India moved fast in 2025. Courts moved faster. Fame got wider fences. Counterfeits paid more. Bad-faith filings hit a wall. Pharma look-alikes drew heat. Short codes like “6E” became big brands. Social handles and menus weren’t safe hiding spots. Interim relief came quick - and it stuck.
The message? Don’t skate close. Fix conflicts early. Protect what’s famous.
Ratan Tata v. Rajat Srivastava & Ors. (Delhi HC, Feb 2025):
An event promoter tried to run a “Ratan Tata National Icon Award,” splashing Mr. Tata’s name, photo, and TATA marks across promos without consent. The Delhi High Court stepped in quickly, treating “Ratan Tata” not just as a legendary figure but as a well-known identifier deserving trademark-style protection. The judge restrained all use of his name, image, and the TATA/TATA TRUSTS marks for the event, ordered takedowns, and drew a clear boundary around personality rights in the commercial space.
This is bigger than one show - it signals that famous personal names can function like brands, with fences that stretch across industries and platforms. For organizers and marketers, the playbook is simple: get written permission before you borrow fame, clear your branding, and avoid “confusion by association.” For founders and public figures, build your evidence of goodwill and enforce early - courts are ready to move.
Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr. (“Aero Armour”) - Delhi High Court (Division Bench), May 23, 2025
Under Armour sued over AERO ARMOUR / AERO ARMR used on apparel. A Single Judge first refused an injunction. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed and granted it. The test was simple: the overall impression at first glance, not side-by-side nitpicking. “ARMOUR” remained the dominant idea, and pairing it with a similar structure (“Aero…Armour/Armr”) rode on Under Armour’s goodwill.
Even brief, initial confusion online or on a shelf was enough to harm the famous brand. The court also flagged dilution - fame deserves a wider fence across the market. Deceptive similarity found; sales stopped. Keep clear distance from famous cores or expect an injunction.
Goodai Global Inc. (Beauty of Joseon) v. Shahnawaz Siddiqui & Anr. - Delhi HC, Jan 28 - Feb 2025:
A local party had locked up “Beauty of Joseon” in India on a “proposed to be used” basis, while the Korean brand was already selling here via e-commerce and had global buzz to show for it. The Delhi High Court treated it as bad-faith trademark squatting, relied on evidence of prior use, online availability in India since 2022, and the brand’s trans-border reputation, and ordered cancellation of the copycat registration. The judge noted that even if the device mark uses Hangul, there was no legitimate reason for an unrelated Indian party to adopt an almost identical sign - the intent was to ride on goodwill.
Rectification granted; rights cleared for the real owner. Lesson: file early when entering India, and keep proof - sales, platform listings, PR, influencer buzz - to knock out squatters fast.
Johnson & Johnson v. Counterfeiters - Delhi High Court, Mar 2025
J&J uncovered counterfeit medical devices in the market. The Delhi High Court didn’t treat it like routine IP theft - it treated it like a public health threat. The court awarded ₹3.34 crore in damages and underscored deterrence: when fake medical gear risks lives, numbers must hurt. Injunctive relief followed, with a clear signal to marketplaces and distributors to keep their shelves clean. Takeaway: in health-touching goods, show the danger and the scale - patient risk, consumer complaints, failed tests, seizure logs - and courts will ratchet up damages and act fast.
KRBL Ltd. (“India Gate”) v. Praveen Kumar Buyyani & Ors. (“Bharat Gate”) - Delhi HC (Division Bench), Jan 15 - 19, 2025
KRBL appealed after a lower court eased restraints on “Bharat Gate.” The Division Bench (Justices C. Hari Shankar & Ajay Digpaul) restored the injunction, holding that “Bharat Gate” rides too close to “India Gate.” Same product (basmati rice), same shoppers, and a phonetic + visual + idea overlap that creates confusion at first glance. The Bench stressed that when intent to imitate is clear, the law presumes the attempt works - especially in crowded FMCG aisles. Bottom line: infringement made out; Bharat Gate stopped. Lesson: if your rival’s mark sounds and feels like yours in the same market, you likely have a strong case.
