Indian Courts IP Orders and Decisions
Monday, June 8, 2026
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Numen Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
What happened: Alkem filed for an interim injunction against Numen Pharma over the use of the mark ALCIPRO, which Alkem argued was deceptively similar to its registered mark ACIPROX.
Issue: Whether the marks ACIPROX and ALCIPRO were similar enough to warrant interim injunctive relief in a pharmaceutical context, where the threshold for confusion is considerably lower than in other product categories.
The Bombay High Court applied the bare possibility test, which governs pharmaceutical trademark disputes in India. Unlike the ordinary consumer standard used in general trademark cases, the bare possibility test asks only whether there is any possibility at all that the marks could be confused, even by a doctor or pharmacist acting with reasonable care. The Court examined the overall commercial impression of the two marks, considering phonetic and visual similarity. ACIPROX and ALCIPRO share structural and phonetic resemblance in their opening syllables and closing sounds, and both operate in the same drug class and are aimed at the same class of medical professionals and patients.
The Court found that the bare possibility of confusion could not be ruled out. In pharmaceutical matters, the Court noted, the consequences of mark confusion are not limited to commercial loss but extend to patient safety, which tilts the balance sharply in favour of the registered mark holder at the interim stage.
Ratio: In pharmaceutical trademark disputes, the bare possibility test applies. A finding that confusion is merely possible, not probable, is sufficient to grant interim injunctive relief.
Result: Interim injunction granted in favour of Alkem.
Read full analysis here: Alkem v. Numen
Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd. v. Orchid Hotel Pvt. Ltd.
What happened: Kamat Hotels sought protection of its mark "The Orchid," a well-established hotel brand, against what it characterised as continued unauthorised use by the defendant.
Issue: Whether "The Orchid" had acquired sufficient distinctiveness and reputation to merit injunctive protection, and whether the defendant's use amounted to infringement or passing off.
The Bombay High Court examined the history of the mark and the reputation the plaintiff had built under it. "The Orchid" brand has been associated with Kamat's hospitality properties for a substantial period and has acquired secondary meaning in the trade. The Court also considered the likelihood of consumer confusion, given that both entities operate in the hotel sector and that the marks are phonetically and visually identical.
The defendant had not established any independent prior use or a sufficiently distinct identity to justify continued use of the same mark in the same trade segment. The Court found that the balance of convenience favoured protection of the established mark and that the defendant's use would cause irreparable damage to the plaintiff's goodwill if allowed to continue.
Ratio: A mark that has acquired secondary meaning and reputation through long and established use is entitled to protection against identical or near-identical use in the same trade segment, regardless of whether the defendant's use was technically recent or incidental.
Result: Fresh order passed protecting "The Orchid" mark in favour of Kamat Hotels.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Libas Consumer Products & Anr.
Delhi High Court | Copyright | Fashion Retail & Digital Marketing Sector
What happened: Zee Entertainment sued apparel brand Libas for using their commercially licensed movie soundtrack audio files as background music in promotional Instagram Reels without paying synchronisation royalties.
Issue: Do corporate brands violate copyright laws when they use standard, user-accessible social media music libraries for commercial marketing and business promotions?
What the Court found: The Court emphasized that while individual social media users can leverage built-in music libraries for personal use, corporate entities cannot use protected audio catalogs to directly promote and sell consumer products without a specialized commercial synchronization license.
Result: The Delhi High Court halted further commercial use of the tracks and formally referred the dispute to mandatory mediation to settle the outstanding licensing fee structures
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Soccerbox.me & Ors.
Delhi High Court | Copyright | Sports Broadcasting & OTT Sector
What happened: Zee Entertainment filed a fast-track suit against dozens of anonymous, rogue streaming websites that were illegally broadcasting premium live sports feeds and copyrighted events.
Issue: How can broadcasters effectively combat dynamic online piracy where rogue sites instantly clone domains and switch URLs during live broadcasts?
What the Court found: The Court found that traditional, static injunctions are ineffective against digital piracy. Because live sports broadcasting content loses its entire commercial value the moment the event ends, real-time proactive judicial intervention is mandatory to prevent irreparable financial loss.
Result: The Court granted a sweeping Dynamic Injunction, empowering internet service providers (ISPs) and telecom authorities to block mirror links, rogue domains like soccerbox.me, and new clone URLs instantly as they surface.
Read about this here: Zee Copyright Case
Wednesday, June 10, 2026
Rajinder Singh v. Registrar of Trade Marks
What happened: Rajinder Singh challenged the Registrar's handling of an O-3 show cause notice, arguing that his reply had gone unacknowledged and that the six-year delay in renewal proceedings should not be held against him.
