Patents Act, 1970 Supreme Court Reports Supreme Court Transfers Eureka Forbes' Patent Infringement Suit Against Atomberg's “Intellon” Water Purifier To Bombay High Court Case Title: Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Ltd Case No.: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1030 Supreme Court decided whether the Suit for Infringement (Delhi Suit) should be transferred to...
Patents Act, 1970
Supreme Court Reports
Case Title: Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Ltd
Case No.: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1030
Supreme Court decided whether the Suit for Infringement (Delhi Suit) should be transferred to the Bombay High Court, or the Suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement (Bombay Suit) should be transferred to the Delhi High Court - allowed the transfer petition - The Delhi Suit is transferred to the Bombay High Court to be tried along with the Bombay Suit - Noted that the omission of the proviso from Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970 (which existed in the pari materia provision in the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911) signifies that a suit for groundless threat of Infringement has an independent cause of action from a suit for infringement - Held that Despite the independent cause of action, the questions of fact, law, and issues to be determined in both suits are substantially overlapping
High Court Reports
Title: Conqueror Innovations Private Limited V. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 752
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited in a patent infringement suit filed against its “find device” technology, which helps users to locate, lock or erase data from their lost or stolen devices.
Case title: Kroll Information Assurance LLC v. The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 787
The Delhi High Court has declined a plea moved by US-based Kroll Information Assurance, seeking to patent 'System to locate users via a Peer-to-Peer Network'.
Justice Amit Bansal cited Section 3(k) of the Patents Act 1970 which declares inventions related to 'algorithm' and 'computer program per se' as non-patentable.
Case title: Dolby International AB & Anr. v. Lava International Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 812
The Delhi High Court had the occasion to discuss in detail the scope of a pro tem order, while dealing with Europe based audio/video processor Dolby International's suit against alleged patent infringement by Indian mobile phone company Lava.
Title: E. R. Squibb And Sons, LLC & Ors v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 825
The Delhi High Court has restrained Zydus Lifesciences Limited from manufacturing, selling importing, exporting or dealing in any biologic which is similar to Nivolumab, a drug used to treat cancer, sold under the brand name “Opdivo.”
Case title: Mold Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 832
The Delhi High Court has suggested to the legislature to define what constitutes 'infringement' under the Patents Act 1970.
A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul noted that while other intellectual property statutes define what constitutes infringement therein, the Patent Act is 'peculiarly' silent on this aspect.
Simplicity No Bar To Patentability, Even Simple Changes Can Lead To New Inventions: Delhi High Court
Case title: Dong Yang PC, Inc v. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 896
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a simple invention, if novel and non-obvious, warrants patent protection when it addresses a technical problem with ingenuity.
Case title: Dong Yang PC, Inc v. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 900
The Delhi High Court has held that if by suppressing any prior art, an applicant is able to obtain patent undeservingly, then such prior art can certainly be relied even at a later stage to challenge the grant of patent to such an applicant or to revoke such patent, under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Case title: F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr. v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 926
The Delhi High Court has held that there is no bar on the invocation of Section 104A of the Patent Act 1970 at the initial stage of a suit, when the patent holder seeks disclosure of the defendant's process.
For context, Section 104A prescribes that where the subject matter of a patent infringement suit is a 'process' for obtaining a product, the burden is on the defendant to prove that the process used by him to obtain the identical product is different from the patented process.
Title: Koninklijke Philips N.V v. M. Bathla & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1306
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a suit filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V., simply branded Philips, against a company manufacturing and selling VCDs alleging that the same violated its “Digital Transmission System” patent.
Trademarks Act, 1999
Supreme Court Reports
Cause Title: Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 803
The Supreme Court dismissed the interim injunction plea of Pernod Ricard against the alleged infringement of its registered Whisky marks “BLENDERS PRIDE” and “IMPERIAL BLUE” by a country-made Whisky brand “LONDON PRIDE”.
The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan noted that the brands in question are premium and ultra-premium whiskies aimed at a discerning consumer base, whose purchase decisions are made with greater care and are unlikely to be swayed by trade dress. Accordingly, the Court found no deceptive similarity between the competing marks that could lead to confusion.
