Skip to content
Subscribe
← Back
Monthly IP Roundup

August 2026 Indian IP Law Digest | Its IP Time

24 min readUpdated September 2, 2026 In-depth analysis
August Monthly IP Law Roundup

Reading Tools

The month of August 2026 in the world of Indian IP law where the courts expanded the protective umbrella for well-known marks across unrelated goods, while refusing to grant monopolies over descriptive expressions and unassigned archival materials. In patent and design practice, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark seven-step test to evaluate Section 3(m) of the Patents Act, 1970, exclusions and affirmed that patent and design disputes belong exclusively before specialized Commercial Divisions. This roundup covers the essential Indian IP law rulings and administrative developments from August 2026, arranged by their respective field.

Trademarks

Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)

Dharampal Premchand, proprietor of the registered and well-known trademark BABA for chewing tobacco, pan masala, and mouth fresheners, initiated legal action against Shabu KN Achary for using a deceptively similar green border, lettering style, and metallic visual get-up for agarbatti and dhoop products. The defendant argued that agarbatti falls under a different class and caters to religious purposes, precluding consumer confusion. The Supreme Court rejected this contention and affirmed strong protection for well-known marks under Section 2(1)(zg) read with Section 11(6) and Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court held that the protection granted to a well-known mark transcends the specific classification of goods when the adoption of an identical or deceptively similar mark or packaging aims to take unfair advantage of established commercial goodwill. Copying the distinctive colour scheme, arrangement of features, and trade dress of a reputed brand amounts to actionable passing off, even across disparate consumer goods. This decision provides brand owners with strong precedent to restrain copycat packaging across diverse product segments. Read more at: Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Case Analysis.

K. Narayanan v. S. Murali (Supreme Court of India)

The plaintiff filed a passing-off suit in Chennai, attempting to establish territorial jurisdiction on the sole ground that an application for trademark registration had been filed at the Chennai branch office of the Trade Marks Registry. Both commercial entities operated outside Chennai, and the actual sale of goods occurred in Kerala. The defendant challenged the maintainability of the suit for lack of territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Supreme Court held that filing a trademark application at a branch registry does not constitute a cause of action for a common law passing-off suit. Passing off is an action in tort that depends strictly on commercial misrepresentation, customer deception, and damage to goodwill in the marketplace. Because Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act applies only to registered trademarks, an unregistered claimant cannot manufacture jurisdiction through administrative filings. The ruling remains the definitive benchmark preventing forum shopping in passing-off litigation. Read more at: K. Narayanan v. S. Murali Case Analysis.

Noviets Pharma & Ors. v. Novartis AG & Ors. (Delhi High Court, Division Bench)

Novartis AG secured an ad-interim injunction against Noviets Pharma in a commercial suit over the mark NOVIETS, alleging deceptive phonetic and visual similarity to its house mark NOVARTIS. Noviets Pharma appealed in FAO(OS) (COMM)-143/2026, arguing that it used NOVIETS merely as a corporate name and business identifier rather than as a product brand, which it claimed negated trademark infringement under Section 29.

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and confirmed the injunction. The Court held that adopting a confusingly similar brand name as a trade name or business identifier provides zero immunity from infringement and passing off claims. In the pharmaceutical sector, courts apply a heightened standard of scrutiny to prevent confusion that could jeopardize patient safety. Given the international recognition of NOVARTIS, the phonetic overlap in NOVIETS created an unacceptable risk of association. Read more at: Noviets Pharma v. Novartis Case Analysis.

Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court, Division Bench)

Celagenex Research, registered owner of the mark NUREWIRE, obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and local commissioner order against Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals over the mark RewireX. Celagenex claimed before the single judge that it discovered the infringement in May 2026. Nugenesys appealed in FAO(OS) (COMM)-167/2026, demonstrating that Celagenex had issued a cease-and-desist notice in October 2025 and had filed a formal opposition against the RewireX application months earlier.

The Division Bench vacated the ex-parte injunction in its entirety due to deliberate suppression of material facts. The Court ruled that applicants seeking ex-parte relief owe an absolute duty of utmost candor to the court. Fabricating urgency by concealing months of pre-suit correspondence and administrative opposition proceedings vitiates the foundation of ex-parte orders, requiring the appellate court to set aside the injunction. Read more at: Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals v. Celagenex Case Analysis.

