Delhi High Court restrains Patna real estate firm from using “Nintendo India” name
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Patna-registered real estate company from using the name “Nintendo India Private Limited,” in a suit brought by Japanese gaming company Nintendo Co. Ltd. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order restraining the defendants from using “Nintendo” in their corporate name, trademarks, or business dealings.
Nintendo, which holds registered trademarks over its name in India across multiple classes, argued that the real estate firm’s use of an identical corporate name was likely to cause confusion and dilute the distinctiveness of its globally recognised brand, despite the two businesses operating in entirely unrelated sectors, gaming and consumer electronics on one side, real estate on the other.
The case illustrates a recurring pattern in Indian trademark litigation, well-known marks receiving protection against use in unrelated industries where courts find the borrowed name is likely to create a false impression of association or endorsement, rather than requiring the businesses to compete in the same market for confusion to arise.
Supreme Court upholds ruling on PepsiCo’s Lay’s potato variety, clarifies farmers’ rights protections
The Supreme Court has upheld a Delhi High Court order concerning PepsiCo India’s registration of its Lay’s potato variety (FL 2027, marketed as FC5) under India’s plant variety protection framework, in a long-running dispute brought by farmer rights advocate Kavitha Kuruganti.
The top court clarified that farmers can claim protection under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act, 2001, if PepsiCo initiates infringement proceedings against them for cultivating the registered variety, a significant procedural safeguard given the PPVFR Act’s specific carve-outs allowing farmers to save, use, sow, and exchange farm produce, including seeds of a protected variety, under certain conditions.
The underlying dispute dates back to 2019, when PepsiCo sued several Gujarat farmers for allegedly growing its registered potato variety without authorisation, then withdrew the case following public backlash, and separately sought to revoke its own registration before reversing course. This ruling addresses a narrower procedural question in that broader saga, rather than resolving the underlying registration dispute itself.
India’s Patent Office publishes draft manuals for trademark and patent examination practice
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) has published two draft manuals for public comment this week: the Draft Manual of Trademark Office Practice & Procedure, released August 20, 2026, and the Draft Manual of Patent Office Practice & Procedure, released shortly before it.
Both manuals set out the internal procedures examiners and registry staff are expected to follow when processing applications, covering matters such as examination standards, objection handling, and procedural timelines. The Patent Office manual is open for stakeholder comments for 30 days from publication, while the Trademark Office manual carries a 15-day comment window; both invite practitioners and the public to submit feedback directly to the CGPDTM office.
Manuals of this kind function as the practical, day-to-day companion to the underlying statutes, translating the Patents Act, Trade Marks Act, and their respective rules into operational guidance for examiners. For patent and trademark agents, and for those preparing for the qualifying examinations in either field, updated manuals are typically the clearest single reference for how the office actually applies the law in practice.
Delhi High Court restrains “COBEX” antibiotic brand over similarity to GSK’s “COBADEX” trademark
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Orion Biotech Private Limited and associated entities from using the mark “COBEX” for a paediatric antibiotic, in a trademark infringement suit brought by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani found that GSK had made out a prima facie case that “COBEX” is deceptively similar to its registered “COBADEX” trademark, used for a multivitamin product, on both phonetic and visual grounds, sufficient to warrant interim relief pending a fuller hearing.
Trademark disputes involving pharmaceutical products carry a distinct dimension beyond ordinary brand confusion: Indian courts have historically applied a stricter standard of scrutiny to drug trademarks specifically because confusion between medicines, particularly ones intended for different age groups or conditions, carries direct public health consequences rather than simply commercial or reputational harm to the trademark owner.
