TRADEMARK
HEINEKEN SUES OVER TIGER LOGO
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (Petitioner), a global beverage company, filed a petition before the Delhi HC against one Vijay Keshav Wagh (Respondent) concerning his unauthorized adoption of the “TIGER” device mark. The Petitioner argued that the Respondent’s “Shree Sakshat” label had reproduced its tiger device in entirety, and thus infringed its copyrighted artistic work as well as its trademark rights. Petitioner further alleged that the Respondent’s copyright registration was obtained dishonestly, by falsely claiming that the work was unpublished. The Respondent however countered that no exclusivity could be claimed over the “TIGER” logo, since similar marks are widely used in the market, leading to dilution of the original artistic work.
Subsequently, the Court held that the Respondent’s logo was a clear imitation of the Petitioner’s artistic work and emphasized that in cases of an overlap between copyright and trademark, the law prevents protection of deceptively similar works. Concluding that the Respondent’s adoption lacked originality and was done in bad faith, the Court directed the removal of the impugned copyright registration from the Register of Copyrights.
1. Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Vijay Keshav Wagh, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1154
TRADEMARK
ELECTRAL V. ELECTROCAD TM DISPUTE
FDC Limited (Plaintiff), manufacturer of ELECTRAL ORS, filed a suit against Cadiz Lifescience and a third-party manufacturer (Defendants) before the Delhi HC alleging copyright infringement and passing off of its well-known “ELECTRAL” ORS product. The Plaintiff sought to restrain the Defendants from marketing ELECTROCAD in packaging similar to ELECTRAL’s green-and-white trade dress. It argued that “ELECTRAL” has been in use since 1972 and was declared as a well-known mark in 2023. It further stated that the Defendant’s packaging mimicked the color scheme, font, and bold underlining of ELECTRAL, creating a confusion and deception among consumers. The Defendants however denied any likelihood of confusion, stating that both the marks are different and that their product was distinguishable.
The Delhi HC found a prima facie case of deceptive similarity and granted the ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, marketing or selling the infringing product or any deceptively similar packaging. Holding that the defendants had deliberately imitated the plaintiff’s trade dress to benefit from its reputation, it further observed that the ORS products are often purchased over the counter by consumers who largely rely on visual recollection, which therefore increases the likelihood of confusion.
1.Fdc Limited vs Neeraj Agarwal and Anr., Case No. CS (COMM) 221/2026
TRADEMARK
SAMSUNG SUES OVER DOMAIN NAME MISUSE
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a suit against www.Samsungservicecentrehvderabad.Com and others (Defendants) alleging trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendants had created deceptive domain names and operated unauthorized websites portraying themselves as authorized Samsung service centres. The Plaintiff further presented that such websites copied their branding, layout, and overall presentation, and thus misled consumers and diverted traffic to their website, for commercial gains.
The Court observed that the unauthorized use of the well-known “SAMSUNG” mark for unknown websites was dishonest and intended to deceive consumers into believing an association with the Plaintiffs. It accordingly granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using the mark or operating the infringing websites and further directed suspension and takedown of such websites.
1.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Anr vs Www.Samsungservicecentrehvderabad.Com., Case No. CS (COMM) 1028/2025
TRADEMARK
BELLA VITA TRADE DRESS DISPUTE
IDAM Natural Wellness Private Ltd. (Plaintiff), proprietor of the BELLAVITA (a famous perfumery brand), filed a suit before the Delhi HC against Helios Lifestyle Limited & Ors. (Defendants), alleging trademark and copyright infringement. The Plaintiff sought an ex parte ad interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from manufacturing and selling perfumery products under the mark “OUD WHITE” in packaging allegedly similar to its mark “WHITE OUD”. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendants had deliberately imitated the Plaintiff’s packaging and overall trade dress in order to mislead consumers into believing an association existed with the Plaintiff’s brand, and had passed off Plaintiff’s goods and exploited its goodwill and reputation over time.
The Court observed that the continued use of the infringing marks and trade dress was likely to cause confusion and irreparable harm to the Plaintiff’s business and reputation. Accordingly, the Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark, trade dress, or any deceptively similar variant, and directed removal of infringing references from the Defendant’s platforms.
