Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up [September 29- October 5, 2025]

1. [Nagarjuna Akkineni Personality Rights] While passing an interim order protecting the personality rights of Telugu actor Nagarjuna Akkineni, the Delhi High Court has restrained several entities from unauthorisedly misusing his name, image, voice and persona for commercial gain. Justice Tejas Karia found a prima facie case in favour of the actor, noting that the attributes of his persona, including his name and images, were being misused by Defendant Nos. 1 to 13 and 20 without any authorisation from him. The Court observed that exploitation of one’s personality rights puts at risk not only their economic interests but also their right to live with dignity, potentially causing immeasurable harm to reputation and goodwill Justice Karia further remarked that Nagarjuna is a celebrated personality in the entertainment industry and that depicting him in misleading, derogatory or inappropriate settings would inevitably dilute the goodwill and reputation associated with him.“The adoption of attributes such as name, image, likeness unauthorisedly will inevitably cause confusion in the minds of the public regarding association with or endorsement by the plaintiff,” the Court noted.Accordingly, the Court restrained Defendant Nos. 1 to 13 and 20 from violating the plaintiff’s personality rights, moral rights, and from passing off their goods and services as those endorsed by him. They have also been prohibited from using or exploiting Nagarjuna’s name “Akkineni Nagarjuna” and “Nagarjuna”, his image, likeness, or any other identifiable attributes of his persona, including through emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, Generative AI, Deepfakes and Face Morphing, without his consent.

Case Title: Akkineni Nagarjuna v. X & Ors

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

2. [Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Personality Rights] The Delhi High Court has recently passed a John Doe order protecting the personality rights of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder of the Art of Living Foundation, after finding that deepfake videos impersonating him were being circulated online. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora restrained several unknown entities from misusing Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s personality and publicity rights. “In view of the above, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff, and irreparable harm will be caused to the plaintiff, if defendant no. 1’s are not restrained to publish/circulate the deepfake contents,” the Court said. The court barred the unknown defendants from directly or indirectly using his name, voice, image, likeness, unique style of speaking, or any other attribute that identifies him, for commercial or personal gain without his consent. It also made clear that this direction would cover all formats and mediums, including but not limited to AI-generated content, deepfake videos, voice-cloned audio, metaverse environments, or any future formats or mediums.

Case Title: Ravi Shankar vs John Doe(s) / Ashok Kumar(s) & Ors.

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

3. [Barbie’ Trademark] While granting relief to toy giant Mattel Inc., the Delhi High Court has restrained an Indian man from using “Barbie” or any deceptively similar mark in his business activities after the company filed a trademark infringement suit. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the order on September 8, finding that Defendant No. 1, Padum Borah, had adopted the mark “Barbie” for ventures such as Barbie Enterprises, Barbie Hospitality, Barbie Catering, Barbie Kitchen Mart and others.Observing that the use was visually, phonetically and conceptually identical to Mattel’s registered mark, the Court said, “It is apparent that the Defendant No. 1 has adopted this famous mark so as to create an initial interest in the mind of the consumer with respect to the products of the Defendant and to capture the customer’s attention.” The Court added that the adoption of the iconic mark by the defendant was without any reasonable explanation and aimed at misleading consumers. Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendant from using Barbie or similar marks in any form, directed the removal of social media accounts and pages using such names, and ordered domain registrars to suspend the websites barbieenterprise.com and barbieenterprise.in.

Case Title: Mattel, Inc v Padum Borah and Ors

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

4. [EBC’s Coat-Pocket Constitution Edition] The Delhi High Court has restrained Rupa Publications from manufacturing and selling its red-and-black “coat-pocket” edition of the Constitution of India, after finding the design deceptively similar to the one long used by Eastern Book Company (EBC). Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, passing an interim injunction on September 25, noted that Rupa’s edition bore striking resemblance to EBC’s flagship product and was likely to mislead readers. “A bare perusal of the plaint and comparison of the plaintiffs’ coat-pocket editions with the defendant’s impugned coat-pocket editions of the Constitution of India, it is prima facie evident that the impugned trade dress/design is deceptively similar to the trade dress adopted by the plaintiffs,” the court noted. Justice Arora, after comparing the two versions, held that EBC had made out a prima facie case for injunction. The court accepted that continued sale of Rupa’s edition would cause irreparable loss to EBC’s goodwill and reputation, and that the balance of convenience lay in favour of protecting the established publisher. In its directions, the court restrained Rupa, its directors, agents and distributors from manufacturing, publishing, marketing, soliciting orders, directly or indirectly selling/offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any manner with the coat-pocket edition of the Constitution in a similar red-and-black trade dress.

Case Title: EBC Publishing Private Limited vs. Rupa Publications

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

5. [Contempt Action Against Lawyer] While terming the allegations as scandalous and striking at the dignity of the institution, the Delhi High Court has recently initiated contempt proceedings against an advocate who made sweeping allegations of corruption against the judiciary. Justice Amit Sharma observed, “Reckless allegations of corruption in judiciary have been made by him which are contemptuous, contumacious and scandalous in nature. The same tantamount to scandalising and lowering the authority of Court. It further tends to interfere with judicial proceedings and administration of justice.” Court made this observation while hearing a contempt petition filed by Gunjan Kumar and another invoking Section 2(b) read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as well as Articles 215 and 226 of the Constitution, seeking punishment for the lawyer for what they termed wilful disobedience of a January 17, 2023 order passed by a Rohini Civil Court in Canara Bank v. Vedant. The Court held that a prima facie case of criminal contempt had been made out under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and directed that the matter be placed before a Division/Roster Bench on November 19, 2025 for further proceedings, with a direction to the respondent to appear in person.

