- within Strategy, Transport, Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
Introduction
We are pleased to present this edition of our IP Newsletter, highlighting key developments from the second quarter of 2026.
This period witnessed courts continuing to adjudicate on the jurisprudential contours of intellectual property protection as they grappled with evolving commercial practices and rapid technological advancements. Trade mark cases included case from “MARQ” versus “MARC” in Flipkart v. Marc Enterprises to the remand of the long‑running “ENGINE BRAND” battle in Dhanvarsha v. Hari Industries, while also grappling with coexistence of GANESH / GANESHA. Copyright law continued to evolve through decisions concerning licensing and enforcement in the digital ecosystem. Courts addressed issues relating to music licensing, commercial use of copyrighted content on online platforms, and ownership disputes concerning cinematograph films. The period also witnessed noteworthy developments in design law, with courts considering questions of novelty, distinctiveness, and the scope of protection available to registered designs. Notably, Skechers was granted with ex parte protection for its midsoles while Atomberg’s fan design faltered on novelty. In the patent sphere, several decisions focused on the standards governing inventive step analysis, software-related inventions, standard essential patents, and procedural fairness in patent examination. The court sent back unreasoned refusals in matters such as Nippon Steel and Biotyx while tightening the screws on software, diagnostic and SEP claims. Collectively, these developments reflect the continued evolution of Indian intellectual property jurisprudence and provide valuable insights on the protection, enforcement, and commercial exploitation of intellectual property rights in an increasingly dynamic marketplace.
We hope you find this edition informative and engaging. Happy reading!
Trade Mark It Up!
1. MARQ" Found Deceptively Similar to "MARC"; Flipkart's Interim Injunction Appeal Dismissed
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Delhi High Court”), in an order dated 10 April 2026, upheld an interim injunction restraining Flipkart Internet Private Limited ("Flipkart") from using the trade mark "MARQ" in connection with electronic appliances, finding it deceptively similar to the prior and registered trade mark "MARC" of Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ("Marc Enterprises"). 1
Marc Enterprises, prior user of the trade mark "MARC", opposed Flipkart's adoption of "MARQ" in 2017 as a private label for its electronics range. The Delhi High Court found that the marks were similar on a phonetic, structural, and visual comparison, a test well-established under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ("TM Act"). The Court rejected the argument that the presence of the "Flipkart" house mark alongside "MARQ" was sufficient to dispel consumer confusion, holding that where the dominant elements of two marks are alike, the addition of a well-known house mark does not constitute a meaningful distinguishing feature.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Flipkart's appeal and allowed the interim injunction to continue after finding no arbitrariness or perversity in the reasoning of the trial court, and prima facie likelihood of confusion in the market. This judgment reinforces that long-standing prior users enjoy protection against adoption of similar marks, even by large-format e-commerce platforms.
2. Madras High Court Restrains Sister Concerns from Using ‘Beardsell’ Name
The Hon’ble Madras High Court (“Madras High Court”), vide a judgment dated 30 May 2026, upheld a permanent injunction restraining Beardsell Polymers Private Limited (“Beardsell Polymers”) and Beardsell Equipment Private Limited (“Beardsell Equipment”) from using the corporate name “Beardsell”. The dispute arose between Beardsell Limited (“Beardsell Limited”), the proprietor of the long-standing “BEARDSELL” mark, and the appellant companies, which were incorporated as sister concerns of Beardsell Eastern Private Limited (“Beardsell Eastern”). 2
The appellants relied upon a Memorandum of Understanding dated 15 November 2003 (“MoU”), under which Beardsell Limited had permitted the incorporation of Beardsell Eastern and granted a limited right to use the “Beardsell” name. They argued that the MoU also entitled Beardsell Eastern to establish additional sister concerns using the same corporate name. Beardsell Limited contended that the permission was confined to a single entity and did not extend to subsequently incorporated companies.
The Madras High Court agreed with Beardsell Limited and held that the MoU contemplated only the incorporation of “a new company”, which was Beardsell Eastern. The court observed that no clause in the MoU authorised the creation of further entities using the “Beardsell” name. It further held that Beardsell Limited, having built substantial goodwill and reputation in the mark over several decades, was entitled to prevent its use by entities not expressly covered by the arrangement. The court also rejected the defence of acquiescence, observing that Beardsell Limited had objected to the incorporation of the additional companies. It held that mere delay or laches in instituting proceedings does not constitute acquiescence, which must be established in accordance with law.
3. Saket District Court Holds Commonly Used Words Cannot Be Monopolised Through Trade Mark Registration
The District Court, South District, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi (“Saket District Court”), per District Judge Arul Varma, vide judgment dated 25 May, 2026, dismissed a trade mark infringement and passing off suit filed by Jagran Prakashan Limited (“Jagran Prakashan”), publisher of Dainik Jagran, against M/s Krishi Jagran and Mr. Mezhukanal Cherian Dominic (collectively, “Krishi Jagran”), an agricultural monthly magazine, and vacated an interim injunction in force since 29 September, 2020. 3
Jagran Prakashan instituted the suit in 2019 alleging that Krishi Jagran’s use of “JAGRAN’’ across print and digital platforms in twelve languages infringed its registered trade mark under Section 28 of the TM Act and amounted to passing off. Krishi Jagran established prior and continuous use since September 1996, predating Jagran Prakashan’s trade mark application of December 2004, and demonstrated that Jagran Prakashan had acted as its media partner since 2004, establishing knowledge of over fifteen years before filing suit.