Case Title: Novenco Building and Industry v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1027
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A – Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement – Interpretation of the expression 'contemplates any urgent interim relief' in the context of Intellectual Property (IP) infringement suits – Held, requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act cannot be mechanically applied in cases involving continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, such as trademark violations. Mere delay in filing a suit does not by itself negate the urgency of relief, so long as the infringement is ongoing - The court cannot be unmindful of the public interest element in IP disputes, which involves preventing confusion in the market and protecting consumers from deception, which further imparts a colour of immediacy to the reliefs sought.
High Court Reports
Title: Amazon Technologies Inc v. Lifestyle Equities
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 722
The Delhi High Court stayed a single judge ruling asking Amazon Technologies Inc to pay Rs. 339.25 crore damages and costs for trademark infringement of the luxury lifestyle brand, Beverly Hills Polo Club.
“The considerations outlined herein above make out, in our considered opinion, an exceptional case, in which it would be a complete travesty of justice to require the Appellant Amazon Tech to deposit, or secure, any part of the amount decreed by the impugned judgment, in order to maintain its appeal,” the Bench said.
Case title: VIP Industries Ltd v. Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 729
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that goodwill, for the purposes of a passing off action, is to be shown in respect of a mark and not in respect of particular goods or a category of goods.
In stating so, a division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul upheld a single judge order restraining luggage and travel accessories manufacturer VIP from making use of the mark 'CARLTON' with respect to any kind of bags.
Case title: M/S Products And Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Nilkamal Limited And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 735
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that when a trader imports and sells goods bearing the trademark of another company, such trader cannot sue another authorized dealer of the trademark holder for infringement.
Title: Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 737
he Delhi High Court restrained Patanjali Ayurved from running advertisements allegedly disparaging to Dabur's Chyavanprash product.
The Court noted that Patanjali's TVC portrayed that the existing Chyawanprash in the market are ordinary and consumers ought not to settle for ordinary products, which are not prepared in accordance with ayurvedic knowledge as they are not manufactured as per ancient ayurvedic texts and tradition.
Case title: Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 745
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a registered trademark owner's claim against infringement cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the defendant could have sought removal of the mark from the trademark's register under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 on grounds of 'non-use'.
Case title: Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 746
The Delhi High Court has held that though the Trade Marks Act 1999 does not expressly recognise the concept of a 'family of marks' however, the same is judicially developed and can be invoked by a registered trademark owner to seek injunction against specific marks.
Title: BIRKENSTOCK IP GMBH v. ASHOK KUMAR(S)/JOHN DOE(S) & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 765
While passing a john doe order in favour of footwear brand Birkenstock, the Delhi High Court has ordered inspection by local commissioners on the premises of infringer entities.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee restrained the defendants or distributors or sellers or importers or exporters or franchises from selling or marketing or dealing in the products bearing “Birkenstock” trademark or its trade dress.
Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order, Restrains Infringement Of 'Tata' Trademarks
Title: Tata Sons Private Limited And Anr V. John Doe And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 785
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order restraining the infringement of “Tata” trademarks, observing that repeated instances of duping of customers had occurred through domains that have claimed to offer fake dealerships or distributorships.
Title: Puma Se V. Himanshu Sharma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 788
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 8 lakh in favour of footwear brand Puma in its trademark infringement suit against an individual manufacturing counterfeit products.
Case title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 795
The Delhi High Court has ordered e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart to temporarily delist pages of as many as 21 sellers offering counterfeit products in the FMCG sector by misusing Reliance and Jio trademarks.
Case title: Johnson & Johnson Pte Ltd v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 796
The Delhi High Court awarded Rs. 1,21,56,864 cumulative damages to pharmaceutical multinational Johnson & Johnson over infringement of its ORSL trademark.
ORS-L (later changed to ORSL) is a range of flavoured electrolyte drinks first introduced by Jagdale Industries Limited in 2003.
Case title: Reliance Retail Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 810
The Delhi High Court has issued interim directions restraining infringement of Reliance Retail's Tira trademark in the beauty and personal care sector and its misuse to commit financial scams.
Title: Ms Veerji Restaurant Private Limited V. Yash Rai & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 833
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 5 lakh as costs and damages to famous Veerji Malai Chaap Wale restaurant in its trademark infringement suit against various eateries and food delivery joints.
While the matter was settled with one of the defendant eateries, Justice Amit Bansal noted that the other five food joints did not appear before the Court and thus, their conduct not only warranted but also necessitated imposition of both costs and damages.