Case title: Gunjan Kumar & Anr. v. Vedant

Bench: Justice Amit Sharma.

Click here to read more

6. [Relief to Crocs] The Delhi High Court has granted relief to multinational footwear manufacturer ‘Crocs’, ordering the cancellation of the trademark registration for the mark ‘Croose’ after finding it deceptively similar to ‘Crocs’’ registered mark. The order was passed by Justice Tejas Karia while dealing with a plea filed by ‘Crocs’ under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of the registration of ‘Croose’ in Class 25, registered in favour of Respondent No. 2. The Court held, “Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Impugned Mark ‘Croose’ is deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s Mark ‘CROCS’ and is likely to cause confusion amongst consumers and the members of the trade. Therefore, the Impugned Mark is hit by Section 11(1)(b) of the Act, which prohibits registration of a Trade Mark that is deceptively similar to a Trade Mark, which is already on the register in respect of identical or similar goods.” Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to expunge ‘Croose’ from the register.

Case title: Crocs Inc v. The Registrar Of Trademarks New Delhi & Anr.

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

7. [Rape FIR Quashed Against Retired Army Officer] The Delhi High Court has quashed a rape case lodged against a retired army officer, observing that the allegations levelled against the 72-year-old were absurd and unsupported by any credible evidence. In a detailed 22-page judgment, Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “False cases have the effect of tarnishing an individual’s reputation in society and it is the duty of the Court to take into account attending circumstances as well as the material collected during investigation.” The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by Lt Gen Inderjit Singh AVSM VSM (Retd.), challenging an order of a Metropolitan Magistrate dated August 26, 2020.The complainant alleged that on April 28, 2020, while she was in a park adjoining their homes, the petitioner followed her, snatched her phone, pounced on her, pressed her breast, tore her clothes, and attempted to rape her. She further claimed he inserted his fingers in her private parts and tried to drag her into his house, but she was saved by her mother’s intervention. Justice Mahajan, however, noted that a detailed inquiry had already been conducted, including examination of residents and eyewitnesses, which found no material to support the allegations. Finding the allegations “absurd” and unsupported by “a shadow of credible evidence,” the Court ruled that allowing the case to proceed would amount to harassment

Case Title: Lt Gen Inderjit Singh AVSM VSM (Retd) v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan

Click here to read more

8. [FIR Between Neighbours] The Delhi High Court has recently quashed an FIR arising out of a neighbourhood dispute after the parties reached a settlement. The court asked the accused to hold bhandaras for poor children, one during the upcoming Navratra festival and another on Diwali. Justice Anish Dayal was hearing a petition filed by Brij Ballabh Gaur and his wife, who sought the quashing of an FIR registered at Jagatpuri police station under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners, in turn, undertook to organise two bhandaras for at least 50 poor children at Shiv Mandir in Radheypuri, one during Navratra and another on Diwali. The court directed that proof of compliance, along with photographs, be filed on record through an affidavit and also shared with the investigating officer. Justice Dayal noted that continuing criminal proceedings in such circumstances would serve no purpose. Accordingly, the FIR and all related proceedings were quashed, with the court making it clear that the parties must abide by the terms of settlement. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

Case Title: Brij Ballabh Gaur and Another vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another

Bench: Justice Anish Dayal

Click here to read more

9. [Panchsheel Enclave repeated traffic rule violations] The Delhi High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), South Zone, Delhi Police to immediately deploy additional traffic officials at key intersections in Panchsheel Enclave to tackle rampant wrong-side driving and repeated traffic rule violations. The directions came on a petition filed by the Panchsheel Enclave Resident Welfare Association (RWA) through senior advocate Tamali Wad, along with advocate-on-record Anshul Gupta and advocates Rishabh Darira and Chaahat Khanna, and the association’s president, Pankaj Bhardwaj. The petitioners highlighted rampant and unchecked illegal driving at the intersections of Josip Broz Tito Marg and Siri Fort Road, telling the court that despite repeated representations to the the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), South Zone, no action has been taken till date, and there was a genuine apprehension that a major mishap might occur on account of rampant disregard of the traffic rules. The High Court ordered that an adequate number of traffic officials must be deployed at the intersection of Josip Broz Tito Marg and Siri Fort Road. It further directed that officials be stationed near Arun Jaitley Park, the Indian Oil Petrol Pump, and Panchsheel Enclave Gate No. 3, all areas flagged in the petition as dangerous due to frequent wrong-side driving.

Case Title: Panchsheel Enclave Resident Welfare Association versus Union of India and Ors

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

Click here to read more

10. [Sexual Harassment FIR Quashed] The Delhi High Court has quashed a sexual harassment case against two men after they reached a settlement with the complainant and undertook to perform community service at Delhi’s Jama Masjid. Justice Anish Dayal was hearing a plea filed by the accused seeking to quash an FIR registered in 2019 at Bhajanpura police station under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 506, 509, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant told the court that she did not wish to pursue the case further, citing the death of senior family members and the fact that the petitioners were her relatives. She said the dispute had arisen out of a domestic issue, which had now been resolved. Taking note of the settlement and observing that the chances of conviction were remote and bleak, the court said continuing the proceedings would amount to misuse of the process of the court and an unnecessary burden on the state.

Case Title: AKBAR ALI & ANR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

Bench: Justice Anish Dayal

Click here to read more