The Delhi High Court has extended the time granted to Star Smith Export Pvt. Ltd. to comply with directions restraining it from using the trademark “STAR SMITH/STARSMITH”, its corporate name, and the domain name “www.starsmith.in”, pending consideration of its appeal.
The vacation Bench comprising Justice Sachin Datta and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar was hearing an appeal filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code, challenging a judgment dated December 24, 2025, passed in a commercial suit. By the impugned judgment, the Commercial Court had restrained the appellant from using the impugned mark, corporate name, and domain name, and had directed compliance, including a change of corporate name and shifting to a different domain.
In a suit seeking damages for defamation that has arisen from the use of a particular monologue in a trailer of the movie “Jolly LLB 2”, wherein one of the lead characters in the movie, played by actor Anu Kapoor, had sarcastically and in an extremely offensive tenor, taunted the lead protagonist i.e. applicant-defendant as being a lawyer who cannot stand up to him which lack of ability is sought to be inferred from the fact that the lead protagonist is wearing cheap footwear and poor quality apparel, the Delhi High Court clarified that the plea raised by the applicant, by referring to a few specific paragraphs of the plaint, that the plaintiff has not attributed defamatory acts to the applicant, cannot be read in isolation.
The Court found that in response to the offending language, the applicant (being the character that he plays), gives a hard slap to the character who spoke the monologue, which is in Hindi, a specific brand of footwear is named, and in its English translation by way of subtitles, the words used are “cheap footwear”. The brand spoken of in the monologue is “BATA”, which is the plaintiff herein.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr Ajay Gulati (Joint Registrar) observed that following the trailer’s release of ‘Jolly LLB 2’, the plaintiff issued a legal notice. Subsequently, a decree of permanent injunction was passed against the use of the brand BATA even before the movie’s theatrical release. As a result, the monologue was altered in the final movie, replacing the word ‘BATA’ with ‘phata’ (meaning torn). Accordingly, the Bench found that applications were filed seeking deletion from the array of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Delhi High Court has granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of actor R. Madhavan, restraining multiple online entities from misappropriating his name, image, likeness and voice through AI-generated deepfake content, fake movie trailers, morphed pornographic material and unauthorised merchandise.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Madhavan’s personality attributes, including his name ‘Ranganathan Madhavan’/‘R Madhavan’ likeness, voice, image and other aspects of his persona, have acquired distinctiveness, goodwill and commercial value through decades of work, making them legally protectable. The Court observed that unauthorised AI-generated content falsely suggests endorsement, infringes personality and publicity rights, and causes irreparable harm to reputation and dignity.
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Telugu actor Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao (NTR Jr.), restraining multiple online sellers and e-commerce platforms from unauthorised use of his name, image, likeness, and associated identifiers for commercial gain.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the plaintiff had made out a case of infringement of personality and publicity rights, noting that Jr NTR is a well-known public figure whose name and persona have acquired substantial goodwill through decades of professional achievement, brand endorsements, Filmfare awards, and trademark registrations. The Court observed that unauthorised sale of merchandise bearing the plaintiff’s identity was likely to cause confusion, deception, and irreparable harm to his reputation and commercial interests.
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief in favour of Allcargo Logistics Limited, restraining VRS All Cargo Packers and Movers Private Limited from using the marks “VRS ALLCARGO” and other deceptively similar variations, and directing suspension of multiple infringing domain names. Justice Tejas Karia noted that “to an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the Impugned Marks and the Subject Marks are likely to appear identical, thereby leading to confusion regarding the source or origin of the services offered thereunder.”
While reiterating that a domain name has all the characteristics of a trademark, and its registration can constitute infringement and passing off, the Delhi High Court emphasised that DNRs are not passive intermediaries. They actively profit by offering alternative infringing domain names, premium-priced domains based on well-known marks, and other value-added services. This active participation and profiteering from infringement make them complicit.
Finding that the infringing domain names were identical to the Plaintiff’s well-known and distinctive marks (‘COLGATE’, ‘COLPAL’) and were used to deceive the public, the Court granted a Dynamic+ interim injunction against the seven identified infringing domain names and any future infringing domains. This injunction restrained the use of the domain names, directed the DNRs to disclose registrant details and suspend the domains, along with a direction to the MeitY/DoT to issue blocking orders.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that a significant loophole was the mismatch between the account holder’s name registered with the bank and the name provided for billing to the DNR, with no verification mechanism in place. After multiple directions to the RBI and NPCI, the RBI issued a Circular mandating the implementation of a ‘Beneficiary Bank Account Name Look-Up Facility’ for RTGS and NEFT transactions. This facility allows the remitter to verify the beneficiary’s account name before initiating a transfer, thereby helping to prevent fraud.
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Pawan Kalyan, actor and Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister, restraining multiple online platforms, websites and unidentified entities from misappropriating his personality and publicity rights through unauthorised merchandise, AI-generated content, deepfakes and impersonation.
The suit alleged large-scale unauthorised commercial exploitation of Pawan Kalyan’s name, image, likeness, voice and persona across e-commerce platforms, social media, event websites and AI tools. The plaintiff contended that such use misled the public into believing endorsement or association and violated his proprietary personality rights.
After examining the pleadings and documents, the Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Pawan Kalyan, as a well-known public figure with significant commercial brand value, enjoys enforceable personality rights. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement where his attributes were being used for commercial gain without consent, including AI-generated voice replication, synthetic images, manipulated videos and the sale of merchandise.
