Bulletin 35 | Mar 2026
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court set aside the impleadment of a third-party to an arbitration and held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not contemplate a composite or omnibus arbitral reference merely on the basis of perceived interlinkages between transactions.
The Court clarified that an arbitration agreement operates within the confines of a specific contract and the parties thereto and that if purported beneficiaries to a contract were to be treated as necessary parties, arbitral proceedings would lose their consensual character.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court considered a suit filed by Yoga Guru Swami Ramdev seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights, as well as copyright, against the unauthorized use of his name, image, voice, and likeness.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction to Swami Ramdev against various defendants for the unauthorized exploitation of his personality rights. Ramdev alleged widespread circulation of AI-generated deepfakes, morphed images, and false endorsements across social media and e-commerce platforms. Consequently, the Court restrained defendants from using Ramdev’s persona for commercial or personal gain.
It also directed intermediaries like Google, Meta, X, and Amazon to block specific infringing URLs within 72 hours.
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
The Tribunal examined the legal character of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and held that although the CoC is not a juristic person, it may litigate in its own name within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) for functional purposes. It was observed that denying such recognition would undermine the functional efficacy of the insolvency process.
The Tribunal further clarified that both the Resolution Professional and the CoC are distinct entities under the Code and Resolution Professional is not the sole representative of the CoC.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of UEFA against multiple rogue websites illegally streaming UEFA Champions League 2025–26 matches. The Court recognized UEFA’s copyright in audiovisual broadcasts and held that unauthorized streaming causes irreparable harm. It directed domain registrars, ISPs, and government authorities to block infringing websites and disclose details of operators.
A dynamic injunction was granted, allowing UEFA to seek real-time blocking of newly discovered infringing websites during the tournament.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court allowed a rectification petition seeking removal of the trademark “GRAND MASTI” in Class 33. It held that the petitioner was the prior adopter of “MASTIH” (since 1969) and that the respondent’s mark was deceptively similar, with “MASTI” as the dominant feature and also the marks being phonetically identical, could cause likelihood of confusion.
The Court rejected defences of delay, commonality, and reliance on an NOC, finding the adoption mala fide. Accordingly, the impugned registered mark/ registration was directed to be removed from the register.
Significant Judgments
DELHI HIGH COURT (LPA 129/2025)
The Court held that a patent revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act is maintainable even after the patent has expired and can continue despite the defendant raising an invalidity defense under Section 107 in an infringement suit.
The Court clarified that revocation and defence under Section 107 are distinct remedies: revocation operates in rem, invalidates the patent ab initio, and removes it from the register, whereas a Section 107 defense is in personam and only defeats the suit.
Relying on the statutory scheme and case of Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra [(2014) 15 SCC 360], the Court held that only parallel pursuit of a revocation petition and counter-claim for revocation is barred, not a revocation petition alongside a Section 107 defence.
It further held that revocation is retrospective, and expiry does not extinguish the petitioner’s interest, especially where damages claims survive.
DELHI HIGH COURT (LPA 320/2024, CM APPL. 23753/2024)
The Delhi High Court addressed a classic “Kerly impasse” concerning concurrent rights between a trademark registrant and a prior user possessing goodwill. This makes for a case where statutory trademark infringement and common-law passing off coexist as concurrent causes of action. The Court ultimately injuncted both parties from using the “FIELD MARSHAL” mark for centrifugal pumps.
The Division Bench upheld the validity of Thukral’s 1965 trademark registration, ruling that non-use by the assignor could not be used as a ground to cancel the registration. Consequently, PM Diesels Private Limited (PMD) was permanently injuncted from using the mark due to trademark infringement. Conversely, because PMD amassed substantial goodwill by using the mark for centrifugal pumps from 1975 to 1988 (prior to Thukral’s actual use), Thukral was simultaneously injuncted on the ground of passing off.
The Court clarified that while a prior user’s goodwill can successfully injunct a registered proprietor for passing off, it does not invalidate the registration or serve as a defence against infringement. Consequently, PMD’s applications to register the mark were also rejected.
MADRAS HIGH COURT (CMA(TM) NO. 22 OF 2025)
ACE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR.
The Single Judge allowed an appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks holding that the applicant could not be deemed to have abandoned its application for failure to refile an evidence affidavit in opposition proceedings.
The Court noted that the applicant had earlier submitted an affidavit supporting its counter-claim in opposition proceedings, which remained unsigned and unattested due to COVID-19 restrictions. It held that the procedural lapse of refiling an identical affidavit beyond the extended limitation period could not defeat the parties’ substantive rights.
Clarifying the scope of Rule 42(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, the Court ruled that non-filing of evidence under Rule 42(1) results only in forfeiture of the opportunity to file evidence, and not automatic abandonment of the trademark application, since that would be ultra vires of the Act.
Meet the Picklers
Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari, Srishti Dhoundiyal, Abhinav Bhalla, Pushpit Ghosh, Sankalp Arya, Harsshita Pothiraj, Devika Tiwari, Affan Moin and Aditya Singh Thakur.