The Saket District Court found that Krishi Jagran’s trade mark registration predated the plaintiff’s application, and that “JAGRAN” appearing in 178 other publications across India could not be monopolised by a single proprietor. Relying on Dabur India Ltd. v. Emami Ltd., 4 the Saket District Court held that an injunction cannot be granted against a prior user, and deprecated the suit as designed to suppress a competitor contrary to law. Costs of INR 10 lakhs were imposed on Jagran Prakashan.
4. Supreme Court Upholds Ruling on Refurbished HDD Sales
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ("Supreme Court") declined to interfere with a judgment of the Delhi High Court concerning the sale of refurbished hard disk drives ("HDDs") originally manufactured by Western Digital Technologies, Inc. ("Western Digital"). The Special Leave Petition was filed against a Delhi High Court decision involving Hansraj Dugar and other entities engaged in the import, refurbishment, and resale of end-of-life HDDs. 5
The dispute arose from the resale of used HDDs that had reached the end of their original lifecycle and warranty period. Western Digital alleged infringement of its registered trade mark rights, passing off, and “reverse passing off”, contending that the import and resale of such products adversely affected its reputation. The respondents argued that the HDDs were lawfully acquired, refurbished, and resold either under independent branding or with adequate disclosures to consumers.
The Delhi High Court had held that where the original marks were removed before resale, there was no “use” of the registered trade mark capable of constituting infringement under Section 29 of the TM Act. In a connected appeal concerning branded second-hand HDDs, the court also recognised the applicability of the doctrine of international exhaustion in circumstances involving lawful acquisition and resale of genuine goods, subject to appropriate disclosure requirements. Refusing to interfere, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
5. Registration Creates Only Rebuttable Presumption: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside "METRO ENGINE" Trade Mark Decree
The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan ("Rajasthan High Court"), in a judgment dated 19 May 2026, set aside a decree of the trial court which had restrained M/s. Dhanvarsha Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd ("Dhanvarsha") from using the trade mark "METRO ENGINE" and its associated locomotive device mark for mustard oil products. The matter has been remanded for fresh adjudication on the contested issues. 6
The dispute arose from allegations by M/s. Hari Industries ("Hari Industries") that Dhanvarsha's use of "METRO ENGINE" with a locomotive device was deceptively similar to Hari Industries' trade mark "ENGINE BRAND" and its steam engine device, both used in connection with edible oils. Hari Industries had alleged trade mark infringement and passing off, stating that its marks had been in use since 1957. The trial court had decreed the suit in favour of Hari Industries, relying primarily upon its registration of the mark.
The Rajasthan High Court held that registration of a trade mark under the TM Act confers only a rebuttable presumption of validity under Section 31 of the TM Act. Registration alone, without a proper trial on the contested issues, including the question of deceptive similarity and prior use, cannot sustain a decree for infringement. Here, Hari Industries had only adduced a registration certificate for the “ENGINE” mark, with no other evidence to support its claim of prior use or usage in commerce. Accordingly, the Rajasthan High Court found the trial court's decree to be unsustainable in law and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Both parties were granted leave to adduce additional evidence.
6. Delhi High Court Permits Trade Mark Renewal Despite Delay Citing Registry's Defective Service of Renewal Notice
The Delhi High Court, vide judgment dated 12 May 2026, allowed a writ petition filed by Rajinder Singh (“Singh”) permitting him to file a fresh renewal application for his registered trade mark “B.P.R.” in Class 7, despite a delay of over six years in approaching the court. 7
Singh, a user of the “B.P.R.” mark since 1979, had secured registration in 2018 following protracted opposition proceedings. Throughout those proceedings and including at the time of issuing the registration certificate, the Trade Marks Registry had consistently corresponded with the updated addresses. However, when issuing the mandatory renewal notice under Section 25(3) of the TM Act, the Registry dispatched it to the erstwhile agent’s old address which was returned undelivered. The Registry contended that Singh had failed to file Form TM-M under Rules 17 and 18 of the Trade Marks Rules to formally update the address for service.
The Delhi High Court rejected this contention, holding that the Registry’s own consistent conduct of corresponding at the updated address estopped it from invoking procedural non-compliance. Relying on Coldsmiths Retail Services (P) Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks 8 , the court reiterated that the mandate under Section 25(3) is sacrosanct and cannot be reduced to a mere procedural formality. The 6.5-year delay was condoned, and Singh was directed to file Form TM-R with the prescribed fee and any additional amount prescribed as fine under the Trade Marks Rules.
7. Madras High Court Restrains Use of MRF Marks by Former Dealer
The Madras High Court, in an order dated 29 April, 2026, granted an ad interim injunction in favour of MRF Limited (“MRF”), restraining M/s Conveyo Belt Centre (“Conveyo”) and Shri Ram Machinery (“SRM”) from using MRF’s registered Trade Marks in connection with their business activities. The suit was instituted alleging trade mark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off. 9
MRF contended that Conveyo had previously acted as its dealer for conveyor belts, but the dealership arrangement was terminated in 2016, and MRF discontinued its conveyor belt business in 2019. Despite receiving cease-and-desist notices, participating in pre-suit mediation, and furnishing a written undertaking dated 07 November, 2025 not to use MRF’s marks, Conveyo continued displaying the impugned marks at trade exhibitions. MRF therefore sought urgent interim relief against both the defendants.
