Bulletin 33 | Jan 2026
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction protecting the personality and publicity rights of renowned former cricketer Sunil Gavaskar. The Court restrained third-parties from unauthorized commercial exploitation of his name, image, signature and likeness through sale of merchandise and attribution of false quotes on social media.
Holding such acts to infringe personality rights, spread misinformation and false association / endorsement, the Court directed intermediaries and platforms like X Corp, Meta, eBay, to delist infringing products, remove infringing content and take down URLs within 72 hours.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which was filed for fresh computation of interest in 2024 arising from a concession agreement which was the subject matter of an arbitration, culminating in an arbitral award.
The High Court applied constructive res judicata and the Henderson Principle as explained in Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd. and held that all claims and issues that could and ought to have been raised in previous litigation should not be reopened in subsequent litigation. It was observed that no subsisting arbitration agreement existed for such interest claims.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Delhi High Court granted an injunction restraining Cawels Electric Private Limited from using the mark “CAWELS” for electronic products or as part of its corporate name. The Court noted that the plaintiff had continuously used the mark in the electronic industry for over 50 years, establishing substantial goodwill and recognition as a well-known mark. It held that the defendant’s use was likely to cause consumer confusion, dilute the plaintiff’s exclusivity, and enable unlawful commercial gain.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Delhi High Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction in a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining domains/websites from infringing the copyrighted works of the Plaintiffs, such as Friends, Suicide Squad, Batman, The Jungle Book, etc. The Court observed that the alleged infringement actions are hydra-headed, i.e. recurring in multiple forms even after action is being taken, and thus, there is an imminent possibility of the Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works being re-uploaded on the said domains/websites or their newer versions.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were granted a “Dynamic+ injunction” to protect the Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works as soon as they created, to ensure that no irreparable loss is caused.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
ITALFARMACO SPA v. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & DESIGNS, OSA(CAD)SR.No.72443 of 2025
The Madras High Court recently held that an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in a statutory appeal under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970.
The Court ruled that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is a special enactment that prevails over the Letters Patent. Court emphasized that Section 13(2) unambiguously bars appeals unless the order is specifically provided under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
It was observed that any expansion of the scope of the Commercial Courts Act would defeat its objectives, and thus, there is no scope to invoke Clause 15 for such appeals.
Significant Judgments
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s order returning the plaint, thereby restoring the suit for trademark infringement. The Court held that the registration of the trademark within the forum’s jurisdiction constitutes an indispensable part of the cause of action, thereby conferring territorial jurisdiction.
It was observed that the Marketing Agreement, executed in Delhi, formed an integral part of the cause of action as the infringement claim was premised on its breach. Furthermore, extending the situs of sale to the digital sphere, the Court ruled that the availability of infringing goods on e-commerce platforms like India Mart, accessible in Delhi, was sufficient to vest jurisdiction, regardless of the defendant’s direct involvement in the listing.
Consequently, the restrictions laid down under the Ultra Home Construction were held inapplicable as a substantial cause of action arose within Delhi.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
DHYAN FOUNDATION V. GOOGLE LLC [W.P. No. 760 of 2025]
The Bombay High Court, while deciding a writ petition filed by an NGO, held that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order the blocking of online content under the Information Technology Act, 2000 or the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
The Court clarified that Rule 10 does not empower a Magistrate to direct the blocking of information in the public domain, and that Section 69 of the IT Act vests the power to issue blocking orders exclusively in the Central Government, limited to the grounds expressly specified therein.
The Court further observed that blocking public-domain information infringes the right to freedom of speech and expression and the public’s right to access information, and such a restriction cannot be imposed absent a clear statutory mandate coupled with adequate safeguards.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
DELHI HIGH COURT
In a suit filed by Dabur India seeking a permanent injunction in respect of infringement of its various intellectual properties, including the trademark “DABUR”, the Court issued wide-ranging directions to curb fraudulent and infringing domain names. Domain Name Registrars (DNR) and Registry Operators were directed to ensure transparency by disabling privacy protect features by default and to disclose complete and accurate registrant details, including payment-related information, when required by Courts or law enforcement authorities. The Court clarified that the infringing domain names would be directed to be permanently disabled to prevent re-registration and recurring misuse.
The Court further restrained the DNRs from promoting or suggesting alternative domain names once an injunction is in force, failing which such DNRs may lose safe-harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act. Further, in case of non-compliance by DNRs or Registry Operators; the offering of services by them can be blocked by MeitY and DoT under Section 69A of the IT 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.
