TRADEMARK
NO “BIG BITE” FOR 7-ELEVEN IN INDIA
7-Eleven International LLC (Appellant) a well-known international mega mart, filed an appeal before the Madras HC against Ravi Foods Private Limited (Respondent), challenging the Trademark Registry’s decision that granted the trademark “Big Bite” to the Respondent, while rejecting the Appellant’s application for the same mark. The Appellant contended that the trademark “Big Bite” had been registered by them in 1994 and which they had also been using internationally. Therefore, the Trade Marks Registry cannot arbitrarily cancel a trademark once it has been registered and renewed, and provide it to the Respondent without following due process.
However, the Court upheld the Registry’s decision and opined that the Appellant failed to prove a “definite and present intention” to use the mark in India at the time of its application in 1994, noting that they had not commenced sales in the country even by 2007. The Court reasoned that international reputation alone does not confer trademark rights if the brand lacks localized goodwill.
1.Eleven International LLC v. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors. (T)CMA(TM) Nos.110 & 157 of 2023
TRADEMARK
ESTÉE LAUDER SUES WALMART
Estée Lauder filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal Court of California against Walmart (Defendant) accusing the Defendant of selling counterfeit fragrance and skincare products. The complaint alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce platform distributes counterfeit products of premium brands using identical branding that misleads consumers. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant did not take enough care to ensure product authenticity on its website, leading to trademark infringement and false designation of origin.
The Plaintiff is seeking a court order to block further sales of the alleged fake products and unspecified monetary damages.
1.Estée Lauder, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc. 2:26-cv-01341-HDV-ADS.
TRADEMARK
“VIMAL” GETS COURT PROTECTION
Vishnu and Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd (Plaintiff) filed a commercial suit against Mr. Dharmani Deni and Ors. (Defendants) at the Delhi HC to protect its VIMAL trademark and trade dress, from unauthorized use. The Plaintiff sought an injunction after discovering that the Defendants were operating rogue websites and social media pages falsely claiming to be authorized dealers of Plaintiff’s goods. The Defendants mimicked the official website’s trade dress and used forged images of celebrity brand ambassadors to mislead the public. The Plaintiff alleged that these actions constitute trademark infringement and passing off, and violates their artistic copyrights, severely damaging thereby, the brand’s reputation and goodwill established since 1986.
The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff and restrained the Defendants from using the “VIMAL” trademark on any platform. Additionally, the Court ordered relevant social media platforms to block or suspend the infringing accounts and websites immediately to prevent further unauthorized activity.
1. Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v. Mr. Dharmani Deni and Ors. CS(COMM) 1341/2025.
TRADEMARK
BAJAJ FINANCE GETS INTERIM RELIEF
Bajaj Finance Limited (Plaintiff) filed a commercial suit against Settlement Guru (Defendant) before the Delhi HC alleging trademark infringement, defamation and unlawful interference in its business operations. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants used its registered “Bajaj Finance” trademark on websites and social media pages and actively induced borrowers to default on their loans by falsely promising settlements for significantly lower amounts. The Plaintiff claims the Defendant’s material to be false, misleading, and damaging to its reputation and contractual relationships.
The Court found a prima facie case and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff. The Court held that the alleged use of the infringing marks appeared to be dishonest and that denying immediate relief could harm the company’s goodwill and reputation. It further restrained the Defendants from executing fraudulent agreements, publishing defamatory content and using the company’s registered trademarks in any manner and ordered removal of all the infringing URLs and websites.
1. Bajaj Finance Limited v. Manish Singh @ Settlement Guru & Ors. CS(COMM) 63/2026.
TRADEMARK
ANTHROPIC v. ANTHROPIC
Anthropic Software Private Ltd. (Plaintiff), a Karnataka based startup, has filed a complaint against US-based Anthropic PBC (Respondent) before the Commercial District Court of Karnataka alleging passing off and dilution of its brand identity. Interestingly, the term ‘anthropic’ is an adjective and means of or relating to human beings, and is therefore a generic term. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant’s recent entry into the Indian domestic market has caused significant customer confusion, misrepresented its identity, and diluted its established goodwill and reputation in the market. The Plaintiff seeks recognition of its prior adoption and use of the name, hence prayed for an order restraining the Defendant from using the name “Anthropic” in the Indian market, along with INR 90 lakhs in damages.
While the court has issued summons to the Defendant, it declined to grant an interim injunction stating that there was no urgent or imminent threat shown at this stage that justified an ex-parte relief without hearing the Defendant. The court is scheduled to hear the case next on February 16, 2026.
COPYRIGHT
PARAMOUNT SUES OVER “SCREAM” MASK
Paramount and Spyglass Media Group (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in a U.S. Federal Court of California against special-effects company Alterian Inc. (Defendant) to protect their rights to the famous Ghostface mask, made by “Scream” films. The Plaintiffs state that the Defendant threatened to sue them for copyright infringement just weeks before the planned release of Scream 7 and demanded millions in settlement. The Plaintiffs argue that they legally obtained rights to use the mask from costume maker Fun World and that the Defendant waited too long to raise any claims. The Defendant, however, maintains that it created the original mask design in 1991 and plans to pursue legal action for the copied work.
The Plaintiffs are seeking a court declaration that their use of the “Scream” mask does not infringe any copyright, along with an order restraining the Defendant from pursuing any infringement claims against them.
1.Spyglass Media Group LLC v. Alterian Inc, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:26-cv-01235.
PATENT
NOVO NORDISK SUES HIMS & HERS OVER DRUG PATENT
Novo Nordisk (Plaintiff) has filed a lawsuit against Hims & Hers Health Inc., a multi-specialty telehealth platform (Defendant), alleging that the Defendant infringes its patents by selling unapproved, compounded versions of the weight-loss drug Semaglutide. The Plaintiff states that these compounded drugs are sold without legal permission even though the shortage for these drugs have eased. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant deceptively marketed its products as containing the same active ingredients as Ozempic and Wegovy (Plaintiff’s Medicines), despite the Plaintiff maintaining exclusive control over the medication’s supply. While the Defendant defends its practices as essential for patient access and personalized care, the Department of Health and Human Services recently referred the Defendants to the courts for potential regulatory violations. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to block further sales and is requesting damages for patent infringement.
PATENT
SC WARNS ASTELLAS-LUPIN PATENT DISPUTE SETTLED
Astellas Pharma (Plaintiff) filed a patent infringement suit against Lupin Limited (Defendant) in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, alleging that the Defendant’s drug “Mirabegron”, a generic version of “Myrbetriq” infringed its patent rights over the overactive bladder drug. The parties have now settled the long-standing patent dispute by entering into a settlement and licensing agreement.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Defendant has agreed to pay $90 million to settle the dispute, being$75 million to be paid upfront, and per-unit licence fees on every unit sold from the settlement date until September 2027. In return, the Plaintiff has granted the Defendant a licence, allowing it to continue selling its generic drug Mirabegron in the United States, following which, all pending litigation between the parties has been terminated.
