Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: January 12-18, 2026
Ayushi Shukla
19 Jan 2026 6:00 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Mankind Pharma Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 34
Mayank Jain, Proprietor Of Mahaveer Udyog v. M/S Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 35
Zydus Lifesciences Limited v. E.R. Squibb And Sons, LLC & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 37
Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr v. Dabur India Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 38
People Interactive India Private Limited v. Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 25
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v. Foregen Healthcare Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 15
Bhole Nath Foods Ltd v. Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 40
Living Media India Limited And Anr v. Charcha Aaj Ki, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 42
Flipkart Internet Private Ltd v The Joint Controller of Patents and Designs, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 16
Phonographic Performance Limited v. Pass Code Hospitality P Ltd & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 43
E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 17
Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v. M/s. Stanford Siyaram Fashion P Ltd & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 30
Viacyte Inc v. Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 16
Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited v. Rajiv Mukul & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 32
Bikaji Foods International Limited v. Jagaranath Prasad and Anr, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 17
Indospirit Beverages Private Limited v. Ravi Mohan Studios Private Limited, CS(COMM)-1104/2025
Kunvarji Growth Corporation LLP v. Registrar of Trade Marks, R/CIA/99/2022
Ashish Sharma v. M/S Maruti International & Ors., CS(COMM)-4/2026
Gautami Kawale and Anr. v. John Doe and Ors., CS(OS)-33/2026
Bhuvan Bam & Anr. v. Inkwynk & Ors., CS(COMM)-23/2026
HIGH COURT REPORTS
Patents Act, 1970
Delhi High Court Lifts Injunction, Allows Zydus To Manufacture And Market Lifesaving Cancer Drug
Case Title: Zydus Lifesciences Limited v. E.R. Squibb And Sons, LLC & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 37
The Delhi High Court on Monday cleared Zydus Lifesciences Limited to manufacture and market its cancer drug ZRC 3276. The court set aside an injunction that had barred the drug's launch over alleged patent infringement of a medicine owned by US-based pharmaceutical major E.R. Squibb. The Bench held that Zydus could not be restrained from launching a life-saving anti-cancer drug in the absence of clear product-to-claim mapping showing patent infringement, especially in light of paramount public interest.
Case Title: Flipkart Internet Private Ltd v The Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 16
The Madras High Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Patent Office's rejection of Flipkart's post-grant opposition, allowing a US company's patent on virtual agents used in online customer interactions to continue. In an order dated January 5, 2026, Justice N. Senthilkumar refused to interfere with the decision of the Patent Office, which had dismissed Flipkart's post-grant opposition and allowed the patent titled “Systems and Methods for Virtual Agents to Help Customers and Business” to continue.
Patent Opposition Board Recommendations Are Advisory, Not Binding Decision: Madras High Court
Case Title: E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 17
The Madras High Court has refused to step in midway in a patent dispute over a cancer drug, holding that a recommendation made by the Opposition Board during post-grant opposition proceedings is only advisory and does not create anu valid binding rights. Dismissing the writ petition filed by two foreign pharma firms, Justice N. Senthilkumar said the patent holders must place all their objections before the Controller of Patents, who alone takes the final call.
Bioreactor Invention Involving Human Embryonic Stem Cells Not Patentable: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Viacyte Inc v. Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 16
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the Patent Office's refusal to grant a patent to US-based biotechnology company Viacyte Inc., holding that the claimed bioreactor invention was primarily directed at biological material, including human embryonic stem cell-derived aggregates and therefore fell within non-patentable subject matter under the Patents Act, 1970.
Trademarks Act, 1999
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trade Marks Registry Order Refusing Mankind Pharma's PETKIND Trademark
Case Title: Mankind Pharma Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 34
The Delhi High Court has overturned an order of the Trade Marks Registry refusing registration of Mankind Pharma Limited's trademark “PETKIND” for animal and agricultural products. The relief was earlier denied on the ground of similarity with an earlier “PETKIND” mark filed by Petkind Pet Products Inc. Justice Tejas Karia allowed the appeal filed by Mankind Pharma, holding that the refusal of the trademark was unjustified in view of the company's long-standing use and reputation associated with its “KIND” family of marks.
