Curated for precision
Latest Indian IP Law Cases
A complete list of the latest intellectual property law orders and judgments that matter collected from the Delhi, Bombay, Madras and Chhattisgarh High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. Each entry links to the original order and to our detailed case analysis.
List last checked: 15 Sep 2026, 10:16 PM
| S.No. | Judgment Date | Court | Cause Title | Case Number | Judgment | Case Analysis | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10 Sep 2026 | Bombay High Court | Meridian Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs Cascade India Pharmaceuticals | IA/6540/2025 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Bombay High Court resolved a pharmaceutical trademark dispute between Meridian Enterprises and Cascade India by passing a consent decree, granting a permanent injunction against the mark NACOMIST. |
| 2 | 10 Sep 2026 | Calcutta High Court | SRI SOMNATH MONDAL vs. MAITRA SERVICENTER AND ORS. | CS-COM/94/2026 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Calcutta High Court ruled that a prima facie case for interim relief inherently includes establishing territorial jurisdiction, thereby revoking Clause 12 Letters Patent leave anchored solely on a social media post. |
| 3 | 09 Sep 2026 | Madras High Court | M/S. ARUNACHALAA ENTERPRISES Vs M/S. R. SUKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, | REV.PET(IPD).2/2026 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Madras High Court dismissed a review petition, affirming its authority to transfer a pending patent infringement suit from a District Court to the High Court for consolidation with an independent revocation petition. The Court held that a defendant's statutory right to challenge patent validity under Section 64 of the Patents Act remains independent of the infringement suit, allowing for judicial consolidation to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. |
| 4 | 09 Sep 2026 | Madras High Court | Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 32 others | C.S(COMM DIV).102/2026 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Madras High Court dismissed a copyright infringement suit filed by Zee Entertainment against BSNL and 32 others after the plaintiff opted to withdraw the litigation. The court recorded the withdrawal endorsement without addressing the merits of the digital piracy allegations. |
| 5 | 08 Sep 2026 | Bombay High Court | Dr Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil Vs Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay through its Director | COMMPL/12000/2026 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Bombay High Court upheld the refusal of Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil's patent application, ruling that the failure to provide a 'proof of right' under Section 7(2) of the Patents Act is a fatal procedural defect. The court clarified that the Patent Office is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate complex institutional ownership disputes. |
| 6 | 08 Sep 2026 | Calcutta High Court | ITC LIMITED vs. SMM TOBACOO PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. | IP-COM/10/2026 | Read the order/judgement | Coming soon | — |
| 7 | 07 Sep 2026 | Madras High Court | VIKAS MANDOTH Vs SHANGHAI HUANQIU LOCK MAKING COMPANY LTD AND ANR | A.446/2026 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Madras High Court refused to vacate an ex-parte injunction against Vikas Mandoth, holding that the defendant's 2023 trademark application filed as 'proposed to be used' invalidated his claim of prior use against the plaintiff's 'GLOBE' mark. The Court emphasized that visual and phonetic similarity, even across different scripts, necessitates protection of the senior user's global brand equity. |
| 8 | 07 Sep 2026 | Delhi High Court | CONQUEROR INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED . & ANR. Vs XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED | FAO(OS) (COMM)-147/2025 2026:DHC:7584-DB | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Conqueror Innovations against Xiaomi, affirming the refusal of an interim injunction because the respondent's technology lacked the patent's essential elements and due to an unexplained nine-year delay. |
| 9 | 07 Sep 2026 | Madras High Court | Blossom Global Trust Vs Augustine Educational and Charitable Trust | A.3544/2026 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Madras High Court examined an infringement claim regarding the 'PREETHI HOSPITALS' mark, affirming the statutory exclusivity granted to registered proprietors under Section 28 while emphasizing procedural adherence to earlier Division Bench observations. |
| 10 | 03 Sep 2026 | Bombay High Court | Shruti Haasan Vs Mahalaxmi Arts And Craft Works | IAL/26123/2026 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Bombay High Court has granted a John Doe injunction in Shruti Haasan v. Mahalaxmi Arts, effectively curbing the unauthorized commercial use of a celebrity's identity through AI-generated content. The ruling cements the application of personality rights and Copyright Act protections against modern digital misappropriation. |
| 11 | 02 Sep 2026 | Delhi High Court | HINDUSTAN UNILEVER Vs KWICK LIVING PRIVATE LIMITED | FAO(OS) (COMM)-231/2026 2026:DHC:7445-DB | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Delhi High Court resolved a jurisdictional stalemate in Hindustan Unilever v. Kwick Living by confirming that defendant admissions regarding business presence in Delhi satisfy CPC requirements. The court permitted a plaint amendment to cure defects, remanding the matter for immediate adjudication of the interim injunction. |
| 12 | 01 Sep 2026 | Madras High Court | Eros Technologies Digital FZE Vs Ayngaran International Films Private Limited | OA.454/2026 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Madras High Court held that copyright infringement claims under Section 55 of the Copyright Act are not subject to arbitration, even when an assignment contract contains an arbitration clause. The ruling secures the right of assignees to pursue civil litigation and interim injunctions against assignors infringing upon transferred intellectual property. |
| 13 | 01 Sep 2026 | Madras High Court | Screen Scene Media Entertainment Private Limited Vs Dr.S.Venkatesh | A.3144/2026 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Madras High Court refused to vacate an interim injunction in Screen Scene Media Entertainment Private Limited v. Dr. S. Venkatesh, prioritizing the plaintiff's prima facie evidence of copyright ownership. The decision underscores the necessity of clear assignment documentation for exploiting cinematograph films under the Copyright Act. |
