Britannia Industries Ltd Vs Desi Bites Snacks P Ltd

Britannia Industries Ltd filed a lawsuit against Desi Bites Snacks Pvt Ltd and others seeking a permanent injunction to stop them from using the 'GOOD DAY' trademark on confectionery like soan papdi, claiming they only became aware of this use in October 2024, and initially obtained a temporary court order halting the defendants' sales without notice, but this was later lifted by mutual agreement in February 2025 and the case was sent for mediation. Later, Britannia applied to amend their complaint to include details of a prior 2018 rectification petition against a related 'GOOD DAY' registration for papad and to add Jai Food Products and its proprietor Roop Chand Agarwal as new defendants, arguing they were necessary for resolving the full dispute since Roop Chand held a 2005 trademark registration for 'GOOD DAY' on papad and was a director of Desi Bites. In response, Desi Bites and another defendant filed an application accusing Britannia and its representative Omar Waziri of perjury for deliberately hiding prior knowledge of Roop Chand's mark and misrepresenting Desi Bites as a new entrant to create false urgency, pointing to errors in company details and addresses in the original filing. The core dispute centered on whether Britannia's omissions were intentional lies warranting criminal perjury proceedings and if the court should allow the amendments and additions of parties. The court reasoned that perjury requires clear evidence of deliberate falsehood for personal gain, but here the mistakes stemmed from genuine confusion over similar company names on product packaging versus official records, with no proof of intent to deceive, especially since Britannia's signer joined in 2021 unaware of the 2018 proceedings, and suppressing facts inadvertently did not justify perjury as it must be exceptional and based on unimpeachable evidence rather than suspicion. On amendments, the court noted they should be liberally granted to address the real issues without procedural barriers unless mala fide, and here they clarified the dispute without prejudice. Similarly, adding the new parties was essential as Roop Chand's registration and role made them key to fair adjudication. The court dismissed the perjury application, approved the plaint amendment and impleadment of the new defendants, directed filing of updated documents and responses, and set timelines for further steps.

Britannia Industries Ltd Vs Desi Bites Snacks P Ltd & Ors., 28/02/2026, CS(COMM) 983/2024, Not available, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Do not 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

Vardhman Trusteeship Pvt Ltd Vs Smt Jyotsana Dubey

Vardhman Trusteeship Pvt Ltd, a company providing trusteeship services, acted as debenture trustee for loans totaling Rs.77 crores taken by Defendant No.2, a tech solutions firm, with Defendant No.1's New Delhi property mortgaged as security through deposit of title deeds after its purchase in 2006 following inheritance and conversion to freehold, and various agreements like debenture trust deeds, hypothecation, share pledges and personal guarantees were executed in 2023 and 2024, but breaches occurred leading to default notices in October 2025 demanding over Rs.40 crores with Defendant No.2 admitting liability via email in January 2026 without payment, prompting the Plaintiff to file a commercial suit in February 2026 seeking a mortgage decree for Rs.3.91 crores based on property valuation, sale of the property, permanent bar on redemption and costs, along with an application for exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act claiming urgency to prevent third-party interests, and another for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC to restrain alienation of the property. The core dispute was whether the suit contemplated urgent interim relief to exempt it from mandatory pre-institution mediation. The court reasoned by referring to Supreme Court precedents like Patil Automation emphasizing the mandatory nature of Section 12A unless genuine urgency exists, Yamini Manohar requiring courts to scrutinize if urgency is not a disguise based on plaint averments, Novenco finding urgency in continuing IP infringements as each act is a fresh wrong, and Chandra Kishore stating urgency is determined by the plaintiff's pleadings, but found in this case the claims of urgency were vague and bald since the property was already mortgaged with no evidence of imminent third-party creation, distinguishing it from ongoing wrongs, thus no real urgency warranted exemption. The court dismissed the exemption application, returned the plaint with liberty to refile after mediation, and disposed of all pending applications.

Vardhman Trusteeship Pvt Ltd Vs Smt Jyotsana Dubey & Anr., 24/02/2026, CS(COMM) 177/2026 & I.A. 5022/2026 & I.A. 5023/2026 & I.A. 5024/2026 & I.A. 5026/2026 & I.A. 5027/2026, Not available, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad.

