Posts on the Delhi High Court’s Zara v Zora ruling, the Madras High Court’s ruling in TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah, and a post remembering late Dr. Pinaki Ghosh. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Remembering Prof. (Dr.) Pinaki Ghosh, WBNUJS IP Chair Professor
Prof. (Dr.) Pinaki Ghosh’s work in intellectual property took him from laboratories and corporate boardrooms to villages across Bengal, where he sought to understand the people and histories behind the products he worked to protect. For those who knew him, however, his legacy extends well beyond his work. In this post on Dr. Ghosh, Malobika Sen writes about his work, mentorship, and the many people whose lives he touched.
TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah: Copyright, Acquiescence, and the Cost of an Unwritten Arrangement
The Madras High Court’s decision in TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah may appear to be about the ownership of BTS photographs from the making of the hit film ‘Aval Appadithan’. But the reasoning gets considerably less straightforward when the Court’s treatment of Section 17(b), consideration, and acquiescence is examined closely. Vanshika Verma writes on this development.
Other Posts
No Declaration Required: What the Delhi High Court’s ZARA v. ZORA Ruling Means for Section 11(2)
The Delhi High Court’s ZARA v. ZORA ruling settles one question while leaving another lurking beneath it. A formal declaration, the Court holds, is not necessary to invoke Section 11(2). But if well-known status can be established through individual proceedings, what happens to the certainty that Rule 124 was meant to provide? Adv. Harjas Singh Gulati writes on this development below.
Case Summaries
Pangode Co-Operative Society Ltd., No. … vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 16 September, 2026(Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court allowed the transfer petition in the present case, arising from appeals filed before the Principal District Court, Ernakulam, observing that the amended Government Order of 2026 conferred appellate jurisdiction on the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court over appeals arising from commercial disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Copyright Act, 1957, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Patents Act, 1970, where the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction is required to adjudicate the disputes at first instance.
The Delhi High Court, in the present case, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, who are the copyright owners of the cinematograph film VIBE, which is scheduled for theatrical release on 18.09.2026. The Court observed that the defendant websites are rogue websites engaged in intentionally and systematically uploading vast volumes of infringing content. An ex parte ad interim injunction for the film, prior to its release, was granted by applying the position enunciated by the Court in Universal City Studios LLC and Others v Dotmovies Baby and Others.
The Gauhati High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, where the plaintiff contended that the defendant had infringed its trademark “ANNAPURNA” while selling mustard oil. The plaintiff also contended that mere delay in bringing an action is not sufficient to defeat the grant of an injunction in such cases. The Court opined that, in the interests of justice, an interim order deserved to be passed.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks on 15 September, 2026(Delhi High Court)
In the present case, an appeal was filed against the order of a single judge bench of the High Court rejecting the appellant’s prayer to register the mark. The dispute arose from the order of an Examiner of Trade Marks rejecting the mark “OFFER” in Class 33. In the appeal, the single judge bench of the High Court observed that such an order was passed due to non-application of mind, as Section 9(1)(a) of the Act does not recognise the test of being “unique”. Further, the Court directed the Registrar to consider the application afresh within four months from the date of disposal of the appeal. Filing an appeal before the Division Bench, the appellant contented that the mark should have been registered instead. The Division Bench declined to accept the prayer of the appellants, observing that the authorities under the statute are better equipped to deal with applications for registration of trade marks at the initial stage, rather than the High Court venturing into the exercise in appeal and deciding on the acceptance of the application.
In the present case, the plaintiff filed a suit contending that the defendants had taken undue advantage of the plaintiff’s goodwill by selling their product with a name and design deceptively similar to those of the plaintiff. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that, by virtue of Section 27 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the plaintiff’s trademark being unregistered, the plaintiff was not entitled to institute a suit for infringement. The Court took the pleadings of the plaintiff into consideration and observed that the pleadings did not allege that the defendant was using the plaintiff’s trademark or trade name, but rather established a case of passing off thus held that the suit was, covered under Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and was hence maintainable.
