Indian Courts
Monday, 13th July, 2026
Loreal SA v. Vekariya Nikunj Arvindbhai & Ors.
Delhi High Court | Trademarks | Amendment of Pleadings
L’Oréal’s passing-off suit over GARNIER BRIGHT COMPLETE, filed against traders it accused of selling near-identical GARUDA BRIGHT COMPLETE 30x and 6 DROPS BRIGHT COMPLETE 3x products, became a dispute about procedure rather than confusion this week.
What happened: The GARNIER BRIGHT COMPLETE mark was still unregistered when L’Oréal filed suit in 2024, so the case rested purely on passing off. The registration matured in April 2025 while the suit was pending, and L’Oréal then sought to amend its plaint to add a claim for infringement. The Saket trial court refused in February 2026, reasoning that the subsequent registration created a fresh cause of action and that allowing the amendment after the plaintiff’s evidence had closed would unwind the proceedings.
Issue: Whether a trial court can refuse an amendment pleading a registration obtained mid-suit on the theory that it introduces a new cause of action.
Ratio and Result: Justice Jyoti Singh set aside the trial court’s order, holding that a registration acquired during the pendency of a suit changes only the relief available, not the basic structure of the dispute, and pointed to the Supreme Court’s guidance in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi favouring liberal allowance of such amendments. The court also found the trial court’s own reasoning self-defeating: it faulted the original plaint for not mentioning a registration application that had not even been filed at the time. The trial court was directed to take the amended plaint on record and proceed with the suit.
Read the full case analysis here: Loreal SA v. Vekariya Nikunj Case
Havells India Limited & Anr v. Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Delhi High Court | Trademarks | Infringement and Rectification
What happened: The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction against the defendants’ use of “HAVAI” for electrical appliances, despite the defendants holding a valid registration in Class 11. The Delhi High Court evaluated the competing rights, structural similarities, and potential for consumer confusion in the home appliance market.
Issue: Can a registered trademark proprietor seek an interim injunction against another registered trademark proprietor if the competing marks are deceptively similar?
Ratio and Result: The High Court held that while Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act generally prevents a registered owner from suing another for infringement, an injunction can be granted if the impugned registration is prima facie invalid. The court determined that while “HAV” was not exclusively monopolized, a detailed examination was necessary. The ad-interim injunction was denied, but the court expedited the main trial and pending rectification proceedings to evaluate structural similarity.
Wednesday, 15th July, 2026
Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Delhi High Court | Trademarks | Well-Known Marks
What happened: Aggarwal Bag House’s 2019 application to register ZORA for fabrics under Class 24, on a claimed use since 2016, survived an opposition from ZARA’s owner at the Registry stage before running into the High Court. The Registrar dismissed ZARA’s opposition in 2024, reasoning that comparing the prefixes ZA and ZO showed the marks were phonetically and visually distinct, and that the goods and trade channels involved did not overlap enough to cause confusion.
Issue: Whether a proprietor must obtain a prior declaration of well-known status before invoking Section 11(2), and whether dissecting a mark into its opening syllables is a sound way to compare it against a rival mark.
Ratio and Result: Justice Jyoti Singh held that Section 11(2) carries no such prerequisite, since the word “entitled” in the provision means qualified for protection rather than already declared. Comparing ZARA and ZORA as whole words instead of dissected fragments, the court found both four-letter marks share the same rhythm and closing sound, making them phonetically deceptively similar to a consumer with imperfect recollection, and held that a well-known mark is protected even against dissimilar goods. The Registrar’s order was quashed, ZORA’s registration cancelled, and the Registrar directed to rectify the register within two months.
Vardhaman Choksi v. Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Delhi High Court | Trademarks | Appeal, Mediation Referral
What happened: A single judge’s April 2026 judgment ordered removal of Vardhaman Choksi’s SOCIAL HOUSE mark from the register, dismissed his rectification petitions against Impresario’s SOCIAL-formative marks, and described his pattern of filings as trademark squatting. Choksi appealed, arguing the single judge underweighted his claimed 2011 adoption of the mark at his Mumbai nightclub Escobar and wrongly upheld a non-use finding despite the rectification proceedings falling within the statutory five-year grace period.
Issue: Whether the appeal should proceed straight to a full hearing, or whether the dispute is better suited to a negotiated resolution given both sides’ openness to settlement.
Ratio and Result: A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora issued notice on the appeal after Choksi’s senior counsel proposed mediation and Impresario’s counsel did not object. The bench directed the parties to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 17 July 2026, granted liberty to file written submissions in the meantime, and listed the appeal for 21 August 2026.
Thursday, 16th July, 2026
Maxlife Diagnostic And Research Center & Ors. v. Max Health Care Institute Ltd.
Delhi High Court | Trademarks | Compliance, Damages
What happened: A Saket Commercial Court restrained MaxLife Diagnostic and Research Centre from using the MAX mark in July 2024, but the mark stayed visible on the diagnostic centre’s website and third-party listings well after the order. When compliance still lagged in 2025, the trial court imposed ₹5 lakh in damages and later issued arrest warrants over continued default, prompting MaxLife to appeal both orders.
