Indian Courts
Monday, June 15
The Indian Express Group v. The New Indian Express
Bombay HC (Division Bench) | Trademark | Media & Publishing
What happened: A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upheld a Single Judge order restraining The New Indian Express from operating its brand outside its contractually permitted territories (Southern states), affirming injunctive relief in favour of The Indian Express.
Issue: Whether a contractual territorial limitation on the use of a shared brand name is enforceable through injunction where two co-originating media entities operate under a common heritage mark in separately demarcated geographic zones.
Ratio & Result: Division Bench confirmed the Single Judge's findings in their entirety. Territorial injunction upheld. The New Indian Express is restrained from operating outside its contractually permitted territories. Affirms judicial enforceability of territorial brand-use conditions in media licensing arrangements.
Read full case analysis here: Indian Express v. New Indian Express Case
Qualyst Transporter Solutions v. Asst. Controller of Patents
Bombay HC | Patents | Examination
What happened: After a patent refusal order was set aside for breach of natural justice (objections raised at the hearing without prior notice), the matter went back to the Patent Office. On remand, the Office issued a fresh hearing notice introducing entirely new prior art references and new grounds of objection.
Issue: Whether a remand ordered solely to cure a breach of natural justice permits the Patent Office to introduce new prior art or wholly new objections beyond the original examination record.
Ratio & Result: A remand order must be read in its factual context. Where the only defect was breach of natural justice and not a deficiency in examination, the remand is limited to curing that defect. The Controller may elaborate or clarify existing objections but cannot introduce new prior art or entirely new grounds and doing so would amount to reopening examination de novo, which falls outside the remit of a limited remand. Hence, Interim application was allowed. Patent Office directed to confine re-examination to the existing record. Order to be passed within eight weeks.
Read full case analysis here: Qualyst Patent Case
Google v. DRS Logistics
What happened: DRS Logistics filed a contempt petition against Google alleging that competing businesses' ads continued to display its registered marks in ad text, titles, and URLs despite court orders from 2021 and 2023.
Issue: Whether earlier court orders obligated Google to proactively monitor and prevent use of DRS Logistics' marks in third-party ad text, titles, and URLs.
Ratio & Result: Contempt jurisdiction cannot expand the scope of earlier orders. Prior directions covered only keyword-based complaints. Proactive monitoring of ad text and URLs was never mandated; trademark owners must flag specific URLs for action under Google's policy mechanism. As a result, the Contempt petition is dismissed.
Astral Ltd v. Astral Marketing
Delhi HC | Trademarks | Jurisdiction
Facts: Astral Ltd filed a trademark suit in Delhi. The defendant sought rejection on grounds that it did not carry on business in Delhi and the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether a defendant's business listing accessible on Justdial in Delhi is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court.
Ratio: Accessibility of a business listing on Justdial in Delhi amounts to carrying on business there for purposes of territorial jurisdiction.
Result: Application to reject the suit dismissed. Delhi HC retains jurisdiction.
Abbott v. Menschlich Healthcare
Bombay HC | Trademarks | Rectification
Facts: Abbott sought cancellation of "DUPHACHRIT" registered by Menschlich Healthcare, relying on its "DUPHA" family of marks (DUPHASTON, DUPHALAC, DUPHAR etc.) in Class 5, with rights traceable to 1949. Both marks covered the same active ingredient, dydrogesterone. Menschlich offered no explanation for adopting the "DUPHA" prefix.
Issue: Whether DUPHACHRIT was deceptively similar to Abbott's DUPHA family of marks warranting cancellation under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act 1999.
Ratio: A mark that borrows a competitor's well-established prefix, covers the same pharmaceutical ingredient, and offers no credible explanation for adoption is deceptively similar phonetically, aurally, structurally, and visually. A prefix that consistently functions as the source identifier across a family of marks is protectable even without standalone registration.
Result: DUPHACHRIT registration cancelled. Rectification petition allowed.