The Telangana High Court held that Section 124(5) of the Trade Marks Act preserves the power of the Court to make interlocutory orders, including orders relating to temporary injunction, during the period of stay. In the present case, the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for trademark infringement, and the Trial Court, after considering the facts of the case and recognising the plaintiff as the prior user, granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The appellants-defendants filed rectification and cancellation applications before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai, against the plaintiff’s registered trademarks. They contended that the interim injunction ought not to have been granted, as once the Trial Court had found that the suit proceedings were required to be stayed under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, it could not have proceeded to grant an order of temporary injunction. The Court rejected this contention in view of Section 124(5). The Court further reiterated that, in cases of temporary injunction, it is sufficient if the party seeking the injunction has to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Additionally, on a perusal of Sections 27(2) and 34 of the Trade Marks Act, the Court noted that the right of the plaintiff as a “prior user” of the trademark is required to be protected against an action for passing off, thus warranting the grant of a temporary injunction against the appellants-defendants.
Louis Vuitton Malletier vs Raj Belts & Ors on 20 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Image from hereLouis Vuitton sued for a permanent injunction restraining infringement of its registered “LOUIS VUITTON” mark, LV logo, Toile monogram, Damier pattern and LV flower patterns across Classes 3, 14, 18 and 25. Most defendants had already settled or been proceeded ex parte, and counsel confirmed no relief would be pressed against Defendant No. 2, whose sole proprietor had died during the suit. The plaintiff sought summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC against Defendants No. 11 to 13, shopkeepers found with counterfeit goods seized by a Local Commissioner. None had contested admission of the plaintiff’s documents, and Defendant No. 12’s claim that the goods belonged to a friend was rejected. Relying on Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev, 2019, the Court held the defendants had no real prospect of defending the claim, found infringement under Section 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and passing off, and decreed the suit against them accordingly.
Kasif Ahmed vs M/S Tenax India Stone Products Pvt Ltd on 15 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The appellant sought to set aside an ex parte judgment dated 7th July 2025 restraining him from using the mark “T-MAX,” found to infringe the respondent’s registered mark “TENAX,” with damages and costs of Rs. 9,00,000. He blamed his counsel’s negligence, claiming he believed a written statement had been filed and that settlement talks were ongoing, until a legal notice in August 2025 revealed the decree. He produced no correspondence or records to support this. The Division Bench found the Trial Court had given him repeated opportunities to file his written statement before proceeding ex parte in April 2023, and that his inaction for over two years thereafter, despite orders being available online, amounted to wilful negligence rather than sufficient cause. Distinguishing A. Murugesan v. Jamuna Rani, 2019, the Court held accepting such an excuse would defeat the Commercial Courts Act’s object of time-bound adjudication. The appeal was dismissed.
Pravin Kumar vs Itc Limited And Ors on 18 September, 2026 (Calcutta High Court)
ITC sued the appellant and others for infringement and passing off of its “Gold Flake” cigarette trade dress by the mark “IJM Gold Stag.” The Single Judge had refused to vacate an interim injunction granted on passing off but declined relief on infringement, prompting cross-appeals. The Division Bench held the suit court had territorial jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, since ITC’s registered office was in Kolkata, and that any Clause 14 objection stood waived. On maintainability, it held Sections 28 to 30 bar infringement claims only between registered proprietors inter se, not against permitted users of an invalidly-registered mark, and that Section 124 preserves interim relief pending rectification. Finding the appellant’s licence documents doubtful and “Gold” likely to have acquired secondary meaning for ITC, the Court upheld the passing-off injunction, dismissed the appeal and the cross-objection, with no order as to costs.
Star India Pvt Ltd vs Vegamovies.Pet & Ors on 8 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Star India sued 1,094 rogue websites for infringing its copyright and broadcast reproduction rights in content aired on Star Channels and Disney+ Hotstar. The Delhi High Court had granted an ex parte interim injunction in September 2024, directing domain registrars to suspend the websites and DoT and MeitY to block access, along with a Dynamic+ injunction. As none of the defendants filed written statements, the Court proceeded ex parte and, finding Star India’s ownership and the unauthorised streaming established, held the defendants liable for infringement under Section 51. It accordingly passed a permanent injunction against all 1,094 defendants and disposed of the suit.
Hamdard National Foundation sued the defendant for using “HAMDARD” as the dominant part of its corporate name, alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant was proceeded ex parte, and the Court, finding the identical use likely to cause confusion and dilute Hamdard’s established goodwill, held it liable under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. However, the Court declined to award the claimed ₹5 lakh in damages for lack of evidence of the defendant’s business volume or resulting loss. The suit was decreed with a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using “HAMDARD” in its name, along with costs.
