Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Case Summary: Koustav Bagchi Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr. Facts Of The Case Facts: The case arose from a controversy surrounding a book published in 2015 which contained certain passages and allegations about the personal life of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of West Bengal. The author of the book had claimed that the Chief Minister had been secretly married prior to assuming office and had attempted to conceal this fact from the public. The book described the alleged relationship and questioned the integrity and honesty of the Chief Minister, suggesting that her public persona did not match…

Facts Everest Entertainment LLP, the plaintiff, claimed to be the sole and exclusive owner of the copyright and intellectual property in the Marathi film “Mee Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy!” produced under an assignment agreement dated June 26, 2008, and its addendum dated August 28, 2013, executed with the first defendant, Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar. Under this agreement, Manjrekar, the director and original rights holder, assigned all intellectual property rights in the film—including the script, dialogues, cinematograph film, and promotional materials—to Everest Entertainment. In 2025, the defendants, led by Manjrekar and others associated with Krizolh Filmz LLP, Satyasai Productions Pvt. Ltd., and Zee…

Observation That Judicial Officers and Commissioners Must Be Protected observation that judicial officers and commissioners must be protected from intimidation and harassment, as they act under the authority of the court. Any attempt to interfere with their lawful duties strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law. Case Details Case Title Court on its Own Motion Vs. Nitin Bansal Case Number CONT.CAS. (CRL) 16/2024 Neutral Citation 2025:DHC:9447 Date of Decision 29th October, 2025 Court High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Coram Hon’ble Ms. Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta Disclaimer Disclaimer: The…

Facts: Pathkind Diagnostics Private Limited v/s Registrar of Trade Marks Pathkind Diagnostics Private Limited, a well-known diagnostics company, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appeal challenged the order dated 23 April 2024 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks, rejecting the company’s application for registration of the device mark “PATHKIND LABS” under Class 44, which relates to medical and diagnostic services. The application was originally refused by the Registrar on the ground that there already existed two similar…

Facts: The case arises out of a commercial dispute between Pas Agro Foods, a partnership firm based in Palakkad, Kerala, and KRBL Limited, a well-known company headquartered in Delhi, which owns the registered trademark “INDIA GATE” for rice and related food products. KRBL Limited obtained ownership of this mark through an assignment deed dated 6 August 2019, from Mr. Ram Pratap, who had initially registered the trademark in 1993 with the Trade Marks Registry at New Delhi.   Pas Agro Foods, claiming to be affected by the said registration, filed a Special Jurisdiction Case (SP.JC No. 2 of 2025) before the…

Facts The appellant, Novenco Building and Industry is a Danish company involved in manufacturing high-efficiency industrial fans sold under the brand Novenco ZerAx. Between 2007 and 2015, the company invested approximately 3.66 million euros to develop this technology, securing patents and design registrations in India and other countries. To market its products in India, it entered into a dealership agreement on 1 September 2017 with Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., a company based in Hyderabad. According to Novenco, Xero Energy’s Director later breached the agreement by forming a separate company named Aeronaut Fans Industry Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no. 2),…

Vishal Sakhla Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh | FIR Quashing under Copyright and Drugs Act: Factual Background The petitioners, led by Vishal Sakhla, sought quashing of an FIR registered on 22 May 2023 as Crime No. 285/2023 at Police Station Thatipur, Gwalior. The FIR alleged offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 33EEC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The case arose from a dispute concerning Ayurvedic medicines sold under the banner “Om Shri Hari Vishnu Ayurvedic Utpad.” Petitioner No. 3, Bharat Singh Kushwah, operated a duly registered Ayurvedic products business, possessing valid certifications under:…

Introduction: Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wow Burger – Trademark Infringement Case The case of Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wow Burger & Anr. presented before the Delhi High Court concerned a trademark dispute between two entities in the food business. The appellant, Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd., is a renowned food chain known for its trademarks WOW MOMO, WOW DIMSUMS, and WOW MOMO INSTANT. These marks, registered under various classes of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, have become synonymous with fast food, particularly momos and related culinary products. The appellant had adopted and used the word and…

Facts: Grasim Industries Limited vs Saboo Tor Private Limited – Trademark Dispute Over ‘Birla’ This case concerned a dispute over the use of the trademark “BIRLA”. The plaintiffs, Grasim Industries Limited and UltraTech Cement Limited—well-known entities within the Aditya Birla Group—filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Saboo Tor Private Limited and others. The plaintiffs asserted that the “BIRLA” mark, and its derivatives such as “BIRLA WHITE”, had acquired immense fame and goodwill due to decades of use across different business sectors including cement, fiber, and construction materials. They claimed to be the rightful proprietors of over…

Facts: Trademark Case: Chaitanya Arora Vs. Shoban Salim Thakur – Suppression of Material Facts The plaintiff, Chaitanya Arora, was the proprietor of the mark “DOCTOR EXTRA SOFT”, used for footwear products under Class 25 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the trademark and alleged that the defendants—led by Shoban Salim Thakur, owner of Family Footwear—were using a deceptively similar mark and selling identical goods, thereby infringing the plaintiff’s rights. On 30th June 2025, the Court had granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the impugned trademark. Later, the defendants challenged…