IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 2 of 50 · 1,474 total
Annapurna Swadisht Limited v.Gef Foods India Private Limited
The Madras High Court dealt with a trademark dispute between GEF Foods India Private Limited, the proprietor of the registered mark ANNAPOORNA used for blended spices since around 1980, and Annapurna Swadisht Limited, which used the mark ANNAPURNA for snacks and namkeens. The plaintiff sought interim injunctions for trademark infringement and passing off, which were initially granted ex parte on 05.08.2026. The defendant filed applications to vacate the injunction, which the court dismissed, making the ad interim injunction absolute pending disposal of the suit, though confined to the goods and uses where prima facie confusion was established.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST sought to revive its appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 evidence-production applications, which had been filed late. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited (the decisions not being titled 'order', the R. 190-Applications not appearing in the requests section, and incomplete appeal information) did not constitute exceptional circumstances excusing the missed 15-day appeal deadline under R. 224.1(b) RoP.
Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
BIOGARAN v.H. Lundbeck A/S
BIOGARAN, a French generic medicines company, filed a revocation action before the UPC Central Division (Milan) seeking to invalidate European Patent No. 4223296 owned by H. Lundbeck A/S, which relates to the use of nalmefene for treating alcohol dependence. BIOGARAN challenged the patent on grounds of added matter, insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court dismissed the revocation action, finding the patent valid in its amended form, and ordered BIOGARAN to bear the costs of the proceedings and pay an interim award of EUR 100,000.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its appeals against the rejection of its R. 190-Applications (production of evidence) contained in the Munich Local Division's decisions of 11 March 2026, which it had filed late. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that it had taken all due care as required by R. 320 RoP, distinguishing the present case from the AIM v Supponor precedent and finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the late filing.
Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
S.Balakrishnan Unni v.M/s. Vasudeva Vilasam Herbal Remedies (P) Ltd. & Anr.
This is a writ petition filed before the Madras High Court by S. Balakrishnan Unni, trading as Vasudeva Vilasam A.M. Pharmacy, seeking to quash the order dated 12.12.2008 in O.R.A. No. 92/2006/TM/CH passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and to allow his rectification application against the first respondent. The court issued only a procedural order directing impleadment of the Registrar of Trademarks as a third respondent and issuance of fresh notice, posting the matter for further hearing.
Raj Kumar Jain v.Pravesh Narula & Anr
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a consolidated set of matters involving Raj Kumar Jain and Pravesh Narula. The petitioner's counsel submitted that evidence was still ongoing and prayed for adjournment of the hearing. The court acceded to the request and adjourned the hearing to 22.03.2027, directing that any interim order shall continue.
Raj Kumar Jain v.Pravesh Narula & Anr
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court consolidating multiple connected cases between Raj Kumar Jain and Pravesh Narula, along with related matters. The petitioner's counsel requested adjournment on the ground that evidence was still being recorded. The court acceded to the request and adjourned the hearing to March 22, 2027, directing that any existing interim orders would continue.
The Procter and Gamble Company v.Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals
The Procter and Gamble Company filed two Commercial Miscellaneous Petitions (Nos. 37 and 42 of 2026) seeking rectification of a trademark registered in the name of Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals. Respondent No. 1, the Registrant, failed to appear, and while physical service had returned undelivered, e-mail service was effected. The court granted the Petitioner liberty to effect private service within two weeks and listed the matter for directions on October 23, 2026.
The Procter and Gamble Company v.Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals
The Procter and Gamble Company filed two Commercial Miscellaneous Petitions (Nos. 37 and 42 of 2026) before the Bombay High Court seeking rectification of a trademark registered in the name of Respondent No. 1, Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals. The Respondent did not appear despite service attempts, with physical service having returned undelivered though email service was effected. The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to effect private service on the Registrant within two weeks and adjourned the matter to October 23, 2026 for directions.
Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan And Anr v.Bollywood Time & Ors
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a set of connected commercial suits involving Bollywood celebrities seeking protection of their personality and publicity rights. The order records that the amicus curiae in CS(COMM) 868/2026 (Janhvi Kapoor vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.) has concluded submissions, while the amicus curiae in CS(COMM) 105/2026 (Vivek Anand Oberoi vs Collector Bazar & Ors.) has handed up extracts from McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. The matter was re-notified for further hearing on 9th October 2026.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. v.Sanskar Singhaniya & Ors.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Sanskar Singhaniya and others for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendants' use of 'THE BHARAT EXPRESS' mark and the domain 'thebharatexpress.com', along with a similar 'flame-of-hope' logo, infringed the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The defendants, despite being served, failed to appear and through a communication dated 11 September 2026, informed the plaintiff that they did not intend to contest the matter and had adopted a new name and logo. The Bombay High Court decreed the suit in terms of the relevant prayer clauses, granting permanent injunctive relief against the defendants.
M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. v.Anugya Gupta and another
The petitioner challenged an order of the Commercial Court, Varanasi directing that the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC (return/rejection of plaint) be decided before the plaintiff's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC (amendment of plaint). The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that where subject-matter jurisdiction is challenged, it must be adjudicated first before any amendment application, as a court lacking inherent jurisdiction cannot grant amendment and any such order would be a nullity.
Kei Industries Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark matter filed by Kei Industries Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks and another party. The court addressed an interlocutory application (I.A. 27177/2026) filed under Section 151 of the CPC by Respondent No. 1 and directed the matter to be listed on 30.10.2026.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Goldenstuff And Beverages Private Limited & Ors.
Archian Foods Private Limited, which manufactures and markets traditional Indian flavoured non-alcoholic beverages under the 'LAHORI' family of marks (such as LAHORI ZEERA, LAHORI NIMBOO, LAHORI KACHA AAM, LAHORI SHIKANJI, and LAHORI IMLI BANTA), filed a commercial suit against Goldenstuff And Beverages Private Limited and others for infringement of its registered trademarks, copyrights, and designs, along with passing off. The plaintiff sought an ex parte ad interim injunction, alleging that the defendants, who commenced business only in January 2026, had adopted an identical or deceptively similar logo, trade dress, colour scheme, and bottle shape. The Delhi High Court granted the ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using any marks, logos, labels, trade dress, packaging, taglines, slogans, or domain names identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's LAHORI formative trademarks.
Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV v.In(k)control BV
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request to change the language of proceedings from Dutch to English. The appellants (Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV) appealed the decision of the President of the Local Division Brussels, who had rejected their request to change the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the President had correctly exercised her discretion in maintaining Dutch as the language of proceedings, given that both parties are established in the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium and the respondent is a small enterprise.
M/s. Simpleenergy Private Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office, Chennai
Simpleenergy Private Limited, an electric vehicle company, filed a stay petition (CMP No. 23555 of 2026) in its appeal (CMA(PT) No. 32 of 2026) against the Controller of Patents' order dated 01.04.2026 rejecting Patent Application No. 202341071388. The petitioner's counsel fairly conceded that the patent application itself had been dismissed, rendering nothing for further consideration. The Madras High Court dismissed the stay petition as infructuous.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr v.Neeraj Bagh House
The plaintiffs, Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr., filed a suit against Neeraj Bagh House seeking a decree of permanent injunction, trademark and copyright infringement, delivery up, and damages. During the pendency of the suit, the parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, where they arrived at a settlement agreement dated 28.07.2026. The court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and directed refund of full court fees to the plaintiffs.
Prg Pharma Private Limited v.Cure And Care Drugs Private Limited
The plaintiff, PRG Pharma Private Limited, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Cure and Care Drugs Private Limited, was using the trademark 'PRQ PHARMA,' which was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'PRG PHARMA.' The defendant's counsel indicated willingness to resolve the dispute through mediation and offered to change the packaging, trade dress, and mark if the seized consignment of cough syrup was returned. With the plaintiff's counsel also consenting, the court referred the matter to mediation.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr v.Ashok Kumar Unknown
The plaintiffs, Hero Investcorp Private Limited and another, filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts, and damages on the John Doe principle. During the pendency of the suit, the parties were referred to mediation and arrived at a settlement agreement dated 03.09.2026. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and directed refund of full court fees to the plaintiffs.
