Indian Courts
Monday, 05 October 2026
Surya Hotels and Properties v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras HC
What Happened
Petitioner Surya Hotels and Properties filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Division seeking the transfer of pending trademark rectification proceedings from the Trade Marks Registry to the High Court. The petitioner claimed prior user and registration of the trademark MISTY MOUNTAIN RESORT under Application No. 1969012 in Class 43 for hospitality and resort services. The dispute arose because respondent Misty Mountain Plantation Resort secured Trade Mark Registration No. 2441920 for the mark MISTY MOUNTAIN in Class 43, prompting the petitioner to initiate Rectification Proceeding No. MAS-279782 before the Registry in Chennai. Given parallel civil disputes between the parties concerning identical mark rights, the petitioner sought statutory consolidation to avoid conflicting determinations and administrative delay.
Issue
Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 125(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to direct the transfer of pending trademark rectification proceedings from the Trade Marks Registry to the High Court?
Ratio and Result
Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete allowed the petition and directed the Trade Marks Registry to transmit the records of the rectification proceeding to the High Court. The Court held that Section 125(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 empowers the transfer of rectification proceedings where trademark rights are entangled in wider disputes between the parties. The Court observed that consolidation before the Intellectual Property Division prevents divergent findings and secures an expeditious disposal on the merits without causing procedural prejudice to either party. Read full analysis: Surya Hotels and Properties v. Registrar of Trade Marks Case Analysis.
R. Booma Rani v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras HC
What Happened
Petitioner R. Booma Rani, carrying on business as Ayyanar Match Works at Sattur, approached the Madras High Court seeking a writ of mandamus against the Registrar of Trade Marks. The petitioner had applied for registration of the trademark THOTHA (HINDI LABEL) under Application No. 1532336 in Class 34 for safety matches on February 20, 2007, claiming continuous commercial use since 1993. The application faced third-party opposition proceedings which were ultimately dismissed, leading to the issuance of the registration certificate on March 16, 2023 with retrospective statutory effect from 2007. When the petitioner attempted to submit the renewal application and fee, the Registry’s electronic portal locked out the application on the ground that the statutory renewal period had lapsed, and the Registry refused physical filings.
Issue
Does the Trade Marks Registry have the legal authority to reject a trademark renewal application on grounds of delay or automated portal restrictions when the mark has not been formally removed from the Register under Section 25 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rule 59 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017?
Ratio and Result
Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar to receive the renewal application and renewal fee. The Court held that the expiration of a renewal timeline under Rule 58(3) serves merely as an administrative trigger for the Registrar to initiate removal proceedings. The Court ruled that until the Registrar takes affirmative action to formally remove the mark from the Register under Rule 59, the proprietor retains an enforceable statutory right to renew, and technical limitations of an online portal cannot override substantive statutory protections. Read full analysis: R. Booma Rani v. The Registrar of Trade Marks Case Analysis.
Deakin University v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, Madras HC
What Happened
Petitioner Deakin University, a premier Australian public research university, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the deemed abandonment of its patent application before the Patent Office. The petitioner had filed Indian Patent Application No. 201747029902 for a Firefighter Training Unit as a PCT national phase application with priority dating back to February 20, 2015. Following the issuance of the First Examination Report on November 25, 2020, the petitioner provided instructions and draft responses to its registered Indian patent agent to seek an extension and submit the formal reply. Due to gross negligence and complete lack of communication by the agent, no reply was filed within the statutory period, resulting in deemed abandonment under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Issue
Can the High Court invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to condone procedural delay and restore a patent application deemed abandoned under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 caused entirely by patent agent default?
Ratio and Result
Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete allowed the writ petition, restored the patent application to its original stage, and directed the Patent Office to take the examination response on record. The Court held that deemed abandonment under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 requires an intentional relinquishment of rights (animus derelinquendi). The Court ruled that where an applicant demonstrates continuous diligence by instructing its patent agent, a bona fide inventor cannot suffer patent forfeiture because of professional default, and constitutional writ jurisdiction remains available to prevent injustice. Read full analysis: Deakin University v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks Case Analysis.
