Skip to content
Subscribe

Latest Analyses

Browse every analysis published on Its IP Time.

Browse

Latest Analyses

Weekly IP Digest

Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: June 15-20, 2026

This week's IP law digest covers critical developments in Indian jurisprudence. The Bombay High Court affirmed territorial restrictions for media brands, while the Delhi High Court clarified the limits of contempt jurisdiction regarding keyword ads on Google. We also explore significant rulings on patent examination, comparative advertising, and personality rights, including Preity Zinta's move against AI deepfakes. Internationally, the US Supreme Court's decision on skinny labels and new patent rulings from the UPC and China highlight the evolving landscape of global intellectual property enforcement and strategic brand protection.

15 min read
trademark

Konaflex v. Koanaflex: One-Letter Trademark Injunction

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that trademark infringement does not require identical marks, only deceptive similarity. In Konaflex v. Koanaflex, the court examined whether adding a single vowel to a brand name sufficiently distinguishes it. Concluding that the marks were phonetically and visually indistinguishable in the trade, the court granted an injunction. This ruling emphasizes that courts prioritize the practical realities of how orders are placed—often orally—over technical spelling differences. For business owners, this highlights the risks of adopting marks that ride too closely to existing coined brands.

7 min read
patent

Qualyst Case: Bombay HC Limits Patent Remand Powers

Can the Indian Patent Office use a court-ordered remand as an excuse to restart an entire patent examination? The Bombay High Court's ruling in Qualyst Transporter Solutions LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents clarifies that a remand for a breach of natural justice does not grant the Patent Office a blank check. We analyze why the court restricted the Controller from introducing new prior art or fresh objections, ensuring that procedural corrections focus on existing records. This decision sets a vital precedent for limiting re-examination scope after remand.

7 min read
Copyright

Zee vs. Libas: Instagram Music and Copyright Law

The Zee v. Libas copyright case exposes a significant legal blind spot for many Indian brands: the assumption that Instagram's built-in music library grants commercial rights. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela’s ruling confirms that platform-level access for personal use does not equate to a license for brand promotions or commercial Reels. As Zee pursues litigation against major retailers like Nykaa and JioStar, it is clear that courts are now scrutinizing the line between platform access and illegal commercial exploitation. Brands must secure direct synchronization licenses to avoid severe copyright infringement liability.

11 min read
patent

Patent vs. Antitrust: Supreme Court in CCI v. Swapan Dey

The Supreme Court has stayed a NCLAT order that stripped the Competition Commission of India (CCI) of jurisdiction over patent-related conduct. The case, CCI v. Swapan Dey, addresses whether a patentee’s licensing arrangements can be investigated for anti-competitive behaviour. By freezing the exclusion, the Court keeps open the possibility of antitrust oversight in sectors like pharmaceuticals and technology. This ongoing jurisdictional feud highlights the complex tension between the Patents Act and the Competition Act, and the final verdict will likely reshape how dominant market players structure licensing agreements in India.

8 min read
trademark

Boundary Disputes: Indian Express Trademark Case Analysis

The Bombay High Court has delivered a definitive ruling on trademark boundaries in the long-standing Indian Express family dispute. By upholding an injunction against Express Publications (Madurai), the court clarified that permitted users of a licensed mark cannot expand their commercial activities—such as ticketed events—beyond the specific geographic and functional scope defined by their consent decree. This analysis breaks down the legal principles of derivative marks, the binding force of court-recorded settlements, and why trademark licensees cannot operate outside the clear limitations of their agreements, regardless of their promotional aspirations.

12 min read
patent

Delhi HC Awards Rs 152 Cr in Historic CCA Patent Verdict

In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has awarded Rs 152.32 Crore in damages in Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Rosenberger, marking one of the largest patent awards in Indian history. The court upheld Indian Patent No. 240893, rejecting revocation claims and establishing infringement through MATLAB simulations. The judgment introduces the 'Dartboard Model' to curb frivolous prior art challenges and provides a robust framework for royalty-based damages in oligopolistic markets. This ruling underscores India's commitment to stringent IP enforcement, particularly in the telecommunications infrastructure sector, ensuring meaningful consequences for bad-faith patent infringement.

14 min read
trademark

Delhi HC Cancels ‘Glass Skin’ Trademark Registration

In a decisive ruling, the Delhi High Court has cancelled the 'GLASS SKIN' trademark registration, asserting that descriptive lifestyle terms cannot be monopolized by a single entity. The case of Renee Cosmetics v. Rupali Sharma highlights the dangers of 'proposed-to-be-used' filings being weaponized to block competitors via platform takedowns. The Court reinforced that descriptive terms belong to the trade and cannot serve as source identifiers without evidence of secondary meaning. This judgment serves as a vital reminder that trademark registries must rigorously filter out common descriptive vocabulary during the examination process.

10 min read
Copyright

Dynamic Injunctions: Zee v. Soccerbox FIFA Piracy Ruling

The Delhi High Court’s recent dynamic injunction in Zee Entertainment v. Soccerbox signals a new standard for protecting live sports broadcasts. By extending protection to mobile applications, mirror sites, and redirects, the court addressed the temporal nature of piracy during the 2026 FIFA World Cup. This ruling clarifies that broadcast reproduction rights under Section 37 are robust against rogue platforms. We analyze how this decision creates a powerful, real-time enforcement mechanism, ensuring that exclusive rights holders can combat revenue loss without the need for repetitive court interventions during high-stakes sporting events.

7 min read
trademark

Exporting Goods? New Madras HC Ruling on Infringement

The Madras High Court has issued a landmark ruling in the V.V.V. & Sons Idhayam case, settling whether exporting goods under a competitor's trademark constitutes infringement. The court held that the mere act of affixing a registered trademark to goods in India for export constitutes 'use' under the Trade Marks Act, regardless of whether the products are sold domestically. This decision rejects the argument that lack of Indian consumer exposure grants immunity. For Indian manufacturers, this means export-oriented production must now strictly comply with domestic trademark rights to avoid legal liability.

9 min read
trademark

Restoring Lapsed Trademarks: Rajinder Singh v. Registrar

The Delhi High Court's ruling in Rajinder Singh v. Registrar of Trade Marks underscores the mandatory obligation of the Registry to ensure proper service of renewal notices under Section 25(3). When the Registry fails to update address records and sends notices to defunct addresses, it cannot rely on its own procedural errors to extinguish a proprietor's rights. This case adds to a growing list of precedents where courts have intervened to restore marks lapsed due to administrative negligence, ensuring that commercial rights remain protected against bureaucratic failures in the trademark renewal process.

8 min read
patent

Delhi HC Reverses Philips SEP Decree: A Landmark Ruling

In a decisive judgment, the Delhi High Court has overturned the 2018 decree in K.K. Bansal v. Philips, which was previously recognized as India's first SEP trial judgment. The Division Bench ruled that Philips failed to prove its patent's essentiality through admissible evidence or proper claim charts, and rejected the royalty claims due to a lack of comparable licensing data. Furthermore, the court clarified that Section 107A(b) provides broad protection for downstream assemblers in an authorized supply chain. This ruling establishes a rigorous evidentiary standard for all future standard essential patent litigation in India.

13 min read