Other IP
Vikrant Kapoor v. Anuj Kohli: Delhi HC Defines Ouster Clause
The Delhi High Court in Vikrant Kapoor v. Anuj Kohli ruled that naming a specific forum in invoices effectively ousts other courts, even without 'exclusive' language.
Browse the archive
Author: Adv. Koushik Chittella
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).
Copyright
Screen Scene Media v. Venkatesh: Madras HC Denies Motion to Vacate
The Madras High Court in Screen Scene Media v. Dr. S. Venkatesh affirmed an interim injunction, ruling that cinematograph film ownership requires clear chain of title.
Copyright
Madras HC: Copyright Infringement Claims Not Subject to Arbitration
The Madras High Court in Eros Technologies Digital FZE v. Ayngaran International Films rules that Section 55 copyright infringement claims override private arbitration clauses.
trademark
Asian Paints Secures Ex-Parte Injunction in Trade Dress Battle
The Bombay High Court has granted Asian Paints an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Deepak Kumar Panwar, affirming protection for its 'APEX' trade dress and marks.
Monthly IP Roundup
August 2026 Indian IP Law Digest | Its IP Time
The August 2026 Indian IP law digest highlights a landmark Delhi High Court seven-step test for Section 3(m) patentability and key rulings on trademark well-known marks.
Copyright
DABUS Rejected: Indian Copyright Office Denies AI Authorship
The Registrar of Copyrights has formally rejected the application naming an AI system, DABUS, as an author, reaffirming that statutory authorship under the Copyright Act 1957 is strictly reserved for legal persons. While algorithmic outputs may satisfy the originality standard under the Modak precedent, the person who initiates the creative process must be identified as the author. The order underscores that artificial intelligence lacks the legal personality necessary to hold property rights, and any attempt to grant such status remains a matter for Parliamentary legislative reform.
Weekly IP Digest
Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: Aug 23-29, 2026 | Its IP Time
Stay updated with our Weekly Indian IP Law Digest covering crucial rulings from the Delhi, Bombay, and Madras High Courts, alongside essential updates from the CGPDTM.
trademark
Madras HC Dismisses YouTube John Doe Suit Over Vague Pleadings
The Madras High Court has dismissed a John Doe suit filed by YouTube Google LLC against Sri Eshwar College of Engineering, citing a critical lack of specificity in the pleadings regarding registered trademark infringement. Under the Commercial Courts Act and Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, courts now demand rigorous evidentiary standards for injunctions. Plaintiffs must definitively identify the specific trademark registrations breached and demonstrate a concrete legal injury, rather than relying on broad, speculative assertions to justify the use of John Doe procedural mechanisms.
trademark
Madras HC: Registry Situs Alone Cannot Establish IP Jurisdiction
The Madras High Court in Vinbros and Co v. Chamundi Winery has decisively ruled that the mere administrative situs of the Trademark Registry cannot confer territorial jurisdiction for infringement litigation. Jurisdictional competence under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62 of the Copyright Act remains tethered to the plaintiff’s place of business or the defendant's actions, rather than the location of the registry office. This prevents forum shopping and ensures that judicial resources are aligned with the operational realities of the parties involved in the dispute.
Copyright
The Cinema Resource Centre: Madras HC on Copyright Proof
The Madras High Court has established that possession of photographic materials does not equate to ownership of copyright. In a ruling concerning historical film assets, the court denied injunctive relief because the plaintiffs failed to produce a written assignment proving a clear chain of title. This case serves as a critical precedent for IP practitioners, emphasizing that without valid legal instruments as per Section 17 of the Copyright Act, claimants cannot sustain a declaration of ownership. Establishing the initial authorship and the subsequent transfer of rights is non-negotiable in copyright litigation.