Japan Tobacco Inc. & Anr. v. The Central Wearhouse & Anr., Delhi HC
What Happened
Petitioners Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International S.A. filed a copyright rectification petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 before the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division. The petitioners sought the expunction and cancellation of Copyright Registration No. A-54260/97 granted in October 1997 to domestic garment manufacturer The Central Wearhouse for the artistic label CAMEL and CAMEL COLLECTION with a camel device. The petitioners asserted global copyright ownership in the iconic CAMEL cigarette packaging dating back to 1913, invoking Section 40 of the Act read with the International Copyright Order, 1999 and the Berne Convention. The petitioners alleged that the respondent’s label was an unoriginal, pirated copy of their artistic work, while the respondent argued that the petitioners failed to produce primary evidence of authorship or assignment.
Issue
Can a petitioner secure the cancellation of a registered copyright under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 without producing primary documentary proof of first ownership and chain of title under Section 17 of the Act?
Ratio and Result
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the rectification petition with costs. The Court held that a party seeking copyright expunction under Section 50 bears the strict legal burden of proving original artistic authorship and first ownership under Section 17. The Court ruled that corporate history books, marketing lore, and trademark reputations cannot substitute for legal proof of title, and international convention provisions under Section 40 do not exempt a claimant from proving valid authorship under Indian law. Read full analysis: Japan Tobacco Inc. & Anr. v. The Central Wearhouse & Anr. Case Analysis.
Good Drop Wine Cellars Pvt. Ltd. v. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Madras HC
What Happened
Petitioner Good Drop Wine Cellars Private Limited, a domestic wine manufacturer, approached the Madras High Court in a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the Trade Marks Registry. The petitioner’s commercial expansion suffered an impediment in January 2020 when the Registrar of Trade Marks refused its Class 33 trademark application, citing a prior conflicting registration held by Chilean corporation Vina Santa Carolina S.A. under Registration No. 1334766. Good Drop promptly instituted a trademark rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Trade Marks Registry in Chennai, seeking expunction of the dormant foreign mark. Despite valid service of notice, the Chilean proprietor failed to file a counter-statement, yet the Registry allowed the matter to linger without adjudication for six years.
Issue
Should the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the Registrar of Trade Marks to dispose of a long-pending trademark rectification petition under Section 57 where a registered proprietor defaults in appearance?
Ratio and Result
Justice P.B. Balaji allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to pass final orders on the rectification petition within eight weeks. The Court held that prolonged administrative delay cannot be permitted to protect dormant foreign marks that block active domestic commercial enterprises. The Court emphasized that when a respondent fails to file a counter-statement or enter appearance following proper service, the Registry is duty-bound to proceed expeditiously and bring statutory rectification proceedings to a timely conclusion. Read full analysis: Good Drop Wine Cellars Pvt. Ltd. v. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Case Analysis.
Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr. v. Medicine Me & Ors., Delhi HC
What Happened
Renowned cardiac surgeon Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty and Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd. filed a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court against multiple rogue digital platforms, unknown registrants, Meta Platforms Inc., and Google LLC. The plaintiffs alleged that unauthorized digital operators generated synthetic deepfake videos and cloned Dr. Shetty’s voice and image to endorse untested medical treatments and dubious healthcare products on social media. The plaintiffs further claimed trademark infringement of the registered marks NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA and N-1 device mark, seeking a permanent injunction, damages, a declaration of well-known trademark status, and dynamic takedown orders. The rogue defendants failed to enter appearance or file written statements despite substituted service, leading the plaintiffs to seek a summary decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
Issue
Can a court grant a final decree for personality rights violation and trademark infringement under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC without recording ex parte oral evidence, and does summary adjudication extend to declaring a trademark well-known under Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
Ratio and Result
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav decreed the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and granted a permanent injunction protecting Dr. Shetty’s personality and voice rights alongside the hospital’s registered trademarks. The Court instituted a dynamic injunction directing intermediaries Meta and Google to take down infringing content within 36 hours of receipt of notification affidavits. However, the Court refused to declare the trademarks as well-known under Section 11(6), ruling that well-known declarations require rigorous factual evaluation and cannot be granted summarily without a full trial. Read full analysis: Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr. v. Medicine Me & Ors. Case Analysis.
Wednesday, 07 October 2026
Mrs. Shakti Sagar v. The Delhi Law House & Ors., Delhi HC
What Happened
Plaintiff Mrs. Shakti Sagar instituted commercial suit CS(COMM) 492/2024 before the Delhi High Court seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against The Delhi Law House and associated publishing entities. The plaintiff claimed exclusive copyright ownership over 47 established legal literary commentaries and treatises originally published by Delhi Law House, asserting rights derived from a family partnership dissolution and the Will of her deceased husband. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were unauthorizedly printing, distributing, and selling the legal works, thereby committing copyright infringement. The defendants resisted the application, contending that copyright in the scholarly commentaries remained vested in the respective legal authors, and that the plaintiff produced no written assignment instruments under Section 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Issue
Can an ad-interim injunction restraining copyright infringement be granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC when the claimant’s chain of title lacks written, signed assignment deeds from original authors under Section 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957?
