The Bombay High Court set aside the arbitral tribunal’s award of ₹75 lakh compensation to Kanti Beverages Pvt. Ltd. against Hersheys India Pvt. Ltd., calling it “picked virtually out of the hat.”

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the tribunal’s reasoning lacked any factual or contractual basis, as the manufacturing agreement for the Jumpin beverage brand expired on December 6, 2007, without renewal or wrongful termination.

Despite rejecting Kanti’s claims, the tribunal had inexplicably granted compensation based on Hershey’s silence during renewal discussions.

The Court ruled that such compensation “shocked the conscience,” observing that no payment could arise without a valid contractual extension.

[Hersheys India Pvt Ltd v Kanti Beverages Pvt. Ltd.]

The Supreme Court clarified that courts should not compel pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act in cases involving ongoing infringement of intellectual property rights (IPR).

The bench held that enforcing mediation before filing such suits would deprive plaintiffs of timely remedies, enabling infringers to continue benefiting under procedural delays, and observed that in urgent IPR disputes, immediate judicial intervention is crucial to prevent irreparable harm to rights holders.

The Court emphasised that mandatory mediation in active infringement cases would defeat the purpose of seeking interim relief, as prolonged procedures could further damage the plaintiff’s commercial interests and legal rights.

[Novenco Building & Industry A/S v Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd.]

The Delhi High Court restrained Ravi Mohan Studios from using the title “Bro Code” for its forthcoming film in a trademark infringement suit filed by Indospirit Beverages Private Limited, the manufacturer of the carbonated wine-in-a-pint beverage of the same name.

The Court held that the impugned title created a likelihood of confusion with the plaintiff’s registered mark, thereby misleading consumers and causing irreparable injury to its established goodwill.

The studio was directed to file its response within four weeks, and the plaintiff to submit a rejoinder thereafter. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on December 23, 2025.

[Indospirit Beverages v Ravi Mohan Studios Private Limited]

The Supreme Court on October 17 stayed the Bombay High Court’s October 10, 2025, order barring Kirloskar Proprietary Limited from licensing the 'Kirloskar' trademark to group companies in overlapping businesses.

The Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the modification expanded the scope of the July 25, 2025, order without fresh factual findings while the appeal was pending.

Kirloskar Proprietary had appealed the Trial Court’s 2025 injunction restraining licensing of the mark. The Supreme Court issued notice on the Special Leave Petition and stayed the operation of the modified order.

[Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd v. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd]

The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to Bollywood actor Hrithik Roshan against unauthorised commercial exploitation of his persona.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora restrained the defendants from using Roshan’s name, image, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes to create merchandise, AI-generated content, deepfakes, face morphing, or GIFs for commercial purposes.

The Actor had moved to the Court after morphed images, memes, and merchandise misused his persona, misleading fans and harming his reputation.

The Court directed platforms like Google, Meta, and e-commerce sites to provide Basic Subscriber Information of infringers and impleaded fan page creators before passing further orders.

The Delhi High Court has facilitated an amicable settlement between confectionery giants Cadbury and Mars, concluding their 25-year-long trademark dispute over the word “Celebrations.”

Justice Sanjeev Narula recorded the compromise, under which both companies will distribute chocolates and confectionery worth ₹5 lakh each to underprivileged students in Delhi government schools before Diwali.

The Court praised the gesture, noting that corporate rivalry had been replaced with social goodwill, and further directed the Directorate of Education and the Delhi State Legal Services Authority to supervise the distribution.

[Mars Incorporated v Cadbury (India) Ltd & Ors.]

The Madras High Court has issued an ad-interim injunction restraining internet service providers and cable operators nationwide from illegally broadcasting or streaming Maddock Films’ new release Thamma.

Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on two applications filed by the production house seeking to prevent piracy ahead of the film’s release. The Court observed that irreparable harm could occur without such restraint. However, the Court also noted that the broad injunction could affect legitimate business operations and indicated that Maddock may need to indemnify affected respondents.

The interim order remains effective until November 14.

