If the month of June 2026 belonged to keyword bidding and SEP damages, the month of July 2026 belonged to a single question that Indian courts had never answered before: Does training a large language model on someone else’s copyrighted text infringe copyright? High Courts have answered it twice in the same week, in two different suits, with two different judges reaching largely the same place, and The Delhi High Court cancelled a century-old dental brand’s rival registration for bad faith, and the Crocs-Bata design case finally ended on a costs order twelve years after it began. This roundup covers Indian important IP law developments through July 2026, arranged by field.
Trademarks
Columbia Pictures Industries Inc. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Columbia Pictures opposed a Class 5 application for GHOST BUSTER covering pharmaceutical and sanitary goods, relying on its own GHOSTBUSTERS registrations in entirely unrelated classes. The Registrar dismissed the opposition on the footing that Columbia held no registration or use evidence in Class 5, so the goods were simply too dissimilar to matter. Justice Jyoti Singh set that reasoning aside, holding that Section 11(2) requires only that the earlier mark be well known in India, with no separate prerequisite of a prior formal well-known declaration under Rule 124. The Registrar is equipped to make that assessment during opposition proceedings itself, weighing the statutory factors under Sections 11(6) and 11(7). The order also faulted the Registrar for never engaging with Columbia’s reputation evidence or its allegation of bad-faith adoption after a similar US application had been abandoned. The refusal was quashed and the opposition sent back for reconsideration within three months. Read our full case analysis here.
Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
ZARA’s owner opposed a 2019 application for ZORA covering fabrics in Class 24, but the Registrar dismissed the opposition by comparing only the opening syllables ZA and ZO and finding them phonetically distinct. Justice Jyoti Singh rejected that method of dissection. Comparing ZARA and ZORA as whole four-letter words, both marks share the same rhythm and closing sound, making them phonetically deceptively similar to a consumer with imperfect recollection. The order also confirmed that a well-known mark is protected even against dissimilar goods, and reiterated the point made in the Columbia Pictures matter that no prior formal well-known declaration is required before invoking Section 11(2). ZORA’s registration was cancelled and the Registrar directed to rectify the register within two months. Read our full case analysis here.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Astormueller AG and Ors. (Delhi High Court)
New Balance, holder of a well-known mark declaration for its N logo since 1987, sued Swiss footwear company Astormueller over a standalone “n:” logo and an “nu:beat” logo used on footwear since 2024. Astormueller argued its own registrations barred an infringement claim and that the colon made its lower-case “n:” visually distinct. Justice Jyoti Singh held that registration does not bar a passing-off action, found the nu:beat word mark itself sufficiently distinct, but held the standalone “n:” logo and the nu:beat logo mark deceptively similar, since the letter n remains the dominant element a consumer would notice. The Court also leaned on Astormueller’s own submission before the Registry describing its logo as a combination of “n” and “B,” which reads phonetically as NB, New Balance’s own declared well-known mark. Astormueller was restrained from manufacturing, selling, or advertising footwear under either impugned mark pending the suit. Read the full case analysis here.
ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks (Delhi High Court)
ADS Spirits appealed the rejection of its application for OFFER in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages. The Examination Report objected under Section 9(1)(a) without specifying which limb applied, and the final refusal rested on the ground that OFFER lacked “uniqueness.” Justice Jyoti Singh held that Section 9(1)(a) bars marks devoid of distinctive character, not marks lacking uniqueness, and that the Registrar had applied the wrong test entirely. Distinctiveness must be assessed against the specific goods in question, since a word can be generic for one category and arbitrary for another. The order was also unreasoned, since it never engaged with the appellant’s list of 31 registered OFFER-formative marks or its cited precedent. The refusal was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration within four months after a hearing.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Delhi High Court, Division Bench)
Sun Pharma appealed a single judge’s refusal to injunct Finecure from selling Pantopacid, alleged to be deceptively similar to Sun Pharma’s Pantocid. The Division Bench set aside the earlier order, holding the marks phonetically and visually similar despite sharing only the common prefix Panto. Citing the strict standard applied to pharmaceutical trademarks to prevent medical errors, the Court restrained Finecure from manufacturing or selling under the impugned mark, allowing four months to deplete existing stock.