Raman Kwatra v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Bombay High Court | Trademark Rectification | Jurisdiction
What happened: The petitioner filed a rectification petition in Mumbai to remove a mark from the "Well-Known" list, despite the mark being registered in Delhi.
Ratio & Result: The petition was dismissed on the grounds of Forum Non Conveniens. Since the "Well-Known" list is maintained by the registry in Delhi, the Court ruled that Delhi is the appropriate forum, preventing "forum shopping" for national marks.
Tuesday, June 16
CADD Centre Training Services v. CADD Centre Software Systems
Madras HC | Trademark | Infringement
Facts: A dispute arose in the computer-aided design education sector over the "CADD Centre" name and logo, with the plaintiff asserting established brand equity against the defendant software firm.
Issue: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from using the "CADD Centre" trademark pending trial.
Ratio: Established brand equity in a sector-specific mark, combined with a prima facie case of infringement, supports interim injunctive relief.
Result: Temporary injunction granted. CADD Centre Software Systems restrained from using the "CADD Centre" name and logo.
Microtek v. Okaya Dealers
Delhi HC | Comparative Advertising
Facts: Microtek alleged that dealers of Okaya circulated advertisements that disparaged Microtek's trademarks and products in the battery market.
Issue: Whether comparative advertising that crosses into disparagement of a competitor's trademark justifies injunctive relief.
Ratio: Comparative advertising is permissible only so long as it does not cross into disparagement or trade libel. Advertisements found to be defamatory towards a rival brand warrant interim restraint.
Result: Okaya dealers restrained from circulating the disparaging advertisements.
DWD Pharmaceuticals v. Celsius Healthcare
Delhi HC | Trademarks | Infringement
Facts: DWD Pharmaceuticals filed a trademark suit against Celsius Healthcare over "CelsiusDizest", which DWD alleged was deceptively similar to its registered mark "DIZEST".
Issue: Whether "CelsiusDizest" was deceptively similar to "DIZEST" so as to warrant a temporary injunction.
Ratio: A defendant's mark that incorporates the plaintiff's registered distinctive mark in its entirety as a suffix establishes a prima facie case of deceptive similarity.
Result: Temporary injunction granted. Celsius Healthcare restrained from using "CelsiusDizest".
Ayur Products v. Ayurland
Delhi District Commercial Court | Trademark | Damages
Facts: The maker of "Ayur" herbal and personal care products filed a trademark infringement suit against the user of the "Ayurland" mark.
Issue: Whether "Ayurland" infringed the "Ayur" trademark and whether damages were warranted.
Ratio: The "Ayur" mark carries sufficient distinctiveness and brand strength in the herbal and personal care sector to support both a permanent injunction and monetary damages against a deceptively similar mark.
Result: Permanent injunction granted. Damages of ₹2 lakh awarded.
Wednesday, June 17
Jockey International Inc. v. Unknown Sellers (John Doe) on Meesho
Delhi HC | Trademark | E-Commerce / Counterfeiting
What happened: The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Jockey International, restraining multiple anonymous sellers on Meesho from selling counterfeit innerwear. In a John Doe-style order, the court directed Meesho to disclose the identities and transactional records of the infringing sellers.
Issue: Whether the court should bypass the standard notice requirement to prevent destruction of evidence in an e-commerce counterfeiting case, and whether a platform can be directed to identify and produce records of anonymous infringing sellers.
Ratio & Result: Ex-parte injunction granted. Meesho directed to disclose seller identities and records. Standard notice bypassed to prevent evidence destruction. Reinforces platform accountability in brand protection and the availability of urgent relief against coordinated counterfeiting networks.
Applicant v. Trade Marks Registry
Delhi HC | Trademark | Registry Practice
What happened: Justice Jyoti Singh set aside the Trade Marks Registry's summary rejection of the word mark "BIG INDIA," rebuking the Senior Examiner for passing an unreasoned order that completely ignored the applicant's written submissions.
