Browse every analysis published on Its IP Time.
This comprehensive roundup covers critical Indian IP law developments in July 2026, including landmark AI copyright rulings, trademark disputes, and patent updates.
The Delhi High Court rules that the Trade Marks Registry must apply the anti-dissection principle and clarifies that well-known mark status requires no prior declaration.
The Madras High Court recently granted an ad interim injunction against AI training using scraped content, highlighting a divergence from recent Delhi High Court rulings.
The Delhi High Court clarifies mandatory reasoning for patent refusals in Array Biopharma, curbing arbitrary use of Section 3(d) and 3(i) by the Indian Patent Office.
The Delhi High Court clarifies that a Rule 124 declaration is not a prerequisite for asserting well-known trademark status under Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act.
The Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant an interim injunction in ANI Media v. OpenAI marks a pivotal moment for AI in India. The court analyzed whether LLM training constitutes copyright infringement under Section 52, concluding that storage for research qualifies as fair dealing. Furthermore, the court found no prima facie evidence of 'regurgitation' or substantial reproduction of ANI’s news content by ChatGPT. This detailed analysis explores the court's stance on jurisdiction, the transformative nature of AI, and the balance of convenience favouring the public interest in technological development.
Stay updated with the latest Indian Intellectual Property developments from July 19 to July 25, 2026. This week’s digest covers critical rulings, including the Delhi High Court’s landmark dismissal of the interim injunction in ANI Media v. OpenAI, emphasizing the research exception in AI training. We also review significant decisions in trademark law regarding the 'OFFER' mark, copyright groundless threats involving TVS Motor, and dynamic injunctions against piracy. Additionally, catch up on GI tag updates from Haryana and Jharkhand and significant international developments involving the Digital Services Act and Anthropic.
The Delhi High Court recently issued a landmark interim order in New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Astormueller AG, addressing the complex intersection of trademark infringement and passing off. While the court declined to enjoin all marks, it protected New Balance’s iconic 'N' branding against the defendant's 'n:' device. The judgment clarifies that prior registration does not shield a defendant from passing off claims and reiterates that secondary meaning is crucial for single-letter marks. This analysis breaks down the court’s reasoning on deceptive similarity, the 'n:' colon device, and well-known mark protections.
This week's IP digest covers critical developments in Indian trademark and copyright law. Highlights include the Delhi High Court's stance on amending plaints post-registration, the interplay between competing registered trademarks, and the latest GI tag updates from Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh. We also analyze international developments, including the Apple-OpenAI trade secret dispute and important US patent rulings. Stay informed on the latest jurisprudence from the Delhi and Bombay High Courts, alongside significant updates on GI registrations and global intellectual property trends impacting the Indian market throughout the month of July.
Imagine Marketing's second attempt to secure an interim injunction against the bare wordmark BOULT has been dismissed by the Delhi High Court. Justice Jyoti Singh ruled that a plaintiff cannot repeatedly seek the same relief without demonstrating changed circumstances or undue hardship. The court clarified that a six-year-old order cannot be reopened simply because a later Bench made a passing observation. This decision reinforces the principle of issue estoppel in trademark litigation, preventing endless interim disputes and ensuring defendants receive finality regarding the scope of judicial restraints during active trials.
In a significant procedural ruling, the Delhi High Court in Loreal SA v. Vekariya Nikunj Arvindbhai clarified that plaintiffs can amend a pending passing off suit to include trademark infringement once registration is granted. The Court emphasized the 'real controversy' test, rejecting the notion that subsequent registration requires a fresh lawsuit. By allowing the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Court aims to prevent the multiplicity of proceedings and streamline litigation. This decision offers crucial guidance for brand owners navigating shifting legal statuses during ongoing trademark disputes in India.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court restrained Veer Ji Malai Chaap from using footage of a supplier’s factory to promote its own brand. Justice Jyoti Singh’s interim order highlights the dangers of using contract manufacturing promotional material to create a false impression of ownership and hygiene standards. The court’s mandate for rapid content removal and its focus on consumer deception provide a vital lesson for franchise brands regarding trade secrets and attribution. This article explores the legal implications of misrepresentation and the protection of goodwill in the food industry.