V-Guard Industries Limited v.Sh. Teja Ram K Chaudhary Proprietor of M/s G. Gaurd Cable Industries and Anr
V-Guard Industries Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the registered trade mark 'G-GUARD' (Registration No. 3799287) in Class 11, owned by the respondent. The petitioner claimed prior adoption and extensive use of the mark 'V-GUARD' since 1977, alleging that the respondent's adoption of the similar mark 'G-GUARD' was not bonafide. The Court permitted the petitioner to file additional documents, issued notice to the respondents, and directed the filing of reply and rejoinder, with the matter re-notified for hearing on 30.11.2026.
Rajesh Kumar & Others v.Jwala Devi
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by Rajesh Kumar and others challenging the order dated 9.1.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, which allowed the plaintiff's appeal and granted an interim mandatory injunction in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The trial court had originally dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the appellate court's order, and restored the trial court's order, holding that the appellate court acted as a trial court without recording perversity in the trial court's findings.
Reliance Industries Limited v.Rahul Meena & Ors
Reliance Industries Limited filed a commercial suit seeking interim injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing its well-known registered trademark 'JIO' by using identical or deceptively similar marks in numerous domain names and websites related to lottery, gaming, and payment services. The Delhi High Court disposed of several interlocutory applications, granting exemption from pre-institution mediation, permission to file additional documents, exemption from service, and dispensing with notice to defendant no. 1 for the purpose of considering the urgent interim relief application.
Geetanjali Salon Pvt. Ltd v.Nitin Ajitkumar Kotwani & Anr
This is a trademark cancellation petition before the Delhi High Court filed by Geetanjali Salon Pvt. Ltd. against Nitin Ajitkumar Kotwani and another. The dispute arose when an email from a purported trademark attorney of the respondent indicated no objection to the cancellation of the impugned registration, but the court found no material on record to establish the attorney's authority. The court directed fresh notice to be issued to respondent no. 1 by all permissible modes.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Rakesh Kumar & Anr.
Levi Strauss & Co., the globally renowned manufacturer of jeans and apparel, filed a suit for permanent injunction, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, and rendition of accounts against defendants Rakesh Kumar and Shankar Maity, who were allegedly manufacturing and selling counterfeit garments bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks including LEVI'S, the Two Horse logo, and the Arcuate Stitching Design. The suit was initially filed under the John Doe principle as the defendants' identities were unknown, and a Court Commissioner was appointed to identify them and seize infringing goods. Since the defendants failed to appear despite service, the court proceeded ex parte and granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
ASICS Corporation v.Sachin Sheokand & Another
ASICS Corporation, a Japanese company and registered proprietor of the well-known 'ASICS' trademark in India since 1982, filed a suit under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit sports shoes bearing the ASICS mark. The plaintiff sought summary judgment against defendant no. 2, Mr. Shamsher Gahlawat, who failed to appear or file a written statement. The court allowed the application, granted a decree of permanent injunction, awarded nominal damages of Rs. 2,00,000, and quantified litigation costs at Rs. 1,50,000.
M Mathew v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The petitioner, M Mathew, filed a civil miscellaneous appeal before the Madras High Court seeking to set aside the order dated 25.06.2026 passed by the Registrar of Trademarks, which deemed his Opposition No.1238680 against Trade Mark Application No.5084713 for the mark 'MUTHOOTTU' in Class 36 (filed by Muthoottu Mini Nidhi Limited) as abandoned. The petitioner sought a direction to the Registrar to decide the opposition on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing. The court issued notice to the respondents and granted an interim stay of the processing of the trademark application pending further hearing.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.M/S Havells PVC Pipes Industry
Havells India Limited and another plaintiff filed a trademark infringement suit against M/S Havells PVC Pipes Industry for using the identical mark 'HAVELLS' and the domain name https://havellspvc.com/. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was proceeded against ex parte. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the defendant's use of the mark was phonetically, visually, and structurally identical to the plaintiffs' well-known registered trademark, and awarded damages of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.