Issue: Whether the Trade Marks Registry can validly reject a trademark application through a summary, unreasoned order that fails to engage with the applicant's written submissions, in violation of principles of natural justice.
Ratio & Result: Registry order quashed. Application remanded for fresh hearing and a reasoned decision. Court found the rejection violated the fundamental right to be heard; strong rebuke to the Registry on procedural standards.
Thursday, 18 June
Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. v. Alto Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Bombay HC | Justice Arif S. Doctor | Trademark | Pharmaceutical |
What happened: The Bombay High Court permanently restrained Alto Healthcare and its manufacturer from using the mark "MEFIAL-SPAS" and associated packaging. The suit proceeded undefended; the court imposed ₹10 lakh in costs.
Issue: Whether the defendant's pharmaceutical mark "MEFIAL-SPAS" is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark "MEFTAL-SPAS" such that it amounts to trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off, with attendant public health risk from consumer confusion.
Ratio & Result: Permanent injunction granted. ₹10 lakh costs imposed. Deceptive similarity upheld; court underscored the public health dimension of pharmaceutical trademark enforcement. The ruling is notable for treating packaging trade dress and the mark together as a unified infringement package.
Preity Zinta - AI Deepfakes / Personality Rights Suit
Bombay HC | Personality Rights | AI & Digital Misuse
What happened: The Bombay High Court granted leave to Bollywood actor Preity Zinta to file a suit for injunction to protect her personality rights against AI-generated deepfakes and other unauthorized digital use of her likeness.
Issue: Whether a public figure's personality rights, encompassing likeness, voice, and image, are protectable under Indian law against AI deepfake content and unauthorized digital reproduction, warranting injunctive relief at the leave-to-sue stage.
Ratio & Result: Leave granted; Zinta is permitted to institute the injunction suit. Injunction proceedings to proceed on merits. Follows a pattern of Indian courts proactively admitting personality rights claims against AI and digital exploitation.
Friday, 19 June
Kirit Bhadiadra v. Wings Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Supreme Court | Trademark | Infringement
Kirit Bhadiadra challenged a December 2025 Delhi High Court judgment. The High Court had upheld a trademark injunction restraining him from using the mark "Medilice Lice Killer" for anti-lice hair oil, ruling it deceptively similar to Wings Pharmaceuticals' registered mark "Medilice" used for anti-lice shampoo.
A Supreme Court bench stayed the operation of the High Court and trial court orders. This decision effectively pauses the commercial injunction and the modified ₹3 lakh damages award while the apex court conducts a deeper scrutiny of the dispute.
SNPC Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishal Choudhary
Delhi HC (Division Bench) | Patent InfringementWhat happened: The defendant attempted to bypass a brick-making machine patent by replacing the tractor-mounted power mechanism with a bullock-driven system.
Ratio & Result: The Court applied the "Pith and Marrow" doctrine (Doctrine of Equivalence). It held that changing the mode of implementation (bullocks vs. tractor) does not alter the substance of the invention. The court emphasized that superficial modifications to non-essential elements cannot circumvent liability, focusing instead on the essential, revolutionary features of the patented technology. The interim injunction against the defendant was upheld.
IP News & GI Updates of the week
Basmati GI - Exporters Challenge APEDA's Choice of Law Firm
The All India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA) and the Basmati Rice Millers and Exporters Association of Punjab (BRMEA) wrote to Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal and APEDA Chairman Abhishek Dev, objecting to APEDA's appointment of a new law firm to manage Basmati GI and IPR enforcement cases. The associations allege the firm was appointed without stakeholder consultation and carries a conflict of interest: it previously represented petitioners who sought inclusion of Madhya Pradesh areas in the Basmati GI zone, a position APEDA has historically opposed. APEDA asserts the appointment followed a proper tender procedure through a selection committee.
