Patents Act, 1970 International Reports US Court Orders EscapeX, Lawyers To Pay Google USD 2.5 Lakh As Cost For Frivolous Patent Suit Case Title: EscapeX IP LLC v. Google LLC The U.S. Federal Circuit upheld orders directing EscapeX to pay Google over USD 2.5 lakh in attorney fees, finding that EscapeX filed a frivolous patent suit and then prolonged the case with an...
Patents Act, 1970
International Reports
US Court Orders EscapeX, Lawyers To Pay Google USD 2.5 Lakh As Cost For Frivolous Patent Suit
Case Title: EscapeX IP LLC v. Google LLC
The U.S. Federal Circuit upheld orders directing EscapeX to pay Google over USD 2.5 lakh in attorney fees, finding that EscapeX filed a frivolous patent suit and then prolonged the case with an equally baseless post-judgment motion. The Court also affirmed additional sanctions against EscapeX and its lawyers for multiplicity of proceedings.
High Court Reports
Case Title: Ab Initio Technology LLC v. The Controller of Patents & Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421
The Madras High Court set aside the Patent Office's refusal of patent application for “Graphic Representations of Data Relationship,” holding that the invention involved an inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) and was not excluded as a “computer programme per se” under Section 3(k).
Invention Requiring Destruction Of Human Embryos Not Patentable: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Shroff Geeta v. Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design
Case No.: IPDPTA/88/2023
The Calcutta High Court affirmed the Patent Office's refusal of a patent relating to human embryonic stem cells under Section 3(b), holding that the invention required destruction of human embryos and was therefore unethical and contrary to public order.
Delhi High Court Rejects FMC's Plea to Block Natco Insecticide Over Patent Dispute
Case Title: FMC Corporation & Ors. v. Natco Pharma Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1518
Dismissing FMC's request for interim relief, the Delhi High Court held that Natco had raised a credible validity challenge to Claim 12 of FMC's IN'645 patent. The Court found that FMC's earlier patent IN'104 disclosed the same intermediate compound, supporting Natco's Gillette defence.
Case Title: Hemant Karamchand Rohera v. Controller General of Patents and Designs & Anr.
Case No.: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 11 of 2022
The Bombay High Court remanded a rejected patent application for fresh consideration, holding that the Patent Office failed to follow mandatory procedures under Sections 14 and 15, had not issued specific objections and passed a non-speaking order. The Court also held that non-disclosure of a prior review petition did not amount to suppression warranting dismissal.
Case Title: Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
Case No.: C.M.A. (PT) No. 43 of 2023
The Madras High Court set aside the Patent Office's order refusing Hi Tech Chemicals' challenge to an anti-stick coating patent owned by Allied Metallurgical Products. The Court held that the reasoning on obviousness was inadequate, noting that the Patent Office failed to explain why key objections on novelty, inventive step and technical advantage were rejected.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Medilabo's Patent For Neurodegenerative-Disease Drug
Case Title: Medilabo RFP Inc. v. The Controller Of Patents
Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 16/2024
The Delhi High Court quashed the refusal of Medilabo's patent application relating to a pharmaceutical composition, holding that the Patent Office failed to examine the amended claims and wrongly applied the bar on “methods of treatment” under Section 3(i). The Court held that patentability must be assessed based solely on the amended claims, and mere references to the word “treatment” in the specification cannot attract Section 3(i).
Case Title: Trident Limited v. Controller Of Patents
Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022
The Delhi High Court overturned the refusal of Trident's patent application for “air rich” yarn technology, finding that the Patent Office failed to assess the core inventive feature i.e., homogeneous pore distribution across the yarn's radial cross-section. The Court held that the refusal lacked a proper obviousness analysis, overlooked detailed examples in the specification, and failed to show how prior art taught the invention.
Case Title: Softgel Healthcare Private Limited v. Pfizer Inc.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 445
The Madras High Court has overturned a Single Judge's order that had permitted pharmaceutical giant Pfizer to enforce Letters Rogatory issued by a United States court to obtain documents and testimony from Chennai-based Softgel Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. The Court noted that the request amounted to pre-trial discovery which is barred in India.
Case Title: Amylin Pharmaceuticals LLC & Anr. v. Assistant Controller of Patents
Case No.: C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 76/2022
The Court upheld refusal of a patent for a sustained-release exenatide formulation, finding it obvious in light of prior art. It held the differences from D1–D4 were bridged by routine experimentation and failed the “technical advance” test under Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla. The Patent Office's 2018 decision was affirmed.
Case Title: Novo Nordisk v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 565/2025
The Court found a credible challenge to validity of IN'697, as semaglutide was disclosed in Novo's prior genus patent IN'964. It allowed manufacture and export but restrained sale in India until IN'964's expiry.
Madras High Court Orders Fresh Review of TVS Motor's Patent Plea For Scooter Frame Design
Case Title: TVS Motor Company Limited v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
The Madras High Court set aside Patent Office's refusal of TVS Motor Company's patent application relating to a vehicle frame assembly. The Court found that Controller's analysis on lack of inventive step was inadequate and did not properly assess the claimed invention in light of the cited prior art. It observed that prior art relied upon did not disclose the specific structural arrangement claimed by TVS. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
After Dr Reddy's, Sun Pharma Commits To Not Selling Semaglutide In India Till March 2026
Case Title: Novo Nordisk & Anr. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1308/2025
The Delhi High Court recorded Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.'s assurance that it will not sell its semaglutide-based drug in India until March 20, 2026, when Danish drugmaker Novo Nordisk's patent expires. The company also committed to exporting drug only to countries where Novo does not hold patent rights.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Order Allowing Dr. Reddy's To Manufacture And Export Semaglutide
Case Title: Novo Nordisk v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1700
In a patent infringement action relating to semaglutide, the Delhi High Court refused to grant interim relief in favour of Novo Nordisk. The Court observed that the defendants had raised substantial and credible challenges to the patent. It held that the matter required full trial and detailed examination of evidence. As a result, no stay on single bench order was granted at this stage.
Commercial Courts Act Bars Intra-Court Appeals In Patent Disputes: Madras High Court
Case Title: ITALFARMACO SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
The Madras High Court held that intra-court appeals are not maintainable against orders passed in statutory patent appeals. It ruled that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act bars such appeals and that Letters Patent jurisdiction cannot be invoked.
The Madras High Court has directed the Patent Office to grant an inventor one opportunity to demonstrate the working of his invention, holding that a potentially viable invention should not be rejected without adequate consideration.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order while disposing of a writ petition filed by Kannan Gopalakrishnan challenging the rejection of his patent review application relating to an invention titled “Solar Supplemental Power Source.”
Statutory Update
The Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2025 substitute Chapter XIV-A and modify timelines for adjudication of penalties. Appeals must now be filed within 60 days from receipt of the order. All communications must be electronic and adjudicating officers must issue digitally signed, reasoned orders.
Trademarks Act, 1999
High Court Reports
Delhi High Court Refuses Relief to Cotton Bud Maker Against Perfume Brand Over 'TULIP' Trademark
Case Title: Suparshva Swabs India v. AGN International & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1430.
Division Bench dismissed Suparshva Swabs' plea to restrain AGN's use of “AGN TULIP”, holding both were registered proprietors, “Tulip” is generic for perfumes and Suparshva failed to show goodwill in perfumes prior to 2010; “Tulip” mark not well-known; injunction refused.
Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Ban on Use of 'Sachamoti' Brand Amid Family Dispute
Case Title: Sabu Trade Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajkumar Sabu & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1439.
