The Delhi High Court has established itself as a crucial forum for resolving intellectual property (IP) disputes, particularly following the creation of its Intellectual Property Division (IPD). This specialized division focuses on adjudicating matters related to IP rights, making it an important venue for litigants seeking protection and resolution in such cases. The court's consistent rulings provide litigants with a reliable platform to seek protection for their trademarks and assert their rights against infringement. Parties are increasingly advised to turn to this jurisdiction for effective legal recourse in IP matters.
Here’s a summary of recent notable judgments:
HCL Corporation: On December 24, the court granted a temporary injunction against a healthcare company for infringing on HCL's trademark, highlighting the potential for consumer confusion due to similar branding.
IKEA: The court ruled on December 18, issuing an injunction against IKEY Home Studio LLP for using a name closely resembling IKEA, thus protecting the brand's goodwill and preventing misleading associations.
Upstox: On December 28, Upstox received interim relief in a case concerning unauthorized use of its trademarks, demonstrating the court's commitment to safeguarding established brands.
New Balance: In a ruling on December 5, the court awarded ₹7 lakh in damages to New Balance against a manufacturer for counterfeiting its products, emphasizing the importance of protecting registered trademarks.
Louis Vuitton: On November 25, the court permanently restrained two businessmen from infringing on Louis Vuitton's 'LV' trademark, underscoring the brand’s well-known status and addressing deceptive practices.
Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Sanjay Jain: The court canceled the trademark “POMA-EX KIWKHEAL” for being deceptively similar to Pidilite’s “Fevikwik,” registered in bad faith to benefit from its goodwill. This reinforces the protection of well-known trademarks.
Fabindia v. Fab India Emporium: The court granted a permanent injunction against “Fab India Emporium,” ruling the name was deceptively similar to “Fabindia,” likely causing consumer confusion and infringing trademark rights.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Gleck Pharma: The court restrained Gleck Pharma from using “XIGAMET,” a name deceptively similar to Glenmark’s “ZITA-MET,” emphasizing stringent scrutiny in pharmaceutical trademarks to prevent public harm.
Adidas AG v. Three-Stripe Infringers: Adidas secured a permanent injunction against the unauthorized use of its “three-stripe” mark on goods, protecting brand identity and preventing dilution.
Asian News International v. OpenAI: ANI won an interim injunction against OpenAI for using its copyrighted news content without permission to train ChatGPT. The ruling sets a significant precedent in AI and copyright law.
Sign Up on mentblue here: 
And check out each of mentblue offerings here:
In My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court delved into the interplay between the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA). The case centered on whether the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act—which extends deadlines when courts are closed—applies to the 30-day condonable period under Section 34(3) of the ACA. The appellants filed an applic...
On January 10, 2025, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi appeared virtually before a Pune court in connection with a defamation case filed by Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The case pertains to alleged derogatory remarks made by Gandhi about the Hindutva ideologue during a speech in London in 2023.
On January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed review petitions challenging its October 2023 verdict, which declined to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages. The five-judge bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, B.V. Nagarathna, P.S. Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta, considered the review pleas in chambers and found no apparent error in the original judgment, concluding that no interference was warranted.