Patents Act, 1970 High Court Reports Revocation Petition Can Be Filed Or Sustained After Expiry Of Term Of Patent: Delhi High Court Case Title: Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. The Controller Of Patents & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 41 The Delhi High Court has ruled that a revocation petition can be filed or sustained after the expiry of the term of...
Patents Act, 1970
High Court Reports
Revocation Petition Can Be Filed Or Sustained After Expiry Of Term Of Patent: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 41
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a revocation petition can be filed or sustained after the expiry of the term of the patent.
While dealing with a patent infringement suit, Justice Amit Bansal observed that just because the term of the patent has expired, it would not mean that the suit has become infructuous, as the cause of action still survives.
Case Title: The Regents of the University Of California vs. Controller Of Patents
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 222
The Delhi High Court has upheld the refusal to grant a patent to the Regents of the University Of California relating to a recombinant Salmonella microorganism-based live vaccine for preventing enteric bacterial infection.
Madras High Court Upholds Rejection Of AI-Human Integration Patent Claim
Case Title: Caleb Suresh Motupalli v. Controller
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 59
The Madras High Court bench dismissed an appeal seeking a review of a patent claim for a product designed to integrate human and AI capabilities. The appeal was filed by Caleb Suresh Motupalli before the single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, challenging the order of the Controller of Patents. Upon review, the court found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the Controller's decision and accordingly rejected the appeal.
Case Title: Neeraj Gupta v. The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 534
Delhi High Court imposed Rs. 20,000 as costs after a Central Government standing counsel sought repeated adjournments in an IPR case. Justice Saurabh Banerjee renotified the matter and granted adjournment, subject to payment of costs to be paid to the Army Central Welfare Fund by the Central Government within four weeks.
Case title: Crystal Crop Protection Limited v. Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 544
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the 'Complete Specification' of an invention is sacrosanct for determining infringement of its patent.
Case title: Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v. The Controller Of Patents
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 558
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Controller of Patents must clearly specify in the hearing notice the 'known substance' against which the claimed invention of an applicant is being assessed.
Trademark Act, 1999
Supreme Court Reports
Case Title: Murlidhar Gyanchandani and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another.,
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5549 of 2024
In a trademark dispute that was resolved through out-of-court settlement, the Supreme Court expressed its hope for the constructive negotiation of such disputes without requiring several rounds of litigation. “We hope that this serves as a positive example of an out-of-court settlement, demonstrating how disputes can often be constructively negotiated without the need for sparring litigation before a court of law.,” the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said.
Case Title: Anahita Irani v. Burger King
Case No.: SLP(C) 6282/2025
The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Bombay High Court which restrained Pune's iconic Burger King from using the trademark 'Burger King'. A Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the interim order while issuing notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the proprietors of the Pune eatery against the High Court's order.
The case relates to the trademark dispute between the United States food giant 'Burger King' and the Pune-based eatery.
Case Title: K. Mangayarkarasi & Anr. v. N.J. Sundaresan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 597
The Supreme Court held that a mere allegation of fraud or misconduct does not divest an arbitral tribunal of its jurisdiction to adjudicate in personam disputes stemming from contractual relationships governed by an arbitration agreement. The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made these observations while dismissing a plea challenging the referral of a trademark dispute to arbitration, reaffirming that contractual disagreements involving intellectual property rights (IPRs) can be resolved through arbitration unless they involve sovereign or public (in rem) rights.
High Court Reports
Case Title: Rahul Mishra & Anr. V. John Doe & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 3
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order to protect the copyright in the original artistic work as well as trademark registered in favour of Indian fashion designer Rahul Mishra. Justice Amit Bansal restrained the sale, manufacturing and advertising counterfeit dresses and outfits, replicas of Mishra's designs, under the registered trademark “Rahul Mishra”, in any manner including internet and e-commerce platforms.
Case title: FMI Limited vs. Midas Touch Metalloys Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 12
The Delhi High Court has made a temporary injunction absolute in favour of the measuring tapes manufacturer, FMI Limited, against passing off of its 'INDI' tapes by a business dealing in identical goods. FMI Limited had submitted that it is the largest manufacturer of measuring tapes, spirit levels measuring wheels in the Indian sub-continent and also that is well-established in over 60 countries.