The Division Bench upheld an interim order restraining STPL/family member from using “Sachamoti” mark, recognising Rajkumar Sabu's prima facie right as prior user backed by registrations and historical invoices; the interim injunction stands.
Case Title: Bima Sugam India Federation v. A Range Gowda & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1441.
Single bench found “BIMA SUGAM” had public recognition through IRDAI publicity; held defendant registered related domains in bad faith and directed transfer of the disputed domains to the Federation.
Delhi High Court Refuses Quantum Hi-Tech Injunction Against LG Over 'Quantum' Trademark
Case Title: Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1443
Division Bench refused interim relief to Quantum Hi-Tech, upholding earlier order lifting injunction due to plaintiff's suppression/concealment of material facts; relief available if party approaches court with “clean hands.”
Delhi High Court Restrains UP Company From Infringing Ching's 'Schezwan Chutney' Mark
Case Title: Capital Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Damyaa (PJ) Foods Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1444
Single Bench (Delhi) granted ad-interim injunction restraining defendant from using “Schezwan Tufani Chutney” or any deceptively similar expression to Capital Foods' “Schezwan Chutney”; prima facie case found.
Delhi High Court Restrains Beauty Salon From Infringing Lotus Herbals' Mark
Case Title: Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd. v. Lotus Beauty Salon Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1450.
Single Bench granted temporary injunction restraining “Lotus Salon” from using mark; found “triple identity” (identical mark, product/service and trade channels) and prima facie dishonesty; interim protection ordered.
Case Title: Mohammad Talha v. M/s Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1451.
Division Bench modified earlier injunction: allowed Moradabad restaurant “Gulshan-e-Karim” to continue using its name subject to a clear disclaimer that it is unaffiliated with Delhi's Karim's; court treated it as innocent infringement and imposed proportionate remedy.
Delhi High Court Stays Order Directing Transfer Of 'Bima Sugam' Domain Names
Case Title: A Range Gowda v. Bima Sugam India Federation & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1457.
On appeal, Division Bench stayed Single Judge's order directing transfer of domains, observing that transfer at this stage would commercially benefit the Federation before findings on goodwill; status quo maintained.
Second Appeal Not Maintainable Under Trade Marks Act: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Dunlop's Appeal
Case Title: Glorious Investment Ltd. v. Dunlop International Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: TEMPAPO – IPD 5 of 2025.
Division Bench held a second appeal from a Single Judge's order under Section 91 Trade Marks Act is barred by Section 100A CPC; dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
Madras High Court Lets Udaipur Salon Keep 'Bounce,' Lifts Earlier Ban
Case Title: Spalon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Maya Choudhary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 396.
Single Bench vacated earlier interim injunction against an Udaipur salon using “Bounce” mark; found notable visual/logo differences and held “Bounce” is non-distinctive/descriptive within haircare industry; injunction lifted.
Madras High Court Strikes Down 'Original Choice' Trademark, Rules in Favor of 'Officer's Choice'
Case Title: Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. IPAB & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 408.
Division Bench allowed ABD's writ: held “Original Choice” is deceptively similar to “Officer's Choice”, set aside IPAB's 2013 dismissal and ordered rectification/removal of “Original Choice” from the register.
Bombay High Court Lifts Restraint On UP-Based Popcorn Maize Seller In Brand Dispute With SNN
Case Title: SNT & Co. v. M/s Shah Nanji Nagis Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: AO 11/2025.
High Court set aside a District Court injunction against SNT & Co., finding the lower court failed to properly compare the overall look and feel of the packets; found clearly distinguishable packaging; remanded to District Court for fresh hearing.
Bombay High Court Upholds Order Barring Nagpur Bidi Maker from Using Look-Alike 'Online Bidi' Pack
Case Title: Ifra Sheikh v. M/s Mobile Bidi Traders
Case No.: AO 19/2025.
Nagpur Bench upheld trial-court protection for Mobile Bidi Traders and restrained Rocket Bidi Works from using its ATM Bidi No.07 packaging, finding the blue packet trade-dress similar and likely to cause confusion; injunction upheld.
Case Title: Sporta Technologies P Ltd v. American Dream 11 Fantasy Sports Pvt Ltd & Anr
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1220/2025
The Court directed the defendants to remove all social media pages and cease use of “American Dream 11,” noting prima facie imitation of Dream11's interface and branding. Defendants agreed to stop targeting Indian users; the matter was referred to mediation.
Case Title: Ravi Mohan Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Indospirit Beverages Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: FAO(OS)(COMM) 184/2025
The Division Bench declined to stay a single judge's injunction restraining the studio from using the film title “BRO CODE,” observing that granting stay would amount to allowing the appeal.
Delhi High Court Refers EBC–Rupa Trademark Dispute on Constitution Pocket Edition To Mediation
Case Title: EBC Publishing (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Rupa Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1034/2025
Following earlier findings of deceptive similarity in layout and colour scheme, the Court referred the matter to mediation upon both parties expressing willingness to settle.
Case Title: Radico Khaitan Ltd. v. Picadilly Agro Industries Ltd.
Case No.: FAO-COM-17-2025 (O&M)
The Division Bench stayed the Commercial Court's injunction restraining Radico from using “Kashmyr,” noting triable issues such as jurisdiction, similarity of marks and prior use. The injunction remains in abeyance.
Case Title: DAZN Limited & Anr. v. 9GOALS.IO & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1152/2025
The Court restrained 26 websites illegally streaming Serie A matches and granted a dynamic injunction extending to future rogue sites to protect DAZN's exclusive digital streaming and broadcasting rights.
Delhi High Court Bars Another Company from Using Ching's 'Schezwan Chutney' Mark
Case Title: Capital Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. KRS Multipro Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1186/2025
Holding the mark identical and adopted dishonestly, the Court restrained KRS Multipro from using the mark “Schezwan Chutney”, rejecting arguments that the term was generic. Court found that such use was likely to deceive consumers into believing that KRS Multipro's products were associated with Capital Foods.
Delhi High Court Bars Hotel From Using 'Bukhara' Trademark, Grants Interim Relief to ITC
Case Title: ITC Ltd. & Anr. v. Bukhara Inn
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1187/2025
The Court held “Bukhara” to be a well-known mark, associated with ITC's iconic restaurant in Delhi and restrained the defendant hotel from operating under names identical or deceptively similar to ITC's established brand.
Bombay High Court Restrains Surat Company From Using German Entity's 'PETROFER' Mark
Case Title: Petrofer Chemie H.R. Fischer GmbH & Co. v. United Petrofer Ltd.
Case No.: IA 2143/2021 in Comm. IP Suit 275/2021
The Court found United Petrofer's adoption dishonest and restrained use of “PETROFER” in its corporate name, domain and trade. Court observed that infringement occurred as registered trade mark was being used both as part of a trade name and in the course of trade in respect of the same goods i.e. lubricants.
Bombay High Court Restrains Local Retail Shop From Infringing 'The Body Care' Mark
Case Title: Mohamed Sadique Raisuddin Saifee v. Rizwan Yunus Shaikh
Case No.: IA(L) 33507/2025
The Court held the defendant's mark deceptively similar to the registered mark “THE BODY CARE,” granting ad-interim relief.
Delhi High Court Restrains Manufacture, Sale of Glucose Test Strips Copying Chinese Company Sinocare
Case Title: Changsha Sinocare Inc. & Anr. v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1188/2025
Finding deceptive similarity in trade dress and packaging, the Court restrained defendants from selling glucose test strips under Sinocare's marks. Court noted- Sinocare's prior and continuous use; considerable goodwill; likelihood of consumer confusion was real and substantial.
