Bulletin 41 | September 2026
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
Six Continents Hotels approached the Court seeking an injunction against the unauthorized misappropriation of its “HOLIDAY INN” marks by the Defendant in their hotel “HOTEL JEROME’S HOLIDAY INN.”
The Plaintiff submitted that it has held registration for the mark ‘HOLIDAY INN’ since 1964 and that the Defendant had subsumed the Plaintiff’s complete word mark in its hotel name, infringing its exclusive rights over the mark. Plaintiff further submitted that “HOLIDAY INN” has been declared a well-known trademark in India.
The Court accordingly granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant from misappropriating the Plaintiff’s mark or any deceptively similar mark.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The Court granted ex-parte ad-interim relief to educator Alakh Pandey in a suit asserting personality and publicity rights against social media posts, sticker packs, GIFs, coupon websites and impersonating accounts. However, the Court cautioned that personality rights cannot be deployed to prevent dissemination of information in relation to wrongdoing; or to extinguish an entire genre of expression including caricature, lampooning or parody which may not amount to commercial exploitation of an individual’s personality or publicity rights.
The protection was therefore confined to three sets of violations: sexually vulgar portrayal, unlicensed monetisation of the plaintiff’s personality, and impersonation. Intermediaries were thus directed to take down the infringing URLs and mirror/ alphanumeric/re-direct websites.
SUPREME COURT
The Court granted interim stay on the operation of the Calcutta High Court’s judgment which had held that hotels providing cable television in guest rooms engaged in “communication to the public” under the Copyright Act, 1957 and must therefore obtain a separate copyright licence from the Indian Performing Right Society.
The stay was obtained as the Petitioner contended interalia that it merely receives signals from a cable operator already licensed by the Respondent and does not transmit them. It was further submitted that Section 52(1)(k) of the Copyright Act applies only to an enclosed room meant for common use and cannot extend to individual hotel rooms which are not spaces meant for common use.
DELHI HIGH COURT
A Division Bench vacated an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining use of the “RewireX” mark, holding that the plaintiff wilfully suppressed a 2025 cease-and-desist notice and trademark opposition, falsely claiming it learned of infringement only in May 2026 to secure urgent ex-parte relief. Noting a similar pattern by the same counsel across three prior suits, the Court rejected the “oversight” explanation, quoting Ian Fleming’s famous line – “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action” to flag the deliberate suppression. Applying the “clean hands” doctrine, it held that such conduct could not be condoned, and accordingly, vacated the injunction, imposed costs on the plaintiff, and allowed the appeal, directing release of seized products.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Court granted an anti-piracy ex-parte injunction in favor of the producer of the cinematographic film “BATWARA 1947”, restraining unauthorized copying, reproduction, communication, uploading, downloading, broadcasting and exhibition of the film.
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as BSNL, Bharti Airtel, Vodafone India Limited, were directed to block access to identified infringing websites. The protection was also extended to future websites hosting or facilitating access to pirated copies.
The Court recognised the risk of irreversible injury arising from unauthorised online dissemination and imposed appropriate procedural safeguards while granting the injunction to protect the producer’s copyright interests.
Significant Judgments
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court considered a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator in disputes arising from a Partnership Deed. Disputes arose concerning the management of the firm and the proposed alteration of a cross-mortgaging/security arrangement under which properties of the partnership firm had been furnished as collateral for credit facilities availed by another family entity.
Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Petitioner proposed mutual appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, but no consensus was reached. Although the Respondents contended that the Section 11 petition was premature, the Court held that Section 11(6) prescribes no fixed statutory period and the relevant consideration is whether the agreed appointment procedure has failed within a reasonable time.
Considering the parties’ prior proceedings, mediation and unsuccessful attempts at mutual appointment, the Court found a “failure to act” under Section 11(6). Accordingly, the Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator. The connected Section 9 petition was directed to be treated as an application under Section 17 before the Arbitral Tribunal.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Delhi High Court stayed operation of an order issued under Section 36 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, restraining the sale of specified products (such as honey, cow ghee and edible oils branded as ‘100% pure’ and ‘100% natural’) and granting Dabur 15 days to report compliance (impugned order).
Dabur challenged the order contending interalia that its products had been sold for several decades and that the Designated Officer lacked authority to impose such a prohibition in the manner adopted. It further argued that the order violated natural justice because no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing had been afforded. Dabur further contended that, even in cases involving emergency prohibition, notice was required to be served, whereas the impugned order was admittedly not an emergency order.
Upon considering the submissions, the Court issued notice to the Respondents and directed them to file their reply before the next date. The Court also formed a prima facie view that a Prohibitory Order of such nature ought not to have been passed without affording the affected party an opportunity of hearing and consequently stayed operation of the impugned order until the next date i.e. 24.08.2026.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The Nine-Judge Bench examined the meaning of “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly in light of the earlier seven-Judge decision in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa. The reference arose principally from conflicting decisions concerning whether government welfare activities, including social forestry, could constitute an “industry.”
By a 5:4 split, delivered across five separate opinions, the five judges declined to reconsider the Triple Test formulated in Bangalore Water Supply: an activity constitutes an industry where there is (i) systematic and organised activity, (ii) cooperation between employer and employee, and (iii) production or distribution of goods or services to satisfy human wants and wishes. Profit motive is not an essential requirement.
The Court held that the sovereign-function exception must remain narrow. Government welfare schemes and activities do not become sovereign merely because they are performed by the State or pursue constitutional welfare objectives.
The Court further held that the 1982 amendment, which was never notified, cannot retrospectively alter the law, while the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 operates prospectively. Consequently, Bangalore Water Supply continues to govern legacy disputes under the repealed Industrial Disputes Act. The reference itself was held procedurally maintainable.
Meet the Picklers
Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari, Aniruddh Bhatia, Srishti Dhoundiyal, Abhinav Bhalla, Ishi Singh, Pushpit Ghosh, Harsshita Pothiraj, Devika Tiwari, Affan Moin and Aditya Singh Thakur.