Title: KRBL Limited V. Praveen Kumar Buyyani & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 63
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of KRBL Limited, a company known for its India Gate brand of basmati rice, in a trademark infringement case against “Bharat Gate” brand selling basmati rice. A division bench comprising of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul set aside a commercial court's order vacating the ad interim injunction granted in favour of India Gate, restraining Bharat Gate from using its trademark in respect of rice or any other associated or allied product.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Rapido Against Registration Of Its Trademark By Another Party
Case title: Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited vs. Nipun Gupta & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 72
The Delhi High Court has allowed rectification petitions filed by Roppen Transportation Services, which runs Rapido bike/taxi services, against registration of 'RAPIDO' mark by another party. Roppen had submitted that it has multiple trademark registrations for its RAPIDO marks and the earliest registration was in November, 2017. It stated that it was incorporated in 2015 and has a presence in the pan-Indian market.
Sporadic Use Of Trademark In India No Ground To Assume Goodwill Or Reputation: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Broad Peak Investment Holdings Ltd. vs. Broad Peak Capital Advisors LLP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 78
The Delhi High Court has observed that sporadic use of a trademark in India cannot be a ground to assume that the said trademark has acquired reputation and goodwill of the mark in India. Justice Amit Bansal also noted that an internationally well-known mark itself is not a ground to assume that there has been a spillover of its reputation and goodwill in India.
Title: Goodai Global Inc v. Shahnawaz Siddiqu & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 142
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of “Beauty of Joseon”, a Korean beauty brand, while ordering cancellation of an identical trademark registered in favour of a man on “proposed to be used basis.” Justice Amit Bansal allowed the plea moved by Goodai Global Inc, the parent company which owns Beauty of Joseon brand.
Title: Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 145
The Delhi High Court has observed in a case of trademark infringement, even if a party is not physically selling impugned goods in a specific territory, but is offering them for sale through a website accessible in that territory, the Court where the goods are sold online would have jurisdiction to try the matter.
Title: Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited v. Friends Inc & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 151
The Delhi High Court has declared “Peter England”, an international menswear brand, as a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court noted that the brand has spent huge amount on the endorsement of its products by various actors like Ayushman Khurrana as well as players of Chennai Super Kings Cricket Team.
Case title: Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited vs. Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 166
The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited, a non-banking finance company (NBFC) providing microfinance loans, against trademark infringement by other businesses providing identical services using the 'SAMMAAN' formative name in their corporate logo.
Case title: Oracle America, Inc. vs. Mr. Sandeep Khandelwal And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 176
The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of the trademark registration of 'javapoint' in a plea filed by the American software company, Oracle America Inc, which owns the rights over Java software.
Title: Sammaan Finserv Limited v. Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 201
The Delhi High Court has stayed the operation of a single bench's order that temporarily restrained Sammaan Capital Limited from using 'SAMMAAN' mark in a trademark infringement plea moved by Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited, a non-banking finance company (NBFC) providing microfinance loans.
Case Title: Tata Power Solar Systems Limited v. www.tatapowersolardealership.co.in & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 205
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, restraining several registrants of domain names from using the domain names and email addresses infringing upon the trademark of the company.
Case Title: House Of Masaba Lifestyle v. masabacoutureofficial.co
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 206
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of fashion designer Masaba Gupta's brand House Of Masaba Lifestyle Private Limited, against trademark infringement of its 'Masaba' and 'House of Masaba' marks by certain Instagram pages/handles.
Case title: Reliance Retail Ltd v. youstafranchise.net
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 209
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Reliance Retail Ltd, restraining several rogue websites and social media accounts from infringing the trademark of its 'Yousta' fashion brand.
Case title: Moonshine Technology Private Limited vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 221
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction against 'rogue websites' from accessing and using the domain names infringing the trademark of Moonshine Technology Private Limited, the parent company of Baazi Group of Companies providing online gaming products and services.