Hahnemann Scientific Laboratory India Pvt. Ltd. v. Meera Rastogi (Delhi High Court, Division Bench)

Hahnemann Scientific appealed a trial court order that denied an interim injunction against the mark DIGESTO PLUS for homeopathic digestive remedies, filed under FAO (COMM)-182/2026. The appellant claimed exclusive rights over HASLAB’S DIGESTO. The appeal was filed after a 76-day delay, which the appellant sought to condone on the ground that it had secured a subsequent trademark registration during the intervening period.

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, refusing both to condone the delay and to grant interim relief. The Court held that DIGESTO is descriptive of digestive preparations and publici juris in the pharmaceutical trade. A fresh trademark registration obtained after the passing of an impugned trial court order cannot serve as a valid ground to condone limitation delays. The trial court had exercised sound judicial discretion in refusing an injunction over a common descriptive word. Read more at: Hahnemann Scientific v. Meera Rastogi Case Analysis.

Suzlon Cotton Mills v. Suzlon Energy Limited (Madras High Court)

Suzlon Cotton Mills filed a trademark rectification petition to challenge a registered trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petition had been dismissed at the threshold without issuing proper statutory notice or providing the petitioner an opportunity to present its case. Suzlon Cotton Mills approached the High Court seeking restoration of the rectification proceedings.

The Madras High Court restored the rectification petition to the file, emphasizing the mandatory nature of procedural fairness under Section 125 of the Act. The Court held that quasi-judicial and judicial bodies handling trademark cancellations cannot dispose of substantive validity challenges without issuing formal notice to all affected parties. The matter was remanded for hearing on the merits. Read more at: Suzlon Cotton Mills v. Suzlon Energy Case Analysis.

S.S. White Burs Inc. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks (Delhi High Court)

S.S. White Burs Inc., an established global manufacturer of dental burs, appealed an order of the Trade Marks Registry that permitted a domestic applicant to register an identical mark. S.S. White established prior global adoption, international sales, and worldwide reputation, asserting that the respondent adopted the mark with full knowledge of the original brand.

The Delhi High Court set aside the registration, holding that dishonest adoption at the inception constitutes bad faith under Section 11(10)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act. The Court clarified that the benefit of honest concurrent use cannot be claimed when a party knowingly appropriates a well-known international mark. The judgment also held that trademark examiners have a mandatory duty under Rule 33 to conduct proper search and examination before advertising conflicting marks. Read more at: S.S. White Burs v. Registrar of Trade Marks Case Analysis.

Cipla Limited v. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)

Cipla Limited filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking restoration and renewal of its lapsed trademark NO DARAR in Class 5. After the Court directed the Registry to restore and renew the registration, a third-party competitor filed applications under Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 of the CPC, seeking to implead itself and recall the disposal order.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed the impleadment and recall applications. The Court ruled that trademark renewal under Section 25 is strictly a bilateral administrative proceeding between the registered proprietor and the Registry. Competitors have no standing to intervene in renewal writ petitions. An aggrieved third party must file a statutory rectification petition under Section 57 to challenge the validity of a mark, rather than mounting collateral attacks on renewal orders. Read more at: Cipla Limited v. Union of India Case Analysis.

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited v. M/s Razenta Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories filed a cancellation petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, docketed as C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)-122/2025, against the registration of the mark DAPLOGIN under Registration No. 5208898 in Class 5. Dr. Reddy’s established prior adoption, registration, and extensive commercial use of its DAPLO mark for dapagliflozin medicines.

Justice Sanjeev Narula ordered the cancellation of the DAPLOGIN registration and directed rectification of the Register within six weeks. The Court held that in pharmaceutical products, even minor phonetic and visual similarities create serious public health risks. Because Dr. Reddy’s prior user rights in DAPLO were clearly established, the subsequent registration of DAPLOGIN could not be sustained. Read more at: Dr. Reddy’s v. Razenta Pharmaceuticals Case Analysis.

Emami Limited v. Dabur India Limited (Delhi High Court)

Emami Limited sought an interim injunction to restrain Dabur India from marketing its cooling hair oil in packaging that closely replicated the distinct trade dress, color palette, bottle silhouette, and label placement of Emami’s Navratna oil. Dabur resisted the injunction by arguing that it had already invested substantial funds in manufacturing and distribution inventory.

