LiveLawBiz IPR Weekly Digest: October 19 - October 25, 2026
Riya Rathore
26 Oct 2026 2:05 PM IST
DELHI HIGH COURT
Delhi High Court Permanently Bars Capital Airgun From Using 'KIEHBERG' Mark, Cancels Registration
Case Title: Kiehberg GmbH & Anr. v. Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 808/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1145
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained Capital Airgun Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. from using the 'KIEHBERG' trademark, holding that registration does not confer a right to pass off goods as those of a prior user. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted that the plaintiffs were prior users of the mark and that its adoption by another trader dealing in identical goods could not be a mere coincidence. The Court also directed the defendants to surrender material bearing the mark for destruction and cancelled the trademark registration.
Case Title: Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited v. Alaina Healthcare Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 280/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1144
The Delhi High Court restrained A. Menarini India Pvt. Ltd. and Alaina Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. from using 'ACNE SCAR', 'ACNE+SCAR' and 'ACNESCAR' for scar serum products in a trademark infringement suit filed by Mankind Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found that 'ACNESTAR' and 'ACNE SCAR' were nearly indistinguishable phonetically. The Court clarified that the injunction would not prevent the defendants from selling their product under a different name or using 'HEXILAK' or 'MENARINI'.
Case Title: Universal City Studios LLC & Ors. v. 123MoviesHub.tc & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 116/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1146
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained 63 websites, including 123MoviesHub and Putlocker domains, from hosting, streaming, reproducing or distributing copyrighted films belonging to major entertainment studios, including Universal City Studios, Warner Bros., Netflix, Paramount Pictures and Disney Enterprises.
Delhi High Court Rejects Godrej's ₹1 Crore Contempt Claim Against Geeken Over Registered Designs
Case Title: Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Geeken Seating Collection Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 424/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1151
The Delhi High Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings against Geeken Seating Collection Pvt. Ltd. in a design infringement dispute with Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that Godrej had failed to establish wilful disobedience of the Court's orders. The Court observed that disobedience under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure must be conclusively established and cannot be presumed or inferred. It permitted Godrej to raise its damages claim at trial and seek further relief if additional violations were discovered.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Fake Website Misusing Experion's 'Emerelle Reserve' Mark
Case Title: Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Ishu Singh & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1152/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1150
The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. against the alleged unauthorised use of its 'EXPERION' trademark and the name of its upcoming project, 'EXPERION EMERELLE RESERVE'. Justice Tejas Karia found that the disputed website was prima facie using the marks dishonestly and falsely portraying itself as an authorised channel partner. The Court restrained the website operator from using the marks and directed the domain registrar to remove, disable and block the website within 72 hours of receiving notice.
Delhi High Court Restrains Benne Delhi From Using 'BENNE' Trademark In South Indian Cuisine Business
Case Title: Shimow Hospitality Private Limited v. M/s Benne Delhi Through Its Proprietor
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1131/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1153
The Delhi High Court restrained Benne Delhi from using the trademarks 'BENNE' and 'BENNE DELHI', or any identical or deceptively similar mark, for South Indian cuisine services. Justice Vikas Mahajan found that Shimow Hospitality Private Limited had established a prima facie case, noting that the competing businesses operated in the same field and that use of an identical mark could confuse consumers about the origin or affiliation of the services.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Fake Kotak Trading Accounts From Social Media
Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1075/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1152
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction to Kotak Mahindra Bank and Kotak Securities against unidentified persons allegedly impersonating the financial institutions on social media to lure investors into fraudulent trading schemes. Justice Vikas Mahajan directed Meta Platforms, WhatsApp, Google, Telegram, X Corp and LinkedIn to remove identified infringing accounts and disclose the operators' KYC details. The Court also directed the relevant government departments to instruct internet service providers and telecom operators to block access to the listed websites.
Delhi High Court Restrains Rishikesh Hotel From Using Mark Similar To Ananda Resort's Trademark
Case Title: IHHR Hospitality Ananda Pvt. Ltd. v. Ishanee Villas Tech Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1124/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1154
The Delhi High Court restrained Ishanee Villas Tech Private Limited from using 'ANANDAM IN THE HIMALAYAS' or any deceptively or confusingly similar mark that infringes IHHR Hospitality Ananda Private Limited's registered 'ANANDA' trademark and the tagline 'IN THE HIMALAYAS'. Justice Vikas Mahajan found a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff had alleged that customers booked the defendant's Rishikesh hotel believing it was affiliated with its Ananda resort.
Case Title: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte. Ltd. & Ors. v. Evergreen Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 267/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1164
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained Evergreen Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. and other defendants from using the 'ANANTARA' trademark or any identical or deceptively similar mark for real estate, hospitality, residential and allied services. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the defendants had incorporated 'ANANTARA' in its entirety as the leading and essential feature of their marks. The Court found that the additional descriptive expressions did not dispel the likelihood of confusion and that the unrebutted pleadings established a case of infringement and passing off.
Delhi High Court Directs Bikanervala To Remove 'ANANDAM' Products From Website Within 24 Hours
Case Title: Anandam Sweets Private Limited v. Bikanervala Foods Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1075/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1160
The Delhi High Court directed Bikanervala Foods Private Limited to remove all products bearing the 'ANANDAM' mark from its website within 24 hours in a dispute with Anandam Sweets Private Limited. Justice Vikas Mahajan noted that the defendant had not disputed that the gift pack remained listed on its website, despite an earlier undertaking to discontinue the use of the mark. The Court issued notice on the contempt application but did not record a finding of contempt.