[Maddock Films v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited]

The Delhi High Court has set aside a prior order denying interim relief to WOW Momo Foods and restrained another entity from using the mark “WOW Burger.”

A Division Bench allowed WOW Momo’s appeal, holding that the impugned mark was deceptively similar and likely to confuse with the well-known “WOW” brand. The Court emphasised that established trademarks deserve protection against dilution in a competitive market, such as the food services industry.

However, the Court clarified that WOW Momo cannot claim exclusivity over the word “WOW” alone, though this does not weaken its rights over registered composite marks.

[WOW Momo Foods Pvt Ltd v WOW Burgers & Anr]

The Bombay High Court fined a litigant ₹50 lakh for concealing key facts to secure an early injunction in a trademark dispute.

Justice Arif S. Doctor found that the plaintiff’s trademark registration applied only to Maharashtra but sought a pan-India ban. The plaintiff also hid the defendants’ prior use of the mark since April 2022 and their pending challenge before the Trademark Registry.

Terming the conduct a “fraud upon the Court,” Justice Arif S. Doctor directed that ₹25 lakh each be paid to two defendants within four weeks.

[Shoban Salim v Chaitanya Arora]

The Bombay High Court granted an ex parte injunction protecting actor Akshay Kumar’s personality rights after AI-generated deepfake videos using his likeness surfaced online.

Justice Arif S. Doctor noted that the impersonation was of “alarming realism,” making it difficult to distinguish from genuine content, as the clips falsely portrayed the actor making political and offensive remarks, causing public confusion and reputational harm.

The court restrained unknown persons (John Doe) and online platforms from sharing such content, holding that unauthorised use of his image, voice, or persona violates publicity and moral rights and endangers personal safety and public order.

[Akshay Kumar v John Doe and Ors]

The Delhi High Court dismissed a 21-year-old patent infringement suit instituted by Koninklijke Philips NV concerning Video CD technology, holding that the company had failed to establish the validity of its patent or prove infringement.

Justice Mini Pushkarna, by judgment dated October 13, held that Philips’ patent in “Digital Transmission System” comprised a transmitter, receiver, and transmission medium; however, these elements were absent in the defendants’ products.

The Court determined that the defendants merely duplicated Video CDs from Master CDs, which did not constitute infringement.

Philips had instituted the proceedings in 2004 against Delhi-based BCI Optical Disc Ltd.

[Koninklijke Philips NV v M Bathla & Anr.]

The Kerala High Court set aside an injunction restraining Shoranur Metal Industries LLP from using the name “Metal Industries.”

The Court observed that the term was generic and descriptive, and could not be monopolised by the plaintiff, Metal Industries Ltd., which failed to demonstrate that the term had acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning.

The Bench further noted that both parties operated under separate brand identities and that there was no likelihood of confusion among consumers.

Consequently, the Court held that neither trademark infringement nor passing off was established. The plea for an injunction was therefore dismissed, allowing Shoranur Metal Industries LLP to continue using its existing name.

[Shoranur Metal Industries LLP v The Metal Industries Ltd.]

Bollywood Actor Akshay Kumar has approached the Bombay High Court seeking protection of his personality rights, including his name, image, voice, and likeness.

The petition alleges unauthorised use of his identity through deepfake videos, AI-generated content, impersonation, and fake advertisements. Filed before Justice Arif Doctor, the petition seeks injunctions against such misuse on websites, social media platforms, and other digital media.

The actor has also sought protection against counterfeit merchandise bearing his identity. The Court has reserved its order after hearing the arguments.

[Akshay Hari Om Bhatia Vs Ashok Kumar].

Bollywood actor Hrithik Roshan has approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights against the unauthorised commercial use of his name, image, voice, and likeness.

The petition names unknown individuals (“John Does”) and certain entities as defendants, alleging they exploited his identity on digital platforms for commercial gain without consent.

Roshan has sought a permanent injunction restraining respondents, including unnamed parties, from such exploitation and has also requested directions to digital platforms hosting the infringing content.

The matter is listed before Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora for hearing.

[Hrithik Roshan v. Unknown Respondents & Ors.]