Recently, a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Lotus Herbals Private Limited (“Lotus Herbal”) against an order passed by the Ld. Single Judge of the Delhi High Court and granted an interim injunction against DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited (“DPKA”) restraining it from using the LOTUS SPLASH and LOTUS marks and/or any other mark nearly identical/deceptively similar to Lotus Herbal’s LOTUS mark.  Despite a prima facie finding of similarity of marks and goods and resultant likelihood of confusion, the Ld. Single Judge dismissed Lotus Herbal’s interim injunction application by stating that the term LOTUS SPLASH was descriptive of the product’s key ingredient and nature. The Ld. Single Judge additionally relied on the prominent use of the house mark 82°E and the overall differences in packaging while declining interim relief.  At the appellate stage, Lotus Herbal contended that the term LOTUS SPLASH was being used as a trademark and source identifier, not merely as a descriptor. It further submitted that the Ld. Single Judge has failed to consider the manner of use of the term LOTUS SPLASH by DPKA, in conjunction with other surrounding material, including the product description, as well as the contents of DPKA’s website and advertisements. Moreover, it was argued that once the Court found deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion, injunction ought to follow. Concludingly it submitted that the while assessing deceptive similarity, the mark had to be assessed as a whole and could not be dissected to justify descriptive use of individual elements.  DPKA maintained its stance that LOTUS in the term LOTUS SPLASH referred to its principal ingredient, i.e., lotus extracts and SPLASH described the manner of use. It further submitted that the price difference in the rival products, along with differences in the trade dress of the rival products and DPKA’s use of the house mark 82°E negates any likelihood of confusion between the rival marks.  On examining the manner of use, the two-judge bench noted that the term LOTUS SPLASH appeared as the product name in invoices and online listings, often without adequate prominence to the house mark, 82°E. It also featured in keyword-triggered search results. This indicated use of LOTUS SPLASH as a sub-brand rather than a mere description. The court clarified that while reference to LOTUS as an ingredient may be permissible, adoption of the composite expression LOTUS SPLASH as a product identifier crosses into trademark use.  Lotus Herbals Private Limited v. DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited & Ors. [FAO (OS) (COMM) 45/2024]

The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Controller of Patents has delivered a significant ruling on the architecture of revocation under the Patents Act, 1970, in the context of IN 243301 covering Linagliptin. The decision addresses how Section 64 revocation interacts with Section 107 invalidity defences and with the expiry of the patent itself.  The Court framed two central questions. 1.       Can a revocation petition under Section 64 be instituted or continue even after the petitioner has raised invalidity as a defence under Section 107 in an infringement suit. 2.       Does a revocation petition survive once the patent has expired by efflux of time.  On both issues, the Court answered in the affirmative and drew a clear structural distinction between the two provisions. A petition under Section 64 is an independent, in rem mechanism that can cancel the patent and efface it from the register, whereas an invalidity plea under Section 107 is confined to the infringement suit and has only inter partes effect. Raising invalidity as a defence therefore does not bar, exhaust, or render infructuous a standalone revocation action.  The Court further held that expiry of the patent does not make a pending revocation petition meaningless. A patent continues to be a “patent granted” in law even after expiry, and revocation, if granted, operates retrospectively and in rem so that the patent is rendered ineffective and incapable of assertion from the date of grant, not merely from the date of the revocation order. This retrospective effect directly bears on damages and accounts for past infringement, and explains why a party can retain a real and live interest in pursuing revocation even after the term has run out.  In conceptual terms, the ruling reinforces that Sections 64 and 107 occupy distinct normative spaces within the Act and that expiry is no sanctuary for a patent whose very grant is under challenge. It clarifies that revocation is a retrospective, in rem remedy directed at the legitimacy of the original grant, whereas invalidity in defence is a case-specific response within an infringement suit, leaving the broader legal status of the patent untouched.  Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH and Co. KG v. The Controller of Patents & Anr. [LPA 129/2025, CM APPL. 10551/2025]

In Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Rosenberger / PROSE, the Delhi High Court did much more than find a telecom patent valid and infringed. It showed how far an Indian court is willing to go when a whole group is pushing a patented technology into the market and it delivered a powerful message on how Indian courts view group-level infringement. At the centre of the dispute was CCA’s patent IN 240893 covers an “asymmetrical beam antenna” that boosts spectrum efficiency. The Court found that that several Rosenberger / PROSE multi beam antenna models infringed the patent. On the surface, this may appear to be a straightforward infringement ruling but the real significance lies deeper. The interesting part is who gets caught. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are all subsidiaries of the German parent and together they design, ship FOB from China and sell antennas into Indian networks. One of them even argues “we only sold FOB in Shanghai, so there is no cause of action in India.”  The Court did not accept this fragmented defence. Instead of slicing this into “direct” and “contributory” infringement, the Court treats the entire group as one infringing engine. The final order restrains “the Defendants, their manufacturers, dealers, retailers, subsidiaries, and associate companies” from dealing in 11 named antenna models and “any other models” that infringe IN 240893. This is where the decision becomes truly significant. That is the real takeaway. Traditionally, contributory infringement focuses on entities that assist or enable infringement. However, this judgment goes a step further; it reflects a judicial willingness to look beyond corporate structuring and impose liability across the full commercial chain where a patented technology is being collectively exploited. For multinational corporations and OEMs, this ruling underscore the need for holistic IP risk assessment across jurisdictions, particularly where products are designed, manufactured, and supplied through multiple group entities but ultimately enter the Indian market. At Sujata Chaudhri IP Attorneys, we view this as a noteworthy development in India’s evolving patent enforcement landscape; one that calls for careful alignment between corporate structuring and IP compliance strategies.  

Recently, the Bombay High Court vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction obtained by Elder Prrojects Limited (“Plaintiff”) against Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited (“Defendant”) and dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction, after finding gross suppression of material facts.   The Plaintiff claimed to have coined and used the ELDER device mark since 1992-93 for pharmaceutical products and obtained registration thereof in June 2024 in Class 5. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant adopted a deceptively similar mark and secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction without notice to the Defendant in September 2025.   The Defendant sought vacation of the ex-parte order, contending that the Plaintiff had suppressed: (i) that Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (“EPL”) was the first adopter, user and registered proprietor of the trademark ELDER since 1983; (ii) that the directors of the Plaintiff and Defendant are siblings and children of EPL’s late Managing Director; (iii) four adverse orders passed by the Delhi High Court against the Plaintiff in respect of the ELDER mark; and (iv) proceedings initiated by the Official Liquidator of EPL against the Plaintiff.   The Court held that the Plaintiff had grossly suppressed material facts while securing the ex-parte injunction. The Court noted that the Plaintiff had admitted before the Delhi High Court and the Official Liquidator that it was merely a contract manufacturer for EPL and did not claim any right in the trademark ELDER. The Court observed that the Plaintiff had taken contradictory stands in different proceedings to suit its convenience and strongly deprecated the Plaintiff’s conduct of approbation and reprobation. The Court further held that the Plaintiff itself was prima facie an infringer of EPL’s mark and could not be permitted to take legal action the Defendant. Accordingly, the ex-parte injunction was vacated, the temporary injunction application was dismissed, and costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- were imposed on the Plaintiff. Elder Prrojects Limited v. Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited [Interim Application (L) No.35091 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No.27106 of 2025]

The Calcutta High Court’s decision in Reckitt Benckiser v. Godrej gives an important reminder: a company cannot use branding law to keep a monopoly over a bottle shape after its design protection has run out. Reckitt Benckiser, known for its widely recognized Harpic toilet cleaner, had earlier secured design protection over its distinctive “duck neck” bottle. This design, functional and visually identifiable, enjoyed exclusivity for a limited statutory period. However, once the design registration expired, Godrej introduced its “Spic” toilet cleaner in a bottle featuring a similar bent-neck configuration. With no subsisting design rights, Reckitt turned to trademark and trade dress law, asserting rights over the overall “look and feel” of its product packaging. The High Court cancelled an earlier order that had stopped Godrej from using its bottle. It made three key points: Therefore, once the time‑limited protection for a bottle shape ends, competitors can use similar shapes, as long as they do not copy the total look of the product so closely that customers are misled about who is selling it.

Recently, the Delhi High Court granted RICA S.p.A. (“Plaintiff”), the prior registrant and user of the mark RICA in relation to #cosmetic products, including hair removal wax, an ad-interim #injunction against use of the mark REAL RICA/REAL RICA WAX by Jatin Hemendrabhai Vora, trading as M/s Parul Marketing (“Defendant”). The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant had filed an application for the mark REAL RICA WAX covering “hair removing wax”, which was published in August 2021 and has been opposed by the Plaintiff. The court, based on the Plaintiff’s submissions, granted an #exparte order restraining the Defendant from using the mark REAL RICA/REAL RICA WAX for hair removal products, till the next date of hearing.