| 14 | 31 Aug 2026 | Madras High Court | M/s.Evergreen Media P. Ltd., Vs T.J.Ashok, | OSA(CAD).80/2025 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Madras High Court in M/s. Evergreen Media P. Ltd. v. T.J. Ashok has clarified that interim injunctions will be denied when the plaintiff fails to present an unimpeachable chain of title. The court emphasized that competing evidence of ownership warrants a full-scale trial rather than summary interlocutory relief. |
| 15 | 31 Aug 2026 | Delhi High Court | NUGENESYS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. AND ANR, Vs CELAGENEX RESEARCH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ANR. | FAO(OS) (COMM)-167/2026 2026:DHC:7439-DB | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Delhi High Court vacated an ex-parte injunction against Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals, finding that Celagenex Research willfully suppressed prior legal notices to manufacture urgency. The court held that such failure to disclose material facts violates the doctrine of uberrima fides and warrants the vacating of discretionary relief. |
| 16 | 31 Aug 2026 | Delhi High Court | VIKRANT KAPOOR Vs ANUJ KOHLI & ORS. | CS(COMM)-161/2026 2026:DHC:7332 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Delhi High Court held that specifying a forum in an invoice acts as a binding jurisdictional ouster, regardless of whether words like 'exclusive' are explicitly used. This decision reaffirms the court's strict adherence to party autonomy and the interpretative principles established by the Supreme Court. |
| 17 | 31 Aug 2026 | Bombay High Court | Asian Paints Limited Vs Deepak Kumar Panwar | IAL/25814/2026 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Bombay High Court has issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction protecting Asian Paints Limited’s trademark and trade dress against Deepak Kumar Panwar. The court focused on the plaintiff’s long-standing usage and the clear visual imitation by the defendant to prevent potential market confusion. |
| 18 | 31 Aug 2026 | Delhi High Court | FRESENIUS KABI IPSUM SRL Vs THE ASST CONTROLLER OF PATENT AND DESIGNS & ANR. | C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT)-7/2025 2026:DHC:7275 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Delhi High Court set aside a patent refusal for Fresenius Kabi, holding that the Controller must provide a mandatory, independent hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act, 1970, distinct from pre-grant opposition proceedings. The Court further mandated that refusals must be reasoned speaking orders that substantively address technical evidence. |
| 19 | 31 Aug 2026 | Delhi High Court | ASR MARKET VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs FITSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. | C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)-93/2025 2026:DHC:7274 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Delhi High Court upheld the rights of a prior user by ordering the cancellation of a deceptively similar trademark registration under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act. The ruling reinforces that registration does not supersede established market presence and goodwill. |
| 20 | 28 Aug 2026 | Madras High Court | Ms Vinbros and Co Vs Ms Chamundi Winery and Distillery | A.2575/2026 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Madras High Court has clarified that the mere location of the Trademark Registry office is insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction in IP infringement suits. The ruling reinforces that jurisdiction under Section 134 and Section 62 must be anchored in the plaintiff's place of business or the site of infringement. |
| 21 | 28 Aug 2026 | Madras High Court | YOUTUBE GOOGLE LLC Vs Sri Eshwar College of Engineering | A.191/2026 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Madras High Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction brought by YouTube Google LLC against Sri Eshwar College of Engineering, citing the plaintiff's failure to provide specific trademark details and inappropriate use of John Doe procedures. The ruling reinforces strict pleading standards under the CPC and the Commercial Courts Act. |
| 22 | 27 Aug 2026 | Madras High Court | THE CINEMA RESOURCE CENTRE Vs GANGA RUDRAIAH | OSA(CAD).17/2022 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Madras High Court held that plaintiffs in copyright ownership suits must affirmatively establish their chain of title through valid legal instruments rather than relying on physical possession. The court dismissed the claim, noting that photographs remain distinct from cinematograph films and require specific evidence of assignment. |
| 23 | 25 Aug 2026 | Bombay High Court | ZEE LEARN LIMITED Vs BEAUTY SINGH | CARBPL/20863/2026 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Bombay High Court held that a former franchisee's use of a phonetically similar mark constitutes a breach of negative covenants, warranting interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The court confirmed that such disputes remain contractual in nature and are arbitrable. |
| 24 | 25 Aug 2026 | Delhi High Court | HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED Vs KWICK LIVING (I) PRIVATE LIMITED | CS(COMM)-904/2026 2026:DHC:7198 | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Delhi High Court is currently deliberating on a jurisdictional challenge in Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Kwick Living, testing whether digital accessibility and subordinate office locations satisfy the requirements for filing a suit under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. |
| 25 | 20 Aug 2026 | Delhi High Court | HAHNEMANN SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs MEERA RASTOGI TRADING AS HAHNEMANN MEMORIAL LABORATORY | FAO (COMM)-182/2026 2026:DHC:6946-DB | Read the order/judgement | Read Analysis | The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against the denial of an interim injunction, emphasizing that descriptive marks lack exclusivity and that subsequent registrations cannot retroactively justify delays in litigation. The ruling reaffirms that appellate courts will not disturb discretionary trial court findings absent clear perversity. |