Dr. Ashok M. Bhat v. Harichand Nagpal & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
Dr. Bhat’s NOVA brilliantine hair cream mark and artistic label had been protected by a 2010 injunction against Ravi Industries. He later found the same artwork under a NONI label, and more recently under a NOVA MINI mark seized at the defendant’s premises in February 2025. Justice Arif S. Doctor rejected the defence that the 2010 injunction never covered the NONI label, pointing out that the defendant himself had sought clarification in 2014 to carve that very label out of the order, a step that would make no sense if the injunction did not already reach it. Calling the conduct brazen and flagging the defendant’s history as a repeat counterfeiter, including of an unrelated brand in a separate suit, the Court ordered Rs. 32.42 lakh in legal costs and Rs. 50 lakh in exemplary costs, directed disclosure of complete sales figures within four weeks, and warned that the defence in the underlying suit would be struck off for non-compliance.
ITC Ltd. v. Adyar Gate Hotels Ltd. (Delhi High Court, Division Bench)
ITC sought to restrain Adyar Gate Hotels from using DAKSHIN for its restaurant, alleging infringement of ITC’s own DAKSHIN mark. The Court held that ITC’s inaction between 2015 and 2023, despite clear knowledge of Adyar Gate’s open use, amounted to acquiescence fatal to interim relief, since it allowed Adyar Gate to build its own reputation under the mark unchallenged. The appeal was dismissed with no interim injunction granted, leaving the underlying suit to proceed on merits. A useful marker on how long a registered proprietor can sit on visible third-party use before losing the ability to enforce at the interim stage.
John Cockerill Hamon SA v. Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited and Anr. (Bombay High Court)
John Cockerill Hamon acquired the HAMON trademark portfolio in 2022 through a Belgian bankruptcy sale that gave certain former group companies a temporary right to keep using the HAMON name to wind down existing projects. Hamon Cooling Systems kept using HAMON COOLING and HCS HAMON COOLING well after that window closed, and even filed its own applications for those composite marks on a proposed-to-be-used basis in 2022 and 2024. Justice Arif S. Doctor granted the interim injunction, finding the defendant’s own pleadings admitted its historical use had always rested on the original owner’s consent, a fact fatal to any claim of independent adoption under Section 34. A party claiming continuous use since 1999 does not usually file a proposed-to-be-used application a quarter century later, and the Court treated those recent filings as themselves evidence of dishonest intent. Read the full case analysis here.
Loreal SA v. Vekariya Nikunj Arvindbhai & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
L’Oréal’s passing-off suit over GARNIER BRIGHT COMPLETE, filed against traders selling GARUDA BRIGHT COMPLETE and 6 DROPS BRIGHT COMPLETE, became a dispute about procedure. The mark was unregistered when the suit was filed in 2024, but the registration matured mid-suit in April 2025, and L’Oréal sought to amend its plaint to add an infringement claim. The trial court refused, reasoning the subsequent registration created a fresh cause of action. Justice Jyoti Singh set that order aside, holding that a registration obtained during the pendency of a suit changes only the relief available, not the basic structure of the dispute, citing the Supreme Court’s guidance favouring liberal allowance of such amendments. Read the full case analysis here.
Landmark Crafts Limited v. Shalini Garg (Delhi High Court)
Landmark Crafts, using HP for self-drilling screws and fasteners since 1995, sued a fastener seller who had applied to register ISI HP for similar goods, arguing the defendant was using ISI, a BIS certification reference, as a prefix to piggyback on its reputation with institutional clients. Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, holding ISI HP was prima facie deceptively similar to the registered HP mark for identical goods and trade channels, and that the defendant was attempting to misrepresent an association with Landmark Crafts to encash on its goodwill. Read the full case analysis here.
Kamdhenu Limited v. Ashiana Ispat Limited & Ors. (Delhi High Court, Division Bench)
After Kamdhenu terminated a licence agreement, its former licensee continued using the AL KAMDHENU GOLD mark claiming prior rights, prompting cross-suits when Kamdhenu itself adopted the AL prefix. The Division Bench held the former licensee’s ownership claim was contingent on a registration that never occurred, and restrained it from using the mark since its rights were extinguished on termination. The Court also restrained Kamdhenu from using AL KAMDHENU GOLD pending final adjudication, terming its adoption of the AL prefix a tactical move to checkmate the defendant rather than genuine bona fide use.
Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Exotic Mile (Delhi High Court)
boAt’s owner sought a fresh interim injunction against Exotic Mile over the wordmark BOULT, after its 2019 application had produced an order restraining only device marks and a tagline, not the bare word itself. Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed the second application, holding that a second injunction bid on the same facts is maintainable only where the plaintiff pleads changed circumstances or undue hardship, and that a mere oversight in a six-year-old order is neither. Read our full case analysis here.