Ratio and Result
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed the application for an ad-interim injunction. The Court held that under Sections 17, 18, and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the transfer of copyright ownership mandates an explicit written assignment deed signed by the original author. The Court observed that testamentary succession and partnership distribution documents cannot substitute for statutory assignment deeds, ruling that where the foundational chain of title is clouded by substantial factual doubts, discretionary interlocutory injunctions cannot be granted to halt long-standing commercial publications. Read full analysis: Mrs. Shakti Sagar v. The Delhi Law House & Ors. Case Analysis.
NOCIL Ltd. v. Finorchem Ltd. and Anr., Calcutta HC
What Happened
Petitioner NOCIL Ltd. filed an interlocutory application before the Calcutta High Court in an intellectual property commercial suit seeking an interim injunction against Finorchem Ltd. and its managing director. NOCIL held Patent No. IN 372138 covering an improved chemical process for the preparation of 4-Aminodiphenylamine (4-ADPA), an essential intermediate used in rubber antioxidants. NOCIL alleged that Finorchem engaged in process patent infringement and misappropriation of proprietary trade secrets after recruiting former senior technical employees who had access to NOCIL’s confidential plant operational data. Public environmental filings and risk assessment submissions by Finorchem revealed a chemical manufacturing scheme identical to the patented process, while Finorchem argued that its process contained variations and challenged the patent’s validity.
Issue
Is a patentee entitled to an interim injunction restraining process patent infringement under Section 104A of the Patents Act, 1970 where the end chemical product is identical and the defendant’s alleged process modifications constitute colorable variations?
Ratio and Result
Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur granted an interim injunction restraining Finorchem from commercially manufacturing 4-ADPA using the patented process and from utilizing the petitioner’s confidential trade secrets. Applying Section 104A of the Patents Act, 1970, the Court held that where the manufactured product is identical, the statutory burden shifts to the defendant to prove that its process is distinct. Applying the pith and marrow doctrine, the Court ruled that minor, non-essential variations do not escape infringement, and an interlocutory challenge to patent validity must be credible and substantial rather than a vague assertion. Read full analysis: NOCIL Ltd. v. Finorchem Ltd. and Anr. Case Analysis.
Thursday, 08 October 2026
Metro Brands Limited v. Brand Magic and Ors., Bombay HC
What Happened
Plaintiff Metro Brands Limited, a prominent Indian footwear and retail enterprise holding multiple statutory registrations for the trademark METRO, filed a commercial suit before the Bombay High Court against Brand Magic and its partners. The plaintiff sought an ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to restrain the defendants from using the mark METRO and deceptively similar marks for footwear across digital marketplaces and retail outlets. The defendants resisted the injunction by invoking Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, asserting that they were prior continuous users of the mark. To substantiate their defense, the defendants produced contemporaneous digital tax records, including GST e-way bills and e-commerce merchant logs dating back to 2018.
Issue
Does a registered trademark proprietor’s exclusive right under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 override an established prior user defense under Section 34 supported by contemporaneous electronic tax and sales records at the interlocutory stage?
Ratio and Result
Justice R. I. Chagla refused to grant an ad-interim injunction against the defendants. The Court held that the exclusive rights conferred by registration under Section 28 are expressly subject to other provisions of the Act, including the common law shield for prior users under Section 34. The Court ruled that verified GST filings and third-party e-commerce records established a credible prima facie defense of prior continuous commercial use, finding that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the defendants’ established business operations from disruption. Read full analysis: Metro Brands Limited v. Brand Magic and Ors. Case Analysis.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Nectar Life Care (Prior User Rights), Bombay HC
What Happened
Plaintiff Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. instituted commercial suit COMIPL/28038/2025 before the Bombay High Court against defendant Nectar Life Care, alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff claimed exclusive statutory rights over its registered marks in Class 5 and sought an ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendant from using the mark and commercial name NECTAR LIFE CARE in connection with dietary supplements, nutraceuticals, and medicinal products. The defendant opposed the prayer for interim relief by raising the statutory defense of prior user under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The defendant submitted continuous commercial documentation, including GST returns, manufacturing batch records, and regulatory licenses demonstrating uninterrupted marketplace use since 2018, predating the plaintiff’s registration.
