The Delhi High Court awarded Rs. 3.34 Crore to Johnson & Johnson for trademark infringement and counterfeiting of its medical products.

The court noted that the defendants’ actions harmed public health and J&J’s goodwill and market reputation.

The 2019 lawsuit accused them of producing, distributing and selling fake surgical products under trademarks like SURGICEL, ETHICON, and LIGACLIP. 

Justice Amit Bansal found the infringement deliberate, conscious and willful.

The court ordered Rs. 2.34 Crore in compensatory damages, Rs. 1 Crore in exemplary damages, and issued a permanent injunction stopping the defendants from using J&J’s trademarks. 

The Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction in favor of Ramada International against Clubramada Hotels for trademark infringement.

Ramada International stated that it has used the ‘RAMADA’ trademark since 1954 for its hotel in Arizona, USA. The defendant unlawfully included ‘Ramada’ in its company name.

In 2021, the court had issued an interim order restraining the defendant from using the ‘RAMADA’ mark. However, the defendant continued to use it.

Given this, the court issued a permanent injunction, awarded Rs. 10 lakh in damages, and ordered the plaintiff to submit its bill of costs within three months to claim actual lawsuit expenses.

Top Indian Music Labels Saregama, T-Series, and Sony have sued OpenAI, alleging unauthorized use of their sound recordings by Microsoft-backed Open AI, reflecting challenges posed to India’s music business.

They say this threatens copyright and their revenue, as they rely on licensing fees and royalties.

This follows a lawsuit by Indian news agency ANI, which accused OpenAI of using its content without consent. Other media groups and book publishers have also sued OpenAI.

Experts warn that AI-generated music trained on copyrighted songs could harm original artists. Bharadwaj Jaishankar of IndusLaw says it may reduce opportunities for musicians. Zubin Morris of Little & Co. adds that artists have not agreed to AI training, which affects their fair compensation for creators.

The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction to Eureka Forbes Limited, the owner of the 'Aquaguard' trademark, against a manufacturer producing counterfeit spare parts for water purifiers.

Eureka Forbes adopted the 'Aquaguard' mark in 1982 and registered it in 1992. The company discovered fake spare parts bearing their trademark in Bihar and Delhi.

Following an earlier injunction and seizure of these counterfeit products, Justice Amit Bansal ruled in favor of Eureka Forbes, citing deceptive similarity and unfair advantage taken by the defendant.

The court found trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off, ordering the defendant to pay ₹2 lakh in damages and costs.

The Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction in favor of Chotiwala Food And Hotels Pvt. Ltd., restraining three Delhi-based restaurants from using the ‘Chotiwala’ name and trademark.

The Rishikesh-based restaurant, established in 1958, sued after discovering fake Chotiwala listings which misled customers.

Justice Amit Bansal ruled that ‘Chotiwala’ had acquired secondary meaning, proving malafide intent by defendants.

The court also directed food aggregators to remove fraudulent listings and imposed ₹3 lakh in damages. 

The Delhi High Court stayed the further investigation against Yash Raj Films and Aditya Chopra in an FIR related to copyright violation in the movie Shamshera.

FIR was filed on May 1, 2024 by Bikramjeet Singh Bhullar under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 420 of IPC. He alleged that his 2006 script titled "Kabu Na Chhadein Khet" was infringed upon.

The court found no substantiation of the alleged crimes and ruled against proceeding with the inquiry. It also issued a notice to Delhi Police, directing them to file a response.

 The case has been listed for hearing on May 7, 2025. 

The Supreme Court has stayed the Bombay High Court’s order restraining a Pune-based restaurant from using the name "Burger King."

A Bench ruled that the Pune eatery can continue using the name until the Bombay High Court decides the matter.

The dispute involves US fast-food giant Burger King Corporation, which entered India in 2014, and a Pune-based restaurant using the name since 2008. The Bombay High Court had overturned a Pune court’s ruling that favored the local eatery as a “prior and honest user.”

The Supreme Court’s stay allows the Pune restaurant to operate under the name while the case continues.

The Delhi High Court recently canceled the ‘Zepto’ trademark registered in 2014 by an individual due to eight years of non-use.

Kiranakart Technologies, which operates under the Zepto brand, had filed a petition after its trademark application faced opposition from the existing registrant, Mohammad Arshad.

