DRAFT IP Newsletter 2026 Q1 (January – March 2026)

We are pleased to present this edition of our IP Newsletter, highlighting key developments from the first quarter of 2026. This period saw courts in India continuing to engage with questions relating to the scope and enforcement of intellectual property rights, particularly in the context of digital use and evolving commercial practices. Trade mark jurisprudence continued to develop, with recognition of non-traditional marks such as shape and sound marks, while courts reiterated that exclusivity cannot be claimed over descriptive or common elements and clarified limits on jurisdiction and remedies, including in the context of insolvency proceedings. Copyright law also witnessed developments, with courts addressing disputes involving digital content, online dissemination and music licensing. Issues relating to AI and use of copyrighted content continued to feature in the broader discourse. Patent and design law also saw important developments, with courts recognising technological advancements such as graphical user interfaces.

We hope you find this edition informative and engaging. Happy reading!

1. Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Relief in Harpic Bottle Shape Dispute 

The Calcutta High Court, in an order dated 25 February 2026, granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Godrej Consumer Products Limited (“Godrej”) from manufacturing and selling its ‘Godrej Spic’ toilet cleaner in a bottle design alleged to infringe the registered shape mark of Reckitt Benckiser’s (“Reckitt”) ‘Harpic’.

The court held that the expiry or cancellation of a design registration does not automatically extinguish trade mark rights in a product’s shape. Relying on the Supreme Court of India’s (“Supreme Court”) decision in Super Smelters v. SRMB Srijan, [1]  the court observed that the cessation of design protection does not bar a claim for trade mark protection or a passing off action. Reckitt contended that although its design registration for the Harpic bottle, first secured in 2002, had expired, its rights continued under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“TM Act”), and at the ad-interim stage confined its arguments to statutory infringement. Godrej opposed the injunction, asserting that the design had fallen into the public domain upon expiry, and that the shape was common and generic within the industry. It further relied on Section 17 of the TM Act to argue that exclusivity applies to the mark as a whole and not to individual elements. 

Referring to Reckitt’s trade mark registration, which depicted the products shape, and interpreting Section 2(1)(m), 2(z)(b) and 28 of the TM Act, the court held that trade mark protection can extend to a bottle’s shape and cap. Upon comparison of the rival products, the court found the bottle shapes to be substantially similar and noted a strong likelihood of confusion or deception among consumers, thereby justifying the grant of the ad-interim injunction. 

2. United Breweries and Taj Hotel get sound marks registered

United Breweries Limited (“United Breweries”) has secured registration of its iconic instrumental melody “Oo la la la le o” associated with Kingfisher beverages as a sound mark under the TM Act on 5 February 2026. The registration bearing no. 
6834004 was filed in classes 32 and 33 on 31 January 2025 claiming use since 21 February 1996 and covers goods including beers, non-alcoholic beverages, mineral and aerated waters, fruit-based drinks, syrups and other preparations for making beverages, as well as alcoholic beverages (except beers) and related preparations. 

Similarly, the Indian Hotels Company Limited (“IHCL”) has also obtained registration bearing no. 6962095 of its sound mark “D E EGAE” in classes 9, 35, and 43 for software, hospitality, and digital services. The said sound mark comprises the musical notes D E EGAE in D Major, set to a 4/4 time signature with a tempo of 130 beats per minute. This concurrent recognition of sound marks underscores the growing acceptance of non-traditional trade marks as distinctive and protectable source identifiers under Indian law, marking a significant step towards multi-sensory brand protection.

3. Supreme Court Limits NCLT’s Power to Decide Trade Mark Ownership under IBC

The Supreme Court has clarified that the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) cannot decide disputes relating to ownership of a trade mark while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), unless such dispute is directly connected to the insolvency process .[2]

The case arose during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) of Fort Gloster Industries Limited, where competing claims were made over the trade mark “Gloster” by Gloster Limited (the successful resolution applicant) and Gloster Cables Limited (“Gloster Cables”). Gloster Cables claimed ownership based on prior agreements and assignment documents, and sought exclusion of the trade mark from the assets of the corporate debtor.

The NCLT rejected this claim and held that the trade mark formed part of the corporate debtor’s assets, effectively recognising rights in favour of the successful resolution applicant. However, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) set aside this finding, holding that the NCLT lacked jurisdiction to determine title to the trade mark.

Upholding the NCLAT’s decision, the Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC, which permits the NCLT to adjudicate questions “arising out of or in relation to” insolvency proceedings. The court held that this jurisdiction is limited and does not extend to independent disputes such as trade mark ownership between third parties, unless such determination is necessary for the insolvency process.

Importantly, the court noted that the approved resolution plan itself only recorded competing claims over the trade mark and did not conclusively vest ownership in the successful resolution applicant. Any declaration of title by the NCLT would therefore amount to modifying the approved resolution plan, which is impermissible in law.

4. Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction to Mahindra, Refuses Post-Decree Dynamic Relief

The Delhi High Court, on 16 March 2026, decreed a trade mark infringement suit filed by Mahindra & Mahindra Limited (“Mahindra”) against Diksha Sharma, proprietor of Mahindra Packers Movers and others granting a permanent injunction and directing blocking and suspension of infringing domain names. [3]

Mahindra argued that their well-known mark, used since 1948 and protected by multiple registrations, was being misused in domain names and business operations, misleading consumers. In addition to the permanent injunction, it further sought a dynamic injunction to address future infringing websites, including mirror and redirect domains.