1.IDAM Natural Wellness Private Ltd vs Helios Lifestyle Limited & Ors, Case No. 211/2026
COPYRIGHT
SUJOY GHOSH GETS SC RELIEF FOR “KAHANI 2”
National award-winning director Sujoy Ghosh (Petitioner) filed a petition before the Supreme Court of India seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him filed by Umesh Prasad Mehta (Complainant). The Complainant had filed a criminal complaint before a Judicial Magistrate in Hazaribagh, alleging that the script of the film “Kahaani 2” was copied from his original work titled “Sabak.” The Complainant asserted that he had shared his script with Ghosh, who then subsequently used it without authorization, amounting to copyright infringement. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons, which was later upheld by the Jharkhand HC. The Petitioner, however, denied all allegations, contending that he had independently developed the script much earlier in 2012 and had even registered it prior to the alleged interaction, emphasizing that he never had knowledge about the Complainant’s work.
The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner, holding that the allegations did not disclose a sufficient basis to sustain criminal prosecution for copyright infringement. The Court found that the complaint lacked substantive material to establish prima facie copying and observed that such disputes, without clear evidence of infringement, should not be pursued.
1.Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand, Case No. SLP(Crl) No. 9452/2025
COPYRIGHT
DISNEY V. BYTEDANCE – AI COPYRIGHT CLASH
TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, has suspended the global rollout of its AI video-generation model, Seedance 2.0, following copyright disputes with major Hollywood studios and streaming platforms, including The Walt Disney Company. The complaint was triggered after AI-generated videos, including one depicting Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt in a fight sequence, went viral in China. The dispute came to a head after Disney sent a cease-and-desist letter to ByteDance, accusing it of using its copyrighted characters from franchises including Star Wars and Marvel to train and power Seedance 2.0 without authorization. In light of the escalating allegations, ByteDance opted to suspend the rollout of its AI model as a precautionary measure.
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION
PERUVIAN PISCO V. CHILEAN PISCO – A GI DISPUTE
The Embassy of Peru in India (Appellant) filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the Delhi HC, challenging Delhi HC’s single judge order from July 2024 that had granted the Geographical Indication status for the grape-fermented brandy “Pisco” registered in Peru’s favour in India to be reclassified as “Peruvian Pisco,” and the one registered in favour of Chile’s Asociación De Productores De Pisco A.G. (Respondent) to be reclassified as “Chilean Pisco.” In 2009, GI status was granted to both Peruvian and Chilean Pisco, but the IPAB in 2018 granted exclusive rights to Peru. This order was challenged by Chilean producers before the Delhi High Court, and in 2024, a single judge of Delhi HC restored country-specific use for both, leading to Peru’s appeal.
Peru’s submitted that Pisco is inherently and historically a Peruvian product, with origins traceable to the Pisco Valley and the Ica region in southern Peru dating back to the 17th century and that appending a country-specific prefix would dilute Peru’s centuries-old goodwill and the “historical weight” of the mark. Peru further maintained that one cannot add a prefix to a GI, and categorically stated it had no interest in being the proprietor of the GI “Peruvian Pisco.” On the contrary, Chile countered that Chile has been producing Pisco for at least a century and that the brand “Pisco” was universally identified with Chile as well.
The Court dismissed Peru’s appeal, and held that since Pisco has long been manufactured in Chile as well, granting the standalone GI exclusively to Peru was likely to cause consumer confusion and would create a misleading impression that Pisco is produced only in Peru. On Peru’s stated disinterest in holding the “Peruvian Pisco” GI, the Court observed that nothing in its judgment would prevent Peru from taking steps to surrender that registration in accordance with law.
PATENT
NOVARTIS CHALLENGES PATENT OFFICE DELAY
Novartis AG & another (Petitioners) filed a writ petition before the Delhi HC seeking directions to the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks, and Geographical Indications (Respondent) to expeditiously decide and dispose of a patent application that has remained pending since its filing on February 10, 2011. The Petitioner contended that despite having diligently pursued the application, including filing for examination, the Respondents had failed to decide the matter for over 15 years, causing significant prejudice to the Petitioners’ rights as inventors. The procedural history of the application revealed a pattern of systemic delay at every stage. The Respondents offered no adequate explanation for the prolonged pendency at each of these stages. The Petitioners argued that this extended delay was particularly prejudicial, given the limited statutory term of a patent. Since patent protection runs for 20 years from the date of filing, years consumed in procedural limbo directly erode the effective commercial life of the patent, undermining both the inventor’s rights and the broader public interest in timely access to the fruits of innovation.
The Court held that the mechanism of pre-grant opposition is intended to assist and inform the examination process, not to serve as an instrument of delay. Allowing repeated oppositions to stall proceedings indefinitely defeats the very purpose of the patent system and renders the limited patent term illusory for genuine inventors. Accordingly, the Court directed the Respondents to decide the pending patent application and all pre-grant oppositions as expeditiously as possible, and in any event not later than four months from the date of the order.
1.C.R. Neelakandan v. Union of India & Ors., WP(PIL) No. 15/2026