Issue
Can a registered proprietor obtain an ad-interim injunction to halt the use of a commercial trademark where the defendant establishes continuous prior use under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 through verified regulatory and tax documentation?
Ratio and Result
Justice R. I. Chagla refused the ad-interim injunction against the mark NECTAR LIFE CARE and upheld the defendant’s prior user defense under Section 34. The Court held that registration under Section 28 remains subservient to the rights of a prior continuous user under common law principles embedded in Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court ruled that contemporaneous GST invoices and statutory drug licenses established a credible defense, directing the defendant to maintain regular accounts of sales pending final adjudication. Read full analysis: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Nectar Life Care Case Analysis.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Nectar Life Care (Deceptive Similarity), Bombay HC
What Happened
Plaintiff Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. moved Interim Application IAL/28417/2025 in Commercial IP Suit COMIPL/28038/2025 before the Bombay High Court against defendant Nectar Life Care. While the main suit involved broader corporate name rights, this interlocutory application specifically sought to restrain the defendant from manufacturing, marketing, and selling pharmaceutical preparations under packaging, trade dress, and product branding confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s registered Class 5 medicinal preparations. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s visual layout, color schemes, and product trade dress created severe confusion in retail trade. The defendant resisted the application, contending that differences in therapeutic indications, price points, and prescription schedules eliminated the probability of consumer confusion.
Issue
Does visual, acoustic, and packaging similarity between competing pharmaceutical preparations constitute actionable trademark infringement and passing off under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 notwithstanding differences in therapeutic indications?
Ratio and Result
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Nectar Life Care from manufacturing or selling pharmaceutical products under deceptively similar packaging and trade dress. Applying the Supreme Court principles in Cadila Healthcare, the Court ruled that in medicinal preparations, distinct therapeutic applications do not mitigate the danger of confusion, because phonetic and visual resemblance can lead to accidental drug substitution in retail pharmacies. The Court emphasized that a stringent standard of confusion applies to medicinal products to safeguard public health and prevent commercial deception. Read full analysis: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Nectar Life Care Case Analysis.
BRG Education Institute v. Novex Communication Private Limited, Bombay HC
What Happened
Defendant licensing agency Novex Communication Private Limited filed an interim application in a copyright dispute before the Bombay High Court against plaintiff BRG Education Institute. Novex alleged that the educational institution authorized and conducted the public playback of copyrighted sound recordings from its proprietary music catalogue during campus festivals and events without securing statutory public performance licenses. Novex sought an ad-interim injunction and pressed for the physical delivery-up and seizure of computers, hard drives, and media devices under Section 58 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The educational institute resisted the application, claiming protection under the educational fair use exception in Section 52(1)(i) of the Act and arguing that seizing academic computers would paralyze educational administration.
Issue
Does the educational exception under Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957 exempt large-scale campus entertainment events from music licensing requirements, and can computers used for unauthorized audio playback be ordered for delivery-up under Section 58?
Ratio and Result
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining BRG Education Institute from playing unlicensed sound recordings from Novex’s catalogue or allowing its premises and hardware to be used for unauthorized performances. The Court held that the educational exception in Section 52(1)(i) must be construed strictly and does not provide immunity for large-scale, sponsored campus festivals. The Court upheld the remedy of delivery-up under Section 58 of the Copyright Act, 1957, ruling that physical media and computer hardware used to commit copyright infringement are subject to seizure regardless of potential administrative inconvenience to the institution. Read full analysis: BRG Education Institute v. Novex Communication Private Limited Case Analysis.
GI & Indian IP Registry News
CGPDTM Releases Draft Guidelines for Examination of Biotechnology Patent Applications
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks issued draft guidelines for the examination of patent applications in the field of biotechnology on October 8, 2026. The draft regulatory document provides an updated examination framework addressing rapid scientific developments in modern biotechnology, genetic engineering, recombinant DNA technology, cell lines, and monoclonal antibodies. The guidelines delineate the statutory criteria for assessing novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970, while establishing clear standards for compliance with Section 3(b), Section 3(c), Section 3(d), Section 3(h), Section 3(i), Section 3(j), and Section 3(p).