Case Title: Mayank Jain, Proprietor Of Mahaveer Udyog v. M/S Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 35
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to an agricultural equipment maker that sought to stop a rival from using the word “Tiger” as part of its brand name for farm implements. In a judgment delivered on January 9, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court held that the words “Tiger” and “Brand” are common to the trade and that no case of deceptive similarity was made out at the interim stage.
Taj Hotels Secures Sound Mark Registration For Hospitality Services
Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL), a Tata Group company operating hospitality brands such as Taj, Vivanta, Ginger and SeleQtions, has secured trademark registration for the “Taj” sonic sound, marking the first instance of a sound mark being registered in the hospitality sector in India.
Delhi High Court Rejects Colgate Plea To Amend Suit Against Dabur Over Fluoride Ads
Case Title: Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr v. Dabur India Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 38
The Delhi High Court has refused to allow Colgate-Palmolive to amend its 2019 plaint to specifically challenge Dabur's later newspaper advertisements, holding that fresh versions of an advertising campaign do not warrant repeated amendments when the issue is already pleaded. It clarified that Colgate's 2019 plaint contains detailed allegations accusing Dabur of spreading misleading information and disparaging fluoride as an ingredient in toothpaste. Therefore, the Court held that there was no legal requirement to amend the plaint each time a new version of the advertisement was released.
Case Title: People Interactive India Private Limited v. Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani & Ors. Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 25
The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained the operators of www.getshaadi.com, a matrimonial and matchmaking website, holding that it infringes and passes off the trademark Shaadi.com. In a judgment delivered on January 6, 2026, Justice Arif S Doctor ruled in favour of People Interactive, which operates the popular matrimonial platform “Shaadi.com.” The court held that the rival operator's adoption and use of “getshaadi.com” for identical matrimonial and matchmaking services violated People Interactive's trademark rights and amounted to passing off.
Madras High Court Temporarily Bars Use Of “URG-9”, Finds It Deceptively Similar To “ARG-9”
Case Title: Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v. Foregen Healthcare Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 15
The Madras High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Foregen Healthcare Ltd. from using the pharmaceutical mark “URG-9.” The court held that it was prima facie deceptively similar to the registered trademark “ARG-9” owned by Nouveau Medicament Private Limited. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order on January 7, 2026, while deciding the interim injunction application in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit concerning pharmaceutical products.
IP Office Issues Public Notice Against Misleading Online Trademark Registration Platforms
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) has issued a public notice warning businesses and individuals against online platforms that advertise and solicit clients by offering assured trademark registration services, terming such practices misleading and illegal.
Case Title: Bhole Nath Foods Ltd v. Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 40
The Delhi High Court has set aside an interim injunction restraining Bhole Nath Foods Ltd., a Delhi-based rice manufacturer, from using the “CHEETAL” word and device marks, holding that no prima facie case of trademark infringement or passing off was made out in favour of Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt. Ltd., the Chennai-based owner of the “DOUBLE DEER” mark for rice products.
Delhi High Court Restrains “Charcha Aaj Ki” From Using Deceptively Similar Aaj Tak Device Mark
Case Title: Living Media India Limited And Anr v. Charcha Aaj Ki
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 42
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Living Media India Limited, the company behind the Hindi news channel AAJ TAK. The Court restrained a digital news platform operating under the name “Charcha Aaj Ki” from using a device mark and colour combination found to be deceptively similar to the “AAJ TAK” trademark. It held that Living Media had made out a prima facie case.
Case Title: Indospirit Beverages Private Limited v. Ravi Mohan Studios Private Limited
Case No.: CS(COMM) - 1104/2025
The Delhi High Court has referred a trademark infringement dispute between Indospirit Beverages Private Limited and actor Ravi Mohan's production house over the use of the title “BRO CODE” for an upcoming Tamil film to mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The order was passed in a matter arising from Indospirit's suit alleging infringement and passing off of its “BROCODE” trademark through the film's title.
