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 Delhi High Court's ruling in ANI v. OpenAI clarifies that training Large Language Models (LLMs) on publicly available data qualifies as 'fair dealing' under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court rejected an interim injunction, holding that such training is transformative, socially beneficial, and does not constitute a market substitute for news content. Crucially, it established that 'research' exceptions are not limited to non-commercial contexts or human actors. This decision provides significant legal breathing room for AI development in India while maintaining existing protections against literal reproduction.
Stay updated with the latest Indian Intellectual Property developments from July 19 to July 25, 2026. This week’s digest covers critical rulings, including the Delhi High Court’s landmark dismissal of the interim injunction in ANI Media v. OpenAI, emphasizing the research exception in AI training. We also review significant decisions in trademark law regarding the 'OFFER' mark, copyright groundless threats involving TVS Motor, and dynamic injunctions against piracy. Additionally, catch up on GI tag updates from Haryana and Jharkhand and significant international developments involving the Digital Services Act and Anthropic.
The Delhi High Court's ruling in New Balance vs. NUBEAT reinforces that passing off remains a potent common law remedy even when parties hold conflicting trademark registrations. By applying the initial interest confusion doctrine, the court underscored that well-known marks are protected against deceptive variants that mimic a brand's visual identity, regardless of the defendant’s attempt to claim commonality in the trade. This decision clarifies that registration is not a shield against passing off claims when prior use and extensive goodwill establish a clear source identifier that third-party labels unfairly exploit.
This week's IP digest covers critical developments in Indian trademark and copyright law. Highlights include the Delhi High Court's stance on amending plaints post-registration, the interplay between competing registered trademarks, and the latest GI tag updates from Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh. We also analyze international developments, including the Apple-OpenAI trade secret dispute and important US patent rulings. Stay informed on the latest jurisprudence from the Delhi and Bombay High Courts, alongside significant updates on GI registrations and global intellectual property trends impacting the Indian market throughout the month of July.
A second interim injunction application cannot be filed to revisit relief previously declined by the court absent proof of material changed circumstances or undue hardship. The Delhi High Court in Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd v Exotic Mile affirmed that plaintiffs cannot relitigate settled interlocutory issues simply by citing stray remarks from later appellate orders. This ruling reinforces the doctrine against perpetual interim litigation in Indian trademark law, ensuring judicial finality and protecting defendants from abuse of process under the Civil Procedure Code and the Trade Marks Act 1999.
A plaintiff may amend a passing off suit to include a trademark infringement claim if they obtain registration during the pendency of litigation. Indian courts apply the 'real controversy test' to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings, acknowledging that the underlying facts of both claims remain identical. Registration obtained post-institution does not constitute a completely new cause of action that precludes amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. This procedural flexibility serves the ends of justice, ensuring that rights holders can effectively enforce their intellectual property without restarting litigation.
Passing off in the food industry frequently involves the unauthorized use of proprietary manufacturing footage to misrepresent the quality and source of food products. When a brand showcases a supplier’s factory as its own, it commits actionable misrepresentation that misleads consumers and violates the supplier's commercial goodwill. As demonstrated in the Zippy vs. Veer Ji dispute, courts are increasingly granting urgent injunctions to protect trade secrets and brand reputation, holding platforms accountable for the rapid removal of deceptive marketing content that manufactures false trust among the public.
The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Crocs v. Bata reinforces that actual litigation costs in commercial disputes must reflect real expenses incurred, effectively deterring frivolous IP litigation. By awarding Rs. 24.63 lakh in costs under Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Commercial Courts Act, the Court has signaled that losing parties cannot expect token penalties. This decision shifts the economic burden of protracted design battles, compelling litigants to verify the novelty and registrability of their IP under the Designs Act 2000 before initiating enforcement proceedings.
The second week of July 2026 saw significant activity across Indian courts. Key rulings include the Delhi High Court's rejection of bioavailability as a basis for therapeutic efficacy in patent law and the Bombay High Court's crackdown on unsupported 'common general knowledge' claims by the Patent Office. We also cover the latest developments in trademark disputes, including the boAt v. BOULT matter and new injunctions against AI-driven copyright scraping. Stay updated on these essential legal developments and international IP cases, including the latest in the AstraZeneca and OpenAI litigations.
The Bombay High Court has mandated that patent refusals must be substantiated by specific references to common general knowledge, rejecting the practice of using it as a generic assertion. In Deepak Nitrite Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents, the court held that a reasoned order under the Patents Act 1970 must identify the source, date, and relevance of evidence used to deny inventive steps. Controllers are required to assess claims as an integrated whole rather than dissecting individual steps, ensuring applicants receive a fair and transparent examination of their patent applications.
•9 min read
Free Email Newsletter
Stay Ahead in IP Law with Its IP Time
Receive concise weekly and monthly IP Law updates.