The Single Judge bench found that MRF had established a prima facie case warranting protection pending adjudication of the suit. The Court accordingly restrained the defendants from using MRF’s marks in relation to their business until the next date of hearing. At the same time, the Court clarified that the injunction would not prevent the defendants from selling any remaining stock of conveyor belts bearing MRF’s marks, provided such goods were genuine.
The matter presently remains pending, and the next date of hearing is scheduled for 22 June, 2026.
8. Coexistence of Similar Trade Marks Upheld: Madras HC Affirms Registration of "GANESHA" Alongside "GANESH"
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal by Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd. ("GCPL") and affirmed the order of the Trade Marks Registry registering the Trade Mark "GANESHA" in the name of Shankar Industries ("SI").
GCPL, claiming use of the trade mark "GANESH" since 1992, contended that SI's registration was incorrectly granted and was liable to be refused or cancelled on grounds of similarity. SI, for its part, established use of "GANESHA" from 1995–1996, and adduced evidence of registration of another mark with a claim of use dating to 1978. The Madras High Court found that GCPL and SI operated in distinct geographical markets, GCPL in West Bengal and SI in Karnataka, and that there was accordingly no material likelihood of consumer confusion arising from the coexistence of the two marks in commerce.
The Madras High Court upheld the Registrar's order under the TM Act, applying the principle of honest concurrent use under Section 12 of the TM Act, which permits concurrent registration of similar or identical marks where honest concurrent use or other special circumstances warrant. The decision confirms that territorial separation of trade may constitute a relevant circumstance supporting concurrent registration, and that courts will be slow to interfere with a considered registration order absent clear evidence of resulting confusion. 10
9. Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Injunction in “WATER BOX” Passing Off Dispute for Failure to Establish Goodwill
The Delhi High Court declined to grant an ad-interim injunction in favour of More Than Water Private Limited (“More Than Water”) in a passing off and copyright infringement suit against Nesco Limited (“Nesco”) in relation to the marks “WATERBOX”, “MORE THAN WATERBOX” and “MY WATER BOX”. 11
More Than Water claimed prior adoption and use of its marks since 2018 for packaged alkaline drinking water in eco-friendly paper-based packaging. It alleged that Nesco’s use of the mark “MY WATER BOX” and similar white, wave-patterned tetra pack packaging amounted to misrepresentation and was likely to cause consumer confusion.
The Delhi High Court held that More Than Water had failed to prima facie establish substantial goodwill or reputation in its marks, which is a threshold requirement for passing off. The Court noted that the plaintiff’s trade mark application for “MORE THAN WATER BOX” had been filed on a “proposed to be used” basis, which undermined its claim of prior commercial use. It further found gaps in the sales evidence, including unexplained inconsistencies in invoices, absence of supporting documents for claimed turnover, and limited recent sales material. The Court also observed that promotional expenditure was evidenced only from late 2024 onwards and did not support a claim of sustained reputation since 2018.
The Court reiterated that in a passing off action, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of its own goodwill and not on weaknesses in the defendant’s case. Since neither party had established substantial goodwill at the interim stage, the Court refused injunctive relief, leaving issues of validity, misrepresentation, and document authenticity to be examined at trial.
10. Bombay High Court Denies Interim Relief in ‘SETMAX’ Mark Dispute
A division bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay (“Bombay High Court”), in a judgment dated 06 April 2026, upheld the refusal of interim relief sought by Laser Shaving India Private Limited (“Laser Shaving”) in a dispute concerning the “SETMAX” trade mark used for razor blades and shaving products. 12 The appeal arose from an order of a single judge declining to grant an injunction against RKM International Products Private Limited and others (“RKM”).
Laser Shaving claimed proprietary rights in the “SETMAX” mark since 2023 and alleged that RKM’s use of a similar mark and trade dress amounted to infringement and passing off under the TM Act. RKM opposed the application, contending, inter alia, that Laser Shaving had suppressed material facts and adopted inconsistent positions regarding the use and ownership of the mark. RKM argued that as a licensee of Galactic Conquistadors FZE (“Galactic”), which had applied to register the impugned mark a day prior to Laser Shaving, it was authorised to use the mark. RKM further argued that Laser Shaving was estopped from alleging similarity as it had differentiated its mark from Galactic’s before the Trade Marks Registry.
The Bombay High Court found no reason to interfere with the single judge’s decision. It observed that a party seeking equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands. The Bombay High Court noted that Laser Shaving had failed to make full and fair disclosure of relevant facts and had taken inconsistent stands during the proceedings. In such circumstances, the denial of interim protection was found to be justified.
11. Calcutta HC Upholds Interim Injunction in Favour of Exide in Trade Dress Battle with Amara Raja
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court (“Calcutta High Court”) dismissed an appeal by Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited ("Amara Raja") and upheld the interim injunction granted in favour of Exide Industries Limited ("Exide") in a trade dress infringement dispute concerning the get-up and packaging of batteries. 13
Amara Raja contended before the court that Exide could not claim monopoly over a colour per se, and that the differences in packaging, size, and other features of the respective products were sufficient to preclude any consumer confusion. The court rejected both contentions. It held that Exide's claim was not for exclusive rights over the colour red as such, but rather over the overall trade dress comprising the combination of the predominantly red colour scheme, get-up, and packaging presentation. On the question of confusion, the court found that the overall visual impression created by Amara Raja's packaging was prima facie deceptively similar to Exide's established trade dress.
The Calcutta High Court found that Exide had demonstrated prior use of the red colour scheme and overall get-up, and that the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm favoured the continuation of the injunction pending trial.