Issue: Whether an appellate court should convert a disputed interim injunction into a final order once the appellant demonstrates genuine compliance and the parties reach a settlement.
Ratio and Result: A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora recorded that MaxLife had by then taken down the infringing listings to Max Healthcare’s satisfaction and was willing to accept the July 2024 injunction as permanent. The bench confirmed the injunction as final, converted the ₹5 lakh damages into a decree payable within four weeks, and set aside the additional weekly penalty for continued disobedience in light of the settlement, while leaving Max Healthcare free to proceed against any other entity still using the mark from the same premises.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Astormueller AG and Ors.
Delhi High Court | Trademarks | Deceptive Similarity, Passing Off
What happened: New Balance, which has used its N logo in India since 1987 and holds a well-known mark declaration for it, sued Swiss footwear company Astormueller and its Indian units over a standalone “n:” logo and a “nu:beat” logo mark used on footwear sold under brands including NUBEAT since April 2024. Astormueller argued that its own registrations barred an infringement claim and that the added colon made its lower-case “n:” visually and phonetically distinct from New Balance’s block capital N.
Issue: Whether a defendant’s own registrations defeat a passing-off claim, and whether a minor stylistic addition to a dominant single-letter logo avoids a finding of deceptive similarity.
Ratio and Result: Justice Jyoti Singh held that registration does not bar a passing-off action, found the nu:beat word mark itself sufficiently distinct, but held the standalone “n:” logo and the nu:beat logo mark deceptively similar to New Balance’s N marks, since the letter n remains the dominant element a consumer would notice and remember. The court also leaned on Astormueller’s own submission before the Trade Marks Registry describing its logo as a combination of “n” and “B,” which reads phonetically as NB, New Balance’s own declared well-known mark. With New Balance established as the prior user in India and the goods, channels and consumers all identical, the court restrained Astormueller from manufacturing, selling, or advertising footwear under either impugned mark pending the suit.
Dr. Ashok M. Bhat v. Harichand Nagpal & Ors.
Bombay High Court | Trademarks | Contempt, Exemplary Costs
What happened: Dr. Bhat’s NOVA brilliantine hair cream mark and its artistic label were protected by a 2010 injunction against Ravi Industries, issued after he discovered counterfeit NOVA products in 2007. He later found the same artwork resurfacing under a new NONI label, and more recently under a NOVA MINI mark that a court receiver seized at the defendant’s premises in February 2025 while executing an unrelated order.
Issue: Whether swapping the word mark on a label while keeping the enjoined artwork defeats an existing injunction, and what costs are warranted against a defendant found to be a repeat, wilful violator.
Ratio and Result: Justice Arif S. Doctor rejected the defence that the 2010 injunction never covered the NONI label, pointing out that Nagpal himself had sought clarification in 2014 to carve that very label out of the order, a step that would have made no sense if the injunction did not already reach it. Calling the conduct brazen and flagging Nagpal’s incomplete sales disclosures alongside his history as a repeat counterfeiter, including of VASELINE products in an unrelated suit, the court directed him to pay ₹32.42 lakh in legal costs and ₹50 lakh in exemplary costs, disclose complete sales figures under the counterfeit labels within four weeks, and warned that his defence in the underlying suit would be struck off for non-compliance.
GI & IP Updates
India-EU investment protection and GI pacts (Piyush Goyal)
Speaking at the India-Estonia Business Forum, Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal confirmed that India and the EU are now working on the investment protection and GI agreements after concluding their free trade pact, framing the two remaining tracks as still in progress. With trade deals now finalised with the UK, EFTA, and the EU, he noted that India stands effectively connected to the entire European market, and used the Estonia visit to pitch India’s reform-driven investment climate to Baltic and European investors more broadly. For IP practitioners the relevant thread is the GI agreement, which alongside the investment protection pact remains the unfinished half of the broader EU package, still without a stated timeline for conclusion. OrissaPOSTOrissaPOST
GI – Unjha cumin and fennel (Gujarat)
Unjha Cumin and Unjha Fennel from North Gujarat have secured GI tags from the Geographical Indications Registry, with certificates issued on 28 March 2026 and registration held in the name of the Unjha Agricultural Produce Market Committee under Class 30 for spices. Unjha is one of Asia’s largest spice trading hubs, and the application was built through a joint effort involving the APMC, the state horticulture department, Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, and the Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, with the state government projecting the tag could lift farmer incomes by 20-30% through better branding and export access. It adds to Gujarat’s existing GI portfolio alongside Gir Kesar mango, Bhalia wheat, and Kachchhi Kharek. GKToday
Jharkhand’s six GI-tagged handloom products at Bharat Tex 2026
Jharkhand used Bharat Tex 2026 at Bharat Mandapam to put six of its GI-tagged handloom products in front of domestic and international buyers, with the state pavilion featuring Tassar Silk, Kuchai Silk, Bhagaiya Saree and Fabric, Tumka Chadar, Bhoya Saree and Fabric, and Pancho Saree and Fabric, inaugurated by state Industries Minister Sanjay Prasad Yadav. The pitch was less about the GI status itself and more about market access, with the minister positioning the showcase as a way to generate local employment and curb migration by connecting the state’s weavers directly to global value chains rather than relying on intermediaries.
