VICTORIA CROSS INDIA PVT LTD versus VICTRORINOX

In a commercial trademark dispute, Victoria Cross India Pvt Ltd lost a case before the district commercial court in Delhi and filed an appeal against the judgment passed on 23 March 2024, but the appeal reached the High Court 195 days late. The company sought to excuse the delay by explaining that the main decision-maker in the business had died in 2022, leaving his widow to handle everything for the first time while dealing with grief, that the partnership firm holding the rights had to be dissolved, that trademark ownership had to be transferred to the present appellant company, that directorship changes took time, and that obtaining the bulky trial court records also caused delay. The Delhi High Court examined these reasons and refused to condone the delay, holding that in commercial matters the law demands quick filing of appeals to ensure speedy resolution of business disputes, and a delay of 195 days is far too long to be excused unless it is very short and completely genuine with no negligence. The judges noted that the husband’s death had occurred almost two years before the judgment and that the steps taken after the judgment still left large unexplained gaps, so the explanations were not sufficient under Supreme Court guidelines that treat long delays in commercial appeals as the exception rather than the rule. The court therefore rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal outright without going into its merits.

Title: VICTORIA CROSS INDIA PVT LTD versus VICTRORINOX AG, Order date: 17.02.2026, Case Number: RFA(COMM) 532/2024 & CM APPL. 72308/2024, Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1459-DB, Name of court and Judge: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

NARINDER KHULLAR versus SUNNY CHAURASIA

In a rent control dispute pending before the trial court in New Delhi, Narinder Khullar challenged an order that suddenly released the case from the stage of judgment after the original judge had already heard full final arguments on 21 August 2025, reserved the matter for decision on 17 September 2025, and listed it several times for pronouncement without delivering the verdict. The predecessor judge was transferred on 17 October 2025 to another court, but the High Court’s transfer order clearly required all officers to pronounce any reserved judgments within two to three weeks regardless of the new posting. On 3 January 2026 the predecessor judge instead released the file back to the successor court, claiming some clarifications were still needed and further arguments should be heard. The High Court examined the record, noted that the matter had remained reserved for nearly four months without any valid reason for rehearing, and relied on earlier rulings holding that once arguments are concluded and a case is reserved, the same judge must pronounce judgment to avoid delay and comply with transfer rules. The court therefore set aside the release order and directed the entire file to be sent back to the predecessor judge, now posted as CJM at Shahdara Karkardooma Courts, solely for pronouncement of the judgment.

Title: NARINDER KHULLAR versus SUNNY CHAURASIA, Order date: 01.04.2026, Case Number: CM(M) 405/2026, Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2702, Name of court and Judge: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Grasim Industries Limited & Anr. Vs. Saboo Tor Private Limited

Grasim Industries and Ultra Tech Cement, part of the Aditya Birla Group, sued Saboo Tor Private Limited and others for trademark infringement and passing off, claiming the defendant was unlawfully using the well-known “BIRLA” name and “BIRLA TMT” on steel bars, TMT products and electric vehicles while the plaintiffs had been using “BIRLA” since 1988 for cement, construction materials and other goods. The single judge refused to grant any temporary ban on the defendant’s use of the name, holding that the plaintiffs had not placed enough documents on record to prove their connection to the Birla family business or their prior rights, and that the defendant had been openly selling its products under the mark for over 15 years without causing any confusion in the market, so the balance of convenience favoured allowing continued sales while directing the defendant to keep proper accounts of sales till the suit was decided. In the appeal before the division bench, the plaintiffs sought to bring on record certain old documents such as business transfer schemes, annual reports and trademark registration details that they said could not be traced earlier despite due diligence. After examining the pleadings, the law on additional evidence in appeals and the single judge’s reasoning, the Bombay High Court found that key statements in the original complaint linking the plaintiffs to the Birla Group had been overlooked and that the fresh documents were relevant and necessary to decide the matter fairly, therefore allowed the additional evidence to be taken on record so that the appeal could be properly adjudicated.