Disclaimer: Do not 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

International Business Machines Corp Vs Tivoli Gardens

International Business Machines Corporation, known as IBM, a global tech company, acquired the 'TIVOLI' trademark in 1996 from Tivoli Systems Inc. and has used it for decades in IT management software, applying for its registration in India in 2003 under Class 42 for computer services. Tivoli Gardens, a hospitality business using 'TIVOLI' and 'TIVOLI GARDENS' marks since 1994, opposed this application in 2006, claiming prior use. IBM filed a counter-statement in 2011, which the Trade Marks Registry served on Tivoli Gardens in 2019, requiring them to submit evidence within two months or face abandonment of their opposition. Tivoli Gardens failed to do so until 2022, when they filed evidence late along with a petition to excuse the delay, blaming their former lawyer and COVID-19 disruptions. The Registrar allowed this petition in April 2025, reviving the opposition. IBM appealed to the Delhi High Court, arguing the rules set strict, non-extendable deadlines and the Registrar had no power to condone such a long delay. The core dispute was whether the Registrar could overlook the two-month evidence filing deadline under the Trade Marks Rules (either 2002 or 2017 versions, as both are mandatory). The court examined records showing proper service in 2019, ruled that the deadlines are absolute with no discretion for extension, noted Tivoli Gardens' pattern of delays in this and other cases, and held that blaming a lawyer isn't enough excuse without the party's own diligence. The court decided in IBM's favor, setting aside the Registrar's order, deeming the opposition abandoned, and allowing IBM's trademark application to proceed after over 22 years of wait.

International Business Machines Corp Vs Tivoli Gardens & Anr., 28/02/2026, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 45/2025 & IA Nos.19415/2025 & 26937/2025, Not available, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Do not 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

FinTree Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs Fintree Finance Pvt. Ltd.,

FinTree Education Pvt Ltd, which runs finance education courses and registered the trademark “FINTREE” in 2012 for its services, sued Fintree Finance Pvt Ltd in 2019 for copying the same name on its finance business and asked for an immediate stop order. The defendant opposed the injunction. In 2021 the plaintiffs added a passing-off claim by amending the plaint (allowed in 2023), but later realised some supporting documents and a clear prayer for passing off in the injunction motion were missing. In 2025 they filed this second amendment application to add fresh documents (updated registration, new invoices, client reviews, website screenshots, branch proofs) and clarify pleadings. The defendant strongly opposed, arguing six years had passed, most documents were available earlier, the plaintiffs were careless, and the strict disclosure rules of the Commercial Courts Act do not allow late additions without strong reasons. The judge examined the Commercial Courts Act rules on document disclosure, noted that some documents genuinely came into existence only after the suit or were needed to answer the defendant’s defence, while others were available earlier and could not be added now. He held that at the pre-trial stage amendments to pleadings should be allowed liberally if they help decide the real dispute without changing its basic nature, and intellectual property cases deserve protection against ongoing infringement. On 20 February 2026 the Bombay High Court partly allowed the application: it permitted the new documents that came into existence later and the clarificatory pleadings/amendments in the plaint and injunction motion for passing off, but rejected the older documents that should have been filed earlier; no costs were awarded.

Title: FinTree Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs Fintree Finance Pvt. Ltd., Order date: 20 February 2026, Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 8377 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 234 of 2021, Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC:OS:5031, Name of court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in its Commercial Division, Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arif S. Doctor.

Disclaimer: Do not 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

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Zee Laboratories Ltd

GlaxoSmithKline, a big global healthcare company with over 100 years in India, sells antibiotic capsules called PHEXIN since 1985 under a registered trademark and distinctive green-and-white packaging to treat infections. In 2025 it found Zee Laboratories selling skin ointments under very similar sounding names FEXIT, FEXIT-B and FEXIT-M with almost identical green-and-white boxes. GSK sent legal notices asking Zee to stop, but Zee ignored them, so GSK filed a suit in Delhi High Court and asked for an immediate order to stop the use. Zee agreed in court to drop one name FEXIN straight away but fought the others, claiming the names are different, the products are totally different (capsules versus ointments), they have been selling since 2007 without any complaints, the prefix FEXI is common in the market, and there is no real confusion because doctors prescribe both. GSK replied that in medicines even small sound-alike names are dangerous, the first part of the name matters most, doctors’ handwriting is often bad, pharmacists can mix them up, and delay does not matter when copying is dishonest. The judge compared the names and packaging, noted they sound almost the same and look alike, said medicines need extra strict protection because mistakes can harm health, found GSK has strong reputation from long use and advertising, ruled the prefix is not proven common in actual trade, and held Zee gave no good reason for choosing such similar names. On 28 February 2026 the court granted the interim injunction, stopping Zee, its directors, dealers and everyone connected from using FEXIT, FEXIT-B, FEXIT-M or any similar mark or green-white packaging for ointments until the full trial, because GSK made a strong case, balance of convenience favoured GSK, and delay would harm its goodwill.