Case title: Infiniti Retail Limited vs. M/S Croma Wholeseller & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 228
The Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction in favour of the Tata Group's subsidiary Infiniti Retail Limited, the owner of 'CROMA' trademark, against trademark infringement by domain names/websites using the said mark.
Case title: Lifestyle Equities CV & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies, Inc. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 237
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has imposed hefty damages and costs totalling Rs. 339.25 crore on Amazon Technologies Inc for trademark infringement of the luxury lifestyle brand, Beverly Hills Polo Club.
Case title: Castrol Limited vs. Kapil & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 239
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction in favour of the automobile lubricants manufacturer Castrol Limited, against trademark and trade dress/package infringement by businesses manufacturing, selling and advertising engine oils and lubricants.
Case Title: Burger King Corporation vs. Swapnil Patil & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 244
The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of the fast-food chain, Burger King Corporation, and directed the suspension of domain names/websites infringing upon its 'BURGER KING' trademarks. Burger King sought an injunction against unknown defendants for running fake franchise/dealership websites using its trademarks. It is alleged that the operators of the domain names are collecting money from innocent and gullible consumers and customers.
Case title: Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited vs. Chotiwala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 292
The Delhi High Court has recently granted a permanent injunction in favour of Rishikesh-based restaurant Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited, restraining three Delhi-based restaurants from using Chotiwala's name, trademark and artistic work.
Case title: Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited vs. Mohammad Arshad & Anr (C.O.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 297
The Delhi High Court has directed the cancellation of 'Zepto' trademark registered in 2014 by an individual, in a rectification petition filed by consumer goods delivery services Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited which operates under the Zepto mark.
Case title: Eureka Forbes Limited vs.Om Sai Enterprises & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 300
The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction in favour of Eureka Forbes Limited which owns 'Acquaguard', restraining a manufacturer of spare parts of water purification systems from infringing on its trademarks and copyrights. Eureka Forbes Limited (plaintiff) manufactures and sells water purifiers and its spares and consumables under the 'AQUAGUARD' and formative trademarks.
Case title: Puma SE vs. Mahesh Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 301
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favour of Puma, restraining a manufacturer of counterfeit products from selling products under Puma's trademarks and its logos. Observing that the manufacturer engaged in a blatant act of counterfeiting, Justice Mini Pushkarna directed the manufacturer of counterfeit products to pay Rs. 11 lakh in damages and costs to Puma.
Case title: Ramada International, Inc. vs. Clubramada Hotels And Resorts Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 303
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of the American hotel chain Ramada International, against trademark infringement by a party using the 'Ramada' mark as its corporate name. Ramada submitted that it adopted the trademark RAMADA in 1954 for its hotel in Arizona, USA. It stated that it franchises and manages over 900 hotels across more than 60 countries including India.
Title: Johnson & Johnson v. Pritamdas Arora T/A M/S Medserve & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 311
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the American pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson, against trademark infringement and selling large quantities of counterfeit products by a party engaged in the sale of surgical devices using Johnson & Johnson's 'Surgicel', 'Ligaclip' and 'Ethicon' trademarks.
Case title: Living Media India Limited & Anr. vs. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 318
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of India Today Group, against copyright and trademark infringement by several Telegram channels/accounts uploading e-magazines owned by the India Today Group.
Title: Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 324
The Delhi High Court has restrained various restaurants from using the marks “Dominic Pizza” and “Domindo Pizza” while selling pizzas as well as in their packaging and menu cards in a trademark infringement suit filed by Domino's.
Case title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. vs. Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 330
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the personal care and herbal health company Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd against trademark infringement of its 'Liv.52' products used for liver care by manufacturers and sellers of infringing 'Liv-333' goods.
Title: The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. Gaurav Roy Bhatt & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 340
The Delhi High Court has declared “Taj” a well-known trademark in respect of hotels and other related services in the hospitality industry.
Title: Mannat Group Of Hotels Private Limited & Anr. v. M/S Mannat Dhaba & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 348
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained various restaurants (local dhabas) situated on the Delhi-Dehradun highway from using the registered trademarks of popular Murthal based eatery “Mannat Dhaba.”
