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 All corresponding opposition, rectification, and registry proceedings concerning “CELEBRATIONS” were to be formally withdrawn.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).
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.
The Court noted that these cases were not one-off instances but part of a large-scale fraud, wherein a Special Investigation Team, IFSO, was constituted by the Delhi Police to investigate. Since a major challenge for law enforcement was the delay by banks in providing information sought for investigations, the Court directed the RBI and the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure timely and efficient sharing of information with Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs).
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 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.
Calcutta HC Cancels Registration of ‘JAY’S’ Trademark for Confusing Similarity to the ‘LAY’S’ Mark
The Calcutta High Court allowed the petition filed by PepsiCo and cancelled the registered trademark “JAY’S” owned by the respondent, holding it phonetically identical and deceptively similar to PepsiCo’s registered trademark “LAY’S” and thus liable for cancellation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Bench comprising Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur emphasised that close similarity, visually or phonetically, suffices to prove infringement or grounds for cancellation. The Court observed that “JAY’S” and “LAY’S” are phonetically identical and could deceive the public despite differing packaging or getup.
The Court observed that the registration of “JAY’S” contravened Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act due to its deceptive similarity with “LAY’S”. The respondent failed to provide any justification or credible evidence to maintain their registration.
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 that the use of WOW BURGER by the respondent would likely cause confusion 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.
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.
The order came in a suit filed by the actor seeking protection of his personality rights, moral rights, and right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, as well as under the Copyright Act, 1957.
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.”
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 Bench reproduced the single paragraph of reasoning from the trial court, which had dismissed the injunction request by noting differences in price, class, and packaging, and calling it a case of ‘textbook case of trademark infringement’, emphasised that this “bare-bones” reasoning ignored the settled legal test under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, whether an average consumer would likely be confused by similarity of marks.
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 the appellant had established a prima facie case and demonstrated use of its mark “Princeton” in India, including through Indian students enrolling at the University and dissemination of information about its services. It clarified that under Section 2(2)(c)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, protection is available even if services are not directly provided in India.
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.
Accordingly, the Court opined that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience was in their favour, as the Defendants’ activities were likely to mislead consumers and cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation.
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.
The Delhi High Court recently granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the Calvin Klein Trademark Trust (Plaintiff) and appointed a Local Commissioner to execute seizure operations at the defendant’s premises, who was found to have been manufacturing & selling apparel bearing deceptively similar Calvin Klein marks. The Court also directed the matter to be listed on December 15, 2025.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia noted that there was a real and imminent likelihood that the defendant may take immediate steps to dispose of, conceal, or suppress its infringing business operations and digital footprints bearing the deceptively similar trademark, and in view of the plaintiff’s request for urgent ex-parte ad-interim injunction along with appointment of Local Commissioner, granted exemption from advance service to the defendant.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by Saint Gobain Glass France against the refusal of its patent application by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. Justice Amit Bansal upheld the Controller’s reasoning, observing that the data failed to establish any meaningful advancement over prior art. One comparative example already achieved identical performance parameters like solar factor, light transmission, and reflection values.
The Court observed that the appellant failed to provide the data required under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 to demonstrate any technical advancement of the claimed invention. It noted the insufficiency of supporting parameters in the expert affidavit and the subsequent shifting of values.
Delhi HC Grants Temporary Injunction To Novartis Based On Triple Identity Test
The Delhi High Court recently granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Novartis AG (Plaintiff) and restrained Novasis Healthcare (Defendant) from using the impugned marks, finding the adoption of deceptively similar trademarks by defendants to be ex facie dishonest, while listing the matter for final hearing on December 17, 2025. The Court also granted an exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia characterised the present case as a case of “triple identity” where the mark is identical, the product category is identical, and the trade channel as well as the consumer base is identical. The Bench therefore held that the impugned marks adopted by defendants were visually, phonetically, structurally, and deceptively similar to plaintiffs’ trademark ‘NOVARTIS’, likely to confuse unwary consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection regarding the source or origin of goods.
The Delhi High Court held the websites Sci-Hub and its sister site Sci-Net as “rogue” for facilitating massive copyright infringement and directed authorities to block access to these sites in India. The Bench, comprising Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, relied on Supreme Court precedents and prior judgments by Delhi and foreign courts, categorising Sci-Hub as a “rogue” website due to its primary objective to facilitate copyright infringement. It emphasised that blocking individual URLs is ineffectual, given frequent domain and URL shifts; thus, blocking the entire site is necessary.