Issue: Whether the Trade Marks Registry's failure to act on a filed reply, and the resulting procedural delay, could be attributed to the applicant, thereby justifying adverse action against the mark's renewal.
The Delhi High Court examined the procedural record and found that the O-3 notice, which calls upon an applicant to show cause why a mark should not be removed or treated as abandoned, had been answered in time. The Registry had not acted on that reply for approximately six years. The Court addressed a straightforward but important question of administrative fairness: an applicant who complies with a procedural requirement cannot be penalised for the Registry's own failure to process the response.
The Court reiterated that trademark renewal delays attributable to Registry inaction, and not to applicant default, do not constitute grounds for adverse orders. Holding otherwise would allow administrative inefficiency to extinguish rights that the applicant had actively sought to preserve.
Ratio: Where the applicant files a response to an O-3 notice within time and the Registry fails to process it, the delay cannot be attributed to the applicant. Trademark rights cannot be forfeited on account of institutional delay.
Result: Six-year renewal delay excused. The Registrar was directed to process the mark accordingly.
Read more: Rajinder Singh v. Registrar
Konaflex Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Koanaflex Pvt. Ltd.
(Decided May 29, 2026; widely reported this week)
What happened: Konaflex filed for an injunction against Koanaflex, arguing that the single-letter difference between the two marks was not sufficient to distinguish them, particularly in the pharmaceutical and water-tank supply segments where both parties operated.
Issue: Whether a one-letter variation between two marks, used for overlapping goods in a specialised trade, constitutes adequate differentiation under trademark law.
The Court undertook a comparative analysis of the two marks. KONAFLEX and KOANAFLEX differ by a single letter, the insertion of "A" after "KO." The Court found that this minimal variation did not produce a meaningfully different visual or phonetic impression, particularly for buyers in the pharma and water-tank sectors, where purchase decisions may involve oral orders, abbreviated references, or non-expert intermediaries.
The Court also considered the nature of the goods. Products that affect health outcomes or infrastructure safety attract heightened scrutiny in trademark disputes. In this context, the Court held that the one-letter difference was inadequate to preclude confusion, and that allowing the defendant to continue would dilute the plaintiff's mark and expose consumers to the risk of acquiring the wrong product.
Ratio: A one-letter difference between two marks used for pharmaceutical and industrial goods in the same trade segment does not constitute adequate differentiation. Courts will apply a stricter standard of comparison where the goods relate to health or safety.
Result: Injunction granted in favour of Konaflex.
Thursday, June 11
M/s V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd. v. M/s Meenakshi Overseas LLC & Connected Matters
What happened: The question before the Madras High Court arose in the context of trademark use on goods manufactured in India and exported abroad, with the defendant arguing that affixing a mark in India for export purposes did not amount to "use" of the mark in India for infringement purposes.
Issue: Whether affixing a trademark in India on goods intended solely for export constitutes actionable trademark use under Indian law, giving rise to a triable cause of action.
This had been an open question for some time. The argument on the defendant's side rested on the idea that goods destined for export never enter the Indian market and therefore any affixation of a mark on such goods does not affect Indian consumers or trade. The Madras High Court rejected this reasoning. The Court held that the act of affixing a trademark in India is itself a trademark use under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, regardless of where the goods ultimately go.
The Court grounded this in the statutory definition of "use" and the commercial reality that affixation in India is the point at which the mark is applied to goods and enters commerce. The export destination does not retroactively strip that act of its legal significance. The Madras High Court's ruling settles what had been an operationally significant ambiguity for manufacturers who hold marks for export-oriented production.
Ratio: Affixing a trademark in India on goods intended for export constitutes use of the mark in India. This is a triable cause of action for infringement, and the export destination of the goods is irrelevant to that determination.
Result: Triable issue found. The matter was ordered to proceed to trial.
Read this case in detail here: VVV & Export Case
Fortune Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Gujarat Pesticides & Ors.
Delhi High Court | Copyright & Trademark | Consumer Electronics & Trade Goods Sector
What happened: Fortune Marketing challenged a copyright registration granted to Gujarat Pesticides for an artistic product label featuring the brand name "ZOOOK", which heavily infringed on Fortune's existing trademark.
Issue: Can a party secure and defend an IP right by using copyright registration to bypass existing, conflicting trademark registrations?
What the Court found: The Court found that the Trade Marks Registry had mistakenly issued a clean Search Certificate (TM-C) to the defendants, failing to flag Fortune's prior trademark. It ruled that copyright registration cannot be used as a "backdoor" mechanism to legitimize trademark infringement or circumvent the rigorous vetting rules of trademark law.