Title: Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Zee Laboratories Ltd. , Order date: 28 February 2026, Case Number: CS(COMM) 896/2025, Neutral Citation: None assigned, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Do not 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

Terix Computer Service India Pvt. Ltd. Vs TPM Guru Pvt. Ltd.

Terix Computer Service India Pvt Ltd runs an IT maintenance business across the world using its own special software and tools that it developed since 2002. In 2021 it noticed many clients suddenly stopping renewals and discovered that two of its own directors had secretly started a new company called TPM Guru Pvt Ltd, diverted over 115 client contracts worth more than ₹3.70 crore, used Terix staff and parts to serve those clients, copied Terix software, and even froze Terix bank accounts to force an “exit” deal. Terix filed a civil suit in Delhi High Court asking for an order to stop the copying and for damages. The new company and the directors filed an application saying two earlier written agreements (one from 2020 called Collaboration Agreement and one from 2021 called Exit Agreement) contained clear arbitration clauses that required all disputes to be decided by a private arbitrator in Noida instead of court. Terix objected, arguing the case was about copyright theft (which courts alone should decide), the agreements were invalid or already finished, and not every defendant had signed them. The judge carefully read the agreements, the plaint, and Supreme Court rulings like Vidya Drolia and Cox & Kings. He found that the heart of the fight arose directly from the business relationship created by those agreements, the copyright claims were tied to what happened under the contract and not purely a public right, and even non-signatories could be included because the whole matter formed one connected transaction. On 28 February 2026 the court allowed the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, referred the entire dispute to arbitration, and the civil suit was sent to the arbitrator for final decision.

Title: Terix Computer Service India Pvt. Ltd. Vs TPM Guru Pvt. Ltd. , Order date: 28 February 2026, Case Number: CS(COMM) 783/2025, Neutral Citation: None assigned, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Do not 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

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs Rakesh Goyal

Hindustan Lever (now Unilever) and Procter & Gamble are giant companies that make everyday products like Fair & Lovely cream, Sunsilk shampoo, Lux soap, Ponds, Ariel detergent, Head & Shoulders and many more, all sold with special packaging and famous brand names. In 2002 and 2003 police raids at the shops of Rakesh Goyal and his family in Delhi caught them selling cheap fake copies of these exact products, packed in almost identical bottles and boxes. Even after the raids the defendants kept making and selling the counterfeits, so the companies filed this lawsuit in 2018 asking the court to stop them forever, punish them and make them pay for the losses. The court quickly gave a stop order in 2005 that stayed till the end, framed issues, and later the defendants stopped coming to court and gave no evidence or reply. The judge studied the trademark registrations, copyright in the packaging designs, raid seizure memos and the companies’ huge sales records, and found that the fakes were clearly copied to trick customers and ride on the real brands’ reputation. On 28 February 2026 the court passed a final decree permanently stopping Rakesh Goyal, his family and anyone connected with them from making, selling or advertising any fake versions of these products, ordered them to jointly pay Rs 2,50,000 as damages within four weeks (with 9% interest if late) and also made them pay the companies’ full actual legal costs.

Title: Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs Rakesh Goyal , Order date: 28 February 2026, Case Number: CS(COMM) 256/2018, Neutral Citation: None assigned, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Do not 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

Novartis AG Vs Noviets Pharma

Novartis AG, a global pharmaceutical giant, has been using its famous trademark “NOVARTIS” in India since 1996 and built huge reputation through massive sales and advertising. In 2024 it discovered a Bihar-based group called Noviets Pharma selling medicines and veterinary products under the very similar name “NOVIETS” on websites like IndiaMart. Novartis sent legal notices and opposed their trademark but received no proper reply, so it filed a suit in the Delhi High Court asking for an immediate order to stop the use. The defendants argued the court had no jurisdiction because their business is in Bihar, the marks look and sound different, and they only use “NOVIETS” as a company name, not a brand. The judge first ruled that Delhi has jurisdiction because the defendants’ IndiaMart page lists a Delhi address and their online presence reaches customers here. He then compared the two marks and found “NOVIETS” is so close to “NOVARTIS” in spelling, sound and look that ordinary buyers, especially with doctors’ handwriting, could easily mix them up — especially dangerous for medicines. Novartis proved its strong goodwill with huge sales figures, while the defendants could not explain why they chose such a similar name and had even tried to register it themselves. The court said this was a clear case of trademark infringement and passing off, the balance of convenience favoured Novartis, and any delay would harm its reputation. On 28 February 2026 the court granted the interim injunction, stopping the defendants and everyone connected with them from using “NOVIETS” or any similar mark for pharmaceutical or veterinary products until the full trial is over.