Delhi HC Upholds Interim Injunction in ‘HP’ Trademark Dispute; Calls Defendant a “Rank Infringer”
The Delhi High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining Ganraj Enterprises (GE) from using the marks “HP+” and “HP®+” for self-drilling screws, holding that such use prima facie infringes the registered “HP” trademark owned by Landmark Crafts Pvt. Ltd. (LC). The Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the appeal filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, affirming the order of the Commercial Court, which had granted an injunction in favour of Landmark Crafts.
The Delhi High Court has granted a Dynamic+ interim injunction against the defendants in respect of seven infringing domain names and issued extensive directions to Domain Name Registrars (DNRs), Registry Operators, Government authorities and Banks to curb trademark abuse and online financial frauds facilitated through deceptive domain names.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that fraudsters routinely misuse well-known trademarks to create fake websites offering spurious distributorships and services, thereby cheating the public and evading enforcement through masked registrant details and rapidly changing domain names. The Court held that such conduct affects not only trademark owners but also consumers and public interest at large.
The Court, while expressly recording that a Dynamic+ interim injunction is granted against all Defendants, including Registrants and DNRs, in respect of the seven impugned domain names, issued structured and comprehensive enforcement framework.
The Delhi High Court has allowed ITC Limited to serve limited interrogatories and seek production of select documents from DAV Industries LLP in a commercial suit alleging trademark infringement, holding that such disclosure was necessary to enable the plaintiff to assess the scale of alleged infringing activities and quantify damages.
The Court observed that, in the absence of a written statement and given that a local commissioner’s exercise could not be completed due to alleged obstruction by the defendant, interrogatories had the potential to elicit admissions on material aspects of the case. It noted that the defendant, having offered no defence to the infringement allegation and having itself claimed extensive business operations, was bound to answer relevant interrogatories even if they supported the plaintiff’s claim.
However, the Court found that not all interrogatories and documents sought were relevant, holding that several queries amounted to an impermissible fishing and roving enquiry into third-party entities and internal operations unrelated to assessing infringement or damages.
The Bombay High Court granted perpetual injunctions in favour of the Plaintiff, Bunge India Pvt. Ltd. restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff’s registered LOTUS trademarks, passing off their products, using the trade name “Lotus Refineries,” and operating the domain name www.lotusrefineries.com.
The Bench comprising Justice Arif S. Doctor accepted the Plaintiff’s case as unrebutted, holding that the Defendants’ failure to contest confirmed dishonest adoption and inability to substantiate prior use. The Court held that the Defendants’ marks were visually and phonetically similar to the LOTUS marks for the same goods in Class 29. This squarely attracted Section 29(2)(c), entitling the Plaintiff to exclusive rights under Section 28.
The Bombay High Court allowed Air India’s rectification petition and ordered the removal/cancellation of the respondent’s registered mark “vistarraah” from the Trade Marks Register. The Bench comprising Justice Arif S. Doctor noted Respondent No.1’s non-responsiveness throughout the proceedings, the pattern of multiple filings and withdrawals, and the lack of any evidence of bona fide adoption or honest concurrent use.
The Court held that Air India is the prior adopter and registered proprietor of “VISTARA®” since 2014, and that the Delhi High Court’s declaration of “VISTARA®” as a well-known mark, coupled with its inclusion in the Registrar’s list, attracts special protection under Section 11(10) across all classes.
The Court found that “vistarraah” is phonetically identical and visually/structurally similar to “VISTARA®”. It noted that the stylisation of the respondent’s mark does not change the overall commercial impression, especially for the “average consumer with imperfect recollection,” making confusion likely.
While agreeing that a prima facie case of infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, stands established, the Delhi High Court affirmed the Single Judge’s order injuncting Leayan from using the “POWER FLEX” mark. The Court rejected Leayan’s arguments that ‘POWER’ lacks distinctiveness and “POWER FLEX” is descriptive, and held that “POWER” is distinctive for footwear, while “POWER FLEX” is not descriptive of the character or quality of Leayan’s goods, and therefore Leayan cannot claim the protection of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act.
The Court found that Bata is the registered proprietor of the ‘POWER’ mark since 1975, and the goods (canvas and leather footwear) are similar, falling in the same class (Class 25), and there is a likelihood of confusion and association in the mind of an average consumer. Additionally, the mark “POWER FLEX” wholly subsumes Bata’s mark “POWER”, increasing the likelihood of ‘initial interest confusion’.
The Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla agreed with the Single Judge that the evidence provided by Leayan to demonstrate goodwill and reputation in the “POWER FLEX” mark was “as good as Nil”, since the invoices did not mention the mark, and most advertisements were undated. The Bench also emphasised that the defence of acquiescence under Section 33 of the Trade Marks Act is only available to the proprietor of a registered trademark. Since Leayan’s mark is not registered, this defence is not available to it.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Novo Nordisk’s application for interim injunction restraining Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and OneSource Specialty Pharma from manufacturing and exporting Semaglutide, holding that the patent is prima facie vulnerable to challenge on grounds of obviousness and prior claiming.
The Bench comprising Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the prior art disclosure in the Genus Patent IN964 anticipated the claimed invention in the Suit Patent IN697, rendering it non-innovative and obvious. The court emphasized the fundamental patent law principle preventing evergreening of pharmaceutical patents through minor modifications.