Recently, the Delhi High Court granted Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant, Ishant Kashiwal, trading as, The Hogwarts Kafe, from using THE HOGWARTS KAFE and/or THE WIZARDING WORLD marks. The plaintiff, is a leading entertainment and media platform and is well-recognized in the field of production, distribution and licensing of television programming and distribution of product and brand licensing of their prior used and registered trade marks HOGWARTS and HARRY POTTER since the year 1997. The Plaintiff also claimed to be a proprietor of the mark THE WIZARDING WORLD, that is being used since the year 2020. It was the plaintiff’s case that the defendant has dishonestly adopted and is using the marks THE HOGWARTS KAFE and THE WIZARDING WORLD as the name of its cafe/restaurant, which, as per the Plaintiff, is deceptively similar to HOGWARTS and THE WIZARDING WORLD marks. The Delhi Court held that the plaintiff has made prima facie case in its favour. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from using the HOGWARTS and THE WIZARDING WORLD marks till the next date of hearing and directed him to remove all references to the HOGWARTS and THE WIZARDING WORLD marks from his listings on third party websites and social media pages.

Recently, the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from using the marks SSH/SH, MARINE, D3/D3-GOLD and SAATHICOL or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s marks #FEVICOL, SH, MARINE and D3. The plaintiff, a leading manufacturer of #adhesives and allied products, owned #registrations for all four above-noted marks. It also provided material evidence to show its #goodwill and #reputation in all the marks. In November 2019, the plaintiff came across a range of adhesive products sold by the defendants under the infringing marks. The defendants had also obtained a registration for the SAATHICOL label mark. The court held that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of trade mark #infringement with respect to the marks SSH/SH, MARINE, D3/D3-GOLD. Further, owing to the defendants’ registration for the SAATHICOL mark, the court granted relief against use of this mark under the laws of passing off. Lastly, the court #condoned the plaintiff’s delay in approaching the court and held that mere delay on its own cannot, unless there is a case made out in #acquiescence, operate to defeat the rights of a registered proprietor. Recently, the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from using the marks SSH/SH, MARINE, D3/D3-GOLD and SAATHICOL or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s marks #FEVICOL, SH, MARINE and D3. The plaintiff, a leading manufacturer of #adhesives and allied products, owned #registrations for all four above-noted marks. It also provided material evidence to show its #goodwill and #reputation in all the marks. In November 2019, the plaintiff came across a range of adhesive products sold by the defendants under the infringing marks. The defendants had also obtained a registration for the SAATHICOL label mark. The court held that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of trade mark #infringement with respect to the marks SSH/SH, MARINE, D3/D3-GOLD. Further, owing to the defendants’ registration for the SAATHICOL mark, the court granted relief against use of this mark under the laws of passing off. Lastly, the court #condoned the plaintiff’s delay in approaching the court and held that mere delay on its own cannot, unless there is a case made out in #acquiescence, operate to defeat the rights of a registered proprietor.

In a suit filed by Cerveceria Modelo Demexico S De R L De Cv & Ors. (“Plaintiffs”), the Delhi High Court restrained the defendants from using the  Plaintiffs’ #CORONA and #BUDWEISER word and logo marks or any marks similar to the Plaintiffs’ marks. The court also restrained the defendants from using the Plaintiffs’ marks in a disparaging manner.    The Plaintiffs claimed to be the world’s largest brewing company and the registered owners of the above-noted trade marks. The Plaintiffs further claimed that the defendants were using the get-up, logo, font etc., of their marks in a derogatory manner on/in relation to clothing. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs prayed for an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing their marks, tarnishing the goodwill and reputation of their marks and using their marks in a disparaging manner. The court observed that, based on the evidence presented before it, the defendants were using the marks CORONA and BUDWEISER in a manner that resembles and disparages the registered trade marks, logos and labels of Plaintiffs, and is clearly in very bad taste. The court further held that the Plaintiffs had prima facie established the three factors of passing off and the balance of convenience tilted in favour of the Plaintiffs, who are well established in their business and have earned great goodwill from their customers. Accordingly, the court granted an injunction in favour of Plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from selling, marketing, displaying etc. their products or disparaging the Plaintiffs’ trade marks in any manner.

Recently Star India Pvt. Ltd. (“#Star”) successfully enforced its rights in the Delhi High Court in connection with the #telecast of the upcoming cricket world cup. Star claimed that it had acquired telecast rights for a hefty fee and apprehended that the defendants, i.e., rogue websites, will infringe its rights by unauthorizedly telecasting the world cup matches. Such apprehension was based on the fact that the defendants had, in the past, transmitted IPL matches without any authorization and showed ‘#ICC Men’s World Cup’ as an upcoming event to be streamed on their websites. While also impleading the Internet service providers and the Department of Telecommunications, Star placed reliance on prior precedent to pray for an omnibus direction in future to protect its rights. The court held that Star had established a prima facie case and passed an order restraining the defendants from #streaming, #broadcasting, #transmitting, etc. the upcoming world cup. The court further directed the Internet and telecom service providers to block access to the websites impleaded by Star. In addition to the above, the court also granted Star the liberty to identify more such infringing websites in the future and, upon filing of an affidavit, the same directions will apply to such additional websites.