Allegra (Sanofi) v. Algreat - Bombay High Court, Feb 2025
Sanofi had an injunction protecting ALLEGRA. The defendant kept selling ALGREAT anyway - same category, look-alike pack dress, and listings still live online. The court called it wilful disobedience. Contempt. Penalties. Clear orders to pull inventory, scrub e-commerce pages, and file compliance affidavits. The judge also warned that “old stock” is not an excuse once an order is passed. Lesson: when you’re restrained, stop everywhere - storefront, marketplace, reseller, warehouse. Notify distributors in writing, get takedowns done, and keep proof, or the next hearing will be about contempt, not trademarks.
Reliance Industries (JIO) v. Jiocabs.com & Ors. - Bombay High Court, Oct 8 - 9, 2025
Reliance moved against a taxi outfit trading off JIO. The court treated JIO as a well-known mark and granted an ad-interim injunction, stopping use of the word “JIO”, the jiocabs.com domain, and related branding for ride services. Different industry didn’t help the defendants - the name carried huge public recognition, and the court saw a real risk that riders would assume a link to Reliance. Orders followed to pull signage, pause the website, and clean up social listings.
Don’t borrow fame across sectors. If the mark sits in every Indian living room, even a “different” business can trigger a fast block.
InterGlobe Aviation (IndiGo “6E”) v. Mahindra - Delhi High Court, Dec 2024 - 2025
IndiGo objected to Mahindra’s use of “6e/6E” for its BE 6e EV. In Dec 2024, the court recorded Mahindra’s undertaking not to use the code; the car was later renamed “BE 6.” Different industries didn’t save the overlap, because “6E” is a short but powerful identifier of IndiGo’s brand. The dispute shows how alphanumeric signs can carry deep equity, trigger initial-interest confusion, and travel across markets.
Treat short codes like core assets. Clear them beyond your Nice class, monitor domains and handles, and lock rights early.
Mattel Inc. (Barbie) v. Padum Borah & Ors. - Delhi High Court, Sept 8 - 9, 2025 (interim)
Mattel moved against hospitality and kitchenware uses of “Barbie.” The court treated BARBIE as a well-known mark and restrained use across menus, décor, packaging, and promos. It also ordered social media and domain takedowns, pushing platforms and owners to clean up fast. Different sector? Didn’t matter. The name carries huge public recall, so spillover confusion was real.
Clean handles, menus, uniforms, listings, and domains before launch. Cross-industry use can still infringe when the mark is famous.
Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. IPTV Smarters Pro & Ors. - Delhi High Court, May 29 - Jun/Jul 2025
Fighting live-stream piracy, Star sought more than a regular dynamic injunction. The Court granted a “superlative injunction” - an upgraded order that lets rights-holders block mirror/redirect domains and rogue mobile apps in real time, without running back to court for each clone. App stores, ISPs, and hosts were directed to act swiftly; new links and fresh APKs could be added to the block list on affidavit. Big win for live sports and premium shows, where every minute matters.
If your brand rides on live content, keep a watchlist, draft standard affidavits, and line up platform contacts so you can trigger blocks fast.
Side-box: Classic anchors
Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora (Delhi HC, 1999): A local site rolled out yahooindia.com for similar web services. The court called it passing off and focused on what users feel at first glance - the overall impression, not pixel-by-pixel differences. Lesson: on the internet, a domain can be a trademark. If your name looks or sounds like a famous one and chases the same users, expect a swift block.
Daimler-Benz v. Hybo Hindustan (Delhi HC, 1993/94): An underwear label tried BENZ with a ringed emblem that echoed Mercedes. The court drew a bright line: BENZ is so famous it earns cross-category protection. That’s dilution and free-riding - even if cars aren’t clothes. Moral of the story: don’t borrow legends. Fame travels. So does the injunction.
Fame Deserves a Fence
These cases reward brands that plan early, file cleanly, and act fast when copycats appear. Trademarkia’s experienced trademark attorneys run deep searches across classes, file smart variants, monitor look-alikes, and move quickly with takedowns and interim relief when needed. You focus on growth; we protect the edge. If you want a quick action plan for your mark, share your name, goods, and target markets - we’ll map the risk and tighten the fence.
Beat copycats at first glance with Trademarkia!