Title: Ferrero Spa & Ors V. M.B. Enterprises
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 893
The Delhi High Court has declared “Nutella”, a popular hazelnut cocoa spread, as a well known trademark, saying that it is recognized all across the globe and not just India.
Case title: Major League Baseball Properties Inc v. Manish Vijay & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 897
Noting the global goodwill of 'BLUE JAYS' in connection with Canadian professional baseball team based in Toronto, the Delhi High Court ordered cancellation of 'BLUE-JAY' trademark registered in favour of a partnership firm in India.
Case Title: GB Pachaiyappan and Another v. Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed an application seeking interim injunction to restrain actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vetrri Kazhagam party from using the party flag, over alleged infringement of a Trust's trademark.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy rejected the plaintiff's claim that the usage of the flag by Vijay's party amounted to copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and passing off. The court, however, added that these were tentative observations and the matter would be dealt with in September.
Title: Capital Foods Private Limited V. Pitambari Products Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 917
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Capital Foods Private Limited- known from the brand “Ching's”, and has restrained a manufacturer from manufacturing and selling products under the mark “Schezwan Chutney.”
Case title: Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited v. Mr. Mukesh Prasad Thapliyal And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 920
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of luxury sea and ocean cruise operator 'Cordelia Cruises', restraining a Rishikesh based hotel from operating under a similar name.
Title: Mohak Mangal V. Ani Media Pvt. Ltd. And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 923
The Delhi High Court has transferred to itself the copyright and trademark infringement suit filed by Asian News International (ANI) against YouTuber Mohak Mangal before city's Patiala House Court.
Case title: Vi-John Healthcare India LLP v. Dabur India Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 928
Granting relief to Vi John Healthcare in connection with a trademark suit filed against it by Dabur for alleged infringement of its Meswak toothpaste packaging, the Delhi High Court set aside a cost of ₹12 lakh imposed on the former by the trial court.
The costs were imposed in view of the trial court's previous order that any delay by Vi John in filing its Written Statement shall only be considered subject to a cost of ₹25,000/- for each day of delay.
Case title: Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar/S & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 929
The Delhi High Court passed summary judgment in favour of Tata Power in a suit filed against infringement of its trademarks, including Tata Power Solaroof and Tata Power EZ Charge.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also granted dynamic injunction and permitted the company to implead and seek relief against any other John Doe entity found infringing its marks.
Case title: Indmoney Tech Private Limited & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar And Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 945
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe interim injunction restraining rogue websites and applications from infringing the trademark of share market and financial services app INDmoney.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was prima facie satisfied that the defendant-entity, by making unauthorised use of the Plaintiffs' trademarks, has been luring unsuspecting users to invest monies with the said Defendant No. 1.
Case title: Bodhisattva Charitable Trust And Ors. v. Mayo Foundation For Medical Education And Research
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 948
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that priority of user is not a defence to an action for infringement of trademark unless the use of such mark by the defendant predates both the user as well as the registration of the asserted mark of the plaintiff.
Case title: Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v. Sauss Home Products Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 979
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that delay by a registered trademark holder in prosecuting alleged infringement is not a defence available to the Defendant, where it is evident that Defendant's use of impugned trademark was dishonest/ fraudulent.
Case title: Hero Motocorp Limited v. Urban Electric Mobility Private Limited & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 983
The Delhi High Court has restrained electric-two wheeler manufacturers Urban E-Bike and Galaxy EV from using the trademark 'DESTINY' for their products, in a trademark infringement suit filed by bike manufacturer Hero Motocorp.
Case title: Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd v. Shri Gopal Engineering And Chemical Works Pvt Ltd & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 998
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that mere access of a “passive” website, offering for sale products allegedly infringing the trademark of a registered proprietor, is not sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction on it.
Title: Yatra Online Limited V. Mach Conferences And Events Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1009
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the word “Yatra” is a generic and descriptive word, over which no monopoly can be claimed by travel company Yatra Online Limited.
Title: Mankind Pharma Ltd V. Ram Kumar M/S Dr. Kumars Pharmaceuticals
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1011
The Delhi High Court has held that pharmaceutical company Mankind Pharma Limited is entitled to higher protection for “Kind” family marks, while ordering removal of “Unkind” mark from the Register of Trademarks.
Case title: Tata Sons Pvt Ltd v. John Doe
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1028
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim dynamic injunction, protecting the trademark of Tata Group's payment solutions platform Tata Pay.