Case Title: The Indian Express (P) Ltd. v. Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: IA(L) 31555/2024
The Court enforced territorial limits under earlier settlement terms and restrained use of “The New Indian Express” outside permitted regions. “Indian Express” mark solely owned by Indian Express; adding the word “New” to registered mark does not give the Express Publication any wider or independent rights to use the title outside specified territories.
Delhi High Court Permanently Bars Lubricant Maker From Using Castrol-Like Trademarks And Packaging
Case Title: Castrol Ltd. & Ors. v. Ali Hussain Amir Ali Namdar & Anr.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 831/2024
Granting a permanent injunction, the Court held that defendants used deceptively similar marks and packaging and awarded costs to Castrol. It observed that defendants' actions are calculated to mislead consumers, thereby unlawfully encroaching upon goodwill and proprietary rights that Castrol has built through years of business and marketing efforts.
Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Apps From Illegally Streaming India's Upcoming Cricket Tours
Case Title: Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Cricfy TV & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1203/2025
The Court restrained rogue apps from streaming upcoming South Africa and New Zealand tours and extended protection to new infringing platforms. Referred earlier decision in Universal City Studios LLC v. Dotmovies.baby which recognized 'Dynamic+ injunction' to protect copyrighted works including future broadcasts.
Bombay High Court Restrains 'Metro Footwear' from Infringing Metro Brands' Mark
Case Title: Metro Brands Ltd. v. Metro Footwear & Ors.
Case No.: IA(L) 21593/2024
Bombay High Court restrained Metro Footwear Store from using the mark “Metro Footwear”, ruling that it infringed the registered “METRO” trademark of Metro Brands Limited. Court observed that such use of mark by Metro Footwear is likely to cause injury to Metro's goodwill and reputation.
Bombay High Court Halts Production And Sale Of Fake 'Gold Flake' Cigarettes
Case Title: ITC Ltd. v. Abbas Mohammad Shaikh
Case No.: IA(L) 29298/2025
Holding that counterfeit cigarettes posed health risks and infringed ITC's rights, the Court granted interim protection in favour of ITC Ltd.
Calcutta High Court Cancels “JAY'S” Trademark, Citing Similarity to PepsiCo's “LAY'S”
Case Title: PepsiCo Inc. v. Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: IPDATM/210/2023
The Court cancelled the “JAY'S” mark, finding it phonetically identical and deceptively similar to PepsiCo's “LAY'S.”
Delhi High Court Restrains Pharma Firm from Using Marks Similar To Mankind Pharma's 'Kind' Brand
Case Title: Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. De Harbien Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1185/2025
Delhi High Court restrained a pharmaceutical company from using the marks “NEFROKIND” and “SILOKIND”, ruling that these marks are deceptively similar to Mankind Pharma Limited's well-known trademarks “MANKIND” and other “KIND” formative marks.
Delhi High Court Restrains Patanjali from Broadcasting 'Dhoka' Chyawanprash Ad in Dabur's Plea
Case Title: Dabur India Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1182/2025
The Court restrained Patanjali from airing an advertisement calling other Chyawanprash products “Dhoka,” holding it to be commercial disparagement. The Court found that the advertisement went beyond permissible puffery.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Zydus Interim Relief In 'Glucon-D v Glucose-D' Trademark Case
Case Title: Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Leeford Healthcare Ltd.
Case No.: OMP No. 885/2024
The Court held term “glucose” to be descriptive and refused injunction, finding no likelihood of confusion. It ruled that Leeford's packaging clearly displayed its “Rock On” brand and any similarity between two products arose mainly from use of descriptive term “glucose.”
Delhi High Court Bars Former Distributor from Selling CREED Perfume, Awards Rs 37.42 Lakh in Damages
Case Title: Fontaine Limited v. Berkeley Beauty Brands Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1525
The Court granted a permanent injunction and Rs 37.42 lakh in damages after finding that the former distributor continued selling CREED products and used the CREED mark despite expiry of the distribution agreement. Based on admissions and undisputed material, the Court granted summary judgment.
Bombay High Court Blocks Sale Of Diabetes Drug ELGIMET For Similarity To GLIMET's Mark
Case Title: Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Adwin Pharma & Anr.
Case No.: IA (L)-27480-2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 225 of 2024
Holding the marks phonetically and structurally similar, the Court confirmed an interim injunction restraining use of ELGIMET. It found likelihood of confusion in medicinal products and held that Griffon's coined mark GLIMET was distinctive.
Bombay High Court Restrains City Hotel From Infringing Five-Star Hotel Chain Orchid's Trademark
Case Title: Kamat Hotels India Limited v. Orchid Hotel and Hostel
Case No.: IA (L) NO.33327/2025 in Commercial IP Suit No.32915/2025
Finding deceptive similarity with the well-known “THE ORCHID” hotel brand, the Court restrained use of “Orchid Hotel & Hostel” and directed removal of listings using the impugned name.
Delhi High Court Grants SanDisk Permanent Injunction Against Indian Company's Copycat Trade Dress
Case Title: SanDisk LLC v. M/s Welborn Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1546
The Court granted a permanent injunction decree based on Welborn's undertaking discontinuing packaging similar to SanDisk's trade dress for USB drives and SD cards.
Delhi High Court Allows 'Nourish You' To Use Its Registered Name, Sets Aside Injunction
Case Title: Nutrivative Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. B.L. Agro Industries Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1557
A Division Bench set aside a Commercial Court injunction, holding that statutory protections for the registered “Nourish You” mark under Section 30(2)(e) had been ignored and that BL Agro had not challenged the registration.
Bombay High Court Grants Fresh Relief To Nova Cream, Orders Rival To Cease Using Disputed Packaging
Case Title: Dr. Ashok M Bhat v. R.V. Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
Case No.: IA NO. 3522/2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 386/2017
The Court found prima facie breach of earlier injunctions restraining use of packaging similar to Nova's trade dress and granted further relief, including search and seizure directions.
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Vinod Satyaprakashji Mittal
Case No.: IA NO. 4134/2025 in Commercial IP Suit No.115/2025
Confirming an ad-interim injunction in favour of Asian Paints, the Court restrained use of ASIANGOLD, SUPREME GLOSS and similar marks as well as similar trade dress.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Anantara Hotel Chain, Bars 'Club Anantara' From Using Its Mark
Case Title: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors. v. Club Anantara Suites and Retreat & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1568
The Court found visual and structural similarity with the well-known ANANTARA mark and restrained use of marks and domain names by a hotel incorporating name ANANTARA.
Delhi High Court Protects Realty Firm Signature Global Against Fake Websites
Case Title: Signature Global (India) Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1540
The Court restrained the operator of signatureglobal.com from imitating the realty company's official website, finding deceptive similarity and risk of fraud with homebuyers.
The Controller General accepted an olfactory trademark application for a rose-scent applied to tyres, finding it distinctive and graphically representable. This represents acceptance of 1st smell mark in India.
Delhi High Court Restrains Jaipur Hotel From Using Logo Similar To Beverly Hills Polo Club
Case Title: Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Hari Shankar Bilwal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1534
The Court held that Jaipur hotel's polo-player device marks were deceptively similar to the well-known BHPC marks and restrained their use.
Case Title: Ferrero Spa & Ors. v. Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1572
The Court issued a permanent injunction restraining glass manufacturers from making Nutella shape jars, ordered handover of 3.05 lakh seized jars and awarded Rs.10 lakh as costs after finding deliberate copying of Nutella's jar shape.
Case Title: Living Media India Limited and Anr v. Amar Ujala Limited and Ors
Case No.: CS (COMM) 1238/2025
The Delhi High Court restrained defendant news agencies from using “Aaj Tak” in source code or meta tags after they stated that they had removed infringing links and did not contest the suit. A decree was passed based on their undertakings.
