Bulletin 34 | Feb 2026
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
EMAMI LIMITED V. DABUR INDIA LIMITED CS(COMM) 532 OF 2023
The Court considered a passing-off dispute over cooling hair oil trade dress between two major hair oil companies namely ‘Emami’ and ‘Dabur’. Emami, the Plaintiff argued that Dabur’s product ’Cool King Thanda Tael’ was deceptively similar to its ‘Navratna Oil’ in terms of packaging, colour scheme, trade dress and branding, causing confusion among consumers and unfairly riding on its goodwill.
Assessing Emami’s established goodwill and common-to-trade elements, the court found prima facie imitation in Dabur’s product likely to cause consumer confusion. Accordingly, the Defendant was restrained from selling the ‘Cool King Thanda oil’ using the deceptively similar Trade Dress.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court dismissed the appeal filed by Canva Pty Ltd., upholding the interim injunction restraining the use of its “Present and Record” feature for infringing Indian Patent No. 360726.
The Division Bench rejected Canva’s contention that the absence of a “sandwiched CTA layer” and a “movable PiP window” negated infringement. The Court held that the “sandwiched layer” was not an essential claim limitation, and “movability” was a non-essential feature at the interim stage.
Applying the Doctrine of Equivalents, the Court observed that Canva’s feature performed substantially the same function to achieve the same result. It was clarified that these findings are prima facie and subject to the final trial.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The Court taking an unprecedented step, permitted the use of an artificial intelligence assisted algorithm called “Superlaw Courts” in an arbitration proceeding. It was observed that the system helps legal professionals to locate, organise, and understand information strictly within the documents placed before it and does not replace legal reasoning or judicial determination.
The Court noted that a draft order, covering the facts, pleadings, arguments, evidence, and findings of the arbitral tribunal shall be circulated to both sides, after which the reliance placed on artificial intelligence would come to an end.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court granted an ex parte ad interim and dynamic injunction against rogue mobile applications and their associated domains/User Interface(UI) /URLs illegally streaming ICC Under-19 and Men’s T20 World Cup 2026 matches. It was held that the Plaintiff has established a strong prima facie case of infringement of its Broadcast Reproduction Rights under Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and that continued piracy would cause irreparable injury and substantial revenue loss.
Accordingly, domain registrars, ISPs, DOT and MEITY were directed to block the defendant applications/ domains/ UIs/ URLs and any other applications/ domains/ UIs/ URLs identified and communicated by the Plaintiff on a real-time basis i.e. as and when such domains/UIs/URLs are intimated to the parties.
DELHI HIGH COURT
ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED V. E.R. SQUIBB AND SONS, LLC & ORS., FAO(OS) COMM 120/2025
Setting aside an order injuncting the manufacture and release of a drug in a quia timet action, the Court held that product-to-product mapping is ex facie unacceptable as a basis to determine patent infringement.
The Court recognised that it is erroneous to injunct a defendant without there being a product-to-claim mapping as per Rule 3(A)(ix) of the High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022. In the absence of the same, the Court held that, even at the prima facie stage, the available collateral material must overwhelmingly indicate that the defendant’s product maps onto the suit patent.
Significant Judgments
DELHI HIGH COURT (C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 76/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS)
The Single Judge allowed the appeal challenging the refusal to register the trademark ‘LAMBRETTA’. The connected writ petitions were dismissed, and the matter was remanded for consolidated decision to the Registrar of Trademarks. It was held that the Registrar’s power to withdraw acceptance under Section 19 of the Trade Marks Act is discretionary, precluding third parties from filing applications to invoke it. It was observed that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass the efficacious alternative remedy of opposition under Section 21, which constitutes the appropriate statutory mechanism.
Addressing the Registrar’s inconsistent approach, the Court ruled that the refusal order could not coexist with acceptance orders passed for identical marks between the same parties. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to adjudicate all pending applications and rectifications together to resolve the contradictory stands.
DELHI HIGH COURT CS (OS) 697/2025
The Plaintiff, an Indian Revenue Services officer, in a defamation suit sought a permanent injunction restraining the broadcast of the series ‘The Ba**ds of Bollywood’, alleging that a character in the series substantially resembled him and portrayed him in a derogatory manner.
Before examining the merits, the Court considered whether it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Plaintiff contended that the series was accessible in Delhi, harming his reputation within the jurisdiction, and that decisions relating to his government services were taken in Delhi, thereby attracting the jurisdiction of the Court.
The Court noted that the Plaintiff was a resident of Mumbai, the Defendants’ registered offices were situated in Mumbai, and the filming and production were conducted there. Applying Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court ruled that jurisdiction lay with the courts in Mumbai and disposed of the suit as unmaintainable, without examining the defamation claim on merits.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (2026 INSC 92)
The Court held that an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for extension of time or substitution of arbitrators) lies only before the “Court” defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, i.e., the principal civil court of original jurisdiction (including a High Court only where it exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction), irrespective of whether the arbitral tribunal was appointed by the High Court/Supreme Court under Section 11 or constituted by party consent.
The Court clarified that jurisdiction under Section 11 is limited to appointment of arbitrator and the such court becomes functus officio thereafter; it does not confer supervisory control over arbitral proceedings. Concerns of “hierarchy” or “conflict of power” cannot override the statutory definition of “Court.” Further, Section 42 (which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the first court approached under Part I) is not attracted merely because a Section 11 application was filed before the High Court.
The appeals were allowed and the parties were given liberty to move Commercial Court for further extension under Section 29A for exercising Court’s power under Section 29A(4).
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.
