Bombay High Court restrains “Bislie” water brand over similarity to Bisleri
The Bombay High Court has restrained a Karnataka-based packaged drinking water manufacturer from making, selling, or marketing water under the brand name “Bislie,” after finding it prima facie deceptively similar to the well-known “Bisleri” trademark. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar passed the order in proceedings brought by Bisleri International against Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry.
Bisleri told the court it regularly monitors the market for imitation of its trademarks and product designs, and that its investigators identified a manufacturing unit in Channarayapattana, Karnataka, producing and marketing water under the “Bislie” name in May 2026. The company had already secured an ex-parte ad-interim order on June 11, 2026, under which a court-appointed receiver was authorised to search and seize goods, labels, packaging material, and machinery bearing the disputed mark, an order the court noted had since been executed.
The latest order goes beyond just the brand name, also covering the disputed artwork, trade dress, and bottle design, confirming Bisleri’s interim protection across the full visual identity of the product.
Delhi High Court orders takedown of obscene AI content targeting Janhvi Kapoor, but questions blanket fan-page ban
On August 11, 2026, the Delhi High Court directed the removal of obscene and pornographic online content using actor Janhvi Kapoor’s identity, in a personality-rights suit seeking protection against roughly 6,884 flagged webpages and social media posts, including AI-generated pornographic images, impersonation accounts, fake booking agencies, and chatbots.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani found the relief sought overbroad as framed, given the URLs covered a wide range of content, from clearly obscene material to ordinary fan pages, and questioned whether nearly 1,900 fan accounts could be blocked outright. He directed Kapoor’s counsel to submit a categorised list separating content that is explicitly pornographic, content directly monetising her identity, and content using her name or likeness to promote merchandise or services, and indicated relief would follow for those specific categories.
The court also passed a John Doe order protecting podcaster Raj Shamani’s personality rights in the same proceeding. The matter is listed for further hearing on August 17, 2026.
Delhi High Court declines to block government health mission’s use of patented sickle cell screening card
The Delhi High Court has declined to grant an interim injunction against the National Health Mission’s use of a patented screening card for sickle cell disease, in a suit brought by the inventor, Dr. Smita Nisanth Nambison, against NHM and related government entities.
While the court did not restrain NHM from continuing to use the screening card pending a fuller hearing, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani did restrain government entities from asserting that the patented card originated from a state government prototype rather than the plaintiff’s own patented invention, a narrower but still significant interim protection addressing the attribution dispute at the heart of the case.
The case sits at the intersection of patent rights and public health administration, raising questions about how inventors can enforce patent rights against government bodies using their technology for a national health screening programme, without necessarily halting a programme that serves a broader public health purpose while litigation proceeds.
Delhi High Court issues notice in copyright and trademark dispute between Times Now and Network18 over “Desh Ki Paatshala”
On July 31, 2026, the Delhi High Court issued notice in a suit filed by Bennett Coleman and Company Limited, publisher of Times Now, against Network18 Media and Investments Limited and journalist Sushant Sinha, alleging copyright and trademark infringement connected to the news show “Desh Ki Paatshala.”
The dispute is between two of India’s largest media conglomerates, and centres on claims that Network18’s programming infringes rights Bennett Coleman holds in the show’s format, branding, or associated intellectual property, though the court has at this stage only issued notice to the defendants rather than granted any interim relief.
Disputes of this kind, between competing news and media houses over show formats, titles, and on-air branding, are relatively common in Indian television but rarely result in detailed published rulings at the interim stage, making the eventual outcome of this suit one to watch for broadcasters more broadly.