The Court noted the defendant’s deliberate circumvention of court orders by using Sci-Net and further facilitating piracy despite legal restraints. The defendant’s attempt to separate Sci-Net from Sci-Hub was rejected, as both sites are controlled by the same operator, which is evident from documentary proofs. The Court also underscored the importance of adhering to copyright laws to protect academic publishers and the integrity of intellectual property.
In conclusion, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and Ministry of Electronics & IT (MeitY) were directed to issue notifications and orders blocking the domains sci-hub.ru, sci-hub.se, sci-hub.st, and sci-net.xyz from Indian ISPs within 72 hours. Internet service providers must enforce immediate site-blocking upon receipt of orders.
Delhi High Court issues Dynamic Injunction against ‘Premji Invest’ Impersonators
The Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to stop numerous websites, apps, and WhatsApp groups from fraudulently using the “Premji Invest” name. The ruling, from Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, found that the defendants’ use of the “Premji” mark and impersonation of senior management was a deliberate attempt to deceive the public, causing significant harm to both the plaintiffs and unsuspecting investors.
As a result, the Court took strong action, directing the domain registrar to suspend the fraudulent websites. It also ordered Google to remove the fake apps, Meta to take down deceptive ads, and WhatsApp to block impersonating groups and numbers. Banks were instructed to freeze the fraudulent accounts and provide KYC details. MeitY and DoT were directed to disable nationwide access to the infringing websites and apps.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction restraining the defendants and their associates from using the marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’, and ‘DESTINY PRO’, or any identical or deceptively similar variants, for electric scooters and related goods.
The Bench comprising Justice Tejas Karia held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte injunction. The Court opined that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff and that continued use of the impugned marks by the defendants would cause irreparable harm, both in terms of goodwill and loss of brand distinctiveness, that could not be compensated by damages.
Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants and all acting for or on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or promoting goods under the marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’, and ‘DESTINY PRO’, or any mark identical or deceptively similar to the registered marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’, and ‘DESTINI PRIME’, for any goods or services under Classes 12 and 37.
Delhi High Court declares ‘NUTELLA’ a Well-Known Trademark; Grants Decree in Infringement Suit
The Delhi High Court granted broad civil and financial reliefs in a trademark suit brought by the plaintiffs, Ferrero SPA and group companies, against the defendant, and conclusively declared the ‘NUTELLA’ trademark a ‘well-known’ mark in India under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Bench comprising Justice Saurabh Banerjee reviewed Ferrero’s global and Indian brand presence, dating back to Nutella’s global launch in 1964 and Indian market roots since at least 1975 (date of trademark registration). The Court took note of Nutella’s unique branding, packaging, and advertising; huge sales and advertising spends in India; numerous global recognitions as a well-known mark; and its Indian trademark registrations across multiple classes. The Court, emphasising the consumer protection aspect of the case, observed that infringing acts with food items demand a heightened standard of scrutiny due to risks to public health.
Applying Section 2(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, the Court declared ‘NUTELLA’ a ‘well-known trademark’ in India, citing its long-standing recognition, registration history, extensive use and promotion, and prior recognition from international IP organisations. Significant damages of Rs. 30 lakhs were awarded to the plaintiffs, along with Rs. 2 lakhs in legal costs.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application by Defendant No. 3 under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction, holding that a demonstrated “offer for sale” of the allegedly infringing product within Delhi was sufficient to confer jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC.
Justice Amit Bansal held that at the stage of deciding an Order VII Rule 10 application, the court must assume the plaint’s averments to be true. The plaint clearly pleaded an offer for sale in Delhi, supported by an investigator’s affidavit, email correspondence, and an undisputed link between Defendant No. 1’s Sales Manager and the quotation. The Court held that Agroharvest’s role did not negate jurisdiction since the offer originated from Defendant No. 1’s authorised personnel.
Relying on Section 48 of the Patents Act, the Court clarified that actual sales are unnecessary, an offer for sale alone is enough to establish part of the cause of action, and the physical location of the offeror or offeree in Delhi is immaterial. Accordingly, the application was dismissed, with the Court noting that the issue of jurisdiction may still be revisited after trial.
Delhi Court grants injunction to ANI against ‘Pathfinder by Unacademy’ for Copyright Infringement
The Commercial Court at Patiala House, New Delhi, presided over by District Judge Hemani Malhotra, granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. in a copyright infringement suit filed against the YouTube channel Pathfinder by Unacademy and Google LLC. The Court restrained the defendants from reproducing, uploading, or distributing ANI’s original video content without authorization.
The Court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour. The Court observed that irreparable harm would be caused to ANI if interim protection was not granted, particularly given the scale of dissemination and the commercial reach of the infringing channel.
