The Delhi High Court decreed the trademark dispute between Mars and Cadbury in terms of a joint settlement, bringing an end to decades of global rivalry over the brand name “CELEBRATIONS.” The court recorded the amicable resolution and both companies’ voluntary decision to distribute confectionery worth Rs. 5 lakh each to Delhi schoolchildren as a Diwali goodwill gesture.
The Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula did not adjudicate on substantive trademark validity. By consent, the Court decreed the suit in terms of the parties’ settlement. All corresponding opposition, rectification, and registry proceedings concerning “CELEBRATIONS” were to be formally withdrawn.
As a symbolic conclusion, both Mars and Cadbury undertook to distribute confectionery assortments worth Rs. 5 lakh each to schoolchildren in Delhi government and government-aided schools under the supervision of the Directorate of Education (GNCTD) and the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA).
The Delhi High Court has restrained Wow Burger from using its mark, finding it deceptively similar to the registered trademarks of Wow! Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla set aside the order of the Single Judge, which had earlier refused interim relief to Wow! Momo.
The Bench held that the prefix “WOW” forms the dominant feature of Wow! Momo’s trademark family, including WOW MOMO, WOW DIMSUMS, and WOW MOMO INSTANT and the use of WOW BURGER by the respondent would likely confuse or suggest an association between the two brands. The Court clarified that even though Wow! Momo does not hold exclusive rights over the word “WOW” in isolation; its composite marks have acquired distinctiveness through long and extensive use.
3. Bombay High Court Vacates Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction in ‘Doctor Extra Soft’ Trademark Case
The Bombay High Court has vacated an ex parte ad interim injunction earlier granted in favour of the proprietor of the trademark ‘DOCTOR EXTRA SOFT’, holding that the Plaintiff had obtained the order by deliberately suppressing material facts.
Justice Meera Jadhav observed that the suppression was neither inadvertent nor immaterial but amounted to a fraud on the Court, undertaken to secure relief to which the Plaintiff was not entitled. The judge noted that even after the disclaimer was brought to light, the Plaintiff sought to prolong the injunction and initiate contempt proceedings, demonstrating a lack of bona fides.
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the entity Social Hubz from using the marks “Social Hubz”, “Maple Social Hubz”, or any other deceptively similar mark in relation to its hospitality and lodging services. The order was passed in a commercial IP suit filed by Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., owner of the well-known “SOCIAL” restaurant and café chain, alleging infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks.
The Court noted that Impresario is the registered proprietor of the mark “SOCIAL” and has used it extensively since 2014 across India for its restaurants and bars, thereby acquiring substantial goodwill and reputation. Despite being duly served, no one appeared for the defendant.
The Bombay High Court has granted ex parte interim protection to actor Akshay Kumar, protecting his personality rights against the unauthorised use of his name, image, and likeness through artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfake content. Justice Arif S. Doctor directed multiple social media platforms and e-commerce websites to immediately remove and disable access to all infringing material.
Justice Arif S. Doctor, after reviewing the record, expressed grave concern over the realistic nature of deepfakes and the potential societal harm they cause. The Court observed that the dissemination of fabricated videos showing the plaintiff making communal statements or misrepresenting religious figures was deeply alarming and posed “a grave threat to public order and to the safety and well-being of the plaintiff and his family.”
In a suit filed by Akkineni Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna) seeking a permanent injunction before the Delhi High Court, which was heard by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia, the offending websites were strictly directed to take down the infringing content and restrained from using or exploiting any attribute of Nagarjuna unauthorizedly through the use of any technology that would dilute his public persona.
The Court stated that the exploitation of one’s personality rights risks not only their economic interests but also their right to live with dignity, which causes them immeasurable harm, as the adoption of attributes such as a name or image inevitably confuses the public regarding endorsement by the plaintiff.
7. Allahabad High Court Upholds Interim Injunction Protecting Jubilant Generics’ Product Dossiers
The Allahabad High Court upheld a temporary injunction granted by the Commercial Court at Gautam Budh Nagar restraining Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., VS International Pvt. Ltd., and others from reproducing, using, or sharing the copyrighted Product Dossiers of Jubilant Generics Ltd. The Court dismissed Commercial Appeals filed by the defendants, affirming that Jubilant’s Product Dossiers developed through significant research and investment qualify as “literary works” under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that Jubilant established a prima facie case of copyright infringement and breach of confidentiality, as the defendants allegedly used the confidential dossiers for manufacturing drugs in India in violation of licensing agreements limited to Canada. The Court rejected the appellants’ plea of non-compliance with Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, observing that the suit sought urgent interim reliefs in respect of continuing infringement.
8. FSSAI Withdraws Orders Permitting Use of ‘ORS’ With Brand Names
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has withdrawn all orders and permissions that previously allowed food and beverage products to use the term “ORS” (Oral Rehydration Salts) alongside brand names, as notified on October 14, 2025. This change immediately cancels earlier regulatory permissions dated July 14, 2022, and February 2, 2024, which had enabled manufacturers to use “ORS” in trademarks or product names with specific disclaimers.
A follow-up clarification issued on October 15, 2025, further states that use of “ORS” in any form whether as a stand-alone term, with a prefix or suffix, or as part of a trademark or label is now considered deceptive, misleading, and in violation of Sections 23 and 24 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, as well as related regulations. All food business operators have been directed to remove “ORS” from their product names, trademarks, packaging, and advertisements, and to comply strictly with the legal and labelling standards.