Title: Novartis AG Vs Noviets Pharma , Order date: 28 February 2026, Case Number: CS(COMM) 218/2024 & I.A. 5655/2024, Neutral Citation: None assigned, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Do not 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

Associated Broadcasting Company Limited Vs Google LLC

Associated Broadcasting Company Limited, which runs TV9 news channels, uploaded videos on YouTube about real events like hurricanes, heavy snow, floods, the Israel-Hamas war and a Chinese spy balloon, using very short clips of raw footage to explain the news to the public. Some American and Turkish media companies claimed copyright in those tiny clips and sent repeated strike notices to YouTube, threatening to shut down TV9 channels if the videos stayed up. TV9 said the clips were too small to matter, showed only plain facts of nature and current affairs that no one can own, and were used fairly just for honest news reporting. When TV9 tried to talk, the companies demanded secret business records and later filed a case in America but quietly dropped it against TV9’s channels. Google, as the platform owner, stayed neutral and only followed its rules. The companies never filed any reply or appeared in the Delhi High Court despite being served many times, so the court treated their claims as untrue. The judge looked at the videos and saw the clips lasted only seconds inside much longer news stories full of TV9’s own commentary, making the use fair and too tiny to harm anyone under Indian law. On 28 February 2026 the court gave summary judgment without needing a full trial, declared that TV9’s videos do not infringe any copyright, and permanently stopped the companies from sending any more groundless threats or strike notices against these videos.

Title: Associated Broadcasting Company Limited Vs Google LLC & Ors , Order date: 28 February 2026, Case Number: CS(COMM) 9/2024 & I.A. 21020/2025, Neutral Citation: None assigned, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Do not 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

Innovative Derma Care Vs Vardhman Sakincare Pvt. Ltd.

Innovative Derma Care sells skin care products under the trademark Clariwash and sued Vardhaman Skincare Private Limited and another company in 2018 after discovering they were selling face wash under the same name. The commercial suit in the trial court at Tis Hazari dragged on for nearly six years with mediation attempts, framing of issues in February 2025, and the plaintiff first listing only its owner as a witness before successfully adding three more witnesses in March 2025. In April 2025 the plaintiff filed another application to add two extra witnesses — Mr Amit Chopra who had been unwell and Mr Gulshan Kumar who travels frequently for work — but the trial court rejected it, noting the case was already the oldest pending matter, the plaintiff had already increased its witnesses from one to four, and there was no strong reason why these two names could not have been included earlier. The plaintiff then approached the High Court under Article 227 claiming the law allows parties to bring their own witnesses without prior permission if evidence is still open and citing a Supreme Court ruling that technical delays should not block important witnesses. The High Court examined the records, found no medical proof or other documents to support the excuses of illness and travel, observed that the names could have been listed much earlier anyway, and agreed with the trial court that the plaintiff itself was causing the delay in a six-year-old case by repeatedly expanding its witness list. Therefore on 28 February 2026 the High Court dismissed the petition, refused to interfere with the trial court’s order, and held that the two additional witnesses cannot be examined so the suit can proceed without further postponement.

Title: Innovative Derma Care Vs Vardhman Sakincare Pvt. Ltd.: Order date: 28 February 2026, Case Number: CM(M)-IPD 47/2025, Neutral Citation: None assigned, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Do not 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

Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. Vs Assistant Controller of Patent and Design

Crystal Crop Protection Ltd wanted a patent for a ready-to-use weed killer made by mixing two chemicals called halosulfuron-methyl and metribuzin in specific amounts to control weeds in crops like sugarcane. The patent office examined the application and rejected it after two opponents argued that the mixture was not a new invention, did not show any special extra power beyond what the two chemicals already do on their own, and was just an ordinary blend without real improvement.

The company appealed to the High Court of Delhi. During the appeal one opponent asked to add old public records from America and research papers showing very similar weed-killer mixes already existed years before. The court first allowed those extra papers because they were important for deciding the case fairly. After hearing everyone and studying the old records, the judge found that the company’s own test results only proved better weed control when more chemicals were used, not because the two worked together in a surprising new way. Experts in farming chemicals would have easily thought of this mix from what was already known, so there was no inventive step.

The mixture also fell under the rule that stops patents for simple combinations that just add up properties without synergy. The patent office order was clear, complete and correct, so the court saw no reason to change it.

Title: Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. Vs Assistant Controller of Patent and Design :28.02.2026: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 19/2023:2026:DHC:1828, Tejas Karia, H.J..

Disclaimer: Do not 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