Title: Grasim Industries Limited & Anr. Vs. Saboo Tor Private Limited & Ors., Order date: 06.04.2026, Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.2849 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.39319 OF 2025, Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:8587, Name of court and Judge: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION, BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

NOVO NORDISK A/S & ANR. Vs. DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED

In a trademark dispute involving diabetes medicines, Novo Nordisk sued Dr Reddy’s Laboratories in the Delhi High Court claiming that the defendant’s use of the mark OLYMVIQ on similar injection products was infringing their registered trademark OZEMPIC and amounted to passing off. During the hearing the defendant immediately agreed to stop all manufacture, sale, promotion and use of OLYMVIQ in any form, withdraw all pending trademark applications for the mark and switch to a new name OLYMRA. The only issues left were the defendant’s existing ready stock of injections and the question of legal costs. The court accepted the defendant’s undertakings, noted that the product was a prescription drug for treating type 2 diabetes with no quality concerns, and allowed the sale of the existing stock within 30 days in the larger public interest; any unsold stock after that period was to be donated to a government hospital in the presence of Novo Nordisk’s representative. The judge also awarded Novo Nordisk 30 per cent of their claimed legal costs after deducting court fees, ordered full refund of the court fees paid, and decreed the entire suit as settled between the parties.

Title: NOVO NORDISK A/S & ANR. Vs. DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED, Order date: 30.03.2026, Case Number: CS(COMM) 317/2026, I.As. 8033/2026, 8035/2026, 8037/2026, 8039/2026, Neutral Citation: Not provided, Name of court and Judge: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI, HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

UNIQUE ENTERPRENUERS AND FINANCE LIMITED AND ANR Vs. REALLY AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED

In a trademark dispute, Unique Entrepreneurs and Finance Limited accused Really Agritech Private Limited of copying their "Ralli" brand name with a very similar "Really" mark for comparable agricultural products, claiming it amounted to infringement and passing off that was causing ongoing harm. The plaintiff rushed to court seeking an urgent temporary ban on the defendant's use of the name without first going through the mandatory mediation process required for commercial cases, arguing the issue needed immediate attention. The trial court however found that the plaintiff had actually known about the defendant's product for years, including through their participation in the same 2018 Pune trade fair and direct business discussions via WhatsApp messages in 2022 where product details and prices were shared, meaning the claim of sudden urgency was not genuine and facts had been suppressed. The single judge therefore revoked the permission to skip mediation, lifted the temporary order, and dismissed the injunction request. On appeal the division bench of the Calcutta High Court fully agreed, holding that there was no real need for urgent relief given the plaintiff's prior knowledge, and dismissed the appeal entirely.

Title: UNIQUE ENTERPRENUERS AND FINANCE LIMITED AND ANR Vs. REALLY AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR, Order date: 07.04.2026, Case Number: APDT/13/2025 With IP-COM/31/2024 IA No. GA-COM/1/2025, Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-OS:117-DB, Name of court and Judge: IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS APPELLATE DIVISION COMMERCIAL DIVISION, The Hon’ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK and The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

HELIOS LIFESTYLE LIMITED v. IDAM NATURAL WELLNESS PRIVATE LTD.

In a perfume trademark dispute, Helios Lifestyle Limited appealed an interim order passed by a single judge of the Delhi High Court on 11 March 2026 that restrained it from using the name OUD WHITE or any deceptively similar marks and packaging for its perfumes, which the respondent Idam Natural Wellness claimed infringed its registered WHITE OUD and BELLAVITA WHITE OUD brands along with their trade dress and bottle shapes. Idam had filed a suit alleging passing off and copyright infringement after Helios started selling similar products. The single judge granted the ex-parte ad-interim relief in favour of Idam pending further hearing. On appeal, the division bench observed that while the overall injunction appeared justified, Helios had raised a prima facie point that the order went too far by covering certain specific perfume variants shown in paragraph 29 of the judgment, as the plaint may not have contained the necessary foundational details about those products. Since Helios had already filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 to modify or vacate the injunction, which was listed for hearing on 30 April 2026, the division bench directed that till that date Idam shall not enforce the injunction against those particular perfumes. Helios was allowed to continue selling them but directed to maintain proper accounts of sales and file the statements before the single judge. The court also asked both parties to explore an amicable settlement through the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre and clarified that all other contentions remain open for final decision by the single judge after hearing both sides.

