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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the recent case of Alkem Laboratories v. Numen Pharma, the Bombay High Court clarified the high standard for pharmaceutical trademarks in India. By applying the bare possibility test, the court reinforced that in the drug industry, even a remote risk of confusion is sufficient to warrant an injunction. The ruling highlights that phonetic similarity and the overall commercial impression of marks take precedence over technical arguments about different drug classes. For companies, this serves as a stern reminder that patient safety overrides minor differences in pharmaceutical branding and composition.
•9 min read
Free Email Newsletter
Stay Ahead in IP Law with Its IP Time
Receive concise weekly and monthly IP Law updates.