The Delhi High Court granted the injunction against Dabur’s packaging. The Court held that protecting established brand equity and visual trade dress against deceptive imitation takes precedence over a defendant’s commercial launch investments. Where the overall visual impression of consumer packaging is deceptively similar, a prima facie case of passing off is established. Read more at: Emami Limited v. Dabur India Case Analysis.

Jyothy Labs Limited v. Dabur India Limited (Bombay High Court)

Jyothy Labs sued Dabur India before the Bombay High Court for trade dress infringement and passing off, alleging that Dabur’s dishwashing product packaging mimicked the distinctive shape, green and yellow color arrangement, and visual get-up of Jyothy Labs’ products. Dabur argued that the presence of its prominent brand name eliminated any risk of consumer confusion.

The Bombay High Court rejected Dabur’s argument and granted an interim injunction. The Court held that in fast-moving consumer goods, trade dress creates an immediate commercial impression on consumers with average recall. Prominently displaying a different brand name does not immunize a defendant from passing off liability when the overall packaging and trade dress remain deceptively similar. Read more at: Jyothy Labs v. Dabur India Case Analysis.

Asian Paints Limited Vs Deepak Kumar Panwar (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court, in Asian Paints Limited v. Deepak Kumar Panwar (2026), has reinforced the standard for granting ex-parte ad-interim injunctions in commercial trademark disputes. The Court prioritized the plaintiff’s historical usage of the ‘ASIAN PAINTS’ and ‘APEX’ marks to establish a prima facie case of infringement and passing off.

Highlighting the critical nature of trade dress, the Court found the defendant’s packaging to be a colorable imitation of the plaintiff’s established brand identity. By invoking its powers under the Commercial Courts Act, the Court moved swiftly to appoint a Court Receiver to secure evidence and prevent the dissipation of infringing materials. Read full case analysis here: Asian Paints Trademark case Analysis

Alder Biochem Pvt. Ltd. v. Zydus Healthcare Limited (Delhi High Court)

Zydus Healthcare sought to restrain Alder Biochem from using the mark ALDER BIOCHEM, asserting exclusive statutory rights over its registered trademark BIOCHEM. Alder Biochem contended that adding the prefix ALDER made the composite mark visually and phonetically distinctive, thereby avoiding trademark infringement under Section 29.

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction against Alder Biochem. The Court ruled that prefixing an arbitrary or generic word to an established registered trademark does not escape infringement when the registered mark is retained as the prominent, dominant feature of the commercial identifier. Read more at: Alder Biochem v. Zydus Healthcare Case Analysis.

FreeElective Network LLC v. Matrimony.com Limited (Madras High Court)

FreeElective Network sued Matrimony.com in the Madras High Court, alleging trademark infringement and claiming exclusive rights over specific constituent words found within its registered composite device mark. Matrimony.com raised an objection under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, asserting that the plaintiff could not claim monopoly over disaggregated parts of a composite label.

The Madras High Court dismissed the infringement plea, applying the anti-dissection rule under Section 17. The Court held that registration of a composite device mark confers statutory exclusivity over the mark taken as a whole, not over individual descriptive or generic components, unless those parts are separately registered as independent marks. Read more at: FreeElective Network v. Matrimony.com Case Analysis.

Minor International Public Company Limited v. Anantara Developers (Delhi High Court)

Global hospitality group Minor International sued an Indian developer for using the luxury hotel brand ANANTARA in domestic real estate and residential construction projects. The defendant argued that Minor International held limited physical hotel presence in India and operated in hospitality rather than construction.

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and dynamic domain blocking orders. The Court recognized that ANANTARA possesses transborder reputation among Indian consumers, which naturally extends into allied sectors like luxury residential developments. The Court also restrained domain name squatting and unauthorized social media branding by the defendant. Read more at: Minor International v. Anantara Developers Case Analysis.

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited (Delhi High Court)

Hindustan Unilever Limited filed CS(COMM) 904/2026 before the Delhi High Court against Kwick Living, alleging commercial disparagement in digital advertisements. Both corporate entities have their principal offices in Mumbai. Kwick Living raised a preliminary objection under Section 20 CPC, asserting that Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction because both parties operate from Mumbai.