The petition seeks cancellation of a copyright registration held by Novita Healthcare over artistic work on “CTZ” packaging, arising from a long dispute over the “CTZ” trademark between the petitioner and Novita’s predecessor, Syncom Healthcare. Syncom’s 2006 infringement suit at Indore failed to secure interim relief in 2007, with the court recognising Psychotropic as prior user, and was later dismissed for non-prosecution. Psychotropic’s own 2009 suit before the Tis Hazari District Court resulted in a permanent injunction against Syncom in 2018, which it sought to execute; Novita was impleaded as successor-in-interest in March 2026. Novita, meanwhile, filed two suits before the Patiala House Courts and separately contested the impleadment order. With four connected matters between the parties already pending before a coordinate Bench, the Court, on the parties’ joint request, directed that this petition also be listed before that Bench on 28th September 2026.
Abbott Gmbh & Anr vs Dr Reddy S Laboratories Limited on 15 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Abbott had sued Dr Reddy’s Laboratories for infringement and passing off, seeking a permanent injunction against the use of “COMIFFIN/COMIFFIN PLUS” as deceptively similar to its registered “CREMAFFIN” marks. The parties settled during the pendency of the suit, with the defendant agreeing to cease all use of the impugned marks and to withdraw its pending trademark application for “COMIFFIN” within three weeks, while confirming that no stock remained with it, though a small quantity was already in circulation and could not be recalled. The plaintiffs gave up all other reliefs on this undertaking, and the defendant was directed to furnish an inventory of the impugned products still in the market along with a supporting affidavit within four weeks. The Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, directed refund of court fees under the Court Fees Act, 1870, and cancelled the date earlier fixed before the Joint Registrar.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr vs M.M. Oil Traders on 16 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Hero Investcorp had sued M.M. Oil Traders for infringement and passing off, seeking a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of products bearing the “HERO” marks or any deceptively similar mark. The parties settled through the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre under an agreement dated 7th August 2026, with the defendant undertaking to stop using the impugned marks and to pay Rs. 2,50,000 in full and final settlement, of which the balance instalment of Rs. 1,25,000 was confirmed paid on the date of the order. Goods bearing the impugned marks, seized earlier by a Local Commissioner and held with the defendant on superdari, were directed to be destroyed at the defendant’s premises on 16th October 2026 at 2:30 PM in the presence of the plaintiffs’ representative, with the destruction to be photographed. The Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and prayer clauses (a) to (c) of the plaint, directed refund of court fees under the Court Fees Act, 1870, and disposed of the suit along with the pending application.
Reddy Pharmaceuticals vs Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories on 18 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories sought modification of the Division Bench’s judgment dated 14th August 2026, which had upheld a permanent injunction against Reddy Pharmaceuticals’ use of the mark “REDDY” on grounds of passing off and goodwill. With no appearance for Reddy Pharmaceuticals, the Court allowed the application and revised paragraphs 14, 21, 28, 29 and 32 to clarify that its finding of goodwill had rested not on the Agency Agreement alone but on DW-1’s admission acknowledging Dr. Reddy’s reputation, corroborated by unchallenged sales, advertisement and press evidence. It also clarified that Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. had been distinguished on facts, since that plaintiff had relied on unproved CA-certified summaries whereas Dr. Reddy’s evidence was primary and contemporaneous. All other paragraphs of the earlier judgment remained unchanged. A separate connected application, similarly unattended, was disposed of as infructuous since CM Appl. 63929/2026 had already been allowed.
Defendant No. 2, the domain name registrar for “www.flyhyaa.com,” sought deletion from the array of parties on the ground that the domain’s registration had expired during the pendency of the suit and it was no longer the DNR concerned. Defendant No. 1’s counsel clarified that the domain had since been renewed by Defendant No. 1, following which Defendant No. 2 undertook to maintain status quo and not transfer the domain to any third party pending further orders, noting that Defendant No. 1’s domain had already been locked and suspended by an earlier order dated 20th January 2026. On this undertaking, the Court allowed the application and deleted Defendant No. 2 from the array of parties, directing the plaintiff to file an amended memo of parties within three weeks. Pleadings having been completed, the pending applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Order XXXIX Rule 4, and Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 were listed for hearing on 26th November 2026, with the interim order to continue until then.