12. Delhi High Court Refuses Permission to Sell Seized Whiskey Stocks Bearing Infringing Trade Mark
The Delhi High Court, vide order dated 02 April, 2026, dismissed an application filed by Brewholik Private Limited (“Brewholik”) seeking permission to sell seized whiskey stocks bearing the mark “OLD FORESTER”, in a suit instituted by Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc. (“Brown-Forman”), registered proprietor of the “OLD FORESTER” trade mark in India. 14
Brown-Forman had discovered in December 2025 that Brewholik was importing and selling whiskey under the “OLD FORESTER” mark, manufactured by M/s Yeti Distillery (P.) Ltd., Nepal. The Delhi High Court had granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 22 December, 2025, and appointed a Local Commissioner who seized the infringing stocks. Brewholik thereafter sought permission under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to sell the seized stocks and complete pending contractual obligations with the Delhi Government, offering to deposit INR 25-30 lakhs as security.
The Delhi High Court, relying on Kapil Wadhwa & Ors. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Anr., 15 held that Sections29(2)(c), 29(3), and 29(6)(c) of the TM Actexpressly prohibit import of infringing goods. Reading these provisions harmoniously with Section 2 (16) of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 (“Excise Act”) 16 , which defines “counterfeit liquor” to include any liquor violating trade mark rights, the Court held that permitting sale of such stocks would effectively allow profit from infringing goods, a premium on illegal acts impermissible in law.
Ctrl + Copyright
13. Government Grants Copyright Society Registration to PPL India
The Central Government, through the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (“DPIIT”), has granted Phonographic Performance Limited (“PPL India”) registration as a copyright society under the Copyright Act, 1957. PPL India is a not-for-profit organisation representing over 500 Indian and international music labels and is engaged in licensing the public use of sound recordings and collecting royalties on behalf of rights holders.
Prior to obtaining registration, PPL India licensed sound recordings based on authorisations from its member labels. However, its authority to issue licences and collect royalties had been questioned by certain businesses and users of music, leading to disputes and litigation regarding compliance with Section 33 of the Copyright Act, which governs the functioning of copyright societies. These challenges reportedly affected royalty collections from commercial establishments using copyrighted music. The registration formally recognises PPL India as the collective licensing body for sound recording rights and provides statutory backing to its licensing activities. As a result, businesses such as hotels, restaurants, retailers, event organisers and broadcasters that publicly play copyrighted music will be required to obtain appropriate licences from PPL India and pay applicable royalties. The development is expected to strengthen copyright enforcement, improve royalty collections and ensure more efficient distribution of royalties to music labels and other rights holders.
14. Delhi High Court Revokes Copyright Registration Procured Against Registered Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court, in an order dated 29 May, 2026, revoked copyright registration no. A-153061/2024 granted in favour of Gujarat Pesticides ("Gujarat Pesticides") for an artistic work titled "ZOOOK", on a petition filed by Fortune Marketing Private Limited ("Fortune Marketing") under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 ("Copyright Act"). 17
Fortune Marketing, proprietor of the registered trade mark ZOOOK and copyright registration of the ZOOOK artistic work, raised objections to the registration for two reasons. Firstly, the Trade Marks Search Certificate dated 26 October, 2023, obtained from the Registrar of Trade Marks under Section 45(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Copyright Act”) read with Rule 22(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 ("Trade Marks Rules") 18 , is in conflict with the Trade Marks Register where there is a record of Examination-cum-Search Report dated 01 March, 2023, showing that the impugned copyright work conflicted with the marks of different third-parties, including Fortune Marketing. Secondly, Gujarat Pesticides did not give the necessary notice to Fortune Marketing as required under Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 ("Copyright Rules") 19 . This notice is required to be given to every person who claims or has any interest in the subject matter of the copyright, or disputes the applicant's rights therein, despite Gujarat Pesticides being aware that Fortune Marketing disputed its claim.
Relying on Hugo Boss Trade mark Management GmbH v. Sandeep Arora Trading 20 , the Delhi High Court held that Fortune Marketing was a "person aggrieved" as per Section 50 of the Copyright Act and affirmed that the proviso to Section 45(1) exists to prevent evasion of trade mark rights through the copyright route. The court set aside, both, the registration and the Search Certificate, directing fresh consideration of Gujarat Pesticides’ application with opportunity to both parties.
15. Mandatory Compliance Required Before Copyright Registration
The Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta ("Calcutta High Court"), in an order dated 05 May 2026, reiterated that copyright registration cannot be granted as a matter of course merely because no objection is received within the prescribed period. The Court set aside a copyright registration granted in respect of an artistic work after finding non-compliance with the mandatory requirements under the Copyright Rules, 2013 (“Copyright Rules”).
The dispute arose when Rajkumar Aggarwal (“Rajkumar”) challenged the registration obtained by Mr. Nand Kishore Bhimsariya (“Bhimsariya”) in relation to an artistic work allegedly similar to Rajkumar’s pre-existing copyright. Rajkumar contended that Bhimsariya had failed to comply with Rules 70(6) and 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, which require, inter alia, submission of a certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks in certain cases and issuance of notice to all persons having an interest in the subject matter of the copyright.