Zippy Edible Food Products Private Limited v. Veer Ji Foods Private Limited & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
The restaurant chain Veer Ji Malai Chaap published promotional videos featuring Zippy’s automated manufacturing plant, falsely portraying Zippy’s machinery and hygiene standards as its own, despite having stopped sourcing from Zippy. Justice Jyoti Singh held that using a third party’s facility footage to market one’s own products creates a false impression of quality and origin, and granted an ad-interim injunction directing removal of the videos within 24 hours, with platforms given 36 hours to comply if the defendants failed to act. Read our full case analysis here.
Jagdish Dahyalal Patel v. Anchor Consumer Products Private Limited (Delhi High Court)
The Hon’ble Court dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant challenging an ex-parte ad-interim injunction that restrained him from using the trademark “DYNAFRESH”. The respondent, who has registered the trademark “DYNA” for soaps and personal care items since 1999, argued that the appellant’s use of “DYNAFRESH” for air fresheners was deceptively similar and lacked bona fide adoption. The appellant’s sole defense on appeal was that the respondent suppressed a material fact by withholding 45 GST invoices showing the appellant’s product use since June 2021. However, the Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected this plea. The court noted that a prior quasi-judicial order by the Registrar of Trademarks had already rejected the appellant’s first trademark application for “DYNAFRESH” on the grounds of deceptive similarity and unproven user claims. Furthermore, the court criticized the appellant for filing a second trademark application without disclosing this final, binding rejection. Upholding the Single Judge’s findings on deceptive visual similarity and passing off, the High Court concluded that there was no suppression of material facts and dismissed the appeal.
Copyrights
ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC (Delhi High Court)
The month’s most significant Indian ruling. ANI sought an interim injunction restraining OpenAI from using its news content to train and operate ChatGPT, raising both a training claim and an output claim, that ChatGPT’s responses reproduce ANI’s articles. Justice Amit Bansal held that storage of literary works for LLM training falls within the “private or personal use, including research” exception under Section 52(1)(a)(i), even where the use is commercial, applying an updating construction that treats machine-assisted research as within the exception’s purpose. ANI failed to establish that ChatGPT’s outputs substantially reproduced its works, particularly since its illustrative examples post-dated the relevant model’s training cut-off. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury were held to favour OpenAI, since ANI’s own licence offer showed its claim was quantifiable in damages. The interim injunction application was dismissed, with the suit to proceed to trial on evidence. Read the full case analysis here.
Keshan Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Oliver Brandt & Ors. (Madras High Court)
Filed just weeks before the ANI ruling and worth reading alongside it, this case involved a travel website alleging systematic scraping of its content for republication with masked authorship, and sought injunctions covering use of its content as AI and LLM training data or prompts. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that such use does raise a prima facie infringement case warranting immediate intervention, granting all four injunctions sought, covering reproduction, translation, summarisation and paraphrasing, and use as AI or LLM training data, for four weeks. Where the ANI order found training itself protected as research, this order treats unauthorised scraping for training as infringing at the interim stage, a tension future benches will need to reconcile as more AI training disputes reach Indian courts.
Atyati Technologies v. Cognizant (Bombay High Court)
The Hon’ble Court dismissed an interim injunction against Cognizant’s use of its blue hexagonal logo by ruling that the global company successfully established an independent creation defense. Armed with a meticulous and contemporaneous paper trail that included design time logs, agency agreements, and global market surveys, Cognizant effectively disproved the allegations of copying. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh clarified that proving copyright infringement requires demonstrating a reasonable possibility of access to the original work, rejecting the premise that a multinational corporation’s massive workforce size automatically creates an inherent opportunity for copying. Doctrinally, the court broke new ground by explicitly disagreeing with the Delhi High Court and recognizing reverse passing off as a valid theory of actionable misrepresentation under Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act. Click here to read more.
TVS Motor Company Limited v. Ram Chandra Maurya & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
TVS sought a declaration that a fresh cease-and-desist notice alleging its engines infringed two “literary work” copyright registrations titled Motion’s Fourth and Fifth Law and Motion’s Sixth Law amounted to a groundless threat under Section 60 of the Copyright Act. The notice-sender had already failed before the Copyright Authority, the IPAB, the Allahabad High Court, and the Supreme Court on the same claim before sending yet another notice. Justice Jyoti Singh held that a notice asserting infringement without identifying the protectable expression allegedly copied, or comparing it against the accused product, amounts to a groundless threat, especially against the backdrop of an unbroken record of failure before every forum approached. The defendants were restrained from issuing further threats and directed to give seven days’ prior notice before any fresh proceedings.
