Recent trademark infringement judgments offer valuable guidance on how Indian courts assess brand similarity, protect established market identities and respond to counterfeiting. For businesses, these decisions are more than legal updates. They show how a seemingly small change in a product name, logo, label, packaging or website can create substantial legal and commercial exposure. Several significant decisions from 2025 and 2026 address online impersonation, deceptive similarity, trade dress, damages and the protection of well known marks. Understanding their reasoning can help businesses make better decisions when launching brands, reviewing competitors or responding to potential infringement.
1. Info Edge (India) Ltd. v. Pradeep Namdeo & Anr. (2026)
The Delhi High Court delivered an important decision on 10 March 2026 concerning the established NAUKRI trademark and the proposed registration of NAUKRIYAN. The dispute arose after the Registrar of Trade Marks allowed the latter mark to proceed despite an opposition by Info Edge, the company behind Naukri.com. In Info Edge (India) Ltd. v. Pradeep Namdeo & Anr., C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 34/2025, 2026:DHC:1933, the Court found the marks deceptively similar. It considered the fact the word NAUKRI was reproduced as the leading and dominant element of NAUKRIYAN. The addition of the suffix did not create sufficient distinction, particularly because both businesses operated in related employment services. The Court also considered the visual presentation of the marks and the possibility of consumer confusion. It set aside the Registrar’s order and directed removal of the impugned registration from the Trade Marks Register.
Business takeaway: Adding a few letters, changing a word into its plural form or modifying a logo does not automatically make a competing mark distinctive. Businesses should assess the overall commercial impression of a proposed name before adopting it.
2. Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Vijay Keshav Wagh & Ors. (2026)
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Vijay Keshav Wagh & Ors., CO(COMM.IPD-CR) 18/2023, decided on 10 March 2026, highlights the relationship between trademark protection and copyright in brand artwork. Heineken challenged a copyright registration for an artistic work titled SHREE SAKSHAT. It argued the artwork reproduced its established TIGER beer logo, with additional visual elements placed around the copied image. The Court examined the competing artwork and found the TIGER device had been copied in substance. It also considered a false declaration concerning whether the disputed artwork had previously been published. The Court directed removal of the impugned artistic work from the Register of Copyrights. It also examined the statutory requirement under Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957, read with Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013, concerning artistic works used or capable of being used in relation to goods or services.
Business takeaway: A brand’s visual identity may receive protection under more than one intellectual property regime. Businesses should secure appropriate ownership documentation for logos and packaging artwork, conduct clearance checks and ensure declarations made in registration applications are accurate.
3. Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. v. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors. (2025)
In Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. v. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors., CS(COMM) 801/2023, 2025:DHC:5622, decided on 15 July 2025, the Delhi High Court considered the use of marks and packaging resembling the plaintiff’s ORS-L and ORSL brands.The dispute involved competing electrolyte drink products. The Court examined similarities in the names, product presentation, colour combinations, packaging and placement of information. The defendants’ use of ORSI and related product presentation was found to create a deceptive association with the plaintiff’s established brand identity. The Court granted a permanent injunction and awarded damages and costs. Importantly, the proceedings also involved manufacturers and other commercial participants in the supply chain. The decision demonstrates how liability concerns can extend beyond the seller or brand owner directly marketing the disputed product.
Business takeaway: Businesses should not assess trademark risk only by comparing brand names. Packaging, colours, layout and other distinctive visual features may contribute to the overall impression presented to consumers. Manufacturers and distributors should also verify the rights and permissions supporting the brands they handle.
4. Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. v. Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Pvt. Ltd. (2025)
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. v. Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1601, decided on 25 February 2025, is relevant to businesses operating in consumer healthcare and pharmaceutical markets. The dispute concerned the established LIV.52 mark and the defendants’ use of LIV-333. The Court considered the importance of the shared LIV element and found the addition of the number 333 insufficient to distinguish the competing mark. The Court also considered the defendants’ continued use despite receiving a cease and desist notice.A permanent injunction was granted. The Court directed removal of the infringing products from online marketplaces and other distribution channels. It also awarded damages of ₹20 lakh and costs of approximately ₹10.91 lakh.
Business takeaway: Adding numbers, suffixes or minor design changes to an established brand may not prevent infringement. Businesses should conduct proper trademark clearance before selecting product names, particularly where the proposed mark retains the distinctive element of an existing brand.
5. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Ankit Sethi (2025)
The Delhi High Court addressed online brand impersonation in The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Ankit Sethi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2097, decided on 2 April 2025. The dispute involved websites using the GINGER hotel brand, photographs and website content in a manner which could mislead consumers into believing the websites were connected with the hotel company. The Court considered the use of the plaintiff’s marks and content, along with forged receipts and other indicators of deliberate impersonation. The Court granted a permanent injunction and awarded ₹20 lakh in damages and costs against the relevant defendants, jointly and severally. The decision illustrates how trademark infringement can operate through fraudulent websites rather than only through physical products or retail outlets.
Business takeaway: Brand monitoring should include domain names, booking websites, social media accounts and online advertisements. Businesses should also maintain a clear reporting process for fake websites and suspected customer fraud.