The Registrar of Copyrights (“Registrar”) argued that, in the absence of objections within thirty days, Rule 70(10) obligated the Registrar to enter the particulars in the Register of Copyrights. Rejecting this contention, the Court held that Rule 70(10) does not operate automatically and must be read in conjunction with the Copyright Rules. The Court observed that the Registrar, under Rules 70(10) and 70(11), is required to satisfy itself regarding the correctness of the particulars furnished and compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements before granting registration. 21
16. IPRS Licence Mandatory for Commercial Use of Embedded Musical and Literary Works
The Calcutta High Court, in an order dated 08 May 2026 dismissed a division bench appeal filed by Vodafone Idea Limited ("Vodafone") and affirmed the ruling of the learned Single Judge. 22The Calcutta High Court held that a valid subsisting licence from the Indian Performing Right Society Ltd ("IPRS") is a pre-condition for the commercial exploitation of the underlying literary and musical works embedded in sound recordings.
Vodafone had contended that its agreements with labels, including Saregama India Ltd. ("Saregama"), conferred sufficient authorisation for the broadcast and communication of such works to the public. The Calcutta High Court rejected this contention, holding that the rights of authors and composers in their underlying literary and musical work, protected under the Copyright Act, 1957 (the "Copyright Act"), subsist independently of, and cannot be overridden or exhausted by, any arrangement between a telecom operator and a phonogram producer. The Court affirmed that IPRS, as the collective rights management body for authors and composers, retains the mandate to license such underlying works separately from the sound recording itself.
The Calcutta High Court further directed to release an amount of approximately INR 30 crore deposited by Vodafone before the Court to IPRS, subject to the final outcome of the pending suit. This decision outlines the distinction between rights in a sound recording and rights in the underlying works.
17. Delhi High Court Restrains Electronics Retailer from Screening Films Without Copyright Society Licence
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Cinefil Producers Performance Limited ("Cinefil") restraining Hari Om Retail Private Limited ("Hari Om Retail") from screening films from Cinefil's repertoire at its Delhi stores without a valid Cinematograph Performance Licence ("CPL") 23 .
Cinefil, a copyright society registered under Section 33(3) of the Copyright Act, administers a repertoire of over 8,000 films for more than 750 copyright owner members and issues CPLs to commercial establishments under a statutory tariff scheme. Cinefil asserted that Hari Om Retail had been showing movies from its collection on television and digital screens in its retail outlets without obtaining the necessary CPL, thereby communicating the films to the public in violation of Section 14(d)(iii) read with Section 51 of the Copyright Act. Despite receiving a letter dated 28 February 2026 and a cease-and-desist letter dated 06 March 2026, Hari Om Retail did not make any response, and subsequently, Cinefil’s agents made records of such unauthorised communications.
The Delhi High Court, prima facie satisfied that Cinefil had demonstrated infringement, directed Hari Om Retail to suspend all forms of satellite, cable, and internet-enabled transmission systems until a valid CPL has been obtained.
The matter presently remains pending, and the next date of hearing is scheduled for 06 October 2026.
18. Zee Sues Nykaa Over Use of Music in Promotional Reels
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (“Zee”) has instituted a copyright infringement suit against FSN E-Commerce Ventures Limited, which operates the beauty and fashion platform Nykaa (“Nykaa”), before the Delhi High Court. Zee alleges unauthorised commercial use of its music by Nykaa in promotional Instagram reels.
Zee contends that it holds copyright in various sound recordings and musical works that were incorporated by Nykaa into multiple Instagram reels promoting its products. Zee asserted that while its licensing arrangement with Meta Platforms permits the use of its music catalogue by individual users for non-commercial purposes, such permissions do not extend to brand-led commercial advertising. Zee, therefore, claims that Nykaa’s use of the works without obtaining an independent commercial licence constitutes infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Copyright Act”).
The suit identified twelve promotional reels containing the impugned content and seeks damages of approximately INR 2 crore. Nykaa has informed the Delhi High Court that the identified reels had been removed from Instagram, pending the proceedings.
The outcome of the case is likely to provide guidance on the extent to which brands may rely on music libraries available through platform-based licences when creating promotional content online.
19. Madras High Court Holds CBFC Certificate Not Determinative of Film Copyright Ownership
The Madras High Court, vide judgment dated 08 April, 2026, declared R. Kishore Kumar, Proprietor, Annai Therasa International Films ("Kumar"), as the producer and first owner of copyright in the Tamil film "MANI" (censored as "MONEY"), and granted a permanent injunction restraining M/s R.R. Cine Productions and its partner Durairajan @ R.D. Ragan (collectively, "RR Cine") from exhibiting the film. 24
The issue was raised in connection with production issues regarding the film. To establish Kumar had produced the film, Kumar presented copies of agreements made with artists, a record of payments at the time made under the imprint of his firm, the testimonies of the cameraman, art director, music director, and dance director, besides the original bound script before the court. RR Cine relied mainly on a certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification ("CBFC") which bore the name of the proprietor as at that point in time and professional services agreements purportedly executed by the partnership firm in March- April 2015 before the partnership itself was constituted on 18 July, 2015, rendering their authenticity suspect.
The Madras High Court ruled that a CBFC certificate constitutes only prima facie evidence and is not determinative of copyright ownership. Applying Sections 2(uu) and 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Copyright Act”), the Court found that Kumar had established that he took the initiative and responsibility for the making of the film, qualifying him as its producer and first owner of copyright.
