On March 12, 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Volkswagen AG challenging the registration of Maruti Suzuki’s trademark “TRANSFORMOTION,” upholding the Registrar of Trade Marks’ earlier rejection of Volkswagen’s opposition.
Volkswagen argued that Maruti Suzuki had effectively taken its registered “4MOTION” mark (used for its four-wheel-drive system) and simply added the prefix “TRANS.” Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected that framing, holding that marks must be compared as a whole rather than dissected into parts, and that the two marks begin differently (a numeral “4” versus the letters “TRANS”), creating distinct visual and phonetic impressions. The Court also found “MOTION” to be a common, descriptive term across the automotive industry, with numerous third-party marks already using it, and accepted Maruti Suzuki’s use of “TRANSFORMOTION” since 2016, a year before Volkswagen’s own documented use of “4MOTION” in India began.
Delhi High Court reverses itself on STELLADEXIN trademark, rejects “prior use abroad” defence
On March 23, 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside a Single Judge’s order and restored an interim injunction protecting the “STELLADEXIN” trademark, used on commercial induction cookers by Products and Ideas India Pvt. Ltd., against a rival selling similar cookers under the mark “STELLA.”
The rival had argued it was authorised by the original Chinese manufacturer, Stella Industrial Co. Ltd., which claimed prior use of the mark in China since 2002 and had been selling in India since 2013 through a separate distributor. The Single Judge had accepted this as both a valid prior-user defence and a case of international exhaustion. The Division Bench disagreed on both counts, holding that four invoices could not establish continuous prior use in India, that the international exhaustion defence under Section 30(3) applies only to marks already registered in India, and that importing goods under a mark someone else holds a valid Indian registration for is independently infringing, regardless of where the goods originated or who authorised their sale abroad.
Bombay High Court bars second appeal in patent case, holds Patent Controller has “trappings of a civil court”
On March 9, 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed a Commercial Appeal filed by patent applicant Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke, holding it was not maintainable after a Single Judge had already upheld the rejection of his patent application in a statutory appeal.
The Court held that the Controller of Patents functions as a quasi-judicial authority with the “trappings of a civil court” under Section 77 of the Patents Act, including powers to examine witnesses, order discovery, and award costs, and that the Single Judge, in hearing the statutory appeal, had exercised appellate rather than original jurisdiction. Since the Patents Act provides no express right to a further, second appeal, Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure operates as an absolute bar. Notably, this decision deepens an unresolved split between High Courts: Delhi has taken the opposite view in analogous trademark appeals, while Calcutta, Gujarat, and now Bombay have aligned in barring second appeals, leaving patent and trademark applicants facing different appellate rights depending on which High Court hears their case.
Delhi High Court orders Xiaomi to deposit ₹272 crore in standard essential patent dispute with BlackBerry’s successor
On April 30, 2026, the Delhi High Court directed Xiaomi to deposit approximately ₹272 crore (about $28.7 million) as “pro tem” security in a patent infringement suit brought by Malikie Innovations, which acquired BlackBerry’s cellular standard essential patent (SEP) portfolio, over three patents covering 3G, 4G, and 5G technology.
Justice Tejas Karia found a prima facie case on validity, essentiality, and infringement, noting that Xiaomi had separately filed a FRAND rate-setting case in a Chinese court, a move the Court treated as an implicit admission that Malikie’s patents were valid and essential. Xiaomi also failed to disclose any alternative technology it used instead, a disclosure required under the Delhi High Court’s own 2022 patent suit rules. The Court calculated the deposit using the average of both sides’ last settlement offers, adjusted for Xiaomi’s roughly 19% Indian market share, and cited the Enforcement Directorate’s prior seizure of over ₹5,551 crore from Xiaomi’s Indian subsidiary as a reason security was necessary to protect any future judgment.