The Delhi High Court heard a petition filed by popular Bollywood singer Kumar Sanu seeking an injunction against defamatory content uploaded by the defendants, which he claimed had tarnished his reputation as a singer and a well-known public figure. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed the removal of all profane content from the respondents’ social media platforms and issued necessary directions to ensure compliance.
The Court directed the counsels for Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube to review the URLs containing morphed content and take appropriate action in line with the IT Rules, 2021, and their internal policies.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Sabu Trade Private Limited and members of the Sabu family, thereby upholding the interim injunction granted in favour of Rajkumar Sabu concerning the use of the trademark “SACHAMOTI” and its associated label.
A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar found no reason to interfere with the order of the Single Judge dated March 5, 2024, which had restrained the appellants from using the disputed mark. The Bench observed that Rajkumar Sabu holds valid registrations over the “SACHAMOTI” mark and related artistic label under various classes since 2003, and that his claim was supported by documentary evidence demonstrating prior and continuous use.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal for patent infringement concerning the pharmaceutical compound Risdiplam, developed for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul stated that although the patent met the novelty requirement, it lacked an inventive step under Section 64(1)(f) of the Patents Act, 1970.
The Court noted that a compound is “covered” by a prior patent if it falls within a generic formula, but it is “disclosed” only if the prior patent explicitly reveals that compound.
The Bombay High Court allowed the plaintiffs’ interim application, restraining defendants from using the trademark “ROOKIE” or variants including “ROOKIE USA,” affirming the prior rights of the plaintiffs over the “ROOKIES” trademark.
The Bench comprising Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that despite registration in different classes under Sections 29(1) and 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act., goods and services of the parties are allied and targeted at the same consumer base.
The Delhi High Court has restrained Praveen Aminigadda, YouTuber operating the channel Sipp_Smart, from publishing or circulating a video disparaging Indospirit Beverages’ popular alcoholic drink BROCODE, observing that the unsubstantiated allegations in the video were prima facie defamatory and infringed the plaintiff’s trademark rights.
Justice Tejas Karia granted an interim injunction in the suit filed by Indospirit Beverages Pvt. Ltd. against Google LLC (operator of YouTube) and the content creator. The plaintiff alleged that a video titled “B Code Exposed!!” falsely claimed that BROCODE was “poisonous,” “deadly,” and “not fit for consumption,” misleading consumers and damaging its market reputation.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Mankind Pharma, restraining Brinton Pharmaceuticals from using the mark “ACNESCAR” or any mark deceptively similar to “ACNESTAR.” The Court held that both marks were phonetically almost identical and dealt with similar skincare and medicinal products, and minor differences in spelling, price, packaging, or target use (acne vs. scars) did not eliminate the likelihood of confusion. The Court also ordered Brinton not to release or sell existing stock under that mark during the pendency of the suit.
The Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that in the case of pharmaceutical and medicinal goods, a higher standard of protection applies because confusion can have health implications. It found that the Commercial Court’s reasoning was legally unsound, especially since Mankind’s trademark was registered and long used, while Brinton had no valid registration.
The Delhi High Court heard a trademark dispute case centred around the use of the mark “Princeton”, of the renowned appellant Princeton University. Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar expressed that instead of granting an interim injunction to the appellant, the respondents were directed not to open any new institution using the name “Princeton”.
The Court noted that although the respondents have used the mark since 1991, the word “Princeton” is a predominant, protectable part of the appellant’s mark, and differences in logos or fees do not remove the risk of confusion or dilute the appellant’s rights.
The Delhi High Court ruled that the adoption and use of the websites containing the well-known Mark ‘SAMSUNG’ is dishonest and a calculated attempt intended to create a false impression that those websites are authorised service centres of the Plaintiffs, and such activities have the tendency to cause confusion, deception, and potential reputational loss to the Plaintiffs if any deficiency arises from the services availed through those impugned websites.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia observed that the unauthorised use of deceptively similar variants of the reputed mark ‘Samsung’ thereto on rogue websites is likely to mislead consumers into believing an association with the Plaintiffs, and therefore, restrained the Defendants/ their partners, affiliates, from using the graphics, website design, logo and images of the Plaintiffs, and their website, including as part of domain.
17. Delhi High Court Grants Ad-Interim Injunction to Protect Barbie Trademark
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction to the plaintiff, the registered proprietor of the famous brand name “Barbie.” Justice Manmeet Singh Arora observed that, since Defendant No. 1’s services were visually, phonetically, and conceptually identical to the plaintiff’s products, a prima facie case was established in the plaintiff’s favour.
The High Court observed that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, who would suffer irreparable harm if an ad-interim injunction was not granted. The Court noted that the Defendant’s marks fell within Class 21, the same as the Plaintiff’s registrations, and that the dominant element “Barbie” was identical across the marks.
The Delhi High Court passed a favourable order granting an interim injunction to filmmaker and celebrity plaintiff Karan Johar in a suit concerning infringement of his personality rights, copyright, performer’s rights, publicity rights, and misappropriation and passing off. The Bench of Justice Manmeet Singh Arora held that a prima facie case was established in Johar’s favour, the balance of convenience lay with him, and irreparable harm would be caused to his reputation if relief was denied.
The Court observed that derogatory and obscene content could not be sheltered under free speech exceptions and that irreparable harm to Johar’s reputation justified immediate intervention. Accordingly, the Court issued an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from unauthorised use of Johar’s name, image, likeness, voice, for commercial purposes, including via AI, deep fakes, GIFs, or merchandise.