Result: The Delhi High Court revoked the copyright registration granted to Gujarat Pesticides and reinforced strict coordination rules between the Copyright and Trademark registries
Saturday, June 13, 2026
In re: Glass Skin Trademark Litigation
INDIA GI AND POLICY NEWS
Sunday, June 7, 2026
Tezpur Litchi Receives GI Certification: International Promotions Follow
IP India granted the Geographical Indication tag to Tezpur litchi from Assam this week, marking one of the more commercially significant GI registrations of the year for a perishable horticultural product. The certification establishes the Tezpur litchi's link to a specific region and production tradition, and gives producers a legal basis to prevent misuse of the name by traders outside the designated area.
Following the GI grant, promotional activity moved quickly. On June 7, the litchi was formally introduced to a Dubai trade audience, followed by a Singapore showcase on June 9. On June 12, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma flagged off an export consignment. The GI certification gives this export push formal legal backing and is likely to be the basis for any future enforcement action against misrepresentation in Gulf or Southeast Asian markets.
Monday, June 8, 2026
IP India Grants Trademarks for Jagannath Temple, Puri: Nilachakra, Ananda Bazaar, Patitapabana
IP India this week registered three trademarks in the name of the Shri Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri, covering the marks Nilachakra, Ananda Bazaar, and Patitapabana. This is the first time a major Indian temple has obtained trademark registrations for names and symbols associated with its religious and cultural identity.
The registrations serve a practical enforcement purpose. Commercial operators have long used Jagannath temple imagery, the Nilachakra symbol, and related names for merchandise, food products, and tourism services without any formal licence. The trademark grants now give the temple administration a statutory basis to act against such use and, potentially, to develop a licensing framework. Whether the administration has the institutional capacity or inclination to pursue active enforcement remains to be seen, but the IP India registrations establish the rights on which any future action would rest.
Thursday, June 12, 2026
Zee Entertainment Issues FIFA Compliance Advisory
Zee Entertainment issued a compliance advisory on June 12 informing commercial establishments and broadcasters of the restrictions on unauthorised public exhibition of FIFA match coverage. The advisory operates as the enforcement arm of the dynamic injunction that courts had earlier granted to protect FIFA's broadcast rights in India.
Dynamic injunctions of this kind allow rights holders to add new infringing URLs and unauthorised streams to an existing court order without returning to court each time, which has made them the preferred enforcement tool during live sports events. Zee's advisory extends this mechanism to the on-ground commercial level, putting restaurants, sports bars, and public venues on notice that unauthorised screening carries real legal risk. The practical effect is a tightening of rights enforcement that goes further into the retail broadcast chain than traditional injunctions typically reached.
India Pushes for Tariff Parity on Patented Drug Exports to the United States
The Indian government this week moved forward with representations to the United States Trade Representative seeking tariff parity on patented pharmaceutical exports. The proposal is tied to broader India-US trade negotiations and addresses the differential tariff treatment that Indian generic and patented drug manufacturers face in the US market compared to manufacturers in countries with bilateral trade agreements.
This is the most consequential patent-policy development of the week from an industry standpoint. India's pharmaceutical export sector depends heavily on the US market, and tariff disadvantages at the border directly affect the commercial viability of patent-backed products. If the parity argument succeeds, it would benefit not only Indian manufacturers of originator drugs but would also affect how compulsory licensing and TRIPS flexibilities are discussed in ongoing trade talks. The outcome will take time, but the government's formal push sets the stage for a more structured patent-trade linkage conversation.
Anthropic / Belagavi Trademark: Exit Application Filed
An exit application was filed this week in trademark proceedings connected to Anthropic and a Belagavi-based party. The application marks the formal withdrawal of one side from the dispute, though the precise procedural context and the terms on which the exit was sought are not fully reported in available sources.
Must read: Everything you need to know about Trademark law
INTERNATIONAL IP UPDATES
Monday, June 8, 2026
Concord Music Group v. Anthropic (Lyria 3) | ND Illinois
What happened: In the ongoing music copyright litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, Google mounted a defence centred not on fair use but on the terms of service governing YouTube, where a substantial portion of the training data used by Lyria 3 originated.
Issue: Whether the YouTube Terms of Service, which users accept when uploading content, constitute a contractual licence that authorises downstream use of that content for AI training, bypassing the need to establish a fair use defence.
The significance of this argument is that it sidesteps the most contested territory in AI copyright litigation entirely. Fair use in the context of AI training has produced conflicting academic commentary and no settled appellate authority. Google's ToS defence argues that the question does not arise: the licence already exists by contract. Users who upload to YouTube agree to terms that grant Google a broad licence to use the content for a range of purposes, and Google argues that AI training falls within that grant.