The court found that while infringement was established and relief could be granted, post-decree expansion of relief was impermissible. It observed that courts become functus officio upon pronouncement of judgment. Thereafter, it can only review its judgment, or correct any clerical, typographical, or arithmetic errors under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). 

Further, the court observed the decree-holder can only implement the decree by seeking execution under the CPC. It noted that technological advancements and innovation in artificial intelligence have led to misuse on the internet, warranting reliefs that align with technological advancements. However, such reliefs were found to be outside the scope of the CPC. The court also observed that there is an urgent need for the Central Government and Legislature to bring drastic changes to the CPC and Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to help implementation of dynamic injunctions and decrees.

5. Madras High Court Sets Aside Unilateral Cancellation of “SAKTHI” Trade mark Registration

On 27 January 2026, the Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Perundurai Chennimalai Gounder Duraisamy trading as Sakthi Trading Company against the unilateral cancellation of its registration by the Registrar of Trade Marks (“Registrar”). The court set aside the Registrar’s order holding that the cancellation was illegal as a registration could be cancelled only through rectification proceedings, and not such unilateral administrative action .[4]

The mark “SAKTHI” was published in the Trade Marks Journal in 2002 and granted registration in 2005. In 2023, a public notice listed the appellant’s application as abandoned for non-filing of counter statement to an opposition filed in 2018. 

The court held that the process followed by the Registrar involving cancelling the registration certificate without any notice, restoring the application, readvertising and subsequently allowing the opposition is not a process allowed under the law. The court further observed that, having informed the Delhi High Court that the impugned public notice would be withdrawn, the Registrar should not have proceeded to issue the impugned Perundurai Chennimalai Gounder Duraisamy Trading as Sakthi Trading Co. v. Registrar of Trade Marks Office, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 868.

6. Vapo Is Common Air: Madras HC Sniffs Out Exclusivity Claim

The Madras High Court recently rejected rectification petitions filed by Procter and Gamble Company (“P&G”). [5]  P&G had filed rectification petitions against an entity, IPI India Private Limited (“IPI India”) seeking removal of the marks “VAPORIN” and “VAPORIN COLD RUB” from the Register of Trade Marks (“Register”) alleging their similarity with its registered trade mark “VICKS VAPORUB”. The dispute arose when P&G discovered that the IPI India was carrying on business with products named “Vapor In, Stress Out. Anytime, Anywhere”, “VAPORIN COLD RUB” and “VAPORIN”. The court emphasised that the issue was whether P&G's product “VICKS VAPORUB” and the IPI India’s products “VAPORIN” and “VAPORIN COLD RUB” were deceptively similar, whether there was dishonest intention, and whether the term “VAPO” is publici juris.

The court noted that a mere comparison of the trade marks showed that the names, colour, size, packing and letters were not deceptively similar. It was observed that when the rival marks are taken as a whole and compared without any dissection or meticulous comparison, the marks are not similar, and it cannot be stated that the product of IPI India would create a doubt or impression in the mind of an average man with ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection that the products are originating from P&G, as the marks are phonetically dissimilar and the visual appearance is also distinct. The court highlighted that 75 other products beginning with the name “VAPO” are available in the market and that it is common to the trade. 

The court held that the expression “VAPO” is merely an abbreviation of the word “vapour”, is descriptive in nature, and common to the trade, over which no exclusivity can be claimed. On a comparison of the rival marks as a whole, the court found no deceptive similarity, noting that the marks are phonetically and visually distinct and unlikely to cause consumer confusion. The court further reiterated that trade mark registration confers rights over the mark taken as a whole, and not over non-distinctive or common elements.  

7. Delhi High Court Reaffirms Territoriality in Trade Mark Law in “BLUE JAYS” Dispute

The Delhi High Court in a case recently held that global reputation alone is insufficient to sustain trade mark rights in India, emphasising the territorial nature of trade mark protection while dismissing a challenge to the registered mark “BLUE-JAY”. [6]

The dispute arose between Major League Baseball Properties Inc. (“MLB Properties”), the IP holding entity of Major League Baseball, and Indian proprietors of the mark “BLUE-JAY”, registered in 1998 for garments. MLB Properties sought cancellation of the mark under Section 57 of the TM Act, contending that its globally recognised “BLUE JAYS” mark enjoyed trans-border goodwill and that the impugned mark was adopted in bad faith.

A single judge of the court had ordered cancellation of the mark. However, the division bench of the court reversed this finding, holding that MLB Properties failed to establish enforceable rights in India at the relevant time.

On the issue of “earlier trade mark” under Section 11, the court held that MLB Properties had neither a subsisting registration nor a pending application in India in 1998. Further, the mark was not shown to be a well-known trade mark in India at that time. Accordingly, it could not qualify as an earlier trade mark.

The court also rejected the claim of passing off, emphasising that goodwill in India is a prerequisite. It clarified that there is no presumption that a globally reputed mark enjoys trans-border reputation in India. Mere accessibility of websites, international broadcasts, or availability of merchandise online does not establish use or reputation in India unless supported by concrete evidence of Indian viewership, sales, or consumer recognition.

On bad faith, the court held that inconsistent explanations for adoption were insufficient in the absence of proven goodwill in India. It observed that where a mark has no demonstrated presence in India, allegations of dishonest adoption become inherently weak. Setting aside the cancellation order, the court directed that the “BLUE-JAY” mark remain on the Register.

