Skip to content
Subscribe

Latest Analyses

Browse every analysis published on Its IP Time.

Browse

Latest Analyses

Copyright

Zee vs. Libas: Instagram Music and Commercial Copyright Risks

Using the Instagram music library for brand promotional content constitutes unauthorized commercial exploitation of sound recordings, violating the owner's exclusive rights under the Copyright Act 1957. While platforms provide technical access to music, this does not grant a synchronization license for commercial advertising or brand marketing. Recent judicial trends, including the Delhi High Court's stance in Zee vs. Libas, confirm that fair dealing exceptions are inapplicable to commercial activities, necessitating that brands secure direct licenses from copyright owners to avoid infringement litigation and significant liability for damages.

11 min read
patent

Patent Rights vs Antitrust: Supreme Court Stays CCI Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court of India in CCI v. Swapan Dey is currently determining whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) holds jurisdiction over anti-competitive practices tied to patent rights. While the NCLAT previously argued that the Patents Act 1970 operates as a self-contained code, the Supreme Court has stayed this exclusion, signaling that patent exclusivity cannot shield owners from antitrust scrutiny. This case is pivotal for clarifying how Section 3(5) of the Competition Act interacts with patent monopolies to prevent the abuse of a dominant position in Indian pharmaceutical markets.

8 min read
trademark

Bombay HC Restrains ‘New Indian Express’ Mumbai Operations

Trademark rights derived from settlement agreements and consent decrees are strictly governed by their explicit territorial and functional scope. The Bombay High Court in Indian Express v. Express Publications (Madurai) ruled that a permitted user cannot unilaterally expand trademark use to commercial events outside designated regions. The decision underscores that adding prefixes like 'New' to a registered mark does not grant independent proprietary rights that bypass the terms of a court-recorded agreement. Contractual limits on licensing are binding, and courts will narrowly construe derivative usage in family business splits.

12 min read
patent

CCA v. Rosenberger: Delhi HC Awards 152 Crore Patent Damages

In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court established the 'Dartboard Model' to penalize speculative prior art challenges in patent litigation. The case of Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Rosenberger affirms that computational MATLAB simulations serve as legally sufficient proof of infringement when physical product access is denied. By applying a royalty-based damages framework with a bad-faith uplift, the court provided a clear roadmap for quantifying relief in oligopolistic markets. This judgment significantly strengthens the enforcement of technology patents in India, emphasizing objective evidence over scattershot defense strategies.

14 min read
trademark

Delhi High Court Cancels Descriptive ‘GLASS SKIN’ Trademark

The Delhi High Court has affirmed that descriptive terms like GLASS SKIN cannot be monopolised as trademarks under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. In a significant win for fair competition, the court cancelled a registration that hindered legitimate trade usage. This ruling emphasizes that popular lifestyle or industry vocabulary remains in the public domain and cannot be fenced off by a single player without proof of distinct secondary significance. Businesses should rely on established trademarks, not generic product descriptors, to avoid costly litigation and potential registration cancellation.

10 min read
Copyright

Delhi HC Expands Dynamic Injunctions to Mobile Apps

Dynamic injunctions have become the gold standard for protecting live broadcast rights under Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957. In Zee Entertainment v. Soccerbox, the Delhi High Court confirmed that these orders extend to mirror sites, redirect URLs, and mobile applications, allowing rights-holders to block infringing content in real-time. This judicial approach addresses the temporal nature of piracy, ensuring that exclusive broadcast reproduction rights are not rendered otiose during major events. The ruling reinforces that prior piracy patterns justify proactive, site-wide enforcement across ISPs and mobile ecosystems.

7 min read
trademark

Export Infringement: Madras HC Rules on Trademark Affixation

The Madras High Court has definitively ruled that affixing a trademark in India on goods destined for export constitutes trademark use under the Trade Marks Act 1999. This judgment in V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd. v. Meenakshi Overseas LLC clarifies that Indian trademark owners can initiate infringement proceedings against domestic manufacturers even if the products are not sold in the local market. The act of application is sufficient to establish a cause of action, overriding arguments that domestic consumer exposure is necessary for trademark infringement claims in India.

9 min read
trademark

Registry Fails Notice Duty: Rajinder Singh Trademark Case

The Delhi High Court has reinforced that the Trade Marks Registry cannot rely on its own procedural failures to extinguish a proprietor's rights. Under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, the Registrar has a mandatory obligation to issue valid renewal notices. When the Registry fails to serve the O-3 notice at the correct address, the resulting lapse is legally void. This decision protects long-standing brand owners from losing their registration due to administrative oversight, confirming that statutory duties of government authorities are not discretionary.

8 min read
patent

SEP Litigation in India: K.K. Bansal v. Philips Reversal

The Delhi High Court's ruling in K.K. Bansal v. Philips establishes a rigorous evidentiary standard for enforcing Standard Essential Patents (SEP) in India. Patent holders must prove essentiality through detailed claim charts mapping claims to technical specifications, comply with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding expert testimony, and provide comparable licence agreements to establish FRAND rates. Furthermore, the court reinforced that international patent exhaustion under Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act prevents patentees from collecting royalties from downstream buyers once a licensed component enters the supply chain.

13 min read
Weekly IP Digest

Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: June 07-13, 2026

This week’s IP digest covers critical developments across Indian and international courts. Key highlights include the Bombay High Court's application of the 'bare possibility' test in pharmaceutical disputes and the Delhi High Court's landmark ruling on dynamic injunctions for live sports broadcasting. We also track the GI certification of Tezpur litchi, Google’s latest AI copyright defense, and the cancellation of the 'Glass Skin' trademark registration. From procedural registry updates to global AI patent litigation, this digest provides essential updates for practitioners tracking the rapidly evolving Intellectual Property landscape in India and abroad.

17 min read
trademark

Bombay HC on Pharma Trademarks: The Bare Possibility Test

In Indian pharmaceutical trademark law, the 'bare possibility' test is the primary threshold for determining deceptive similarity. Because patient safety outweighs commercial interest, courts do not require proof of actual confusion or probability; they intervene if there is even a remote risk of error during prescription or dispensing. Applying the anti-dissection rule, courts assess marks as a whole rather than by syllable, ensuring that confusingly similar drug names are restrained even when they belong to different therapeutic classes or contain different active ingredients.

9 min read
trademark

Moti Mahal Trademark Dispute: Enforcing Franchisee Compliance

The Delhi High Court's ruling in the Moti Mahal trademark dispute underscores that post-termination use of a mark by a franchisee constitutes clear-cut infringement. By highlighting the strength of express contractual acknowledgment clauses in franchise agreements, the Court provided a robust mechanism for brand owners to secure immediate relief. The order serves as a definitive guide for protecting intellectual property within franchise networks, affirming that aggregators and digital platforms must also comply with takedown orders to prevent irreparable brand harm and consumer confusion in the hospitality sector.

8 min read