- within Intellectual Property, International Law and Environment topic(s)
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
NOTABLE IPR JUDGMENTS JANUARY 2026
1. Sana Herbals Private Limited vs Mohsin Dehlvi & Anr, FAO(COMM) 199/2025, CM APPL. 15229/2025, Delhi High Court
This case arose from a trademark dispute concerning the use of the mark "NOKUF" in relation to Ayurvedic medicinal products. Sana Herbals Private Limited filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off under Sections 27(2) and 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, against the respondents, claiming rights over a similar mark and seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondents from using "NOKUF".
The plaintiff contended that the respondents' use of the mark was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among consumers, thereby infringing its registered trademark rights. The respondents, however, argued that they were prior users of the mark "NOKUF" and held a valid trademark registration, which predated the plaintiff's claim.
The Delhi High Court examined the issue of competing registered trademarks and prior user rights and reiterated that mere registration does not automatically entitle a party to injunctive relief. The Court focused on Section 34 of the Act and states that prior and continuous use of a trademark prevails over subsequent registration.
Upholding the lower court's refusal to grant interim injunction, the High Court held that the respondents' prior registration and use of the mark defeated the plaintiff's infringement claim at the interim stage. Hence, the appeal was dismissed and the Court clarified that disputes involving concurrent registrations must be resolved through rectification proceedings rather than injunctive relief alone. [Link Here]
2. Sumit Vijay & Anr vs Major League Baseball Properties Inc. & Anr, CM APPLs. 45526/2025 & 45579/2025, Delhi High Court
This appeal arose from the judgment of the same court under Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Major League Baseball Properties Inc. (MLB) instituted case against the registered trademark "BLUE-JAY" owned by the appellants, Mr. Sumit Vijay and another. MLB sought removal of the mark from the Indian Trade Marks Register on the ground that it wrongly remained on the register because it was confusingly similar to its own "BLUE JAYS" marks, which it had adopted and used worldwide since 1976 in connection with the Toronto Blue Jays Major League Baseball Club. MLB contended that its marks had trans-border reputation and that the appellants' mark was adopted in bad faith to ride on that goodwill.
The Delhi High Court, in the present case has examined the statutory scheme under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act governing removal of marks from the register, and also considered Sections 9 and 11 regarding grounds for refusal or cancellation of registration and the role of bad faith in adoption of marks. The Court analysed whether the respondent's BLUE JAYS marks had acquired reputation or goodwill in India before August 1998 (when the appellants adopted BLUE-JAY) and whether the appellants acted in bad faith or with dishonest intention when adopting their mark.
The Court held that there was no material on record demonstrating goodwill or reputation of the BLUE JAYS marks in India prior to August 1998. The Court found that global reputation alone could not substitute for reputation in India prior to 1998 and that the Single Judge's finding on trans-border reputation did not adequately distinguish between worldwide fame and authentic goodwill within India. The Court also rejected the contention of bad faith adoption by the appellants, observing that the variations in explanations for adopting the BLUE-JAY mark did not, in context, establish dishonest intention. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the single judge bench of striking off the appellants' BLUE-JAY mark, and held that the mark should be allowed to remain on the register. [Link Here]
3. Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd. v. Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd, CS(COMM) 765/2024 & I.A. 38674/2024, Delhi High Court
This suit arose from a petition seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendant, Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd., from manufacturing, assembling, selling and dealing in foldable display units which were alleged to have infringed Patent titled "A Foldable Product Display Unit," granted in favour of the plaintiffs, Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd. and Ms. Ravinder Kaur. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant's display units, which were found in the market and identified through invoices and photographs, embodied all the essential elements of the suit patent and suffered infringement. The defendant counterclaimed challenging the validity of the suit patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, and sought to place additional prior art on record to demonstrate lack of novelty and inventive step.
The plaintiffs asserted that they had a prima facie case of infringement because the defendant's products fell within the claim scope of the suit patent and that procedural objections raised by the defendant were untenable and did not affect the validity or enforceability of the patent. They relied on the patent specification and the prosecution history before the Patent Office to show that the patent was validly granted. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the suit patent lacked inventive step, was obvious in light of the cited prior art US Patent No. US20100051568A1 ("US'568") and other publicly known foldable display devices, and that the plaintiffs could not establish a balance of convenience in their favour.
The High Court examined the prior art and the key inventive differences between the suit patent and US'568. It observed that both the prior art and the suit patent pertained to foldable product display units addressing similar problems of ease of assembly and structural stability. The principal distinction identified by the Court was the direction in which the side panels of the display unit folded; in the prior art, panels folded towards one another, whereas in the suit patent they folded in the same direction.
However, the Court held that this variation was within the routine design choices of a person skilled in the art with common general knowledge and that such a change did not require inventive ingenuity. Applying the test of inventive step and the principles on what constitutes a "manner of new manufacture", the Court concluded that the alteration in folding direction was at best a normal development and a mere workshop improvement. Accordingly, the High Court found that the plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. The interim injunction application was dismissed. [Link Here]
To view the full article click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