Title: HELIOS LIFESTYLE LIMITED v. IDAM NATURAL WELLNESS PRIVATE LTD. & ORS., Order date: 02.04.2026, Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2026, Neutral Citation: not provided, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

RITIK KUMAR v. R.H. AGRO OVERSEAS

In a rice trademark dispute, R.H. Agro Overseas, owner of the registered mark NAFIS for selling rice, sued Ritik Kumar for allegedly copying its brand and packaging with a similar mark NAFEEZA. The plaintiff claimed the marks and bag designs were deceptively similar, causing confusion among buyers. After the defendant’s products entered the market in December 2025, the plaintiff filed a commercial suit in January 2026 seeking an urgent injunction and appointment of local commissioners. On 2 February 2026 the trial court, without issuing notice to the defendant or hearing his side, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction stopping use of NAFEEZA and the similar packaging, while also appointing commissioners and exempting the plaintiff from pre-suit mediation.

The defendant appealed to the Delhi High Court arguing that passing such a final-looking injunction without any opportunity to be heard violated basic principles of fairness. The Division Bench agreed that the trial court should not have recorded the injunction application as finally “disposed of” at the ex-parte stage; it should have remained only an ad-interim order pending a proper hearing. The High Court found that the trial court had recorded sufficient reasons for granting temporary relief on the face of the papers (similar marks, identical goods and packaging), so the injunction itself was not set aside. However, to correct the procedural error and uphold natural justice, the court modified the order: the injunction continues as ad-interim only, the defendant must file his reply and written statement within one week, the plaintiff must file its rejoinder within the next week, and the trial court must decide the injunction application on merits within one month after pleadings are complete. The appointments of local commissioners and the exemption from pre-institution mediation were left untouched. All rights and arguments of both sides remain open for the final hearing.

Title: RITIK KUMAR v. R.H. AGRO OVERSEAS, Order date: 07.04.2026, Case Number: FAO (COMM) 79/2026 & CM APPL. 17286/2026, Neutral Citation: not provided, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

IMPRESSARIO ENTERTAINMENT AND HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. v. VARDHAMAN CHOKSI

In a high-profile trademark clash in the hospitality sector, Impressario Entertainment, the company running popular cafe chains such as Odeon Social, Colaba Social and various other “Social” branded outlets across India since 2014, succeeded in getting the Delhi High Court to cancel Vardhaman Choksi’s registered mark “Social House” for restaurant services. Impressario had argued that Choksi never genuinely used “Social House” for actual restaurants or related services in the registered class, even though he claimed prior use since 2011 for hosting events at his Mumbai club Escobar. Choksi countered that “Social” is a common everyday word that no one can monopolise and that any non-use was due to ongoing litigation, but the court found Impressario had built strong goodwill and actual business under its family of “Social” marks while Choksi failed to show genuine use in the correct class and appeared to follow a pattern of registering well-known marks without real commercial activity. The judge ruled that “Social” in the restaurant context is suggestive rather than generic for Impressario’s business and that Choksi could not claim special circumstances to excuse the lack of use. As a result the court ordered “Social House” removed from the trademark register and dismissed all of Choksi’s multiple petitions seeking to cancel Impressario’s various “Social” registrations.

Title: IMPRESSARIO ENTERTAINMENT AND HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. v. VARDHAMAN CHOKSI AND ORS. AND CONNECTED MATTERS, Order date: 10.04.2026, Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 72/2021, 93/2021, 96/2021, 98/2021, 194/2021, 212/2021, 264/2021, 269/2021, 283/2021, 333/2021, 406/2021, 47/2022, 135/2022, 150/2022, 152/2022, 197/2022, 200/2022, 254/2022, 259/2022, 284/2022, 552/2022 & 681/2022, Neutral Citation: not provided, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