A significant portion of the draft guidelines focuses on mandatory statutory disclosures, including the deposit of biological material under Section 10(4) and procedural compliance under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The framework clarifies that applicants utilizing biological resources from India must secure prior approval from the National Biodiversity Authority and specify the source and geographical origin of biological material in the patent specification. The Patent Office has made the draft document available to the public to solicit comments and suggestions from legal practitioners, research institutions, and industry stakeholders.
CGPDTM Publishes Draft Guidelines for Examination of Pharmaceutical Patent Applications
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks published comprehensive draft guidelines for the examination of patent applications in the pharmaceutical sector on October 7, 2026. Recognizing the critical economic and public health importance of pharmaceutical patenting in India, the draft guidelines synthesize the historical evolution of pharmaceutical patents since the Patents and Designs Act of 1911 and provide a structured framework for examiners evaluating chemical compounds, formulations, combinations, and dosage regimes.
The draft guidelines establish rigorous technical criteria for examining claims under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, requiring applicants claiming new forms of known substances to demonstrate enhanced therapeutic efficacy through comparative experimental data. The document also addresses Markush structures, polymorphs, enantiomers, salts, and prodrugs, delineating the boundaries of patentability under Section 3(e) for synergistic mixtures and Section 3(i) for methods of medical treatment. The Patent Office invited public feedback and constructive proposals from legal practitioners, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and civil society groups to refine the examination manual before formal adoption.
Agricultural Experts Seek Geographical Indication Tag for Old Mysuru Virginia Tobacco
Agricultural scientists and farming associations in Karnataka have initiated formal steps to secure a Geographical Indication tag for Flue-Cured Virginia tobacco cultivated in the Hunsur taluk of the old Mysuru region. Under the proposed initiative, proponents intend to register the product as Mysuru-style tobacco, aiming to protect the commercial identity of regional growers and secure higher export realization in international markets. National Institute for Research on Commercial Agriculture scientist S. Ramakrishnan highlighted that Virginia tobacco grown in this tract contains distinctly lower levels of nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide compared to commercial leaf from other growing regions, establishing unique agro-climatic characteristics.
Karnataka currently holds 51 registered Geographical Indications across handicrafts, textiles, and agricultural products. Local farming representatives, including Raitha Sangha leader Hosur Kumar, stated that despite the distinctive quality of their crop, farmers in the old Mysuru region have faced price volatility and stagnant auction returns. Proponents urged the Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry and the Tobacco Board to support the GI application, noting that legal recognition will establish provenance authentication and protect traditional farming communities against price exploitation.
Gujarat Government Accelerates Geographical Indication Registrations Under ODOP Initiative
The Government of Gujarat announced an aggressive plan to obtain Geographical Indication tags for products identified under the Central Government’s One District One Product initiative across all 33 districts of the state. During a high-level review of the ODOP program, the Chief Minister instructed state administrative departments to expedite GI applications to strengthen brand identity, expand export readiness, and increase commercial earnings for local artisans, farmers, and micro, small, and medium enterprises. Gujarat currently holds 27 registered GI products, including Sankheda furniture, Patan patola, Surat zari craft, Gir Kesar mango, and Ambaji white marble.
The state initiative encompasses a diverse range of regional products, including peanut-based goods from Amreli and Junagadh, dairy specialities from Anand and Mehsana, Alphonso mangoes from Navsari, and artisanal textiles from Kutch. To support producers seeking statutory recognition, the state government proposed a one percent export incentive capped at ten lakh rupees, financial assistance for quality certification, and support of up to twenty percent capped at six lakh rupees for handloom and handicraft startups. The administration plans to establish a dedicated digital portal to facilitate domestic and overseas trade linkages for certified GI goods.
Also Read: Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: October 11 to 17, 2026 | Its IP Time
International IP Updates
TradeSun Files Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Against OpenAI Over ‘Astra’ AI Model
California financial technology developer TradeSun Inc. filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against OpenAI in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on October 5, 2026. TradeSun alleges that OpenAI’s branding of its artificial intelligence model as GPT-6 Astra infringes its registered trademark ASTRA, which TradeSun has used in commerce since 2021 and registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 2022 for AI-powered financial compliance and trade finance software. TradeSun grounded its complaint in the doctrine of reverse confusion, asserting that OpenAI’s massive commercial dominance will cause consumers to mistakenly believe that TradeSun’s software is a derivative offering of OpenAI or that TradeSun is an unauthorized imitator.