20. De Minimis No Defence: Paramvah Studios and Rakshit Shetty Held Liable for Copyright Infringement in 'Bachelor Party'
The Delhi High Court held Paramvah Studios Private Limited ("Paramvah") and filmmaker Rakshit Shetty ("Shetty") liable for copyright infringement arising from the unauthorised use of copyrighted songs in the Kannada film, Bachelor Party. The court unequivocally rejected the defence of de minimis use, affirming that the brevity of unauthorised use does not afford any exemption under the Copyright Act. 25
The dispute was instituted by MRT Music ("MRT"), which alleged that Paramvah had incorporated portions of the Kannada songs Nyaya Ellide and Omme Ninnanu in the film without obtaining the requisite synchronisation licence. MRT contended that it was the owner of the copyright in the relevant sound recordings and underlying literary and musical works. Although the defendants had approached MRT shortly before the release of the film seeking a licence, the film was released in theatres and subsequently made available on OTT platforms without any licence being finalised.
Rejecting the defendants' contention that the impugned use was merely incidental or trivial, the Delhi High Court held that the application of the de minimis doctrine depends primarily on the qualitative significance of the use rather than its duration. The court observed that the songs were deliberately selected and incorporated to advance the narrative and emotional impact of specific scenes in the film. Accordingly, even the brief use of copyrighted works constituted infringement in the absence of a valid licence.
The Delhi High Court directed Paramvah to deposit INR 20 lakh towards licence fees and imposed costs of INR 5 lakh for non-compliance with an earlier court direction. The decision serves as a significant reminder that even limited use of copyrighted content in cinematographic works requires appropriate authorisation, particularly where such use contributes meaningfully to the storyline or viewing experience.
21. Bombay High Court Upholds Mumbai Jurisdiction in Kaithi Remake Rights Dispute
The Bombay High Court, has ruled that a copyright dispute concerning the Hindi film Bholaa, alleged to be an unauthorized remake of the Tamil movie Kaithi, can continue before courts in Mumbai. In an order dated 10 April 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed an application by Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. (“Reliance”) seeking transfer of the case to Chennai. 26
The dispute concerns conflicting jurisdiction clauses in two agreements. Reliance argued that a 29 March, 2023 agreement governing the assignment of part of the remake rights designated Chennai courts as the exclusive forum and should govern the dispute. Dream Warrior Pictures (“Dream Warrior”), however, contended that a later agreement dated 01 April 2023, concerning the assignment of the full remake rights, contained a Mumbai jurisdiction clause and superseded earlier arrangements where inconsistencies existed.
Dream Warrior has sought declarations that the transfer of remake rights was never fully completed and that Bholaa was produced and exploited without valid authorization. Dream Warrior also challenged the continued streaming of the film on OTT platforms.
After examining both contracts, the Bombay High Court found no basis to treat the earlier agreement as overriding the later one merely because it was described as the “Principal Agreement.” It observed that the claims primarily arise from the exploitation of 100% remake rights under the second agreement, making the Mumbai jurisdiction clause relevant.
Noting that the suit involves copyright infringement issues (which flow from the second agreement) in addition to contractual claims and that prior leave to pursue the matter in Mumbai had already been granted, the Bombay High Court concluded that Mumbai courts have jurisdiction. Consequently, Reliance’s application was rejected, and the suit will proceed in Mumbai.
Designs That Define
22. Delhi High Court Restrains Sale of Footwear Infringing Skechers’ Design
The Delhi High Court, in an order dated 28 April 2026, granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Skechers USA, Inc. and its affiliates (“Skechers”) against Bacca Bucci Fashions Private Limited (“Bacca Bucci”), restraining the manufacture, sale, advertisement, and distribution of certain footwear products alleged to infringe Skechers’ registered designs. 27
Skechers instituted a suit alleging that Bacca Bucci had copied the distinctive midsole and outsole designs of its “Go Walk 5” footwear range. Skechers contended that it owned valid registrations under the Designs Act, 2000 (“Designs Act”) and had extensively marketed the product in India since 2019, resulting in substantial goodwill and consumer recognition. According to Skechers, Bacca Bucci’s impugned footwear reproduced the essential visual features of its registered designs, including distinctive sole patterns and structural elements.
Upon comparing the rival products, the Court observed that the designs appeared “nearly identical” and prima facie deceptively similar, and held that continued sale of the impugned products could cause consumer confusion and irreparable injury to Skechers’ proprietary rights. Accordingly, the Court restrained Bacca Bucci from dealing in the disputed footwear pending adjudication of the suit. The Court also appointed Local Commissioners to inspect the defendants’ premises, seize infringing goods and related materials, and examine records concerning manufacture and sales.
The matter presently remains pending and the next date of hearing is scheduled for 24 August, 2026.
23. Atomberg Denied Interim Relief: Bombay HC Finds Rival Fan Substantially Different and Registered Design Lacking Novelty’
The Bombay High Court declined to continue interim protection in favour of Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ("Atomberg") in its design infringement and passing off suit against Stove Kraft Limited ("Stove Kraft") concerning ceiling fan designs. 28
Atomberg alleged that Stove Kraft's “Pigeon Fan-tastic BLDC Ceiling Fan” infringed its registered design for the “Renesa Alpha” ceiling fan and constituted passing off. Atomberg contended that the impugned fan replicated the distinctive visual features of its design, including the blade configuration, shank profile and overall appearance. Stove Kraft disputed the claim, arguing that Atomberg had compared the impugned product against later commercial variants rather than the registered design itself, and further challenged the novelty of the registered design.