K.S. OILS LIMITED v. SHIVANG EDIBLES OILS LIMITED

In a trademark dispute over the brand name Kalash used for edible oils, K.S. Oils Limited appealed an ex-parte order from the trial court that had stopped it from using the name and related labels. The fight traces back to assignments of rights from the same person, Gopal Das Garg, decades ago to K.S. Oils, which also held trademark registrations and used the brand extensively until it faced insolvency proceedings between 2017 and 2025. After the company was auctioned and revived in early 2025, Shivang Edibles Oils Limited claimed it had received a fresh assignment in January 2026 and had been selling under Kalash since 2017, arguing K.S. Oils had abandoned the mark. The trial court granted an urgent injunction in February 2026 without hearing K.S. Oils, finding a case of passing off. On appeal, the Delhi High Court examined the chain of documents, earlier registrations, annual reports showing long use by K.S. Oils, and the fact that the mark was treated as an asset during insolvency. The Division Bench ruled that the trial court should not have passed an ex-parte order because both sides claimed rights from the same source, K.S. Oils had strong prior documents and registrations on record, and the matter required both parties to be heard first. The court set aside the injunction, directed the trial court to decide the application afresh after allowing pleadings and hearing both sides, and asked K.S. Oils to keep proper sales records in the meantime.

K.S. OILS LIMITED v. SHIVANG EDIBLES OILS LIMITED AND ANR., 30.03.2026, FAO (COMM) 69/2026 & CM APPL. 14636/2026, CM APPL. 14639-14642/2026, Neutral Citation not provided, High Court of Delhi, Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

TASTE BOX v. JSF HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED

In a trademark battle in Kerala, JSF Holdings Private Limited, the company behind the well-known Lazza ice cream and food brand used since 1990, sued Taste Box for opening a restaurant-cum-bakery under the name Hazza at Kalamassery near Ernakulam. The company claimed Hazza was too similar to Lazza in sound, spelling and colour scheme, likely to mislead customers and ride on its goodwill even though the businesses focused on slightly different food services. After the Ernakulam Additional District Court granted a temporary injunction in September 2025 stopping Taste Box from using the name, the restaurant owner appealed to the Kerala High Court arguing the marks were different enough, their restaurant specialised in Malabar and Middle Eastern cuisine, and no real confusion existed. Justice S. Manu examined the overall look, sound and business overlap, applied settled principles from Supreme Court cases on how ordinary customers remember brands, and found a strong prima facie case of deceptive similarity and passing off. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured protecting Lazza’s reputation and that allowing Hazza to continue would cause irreparable harm to JSF Holdings. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the injunction against Taste Box using the disputed name.

Title: TASTE BOX v. JSF HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, Order date: 10.04.2026, Case Number: F.A.O.No.1 of 2026, Neutral Citation: 2026: KER : 32745, Name of court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, Judge: Justice S. Manu.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

GURBAAZ PRATAP SINGH MANN v. KUNWAR RAGHAV BHANDARI

In a Delhi High Court ruling, professional golfer Gurbaaz Pratap Singh Mann sued Kunwar Raghav Bhandari and others claiming they copied his original fast-paced team golf format called Shot Squad League or The Smash League. Mann had created the game in 2019 with unique rules like team play, player specializations for different shots, limited holes, time limits and special drop zones to make golf quicker and more exciting for players and fans; he registered the detailed rules as a literary work with copyright and ran his first tournament in 2020 where one defendant even took part. He accused the defendants of launching a very similar IGPL Flash Golf or Smash Format event in June 2024 using an information sheet that copied his game mechanics, rules and even the name, and also raised claims of trademark infringement, passing off and breach of confidence after some defendants had earlier discussed collaboration with him. After both sides presented detailed arguments on whether game rules and formats can be protected by copyright, the court examined side-by-side comparisons of the two formats and found no substantial copying of Mann’s original expression since many elements were common variations already seen in golf and the defendants’ version differed in key details. The judge held that the plaintiff failed to show a strong prima facie case of infringement, there was no proven breach of confidentiality as the format had been publicly demonstrated, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants continuing their event without causing irreparable harm to Mann during the suit. The interim injunction application was dismissed, though the defendants’ earlier undertaking not to use the word “Smash” and to stick with “Flash” remains in place.