Case title: Bridgestone Corporation vs. M/S Merlin Rubber
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 357
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the Japanese company, Bridgestone Corporation, against trademark infringement of its 'Bridgestone' mark by a similar business manufacturing tyres and tubes for automobiles under 'Brimestone' mark.
Case title: Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Raj Belts & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 370
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the French fashion brand Louis Vuitton Malletier, against trademark infringement by shop owners located in Karol Bagh.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To BharatPe, Restrains Use Of 'Bharatpay' Mark And Website
Title: Resilient Innovations Private Limited v. M/S Bharat Pay And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 375
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to fintech company “BharatPe” and restrained the use of “Bharatpay” mark as well as the domain name used for payment of utility bills, data recharge services, insurance and financial services.
Case Title: PhonePe Private Limited v. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a suit filed by PhonePe to declare its mark as a well-known trademark and to grant permanent injunction against “BundlePe” and “LatePe”.
Justice P Velmurugan observed that the term “Pe” was not a unique or distinct one as claimed by PhonePe and was commonly used word in the payment services industry.
Case Title: Unilever Global IP Limited & Anr v. Ashok Kumar
Case No.: IA(L) NO. 8904/2025
The Bombay High Court has granted ex-parte ad-interim in favour of Hindustan Unilever, against infringement of its trademark and copyrights in its 'Closeup' and 'Pepsodent' toothpastes, by unknown persons selling counterfeit products.
Case Title: The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v. MS Hotel Ritz & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 651
The Delhi High Court has declared that 'Ritz' and 'Ritz Carlton' run by the Paris based Ritz Hotel Limited are “well-known” trademarks in India.
“The long duration for which the RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON marks have been in use by the plaintiffs, wide geographical area of their use, their knowledge among the general public and their goodwill and reputation due to the extensive promotion, publicity and extensive revenue generated by the plaintiffs, in India as well as other countries, the RITZ and RITZ CARLTON marks have achieved the status of well-known trademarks,” Justice Amit Bansal observed.
Title: IndiaMart Intermesh Ltd v. Puma Se
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 661
The Delhi High Court has set aside a single judge ruling to the extent of restraining IndiaMart from providing registered trademark “PUMA” in respect of the goods as search options in its drop-down menu presented to prospective sellers at the time of their registration on the e-commerce platform.
Can Commonly Used Slogans Like “One For All” Be Trademarked? Delhi High Court Answers
Case title: Oswaal Books And Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 672
The Delhi High Court has held that slogans, particularly those which are descriptive or commonly used phrases, face a significantly high threshold for registration of trademark— unless they have acquired a secondary meaning. Justice Mini Pushkarna held thus while denying relief to Oswaal Books, which publishes books for CBSE, ISC, ICSE Karnataka Board, JEE – Mains & Advanced, NEET, CAT and CLAT, in its appeal against rejection of Trade Mark Application for “ONE FOR ALL” mark.
Case title: RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 676
The Delhi High Court has rejected an appeal preferred by RSPL Health Private Limited, alleging that Sun Pharma had adopted a trademark for its medicinal products, which is deceptively similar to RSPL's menstrual product line. Rejecting the appeal against denial of interim injunction by a single judge, the division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed,“ The two goods are neither allied nor cognate…the nature of goods, their trade channel, their purpose, and the intended consumers are distinct, and there is no likelihood of confusion being caused by the use of the marks for such goods.”
Case title: Newgen IT Technologies Limited v. Newgen Software Technologies Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 680
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an entity cannot seek to set aside an interim injunction passed against it in a trademark infringement suit, merely because its business or IPO launch is jeopardized due to such injunction.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Phrases 'Derogatory' To Surf Excel From Ghadi Detergent's Ads
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. RSPL Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 699
The Delhi High Court in an interim order has ordered removal of phrases which are “derogatory” to Surf Excel detergent from the advertisements issued by Ghadi detergent powder. Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that though comparative advertising by itself could be healthy, remarks that are derogatory and defamatory, would not be permissible.
Case title: Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/S. Domnics Pizza & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 702
The Delhi High Court has restrained fifteen entities from infringing the trademark of famous pizza chain Domino's or its erstwhile trade name Dominick's Pizza, by using deceptively similar marks. In doing so, Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that in disputes involving edible products, the threshold for establishing deceptive similarity is lower than that applied in other cases.