Accordingly, the Court passed an interim order restraining Pathfinder by Unacademy from posting, publishing, uploading, distributing, or otherwise using ANI’s original videos or any other copyrighted content across any platform, including YouTube. The channel was also directed to remove all infringing material. Google LLC, the platform provider, was directed to take down, block, and disable access to any infringing content hosted on the channel, as prayed in the plaint.
The Delhi High Court granted a dynamic injunction in favour of Reliance Industries Limited, restraining the sale of any unauthorised product bearing the RELIANCE or JIO trademarks across major e-commerce platforms. The order was passed in a suit filed by Reliance against 21 entities engaged in the unauthorised manufacture and sale of FMCG products using its well-known trademarks, as well as against popular online marketplaces including Amazon, Flipkart, Snapdeal, Meesho, MyDukaan, VyapaarTimes, and IndiaMart.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee found that the infringing entities had not only adopted deceptively similar trademarks but had also copied Reliance’s packaging, including its layout, font, and artistic elements, with the clear intent to mislead consumers. Notably, the infringing goods included edible items like poha, which are consumed by a wide and diverse group of consumers, including those from rural and semi-literate backgrounds. The Court emphasized that the nature of these goods heightened the risk of consumer confusion and potential harm, warranting greater judicial caution.
The Delhi High Court set aside the 2018 order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which had granted exclusive Geographical Indication (GI) rights over the term “PISCO” to the Republic of Peru. The Court ruled in favour of the petitioner, Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G., a Chilean producers’ association holding that both Chile and Peru are entitled to protection for the term “PISCO” under Indian GI law as homonymous geographical indications.
Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the IPAB had erroneously dismissed Chile’s claim and referred to its version of the drink as mere “Chilean liquor.” The Court clarified that under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, there is no requirement for exclusive origin or historical priority. It emphasized that GI protection—unlike trademark rights—is a collective, regional entitlement based on geographic association, not on prior use or misappropriation.
Importantly, the Court recognized the concept of homonymous GIs, i.e., geographical indications that are identical in name but relate to products from different regions. Referring to Section 10 of the GI Act and India’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, the Court drew parallels with coexisting Indian GIs like “Banglar Rasogolla” and “Odisha Rasagola.” It concluded that a similar arrangement is appropriate for “Chilean PISCO” and “Peruvian PISCO,” especially since consumer confusion can be mitigated through clear labelling and disclosure.
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to renowned playback singer Sonu Nigam, restraining a Bihar-based individual from using the name “Sonu Nigam” as his display name on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). The Court passed the order in a commercial intellectual property suit filed by the singer, who alleged unauthorised use of his name, image, and persona by Defendant No. 1, who identified himself as “Sonu Nigam Singh.”
Justice R.I. Chagla noted that Defendant No. 1 had intentionally dropped his surname “Singh” from the display name while using the handle @SonuNigamSingh, thereby creating a misleading impression among the public. The Court was shown various instances where the Defendant posted politically charged and controversial statements using the display name “Sonu Nigam” and the Plaintiff’s photograph, causing members of the public to mistake the account as belonging to the singer.
Justice Chagla held that Sonu Nigam’s name had acquired distinctiveness akin to a trademark and that the Defendant’s conduct amounted to misrepresentation and passing off. The Court also found that the Defendant’s refusal to clarify his identity, coupled with active engagement under false pretences, pointed to mala fide intent.
In a major interim relief to Amazon Technologies Inc. (ATI), the Delhi High Court stayed a single-judge ruling that had directed the company to pay ₹336.02 crore (approximately $39 million) in damages to Lifestyle Equities CV and Lifestyle Licensing BV. The order under challenge arose from a trademark infringement suit concerning the use of a mark allegedly deceptively similar to the ‘Beverly Hills Polo Club’ (BHPC) logo.
A Division Bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul granted the stay while hearing an appeal filed by ATI [RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025]. Notably, the Bench dispensed with the usual requirement of a pre-deposit, citing significant procedural lapses and violations of natural justice in the trial proceedings. Instead, Amazon was directed to provide an undertaking to honour the damages award if the appeal fails.
The Delhi High Court entertained a personality rights suit filed by Bollywood actor Abhishek Bachchan and granted him an injunction. The Court observed that the defendants were selling and advertising products using his image, thereby infringing upon his brand value. It held that such protection was necessary to safeguard Mr. Bachchan’s personality rights, considering his stature as a prominent figure in Indian cinema.
The Court referred to previous similar cases, including Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914; Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, (2022) 6 HCC (Del) 641; Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store, (2024) 2 HCC (Del) 253; and the case heard on the previous day with Aishwarya Rai Bachchan as the plaintiff in Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors. The Court held that there was a sufficient prima facie case to grant an ex-parte interim injunction in favour of Mr. Bachchan.
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.