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]

The Bombay High Court recently raised concerns over Artificial Intelligence platforms that allow users to interact with AI-generated versions of celebrities without their permission.

While hearing a personality rights suit filed by actor Shilpa Shetty Kundra against the misuse of her likeness and deepfake content, the Court questioned how such platforms could create and publicize a person's digital persona without authorization.

The Court noted that while user-uploaded content is one issue, AI-generated content known to be unreal poses distinct legal challenges.

Additionally, the Bench expressed concern over unverified YouTube commentary regarding pending court proceedings, emphasizing that only authenticated news media should report on legal developments.

The Delhi High Court restrained several foreign media organizations from issuing copyright infringement threats against TV9 Network.

The Court was hearing a plea by TV9 challenging YouTube copyright strikes over news footage of global events, including wars and natural disasters.

The Court observed that TV9 used only brief, segmented extracts within larger news narratives, constituting "fair use" under Section 52 of the Copyright Act. Holding that such limited usage for news reporting does not amount to independent commercial exploitation.

Consequently, the Court granted an injunction against the foreign entities, noting their failure to initiate formal legal proceedings despite issuing multiple strike notices.

[Associated Broadcasting Co. Ltd. v. Google LLC & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark 'ACCKO' from the Trade Marks Register, ruling it deceptively similar to the well-known insurance brand 'ACKO'.

Justice Jyoti Singh found that 'ACCKO', used by a logistics company, was phonetically and visually nearly identical to 'ACKO', which has been a registered "well-known" trademark since 2016.

The Court noted that the slight spelling variation was a deliberate attempt to ride on ACKO’s established reputation, likely causing consumer confusion.

Consequently, the Registrar was directed to cancel the infringing 'ACCKO' mark to protect the integrity of the original brand.

[Acko Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandra Mohan Mishra & Anr.]

The Calcutta High Court has set aside an ad-interim injunction restraining Godrej Consumer Products from using its “Spic” toilet cleaner bottle in a trademark dispute with Reckitt Benckiser India, maker of Harpic.

A Division Bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Md Shabbar Rashidi held that the injunction was unwarranted at the interim stage.

The Court observed that the registered mark must be assessed as a whole and not merely by bottle shape, raising concerns about extending trademark protection to what may amount to an expired design monopoly.

The Bench directed completion of pleadings before the single-judge for a full hearing.

[Godrej v. Reckitt]

The Delhi High Court recently refused to stop the brand 'Baby Forest' from using its name, ruling that no company can claim a monopoly over the common word "Forest."

The Court upheld a previous decision, holding that a brand must provide stringent evidence to prove a dictionary word has gained a specific secondary meaning.

Following the anti-dissection rule, the Court compared the marks as a whole rather than focusing on a single word.

It found the packaging and logos distinct enough to prevent confusion for an average buyer and dismissed the plea for an interim injunction.

[Mountain Valley Springs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Forest Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd.]

The Supreme Court stayed a Madras High Court order that had revived an injunction claim against Saregama India Limited in a copyright dispute over sound recordings of seven films, including Salangai Oli and Sankara Bharanam.

The High Court had held that the declaration of copyright ownership sought by Sreedevi Video Corporation was barred by limitation, but allowed the suit to proceed on the limited issue of injunction.

Saregama argued that once the declaration claim was time-barred, no injunction could survive as it was consequential to the title.

Accepting the plea for interim relief, the Court stayed further proceedings. The matter will be heard in April 2026.

[Saregama v. Sreedevi Video Corporation]

The Court passed a John Doe order restraining misuse of Swami Ramdev’s name, image, voice and likeness through AI-generated deepfakes, fake endorsements and unauthorised commercial listings.

Justice Jyoti Singh directed takedown of content falsely portraying him as endorsing products, including certain e-commerce listings.

The Court held that his reputation and goodwill deserve protection against unauthorised exploitation.

However, it allowed intermediaries to contest specific URLs claimed as parody or satire. The interim injunction presently operates within India.

[Swami Ramdev v. John Doe & Ors.] 

The Delhi High Court has granted singer Jubin Nautiyal an ex-parte ad-interim injunction protecting his personality and publicity rights.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela restrained AI platforms, e-commerce entities including Flipkart and Amazon, and unidentified “John Doe” parties from using his name, voice, likeness, or singing style for commercial gain.

The Court noted prima facie evidence of voice cloning, deepfakes, AI-generated chatbots, and unauthorised merchandise. Holding that irreparable harm would ensue without urgent relief, the Court directed the takedown of over 70 infringing links and required platforms to disclose the uploader's details.

The matter is listed before the Joint Registrar on April 28 and before the Court on August 25, 2026.

[Jubin Nautiyal v. Jammable Ltd & Ors.]

Social media platforms X and Meta told the Delhi High Court that Baba Ramdev’s personality rights suit seeks the removal of parody, satire, political commentary, and news reports, raising concerns over free speech.

The platforms argued that such content is protected expression and cannot be injuncted merely on personality rights claims. While most flagged URLs on X were removed, intermediaries opposed any global blocking or dynamic injunctions. 

Justice Jyoti Singh clarified that no dynamic injunction was being considered and directed Ramdev to submit a specific list of content for review. Ramdev’s suit seeks protection of his name, image, voice and persona, alleging misuse through deepfakes and disparaging content.

The matter will be heard next on February 18.

The Delhi High Court issued an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Ilaiyaraaja from exploiting sound recordings and musical works over which Saregama India Ltd claims copyright.

Saregama submitted that between 1976 and 2001, it entered into assignment agreements with producers of several cinematograph films, under which copyright in the sound recordings and the underlying musical and literary works vested exclusively with the company on a worldwide and perpetual basis.

It is alleged that in February 2026, Ilaiyaraaja uploaded and authorised the use of some of these works on digital streaming platforms, including Amazon Music, iTunes and JioSaavn, while asserting ownership.

The Court held that irreparable loss and injury may be caused if relief was denied and restrained exploitation of works from 134 films.

The Bombay High Court reserved orders on a plea filed by Shatrughan Sinha seeking protection of his personality rights.

The actor and Lok Sabha MP approached the Court alleging widespread online misuse of his name, image, voice, and iconic dialogue “Khamosh” through deepfakes, content, and merchandise.

Sinha sought interim and permanent injunctions against John Doe parties, technology companies, and e-commerce platforms from commercially exploiting his persona without consent.

The plea also claims ₹20 crore in damages or, alternatively, an account of profits earned through the alleged unauthorised use.

[Shatrughan Prasad Sinha v. John Doe, Meta, & Ors.]