The Bombay High Court accepted Stove Kraft's contention that the relevant comparison under the Designs Act, 2000 (“Designs Act”) must be between the impugned product and the registered design, and not subsequent variants introduced into the market. Upon examining the registered design, the court observed that features such as blades, canopy, shank and motor housing are common functional elements of ceiling fans and, absent any distinctive visual innovation, could not independently support a claim of novelty. The court further found that the rival products were substantially different when viewed as a whole, noting visible differences in blade design, motor housing, shank profile, canopy and other aesthetic elements.
On the passing off claim, the court held that Atomberg had failed to establish that the registered design had acquired the requisite goodwill or distinctiveness in the market. Accordingly, finding no prima facie case of design infringement or passing off, the Bombay High Court refused interim relief, vacated the earlier order appointing a Court Receiver and directed release of the seized products.
The Inventor's Block
24. Delhi High Court Sets Aside Patent Refusal for Absence of Reasoning on Inventive Step
The Delhi High Court, vide judgment dated 17 April, 2026, allowed an appeal filed by Nippon Steel Corporation (“Nippon Steel”) under Section 117A (2) of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”) 29 , setting aside the Controller of Patents’ (“Controller”) order dated 26 May, 2020, refusing patent application no. 10182/DELNP/2012 for a process for the production of grain-oriented electrical steel sheet. 30
The Controller had refused the application on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1) (ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended) citing three prior art documents. However, the impugned order consisted almost entirely of verbatim reproduction of these prior art documents, followed by a bare conclusion that the claims lacked inventive step without any analysis of: (i) the invention disclosed in the prior art; (ii) the invention claimed in the application; or (iii) the manner in which the claimed invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.
The Delhi High Court, relying on Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs 31 , held that a refusal on grounds of lack of inventive step must be supported by reasoned analysis of all three elements above, and that a mere reproduction of prior art extracts followed by a conclusory finding cannot constitute the bedrock of such decision. The order was set aside and the application remanded for de novo consideration before a different Controller within four months.
25. Territorial Jurisdiction Essential for Patent Injunctions: HP High Court Vacates Interim Relief
The Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh ("HP High Court") has vacated an interim injunction granted against Safex Chemicals Private Limited ("Safex") in a patent infringement dispute, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case on territorial jurisdiction. The appeal arose from an order restraining Safex from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in products alleged to infringe a patent held by SML Limited ("SML") relating to an agricultural formulation marketed under the brand name “Aladdin”. SML had instituted the suit before the HP High Court alleging that Safex and another defendant were marketing infringing products within Himachal Pradesh. To establish territorial jurisdiction, SML relied upon certain invoices purportedly evidencing sales of the impugned product in the State.
Upon examining the record, the HP High Court found that the invoices had been issued by third parties who were not shown to be authorised representatives of Safex and observed that there was no material demonstrating that Safex had manufactured or commercially exploited the allegedly infringing product within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
Holding that interim relief cannot be sustained on the basis of speculative or insufficient jurisdictional facts, the Court vacated the injunction insofar as it operated against Safex. The decision reiterates that in patent infringement actions, a plaintiff must establish a clear territorial nexus with the forum before securing interim injunctive relief. 32
26. Delhi High Court Resets SEP Standards in Philips Appeal
The Delhi High Court, in a judgment dated 18 May 2026, allowed appeals filed by K.K. Bansal and Rajesh Bansal and set aside a 2018 decree in favour of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (“Philips”) concerning Indian Patent No. 184753, which Philips had asserted to be a Standard Essential Patent (“SEP”) relating to DVD technology. 33
Philips had alleged that the defendants infringed its patent by importing components from China and assembling DVD players in India. The Single Judge had earlier held the patent to be an SEP (Standard Essential Patents) and awarded royalties and damages. On appeal, the defendants challenged the patent’s essentiality, the finding of infringement, the royalty calculation methodology, and the rejection of their defence of patent exhaustion.
The Division Bench held that Philips had failed to establish that the suit patent was, in fact, an SEP. The Court found that Philips had not produced adequate claim-mapping evidence linking the patent claims to the relevant DVD standard and had relied heavily on foreign essentiality certificates without examining their authors. It further held that infringement had not been proved through admissible technical evidence. The defendants’ exhaustion defence under Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”) was also accepted, observing that the relevant components had been sourced through authorised channels. The Division Bench also criticised the absence of a proper FRAND licensing framework and rejected the royalty assessment adopted by the Single Judge.
27. Delhi High Court Confirms Section 3(i) Exclusion Applies Across Full Diagnostic Spectrum in Twin Patent Decisions
The Delhi High Court, in two decisions delivered between January and March 2026, has provided the most consolidated articulation to date of the diagnostic method exclusion under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”).
In Hirotsu Bio Science INC v. Controller of Patents & Designs 34 , decided 17 January, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia upheld the refusal of a patent for an automated in vitro cancer detection method using the chemotactic behaviour of the nematode C. elegans on urine samples. The Court held that it is immaterial who performs the method, a process does not escape Section 3(i) simply because no physician is involved in operating it.
In Geron Corporation v. Controller of Patents & Designs 35 , decided 17 March, 2026, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the refusal of a patent for an in vitro method of selecting cancer patients for telomerase inhibitor treatment based on telomere length measurement. Setting out twelve consolidated principles, the Court held that a method falls within Section 3(i) if it is inherently capable of contributing to a treatment decision even without producing a definitive diagnosis assessed from the perspective of a person skilled in the art, including a medical practitioner.