Case title: Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1031
The Delhi High Court has held that “no injunction can be granted even in the case of passing off against a defendant, restraining the use by her, or him, of her, or his, own name.”
Use Of Full Name Not Mandatory To Avail Protection U/S 35 Trademarks Act: Delhi High Court
Case title: Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1033
The Delhi High Court has held that the benefit of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act 1999, which proscribes any injunction being granted against the use by the defendants of his/ her name as a trademark, is not restricted to use of full name by the defendant.
Title: Haveli Restaurant And Resorts Ltd V. Adison Resorts Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1037
Ruling in favour of famous Haveli Restaurant and Resorts, the Delhi High Court has recently asked a Ludhiana based company running under the name “Punjabi Haveli” to refrain from using “Haveli” marks and to remove its advertisements or listings from third party websites.
Delhi High Court Blocks Fraudulent Websites Collecting Money Under 'Burger King' Trademark
Case title: Burger King Corporation vs. Swapnil Patil & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1049
The Delhi High Court has observed that the illegal use of “Burger King” trademark or collecting money under the name of the American multinational fast food restaurant chain is not permitted.
Case Title: Arcee Electronics vs Arceeika
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 346
The Bombay High Court has held that the place of purchase of goods, and not the residence of the customer, is relevant for determining territorial jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court ruled that mere delivery of goods to customers residing within the Court's jurisdiction is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction when the actual purchases were made elsewhere.
Case Title: Sunil vs Star India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 347
The Bombay High Court has held that registration of a film title with a producers' association does not, by itself, create any enforceable exclusive right against third parties, and cannot be the basis for an injunction. The Court clarified that such registrations are only for internal regulation among members of the association and have no statutory authority under the Trade Marks Act or the Copyright Act.
Madras High Court Upholds Global Prior Use In MediaMonks Trademark Dispute
Case Title: M/s Media Monks Multimedia v. Pachala Murali Krishna
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
The Madras High Court has allowed a rectification petition for removal of trademark filed with the name "MEDIA MONK LABEL" and "MEDIA MONK" registered and being used by the respondent. The petition was filed by an international digital advertising company of the same name. The single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, allowing the petition, held that the party that uses the mark on a global scale, even if not used in India, shall be identified as the prior user.
Case title: VGP IPCO LLC & Anr v. Mr Suresh Kumar Trading As Om Shiv Lubricants & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1056
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of US-based automotive lubricant manufacturer Valvoline in its trademark infringement suit against an Indian company selling similar products under the trade name 'VIVOLINE'.
Case title: Castrol Limited v. Sanjay Sonavane
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1061
The Delhi High Court has restrained one Sanjay Sonavane from issuing any groundless threats of Trademark/ Copyright infringement to Castrol Limited, which uses '3X Protection' mark on its engine oil packaging, over purported infringement of the former's 3P Marks.
Title: Wow Momo Foods Private Limited V. Wow Burger & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1107
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim injunction in favour of “WOW MOMO”, an Indian quick-service restaurant chain, in its trademark infringement suit filed against a Hong Kong-based company “WOW BURGER.”
Case Name: M/S Azure Hospitality Private Limited v. Amit Bhasin, Proprietor Of Retail India Solutions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1115
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, while hearing a Section 37(1)(b) appeal under the Arbitration Act, observed that using the subject brand names after a dispute between the parties can cause enormous confusion to the public. People may associate the Respondent's outlets with the Appellants.
Case title: Exotic Mile v. Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1119
The Delhi High Court has upheld an interim order restraining smart wearable brand Exotic Mile from using BOULT trademark and logos, purportedly similar to businessman Aman Gupta's 'Boat'.
Case title: G4S Limited And Another v. 4Group Safeguard And Security Services Private Limited And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1202
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that under Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, the use of a registered Trade Mark as a Trade Name itself amounts to infringement of the registered Trade Mark.
Case title: Crocs Inc v. The Registrar Of Trademarks New Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1208
Granting relief to multinational footwear manufacturer Crocs, the Delhi High Court has ordered cancellation of trademark registration granted to mark 'CROOSE' in Class 25 which includes footwear for human use.
Case title: Hotels.com LLP v. Barath M L & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1209
Explaining the 'Initial Interest Confusion' test in the realm of trademark law, the Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction restraining 'HOTELCOM' from infringing the trademark of global hotel booking service provider Hotels.com.
