Bulletin 39 | July 2026
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Renee Cosmetics seeking cancellation of the trademark “GLASS SKIN” in Class 3 registered in favour of the Respondent, holding that the expression is generic and descriptive of the intended result of cosmetic products and is commonly used in the beauty industry. Relying on the principles governing descriptive marks, the Court observed that “GLASS SKIN” originated in the Korean beauty industry and is widely used by multiple cosmetic brands to describe luminous, clear and glass-like skin. As the registered proprietor failed to establish acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning, the Court held that the registration was barred under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and directed its removal from the Register.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court upheld the Interim Blocking Order and the Final Order (“Orders”) issued by the Union of India (UOI) under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, in view of the alleged misuse of the Telegram platform in relation the NEET-UG 2026 examination. The Court considered two issues, i.e. whether the Interim order is vitiated by non-application of mind; and whether the action of the UOI in temporarily blocking public access to the entire Telegram platform satisfies the requirement of proportionality.
The Court held that the Orders did not suffer from non-application of mind, and were founded on relevant material, and supported by adequate reasons, i.e. to avert potential disruption to public order. The Court further held that the blocking of the Telegram platform and the disabling of Telegram’s message-editing feature for a limited time period are not disproportionate.
DELHI HIGH COURT
In a suit filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. seeking protection of its exclusive media and broadcasting rights over the FIFA World Cup 2026, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim dynamic injunction against rogue websites and mobile applications illegally streaming the tournament.
The Court observed that infringers increasingly evade blocking orders through alphanumeric, mirror and redirect variants and held that conventional remedies would be rendered otiose during a live sporting event. Accordingly, it directed Domain Name Registrars and Internet Service Providers to suspend and block existing as well as future infringing platforms on a real-time basis upon notification by the Plaintiff.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The Court quashed the FIR, the consequential charge sheet and the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants in relation to the manufacture and sale of counterfeit apparel. The Court held that allegations concerning the unauthorised use of clothing brands’ labels on counterfeit goods did not constitute an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which prescribes punishment for copyright infringement.
The Court observed that such allegations, if made out, would attract Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and not Section 63 of the Copyright Act.
It was held that the mere framing of charges does not preclude quashing of the criminal proceedings where, even if the allegations are accepted at face value, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The Court upheld Lok Adalat’s finding holding BSNL vicariously liable for a SIM swap scam that resulted in a cooperative bank being defrauded of `87.70 lakh.
The bank discovered that certain unknown persons had obtained duplicate SIM cards pertaining to the bank’s registered mobile number from BSNL office and gained access to the OTP mechanism. Using the OTP, said people effected unauthorized online transfers from bank’s account. Court held that the employee’s negligent act of issuing duplicate SIM without verification was done in the course of his employment, rendering BSNL vicariously liable for the resulting loss.
Consequently, the Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Lok Adalat and directed BSNL to pay the unrecovered amount of `50,50,762 to the bank.
Significant Judgments
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, seeking contempt action against Google for allegedly violating earlier injunction orders by continuing to permit the Plaintiffs’ trade marks to trigger third-party sponsored links. The Court held that the operative directions in the prior judgments were confined to investigating complaints alleging use of the marks as Keywords, and complaint pertaining to Ad-texts were meant to be governed by Google policy and as such no directions were given by the Court for to proactively monitor keywords used in Ad Text,Ad Title or URL. However, the Defendant No.1 &3 were bound by their undertaking to remove them upon receipt of complaint.
The Court found no willful disobedience, since two interpretations of the directions were reasonably possible and the impugned URLs had already been taken down pursuant to the Plaintiffs’ notice and subsequent orders. The application was accordingly dismissed, with liberty to the Plaintiffs to notify Google of future violations for investigation under its Policy
SURPREME COURT OF INDIA
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal challenging the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of a writ petition on the ground of forum non conveniens. The appellant, a BSF constable, challenged his dismissal from service, arguing the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226(1) as the offices of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs were located in Delhi.
The Court held that under Article 226(1), the Delhi High Court had the competence to entertain the writ petition despite the cause of action arising outside its territorial limits. It ruled that the doctrine of forum non conveniens was misapplied, observing that when a suitor chooses a forum convenient to the respondents (based on their office situs), invoking this doctrine could be self-defeating and deny access to justice.
Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was revived to be decided on its own merits.
DELHI HIGH COURT, C.S. (COMM.) 177/2021
The Court partly allowed an application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for infringement of its registered cooler design. The Court held that the plaintiff’s own invoices and website established that products under the mark ‘ZEPHYR’ bearing the suit design had been sold and published prior to the filing of the application for registration. Accordingly, the registered design was vulnerable to cancellation on the ground of prior publication under Section 19(1)(b) of the Designs Act, 2000, and the plaintiff had no real prospect of succeeding in its infringement claim.
However, the Court declined to dismiss the claim of passing off at the summary judgment stage. It held that the plaint is not evidence and that the plaintiff must be given an opportunity to lead evidence to establish the essential elements of passing off. Accordingly, while the claim for design infringement was dismissed, the claim for passing off was allowed to proceed to trial.
Meet the Picklers
Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari, Srishti Dhoundiyal, Ishi Singh, Abhinav Bhalla, Pushpit Ghosh, Harsshita Pothiraj, Devika Tiwari, Affan Moin and Aditya Singh Thakur.
