Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) February 2026 Roundup brings together some of the most significant High Court rulings on personality rights, copyright infringement, trade mark disputes, and emerging AI-related challenges in intellectual property law.
During February 2026, courts across India delivered notable decisions addressing illegal streaming of ICC cricket matches, misuse of celebrity identities through AI-generated deepfakes, protection of personality and publicity rights, and trade mark disputes involving prior user rights and territorial jurisdiction. The courts also clarified important principles including the ‘Kerly Impasse’ in trade mark law and the illegality of unilateral cancellation of a registered trade mark without rectification proceedings.
This curated roundup highlights the key High Court judgments shaping India’s intellectual property jurisprudence, reflecting the judiciary’s evolving approach to digital infringement, celebrity rights protection, and trade mark enforcement in the age of e-commerce and artificial intelligence.
COPYRIGHT
DELHI HIGH COURT | Illegal streaming of ICC cricket events, restrained; Ex parte interim relief granted to JioStar India
In a commercial suit filed by JioStar India Pvt. Ltd. (‘JioStar India’) seeking protection of exclusive broadcast and digital media rights over ICC cricket events, Jyoti Singh, J., granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining rogue mobile applications and associated websites from unlawfully streaming and communicating the matches. The Court held that JioStar India had established a prima facie case of infringement of Broadcast Reproduction Rights under Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and that immediate relief was necessary to prevent irreparable loss. [JioStar India (P) Ltd. v. GHD Sports, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 429, order dated 30-01-2026]
Read more HERE
PERSONALITY RIGHTS IN INDIA
DELHI HIGH COURT | Personality rights of Telugu actor Akira Nandan protected; Release of AI film using his identity, halted
While hearing an application for an ad interim injunction filed by Telugu actor, Akira Nandan, seeking to restrain Defendant 1 from further disseminating the AI movie created by Defendant 1 wherein the plaintiff’s person has been used without authorization, the Single Judge Bench of Tushar Rao Gedela, J, held that the usage of AI tools to morph, modify or distort aspects of the plaintiff’s persona to create deepfake images and videos was violative of the plaintiff’s right to privacy as well as his personality and publicity rights. Accordingly, the Court granted an ex parte injunction in favor of the plaintiff. [Akira Desai v. Sambhawaami Studios LLP, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 283 decided on 23-1-2026]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Protects Vivek Oberoi’s personality rights; Directs take down of AI generated deep fakes
While hearing a plaint filed by the acclaimed actor Vivek Oberoi seeking protection of his personality rights, the Single Judge Bench of Tushar Rao Gedela, J., held that the voice, name, likeness etc. of the plaintiff were protectable elements of his persona. Thus, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim dynamic injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining Defendants 1 to 22 from creating or disseminating any AI generated pictures, videos or merchandise that misuses and infringes upon the personality rights of the plaintiff. [Vivek Anand Oberoi v. Collector Bazar, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 470, decided on 5-2-2026]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Protects Jubin Nautiyal’s personality rights; Directs take down of AI generated deep fakes
While hearing a plaint filed by the acclaimed singer Jubin Nautiyal seeking protection of his personality rights, the Single Judge Bench of Tushar Rao Gedela, J., held that the voice, name, likeness etc. of Jubin Nautiyal were exclusively attributable to him. Thus, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Jubin Nautiyal, restraining the defendants from creating or disseminating any AI-generated pictures, videos or merchandise that misuses and infringes upon the personality rights of Jubin Nautiyal. [Jubin Nautiyal v. Jammable Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 759, decided on 19-2-2026]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Protects Swami Ramdev’s Personality Rights; directs take down of AI-generated deepfakes
While hearing a plaint filed by the acclaimed yogic guru Swami Ramdev seeking protection of his personality rights, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J., held that the voice, name, likeness etc. of Swami Ramdev were exclusively attributable to him. Thus, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Sawmi Ramdev, restraining the defendants from creating or disseminating any AI-generated pictures, videos or merchandise that misuses and infringes upon the personality rights of Swami Ramdev. [Swami Ramdev v. John Doe, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 771, decided on 18-2-2026]
Read more HERE
Also Read: The Judicially Crafted Shield: India’s Evolving Law of Personality Rights
To Know More See: What are Personality Rights? The rise of Celebrity Lawsuits Explained
TRADEMARK
DELHI HIGH COURT | “Kerly Impasse” in ‘FIELDMARSHAL’ Trademark Dispute resolved; prior user prevails over dormant registration held
In Thukral Mechanial Works v. PM Diesel Pvt. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 445, the Delhi High Court held that prior user prevails over a dormant registered trademark, resolving the “Kerly impasse” by recognising that statutory registration cannot defeat an action for passing off where the plaintiff establishes prior goodwill through sustained use. [Thukral Mechanial Works v. PM Diesel Pvt. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 445, decided on 6-2-2026]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Unilateral cancellation of registered trade mark by Registrar Without Rectification Proceedings is illegal
In an appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Trade Marks Act’), challenging the proceedings of the Registrar of Trade Marks dated 09-05-2025, a Single Judge Bench of N. Anand Venkatesh, J., held that the unilateral cancellation of the appellant’s trade mark registration was illegal and unsustainable. The Court observed that once a Registration Certificate is issued, cancellation can only be done through rectification proceedings, and not by unilateral administrative action. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and reinstatement of the registration was directed. [Perundurai Chennimalai Gounder Duraisamy Trading as Sakthi Trading Co. v. Registrar of Trade Marks Office, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 868, decided on 27-01-2026]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Trademark registration, Marketing agreement execution & e-commerce availability confers Territorial Jurisdiction in infringement suit
In an appeal challenging Single Judge Bench’s order allowing an application under Order VII Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), whereby the plaint in a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement and passing off, was directed to be returned for presentation before the appropriate court, a Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., set aside the impugned judgment and held that the suit was maintainable before the Delhi High Court. The Court held that in a trademark infringement suit, registration of the mark within the territorial jurisdiction confers a statutory right whose violation forms part of the cause of action; where the plea of infringement is founded on use beyond a permitted-use agreement, the execution of that agreement is a material fact constituting part of the cause of action; and in the context of e-commerce, the availability of infringing goods for purchase on platforms accessible in the forum state gives rise to jurisdiction, irrespective of who uploaded the listing. [Kohinoor Seed Fields India (P) Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8727, Decided on 03-12-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Mark “Chacha” distinctive for garments; grants interim injunction in trade mark suit
In an appeal against the Commercial Court’s order refusing to grant interim injunction in a trade mark infringement suit on the ground that the expression “Chacha” is a generic and commonplace word over which no monopoly could be claimed, the Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., held that the Commercial Court erred in treating the expression “Chacha” as generic, set aside the impugned order and restrained the use of the impugned mark pending trial. The Court reiterated that distinctiveness must be examined in relation to the goods for which the mark is used and held that use of Chacha CLOTH HOUSE for garments prima facie infringed the registered trade marks Chacha SAREE BAZAR PVT. LTD. and allied marks. [Chacha Saree Bazar (P) Ltd. v. Chacha Cloth House, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 761, decided on 12-2-2026]
Read more HERE
CONCLUSION
The IPR rulings of February 2026 demonstrate the judiciary’s growing emphasis on protecting commercial goodwill, intellectual property assets, and personality rights in the digital ecosystem. High Courts actively restrained illegal streaming of copyrighted sports broadcasts, strengthened trade mark protection by recognising prior user rights, and granted relief against AI-generated deepfakes misusing celebrity identities.
These developments underscore the expanding scope of intellectual property enforcement in India, particularly in addressing challenges arising from digital platforms, artificial intelligence technologies, and online marketplaces.