Case Title: Visage Beauty and Healthcare Private Limited v. Freecia Professional India Private Limited & Anr.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 633/2022
The Court restrained Freecia from copying Visage Beauty's packaging, ingredients listing, usage steps and from using the mark “DERMOMELAN,” holding that the layout and textual elements had been prima facie copied. The Court rejected claims of prior usage of the term and granted interim relief.
Case Title: ITC Limited v. Pelican Tobacco Co Ltd & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 221/2024
The Court confirmed an interim injunction against Pelican Tobacco, holding that “Gold Flame” and “Gold Fighter” cigarettes were deceptively similar to ITC's “Gold Flake” in name and packaging. The Court described Pelican's adoption as “prima facie dishonest.”
Case Title: Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited v. Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 57/2024
The Court held that “Haveli” mark is publici juris and that no restaurant can claim exclusivity over it. It upheld the registration of “Amritsar Haveli” and “The Amritsar Haveli,” finding no deceptive similarity when comparing the marks as a whole.
Case Title: Hermes International & Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 716/2021
The Court recognised the Birkin bag's iconic 3-D shape, the word “Hermès” and stylised logos as well-known trademarks, citing extensive enforcement and international recognition.
Madras High Court Allows Udaipur Salon To Use 'Bounce', Rejects South Indian Chain's Appeal
Case Title: Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 442
The Division Bench upheld the vacation of an injunction earlier granted to Spalon India, finding the Udaipur Salon's mark sufficiently distinct and rejecting allegations of similarity. The Court said the appeal appeared aimed at delaying trial.
Case Title: Ashim Kumar Ghosh v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 48/2025
The Court held that “SoEasy” is suggestive, not descriptive, and therefore registrable. It set aside the Registrar's refusal and directed the application to proceed.
Case Title: Sunil Niranjan Shah v. Vijay Bahadur
Case No.: CS(COMM) 669/2025
The Court granted an injunction restraining use of “Gopal Gai Chhap,” “Cow Brand” and similar marks, holding that the rival marks were deceptively similar and that the defendant's products on interactive e-commerce platforms gave the Court territorial jurisdiction.
Case Title: Aristo Pharmaceutical Private Limited v. Healing Pharma India Private Limited & Ors.
Case No.: IA(L) 26226/2025
The Court refused injunction to Aristo, holding that its 'ACECLO' mark is derived from INN “Aceclofenac” and is publici juris. It found the competing mark ACECLOHEAL distinguishable and held no prima facie misrepresentation.
Case Title: Saurabh Gupta v. Sheopals Pvt Ltd
Case No.: FAO (COMM) 175/2025
The Division Bench held that OPAL and SHEOPAL'S are not deceptively similar when compared as a whole. The appeal seeking restoration of injunction was dismissed.
Case Title: Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 353/2024
The Court continued restrictions on use of “TESLA” for EVs, finding triple identity between marks, goods and trade channels and noting that the Indian company's marks suggested misleading association with Tesla Inc.
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1038/2024
The Court held that online listings and interactive features could amount to purposeful availment of Delhi jurisdiction. It refused to return the plaint and directed that jurisdiction be tried as a preliminary issue.
Case Title: Irish Distillers International Limited v. Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case No.: C.O.(COMM-IPD-TM) 77/2025
The Court ordered removal of the “BLUE SPOT” mark for continuous non-use exceeding five years, noting that the defendant was ex-parte and allegations remained unrebutted.
Madras High Court Jails Contemnor For Repeated Breach Of HUL's 'WHEEL' Trademark Injunction
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Roopa Industries
Case No.: A. No.1861 of 2025
The Court ordered three months' civil imprisonment of Roopa Industries' proprietor and attachment of property for repeated violations of injunction protecting HUL's “WHEEL” marks.
Delhi High Court Restrains Knam Foods From Using 'AL-BUSTAN' Rice Packaging, Terms It 'Slavish Copy'
Case Title: Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd. v. Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1251/2025
The Court found Knam Foods' packaging a slavish copy of the plaintiff's AL-BUSTAN rice bags, including colour scheme, script and layout. An ex-parte injunction was granted.
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief To 'JIO'; Restrains Taxi Operator From Using 'JIO Taxi' Mark
Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Abhay Kumar & Anr.
Case No.: IA(L) 35071/2025
The Court granted an ad-interim injunction against use of “JIO TAXI,” finding that it wholly incorporated the well-known “JIO” mark and lacked any valid defence.
Karnataka High Court Restores Classic Legends' Rights To The 'Yezdi' Marks For Motorcycles
Case Title: Boman R. Irani v. The Official Liquidator of Ideal Jawa
Case No.: OSA No. 2/2023
The Division Bench held that goodwill in trademarks cannot survive long after business cessation, overturning the earlier finding that Ideal Jawa owned the 'Yezdi' marks. Rights were restored to Classic Legends.
Case Title: Rajeev KP v. Unais KK
Case No.: FAO No. 118 of 2025
The Kerala High Court restrained rival trader from using the “Bokashi Bucket” mark, finding the marks and goods identical to registered mark. The Court followed Renaissance Hotel Holdings ruling that improper use requires injunctive protection. It restored the interim relief denied earlier by the District Court.
Case Title: Hero MotoCorp Ltd. v. Sunanda Greentech Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1271/2025
An ex-parte injunction was granted restraining use of “Destiny,” “Destiny+,” and variants for two-wheelers. The Court found structural and phonetic similarity with Hero's “Destini” marks and held the adoption deceptive and misleading.
Case Title: Ganraj Enterprises v. Land Mark Crafts Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 164/2022
Dismissing the appeal, the Court held Land Mark a prior user since 2006 and found no evidence of continuous use of “HP+” by Ganraj Enterprises. It held territorial constraints on one registration cannot be read into another.
Case Title: Kailash Masala Industries v. Organic Khandeshi Food Products
Case No.: Appeal From Order No. 44 of 2023
The Court upheld denial of interim relief, noting repeated delays and inadequate material to compare marks. It held no prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable loss was established in favour of Kailash Masala.
Case Title: Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: FAO(OS)(COMM) 66/2025
The Court held Delhi courts had jurisdiction because Kohinoor's marks were registered in Delhi and the marketing agreement executed there. Online listings accessible in Delhi also formed part of the cause of action.
Case Title: Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Sangeetham House of Veg
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 467
The Court found suppression of an earlier settlement requiring name change in obtaining registration. It directed deletion of the impugned registration, terming it inconsistent with an existing decree.
Bombay High Court Bars Chemco Plast From Using “CHEMCO” As Trademark, Allows Use As Domain Name
Case Title: Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Chemco Plast
Case No.: IA No. 2165/2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 80/2024
The Court restrained use of “CHEMCO/CHEMCO PLAST” as trademarks but permitted use as trade name and domain name due to long concurrent use. It noted attempted registration by the defendant but no dishonest adoption.
Case Title: Edible Products (India) Ltd. v. Shalimar Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: FMAT No. 189 of 2024
The Division Bench found similarity in bottle shape, colour scheme and coconut graphics, creating likelihood of confusion. Given established goodwill and misrepresentation, the injunction was affirmed.
Delhi High Court Rejects ITC's Plea To Restrain Adyar Gate Hotels From Using 'Dakshin' Mark
Case Title: ITC Ltd. & Anr. v. Adyar Gate Hotels Ltd.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 119/2025
The Court found no territorial jurisdiction as no commercial activity occurred in Delhi. Both parties held registrations; hence exclusivity was barred by Section 28(3). Delay and the rival's long use also weighed against interim relief.