Justice Amit Bansal applied the Supreme Court ruling in IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia and the Banyan Tree purposeful availment test. The Court held that the mere passive online visibility of digital advertisements within Delhi, without clear evidence of targeted commercial activity or local market transactions, cannot establish territorial jurisdiction. The Court reserved orders on maintainability while directing completion of pleadings on the jurisdictional objection. Read more at: Hindustan Unilever v. Kwick Living Case Analysis.

M/s Vinbros and Co. v. M/s Chamundi Winery and Distillery (Madras High Court)

Vinbros filed a trademark infringement suit against Chamundi Winery in Chennai, claiming that jurisdiction existed because its trademark application had been processed by the Trade Marks Registry branch office located in Chennai. Chamundi filed Application A.2575/2026 to dismiss the suit, showing that both liquor manufacturers conduct business outside Chennai.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the situs of a Trade Marks Registry branch office cannot confer territorial jurisdiction for civil suits under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act or Section 20 CPC. Filing documents at a registry office does not create a cause of action, and the suit was held not maintainable in Chennai. Read more at: Vinbros v. Chamundi Winery Case Analysis.

Zee Learn Limited v. Beauty Singh (Bombay High Court)

Zee Learn terminated the KIDZEE preschool franchise of Beauty Singh due to contractual defaults. Following termination, the ex-franchisee rebranded the center as KIDGEE and continued operating the school from the same premises. Zee Learn approached the Bombay High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim relief to enforce post-termination covenants and stop trademark infringement.

Justice Amit Borkar granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent from using KIDGEE or running a competing school at the location. The Court held that trademark misuse by a former franchisee arises directly from the franchise agreement and is fully remediable through Section 9 interim measures pending arbitration. Read more at: Zee Learn v. Beauty Singh Case Analysis.

YouTube Google LLC v. Sri Eshwar College of Engineering (Madras High Court)

YouTube Google LLC filed an infringement suit against Sri Eshwar College of Engineering alongside unnamed John Doe defendants. The college filed Application A.191/2026 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint, pointing out that Google failed to identify its specific registered trademarks or detail the exact acts of infringement committed by the institution.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu allowed the application and rejected the plaint. The Court held that John Doe procedures are meant strictly for untraceable online infringers and cannot be used as an excuse for vague, generalized pleadings against named defendants. A commercial trademark plaint must disclose precise registration details and specific infringing acts under Section 29. Read more at: YouTube Google v. Sri Eshwar Case Analysis.

Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. v. Agrawal Food Product (Bombay High Court)

Bisleri International sued Agrawal Food Product in Commercial IP Suit No. 40195 of 2025 for manufacturing and distributing packaged drinking water under the deceptively similar mark BILSSERI, using identical green packaging, labeling, and bottle configuration. The parties settled the dispute on formal Consent Terms.

Justice Madhav J. Jamdar decreed the suit in terms of the settlement. The defendant was permanently restrained from using BILSSERI or similar trade dress, directed to destroy all infringing inventory in the presence of Bisleri’s representative, pay Rs. 1,00,00,00 in settled damages, and agreed to a liquidated damages penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000 in the event of any future breach. Read more at: Bisleri v. Agrawal Food Product Case Analysis.

Delhi High Court Trademark Suppression Jurisprudence (Delhi High Court)

In a significant procedural clarification regarding interim injunction practice, the Delhi High Court established clear boundaries for suppression pleas raised by defendants. The Court examined instances where defendants sought to vacate ad-interim injunctions by alleging that plaintiffs withheld non-critical correspondence or historical documents.

The Court clarified that an allegation of suppression will not justify vacating an injunction if the omitted information was already accessible within the court records or previously rejected by the Registry, provided the omission lacked the potential to alter the legal outcome. Litigants cannot weaponize technical procedural omissions to relitigate settled findings on deceptive similarity and distinctiveness. Read more at: Delhi HC Suppression Jurisprudence Case Analysis.

Empee Distilleries v. Universal Spirits (Madras High Court)

Empee Distilleries sought an interim injunction in a commercial liquor trademark dispute against Universal Spirits, claiming trademark similarity and risk of market confusion. The defendant established that the commercial trade dress, pricing segments, and distribution channels were distinct.