6. Bridgestone Corporation v. M/s Merlin Rubber (2025)
In Bridgestone Corporation v. M/s Merlin Rubber, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1825, decided on 25 March 2025, the Delhi High Court examined the use of the mark BRIMESTONE for automobile tubes. The Court found the competing mark structurally, visually and phonetically similar to BRIDGESTONE. The defendant’s use involved goods in the same commercial field, increasing the possibility of confusion. Evidence gathered through an investigator and a court appointed Local Commissioner helped establish the nature and scale of the infringing activity. The Court granted a permanent injunction, directed delivery of infringing material for destruction and awarded compensatory damages of ₹34,41,240. Its assessment of damages considered the seized quantities, selling prices and available evidence of the defendant’s commercial activity.
Business takeaway: Evidence collection is essential when seeking enforcement. Businesses should preserve product samples, online listings, invoices, investigation reports and records of suspected sales. The quality of evidence can influence both the injunction and the damages a court may award.
7. Dabur India Ltd. v. Sameer Das Shastri (2026)
A more recent interim decision came from the Delhi High Court on 8 July 2026 in Dabur India Limited v. Sameer Das Shastri, CS(COMM) 708/2026. Dabur sought protection against the use of the HAJMOLA mark by an Ayurvedic business. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining use of HAJMOLA or deceptively similar marks in relation to the relevant goods and services. This is an interim order, not a final determination following a full trial. The distinction matters because the Court’s initial assessment is based on the material available at the interim stage. The case was listed for further proceedings in October 2026.
Business takeaway: A business should not assume a mark is available merely because it has not found an identical registration. A well established brand may have enforceable rights against deceptively similar use, depending on the evidence and legal requirements.
8. Jangeer Singh Trading v. Yogesh Jangid Trading (2025)
Not every similarity dispute results in an injunction. The Delhi High Court’s decision in Jangeer Singh Trading v. Yogesh Jangid Trading, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1506, decided on 11 March 2025, provides a useful example of the importance of examining marks as a whole. The plaintiff used JANGEER, while the defendant used JANGID. The Court considered differences in spelling, presentation and the defendant’s claimed bona fide use of a surname. It found no deceptive similarity between the marks as presented. However, it restricted the defendant from using JANGIR or JANGEER and required use of JANGID in the specific registered device form. The decision shows how courts may balance competing claims rather than grant an unrestricted injunction simply because two marks share some similarities.
Business takeaway: Similarity must be assessed in context. A common surname, descriptive expression or independently adopted mark may require a different analysis from a deliberately imitated brand. Businesses should assess both the similarities and the distinguishing features before taking enforcement action.
What These Judgments Mean for Businesses
Taken together, these decisions show several important principles. Courts examine the overall impression of competing marks, including their dominant features, sound, appearance and commercial context. Minor changes do not necessarily avoid infringement. Packaging and trade dress can also contribute to consumer confusion, while online impersonation can create legal exposure even where no physical counterfeit product is involved. The decisions also underline the importance of evidence. Registration certificates, dated invoices, advertising records, product samples, website captures and investigation reports can help establish ownership, prior use and suspected infringement. Businesses should also distinguish between interim injunctions and final decrees when assessing the legal status of a dispute.
For companies seeking to understand the legal framework governing the Infringement of trademark in India, Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 are particularly relevant to registered rights and infringement. Section 27 also preserves the common law action for passing off.
Professional legal review can help businesses assess conflicting marks, prepare evidence and select a proportionate response. Consulting trademark dispute lawyers may be particularly useful before launching a new brand, responding to a cease and desist notice or initiating proceedings against an alleged infringer.
Conclusion
Recent trademark infringement judgments demonstrate the importance of treating brand protection as a continuing business priority. From the NAUKRIYAN dispute to the BRIMESTONE and ORSL cases, Indian courts have emphasised the significance of distinctive brand elements, consumer perception, commercial context and reliable evidence. Businesses should review their trademark portfolios regularly, clear new names before launch, monitor online activity and maintain records of genuine use. A proactive approach can reduce the risk of costly disputes and help preserve the commercial value associated with a brand.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What are the latest trademark infringement judgments in India?
Recent decisions include Info Edge v. Pradeep Namdeo (2026), Heineken Asia Pacific v. Vijay Keshav Wagh (2026), Johnson & Johnson v. Abbireddi Satish Kumar (2025) and Bridgestone v. Merlin Rubber (2025). They address deceptive similarity, brand artwork, trade dress and damages.
What factors do Indian courts consider when deciding trademark infringement cases?
Courts may consider visual, phonetic and structural similarity, the nature of the goods or services, the relevant consumers, trade channels, the overall impression of the marks and the likelihood of confusion or association.
Can a business be liable for using a slightly modified trademark?
Yes. Minor spelling changes, added numbers or suffixes may not be sufficient to distinguish a mark from an existing protected brand. The outcome depends on the complete facts and the applicable legal test.
Can trademark infringement occur through a website or social media account?
Yes. Unauthorised use of a protected mark in domain names, online listings, advertisements or social media accounts may amount to infringement or passing off, depending on the circumstances.
What remedies are available for trademark infringement in India?
Civil remedies may include temporary or permanent injunctions, damages, an account of profits, delivery up and destruction of infringing goods. Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 addresses civil relief in infringement and passing off proceedings.
Does trademark registration guarantee protection against every similar mark?
No. Registration provides important statutory rights, but the scope of protection depends on the registered mark, relevant goods or services and statutory limitations. Competing rights, prior use and other defences may also affect the outcome.
