Trimurti Films has sued Aditya Dhar’s B62 Studios in the Delhi High Court for allegedly using the songs "Rang De Lal" and "Hum Pyar Karne Wale" without permission in Dhurandhar 2.

The production house owns the rights to the 1989 film Tridev, claims that the unauthorized use of these tracks constitutes copyright infringement.

While the film has crossed ₹1,600 crore in box office, it now faces a potential injunction that could restrict its further distribution.

This case highlights the growing complexity of music licensing in Bollywood,especially when modern blockbusters recreate classic hits to capitalize on nostalgia.

[Trimurti Films Pvt Ltd v. B62 Studios & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court has restrained filmmaker Santosh Kumar from making further allegations that director Aditya Dhar plagiarized the script for Dhurandhar.

The Court issued the interim stay after Dhar filed a defamation suit, arguing that Kumar's public claims were baseless and prejudicial.

The Court noted that while Kumar is free to pursue legal remedies for copyright infringement, he cannot continue making defamatory remarks in the interim. This order emphasizes that public accusations of intellectual property theft, if unsubstantiated, can attract injunctions to protect a creator's reputation.

The restraint remains in effect until the next hearing scheduled for April 16, 2026.

[Aditya Dhar v. Santosh Kumar RS & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court awarded over ₹152 crore in damages to Communication Components Antenna (CCA) after finding the Rosenberger Group guilty of infringing a patent related to asymmetrical beam antenna technology.

Justice Prathiba M Singh issued a permanent injunction against the German-based group, restraining them from selling or promoting infringing antennas used in 4G LTE networks.

The Court found that Rosenberger’s products, marketed to providers like Reliance Jio, near-identically matched CCA’s proprietary beam patterns designed to increase network capacity.

Additionally, the Court upheld the validity of Indian Patent No. 240893, directing the registry to issue a formal certificate of validity.

[Communication Components Antenna v. Rosenberger]

The Delhi High Court directed a re-examination of Harvard University’s patent application concerning lab-engineered insulin-producing cells, setting aside the earlier rejection by the Patent Controller.

The Court noted that the Controller failed to adequately consider the amended claims submitted during proceedings, instead relying largely on the original claims.

Observing that these revised claims could materially affect the assessment of patentability, the Court held that such oversight warranted fresh scrutiny.

It thus remanded the matter for reconsideration in accordance with law, highlighting the importance of properly evaluating all claim amendments in patent adjudication.

[President & Fellows of Harvard College v. Controller of Patent]

The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of the Lawrence School Sanawar Society in a case involving alleged trademark misuse and defamatory content on Facebook. 

The Court restrained certain individuals and entities from using the school’s registered trademarks, including its name and insignia. It also directed Meta Platforms Inc. to remove the disputed content from its platform.

The Court found that the defendants’ actions could harm the school’s long-standing reputation and goodwill.

Considering the urgency and potential damage, the Court held that interim protection was necessary and passed the order without hearing the other side.

[Lawrence School Sanawar Society v. Mr. Subodh Sinha & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court has passed an interim order protecting the personality and publicity rights of Gautam Gambhir, head coach of the Indian men's cricket team.

The Court restrained multiple entities and unidentified "John Doe" individuals from the unauthorized commercial use of Gambhir's name, image, voice, and likeness.

The Court noted that as one of India's most decorated cricketers, Gambhir’s formidable goodwill is being misappropriated through AI-generated deepfakes and unlicensed merchandise.

The plea highlighted a coordinated campaign of digital impersonation that garnered millions of views. The Court prohibited the exploitation for personal or commercial gain.

[Gautam Gambhir v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Procter & Gamble, restraining the use of the mark “LIVOGEM” for infringing its registered trademark “LIVOGEN”.

The Court held that the two marks are visually and phonetically similar, noting that the defendants merely replaced the last letter “N” with “M”.

It emphasised that in pharmaceutical products, even a slight possibility of confusion must be avoided due to public health concerns.

Rejecting the defence of honest adoption and common usage of “LIVO”, the Court found a prima facie case of infringement, though it declined relief on passing off at this interim stage.

[Procter & Gamble Health Limited & Anr v. Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.]

The Calcutta High Court held that icons, menus, and screen layouts on digital devices qualify as registrable "designs" under the Designs Act, 2000.

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur set aside several orders of the Controller of Designs, which had previously rejected Graphical User Interface (GUI) applications as mere software.

The Court clarified that an "article of manufacture" includes digital forms and that the display of a GUI constitutes an industrial process.

The Court further ruled that a design need not be permanently visible, provided it has "eye appeal" when the article is in use. The matters were remanded for fresh hearings.

[NEC Corporation v. The Controller of Patents & Design & Anr.]

The Bombay High Court refused to restrain Tata Play from using the mark “Tata Play Astro Duniya” for its astrology channel.

The Court rejected an interim injunction plea by astrologer Rajeev Prakash Agarwal, ruling that "Astro Dunia" is descriptive rather than inherently distinctive. The Court noted that the combination of English and Hindi terms simply translates to "world of astrology," which describes the service provided.

Furthermore, the prominent display of the "TATA PLAY" house mark was deemed sufficient to prevent consumer confusion.

Since the plaintiff’s registration included a disclaimer on descriptive matters, he could not claim exclusive rights over the words.

[Rajeev Prakash Agarwal v. Tata Play Ltd & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court upheld a permanent injunction against Crocodile International, barring it from using a logo that infringes upon the trademark and copyright of the French luxury brand, Lacoste.

A division bench of Justice Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla ruled that Lacoste successfully proved infringement of its iconic crocodile emblem.

However, the Court noted that Lacoste failed to meet the requirements for a passing-off claim due to inadequate evidence of goodwill.

The bench dismissed the defense of acquiescence, ending a legal battle initiated in 2001 over the visual similarity of the two reptile logos in the Indian market.

[Lacoste S.A. v. Crocodile International Pte Ltd. & Anr.]

The Madras High Court set aside a single judge’s order dismissing a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark “777 Oil.”

The Court held that the trademarks “777 Oil” and “Dr. JRK’s 777 Oil” remain valid and registered in favour of J.R.K’s Research and Pharmaceuticals.

It noted that the rival mark “Sanjeevi 777 Oil” had already been ordered to be removed from the trademark register by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, and that order had attained finality.

The Court also held that reliance on an unproven email without a mandatory Section 65B certificate was improper. It decreed the suit, restrained infringement, and directed surrender of infringing goods.

[M/s. J.R.K’s Research & Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd v. M/s. Sanjeevi Pharma]

The Bombay High Court ruled that companies can invoke the "surname defence" under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, provided the use is bona fide and rooted in genuine business lineage.

Reversing a single-judge order, the bench held that Section 35 does not exclude incorporated entities.

The dispute involved the use of the name "Kataria" by an Ahmedabad-based brokerage and a Mumbai-based jewellery insurance firm.

The Court found the brokerage's use legitimate as "Kataria" was the promoters' surname used since 1955, and noted no overlap in their specific niche markets.

[Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhavesh Suresh Kataria]