The Madras High Court denied the interim injunction, holding that trademark similarity alone does not automatically guarantee interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The plaintiff must demonstrate an overwhelming balance of convenience and tangible, irreparable injury to halt an ongoing commercial enterprise at the interim stage. Read more at: Empee Distilleries v. Universal Spirits Case Analysis.

Copyrights

The Indian Copyright Office on 31.08.2026 decided that DABUS, an autonomous system created by Dr. Stephen Thaler, cannot be the author of work as per the Copyright Act, 1957. Originality was not denied, but authorship was denied. Citing the necessity of human authorship as per Section 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, the Copyright Office held that a level of human involvement is required to obtain copyright and that an autonomous system like DABUS hence cannot be the sole author as per the law. Read more here: DABUS – Indian Copyright Office rejects Authorship of AI

The Cinema Resource Centre v. Ganga Rudraiah (Madras High Court, Division Bench)

The Cinema Resource Centre filed a suit claiming statutory copyright ownership over photographic stills from the classic 1978 Tamil film Aval Appadithan, suing the legal heirs of late filmmaker Rudraiah. The Centre based its claim of title entirely on its physical possession and archival preservation of the original photographic negatives, seeking a declaration and permanent injunction.

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that physical custody of film negatives is completely separate from legal copyright ownership under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Copyright originates in the author or producer and can only be transferred through a written, valid assignment deed under Section 19. Because physical custody does not confer intangible rights, the claim failed. Read more at: Cinema Resource Centre v. Ganga Rudraiah Case Analysis.

In a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused counterfeiters sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioners argued that the complainant lacked standing due to internal corporate licensing disputes and that the prosecution had not established mens rea prior to trial.

The Madras High Court refused to quash the proceedings, ruling that Section 63 allows direct criminal prosecution of counterfeit operations. The Court held that technical challenges regarding standing or internal licensing disputes cannot be resolved in quashing petitions and must be tested during trial evidence. Read more at: Criminal Copyright Enforcement Case Analysis.

Aamir Khan Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and 28 Others (Madras High Court)

Aamir Khan Productions filed OA.835/2026 in CS(COMM DIV) 239/2026 before the Madras High Court, seeking urgent dynamic blocking orders to protect its theatrical release BATWARA 1947 against pervasive online piracy across 29 internet service providers and rogue streaming websites.

The Court accepted the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate as sufficient prima facie evidence of copyright title under Section 51 of the Copyright Act. Recognizing that theatrical revenue windows require immediate protection, the Court granted dynamic blocking directions requiring ISPs to block infringing portals as well as future redirect and mirror links carrying the movie name. Read more at: Aamir Khan Productions v. BSNL Case Analysis.

Vishesh Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and 28 Others (Madras High Court)

In OA.837/2026, Vishesh Pictures approached the Madras High Court for pre-release anti-piracy protection for its feature film AWARAPAN 2 against BSNL, major telecom providers, and unknown online pirates operating rogue hosting domains.

Justice K. Surender granted an ad-interim dynamic injunction, holding that unauthorized online dissemination inflicts irreversible commercial harm on film producers. Relying on CBFC certification, the Court directed internet intermediaries to block identified rogue websites and all alphanumeric mirror links created to bypass the injunction. Read more at: Vishesh Pictures v. BSNL Case Analysis.

Patents

Delhi High Court 7-Step Test for Section 3(m) Patentability (Delhi High Court)

The Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgment establishing a definitive seven-step analytical framework to govern patent examination under Section 3(m) of the Patents Act, 1970, which excludes mental acts, game rules, and business methods from patentability.

The Court held that patent examiners cannot summarily reject applications under Section 3(m) merely because an invention involves underlying logic or calculation. The seven-step test requires examiners to evaluate whether the claimed invention utilizes physical hardware components, produces a concrete technical effect, and solves a technical problem beyond a purely subjective mental process. This structured framework aligns Indian patent examination with international standards for technical inventions. Read more at: Section 3(m) Patentability 7-Step Test Analysis.

Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v. Controller of Patents (Delhi High Court)

Esteve Pharmaceuticals appealed a Patent Office decision that refused a patent application for a pharmaceutical co-crystal composition under Section 3(d) and Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970, asserting that the refusal order lacked statutory reasoning and failed to identify specific prior art.