Case Title: Ritvik Bansal (Proprietor of M/s 7R) v. Arshu Technologies LLP & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1076/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1161
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining multiple defendants from using Ritvik Bansal's copyrighted marketing material and 'REZONI' trademarks. Justice A. J. Bhambhani found that Bansal had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favoured him. However, the order did not expressly grant the separate takedown and dynamic injunction reliefs sought against e-commerce platforms.
Delhi High Court Restrains Herbax Ayurveda From Selling Joint Pain Products Under 'FASTACTIVE' Mark
Case Title: MS Nectar Biopharma Private Limited v. Herbax Ayurveda & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1119/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1159
The Delhi High Court restrained Herbax Ayurveda and others from manufacturing, selling, advertising or dealing in pharmaceutical preparations under the 'FASTACTIVE' mark, allegedly infringing Nectar Biopharma Private Limited's registered trademark. Justice Vikas Mahajan found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, holding that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff and that it would suffer irreparable harm without interim protection.
Case Title: Arjun Kapoor v. Artist Booking Company & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 454/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1167
The Delhi High Court decreed actor Arjun Kapoor's personality rights suit and made its earlier directions against unauthorised commercial exploitation of his identity absolute against several defendants. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav directed the relevant authorities to take down specified infringing links and allowed Kapoor to approach Meta and Google over subsequently discovered material. The Court held that no disputed question of fact required a trial, as the defendants had not controverted the plaint's factual averments.
Delhi High Court To View Hindi Film Doosra In Sourav Ganguly's Personality Rights Case
Case Title: Sourav Ganguly & Anr. v. Masha Sajdeh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed the makers of the Hindi film Doosra to arrange a screening before the Court to assess whether the film infringes former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly's personality rights. Justice Vinod Kumar directed the defendants to file their written statements and replies to the interim injunction application before the next hearing. The Court deferred consideration of the injunction plea after the film's theatrical release on October 23, with the matter listed for October 29.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bombay High Court Restrains Ampra Biobact From Using 'PK-BOR' Fertilizer Mark Similar To 'PK MOR'
Case Title: Indian Agro Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Ampra Biobact Private Limited
Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 12511 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 585
The Bombay High Court restrained Ampra Biobact Private Limited from using the 'PK-BOR' trademark for water-soluble fertilisers, finding it nearly identical to Indian Agro Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s registered 'PK MOR' mark. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar observed that the competing marks were phonetically, visually and structurally similar, with the substitution of one letter making little difference to their overall impression. The Court also noted that both products targeted the same class of purchasers and were sold through the same trade channels. Corporate Law
Bombay High Court Restores Injunction To Protect Atomberg's Fan Design From Imitation By Stove Kraft
Case Title: Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v. Stove Kraft Limited
Case Number: Commercial Appeal No. (L) 14941 of 2026 in Interim Application No. 88 of 2026 in Commercial (IP) Suit No. 710 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 597
The Bombay High Court restored an interim injunction restraining Stove Kraft Limited from manufacturing and selling its Pigeon Fan-tastic ceiling fan, finding that its design imitated the distinctive appearance of Atomberg Technologies' Renesa Alpha fan. A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande held that the primary test for determining novelty, originality and infringement under the Designs Act, 2000, is the visual 'eye' test. The Court set aside the Single Judge's order refusing interim relief and restored the earlier injunction and the appointment of a Court Receiver. Corporate Law
Bombay High Court Rejects Plea To Stay Trademark Infringement Suit Over 'Pune Mirror' Mark
Case Title: Metropolitan Media Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Kothrud Mitra Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Interim Application No. 2031 of 2026 in Commercial (IP) Suit No. 230 of 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 596
The Bombay High Court rejected a plea to stay a trademark infringement suit concerning the alleged unauthorised use of the names 'Pune Mirror' and 'KM Kothrud Mirror'. Justice Gauri Godse held that the defendant newspaper publisher had failed to establish a prima facie challenge to the validity of the plaintiffs' registered trademarks. The Court also observed that approval of a newspaper title under a separate law does not, by itself, establish that a registered trademark is invalid. Corporate Law
Bombay High Court Allows Godwoman Radhe Maa To Pursue Personality Rights Suit Against Google
Case Title: Sukhwinder Kaur @ Radhe Maa v. Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: Leave Petition (L) No. 34593 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 598
The Bombay High Court granted Sukhwinder Kaur, popularly known as Radhe Maa, leave to institute a suit seeking protection of her personality rights and relief against alleged disparagement through online content. Justice Abhay Ahuja allowed the petition under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, 1865, after considering the petition and the proposed plaint. The order concerns the Court's territorial jurisdiction to entertain the proposed suit and does not decide the underlying allegations of infringement or disparagement. Corporate Law
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Madras High Court Orders Patent Grant To North Face, Says Invisible Marker Technology Was Overlooked
Case Title: The North Face Apparel Corp. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: CMA(PT) No. 22 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 329
The Madras High Court set aside the refusal of a patent application filed by The North Face Apparel Corp. for its invention titled Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the Patent Office had failed to properly assess the inventive step involved in the claimed technology. The Court allowed the company's appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, and directed the Controller of Patents and Designs to grant the patent.
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Title: SML Limited v. Mohan & Company and Another
Case Number: OMP No. 324 of 2023 in COMS No. 7 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 36
The Himachal Pradesh High Court refused interim relief to SML Limited in its patent infringement suit concerning the agrochemical product 'ZeekaSulf', holding that invoices alone were insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction. Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that the alleged purchases from a retailer in Theog appeared to have been arranged to establish jurisdiction, but there was no material showing that the manufacturer had supplied the product to the retailer in Himachal Pradesh. The Court dismissed the injunction application while clarifying that it had not examined whether ZeekaSulf infringed the patent.