The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction restraining OpenAI from using the mark Astra in connection with foundation models and software products, alongside an accounting and disgorgement of profits. OpenAI characterized the claims as entirely without merit. The action adds to a series of federal trademark disputes confronting OpenAI over model naming choices, including contested disputes concerning the marks Sora, Cameo, and IO, highlighting escalating brand clearance conflicts across the generative software sector.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni Files EU Sound Trademark Application for Her Voice
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni submitted an application to the European Union Intellectual Property Office on October 5, 2026 to register her spoken voice as a sound trademark. The application contains a four-second digital audio recording of Meloni speaking the phrase “Io sono Giorgia Meloni” twice in Italian, referencing her widely circulated 2019 political address and 2021 autobiography. The filing seeks statutory trademark protection across three Nice classes, encompassing downloadable multimedia content, publishing services for print media, and the organization of cultural events, political conferences, and public assemblies.
The legal filing represents a pioneering attempt by a European head of government to utilize intellectual property mechanisms as a defensive instrument against synthetic identity manipulation and unauthorized artificial intelligence deepfakes. While entertainers and commercial brands have previously registered sound marks, legal analysts noted that the trademark registration will grant Meloni actionable civil remedies to demand content takedowns and claim commercial damages for unauthorized voice cloning across digital distribution networks.
US Justice Department Directs Staff to Adopt ‘Super Intelligence’ Terminology Under Executive Order
The United States Department of Justice issued an internal directive on October 6, 2026 instructing departmental personnel to replace the phrase artificial intelligence with the term super intelligence in official communications and legal proceedings. Issued by Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter, the memorandum implements an executive order signed by President Donald Trump titled “Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence.” The directive instructs federal attorneys, policy staff, and law enforcement agencies to adopt the phrase super intelligence and the abbreviation SI to the maximum extent permitted by law across agency reports, policy memoranda, administrative guidance, and formal court filings.
The administrative directive reflects a deliberate policy shift by the executive branch to alter how emerging computational technologies are characterized in regulatory and judicial forums. The administration reasoned that the term artificial implies an inauthentic construct, whereas super intelligence better reflects advanced computational potential. While civil liberties organizations and technology observers raised questions regarding linguistic clarity in statutory interpretation, Justice Department officials emphasized that the department retains full investigative and prosecutorial authority over corporate malfeasance and cyber security offenses involving high-capability algorithms.
Dutch Patent Court Enjoins Merck’s Subcutaneous Keytruda Formulation in Eight European Jurisdictions
The specialized patent chamber of the District Court of The Hague issued a cross-border preliminary injunction on October 7, 2026 in favor of Halozyme Therapeutics against multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck, operating as MSD outside North America. The Dutch court enjoined Merck from manufacturing, distributing, marketing, or importing its subcutaneous formulation of the blockbuster oncology drug Keytruda across eight European jurisdictions, consisting of Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. The court determined that Merck’s subcutaneous Keytruda infringes Halozyme’s European Patent EP 2,797,622, which claims enzyme technology utilizing recombinant hyaluronidase for high-volume subcutaneous therapeutic administration.
The Dutch court dismissed Merck’s patent invalidity counterclaims, confirming the prima facie validity of Halozyme’s European patent rights. The judicial restraint applies exclusively to the subcutaneous formulation, ensuring that patient access to the standard intravenous formulation of Keytruda remains completely uninterrupted. The decision reinforces an earlier preliminary injunction granted by a German regional court against the same formulation, while parallel patent infringement litigation involving fifteen asserted patents remains active between the companies in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
USA Today Files Federal Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against OpenAI Over Model Training
Publishing corporation USA Today Co., formerly known as Gannett, filed a major copyright infringement lawsuit against OpenAI in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 8, 2026. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied hundreds of thousands of copyrighted journalistic articles without authorization or licensing to train its large language models. The action covers reporting published across USA Today alongside nineteen prominent affiliated regional newspapers, including The Tennessean, The Detroit Free Press, The Columbus Dispatch, and The Indianapolis Star. The publisher asserts that OpenAI’s automated systems reproduce and synthesize proprietary reporting, functioning as an unauthorized commercial substitute for original journalism.
The lawsuit demands more than 250 million dollars in statutory and actual copyright damages, alongside an injunction prohibiting further unauthorized ingestion of the publisher’s articles. The complaint additionally requests an order directing the destruction of training datasets and foundation model weights derived from the publisher’s works. The litigation marks another significant legal confrontation between news publishers and artificial intelligence developers over the application of copyright doctrine to computational training processes.