Delhi High Court Awards ₹1.5 Lakh To Tommy Hilfiger Against Kolkata Trader Who Sold Fake Products
Case Title: Tommy Hilfiger Europe BV v. Partha Chatterjee
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1302/2018
With the Kolkata trader set ex-parte, Court ruled that infringement and passing off were established. Counterfeit goods bore identical marks. The Court awarded ₹1.5 lakh as notional damages.
Case Title: Parul Ruparelia & Anr. v. Camme Wang & Anr.
Case No.: IA GA-COM/1/2025 in IP-COM/11/2025
The Court held the Chinese manufacturer to be prior adopter and owner, supported by registrations and export records. The importer lacked goodwill and approached the court with unclean hands.
Case Title: Exotic Mile Pvt. Ltd. v. DPAC Ventures LLP
Case No.: Commercial Appeal No. 617 of 2025
The Court upheld the requirement that “formerly BOULT” appear on GoBoult products. It found prima facie similarity between “GoBoult” and “GoBold,” justifying protection of established goodwill.
Delhi High Court Summons Woodland's MD and Senior Manager In Trademark Infringement Suit
Case Title: Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Speedways Tyre Treads & Anr.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1155/2025
The Delhi High Court summoned the Managing Director and Senior Manager of Woodland to explain alleged non-disclosure of material correspondence in a trademark infringement suit. The Court found prima facie material suggesting concealment of relevant documents. It noted that such non-disclosure could affect the fairness of proceedings. Woodland was directed to deposit ₹30 lakh towards the value of seized goods.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Local Supplier From Using 'HIMALAYA' Mark For Ayurvedic Products
Case Title: Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v. Greenland Trading Company
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1693
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining Greenland Trading Company from using the “HIMALAYA” mark for ayurvedic products. The Court found deceptive similarity between the competing marks. It also noted that the case involved triple identity of mark, goods and trade channel.
Case Title: Marico Limited v. Minolta Natural Care and Others
Case No.: IA(L) 28667/2025 in Commercial IP (L) 28094/2025
The Bombay High Court restrained Minolta Natural Care from using packaging alleged to be deceptively similar to Marico's Parachute Jasmine and Hair & Care products. The Court examined the overall trade dress and visual appearance of the rival products. It held that the similarities were likely to confuse consumers.
Case Title: Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd. v. Jagpin Breweries Limited & Ors.
Case No.: Commercial IP Suit No. 19/2006
The Bombay High Court permanently restrained Jagpin Breweries from using the mark “COX 5000” for beer. The Court held that “5000” constituted the dominant feature of the well-known “HAYWARDS 5000” mark. It found prolonged and dishonest adoption by the defendants. Costs of ₹10 lakh were imposed for continued infringement.
Delhi High Court Stays Registration Of Mark Found Similar To Dabur's Pudin Hara
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Wellford Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1710
The Delhi High Court stayed the registration of the mark “Wellford Pudin Hara.” The Court found prima facie dishonest adoption and likelihood of confusion with Dabur's long-standing “Pudin Hara” mark. It observed that the competing marks were deceptively similar. Interim protection was therefore granted in Dabur's favour.
Case Title: Delhi Public School Society v. Delhi Public School International Bhiwadi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1695
The Delhi High Court restrained a school from using “Delhi Public School International,” “DPS,” and similar logos. The Court found that the marks were well-known and that their adoption by the defendants was dishonest. It held that such use was likely to mislead the public.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Marks Bearing Chandigarh Realty Firm's 'Elante' Trademark
Case Title: CSJ Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Akash Kohli & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1697
Allowing rectification petitions, the Delhi High Court directed removal of later “Elante” trademark registrations. The Court held that CSJ Infrastructure was the prior adopter and user of the mark. It found that the later registrations could not be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned marks were ordered to be removed.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Financial Companies From Infringing 'FEDEX' Trademark
Case Title: Federal Express Corporation v. Fedex Securities Private Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: IA 820/2021 in Comm IPR Suit No. 1406/2019
The Bombay High Court restrained the defendants from using “FEDEX” as part of their corporate names. The Court held that the adoption was dishonest and infringed a well-known trademark. It observed that such use could mislead consumers into believing an association with Federal Express.
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: APO/27/2022
The Calcutta High Court Division Bench restrained two advertisements challenged by Dabur India. The Court held that merely deleting the “42 ingredients” claim would not cure the overall disparaging effect. It found that the advertisements continued to denigrate Dabur's product. A complete injunction was therefore imposed.
Delhi High Court Revives Street One's Opposition To Registration Of the 'Street 9' Trademark
Case Title: Street One GMBH v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1704
The Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing Street One's opposition. The Court held that Street One's earlier registrations qualified as “earlier trademarks” under Section 11. It found that the Registrar had erred in law. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Case Title: Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/S Fly High Institute & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1713
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining use of the marks “FLY HIGH,” “FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” and similar variants. The Court held that “FLY HIGH” constituted the dominant and source-identifying part of Frankfinn's marks and that consumer confusion was likely. The injunction will remain in force until March 16, 2026.
Delhi High Court Restrains Mumbai Apparel Brand Using Logo Similar To Beverly Hills Polo Club
Case Title: Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Priyanka Alpeshbhai Polara
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1715
The Delhi High Court restrained an apparel business from using polo player logos found to be deceptively similar to the Beverly Hills Polo Club brand. The Court granted ex-parte protection after finding prima facie dishonest adoption likely to mislead consumers.
Delhi High Court Allows Au Naturel Beauty To Rebrand NEUDE As BE NEUDE In Dispute With Wet and Dry
Case Title: Au Naturel Beauty Private Limited v. Wet and Dry Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1716
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court permitted Au Naturel Beauty to rebrand from “NEUDE” to “BE NEUDE.” The Court held that use of the new mark as a single expression would sufficiently distinguish it from the rival “NEUD” mark. It directed discontinuation of “NEUDE” from June 1, 2026.
Delhi High Court Imposes ₹20 Lakh Costs On Instant Bollywood Founder In Trademark Dispute
Case Title: Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1722
The Delhi High Court imposed costs of ₹20 lakh after finding suppression of material facts relating to trademark ownership and prior knowledge of registrations. While holding the conduct to be improper, the Court declined to dismiss interim applications and noted prima facie acknowledgment of a 50% intellectual property right. Status quo on assignment was directed.
Case Title: Onesto Labs Private Limited v. Manishaben Bhaveshbhai Narigara & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1725
The Delhi High Court restrained manufacture and sale of FOXTEEL hair products after finding deceptive similarity with Bare Anatomy's trade dress. The Court noted identical packaging, identical goods and identical online trade channels. The injunction will remain in force until March 23, 2026.
Case Title: Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kartar Industries
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1726
The Delhi High Court directed payment of ₹2.5 lakh to HelpAge India and ₹2.5 lakh as costs and damages after finding obstruction of a court-appointed Local Commissioner. It permanently restrained the company from counterfeiting activities and held that interference with court processes cannot be tolerated.
Case Title: Malkit Singh Proprietor Makhan Fish Corner v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1732
The Delhi High Court set aside the Trade Marks Registry's order removing the “MAKHAN FISH CORNER” mark. It held that the decision was unreasoned and ignored material evidence. The rectification petition was remanded for fresh consideration without expressing any view on merits.
Delhi High Court Cancels Trademark Similar To Punjab Football Club Held By Apparel Company
Case Title: Punjab FC Private Limited v. Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1747
The Delhi High Court ordered removal of the “PFC” trademark after finding deceptive similarity and prolonged non-use. It held that the adoption appeared dishonest and likely intended to benefit from the football club's goodwill.