No Bar On Trademarking Hindu Deity Names If Distinctive: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v. M/s. Stanford Siyaram Fashion P Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 30
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday observed that there is nothing in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, that prevents the registration or enforcement of trademarks merely because they contain the names of Hindu gods or deities. Granting interim relief to Mumbai-based Siyaram Silk Mills Limited, the court held that such marks are entitled to protection once they are validly registered and have acquired distinctiveness through use.
How Can Trademark Registry Restrict Use Of A Mark Without Reasons, Gujarat High Court Orally Asks?
Case Title: Kunvarji Growth Corporation LLP v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: R/CIA/99/2022
The Gujarat High Court orally questioned the Registrar of Trademarks on why the adjudicating authority had permitted advertisement of a trademark in the Trademark Journal with restrictions, without recording any reasons for imposing such conditions. Court was hearing an appeal arising from a 2020 order of the trademark authority, which had conditionally accepted an application for registration of the “Family Farms” logo with the tagline “Ye Ghar Ki Baat Hai” in Class 31, covering agricultural and horticultural products.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Bars Zee Laboratories From Using “GLYZET” Mark, Imposes ₹50 Lakh Costs
Case Title: Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited & Anr. v. Rajiv Mukul & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 32
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained Zee Laboratories and its associated entities from manufacturing, selling or marketing diabetes medicines under the mark “GLYZET,” holding that the mark is deceptively similar to “GLIMET,” a registered trademark used by Laboratoires Griffon Pvt. Ltd. for its anti-diabetic medicine. The Court has also imposed exemplary costs of ₹50 lakh on Zee Laboratories for adopting the disputed mark in breach of earlier Court orders and for making false statements on oath.
Calcutta High Court Removes Rival 'TANA TAN' Trademark, Rules Bikaji Foods Is Prior User
Case Title: Bikaji Foods International Limited v. Jagaranath Prasad and Anr
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 17
The Calcutta High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark “TANA TAN” from the Trade Marks Register. The Court held that the mark was deceptively identical to the long-standing “TANA TAN” trademark owned by snack food manufacturer Bikaji Foods International Limited. It found that the rival registration, secured in the name of Jagaranath Prasad, had been obtained in bad faith.
Copyright Act, 1957
Case Title: Ashish Sharma v. M/S Maruti International & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) – 4/2026
The Delhi High Court recorded an undertaking by the makers of Mastiii 4 to remove a disputed scene from its OTT and satellite releases following a copyright suit by comedian and content creator Ashish Sharma. The undertaking was given during the hearing of an interim injunction application in Sharma's copyright infringement suit, in which he has accused the filmmakers of lifting a scene from his Instagram skit titled “Shaq Karne Ka Nateeja” without authorization.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited v. Pass Code Hospitality P Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 43
The Delhi High Court has directed the continuation of an ad-hoc licence fee arrangement in a copyright infringement suit filed by copyright society Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) against Pass Code Hospitality Private Limited, a Delhi-based company that owns and operates various well-known high-profile pubs and bars. The Court held that the interim arrangement should remain in force until pending applications in the matter are finally decided.
Personality Rights
Case Title: Gautami Kawale and Anr. v. John Doe and Ors.
Case Number: CS(OS)-33/2026
Digital content creators who run the popular YouTube channel Slayy Point, have moved the Delhi High Court seeking urgent protection against the alleged creation and circulation of AI-generated, morphed and pornographic deepfake content falsely portraying them. In their plea, the creators said they are widely recognised public figures with significant goodwill and an online following, noting that their YouTube channel has more than 10 million subscribers.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Unauthorized Images of Youtuber Bhuvan Bam
Case Title: Bhuvan Bam & Anr. v. Inkwynk & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) - 23/2026
Bhuvan Bam, a popular YouTube content creator and web-series actor, approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights and restraint against the unauthorized use of his images by various unknown individuals and entities. Justice Jyoti Singh, while hearing the matter on January 13, 2026, directed the takedown of the unauthorized images but declined to record any prima facie finding on the issue of personality rights at this stage.