8. Delhi High Court Emphasises Need for Evidence-Based Damages in Trade Mark Infringement Case

The Delhi High Court held that the award of damages in a trade mark infringement suit must be based on cogent evidence and a reasoned assessment of evidence showing a link between damages and the injury caused .[7] 

The dispute involved the registered trade mark “Nayan Jyoti”, owned by Nirmala Agarwal, the sole proprietor of Karmayogi Sharbhang Muni (“Agarwal”), against the appellant, B.C. Hasaram & Sons (“BCHS”) who used the mark “Amrit Nayan Jyoti” for similar ayurvedic products. A Delhi district court found that there was trade mark infringement and decreed the suit in favour of Agarwal, awarding damages of more than INR 48 Lakhs. BCHS appealed, challenging territorial jurisdiction and calculation of damages.

The court found that its territorial jurisdiction was properly invoked, as BCHS operated an interactive website enabling commercial transactions within Delhi. Thus, it upheld the finding of infringement, noting that BCHS had not contested Agarwal’s ownership of the mark and had consented to the decree of injunction.

However, the court found that the award of damages amounting to more than INR 48 lakh lacked evidentiary support. It held that damages under trade mark law require proof of actual injury or a rational basis linking the claimed amount to the infringement. The court found that the district court relied on speculative assumptions regarding duration of infringement and stock turnover, based primarily on a Local Commissioner’s report, without proper evidentiary foundation or cross-examination.

The court held that such speculative computation was unsustainable in law and remanded the matter to the district court for fresh determination limited to damages/account of profits, permitting parties to lead evidence. The appeal was, thus, partly allowed. 

9. Procedure v. Substance: Madras High Court Revives Trade Mark Application

The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar's order deeming abandoned the application for registration of the "MODERN KITCHENS" trade mark, holding that Rule 46(2) of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017, to the extent it provides for deemed abandonment, is ultra vires the TM Ac t.[8]  The Registrar was directed to proceed with the application on merits and pass final orders within six months.

Following opposition in December 2019, the appellant filed its unsigned and unattested affidavit of evidence on 01 June 2020, with an undertaking to file a signed version later. The signed affidavit was filed in 2024 under an Interlocutory Petition, which was dismissed by the Registrar, and the application was declared abandoned.

The court held that the affidavit filed in 2020 was within the statutory deadline, and the 2024 affidavit was merely a formal rectification. It was emphasised that procedural provisions should not defeat substantive rights, particularly given the pandemic and the fact that the opponent had acted upon the 2020 affidavit to file its evidence in reply.

The court observed that Section 21(4) of the TM Act does not provide for deemed abandonment for failure to file evidence, unlike Section 21(2). Rule 46(2), which prescribes deemed abandonment, goes beyond the statutory scope and is therefore ultra vires. By reading down Rule 46(2), it was held that non-compliance would only result in deemed abandonment of right to file evidence, and not the application itself.

10. CGPDTM Publishes Thirteen Newly Recognised Well-Known Trade Marks

The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks ("CGPDTM") has published the list of newly recognised well-known trade marks in the Trade Marks Journal, in accordance with the statutory framework governing such recognition under Rule 124(5) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.

The notification lists thirteen well-known trade marks spanning a diverse range of sectors, including pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality, telecommunications, education, construction, food and beverages, and apparel. The notable marks recognised include: 

1. VASELINE, owned by Unilever Global IP Limited, in respect of petroleum jelly and personal care products; 
2. SHOPPERS STOP, owned by Shoppers Stop Limited, for one-stop retail services spanning footwear, cosmetics, jewellery, home products, books, toys, and music; 
3. SINAREST, owned by Centaur Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, in relation to medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations; 
4. BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE, owned by Birla Institute of Technology & Science, in respect of higher education institutions; 
5. UNCLE JOHN, owned by Kreem Foods Private Limited, for ice creams and frozen desserts; 
6. CAT, owned by Caterpillar Inc., for goods relating to the construction, mining, roads, building, and agriculture industries, as well as footwear and garments; 
7. GIRNAR, owned by Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd., for tea, coffee, spices, breads, cookies, biscuits, instant foods, and beverages; 
8. CAMPA, owned by Reliance Retail Limited, in relation to soft drinks; 
9. HIRECT, owned by Hind Rectifiers Limited, in respect of power electronic equipment, railway transportation equipment, and telecommunications; 
10. TAJ, owned by The Indian Hotels Company Limited, in the hospitality sector; 
11. EAGLE, owned by Retail Royalty Company, for readymade clothing, footwear, fashion accessories, and related goods; 
12. NB, owned by New Balance Athletics, Inc., for footwear, headgear, readymade clothing, sporting goods, bags, and retail services; and 
13. JIO, owned by Reliance Industries Limited, in respect of telecommunication services.

Recognition as a well-known trade mark under the TM Act [9]  confers upon the proprietor enhanced protection against misuse, infringement, and dilution across all classes of goods and services, irrespective of whether the mark is registered in those classes. Such recognition also serves to reduce the risk of fraudulent trade mark filings and enables the proprietor to more effectively oppose the registration or use of identical or deceptively similar marks across unrelated fields of activity .[10]

11. Delhi High Court Holds “A to Z” Descriptive, Refuses Interim Protection to Alkem

The Delhi High Court refused to grant interim protection to Alkem Laboratories ("Alkem"), holding that English alphabets and commonly used expressions cannot be monopolised under trade mark law. [11]