Case Title: Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd. v. Bata India Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1712
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction restraining use of the mark “POWER FLEX” for footwear. It held that consumers were likely to perceive it as a sub-brand of Bata's “POWER” mark.
Case Title: Surinder Kumar v. Rahul Khanna
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1742
The Delhi High Court held that IPR disputes involving overlapping issues may be transferred and heard together even if pending before non-commercial courts. It clarified that the IPD Rules do not curtail the Court's powers under Section 24 of the CPC.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Kataria Insurance Brokers From Using 'KATARIA' Trademark
Case Title: Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v. Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: IA No. 1663/2021 in Commercial IP Suit No. 215/2021
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief restraining Kataria Insurance Brokers Private Limited from using the name “KATARIA INSURANCE” or any other mark containing the word “KATARIA” for insurance-related services. The Court held that such use was deceptively similar to the registered trademark of Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy.
Case Title: Air India Ltd. v. Girish Basrimalani
Case No.: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 439/2022
The Bombay High Court directed removal of the trademark “VISTARRAAH” from the Trade Marks Register after finding it deceptively similar to Air India's “VISTARA” airline brand. The Court held that the disputed mark was phonetically identical and visually and structurally similar to “VISTARA.”
Madras High Court Rejects Jaipur Restaurant's Co-Ownership Claim To 'Dasaprakash' Trademark
Case Title: Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
The Madras High Court refused to recognise a Jaipur-based company as a co-owner of the “Dasaprakash” trademark. The Court held that the mark was a jointly owned family trademark and that no valid assignment or transfer had taken place in favour of the company. It upheld a 2009 order of the Trade Marks Registry rejecting the request to record co-proprietorship.
Bombay High Court Bars Chandigarh Firm From Using Bunge India's 'LOTUS' Mark For Edible Oils
Case Title: Bunge India Pvt. Ltd. v. Lotus Refinery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Commercial IP Suit No. 99/2012
The Bombay High Court permanently restrained Lotus Refinery Pvt. Ltd. from using the mark “LOTUS” or any deceptively similar mark for edible oils. The Court held that adoption of an identical mark for identical goods amounted to trademark infringement and passing off of Bunge India's registered trademark. It found that the rival company's conduct demonstrated a clear intent to ride on the goodwill and reputation associated with Bunge India's brand.
Case Title: Indian Express and Commercial Ventures and Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Fundamental Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: IA(L) No. 35432/2025 in Commercial IP (L) No. 35330/2025
The Bombay High Court refused to grant interim relief in a trademark infringement and passing off dispute involving the mark “HOM.” The Court held that no prima facie case was made out, noting that the acronym 'HOM' had not been shown to have acquired independent goodwill or public recognition. It further observed that both restaurants cater to a well-informed and discerning consumer base, making the likelihood of confusion unlikely.
Case Title: Dindayal Industries Ltd. v. Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr
Case No.: FAO (COMM) 15/2024
The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to Dindayal Industries Limited, a Madhya Pradesh-based manufacturer and seller of ayurvedic and herbal medicines, in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit concerning ayurvedic products.
The court restrained Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan, a Haryana-based ayurvedic products manufacturer, from using the mark “DINDAYAL” or any formative mark during the pendency of the suit.
Case Title: Havells India Limited & Anr. v. Cawels Electric Private Limited
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1122/2025
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Cawels Electric Private Limited, a Delhi-based electrical products manufacturer, from using the brand names “CAWELS” and “CAWELS ELECTRIC,” holding that they are deceptively similar to “HAVELLS,” the well-known trademark of Havells India Limited.
Case Title: Westend Green Farms Society v. Vicky Kakkar
Case Number: RFA(COMM) 196/2025
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed trademark and passing-off suits against neighbouring farmhouse owners filed by Westend Green Farms Society, which manages a gated farmhouse colony in south Delhi. The court held that merely displaying the name “WESTEND GREENS” on residential signboards did not amount to trademark infringement, as the use was not shown to be in the course of trade.
Calcutta High Court Temporarily Bars Use of 'Liv.72' Mark Over Similarity With Himalaya's Liv.52
Case Title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd v. Shimla Drugs Health Care Private Limited
Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/1/2025 In IP-COM/53/2025
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday temporarily restrained Shimla Drugs Health Care Pvt. Ltd. and its associate from using the mark “Liv.72” for a health product, holding that it is deceptively similar to Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd.'s well-known liver health product “Liv.52.” A single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed that the long-standing trademark and packaging associated with “Liv.52” had been prima facie infringed.
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Use Of 'Medilice Lice Killer' For Anti-Lice Hair Oil
Case Title: Shri Kirit Bhadiadra v. Wings Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Case No.: RFA(COMM) 149/2024
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an injunction restraining Rapple Healthcare from using the mark “Medilice Lice Killer” for its anti-lice hair oil, holding that it infringed and amounted to passing off of the registered trademark “MEDILICE” owned by Wings Pharmaceuticals Private Limited. The court, however, reduced the damages awarded to Wings Pharmaceuticals from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 3 lakh.
Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Order Restraining 'HP+' Mark Over Similarity With 'HP' Screw Brand
Case Title: Ganraj Enterprises & Ors. v. Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
Case No.: FAO (COMM) 66/2024
The Delhi High Court's division bench has upheld an interim order stopping Ganraj Enterprises, a Maharashtra-based maker of screws, from using the marks “HP+” and “HP®+” on its products. The court held that using these marks for self-drilling screws and related goods infringes the registered “HP” trademark owned by Landmark Crafts Pvt. Ltd
District Court Reports
Delhi Court Restrains Rampur Restaurant from Using 'Karim's Food', Awards Rs 2 Lakh to City Chain
Case Title: M/s Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Karim's Food
Case No.: CS (Comm) 51/2025.
District Judge restrained Rampur restaurant “Karim's Food” as phonetically/conceptually identical to Delhi Karim's, awarded ₹2,00,000 punitive damages and permanently restrained use.
Delhi Court Grants Panasonic Life Solutions Relief Against Fake 'Anchor' Products
Case Title: Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Gumber & Ors.
Case No.: CS (COMM) No. 2589/2022.
Court permanently restrained defendants from manufacturing/selling counterfeit “ANCHOR” products after raids/seizures; ordered each defendant to pay ₹75,000 and surrender infringing materials.
Delhi Court Bars 'Goldey' Brand for Being Deceptively Similar to Goldiee Masale
Case Title: Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. v. Rama Biswas
Case No.: CS (DJ) 525/2021.
District Judge barred a Tripura trader from using “Goldey” mark as deceptively similar to “Goldiee”; held phonetic/visual similarity and awarded ₹5,00,000 as costs for non-appearance.
Delhi Court Bars Andhra Trader from Using 'Lakshmi Plasto', Awards Rs 2 Lakh to RC Plasto
Case Title: RC Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. Srilakshmi Nalubolu
Case No.: CS (COMM) 638/2022.
District Judge permanently restrained use of “Lakshmi Plasto” as deceptively similar to “Plasto”; held “Plasto” had acquired distinctiveness through long use and awarded ₹2,00,000 damages.
Case Title: Mr. Pavan Jambagi v. Lemonpepper Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CS (COMM) 290/2019.
Court made ex-parte injunction absolute and permanently restrained Bengaluru restaurant from using “CARNATIC” (deceptively similar to “CARNATIC CAFÉ”); awarded ₹50,000 damages and ₹10,000 costs.
Delhi Court Restrains Surat Trader From Copying Garnier's Vitamin C Serum Packaging
Case Title: L'Oréal S.A. v. Yetish Kantibhai Shekhada
Case No.: CS (COMM) No. 478/2024.