Case title: Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 706
The Delhi High Court issued an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining a bus manufacturer and two inter-city bus service providers, from infringing the 'grille slash' trademark of Sweden-based renowned Volvo buses. Justice Amit Bansal noted that the Defendants deliberately and dishonestly created buses bearing lookalike of Volvo's trademark to encash upon the company's goodwill.
Title: Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited And Anr v. John Doe And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 719
Ruling in favour of Gameskraft Technologies, the Delhi High Court has restrained various rogue websites, mobile applications and domain entities from using the registered trademarks “Playship”, “Plego”, “Ludo Select”, “Pocket 52”, “Rummy”, “Rummy Culture”, “Gameskraft” and “Culture of Champions.” Justice Amit Bansal further restrained the defendant entities from infringing on the copyright vested with Gameskraft in the unique content of its websites.
Case title: Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. vs. Malla Rajiv
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 398
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of Tata Sons Private Limited, against trademark and copyright infringement of its packaged mineral water 'Tata Copper+ Water' by a seller of packaged drinking water under the name 'JK Copper+ Water'.
Title: Loreal S.A. V. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 399
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of the French brand L'Oreal SA against trademark infringement by a rogue website run by unknown defendant using its 'L'Oreal' mark and misrepresenting themselves are the representative of the company.
Case title: Manash Lifestyle Private Limited vs. Viraj Harjai & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 400
The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of 'Purplle Tree' mark from the Register of Trade Marks in a rectification petition filed by Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, which owns the online beauty and wellness store 'Purplle'.
Case title: Peak XV Partners Advisors India LLP & Anr. vs. John Doe & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 404
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the venture capital and investment advisory firm, Peak XV Partners Advisors India LLP, against passing off of its trademark 'Peak XV Partners' by unknown persons through fraudulent website, apps, WhatsApp and Telegram groups.
Case title: Mankind Pharma Limited vs. Preet Kamal Grewal And Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 412
The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of 'Kindpan' trademark, in a petition filed by Mankind Pharma Limited against a proprietorship firm which was granted registration of the mark in the medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations category.
Case title: Indian Hotels Company Limited vs. Ankit Sethi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 413
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of the Tata Group's Indian Hotels Company Limited, which owns the Ginger chain of hotels, against trademark and copyright infringement by fake websites.
Case title: H-D U. S. A., LLC vs. Vijaypal Dhayal Owner/ Proprietor Of Red Rose Industries
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 448
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of the American company, Harley-Davidson LLC, against trademark and copyright infringement by a seller of footwear using the 'Eagle' logo similar to that of Harley-Davidson.
Case title: Diageo Scotland Limited vs. Prachi Verma & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 451
The Delhi High Court has directed the removal 'Captain Blue' mark from the Trade Marks Registry, in a plea by the alcoholic beverages manufacturer and distributor Diageo Scotland Limited, which produces the 'Captain Morgan' brand of rums. Diageo Scotland Limited (appellant) is a part of the Diageo Group which holds a vast and diverse portfolio of spirit brands. Its flagship brand includes 'Captain Morgan' and sub-brands such as 'Captain Morgan Gold', 'Captain Morgan White Rum' and 'Captain Morgan Dark Rum'
Case title: Agarwal Packers And Movers Ltd vs. Aggarwal Cargo Packers And Movers And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 460
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of the logistics company, Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd, against trademark infringement by a business offering goods packaging and transportation services.
Case title: San Nutrition Private Limited vs. Arpit Mangal & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 489
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant a temporary injunction in favour of San Nutrition Private Limited in its plea against alleged defamation, disparagement and trademark infringement by four social media influencers who made videos featuring San Nutrition's 'Doctor's Choice' products.
Case title: M/S Zine Davidoff SA v. Union Of India And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 507
The Delhi High Court has come to the rescue of the Swiss company which owns luxury coffee brand Davidoff, whose trademark was removed from the register over alleged delay in seeking renewal of the mark. Justice Amit Bansal noted that the Trade Marks Registry had admitted to not having any records indicating that form O3 notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the removal of the mark.