The defence raises several serious counter-questions. Whether a ToS licence of this kind is broad enough to authorise commercial AI training, whether it survives challenge as an unconscionable or adhesive contract term, and whether the original copyright owner's consent in the ToS extends to sub-licensees or derivative uses of the trained model are all live issues. But the argument is structurally elegant: if it works, the entire fair use debate in AI training cases becomes moot for platforms that hold ToS licences over user-uploaded content.
Ratio/Argument advanced: A ToS-based contractual licence, where users grant the platform broad rights on upload, may independently authorise AI training use without recourse to fair use analysis.
Status: Defence argument raised; litigation ongoing.
EUIPO Issues Guidelines on Generative AI in IP Proceedings
The European Union Intellectual Property Office published its guidelines on the use of Generative AI tools in IP examination and proceedings on June 8. The guidelines set out where AI-assisted tools may be used by examiners and parties, what disclosure obligations apply, and how AI-generated content in submissions will be treated.
The EUIPO's intervention is notable because it is the first structured institutional statement from a major IP registry on how GenAI integrates into formal proceedings rather than just how it affects substantive IP rights. The guidelines do not prohibit AI use but create a framework of accountability around it. For practitioners filing before the EUIPO, the takeaway is that AI-assisted drafting and search must now be managed with an eye to disclosure requirements, and that reliance on AI outputs without verification will not provide a safe harbour in examination challenges.
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
Hexaware Technologies v. Natsoft Corporation | ED Texas | Section 101
What happened: The Eastern District of Texas dismissed Natsoft's $500 million patent infringement suit against Hexaware Technologies, finding the asserted claims invalid under Section 101 of the US Patent Act as directed to an abstract idea.
Issue: Whether Natsoft's patent claims, which related to software-implemented processes, survived Alice Corp. scrutiny under the two-step Section 101 framework.
The Court applied the Alice two-step test. At step one, the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea, specifically the organisation or processing of data in a software system. At step two, the Court found no inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claims described functions that a generic computer performs without any technical improvement to the computer itself.
Section 101 challenges have been a reliable and relatively low-cost mechanism for defeating software patent assertions, and Hexaware's success confirms that the Eastern District of Texas, despite its reputation as patent-friendly, continues to apply Alice rigorously in clear cases. The $500 million quantum of the claim makes the dismissal commercially significant.
Ratio: Software patent claims directed to abstract data processing without a technical improvement to the underlying computer system fail the Alice two-step test and are invalid under Section 101.
Result: Case was dismissed. Natsoft's $500 million suit against Hexaware fails at the pleading stage.
Tuesday, June 10, 2026
EUIPO Publishes Design Study on Emerging Challenges
The EUIPO released a study on June 10 examining how design law in the European Union is responding to new product categories, digital environments, and AI-generated aesthetics. The study addresses gaps in the current Registered Community Design framework and considers whether the definition of "design" needs to expand to cover virtual and screen-based products more explicitly.
The study is a precursor to legislative engagement rather than binding guidance. It identifies areas where the current framework produces uncertain outcomes, such as whether a design embedded in a digital product without a fixed physical manifestation qualifies for registration, and whether AI-generated designs can be registered at all given the authorship requirements. For practitioners and rights holders working in product design, fashion, or technology hardware, the study is worth reading as an early indicator of where EUIPO's institutional thinking is heading before formal proposals emerge.
Wednesday, June 11, 2026
Dynapass Inc. v. Bank of America
What happened: The Federal Circuit issued a decision in Dynapass's patent infringement appeal against Bank of America, resolving a claim construction dispute that had been central to both the infringement and validity analyses below.
Issue: Whether the district court correctly construed the disputed claim terms by reference to the claim language alone, or whether the specification's disclosed embodiments should have limited the scope of those terms.
The Federal Circuit addressed the boundary between claim language and specification embodiments, one of the most frequently litigated questions in patent claim construction. The Court applied the principle that claims are not to be limited to the preferred embodiments described in the specification unless the specification clearly indicates that the patentee intended to limit the claim scope to those embodiments. Where claim language is broader than the embodiments actually disclosed, the claims govern.
At the same time, the Court confirmed that where a term in the claims is defined or characterised specifically by the specification, that characterisation functions as a form of lexicography and does govern. The decision reinforces that claim drafters cannot rely on broad claim language while simultaneously arguing that embodiments in the specification should either save or narrow the claims depending on which is more convenient for litigation purposes.
Ratio: Claim scope is determined by claim language. Specification embodiments do not limit claims unless the patentee clearly intended such a limitation. Where the specification functions as a lexicographer, that definition controls.
Result: Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's claim construction. Outcome for the underlying infringement case turns on that construction.
Also read: IndiaMart Trademark Case
Disclaimer: None of the contents of this post constitute legal advice.