District Judge permanently restrained trader for using trade dress/packaging deceptively similar to Garnier's “Bright Complete” serum; injunction made permanent and ₹2,00,000 damages awarded.
Case Title: M/s ME Testing Laboratory (METL) v. M/s M.E. Technology
Case No.: CS (Comm) No.: 126/23.
Commercial Court dismissed suit, observing that plaintiff company had concealed material facts and failed to prove prior use of the “ME” mark.
Delhi Court Awards ₹1 Lakh To Cosco Against Kolkata Firm For Selling Counterfeit Footballs
Case Title: Cosco India Ltd. v. M/s B.K. Traders
Case No.: CS (COMM) No. 1612/2019
A Delhi Commercial Court restrained the defendants from using the “COSCO” mark and logo on sports goods. The Court held that Cosco India was the registered proprietor of the mark. It found that continued use by the defendants amounted to infringement and passing off.
Delhi Court Restrains Global Operators Using 'Yoga Alliance' Name; Orders Google, Meta to Block URLs
Case Title: Swami Vidyanand v. Cristiana Amodei Chiarello & Ors.
Case No.: CS (COMM) No. 317/2025
A Delhi Commercial Court granted interim protection to the “Yoga Alliance” marks against foreign operators. The Court restrained use of identical or deceptively similar domain names and online identifiers. It also directed platforms such as Google, Meta and GoDaddy to block access to infringing URLs in India.
Delhi Court Lets Izuk Impex Challenge Validity of Health-Care Firm's '5 STAR' Trademark
Case Title: Izuk Impex v. M/s Five Star Health Care LLP
Case No.: TM 1450/16
The Court permitted challenge to the validity of the “5 STAR” mark under Section 124, holding the plea prima facie tenable. It rejected objections on delay and withdrawal, noting earlier cancellation petitions were dismissed without prejudice.
Copyright Act, 1957
Policy Development
The DPIIT released a working paper proposing a statutory blanket licence permitting AI training on lawfully accessed copyrighted works subject to payment of royalties. The proposal rejects both fair dealing expansion and a commercial text and data mining exception. Public comments have been invited within 30 days.
High Court Reports
Case Title: Marico Ltd. v. Prahalad Rai Kedia
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 417
The Court held the Everest label clearly distinguishable from Parachute's and dismissed Marico's plea for cancellation of Kedia's copyright registration.
Delhi High Court Restrains Websites Enabling Illegal Downloads Of Saregama India's Copyrighted Music
Case Title: Saregama India Ltd. v. En.ssyou.tube & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1519
The Court restrained numerous websites enabling illegal downloads (“stream-ripping”) of Saregama's copyrighted music and directed blocking of domain names and URLs.
Case Title: Sreedevi Video Corporation v. SaReGaMa India Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 434
A Division Bench held that the injunction claim was not automatically time-barred even though the declaratory relief was beyond limitation and remanded the matter for trial. The case concerned dispute over audio rights of soundtracks in certain Tamil, Telugu films.
Case Title: RS Infotainment v. Mini Studio LLP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 429
The Court temporarily restrained use of scenes and background music from the 2010 film, finding prima facie infringement of rights under Copyright Act.
Case Title: Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani & Anr.
Case No.: C.O.(COMM-IPD-CR) 16/2024
The Court cancelled a copyright registration for an edible oil label featuring a “Swastik” device, holding it substantially reproduced Rajani Products' earlier artistic work in layout, colouring and device placement.
Case Title: Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Ors. v. Karma Mindtech & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 914/2023
The Court held that inconsistencies or denials in an affidavit do not constitute perjury without unimpeachable evidence of deliberate falsehood. It refused Philips' request for criminal proceedings.
Case Title: Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Mythri Movie Makers
Case No.: OA 1103 of 2025; C.S. (Comm Div) 299/2025
The Court had reserved orders on interim injunction application, noting arguments on remixed songs and alleged unauthorised use. Ilaiyaraaja has approached the court seeking a permanent injunction restraining the producers of Dude movie from using his copyrighted works and mandatory injunction asking them to remove such infringing content from the movie.
Madras High Court Temporarily Restrains Makers Of "Dude" Movie From Using Songs Of Ilaiyaraaja
Case Title: Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Mythri Movie Makers
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
The Court granted an interim injunction restraining unauthorised use of Ilaiyaraaja's songs in the film “Dude,” pending disposal of the suit.
Case Title: Bignet Solutions LLP v. Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1094/2025
The suit was disposed of after Novex stated it claims no rights in pre-1965 sound recordings. As the event used only public-domain songs, the Court found that no cause of action survived.
Madras High Court Strikes Down Wrongful Copyright Entry Over 'Sagar Homeo Stores' Logo
Case Title: Mir Mahamood Ali v. Mir Mukkaram Ali
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 458
The Court directed expunging of copyright registration by rival trader, holding the store had earlier trademark and copyright registrations and continuous use. With trader set ex-parte, the erroneous entry was ordered to be removed.
Case Title: Mythri Movie Makers v. Dr. Ilaiyaraaja & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
The Court refused to vacate the interim restraint on use of three Ilaiyaraaja songs. It held the composer entitled to protect his works from distortion and rejected arguments on ownership and delay.
Case Title: Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Mythri Movie Makers
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 466
The Court decreed the suit based on settlement: the producer paid ₹50 lakh, may continue using songs in “Dude” and shall not use songs in “Good Bad Ugly.”
Case Title: Gajulapalli Mallikarjuna Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Revision Case No. 1840/2008
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging conviction for selling pirated audio cassettes. The Court upheld the findings of the trial court and appellate court, noting that the prosecution had established infringement under the Copyright Act. It observed that the evidence on record sufficiently proved unauthorised sale of copyrighted works.
Case Title: Rao and Sapru Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Alok Kumar
Case No.: IA-6542-2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 618/2025
The Bombay High Court restrained the singer from exploiting ten songs created under agreements with Rao and Sapru Films. The Court examined the contractual terms and held that the songs were commissioned works. It found that copyright vested with the production house and not with the performer. Accordingly, the singer was restrained from monetising or exploiting the songs.
Delhi High Court Bars 28 Websites From Streaming DAZN's Tyson Fury–Oleksandr Usyk Rematch
Case Title: DAZN Limited & Anr. v. Back.methstreamer.com & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1694
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained 28 websites from illegally streaming DAZN's exclusive boxing broadcast. The Court noted that the defendants had failed to appear despite service. It held that the averments in the plaint therefore stood admitted. On this basis, a permanent injunction was granted against the rogue websites.
Case Title: Saregama India Limited v. Black Madras Films & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1696
The Delhi High Court considered a dispute concerning copyright in a song used in the film “Mask.” The Court held that Saregama had established ownership of copyright in the disputed song. It directed the producers to either remove the song from the film or deposit ₹30 lakh before releasing the film on OTT platforms. The directions were issued to safeguard Saregama's copyright interests.
Case Title: S Chand and Company Ltd. v. Kaushal Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1696
The Delhi High Court restrained online sellers from selling pirated books published by S Chand. The Court found that counterfeit copies of textbooks were being offered for sale on e-commerce platforms. It directed Flipkart to take down infringing listings and to act upon future complaints made by the publisher.
Case Title: Elsevier Ltd. & Ors. v. Alexandra Elbakyan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1707
The Delhi High Court extended earlier blocking orders to additional mirror and redirect websites associated with Sci-Hub. The Court noted that the newly identified websites continued to provide unauthorised access to copyrighted academic content.