The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the application for de novo consideration. The Court held that the Patent Office must issue speaking orders with detailed evidentiary reasoning. When raising Section 3(d) objections, examiners must explicitly identify the known base compound, and Section 3(e) rejections require a clear comparison showing why a combination produces only an aggregate of known properties. Read more at: Esteve Pharmaceuticals v. Controller of Patents Case Analysis.

Designs

Yes Bank Limited v. Modi Rubber Limited (Delhi High Court)

In a key jurisdictional decision concerning the allocation of intellectual property suits, the Delhi High Court resolved conflicting views on whether design and patent infringement actions should be heard by Ordinary Civil Courts or assigned exclusively to Commercial Divisions under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Court held that all commercial disputes involving patents, registered designs, and trademarks fall exclusively within the domain of the Commercial Division of the High Court. This ruling provides jurisdictional clarity, ensuring that design infringement suits benefit from streamlined case management hearings, mandatory disclosure timelines, and specialized IP bench adjudication. Read more at: Yes Bank v. Modi Rubber Case Analysis.

Geographical Indications and Other IP Developments

JRPT Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. HT Process Controls Private Limited (Supreme Court of India)

The Supreme Court, comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, disposed of SLP(C) No. 29465/2026 arising from an ongoing commercial IP dispute before the Delhi High Court. The petitioner had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC to discharge an ad-interim injunction, while the respondent had initiated contempt proceedings alleging violation of the same order.

The Supreme Court established the procedural rule that applications under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC should be heard alongside or prior to pending contempt proceedings. The Court observed that subjecting a litigant to penal contempt consequences before determining the legal validity and sustainability of the underlying injunction violates procedural fairness. Read more at: JRPT Automation v. HT Process Controls Case Analysis.

Vikrant Kapoor v. Anuj Kohli & Ors. (Delhi High Court)

In the case of Vikrant Kapoor v. Anuj Kohli, the Delhi High Court clarified that a jurisdictional recital in a commercial invoice serves as a binding contractual agreement regarding the forum for dispute resolution. The Court held that even in the absence of restrictive adjectives such as ‘exclusive’ or ‘alone,’ the specification of a court effectively excludes the jurisdiction of all other competent forums.

Justice Subramonium Prasad anchored the decision on the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, confirming that modern jurisprudence prioritizes the parties’ intent over technical drafting requirements. This judgment aligns with the authoritative trajectory set by the Supreme Court in cases like Swastik Gases, marking a departure from older, more lenient interpretations of jurisdiction clauses. Read the full case analysis here: Vikrant Kapoor v Anuj Kohli Analysis

CGPDTM Releases Draft Manuals 2026 for Patent and Trademark Practice

The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks published the Draft Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure, 2026 and the Draft Manual of Trademark Practice and Procedure, 2026 for stakeholder feedback. The new draft patent manual incorporates the Patents (Amendment) Rules 2024, the Jan Vishwas Act 2023, and the 2025 Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions. The trademark manual modernizes examination workflows, opposition hearings, and adds dedicated procedural guidelines for well-known trademark determinations under Section 11.

GI Registrations and Agricultural Updates

The Geographical Indications Registry initiated proceedings for the Amritsar Shawl under Application No. 1373 in Classes 24 and 25, aiming to protect an industry accounting for ₹1,700 crore in annual turnover. Additionally, the Tamil Nadu government submitted five GI applications for traditional regional products: Kodaikanal Panrimalai coffee, Karamanikuppam karuvadu, Kumbakonam degree coffee, Nilgiri ghee, and Palamedu palkova, strengthening legal protection for authentic regional artisans and agricultural producers.

Also Read: Indian IP Law Roundup July 2026 – AI Training, Trademarks, and Patents

References:

Written by

Adv. Koushik Chittella

IP Law Practitioner

Indian IP Law Trademark Patent Copyright

An Advocate enrolled on the rolls of the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh. What started as curiosity about how the law protects ideas, brands, inventions, and creative works gradually developed into a genuine passion for studying and explaining IP law, inspiring me to pursue a Masters degree (LL.M.) in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

Connect with the author More from this author

Continue reading