Alkem had sued Prevego Healthcare ("Prevego") alleging that the launch of the multivitamin product “Multivein AZ” infringed its “A to Z” marks. It was the case of Alkem that it adopted its marks, ‘A TO Z / and ‘A TO Z-NS’ in the year 1998 and 2008 respectively. It contended that the said marks are coined and arbitrary and are associated with its products alone by the public. Further, it contended that it has adopted different variations of the ‘A TO Z’ mark and obtained numerous registrations for the same, with ‘A TO Z’ being the essential and prominent feature. On the other hand, Prevego contended that it was established in 2018, and began with just 11 products and has rapidly grown to offer over 1,500 products. With a robust distribution network, it has established a strong presence across all states in India. Prevego contended that ‘A TO Z’ is a generic phrase representing completeness or comprehensiveness. Accordingly, the presence of the said term in its mark focuses on the concept of ‘MULTIVEIN’ suggesting multiple veins or a network.  Further, it contended that a keyword search for ‘A TO Z’ on Google, and on the websites identified by Alkem, reveals the generic nature of this phrase where numerous entries completely unrelated to Alkem use the same.

In adjudicating the matter, the court found that “A to Z” is descriptive and lacks inherent distinctiveness. It held that Prevego’s use of “Multivein AZ” did not amount to infringement. The court further held that Alkem’s failure to disclose earlier abandoned or opposed applications for "A to Z" disentitled it from equitable relief.        

1. Delhi High Court Issues Notice in RJ's Copyright Suit against Riteish Deshmukh-Starrer 'Mastiii 4'

The Delhi High Court has issued notice in a copyright infringement suit alleging unauthorised use of content from a viral Instagram reel in the film Mastiii 4, while declining to grant ad interim relief at this stage. [12]

Ashish Sharma, a digital content creator, alleged that a comedy sequence in the film is substantially similar to his reel titled “Shaq Karne Ka Nateeja”, uploaded in January 2024, which had garnered significant online viewership. It was contended that the impugned scene reproduces the core sequence, character behaviour, narrative progression, and punchline of the original reel, thereby amounting to unauthorised use of his copyrighted work.

At the initial stage, the court issued notice in view of the impending Over-The-Top (“OTT”) release of the film, while observing that the defendants must be afforded an opportunity to respond before any interim relief is granted. At the subsequent hearing, the court recorded an undertaking on behalf of one of the defendants that the alleged infringing scene would not be published, broadcast, or otherwise communicated to the public on OTT or any other platform. The plaintiff accepted the said undertaking at the interim stage.

Taking note of the parties’ submission that settlement discussions were underway, the court referred the matter to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The matter is now listed before the court on 12 August 2026.

2. Supreme Court Directs Modified Credits for AR Rahman’s “Veera Raja Veera”, Leaves Copyright Suit Open on Merits

In a copyright dispute concerning alleged infringement by A.R. Rahman’s (“Rahman”) composition “Veer Raja Veera” in the Tamil film Ponniyin Selvan II, the Supreme Court observed that some form of acknowledgment may be warranted in respect of the Dhrupad composition “Shiva Stuti”, originally performed by the Junior Dagar Brothers. 

Subsequently, Rahman agreed to acknowledge the Junior Dagar Brothers’ composition in his song, without prejudice to his contentions in the main copyright suit. Based on this undertaking, the Supreme Court directed that the song credit must duly acknowledge the song was inspired by the Dagarwani tradition Dhrupad, first recorded as Shiv Stuti by Junior Dagar Brothers.

The main copyright suit was instituted by Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar (“Dagar”), who contended that the Shiv Stuti was jointly authored in the 1970s by his father, Late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar, and his uncle, Late Ustad N. Zahiruddin Dagar, with copyright devolving upon him pursuant to a family settlement. He alleges that “Veera Raja Veera” reproduces substantial and protectable elements of “Shiva Stuti”, thereby constituting infringement. [13]

Earlier, the Delhi High Court had granted interim relief in favour of Dagar, holding that a prima facie case of infringement had been established and directing that the impugned song, across OTT and online platforms, carry an attribution credit acknowledging its basis in “Shiva Stuti”. However, the division bench, in May 2025, set aside the interim order. The division bench clarified that issues of authorship and originality must be conclusively determined at trial and cautioned against conflating performance credits with authorship under the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Copyright Act”). It noted that earlier recordings credited the Junior Dagar Brothers only as performers, not as composers. The copyright infringement suit is ongoing before the Delhi High Court.

3. Delhi High Court Grants Summary Judgment Protecting TV9 From Groundless Copyright Threats

In a significant decision on copyright claims in news broadcasting, the Delhi High Court granted summary judgment in favour of Associated Broadcasting Company Limited (TV9 Network), holding that the defendants had issued groundless threats of copyright infringement against the plaintiff. [14]

The plaintiff operates multiple television channels and digital platforms under the TV9 brand, including regional news websites and YouTube channels. As part of its news reporting on global events like natural disasters, geopolitical conflicts, and current affairs, TV9 used a combination of its own material and publicly available footage depicting real-time events. The defendants alleged that certain footage infringed their copyright and threatened legal action. Consequently, TV9 filed suit seeking a declaration of non-infringement and an injunction restraining groundless threats. 

The court observed that despite multiple opportunities, the defendants failed to file a written statement or respond to TV9's pleadings. In view of this failure, the court proceeded to consider the summary judgment application and held that absent any defence, there was no real prospect of the defendants successfully contesting the claim. The court held that TV9's use of the clips in its news videos amounted to fair dealing for reporting current events. Additionally, the limited use of footage qualified as de minimis use. The copyright infringement allegations were, therefore, held to be unsupported and the threats unjustified.