GURBAAZ PRATAP SINGH MANN v. KUNWAR RAGHAV BHANDARI AND ORS., 10.04.2026, CS(COMM) 700/2024, Neutral Citation not provided, High Court of Delhi, Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs Future Brands Limited & Future Entertainment Private Limited,

In a high-stakes commercial dispute involving restructured loans worth hundreds of crores, asset reconstruction company Phoenix ARC sued Future Brands Limited and its group firm Future Entertainment Private Limited in the Bombay High Court. Phoenix ARC had taken over loans given to Future Entertainment and claimed that Future Brands, which owns popular brands like Spunk, Buffalo, RIG and AFL, had promised to pump in Rs 250 crore as equity into Future Entertainment to help repay the debt. This promise was part of a restructuring deal that also extended brand licensing agreements generating royalty income as security for the loans. When Future Brands failed to inject the equity and the licensing deals were about to expire in July 2025, Phoenix ARC rushed to court seeking a mandatory order to force the equity infusion and an injunction stopping Future Brands from selling, transferring or dealing with the brands until the money was paid. Future Brands raised a preliminary objection arguing the suit should be thrown out at the very beginning because Phoenix ARC had not properly completed the mandatory pre-institution mediation process required under the Commercial Courts Act before filing the case. The defendants claimed Phoenix ARC had suppressed facts about abandoning the mediation and that no real urgency existed. After examining the pleadings, notices, mediation timelines and the looming expiry of the brand agreements that would wipe out Phoenix ARC’s security for over Rs 500 crore in dues, Justice Gauri Godse held that Phoenix ARC had genuinely started the mediation process in March 2025 but urgent interim relief became necessary once the three-month mediation window lapsed and the licensing deals were about to end. The judge ruled there was no material suppression of facts, the suit was maintainable despite the mediation not reaching a final report, and the preliminary objection for outright rejection of the plaint was dismissed. The court allowed the commercial suit and the interim application to proceed for further hearing on the merits of the equity infusion and brand restraint prayers.

Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs Future Brands Limited & Future Entertainment Private Limited, 15.04.2026, COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 124 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 20363 OF 2025, Not Provided, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri Godse

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

PepsiCo Inc Vs Parle Agro Pvt.Ltd

In a trademark dispute between beverage giants, PepsiCo and its Indian arm sued Parle Agro for using the tagline “For The Bold” in its B Fizz drink advertisements and packaging, claiming it infringed their registered rights and caused confusion in the market. The Delhi High Court had earlier passed a detailed order in September 2023 partially restraining Parle from using the tagline as the main focus in new ads, barring changes to product labels without court approval, directing removal of specific old social media posts, and requiring Parle to file regular sales revenue certificates every two months. When PepsiCo later found some old 2022 posts still visible on Parle’s X/Twitter and Instagram accounts and noticed that the sales reports had not been filed on time, they moved a fresh application accusing Parle of deliberately disobeying the court’s directions and seeking punishment including possible jail time for Parle and its officers. Parle argued the leftover posts were old, forgotten items removed as soon as the application was filed, amounting only to an honest oversight rather than intentional defiance, and that the delayed sales reports caused no real prejudice since the full trial on damages was still far away. After hearing both sides and examining the affidavits and evidence, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that the failure to remove the two old social media posts appeared to be an inadvertent mistake rather than willful disobedience, so no punishment was warranted on that count. However, the court found Parle’s complete non-compliance with the clear direction to file sales revenue certificates every two months to be a serious and unambiguous breach of its order, showing disregard for judicial authority. To uphold the dignity of court directions without escalating to full contempt proceedings, the judge imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on Parle payable to the Bharat Ke Veer charity within three weeks and directed the officer who filed the affidavits to tender an unconditional apology to the court within four weeks. The application was disposed of accordingly while the main trademark suit continues.