Case title: EBC Publishing (P) Ltd & Anr v. Rupa Publications India Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1229
The Delhi High Court has restrained Rupa Publications from publishing or selling its 'coat pocket' edition of the Constitution of India bare act, in a trademark infringement suit filed by Eastern Book Company (EBC).
Title: Mattel Inc V. Padum Borah And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1230
Granting relief to Mattel Inc, the Delhi High Court has restrained a man from using “Barbie” trademarks in relation to commercial kitchen equipment, event management and catering services.
Case title: Honasa Consumer Limited v. Cloud Wellness Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1196
The Delhi High Court has declined an interim injunction restraining skincare brand Dermatouch in a suit for alleged infringement of copyright, trade dress and packaging filed by The Derma Co.
Case Title: M/s. Ravi Mohan Studios Pvt Ltd. v. M/s Indo Bevs Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
The Madras High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of actor Ravi Mohan's production company and has restrained the beverage manufacturing company Indobevs, which manufactures the drink 'Bro Code', from making threats of trademark infringement against the production company, producing a movie with the same title.
Case title: Mankind Pharma Limited v. Brinton Pharmaceuticals Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1248
The Delhi High Court has restrained Maharashtra-based Brinton Pharmaceuticals from using the mark ACNESCAR, or any other mark which is confusing or deceptively similar to Mankind Pharma's ACNESTAR.
Case title: Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Alchem International Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1303
The Delhi High Court has restrained Alchem International Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in the year 1982, from infringing the trademark of Alkem Laboratories Ltd., a company engaged in manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical and nutraceutical products.
Title: Wow Momo Foods Private Limited V. Wow Burger & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1333
The Delhi High Court has granted interim injunction in favour of “WOW MOMO”, an Indian quick-service restaurant chain, in its trademark infringement suit filed against a Hong Kong-based company “WOW BURGER.”
Title: Mars Incorporated V. Cadbury (India) Ltd & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1336
The Delhi High Court has ended the 25 year long battle between Mars and Cadbury over infringement of “Celebrations” trademark, followed by mutual settlement between the two confectionery companies.
Delhi High Court Restrains Entity From Infringing Tata's Vivanta Trademark
Case title: The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. Vivanta Stays
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1360
The Delhi High Court has restrained an entity from infringing the trademark of Tata Group's Indian Hotels Company Limited which runs and operates hotel brand 'Vivanta'.
Copyrights Act, 1957
Supreme Court Reports
Case Details: Ilaiyaraaja Music N Management Pvt Ltd v. M/S Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt Ltd And Ors.
The Supreme Court dismissed a transfer petition filed by music maestro Ilaiyaraaja's 'Ilaiyaraaja Music N Management Pvt Ltd' (IMMA) seeking to transfer the copyright infringement suit filed against it by Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt Ltd from the Bombay High Court to the Madras High Court.
High Court Reports
Case Title: Rupali P Shah vs Adani Wilmar Ltd.
Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 247
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a copyright infringement suit filed by the daughter of late Bollywood producer O.P. Ralhan, holding that the rights to exploit songs from his films were validly assigned in perpetuity and not restricted to any particular medium, such as physical records. Justice Manish Pitale, deciding the suit filed by Rupali P. Shah, held that the assignment agreements executed by Ralhan in favour of the predecessor of defendant No.2 (Adani Wilmar Ltd.) granted perpetual and wide-ranging rights that included the right to exploit musical works “by any and every means whatsoever.” The Court rejected the plaintiff's claim that the agreements only permitted exploitation through physical media such as gramophone records.
Delhi High Court Grants Exparte Injunction To Dazn india Against Websites Illegaly Streaming FIFA 25
Case Title: Dazn Limited & Anr Vs Buffsports.me & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 751
The Delhi High court has granted ex parte dynamic injunction to DAZN Ltd.the official broadcasters of the FIFA World Cup 2025 against illegal streaming rogue website.A single bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee has allowed immediate blocking of rogue websites following an ex-parte order
Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites From Streaming Maalik, Sarbala Ji Movie Content
Title: Tips Films Limited V. https//0gomovies.Com.Tr/ & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 789
The Delhi High Court has restrained 56 rogue websites from illegally and unauthorisedly streaming content of Maalik and Sarbala Ji movies.