4. Disney Issued Legal Notice to ByteDance Over its Alleged Use of its Content in Seedance 2.0 

Warner Bros. Discovery (“Warner Bros”) sent a cease-and-desist letter to ByteDance, a technology company that owns TikTok, alleging that the latter supplied the "pirated library" of the Warner Bros.' copyrighted characters, including those from Marvel and Star Wars to its AI model, “Seedance”. [15]  In the letter, Warner Bros. demanded that ByteDance stop training its AI system on studio-owned content, identify training materials and block users from sharing videos featuring copyrighted characters. It also called for revocation of licenses if the technology has been shared with other companies.

Seedance 2.0 has lately been going viral for producing cinematic videos with basic commands and prompts, the issue arose because it has been using Disney Characters like Spider-Man and Grogu along with depiction of Hollywood stars like Tom Cruise. The allegation put forth by Warner Bros. centres on ByteDance’s provision of a pre-packaged tool comprising a “pirated library” of copyrighted characters, which are then treated as public domain content. Owing to the growing popularity of Seedance 2.0, Paramount, Skydance, Netflix and the Motion Picture Association had also issued same concerns in their letters to ByteDance where they called the latter’s conduct as “blatant infringement” and a “virtual smash-and-grab” of intellectual property. 

ByteDance had responded by stating that they respect the intellectual property rights and are also taking steps for strengthening their current safeguards for the prevention of unauthorised usage of intellectual property rights. The legal dispute is still ongoing, and the studios are still pushing for stronger protection against the unauthorised usage of AI generated versions of their content. 

5. Unauthorised Use of Film Music in Sports Promotions: CSK Gives Undertaking Before Madras High Court

The Madras High Court, in a copyright infringement suit filed by Sun TV Network Limited (“Sun TV”) against Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited (“CSK”), recorded an undertaking restraining unauthorised use of copyrighted film content and disposed of the interim injunction applications. [16]

The suit was instituted by Sun TV alleging that CSK had used songs, background scores, and dialogues from the films Jailer, Jailer 2, and Coolie in promotional content released on its social media platforms for its IPL 2026 jersey launch. Sun TV contended that such use was unauthorised and infringed its copyright, asserting ownership over the musical works pursuant to agreements with the composer.

At the initial hearing, CSK submitted that it had ceased using the impugned content immediately upon receiving objections from Sun TV. It further stated that any future use of such works would be subject to obtaining necessary permissions from the copyright holders. The court recorded this submission and directed CSK to file an affidavit to that effect.

Pursuant thereto, CSK filed an affidavit undertaking that it would not display, show, upload, exhibit, play, or use the copyrighted works in its promotional content until it acquires the requisite licences or legal rights. CSK also stated that it would approach recognised licensing agencies for obtaining such licences and clarified that the undertaking would apply to its own acts and those of its agents.

Recording the undertaking, the court disposed of the interim applications. The court further directed Sun TV to take instructions on whether the main suit, which includes a claim for damages, could also be disposed of in light of the undertaking furnished by CSK.

The matter presently remains pending and the next date of hearing is scheduled for 6 April 2026.

6. Bombay and Delhi High Courts Address PPL's Music Licensing Rights

The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Trinetra Venture, Anoor Paripati and others (“Restaurant Operators”) who run approximately 94 outlets, from publicly performing sound recordings belonging to Phonographic Performance Limited ("PPL"). [17]  PPL holds ownership and exclusive licensing rights over a substantial repertoire of sound recordings by virtue of assignment deeds and exclusive licensing agreements executed in its favour by various music labels. PPL alleged that the Restaurant Operators had been publicly performing music from its repertoire without obtaining the requisite licences, despite issuing cease-and-desist notices.

The Restaurant Operators, relying on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Phonographic Performance Ltd., (“Azure”) [18]  opposed interim relief, arguing that PPL lacked authority to issue licenses as it was not a registered copyright society under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court rejected this contention, declining to follow the contrary view of the Delhi High Court and holding that judicial discipline required adherence to Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Trade Wings Hotel Limited,  [19]  a decision of a co-ordinate bench of its own court. The court found that the balance of convenience was in PPL’s favour and granted interim relief.

The question of PPL's licensing authority has simultaneously engaged the Delhi High Court in a separate dispute with Pass Code Hospitality Private Limited (“Pass Code”), which operates high-profile pubs and bars .[20]  The Delhi High Court extended an existing ad hoc licensing arrangement, directing Pass Code to deposit INR 15 lakh for the period from May 2025 to February 2026. Pass Code had sought a refund of amounts already deposited, relying on the Delhi High Court division bench ruling in Azure, which held that PPL cannot issue licences unless registered as a copyright society or a member of Recording Music Performance Limited. The Delhi High Court, however, found that the broader question of PPL's authority remains pending before the Supreme Court, and that disturbing the existing arrangement at this stage would upset the balance of equities already struck.

7. Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Emami’s Trade Dress Dispute Against Dabur

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Dabur India Ltd. (“Dabur”) from manufacturing and selling ayurvedic hair oil under packaging found to be deceptively similar to that of Emami Ltd. (“Emami”). It held that Emami had established a prima facie case of trade mark infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and that the balance of convenience was in its favour .[21]

Emami sought to protect its proprietary rights in the trade dress of its hair oil, “Navaratna”. Emami argued that the trade dress acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning through long-standing use since 1989, extensive sales and advertising under the catchphrase ‘thanda thanda, cool cool’. Emami alleged that Dabur’s product “Cool King Thanda Tael”, launched in 2023, replicated essential elements of its packaging, including red colour scheme, bottle shape, cap design, imagery of herbs and hibiscus, and similar textual elements.