Case title: Goethe-Institut E.V. v. Abhishek Yadav & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 539
Reaffirming the principle that rights of prior user are superior to that of a proprietor holding a registered trademark, the Delhi High Court granted interim injunction in favour of Goethe-Institut, a German society which runs six educational institutes in India in the name of 'Max Mueller Bhavan', offering German language courses.
Case title: Abros Sports International Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashish Bansal And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 540
The Delhi High Court has referred to a larger the following questions of law in relation to trademark infringement: “(i) Whether a suit for infringement can lie against the proprietor of a registered trademark, with respect to the use of such trademark?; (ii) Whether, assuming such a suit can lie, the Court can pass any interlocutory order, injuncting the use, by the defendant, of the allegedly infringing registered trademark?
Timelines Under Rule 100 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Are Mandatory, Cannot Be Waived: Delhi High Court
Case title: Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta v. Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 552
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the one-month notice period mentioned under Section 100 of the Trademarks Rules 2017 before the Registrar can initiate rectification of register, is mandatory and cannot be waived.
Case title: Mankind Pharma Limited v. Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 557
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that registration of a trademark in other countries does not by itself entitle registration of the said mark in India.
Case title: Western Digital Technologies Inc. & Anr. v. Hansraj Dugar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 571
“Any person in India has the right to legally import goods from abroad bearing the trademarks of an entity and sell the same in India,” the Delhi High Court has held.
Case title: Vikas Gupta And Anr v. M/S Sahni Cosmetics
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 592
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that common Indian forenames like “NEHA” can constitute protected trademark, provided it acquires an 'inherent distinctiveness' by establishing a secondary meaning in trade.
Mere Inclusion Of A Mark In Trading Name Does Not By Itself Constitute 'Trademark': Delhi High Court
Case title: Vikas Gupta And Anr v. M/S Sahni Cosmetics
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 594
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that mere inclusion of a mark in a trading name does not, by itself, constitute a protected 'trademark'. Single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula though conceded that many brands derive their commercial identity through consistent and public-facing use of their trading name, it held that to give rise to protectable rights, such use must be of a kind that identifies the source of the goods and serves to distinguish them from those of others – a concept often referred to by Courts as “use in the trademark sense”.
Case title: Fox Mandal And Associates v. Somabrata Mandal And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 632
The Delhi High Court set aside a commercial court's interim order restraining Shuvabrata Mandal and Shouryabrata Mandal who run Fox Mandal and Associates from offering legal services under 'FoxMandal' trademark, which is stated to be owned by their brother Som Mandal who runs the Fox Mandal & Co.'
Case title: Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 637
The Delhi High Court has held that even a momentary confusion between two competing trademarks in the mind of a consumer is sufficient to constitute trademark infringement.
Case title: KRB Enterprises & Ors. v. M/S. KRBL Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 638
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that it is not necessary that a trademark must be used in a physical form in relation to the goods.
Case title: Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 640
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that even though similarity in two competing trademarks cannot be ascertained by dissecting and comparing their parts, the “dominant parts” of the trademarks can be compared.
Copyright Act, 1957
Supreme Court Reports
Supreme Court Lays Down Twin Test To Resolve Copyright–Design Conflict Under S15(2) Of Copyright Act
Case Details: Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 426
The Supreme Court (April 15) resolved an ambiguity under the intellectual property (IP) law, by resolving the overlap between 'design' and 'copyright' protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.
The Court noted that an 'artistic work' does not automatically lose copyright protection simply because a design based on it has been used in industrial production. It stated that under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, copyright protection for such an artistic work would cease if the resulting design is capable of registration under the Designs Act, remains unregistered, and is applied industrially more than 50 times.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited
The Supreme Court has stayed Delhi High Court's direction to Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. to pay Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) as per the tariff of Recorded Music Performance Ltd. (RMPL), as if PPL were a member of RMPL, for playing songs from PPL's catalogue.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice in PPL's special leave petition challenging the judgment of the division bench of the High Court that modified a temporary injunction granted by a single judge restraining Azure from using PPL's copyrighted songs.