Universal Spirits Pvt. Ltd vs Empee Distilleries Limited on 16 September, 2026 (Madras High Court)
Universal Spirits appealed against a common order of the Single Judge restraining it from manufacturing, marketing or selling products under the marks “Classic Marco Polo Deluxe Brandy” and “Marco Polo Deluxe XXX Rum,” found deceptively similar to Empee Distilleries’ registered trademarks. The appellant confirmed it had stopped manufacturing under the impugned order and filed an affidavit undertaking not to deal in the marks, or any deceptively similar mark, pending disposal of its Section 47 cancellation applications against the respondent’s registrations before the Registrar of Trade Marks. It sought permission to dispose of pre-existing stock, comprising specified quantities already in its factory godowns and already in the market. With the respondent’s counsel accepting the undertaking and consenting to disposal on that basis, the Division Bench took the undertaking on record as binding and permitted the appellant to sell off only the specified quantities within three months, subject to maintaining proper accounts to be produced before the Single Judge, while making clear that this permission did not extend to any further manufacture or sale. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Impresario, operator of 52 “SOCIAL” restaurants across India under a mark declared well-known by this Court on 9th January 2026, sued over the defendant’s use of “SOCIAL CIRCLE,” advertised on platforms like Zomato and Swiggy. Holding over a hundred “SOCIAL” registrations and FY 2024-25 brand revenue of Rs. 589.39 crore, the plaintiff’s cease-and-desist notices from September 2024 went unanswered, and the defendant’s own 2024 application for “SOCIAL CIRCLE” had since lapsed for non-prosecution. The Court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and, finding the rival mark deceptively similar with balance of convenience favouring the plaintiff, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining use of “SOCIAL CIRCLE” or any similar mark until the next hearing, with compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC directed within ten days.
Kt And G Corporation vs Mr Kallu Ram Ganga Ram & Ors on 16 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
KT&G had sued the defendants for infringing its “ESSE” family of marks by selling counterfeit cigarettes, along with passing off and other reliefs. During the suit, the Local Commissioner’s proceedings revealed M/s Akram Store as the source from which Defendants No. 3 and 4 had procured bulk counterfeit stock, and it was accordingly impleaded as Defendant No. 6. The plaintiff went on to settle separately with Defendants No. 1, 2, 3 and 6, each settlement recorded by the Court after being found lawful. The suit had already been decreed against Defendant No. 4 by an earlier order dated 22nd July 2026, and the plaintiff gave up its reliefs against Defendant No. 5/John Doe. In light of the settlements, the Court decreed the suit in the plaintiff’s favour against Defendants No. 1, 2, 3 and 6 as well, directed refund of court fees under the Court Fees Act, 1870, and disposed of the suit along with the pending application.
Abbott had sued Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories for infringement and passing off over the mark “BETVERTIN,” alleged to be deceptively similar to its registered mark “VERTIN.” By an earlier order dated 23rd December 2025, the suit was decreed in part on the defendant’s statement that it would discontinue use of “BETVERTIN,” withdraw its pending trademark application and stop advertising the drug, with liberty to exhaust existing stock by 31st March 2026, while the remaining reliefs were kept pending. Following a mediation reference on the defendant’s application, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement dated 24th July 2026, under which the defendant paid Rs. 9,00,000 in full and final settlement, confirmed as received by the plaintiffs’ counsel. Finding the settlement lawful, the Court decreed the suit on the remaining relief in the plaintiffs’ favour as well, and disposed of the suit along with the pending applications.
Texmo Industries vs Gayatri Industries And Another on 21 September, 2026 (Madras High Court)
Texmo Industries had sued Gayatri Industries and its partner for infringement and passing off, seeking a permanent injunction against the use of “ATARO PUMPS,” alleged to be deceptively similar to its registered “TARO” marks across Classes 7, 9, 17, 35, 37 and 42, along with a declaration of “TARO” as a well-known mark, Rs. 25,00,000 in damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up of infringing material. When the suit came up for recording a memo of compromise, both parties confirmed they had reached an amicable settlement and placed a joint compromise memo dated 17th August 2026 on record, duly signed by both sides and their counsel. The Court recorded the compromise memo, making it part of the order, disposed of the suit accordingly, closed the connected applications, and made no order as to costs.
Philips, which had earlier obtained injunctions against Geetech and others for infringing its copyright and trademark in software used in its medical imaging devices, impleaded WhatsApp as Defendant No. 12 and sought deactivation of an account allegedly operated by Defendant No. 1, along with subscriber and account information. WhatsApp agreed to deactivate the account but requested that future directions be sought separately. The Court accordingly directed WhatsApp to deactivate the account and provide the basic subscriber information sought, while granting Philips liberty to file fresh applications for further directions. The suit will next be heard before the Joint Registrar on 8 October 2026.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
[Thanks to Vanshika, Sunidhi and Harini for the case summaries.]