Dabur contended that these elements were generic and common to the trade and that no monopoly could be claimed over such features. However, the court found that on an overall comparison of the rival products, Dabur had attempted to imitate the essential features of Emami’s trade dress. The court found that Dabur’s trade dress was deceptively similar as it had replicated elements in Emami’s trade dress, and that they were arranged in the same sequence. It further noted that Emami’s product was well-established, and Dabur could not free ride on Emami’s goodwill.

Accordingly, the Delhi High Court restrained Dabur from using the impugned trade dress during pendency of the suit, finding that continued use would cause irreparable injury to Emami’s goodwill.

1. The Tussle Between Personality Rights and Free Speech in the Evolving Judicial Landscape

The Madras High Court dismissed interim applications by celebrity chef T Rangaraj, holding that personality rights cannot be invoked for a blanket gag order at the interim stage without prima facie evidence of commercial exploitation. [22]

The court rejected the applications seeking to restrain costume designer Joy Crizildaa from publishing social media posts, interviews, photographs and videos relating to their relationship. The judgment emphasized that merely furnishing links, photographs or online material is insufficient to establish prima facie violation of personality rights.

The court observed that absent specific allegations of commercial gain to defendants, the injunction request contradicts the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The court held that it could not pass a blanket order restricting an individual’s right to voice their views and concluded that the plaintiff was merely attempting to silence views that were against him. 

The court held that genuineness of photographs, videos and material could only be determined at trial stage and rejected interim applications for failure to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury.

Separately, actor Kajol Devgan [23]  and singer Jubin Nautiyal [24]  were granted interim protection by the Delhi High Court in cases wherein they alleged the infringement of their public image, voice, likeness, name and social identity by various entities for commercial gains and profit. Further, the Bombay High Court granted protection to the personality rights of actor Shilpa Shetty Kundra [25]  by directing e-commerce platforms and AI-content websites to take down deepfakes and other infringing content. 

1. Calcutta High Court Holds Graphical User Interfaces Registrable as Designs on a Case-to-Case Basis

On 09 March 2026, a Single Judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case, NEC Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs ,[26]  allowed a batch of appeals challenging the rejection of applications seeking registration of graphical user interfaces ("GUIs") as "designs" under the Designs Act, 2000 ("Designs Act"). The court held that GUIs are not per se excluded from design registration and may be registered on a case-to-case basis, provided the requirements under Sections 2(a) and 2(d) of the Designs Act are satisfied. 

The appeals challenged orders of the Controller of Patents and Designs (“Controller”) rejecting GUI registration on the grounds that GUIs are not created through an industrial process, do not qualify as an “article” as they are neither manufactured nor independently sold, and lack permanence since they are visible only when a device is operational. The Controller also held that the Locarno Classification, which recognises GUIs as registrable, is merely administrative and cannot aid in interpreting the Designs Act.

The court rejected each of these findings. It held that the term "article" merits a broad and purposive interpretation and that, in the context of GUIs, the relevant article may be the display screen, hardware component, or finished product such as a phone or tablet. Invoking the principle of "updating construction", it held that displaying a GUI on a screen constitutes an industrial process under the modern understanding of the term. It further held that Section 2(d) does not require permanent visibility, and that the correct test is whether the design is visible during the article's normal use. It clarified that a GUI is excluded from protection only when its form is entirely functional, leaving no room for aesthetic appeal. The court also held that a GUI, when integrated and industrially applied to an article, differs from an artistic work or computer program and would not qualify for copyright protection.

Allowing all appeals and remanding the matters for fresh consideration, the court simultaneously flagged the need for clarificatory guidance by the legislature or the Controller to expand and articulate the scope of protectable designs in the context of digital and GUI-based innovations .[27]

2. Government of India Releases Concept Note Proposing Wide-Ranging Amendments to the Designs Act, 2000

The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (“DPIIT”) has released a Concept Note proposing comprehensive amendments to the Designs Act. The Concept Note was placed on public record inviting stakeholder comments by 23 February 2026.

The Concept Note was prompted by the growing inadequacy of the existing statutory framework, which was conceived at a time when design innovation was closely tied to physical products. With India recording a 43.2% year-on-year increase in design filings, the need to modernise the law has assumed considerable urgency.

Among the key proposals is the extension of design protection to virtual and non-physical designs, including graphical user interfaces, augmented or virtual reality interfaces, etc. even where such designs are not tied to a specific physical product. This would involve revisiting the definitions of "article" and "design" under the Designs Act to expressly cover digital manifestations, while continuing to exclude purely functional features.

The Concept Note further proposes amendments to Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act to permit copyright protection for registrable but unregistered designs for a maximum term of fifteen years, thereby reducing litigation arising from the existing design-copyright interface. 