PepsiCo Inc Vs Parle Agro Pvt.Ltd., 15.04.2026, CS(COMM) 268/2021, Not Provided, High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

More than Water Pvt Ltd Vs Mesco Ltd

In a dispute over packaged drinking water sold in eco-friendly paper boxes, More Than Water Private Limited sued Nesco Limited in the Delhi High Court claiming that Nesco was passing off its product by using the very similar name “My Water Box” after the plaintiff had been selling its own “Water Box” and “More Than Water Box” brands since 2018 through its predecessor company. The plaintiff argued it had built strong reputation and customer goodwill over the years with steady sales and promotions, while Nesco had dishonestly copied the core part of its name and packaging to confuse buyers. Nesco defended itself by saying it held an official trademark registration, the plaintiff’s sales evidence was weak and unreliable with questionable invoices and gaps in regulatory approvals, and there was no real proof of substantial goodwill or confusion in the market. After carefully examining the sales records, promotion expenses, packaging designs and regulatory documents, the court found that the plaintiff had not been able to show clear, continuous and substantial market presence or goodwill dating back to 2018, while several of its key documents raised doubts about their authenticity. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela therefore refused to grant any temporary ban on Nesco’s use of its “My Water Box” mark, saying the plaintiff had failed to make out a strong enough case at this early stage for an interim injunction, though the full trial on the passing-off claim will continue.

More than Water Pvt Ltd Vs Mesco Ltd, 15.04.2026, CS(COMM) 125/2026, Not Provided, High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Flipkart India Pvt Ltd Vs Marc Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.

In a trademark battle between two companies in the electrical goods sector, Marc Enterprises, which has been manufacturing and selling items like fans, geysers and irons under its 'MARC' brand since the early 1980s with official registrations dating back to 1984, sued Flipkart India Private Limited after the e-commerce giant began using the very similar name 'MARQ' (stylised as marQ) in 2017 for its own large appliances such as televisions, washing machines and microwave ovens sold exclusively on the Flipkart website. Marc claimed the names were confusingly alike in sound, spelling and overall look, likely to mislead ordinary customers into thinking the products came from the same source. The trial court in Delhi agreed and issued an injunction in October 2018 stopping Flipkart from using the 'MARQ' name. Flipkart appealed to the Delhi High Court, arguing that the marks were different enough especially when shown alongside the prominent 'Flipkart' house brand, that its products were sold only online where buyers search carefully, and that no real confusion was possible. After examining the long prior use by Marc, the close phonetic and visual similarity of the two names, the fact that both companies deal in allied electrical goods reaching the same customers through common trade channels, and the absence of any strong evidence from Flipkart to prove honest adoption, the court found the trial court's decision was reasonable and not perverse. Justice Tejas Karia dismissed Flipkart's appeal on 10 April 2026, upheld the injunction against using the 'MARQ' mark, but allowed the company until 15 May 2026 to clear existing stock from the market.

Flipkart India Pvt Ltd Vs Marc Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., 10.04.2026, FAO-IPD 46/2021, CM APPL. 46817/2018 & CM APPL. 54484/2018, Not Provided, High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Shubham Goldie Masale Vs Jai Shiv Oil Industries

Shubham Goldiee Masale Private Limited, a company based in Kanpur that has been making and selling spices and food products under the GOLDIEE brand since 1980, went to the Delhi High Court asking to cancel two trademark registrations held by Jai Shiv Oil Industries for the similar looking and sounding GOLDI label marks used on edible oil and animal feed products. The company said the GOLDI marks were far too close to their own well known GOLDIEE brand in sound, look and feel, which could easily confuse ordinary shoppers into thinking the goods came from the same source, especially since both companies sell food items through the same shops and distribution networks. After looking at the petitioner’s old registration papers, strong sales records showing steady growth over the years, newspaper advertisements and proof of long continuous use, and noting that the respondents never showed up in court or filed any reply despite being properly served, the court agreed the marks were deceptively similar and that an average customer with ordinary memory could get misled. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela therefore ordered the GOLDI trademarks to be cancelled and removed from the official register so they could no longer remain alongside the petitioner’s earlier rights.

Shubham Goldie Masale Vs Jai Shiv Oil Industries ., 08.04.2026, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 393/2021, Not Provided, High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Entero Healthcare Solutions Limited Vs Registrar Of Trade Marks

Entero Healthcare Solutions Limited challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register their mark ENTERO for pharmaceutical and healthcare products. The company had applied for the mark after using it honestly and continuously since 2018 across India, building significant reputation through sales, advertising, and presence in the market.

The registrar rejected the application because it was similar to an earlier registered mark EnteroGG, believing it could confuse the public. Despite the company submitting detailed evidence of their long use and noting that the other mark was not being used, the registrar's order did not address these points at all.