Sirmauri Loiya (Himachal Pradesh)
Sirmauri Loiya, a traditional woollen gown from Himachal’s Sirmaur district, was one of eight products registered as Geographical Indications through the Himachal Pradesh State Council for Science, Technology and Environment, taking the state’s total to 17 GI-tagged products. The batch spanned several districts, from Spiti’s seabuckthorn to Kinnaur’s apple, topi, and jewellery, and Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu framed it as the payoff of a sustained multi-year push rather than a one-off award, with four more products, including Sirmaur ginger, already in the pipeline for future registration.
Also Read: Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: June 28 – July 4, 2026
International IP Cases & Updates
Syngenta v. BASF (herbicide patent)
Syngenta has sued BASF in Delaware federal court, alleging that BASF’s new corn herbicide Ridivex infringes a patent covering the chemical formula behind Syngenta’s own herbicide Storen, which pairs a weedkiller with a crop “safener” to protect corn while killing weeds. The complaint, filed as EPA approval for Ridivex appeared imminent, asks the court to block BASF from launching in the US before the autumn distributor-purchasing window, which Syngenta says determines most of the year’s sales outcomes and could let a rival product displace Storen before it even reaches growers. BASF has said it is reviewing the complaint.
Van Leeuwen v. Rebel Creamery (trade dress)
A federal judge in the Eastern District of New York has ruled after a bench trial that ketogenic ice cream maker Rebel Creamery intentionally copied Van Leeuwen Ice Cream’s pastel, minimalist pint packaging, ordering Rebel to disgorge close to $23.8 million in profits and redesign its packaging. The case had been running since 2021, and an earlier ruling in 2024 had already stripped Van Leeuwen of its jury trial right after a discovery dispute over damages calculations, meaning the final outcome came from the bench rather than a verdict, but with a substantial monetary result all the same.
Fender v. Thomann (Stratocaster copyright)
Fender has filed a copyright infringement suit against German retail giant Thomann in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf, arguing that Thomann’s in-house Harley Benton brand copies the Stratocaster’s body shape, a shape Fender secured copyright protection for in Europe through a March 2026 default judgment against a smaller online seller who never contested the case. The filing is itself a countermove: Thomann had sued Fender first in June, seeking a declaration that Fender holds no valid copyright in the Strat shape at all, partly because the earlier ruling was undefended. Fender’s complaint leans on scale to make its case, noting it sells roughly 500,000 Stratocasters a year worldwide, including 34,000 in Germany, against Thomann’s own estimate of selling 10,000 genuine Fender Strats annually while also marketing Strat-shaped Harley Bentons.
CJEU v. Google (Italian gambling ad fine)
The Court of Justice of the European Union has upheld Italy’s 2022 fine of €750,000 (about $854,250) against Google over gambling advertisements that ran on YouTube, rejecting Google’s argument that it was shielded from liability for third-party content under EU e-commerce rules. The court drew a distinction based on Google’s commercial relationship with the video’s uploader, holding that reviewing a channel’s themes or monitoring its viewership for the purpose of a paid partnership takes a platform beyond passive hosting and into a role where liability can attach. The case now returns to the Italian courts to apply that reasoning to the facts, but the ruling itself narrows the safe-harbour defence available to platforms with monetised creator partnerships.
Teva v. Eli Lilly (Forteo settlement breach)
The Seventh Circuit has revived Teva’s breach-of-contract suit against Eli Lilly over their 2018 settlement of earlier Forteo patent litigation, reversing a district court dismissal that had held the settlement’s protections necessarily expired along with Lilly’s patents. The appeals court found the settlement never actually specified when it stopped being “in effect,” so that question couldn’t be resolved against Teva at the pleading stage. The dispute traces back to Lilly’s 2020 move to secure three additional years of FDA exclusivity for Forteo after settling with Teva, which Teva says undercut the very generic launch the settlement was meant to permit once it finally launched in 2023.
Writers Guild v. Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery merger
The WGA West and WGA East have jointly sued in the Northern District of California to block Paramount Skydance’s roughly $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, arguing the combination would create the largest single buyer of film and television writing in the country and let it suppress wages while cutting output. The suit, filed a day after a dozen state attorneys general brought a separate antitrust challenge to the same deal, focuses on three specific labour markets, top-grossing theatrical films, episodic television and streaming series, and studio overall deals, arguing the merger would concentrate demand for writers’ services enough to weaken their bargaining power across all three.
