The Delhi High Court held that senior advocate Vikas Pahwa is entitled to protection of his personality and publicity rights, marking a first for India’s legal profession.

The Court observed that unidentified platforms had misused his name, photographs, and credentials to defraud the public for financial gain.

It found that a lawyer’s reputation is built on integrity, trust, and courtroom conduct, not commercial endorsements. The Court restrained unauthorised use of his identity and noted that such impersonation undermines public confidence in the justice system.

The order recognised that professional goodwill has independent proprietary value deserving legal protection.

The Delhi High Court has held that English alphabets cannot be claimed exclusively under trademark law and declined interim protection to the mark “A TO Z” used by a pharmaceutical company. 

The ruling arose from a suit filed by Alkem Laboratories against Prevego Healthcare over the use of “AZ” for multivitamin products.

The Court held that trademarks must be assessed as a whole and that “A TO Z” merely conveys comprehensiveness and lacks distinctiveness. It also noted Alkem’s failure to disclose earlier withdrawn or opposed trademark applications, disentitling it to equitable relief.

The interim injunction was accordingly vacated.

[Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt Ltd.]

The Madras High Court held that the proposed “Nandini” trademark for agarbattis was deceptively similar to Karnataka Milk Federation’s long-standing “NANDINI” mark for milk and dairy products and was likely to mislead consumers.

The ruling arose from an appeal against a Trade Marks Registry order that had rejected KMF’s opposition to registration of the mark in Class 3.

The Court noted KMF’s continuous use of “NANDINI” since 1983 and found phonetic identity and an identical style of writing, with no prefix or suffix to distinguish the rival mark.

Distinguishing Nandhini Deluxe, it set aside the Registry’s order and allowed KMF’s appeal under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

[Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. v. Vinod Kanji, Shah & Nitin]

The Bombay High Court held that ‘Shaadi.com’ qualifies as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to its exceptional reputation, goodwill, and long-standing use in matrimonial services.

It observed that the defendants’ use of the domain name getshaadi.com was deceptively similar and amounted to trademark infringement.

The Court further observed that the use of Shaadi.com as meta tags and keywords showed an intent to divert web traffic and trade upon the plaintiff’s goodwill.

It restrained the defendants permanently and awarded ₹25 lakh as compensatory costs.

[People Interactive India Private Ltd v. Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani & Ors.]

The Court held that the cancer detection method claimed by the Japanese firm is barred under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.

It observed that the invention constitutes a diagnostic method for detecting cancer and is therefore not patentable.

The Court further observed that it is immaterial whether the method is performed by medical professionals or operates autonomously outside the human body.

The Court upheld the Patent Office’s rejection and dismissed the firm’s appeal, affirming that diagnostic processes fall squarely within the statutory exclusion.

[Hirotsu Bio Science Inc v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs]

The Delhi High Court modified an interim injunction restraining Zydus Lifesciences from launching its anti-cancer biosimilar ZRC 3276, taking note of public interest and the impending expiry of the patent held by ER Squibb.

The Court observed that injunctions involving life-saving drugs must balance patent rights with patient access, and that merely labelling a product as life-saving does not bar injunctive relief.

However, since the product-to-claim mapping was found to be incomplete, the Court permitted Zydus to sell the drug.

To safeguard intellectual property rights, Zydus was directed to maintain audited accounts of sales to enable assessment of damages, if required.

[Zydus Lifesciences v. ER Squibb]

The Madras High Court granted interim relief to Kamal Haasan, restraining unidentified individuals and online platforms from creating, sharing, or commercially exploiting morphed and AI-generated images based on his likeness.

The Court prohibited unauthorised commercial use of Haasan’s image, name, and screen persona, including its use on merchandise without consent.

The Court, however, made it clear that satire, caricature, and other permissible forms of creative expression remain unaffected, and directed publication of the order to alert unknown infringers in the John Doe action.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the words “TIGER” and “BRAND” are generic and incapable of exclusive trademark ownership.

The case arose from a suit filed by Mayank Jain, proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog, alleging that Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. infringed his registered device mark “TIGER GOLD BRAND” by using “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND” for agricultural implements.

The Bench held that registration of a device mark does not confer monopoly over generic words, and the plaintiff failed to prove secondary meaning.

Applying the anti-dissection rule, the Court found no deceptive similarity, confusion, or passing off, and dismissed the injunction application.

[Mayank Jain v. Atul Discs]

The Delhi High Court has declared ‘SOCIAL’, the restaurant and café brand owned by Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt Ltd, as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court held that the mark has acquired distinctiveness and a secondary meaning due to its continuous use since 2014, nationwide presence, and strong consumer recognition in the hospitality sector.

The Court noted the brand’s significant revenues, extensive promotional expenditure, and exclusive online presence.

Finding trademark infringement and passing off, the Court permanently restrained the defendant from using the mark SOCIAL or any deceptively similar variant.

[Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt Ltd. v. The Shake Social]

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking cancellation of Patanjali’s “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner” trademark used for cow urine–based floor cleaners.

The Court held that the petitioner NGO failed to establish prior use or likelihood of consumer confusion under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

It observed that when viewed as a whole, the impugned mark, along with the prominent “Patanjali” house mark, was neither identical nor deceptively similar to the petitioner’s mark.

The Court also found the petitioner’s documentary evidence unreliable due to material inconsistencies, and rejected the rectification plea.

[Holy Cow Foundation v. Patanjali Gramodyog Niyas]

The Madras High Court dismissed interim applications filed by celebrity chef T Rangaraj seeking to restrain costume designer Joy Crizildaa and others from publishing social media posts and interviews about their relationship.

The Court held that personality rights do not justify a blanket gag order unless there is prima facie material showing commercial exploitation of a person’s identity.

It observed that merely circulating photos or links is insufficient to establish a violation of personality rights and that free speech under Article 19(1)(a) must be protected.

The Court said disputed facts and the genuineness of content must be examined at trial, not at the interim stage.

[T Rangaraj v. Joy Crizildaa]

The Bombay High Court refused interim relief to Minco India Private Limited in a trademark dispute over the use of “MINCO” by Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited.

The Court held that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts, including prior knowledge of the defendant’s use since 2012, consent for the name change, and shared directors within the business group.

Observing that the defendant had openly used the mark for years and built a substantial business, the Court found no strong prima facie case, no balance of convenience, and no risk of consumer confusion, and therefore dismissed the interim application.

[Minco India Pvt. Ltd. v. Minco India Flow Elements Pvt Ltd.]

The Bombay High Court passed an ad-interim order restraining a salon operator from using the “Jawed Habib”, “Jawed Habib Hair & Beauty”, and “JH” names and logos after expiry of a franchise agreement.

The Court held that continued use of the marks amounted to prima facie trademark and copyright infringement, as the franchise agreement conferred no independent rights after its termination.

Finding that the defendant had no probable defence and noting the strong goodwill established by the plaintiff, the Court granted interim relief restraining use of the marks or any deceptively similar names until the next date of hearing.

[Jawed Habib Hair & Beauty Ltd. v. Kavita Janki Services Pvt Ltd.]

A wave of copyright lawsuits against generative AI companies is set to see major US court rulings in 2026.

The legal question centers on whether fair use protects the copying of copyrighted material for AI training, or if copyright holders must be reimbursed, potentially costing billions.

In 2025, The New York Times, Disney, and other copyright owners filed new suits, and authors secured a $1.5-billion class action settlement with Anthropic, the largest reported copyright payout involving AI training in US history.

Early judicial decisions of US courts on fair use in generative AI training have been split, reflecting continuing uncertainty.