The Bombay High Court examined the matter and found the registrar's decision to be unreasoned and lacking proper consideration of the law that allows registration of similar marks in cases of honest concurrent use. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and directed that the application be reconsidered afresh by a different registrar to ensure a fair decision.

Entero Healthcare Solutions Limited Vs Registrar Of Trade Marks: 23.03.2026:Commercial Miscellaneous Petition (L) No. 27100 of 2025, 2026:BHC-OS:7875, Hon'ble Justice Arif S. Doctor, J.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Crystal Crop Protection Limited Vs Sudpita Dey, Assistant Controller of Patents

In a patent dispute involving agricultural chemicals, Crystal Crop Protection Limited approached the Delhi High Court after the Assistant Controller of Patents rejected their application for an insecticidal composition made with specific amounts of two well-known active ingredients, Fipronil and Emamectin Benzoate, in a suspension concentrate form.

The company had filed the patent application back in 2010, arguing that this particular mix provided better pest control across a wide range of crop-damaging insects at lower doses, reduced costs, and was kinder to the environment compared to separate products already on the market.

Several opponents filed pre-grant challenges between 2017 and 2021, and after hearings the controller turned down the patent in January 2022, saying the invention was not new, did not involve any inventive step, and failed other legal tests under the Patents Act.

Crystal Crop Protection claimed the controller’s order simply copied the opponents’ arguments without giving proper independent reasons and asked the court to quash the refusal and send the application back for a fresh look.

After examining the complete file, the prior Chinese patents cited by the opponents, and the arguments from both sides, the High Court found that the controller’s conclusions on lack of novelty and lack of inventive step were fully reasoned and supported by evidence—the earlier documents already described very similar combinations of the same two ingredients in comparable strengths and forms.

The court therefore saw no reason to interfere with the refusal and held that the invention did not qualify for patent protection. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Crystal Crop Protection Limited Vs Sudpita Dey, Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs:08.04.2026:C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 86/2022:2026:DHC:2926:Hon'ble Justice Shri Tushar Rao Gedela.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Colgate Palmolive Company Vs Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.

Colgate Palmolive and Anchor Health and Beauty Care found themselves in a courtroom battle over toothpaste packaging designs. Anchor had been selling its product under the name Anchor White Allround Protection since 2005 and in 2007 filed a suit claiming that Colgate’s new Strong Teeth carton copied similar words and looks, unfairly interfering with Anchor’s business.

While the case was still going on, Anchor received official registration for its Allround trademark in 2008. Four years after starting the case and more than three years after the registration, Anchor asked the court in 2011 to update its papers and add a fresh claim of trademark infringement based on that registration. The single judge allowed the change, but Colgate appealed to the higher bench.

The Delhi High Court examined the matter and found that the proposed update would completely alter the basic nature of the original lawsuit from a claim about general unfair business practices to a full statutory infringement case, which could unfairly harm Colgate’s defence.

The judges noted that Anchor had waited far too long to seek this change even though the registration had come early in the case, and allowing it now risked problems with time limits for such claims. The court therefore set aside the single judge’s order, rejected the amendment application, and directed Anchor to pay costs to Colgate.

Colgate Palmolive Company Vs Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., (2016) 65 PTC 69 (DB)

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Bennett Colemann and Co Vs E Entertainment

Bennett Coleman and Company Limited challenged two trademark registrations of the "E!" mark owned by E Entertainment Television LLC in India, arguing the marks lacked distinctiveness and had not been properly used in the country.

In the Delhi High Court proceedings, the company filed applications seeking permission to cross-examine the respondent's witness, whose affidavit supported the claimed use and reputation of the marks.

The court dismissed both applications, holding that trademark rectification cases are normally decided on written affidavits and documents alone, with cross-examination allowed only in rare cases where strong reasons are shown.

Court found no specific doubts raised about the public records or company documents exhibited, noting that cross-examination is not an automatic right and would turn these summary proceedings into unnecessary full trials. The cases have now been listed for further directions.

Bennett Colemann and Co Vs E Entertainment: 10.03.2026:C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 86/2022 :2026:DHC:2010: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor