aside an interim injunction granted in favour of Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd., using the mark “BONRICH,” which had restrained Kedar Nath Mishra, the proprietor of the “BONERICH” mark, from using that mark for competing pharmaceutical products. Held: Passing off claim cannot be sustained merely on the basis of prior use of the “BONRICH” mark unless goodwill and reputation in the mark are clearly established.
Case Title: Twin Brothers v. Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 57/2026
The Delhi High Court questioned Flipkart on whether its “more sellers” or latching-on feature can be considered legitimate when, in the facts of the case, it is alleged to enable the sale of counterfeit goods linked to a genuine product listing. The court issued notice to Flipkart and directed it to file its reply and place on record its policy governing the latching-on feature, along with judgments relied upon in support of its legality.
Case Title: Shambhunath & Bros v. Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 25
The Madras High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark “THUFAN” in Telugu and Tamil, holding that failure to provide mandatory transliteration and translation while advertising the mark deprived affected parties of their statutory right to oppose it.
Case Title: Khadi And Village Industries Commission v. Enduring Body Care LLP
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 65
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained an Ahmedabad-based cosmetic goods manufacturer from using the mark “KHADI VEDA” or any other deceptively similar variant of “KHADI” for any goods or services. Held: Use of disputed mark prima facie infringed registered and well-known 'KHADI' trademarks of Khadi and Village Industries Commission.
Case Title: The Supreme Industries Limited v. Moorthi Rabeha
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 41
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained PVC pipe maker Moorthi Rabeha from using the mark “SUPREMES GOLD” after finding a prima facie infringement of Supreme Industries' “SUPREME” trademark. It found that the disputed mark “SUPREMES GOLD” incorporates the company's mark in its entirety.
'VAPORIN' Doesn't Infringe 'VICKS VAPORUB' Mark: Madras High Court Dismisses P&G's Plea
Case Title: The Procter @ Gamble Company v. IPI India Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 28
The Madras High Court has rejected Procter & Gamble's attempt to cancel the trademarks “VAPORIN” and “VAPORIN COLD RUB,” holding that the marks are validly registered in favour of IPI India and are not deceptively similar to P&G's well-known product “VICKS VAPORUB.”
Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Ban on Jaipur Restaurant Chain's Use Of 'DASAPRAKASH' Trademark
Case Title: Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt Ltd v. Mysore Dasaprakash
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 67
The Delhi High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining a Jaipur-based company, Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Private Limited, from using the “DASAPRAKASH” trademark. The restraint covers ice creams, restaurants, and allied goods and services. The court held that the continued use of the mark was prima facie unauthorized and amounted to trademark infringement.
Case Title: Loreal India Private Limited v. Shanaz Bariz
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 69
The Delhi High Court has restrained a social media content creator from circulating an allegedly AI-generated video or any other posts targeting Maybelline products, holding that the unsubstantiated claims could irreparably damage L'Oréal India's brand and consumer trust.
Designs Act, 2000
Government Proposes Protection For Metaverse Designs, Virtual Products Under Designs Act
The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry has proposed bringing metaverse-based and other virtual designs within the scope of India's design protection law under amendments to the Designs Act, 2000. The proposal is placed in the public domain for stakeholder consultation. DPIIT has invited comments within 30 days
Personality Rights
Pornographic Deepfake Content Depicting 'Slayy Point' Creators Violated Privacy: Delhi High Court
Case Title: X and Anr v. John Doe and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 56
The Delhi High Court has recently ordered the immediate takedown of pornographic, morphed and AI-generated deepfake content falsely depicting the creators of the YouTube channel “Slayy Point,” holding that such material is a prima facie breach of their fundamental right to privacy.