Case Title: Next Radio Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court rejected a plea challenging Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, which sets out the specific particulars that broadcasters must include in the prior notice required for invoking the statutory licence under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan found no merit in the constitutional validity challenge to Rule 29(4), and allowed the petitioner Next Radio Limited, which operates the radio network Radio One, to withdraw it.
High Court Reports
Case title: Entertainment Network India Limited vs. Miss Malini Entertainment Private
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 7
The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of the radio broadcaster, Entertainment Network, against alleged copyright infringement by the entertainment platform, Miss Malini Entertainment, in relation to the interview conducted by the platform for promotion of the talk show 'What Women Want'.
Entertainment Network India Limited (plaintiff) produces and broadcasts audio and audio-visual content under brand names such as Mirchi and Mirchi Plus. It stated that it has sole and exclusive ownership rights of the talk show hosted by actor Kareena Kapoor-Khan.
Case title: Saregama India Limited vs. Vels Film International Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 118
In a copyright infringement suit filed by Saregama India Limited against Vels Film International Limited concerning the song 'Iniya Pon Nilave', the Delhi High Court has ruled that Saregama is the owner of the song. However, the Court allowed Vels Film to use the song in its film 'Aghathiyaa', following Saregama's acceptance of a license fee of Rs.30 lakh from Vels Film. Justice Mini Pushkarna further observed that the music composer of the original song Ilaiyaraja had no right to assign the right in the lyrics of the song to Vels as he is not its owner.
Delhi High Court Directs Blocking Access Of IPTV Websites Infringing Star India's Content
Case title: Star India Pvt. Ltd vs. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 167
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of the entertainment and media company, Star India Pvt. Ltd, against infringement of its copyrights and broadcast reproduction rights by IPTV streaming applications.
Case title: Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ashar Nisar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 174
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Star India Pvt. Ltd against copyright infringement of its content by rogue apps and websites such as Ninja TV, RTS TV, Kyte TV, Picaso TV, Stream India and Hotstar Mod App.
Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd v. Saregama India Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 250
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a plaintiff cannot be permitted to file documents as per its whims and fancies at any stage of a commercial suit. “The whole purpose of expeditious disposal of commercial suits would be frustrated if the parties are permitted to file additional documents at any stage of the suit,” Justice Amit Bansal said.
Case title: Phonographic Performance Limited vs. Azure Hospitality Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 271
The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), restraining Azure Hospitality Private Limited which runs several restaurants, from playing PPL's copyrighted songs at the premises of its restaurants.
Title: Yash Raj Films Private Limited & Anr v. State Of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 295
The Delhi High Court has stayed further investigation against Yash Raj Films Private Limited and director Aditya Chopra in the FIR registered against them in relation to the Shamshera movie copyright case.
Title: Applause Entertainment Private Limited v. www.9xmovies.com.tw & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 369
The Delhi High Court has issued a dynamic injunction in favour of Applause Entertainment Private Limited and restrained various rogue websites illegally streaming and making available to public “Undekhi” series premiered on the digital platform 'SonyLIV'.
Case Title: Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v Wunderbar Films Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
The Madras High Court has dismissed applications filed by Netflix's Indian entity - Los Gatos, seeking to reject the plaint filed by Dhanush's Wunderbar, in connection with alleged copyright infringement by Nayanthara, Vignesh Sivan, and others.
Dhanush, who produced the movie “Naanum Rowdy Daan” has approached the court claiming that some behind-the-scene footages from the movie was used unauthorisedly in the making of Nayanthara's documentary “Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale”. Since Netflix India's office is in Mumbai, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, he had moved an application seeking leave to sue the company in the High Court which was allowed.
Case Title: S Shankar v. The Deputy Director
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
The Madras High Court on Tuesday stayed an order of the Enforcement Directorate provisionally attaching property worth Rs. 10 crores of Tamil filmmaker S Shankar in a copyright infringement case in connection with the 2010 movie 'Enthiran'.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar stayed the provisional attachment order on a plea moved by the Director. The ED had attached the property on February 17 following a complaint by Arur Tamilnadan claiming that Shankar had violated his copyright as the story of the movie was inspired by his story – Jugiba.