Jio Platforms Enters WIPO Global Patent Top 20
Jio Platforms broke into the global top 20 in WIPO's patent filing rankings, climbing 320 places, and became the only Indian company in WIPO's Patent Law Treaty (PLT) rankings. The development marks a significant milestone in India's transition from a predominantly IP-consuming economy to a patent-generating one, with a private telecommunications conglomerate driving the movement.
National GI Summit - "AI 4 GI" at IIT Madras
IIT Madras's Technology Transfer Office, in collaboration with the Office of the CGPDTM, hosted the National GI Summit at ICSR, Chennai. The summit's core theme — "AI 4 GI" — explored how artificial intelligence can be applied to modernize GI registration, monitoring, and enforcement. The event signals growing institutional attention to AI-assisted GI governance within India's IP administration.
Japan Finalizes IP Strategic Program 2026
Japan's Cabinet Office Intellectual Property Strategy Headquarters finalized the IP Strategic Program 2026, moving AI, content, standards, and intangible asset policy toward government implementation. Key measures: a generative AI transparency code for developers and providers; an "Anti-Style Mimicry" clause enabling statutory damages where a model is predominantly trained on a specific artist's style to create a direct market substitute (targeted at protecting the Manga and Anime industries); stronger civil remedies for IP infringement; collective rights enforcement mechanisms; and mandatory corporate disclosure of IP assets.
USPTO Director Revises Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
USPTO Director John Squires published a superseding administrative memorandum altering the practice on Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (SMEDs). The new guidance mandates that practitioners file SMEDs independently from other statutory rejections, and designates eligibility evidence guidelines as a "living document" subject to ongoing revision based on real-world practice data. Effective June 18, 2026.
Moldova Accedes to the European Patent Convention
Moldova officially acceded to the European Patent Convention (EPC), becoming the 40th member state of the European Patent Office. The accession expands the EPC's geographic reach further into Eastern Europe.
International Courts
15 June, 2026
Hikma Pharmaceuticals v. Amarin Corporation
US Supreme Court
What happened: The US Supreme Court delivered a unanimous 9-0 decision (written by Justice Jackson) reversing the Federal Circuit and reshaping the standard for induced patent infringement claims against generic manufacturers operating under "skinny labels" within the Hatch-Waxman framework.
Issue: What level of conduct must a brand manufacturer allege to establish induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) when a generic enters with a skinny label that carves out a patented indication?
Ratio & Result: The "plausible chain of events" theory is rejected. A brand plaintiff must allege active, affirmative conduct specifically designed to encourage healthcare providers to prescribe a drug for a patented use. Generic skinny-label entry is protected absent such conduct. Federal Circuit reversed. Major win for generic manufacturers and the Hatch-Waxman equilibrium.
Harbour Antibodies BV v. Amgen Inc. & Teneobio Inc.
US District Court, District of Delaware
What happened: A Delaware jury returned a unanimous verdict finding that Amgen and its Teneobio subsidiary willfully infringed Harbour BioMed's "Grosveld Patent," which protects a transgenic rodent platform for generating fully human antibodies. Harbour confirmed it will next pursue enforcement of a second, larger patent (potentially 10x the current damages).
Issue: Whether Teneobio's UniRat platform — a genetically modified rodent system producing heavy chain-only human antibodies — infringed Harbour's patents under the doctrine of equivalents; and whether such infringement was willful.
Ratio & Result: Willful infringement found; patent upheld as valid; $20,203,704 damages awarded in full. Willfulness finding enables a petition to treble to $60.6 million. Rare full verdict for a smaller biotech against a major pharmaceutical company in the District of Delaware. Amgen has signaled it will pursue post-trial proceedings.
Washington Star Company v. Notus Media
US District Court, EDVA (E.D. Virginia)
What happened: The Eastern District of Virginia granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) preventing news outlet Notus Media from rebranding itself as "The Star."
Issue: Whether Notus Media's proposed rebranding to "The Star" is likely to cause confusion with The Washington Star Company's trademark under the Lanham Act, warranting emergency injunctive relief.
Ratio & Result: TRO granted; rebranding blocked. Proceedings ongoing.