The court cited Russell Corp Australia Pty Ltd. vs. Shri Ashok Mahajan (2023) and Section 47(1) of the Trade Marks Act, stating that a trademark can be removed if not used without a valid reason.

Since the registrant failed to justify non-use, the court ruled in favor of Kiranakart, recognizing it as a well-established brand in quick commerce.

The Delhi High Court has issued summons in a trademark infringement suit filed by Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt. Ltd. against a restaurant in Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri, using the name “Moti Mahal Delux.”

The Court issued notice on Moti Mahal’s injunction plea and directed the defendant to submit a written statement.

Moti Mahal holds trademarks for 'Moti Mahal,' 'Moti Mahal group,' 'Moti Mahal management services,' and 'Tandoori Trail.' 

The court noted the restaurant's location in Malcha Marg, a diplomatic area, and issued summons for further inquiry. Setting the next hearing for May 21, 2025.

The Court earlier granted interim relief to Moti Mahal in a similar case against ex-franchisee SRMJ Business Promoters.

The Bombay HC ruled that the film "Shaadi Ke Director Karan aur Johar" violated Karan Johar’s personality rights and permanently stayed its release on March 8, 2025.

Karan Johar opposed the release of Shaadi Ke Director Karan aur Johar, arguing the title misused his name, violating his personality, publicity, and privacy rights. 

The court ruled that the filmmakers exploited his identity for commercial gain and rejected minor modifications.

The court reaffirmed that CBFC certification does not override personality rights.

Relying on Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012), the court protected Johar’s identity, setting a strong precedent for celebrity personality rights in India.

Delhi High Court restrained Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. from playing songs owned by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) without a license.

The court held that PPL, as the copyright owner, has the right to issue a license under Section 30 of the Copyright Act, and this right is not overridden by Section 33(1) even though PPL is not a registered copyright society.

Azure admitted to playing PPL's Song and infringing copyright. As a result, the court prohibited Azure from using PPL’s songs until the final judgment.

A Commercial Court in Noida has ruled in favor of Jubilant Pharmova Ltd., granting copyright protection for its pharmaceutical dossiers and restraining Apitoria Pharma and Hetero Labs (defendants) from using them.

Jubilant claimed that Apitoria and Hetero copied its dossiers, which were submitted for the marketing approval of three antifungal drugs and qualified as original literary works under the Copyright Act, 1957.

The defendants argued that regulatory filings lack copyright protection, but the court found that substantial portions were copied without permission.

The court ruled that Jubilant’s dossiers qualify as literary works, issued a permanent injunction, and awarded legal costs to Jubilant.

Damages are yet to be determined.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Philips in its patent infringement case against Pearl Engineering, Powercube Infotech, and Siddharth Optical Disc.

Philips sued the companies in 2012, alleging unauthorized use of its Eight-to-Fourteen Modulation Plus (EFM+) coding, a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) for DVD production.

The defendants denied infringement, claiming they used a mechanical process and outsourced encoding. They also challenged the patent’s validity and accused Philips of delaying legal action, despite knowing about their activities since 2005-2007.

The court upheld Philips' patent, ruled that the defendants knowingly infringed it, and held them liable for aggravated damages. However, no injunction was granted as the patent expired in 2015.

Twenty-Four Seven Retail Store Pvt. Ltd. (24Seven) has filed a contempt petition before the Delhi High Court against Godfrey Philips India Ltd., alleging violation of an undertaking about not to use the ‘24Seven’ trademark.

24Seven claims that despite an earlier commitment to stop using the mark, Godfrey Philips has started operating stores under the name ‘24 HOURS’, breaching its December 2024 undertaking.

Justice Mini Pushkarna briefly heard the matter and urged both parties to consider mediation. The case has been adjourned to March 21 for further proceedings.

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Raviprakash, the founder of TV9, in a legal dispute over the network’s logo ownership.

The court found that Associated Broadcasting Company Limited (ABCL) violated an agreement regarding the TV9 logo’s rights and ordered the company to clarify the transfer of logo rights and pay ₹168 crore to Raviprakash within four weeks.

The ruling reaffirms that Raviprakash has held the logo rights since 2021 and is entitled to 4% revenue share.

If ABCL fails to comply, further legal consequences may follow.