Together, the decisions confirm that Section 3(i) applies across the full clinical spectrum, irrespective of whether the method is in vivo or in vitro, labelled as screening or diagnosis, or performed by a physician or automated system. Both decisions align with The Chinese University of Hong Kong v. Controller of Patents & Designs 36 .
28. Security Deposit Ordered in SEP Dispute: Delhi High Court Directs Xiaomi to Deposit ₹272 Crore
The Delhi High Court has directed Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited and related entities (collectively, “Xiaomi”) to deposit ₹272 crore in an ongoing Standard Essential Patent (“SEP”) infringement suit instituted by Malikie Innovations Limited (“Malikie”). The dispute concerns patents declared essential to telecommunications standards, which Malikie alleges are being used by Xiaomi without a licence.
Malikie sought interim relief contending that Xiaomi’s sale of standard-compliant devices infringed its SEP portfolio and that a security deposit was necessary to safeguard its interests pending adjudication. Xiaomi opposed the application, disputing both infringement and the basis of the royalty calculations relied upon by Malikie.
At the interim stage, the Delhi High Court observed that a balance had to be struck between protecting the patentee’s interests and avoiding disruption to the defendant’s business operations. Without expressing a final view on infringement, validity, or FRAND licensing issues, the Court directed Xiaomi to deposit ₹272 crore as security during the pendency of the proceedings. The Court clarified that the deposit would be subject to the final outcome of the suit.
The order is a significant development in India’s evolving SEP jurisprudence and reflects the Delhi High Court’s continued willingness to grant monetary safeguards in high-value technology patent disputes pending final determination. 37
29. Bombay High Court Sets Aside Patent Refusal Based on Atomic Energy Grounds
The Bombay High Court, in a judgment dated 07 April 2026, set aside orders of the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs and the Department of Atomic Energy (“DAE”) rejecting a patent application filed by Huntington Alloys Corporation (“Huntington”). The application related to an invention titled “Ultra Supercritical Boiler Header Alloy and Method of Preparation”, concerning a high-temperature alloy designed for use in ultra-supercritical boiler systems.
Huntington challenged the rejection of its application under Section 4 of the Patents Act, which prohibits the grant of patents for inventions relating to atomic energy. The Patent Office had referred the application to the DAE under Section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (“Atomic Energy Act”), following which the DAE issued a brief communication stating that the invention related to atomic energy and that the application should therefore be refused. No reasons were provided in support of this conclusion.
The Court held that although the Central Government possesses the authority to refuse patents involving atomic energy, such power must be exercised through a reasoned order. The Court observed that the absence of reasons deprived the applicant of an opportunity to understand the basis of the decision, challenge it effectively, or consider amendments permissible under the statutory framework. Finding the impugned orders to be arbitrary and unsustainable, the Court quashed them and directed the authorities to reconsider the application in accordance with law. 38
30. Delhi High Court Sets Aside Patent Refusal for Hindsight-Based Inventive Step Analysis
The Delhi High Court, vide judgment dated 19 May, 2026, set aside the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs’ (“Controller”) order refusing Indian Patent Application No. 201917030431 filed by Biotyx Medical Shenzhen Co. Ltd. (“Biotyx”) for an invention titled “Absorbable Stent”, on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2 (1) (ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”). 39
Biotyx’s claimed invention related to an absorbable metallic stent designed to achieve a balance between a shorter corrosion and absorption cycle and enhanced radial supporting strength, two competing performance parameters through a specific structural relationship between matrix volume per unit vascular area (4-40 µm) and section length of supporting struts (0.4-9 mm). The Controller refused the application citing prior arts D1 and D2, finding that their combined teachings rendered the invention obvious.
The Delhi High Court, per Justice Jyoti Singh, found the impugned order legally unsustainable on three grounds. First, the Controller entirely omitted to deal with Biotyx’s submission on D1 in the reasoning portion of the order. Second, the Controller’s analysis of D2 was based on an impermissible hypothetical that a frustum-shaped stent in D2 would have the same properties as the claimed cylindrical stent, which constituted classic hindsight reasoning. Third, the Controller failed to identify any teaching in the prior art establishing a relationship between the two structural parameters. Relying on Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, 40 the Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration within four months.
31. No Patent for Colour-Coded Messaging Feature: Delhi High Court Upholds Blackberry Rejection
The Delhi High Court, in a judgment dated 30 April 2026, has upheld the rejection of a patent application filed by Blackberry Limited ("Blackberry") for a messaging feature that assigned different colours to message recipients to help users distinguish between contacts before sending messages. The Court held that the claimed invention lacked an inventive step and was excluded from patentability under the Patents Act, 1970 ("Patents Act").
Blackberry challenged orders of the Controller of Patents and Designs refusing its application titled “Colour Differentiating a Portion of a Text Message Shown in a Listing on a Handheld Communication Device.” Blackberry argued that the invention produced a technical effect by reducing errors in recipient selection through colour-coding based on message address characteristics. The Controller, however, concluded that the feature merely implemented a non-technical data management method and was obvious in light of prior art.
The Delhi High Court agreed with the Controller and observed that mistakenly selecting a recipient is fundamentally a human error rather than a technical problem. The Court further noted that the claimed invention did not improve the functioning of the device or its hardware and merely relied on an algorithm for presenting information to users. Finding that the actual contribution lay in a computer program without any demonstrable technical advancement, the Court held the invention to be non-patentable under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The judgment reinforces the principle that software-related inventions must demonstrate a clear technical effect beyond user convenience to qualify for patent protection in India. 41
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