Case title: Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 652
In a first-of-its-kind order, the Delhi High Court has granted a limited-duration superlative injunction— an enhanced form of dynamic+ injunction— to tackle the unauthorised streaming of IPL, India's England Tour by rogue apps and websites.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee restrained the defendants from infringing Star India's exclusive streaming rights and ordered real-time relief against rogue websites and rogue mobile applications which may be discovered during the course.
Case title: DAZN Limited v. Buffsports.me & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 708
The Delhi High Court has granted Dynamic+ injunction in favour of British over-the-top sports streaming and entertainment platform Dazn Limited, restraining rogue websites from infringing its exclusive rights to air FIFA Club World Cup 2025, being played in the United States from June 14 to July 13, 2025.
A Dynamic+ injunction is granted not only in respect of content/work existing at the time of filing of suit, but also future works of the plaintiffs in which their copyright exists and is violated by rogue websites.
Title: Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Https//Criclk.Com & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 718
The Delhi High Court has passed a dynamic+ injunction in favour of JioStar India Private Limited and restrained the illegal and unauthorised streaming of India Tour of England 2025.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the dynamic+ injunction order to protect the copyrighted works of JioStar, as soon as they are infringed or created.
Title: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar V/S Mr. A.R. Rahman & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 473
In an interim order, the Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Veteran Indian classical singer Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar in his suit alleging copyright infringement of his “Shiva Stuti” composition by music composer A.R. Rahman and other producers in Tamil film Ponniyan Selvan 2 song "Veera Raja Veera.”
Title: A R Rahman v. Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 516
The Delhi High Court stayed an interim injunction order granted in favour of veteran Indian classical singer Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar in his suit alleging copyright infringement of his “Shiva Stuti” composition by music composer A.R. Rahman and other producers in Tamil film Ponniyan Selvan 2 song "Veera Raja Veera.”
Personality Rights
High Court Reports
Title: Sir Ratan Tata Trust & Anr v. Dr. Rajat Shrivastava & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 154
The Delhi High Court has said that the name of industrialist Ratan Tata is a “well- known personal name or trademark” which needs to be protected from any unauthorised use by any third party.
Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled in favour of Ratan Tata Trust in a suit filed against a journalist- Dr. Rajat Srivastava, alleging that the latter was unauthorisedly using Ratan Tata's name to host an award ceremony.
Case Title: Dr Anita R Ratnam v. Meta Platforms
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
The Madras High Court has asked Meta and Telegram to take down social media accounts that have been unauthorisedly using photos and audio of dancer Anita Ratnam.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, on prima facie assessment, opined that the social media accounts had misused Ratnam's celebrity status for their commercial purpose. Noting that the usage did not fall within fair use, the court directed Meta and Telegram to take down the accounts.
Bombay High Court Refuses To Lift Stay On Release Of Film 'Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar'
Case Title: Sanjay Girish Kumar Singh vs Karan Johar alias Rahul Johar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 175
The Bombay High Court has upheld a March 7, 2025 judgment of a single-judge, who refused to lift the stay on the release of the film 'Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar' which was imposed in June 2024 after noting that the same infringes the personality rights of Bollywood film director and producer Karan Johar.
A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Makarand Karnik heard the appeal filed by the makers of the film in question, who challenged Justice Riyaz Chagla's March 7 2025 judgment, by which the single-judge had made absolute an interim order passed on June 13, 2024, staying the release of the film.
Title: Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev & Anr v. Igor Isakov & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 649
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order protecting the personality rights of Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, founder of Isha Foundation, and has restrained various rogue websites and unknown entities from misusing his personality traits through the use of Artificial Intelligence in any platform or medium.
Title: T.V. Today Network Limited v. Google Llc & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 705
The Delhi High Court has ordered Google LLC to take down a “fake” YouTube channel using news clipping, videos and deepfake impersonations of Anjana Om Kashyap, anchor and Managing Editor (Special Projects) of Aaj Tak news channel.
Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that such fake YouTube pages or fake profiles being made using the goodwill of Kashyap and the news channel, including their, reputation and personality would be contrary to law.