Case title: Twenty-Four Frames Factory Private Limited v. John Doe & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 836
The Delhi High Court directed social media platforms Meta and X to take down pirated links of Vishnu Manchu starrer Telugu film 'Kannappa'.
Justice Jyoti Singh passed the interim order on a copyright infringement suit filed by the film production Twenty-Four Frames Factory Private Limited.
Title: Ymi Ghar Soaps V. Ashok Kumar Trading As Bendist Export Hamare Ghar Ka Soaps
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1003
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order protecting artistic rights of “Ghar Soaps”, a brand manufacturing natural and chemical free skincare products, in its suit against various unknown entities alleging trademark and copyright infringement over use of deceptively similar packaging.
Title: Elsevier Ltd. And Ors V. Alexandra Elbakyan And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1008
The Delhi High Court has ordered blocking of shadow library website Sci-Hub and its mirror websites in India in a copyright infringement suit filed by publishing houses Elsevier, Wiley and American Chemical Society.
Case title: Arjan Dugal v. Shubham Gandhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1083
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to a city-based clothing label run by designer Arjan Dugal, in his suit filed against a former employee over alleged infringement of his trade dress, original artistic work.
Delhi High Court Deprecates ANI's Conduct In Copyright Infringement Case Against 'Dynamite News'
Title: ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. Dynamite News Network Private Limited & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1390
The Delhi High Court rejected an appeal filed by news agency Asian News International (ANI), challenging a single judge order passed in its copyright infringement suit against news platform Dynamite News.
Designs Act, 2000
High Court Reports
Case title: M/S Crocs Inc USA v. M/S Bata India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 731
The Delhi High Court has restored the suits filed by Crocs USA against Indian footwear brands Liberty, Bata, Relaxo, Aqualite and others for copying its distinctive clog design.
The suits were dismissed earlier by a single judge by holding that no passing off action can be found on a trade dress which is registered as a design under the Designs Act.
Personality Rights
Case title: Aishwarya Rai Bachchan V/S Aishwaryaworld.Com & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1089
The Delhi High Court has protected the personality rights of bollywood actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, observing that unauthorized exploitation of personal attributes of an individual violates right to privacy and undermines the right to live with dignity.
Title: Abhishek Bachchan V. The Bollywood Tee Shop & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1094
The Delhi High Court has passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of Bollywood actor Abhishek Bachchan by restraining various entities from misusing his image, name, voice or other elements of his persona for monetary gains without his consent or authorization.
Title: Karan Johar V. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1152
The Delhi High Court has passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of Bollywood filmmaker and producer Karan Johar.
Title: Akkineni Nagarjuna v. X & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1235
The Delhi High Court has passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of Telugu actor Nagarjuna Akkineni by restraining various entities from misusing his image, name, voice or other elements of his persona for monetary gains without his consent or authorization.
Title: Ravi Shankar V. John Doe(S) / Ashok Kumar(S) & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1242
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order protecting the personality rights of “The Art of Living” foundation founder, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar.
Title: Hrithik Roshan V. Ashok Kumar & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1309
The Delhi High Court directed the removal of certain links and listings on various internet and e-commerce websites, which allegedly infringed the personality rights of Actor Hrithik Roshan.
Will Protect Personality Rights Of Singer Kumar Sanu: Delhi High Court
Title: Kumar Sanu Bhattacharjee V. Jammable Limited & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1310
The Delhi High Court has passed an interim injunction order in a plea by Indian playback singer Kumar Sanu Bhattacharjee, seeking protection of his personality rights.
Geographical Indications of Goods Act, 1999
Bombay High Court Rejects PIL Accusing Global Fashion Giant PRADA Of Copying "Kolhapuri Chappals"
Case Title: Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire vs PRADA Group
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 293
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (July 16) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a restraining order against global fashion giant PRADA from commercializing and using "toe ring sandals" which is alleged to be deceptively similar to the GI tagged "Kolhapuri Chappal" without authorisation.
Case title: Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 778
The Delhi High Court embarked upon the distinction of rights under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
While dealing with the GI claims of Peru and Chile-based organisations in South America over 'PISCO' for certain alcoholic beverages, Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “While the trademark is a private right of an individual or an entity, GI is collective right of producers in a region. The Trade Marks Act distinguishes the goods and services of one trader from others. On the other hand, GI indicates a product‟s origin from a specific geographical origin.”