On enforcement, the Concept Note proposes introducing statutory damages of up to INR 50 lakhs for wilful infringement, with higher penalties for repeat offenders. The term of protection is proposed to be restructured into a "5+5+5" model, allowing protection for up to fifteen years in three renewable five-year blocks. Procedural reforms include permitting multiple designs in a single application, introducing divisional applications, and creating a dedicated chapter to implement the Hague System for international design registrations. [28]

1. Delhi High Court Upholds Refusal of Interim Relief to Novo Nordisk in Semaglutide Dispute With Dr. Reddy's

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim injunctive relief to Novo Nordisk A/S in its patent infringement suit against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. concerning the blockbuster anti‑diabetic drug Semaglutide. [29]  The dispute relates to Indian Patent No. IN 262697, a species patent covering the compound Semaglutide, marketed globally under brands such as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Rybelsus. [30]

The court while dismissing the interim injunction application, held that Dr. Reddy’s had raised a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent, particularly on grounds of prior claiming and lack of inventive step under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”). The court noted that the compound claimed in the suit patent differed only marginally by a single amino‑acid substitution from compounds disclosed in Novo Nordisk’s earlier genus patent (IN 275964), which had already expired. 

Significantly, while declining to restrain manufacturing, the court relied on the defendants’ undertaking not to sell Semaglutide in India, permitting manufacture and export only to jurisdictions where no corresponding Novo Nordisk patent subsists. The court reiterated that at the interim stage, the standard is not definitive invalidity but whether the patent is “vulnerable to revocation”, a threshold Dr. Reddy’s successfully met. 

2. Orissa High Court Allows Restoration of Lapsed Patent Beyond Statutory Deadline

The Orissa High Court awarded a remedy to M/s. Green Energy Resources of Sambalpur, where the company can apply to the court to have its lapsed patent restored, despite the expiry of the eighteen months statutory restoration period in Section 60 of the Patents Act. On 12 February 2026, the court ordered the company to submit a restoration application within thirty days and the Controller of Patents to decide the same within two months. [31]

In September 2017, the firm was granted a Patent No. 343974, which is titled “A Novel Method for Detoxification of Spent Potlining by Controlled Heat Treatment.” Its patent expired on 22 September 2021 following non-payment of renewal fees [32] , due to default by the company's patent agent. Only in June 2024, by which time the statutory period of restoration had already passed, did the company notice the lapse. Due to extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court found that a patentee could not be held to bear the sole negligence of its authorised agent and relied on the Delhi High Court precedents and drew a parallel between the position of a patent agent to that of a lawyer in litigation .[33]  The court also mentioned that the expiry of the patent was directly in the COVID-19 period, which is an additional fair reason to have relief.

3. Lupin Settles Mirabegron Patent Dispute With Astellas Pharma for USD 90 Million

The settlement between Lupin Ltd. and Astellas Pharma [34]  over the blockbuster overactive bladder drug Mirabegron (Myrbetriq) highlights the strategic use of patent settlements in high‑value pharmaceutical litigation. By agreeing to a structured settlement valued at approximately USD 90 million comprising a USD 75 million upfront payment and additional per unit licence fees, Lupin has secured early market entry in the United States while mitigating the heightened litigation risk arising from adverse judicial findings on patent validity. [35]

The dispute underscores the commercial leverage of formulation and modified‑release patents, particularly where courts uphold their enforceability. At the same time, the agreement reflects a pragmatic balance between exclusivity and competition, enabling limited generic participation ahead of patent expiry in September 2027, while potentially delaying broader generic entry. Such settlements continue to play a pivotal role in shaping market dynamics in the U.S. pharmaceutical sector, especially in the context of ANDA litigation and lifecycle patent strategies.

4. Voicemonk vs. Google: AI and Android Patent Case Referred to Mediation

In February 2026, the Delhi High Court referred a patent infringement suit filed by Voicemonk Inc. (“Voicemonk”), a US‑based technology startup, against Google LLC (“Google”) and its group companies to court‑annexed mediation. Recording the parties’ willingness to pursue an amicable resolution, Justice Jyoti Singh directed that the mediation be concluded within four weeks and listed the matter for further hearing on 13 March 2026 .[36]

Voicemonk has alleged infringement of two Indian patents by Google’s Gemini AI assistant and the Android operating system. The first patent relates to a technology that aggregates search results from multiple sources and displays them on a single consolidated page, while the second concerns software that tracks user behaviour across applications to generate contextual prompts and follow‑on actions. According to Voicemonk, these patented features are embedded in Google’s consumer-facing AI and mobile platforms. [37]

The court noted that the parties had earlier engaged in mediation limited to one patent, which failed due to a significant valuation gap. Google sought a fresh round of mediation on the basis that the present suit concerns both asserted patents, and the court considered mediation appropriate in light of the expanded scope of the dispute and the technical complexity involved.

5. Delhi High Court bars Nematode-Based Cancer Detection Patent Under Section 3(i) 

In January 2026, the Delhi High Court rejected a patent application filed by Hirotsu Bio Science Inc. (“Hirotsu”), a Japanese biotechnology company, relating to a cancer detection technique based on the olfactory response of nematodes to biological samples. The court held that the invention fell squarely within the exclusion under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, which bars patentability of diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical methods.

Hirotsu argued that its invention was merely a detection method rather than a diagnostic one, emphasising that the process was conducted entirely in vitro, without clinical judgement or direct human intervention. The court rejected this distinction, observing that Section 3(i) under Indian law does not limit the exclusion to diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body, unlike the position under the European Patent Convention. Accordingly, both in vivo and in vitro methods that constitute a diagnostic process are excluded from patentability.

The court further emphasised that patent claims cannot be interpreted in isolation from the complete specification. In this case, Hirotsu’s own specification repeatedly characterised the invention as a “cancer diagnosis system”, capable of detecting cancer at an early stage with high accuracy. The method satisfied core diagnostic criteria, including data collection, comparison with reference values, and allocation of results to a disease condition, thereby bringing it squarely within the scope of Section 3(i).