16 June, 2026
DXC Technology v. Tata Consultancy Services
US Supreme Court
What happened: The US Supreme Court refused to hear TCS's petition for certiorari against the $140 million punitive damages judgment in the DXC Technology trade secret dispute, concluding 7 years of litigation. TCS announced a $70 million exceptional charge for Q1 FY27.
Issue: Whether TCS misappropriated DXC's proprietary trade secrets to build its "BaNCS" banking platform, and whether the punitive damages award was constitutionally and proportionally valid.
Ratio & Result: Cert. denied; $140 million punitive judgment stands. Total financial impact on TCS approximately $220 million (approx. ₹1,800 crore). The largest trade secret loss in Indian IT sector history, now final.
June 17, 2026
AI.Law Corp. v. Butler Labs Inc. d/b/a Eve Legal
US District Court, N.D. California | Mag. Judge Alex G. Tse | Patent | Legal Tech / AI | Filed June 17, 2026
What happened: AI.Law Corp. (Dublin, Ohio) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of California against Butler Labs, trading as Eve Legal, an AI legal tech company serving plaintiff law firms. AI.Law alleges Eve's platform infringes its U.S. Patent No. 12,461,932 covering AI-assisted transformation of unstructured material into structured long-form legal documents.
Issue: Whether Eve Legal's AI document-drafting tools, including multi-page complaints, discovery responses, and medical chronologies, infringe the claims of AI.Law's '932 patent.
Ratio & Result: Filing stage; no ruling yet. Case No. 3:26-cv-05930. An early-stage indicator of how AI-enabled legal workflow patents will be tested in inter-competitor litigation, with implications for legal tech IP diligence and indemnification practices.
June 18, 2026
InterDigital Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company
Unified Patent Court (UPC), Mannheim Local Division
What happened: The Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court granted an injunction against Disney in favour of InterDigital, finding that Disney infringed InterDigital's standard-essential patents (SEPs) covering HEVC (High Efficiency Video Coding) video encoding technology.
Issue: Whether Disney's use of HEVC video encoding technology without a licence from InterDigital constitutes infringement of its SEPs under the UPC framework, and whether injunctive relief is appropriate.
Ratio & Result: Injunction granted against Disney. Significant win for SEP holders in the entertainment sector, demonstrating the UPC's willingness to grant injunctive relief in SEP disputes — a posture distinct from the more FRAND-centric approach seen in some national courts.
InnoScience Technology v. Infineon Technologies
Supreme People's Court of China
What happened: China's Supreme People's Court issued a final review decision sustaining the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court's sales injunction against Infineon, which had been found to infringe two of InnoScience's core GaN (Gallium Nitride) invention patents.
Issue: Whether Infineon's relevant GaN semiconductor products infringed InnoScience's core GaN invention patents, and whether the Suzhou Intermediate Court's injunction and damages award should be upheld on final review.
Ratio & Result: Injunction sustained; Infineon prohibited from selling relevant GaN products in mainland China immediately. RMB 10 million (approx.) damages from Suzhou court affirmed. Final and binding under Chinese procedural law.
Infineon Technologies v. InnoScience Technology
Munich Regional Court, Germany
What happened: The Munich Regional Court ruled in Infineon's favour in two patent and utility model cases concerning GaN technology, finding that InnoScience's products infringed Infineon's German GaN patents. This is InnoScience's third and fourth courtroom loss in Germany. InnoScience separately stated that the rulings affect only discontinued legacy products, not its current portfolio.
Issue: Whether InnoScience's GaN power device products infringed Infineon's German patents on GaN semiconductor technology and packaging.
Ratio & Result: Ruling for Infineon; InnoScience prohibited from manufacturing, selling, and marketing the infringing products in Germany; damages ordered. InnoScience maintained that currently marketed products were found to fall outside the scope of Infineon's asserted patents.
~ Adv. Koushik Chittella
Disclaimer: None of the contents of this post constitute legal advice.