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Mohalla Tech Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1691
The Delhi High Court refused to return Zee Entertainment's suit on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that allegations of copyright infringement within Delhi were sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The suit was permitted to proceed before Delhi High Court.
Case Title: Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Dharma Production Private Limited
Case No.: IA(L)/41013/2025 in COMIP(L)/40870/2025
The Bombay High Court considered a plea alleging unauthorised use and remixing of the song “Saat Samundar Paar” in the forthcoming Hindi film without consent/license/payment of royalties. Replies were tendered and the matter was listed for further consideration on ad-interim reliefs. The production house sought injunctions and damages.
Case Title: Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Dharma Production Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Case Number: IA (L) NO. 41013/2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 717/2025
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday declined to grant ad‑interim relief to Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. in a copyright infringement suit concerning the use of the song “Saat Samundar Paar” in the upcoming Hindi film 'Tu Meri Main Tera Main Tera Tu Meri'. The court has refused to injunct the use of the song in the upcoming Dharma Products movie slated for a Christmas Release.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited v. K9 Films Private Limited
Case No.: IA(L)/41004/2025 In COMIP(L)/40866/2025
Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), a copyright society representing sound recording owners, has moved the Bombay High Court alleging unauthorised use of its music in Netflix's comedy show The Great Indian Kapil Show. It has sought urgent interim relief to stop further use of its copyrighted sound recordings.
District Court Reports
Delhi Court Closes ANI's Copyright Infringement Suit Against YouTuber Thugesh After Settlement
The Court decreed the suit based on a settlement and directed refund of court fees. ANI had alleged unauthorised use of its videos on YouTube.
Case Title: Regi Mathew v. Major A.K. Raveendran & Ors.
Case No.: Commercial Suit No. 404/2021
The Commercial Court, Kottayam held that the film “Karmayodha” infringed copyright belonging to Regi Mathew. It declared Regi as the author and copyright owner of the story, script and screenplay and awarded ₹30 lakh as compensation.
The Designs Act, 2000
Supreme Court Reports
Case Title: Bata India Ltd. v. Crocs Inc. USA
Case No.: SLP(C) No. 29920–29924/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Bata and others challenging Delhi High Court's judgment which held that suits filed by Crocs alleging passing off over infringement of latter's footwear designs registered under Designs Act were maintainable. It refused to interfere with Delhi High Court ruling that passing off action is maintainable with respect to a trade dress which is registered as a design under the Designs Act.
High Court Reports
Case Title: Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. v. Saklin Alias Prince
Case No.: CS (COMM) 1095/2025.
Single Bench granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining trader from manufacturing/selling counterfeit “Hero Genuine Oil” bottles that imitated Hero's registered bottle design; Local Commissioner appointed to seize products.
Case Title: S N Kapoor Export v. Saraswati Global Ltd.
Case No.: OOS-1/2019
The Court held a design infringement suit cannot be transferred to the High Court unless a cancellation plea is expressly raised under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act. Mere challenge to originality in a written statement is insufficient.
Case Title: Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Relaxo Footwears Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1529
The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's injunction after finding Relaxo's slipper designs novel under the “instructed eye” test and Aqualite's designs identical in configuration.
Indian Army Secures Exclusive IP Rights For New Digital-Print Combat Coat
The Army announced design registration of its digital-print combat coat design, securing exclusive rights under the Designs Act and warning against unauthorised reproduction or commercial use.
Personality Rights
High Court Reports
Case Title: Rajat Sharma & Anr V. Tamara Doc & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1454
Delhi High Court directed takedown of two YouTube channels found hosting and circulating deepfake and fabricated videos infringing the personality rights of senior journalist Rajat Sharma. The Court held that such action was essential to safeguard plaintiff's common law and statutory rights and to curb spread of misinformation.
Case Title: Jaya Bachchan v. Bollywood Bubble & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1194/2025
The Court granted interim protection to Jaya Bachchan against unauthorized use of her images, likeness and morphed content by several defendants, issuing injunctions and blocking orders. However, Court declined interim relief regarding use of her image in movie posters, noting that copyright belongs to film owners and that those parties must be heard before any direction.
Madras High Court Protects Personality Rights Of Musician Ilaiyaraaja
Case Title: Dr Ilaiyaraaja v. John Doe Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 432
The Court granted interim relief restraining unauthorised use of Ilaiyaraaja's name, image, likeness, voice and other attributes.
Case Title: Raj Shamani & Anr. v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1551
The Court restrained use of his name, image, likeness, voice forming elements of personality rights including through AI/deepfake content and ordered takedowns of infringing material.
Case Title: TV Today Network Ltd. v. Google LLC & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1531
The Court decreed the suit, restraining operation of a fake YouTube channel impersonating the journalist and misusing her videos and deepfake content.
Shilpa Shetty Moves Bombay High Court For Protection Of Her Personality Rights
The actor sought protection against unauthorised commercial exploitation of her AI-generated voice, deepfakes and likeness by various platforms.
Case Title: Ajay Alias Vishal Veeru Devgan V. The Artists Planet & Ors
The Court restrained misuse of Ajay Devgn's images, likeness and AI-generated content including deepfakes and directed takedown of obscene material.
Case Title: Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited v. Joy Crizildaa
Case No.: OA 904 of 2025
The Court declined to restrain Joy Crizildaa from tagging the catering company in her posts, noting she had not made statements about the company's business or commercial activities.
Case Title: Ajay @ Vishal Veeru Devgan v. The Artists Planet & Ors.
The Court granted ex-parte relief to Ajay Devgn against objectionable AI-generated content but clarified that complainants must first use IT Rules mechanisms. Direct court intervention without exhausting platform remedies may bar similar ex-parte relief.
Case Title: Konidala Pawan Kalyan v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court considered a complaint relating to AI-generated and impersonation content using the actor and Deputy Chief Minister's identity. The Court noted that the statutory mechanism under the IT Rules had been invoked. It directed social media platforms to act upon the complaint in accordance with the Rules.
Case Title: Sunil Gavaskar v. Cricket Tak & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1698
The Delhi High Court issued directions in a suit concerning unauthorised use of Sunil Gavaskar's name and likeness. The Court directed intermediaries to treat the suit as a complaint under the IT Rules. It required the platforms to decide the complaint upon receipt of specific URLs.
Case Title: Salman Khan v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1693
The Delhi High Court considered a plea relating to unauthorised use of Salman Khan's name and image. The Court directed intermediaries to process the complaint under the IT Rules framework. It also indicated that interim protection could operate against non-intermediary entities selling unauthorised merchandise.
Actor NTR Junior Moves Delhi High Court Seeking Protection Of His Personality Rights
Case Title: Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed social media and e-commerce platforms to act on the actor's complaint relating to unauthorised use of his identity. The Court reiterated that complaints must first be routed through intermediaries under the IT Rules.
Case Title: Ranganthan Madhavan v. G Fimlz Studioz & Ors
The Delhi High Court passed an interim injunction order protecting the personality rights of actor R Madhavan, including restrain on the sale of commercial merchandise using his image and likeness as well as takedown of obscene material. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the ad interim injunction order protecting the actor's personality rights, and restrained misuse of the his personality traits including his name, image etc.
Case Title: Sunil Gavaskar v. Cricket Tak & Ors
Delhi High Court passed an ad interim injunction order protecting the personality rights of former Indian cricketer Sunil Gavaskar. Court ordered take down of various listings pertaining to illegal and unauthorised sale of merchandise using Gavaskar's personality attributes. The judge also ordered removal of various social media posts available on Meta platforms and X (formerly Twitter) wherein uploaders had attributed incorrect quotes to Gavaskar.