6. Calcutta High Court Revives Owens Corning Glass Fibre Patent Application

In January 2026, the Calcutta High Court set aside an order of the Indian Patent Office refusing a patent application filed by OCV Intellectual Capital LLC, a subsidiary of Owens Corning, relating to a high‑performance glass fibre composition. The court held that the refusal was perverse, unreasoned, and legally flawed, and remanded the application for fresh consideration with proper analysis. [38]

The patent application (no. 1733/KOLNP/2008) concerned a glass composition capable of being manufactured using refractory‑lined furnaces instead of costly platinum‑lined furnaces, significantly reducing production costs. A key distinguishing feature of the invention was a minimum MgO content of 5%. The Patent Office had rejected the application on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970, citing prior‑art documents D1 to D4.

The court identified two fatal legal errors in the refusal. First, on novelty, the court noted that the closest prior art (D1) explicitly limited MgO content to a maximum of 4.5%, cautioning that higher levels would adversely affect high‑temperature resistance. This constituted a clear case of “teaching away”, which the Patent Office failed to consider. Second, on inventive step, the refusal merely reproduced prior‑art disclosures without explaining how they would logically lead a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention.

The court also rejected the Section 3(e) objection, observing that the Patent Office had ignored evidence demonstrating synergistic effects of the claimed composition. Emphasising the need for reasoned orders in patent examination, the court directed the Patent Office to reassess the application in accordance with law. 

7. Delhi High Court Clarifies Patent Claim Construction; Stays Interim Injunction in Automat v. Aquestia

On 5 January 2026 a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court stayed an interim injunction restraining Automat from manufacturing and selling its Hydromat Valve, holding that the Single Judge had committed a fundamental error in claim construction. [39]

The suit was filed by Aquestia Limited, owner of Indian Patent No. 427050 relating to a fluid control valve with an asymmetric sealing diaphragm. In August 2025, the Single Judge granted an interim injunction by focusing primarily on the portion of Claim 1 following the words “characterised in that”.

On appeal, the Division Bench observed that Indian patent law does not accord special status to the “characterised” portion of a claim and rejected the adoption of European two‑part claim drafting conventions in Indian infringement analysis. The court reiterated that claims must be read as a whole, along with the complete specification, and stayed the injunction upon noting prima facie technical differences between the patented invention and the impugned product.

8. Classic Legends Secures Patent for Adjustable Visor and Speedometer System

The Pune‑based motorcycle manufacturer behind the Jawa and Yezdi brands, Classic Legands Private Limited, has been granted an Indian patent for an adjustable visor and speedometer system, further strengthening its growing intellectual property portfolio in rider‑centric motorcycle technology. The patented system allows riders to simultaneously adjust the visor and the instrument cluster to suit individual height, riding posture, and riding conditions, including off‑road use. The innovation was first deployed on the 2025 Yezdi Adventure motorcycle. 

The patent has been granted for a term of 20 years from 21 March 2023, in accordance with the Patents Act, 1970. This marks Classic Legends’ second granted patent, following its earlier patent for an Airfilter Multifrequency Resonator, used in BSA motorcycles sold in the UK.  [40]

9. University of Hyderabad Patents Novel Ceramic Fabrication Method

The University of Hyderabad has been granted an Indian patent for a novel and cost‑effective method of manufacturing complex‑shaped ceramic components, reinforcing its research‑led innovation capabilities.

The patented method was developed by a research team led by Dr. V. Seshu Bai from the School of Physics and is based on gelcasting of ceramic slurries into expanded polystyrene (EPS) moulds, which are generated from CAD designs using subtractive manufacturing techniques. The process enables the fabrication of ceramic components with uniform density, high fracture toughness, and enhanced flexural strength.

The technology is adaptable to a range of advanced ceramic materials, including alumina, zirconia, and tungsten carbide. Key advantages of the method include high precision and reproducibility, easy and damage‑free mould removal, and reduced production costs. [41]

9. Sony Patents AI 'Ghost Player' Gaming Assistance System

Sony Interactive Entertainment has been granted a patent for an AI‑driven gaming assistance system, referred to as the “Ghost Player”, designed to support players when they are unable to progress through a game segment.

The patented system employs artificial intelligence trained on gameplay video content from platforms such as YouTube and Twitch, along with PlayStation Network gameplay data, to analyse an individual player’s in‑game situation and determine optimal strategies to advance gameplay. Originally filed in September 2024, the patent was published in April 2025.

Depending on the implementation, the Ghost Player may either demonstrate gameplay visually, guiding the user through a challenging scenario, or temporarily take control of the player character to complete the task autonomously. The technology is positioned as an evolution of the existing PlayStation 5 Game Help feature, which currently offers static hints or pre‑recorded video assistance. [42]

10. FTII Secures Patent for Dual Purpose Cinema and Stage Auditorium System

The Film and Television Institute of India (“FTII”), Pune, an autonomous institution under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, has registered its first patent for an innovative auditorium system that integrates cinema projection and live stage performance within a single hall.

The patented system features a synchronised electromechanical framework that enables seamless transitioning between cinema mode and drama mode without compromising sound quality. The auditorium is equipped with a cinema projection system, a dedicated stage performance public address (PA) system, and a Dolby Atmos surround sound system, allowing both formats to function optimally within the same space. [43]

The 586‑seat auditorium was inaugurated on 11 January 2025 by Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw. The patented technology represents a significant step towards multipurpose performance infrastructure tailored for film education and live performance environments.