Its IP time

Introduction Picture this. You file a trademark application for "GLASS SKIN" in 2019, on a proposed-to-be-used basis. You get it registered in Class 3. Then, years later, you use that registration as a weapon on Amazon to pull down a competitor's product listings, forcing them off the platform. That is exactly what happened here. And on 5 June 2026, the Delhi High Court had a clear answer that the registration should never have existed. The case, Renee Cosmetics Private Limited v. Ms. Rupali Sharma & Anr. , is not complicated in its outcome, only in what it reveals about how the Trade Marks Register gets used. An entire skincare trend, borrowed from Korean beauty vocabulary and now ubiquitous across every mass-market brand in India, was sitting on the Register as someone's exclusive property. Garnier used "glass skin." Nykaa used "glass skin." Lakme, L'Oréal, Mamaearth, Nivea, all of them used it. The respondent herself had used the te...

Introduction On June 3, 2026, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim dynamic injunction in Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Soccerbox [CS(COMM) 657/2026] case, restraining five rogue websites from hosting, or communicating any content from the FIFA World Cup 2026. The order also directed Domain Name Registrars (DNRs), Internet Service Providers (ISPs), the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to block those platforms on a real-time basis and to extend that blocking automatically to any mirror sites, redirect URLs, and rogue mobile applications that Zee subsequently notified to them during the tournament . The facts are that Zee Entertainment acquired exclusive media and broadcasting rights for the FIFA World Cup 2026 in India through a Rights Confirmation Letter dated June 1, 2026. The tournament is scheduled from June 11 to July 19, 2026, and Zee planned to broadcast all matches across cable, satel...

  Introduction Trademark infringement is usually thought of in territorial terms. A registered mark protects its owner within the jurisdiction where it is registered. Someone who sells goods under that mark in that jurisdiction without authorisation infringes. The analysis gets complicated, though, when the goods never reach the domestic market at all. They are manufactured in India, the mark is affixed to them in India, and they leave immediately for sale in another country. Is that infringement of the Indian mark? The argument that it is not has real surface appeal. The Indian consumer never encounters the goods. The Indian market is never confused. The registered mark's function within India is arguably untouched. On this logic, a domestic manufacturer exporting goods under someone else's Indian mark should face liability in the destination country, if anywhere, not in India. The Madras High Court's Division Bench rejected that logic in its decision in M/s V.V.V....