Saregama India Limited v. Black Madras Films & Ors.; Saregama India Limited v. Mr. Ilaiyaraaja (Delhi High Court)
Saregama sought to make absolute two ex-parte injunctions: one restraining composer Ilaiyaraaja from broadcasting or licensing songs from 134 films, and another restraining a production house from using a song from Pallavi Anupallavi in a new film without a licence. Applying the Division Bench’s earlier ruling in Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama, the Court held that Section 13(4) read with Sections 17 and 2(f) confines a composer’s rights strictly to the musical work, excluding lyrics, while copyright in the sound recording and cinematograph film vests in the Producer or its assignee. Both injunctions were made absolute, and objections on misjoinder, limitation, and improper service were rejected.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors. (Madras High Court)
Ahead of the release of its Marathi film Bhootam Bhayam, Zee sought John Doe-style directions against internet service providers and cable operators to pre-empt piracy. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted the ad-interim injunction for four weeks, holding that irreversible injury would occur absent pre-emptive blocking, conditioned on Zee furnishing an indemnity to protect the legitimate business interests of the respondents, continuing the now-settled dynamic-injunction practice for pre-release film protection.
Patents
InterDigital Patent Holdings Inc. & Anr. v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Part of InterDigital’s global cellular-SEP and video-coding-patent enforcement campaign against Transsion, running in parallel in the UPC and Brazil, this order dealt with InterDigital’s request for pro tem security from Transsion pending final adjudication of infringement and FRAND issues. The Court ordered Transsion to deposit pro tem security, holding that this balances the asymmetric advantage an implementer otherwise holds over an SEP holder during protracted litigation. The order continues Delhi High Court’s now well-established pro tem security jurisprudence and adds to India’s growing profile as an active SEP and FRAND forum, with Ericsson and LG Electronics also suing Transsion in Delhi in parallel proceedings.
Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs (Delhi High Court)
Array Biopharma appealed the refusal of a patent for a pharmaceutical combination of a B-Raf inhibitor, an EGFR inhibitor, and optionally a PI3K-alpha inhibitor for treating proliferative diseases, refused for lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(i). Justice Tushar Rao Gedela found that none of the four cited prior art documents, individually or combined, disclosed the specific claimed combination, and that the impugned order gave no reasoning on why a skilled person would be motivated to combine them. On Section 3(d), the Controller never identified which known compound the claim was allegedly derived from, and a combination of independent active agents cannot be a derivative of itself. On Section 3(i), the claim was held to be a genuine product claim rather than a disguised method of treatment. All three objections were found unsustainable as reasoned, and the application was remanded for de novo reconsideration within six months. Read our full case analysis here.
Deepak Nitrite Limited v. The Assistant Controller General of Patents and Designs (Bombay High Court)
The Hon’ble Court set aside a Patent Office order that rejected a patent application for food-grade sodium nitrite due to an alleged lack of inventive step. Justice Arif S. Doctor ruled that the Patent Office cannot arbitrarily invoke “common general knowledge” to dismiss product claims without citing specific sources or verifying that such knowledge predated the application’s priority date. Additionally, the court criticized the Controller for rejecting multi-step process claims by isolating a single filtration step rather than evaluating the integrated sequence as a unified, synergistic whole. Labeling the unsubstantiated dismissal a violation of natural justice, the court remanded the application for fresh consideration and demanded that patent rejections be clear, well-reasoned “speaking orders.”. Read our full case analysis here.
Designs
Crocs Inc. USA v. Bata India Ltd. and Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Crocs had sued Bata in 2014 over its clog-shaped design, but the underlying registration was cancelled for lack of novelty while the suit was pending, and the case was disposed of in 2023 without any order on costs. Bata then applied for recovery of litigation expenses run up across the trial court, the High Court, a Division Bench, and the Supreme Court. Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that silence on costs in a final disposal order does not amount to a waiver of the right to claim them later, applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Uflex Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu that successful parties in commercial litigation should ordinarily be made whole. Crocs never actually disputed the Rs. 24.63 lakh figure Bata put forward, only the principle of paying it at all, and was directed to pay within three months. A useful marker that a design cancellation doesn’t end the story if costs were never addressed at disposal. Read our full case analysis here.
Geographical Indications and Other IP Developments
Trademark Registry Public Search Portal and KYC Rollout
The Trademark Registry transitioned to an upgraded public search platform on July 1, offering faster filtering for availability checks, and separately rolled out mandatory online KYC verification for registered trademark attorneys and agents with a one-month compliance window. Practitioners managing live dockets should treat both as immediate action items rather than routine notices.
Google’s Appeal Against the Hindware Order
Google filed a nearly 4,761-page appeal against the May ruling that found it liable for trademark infringement over rivals bidding on Hindware’s brand name as a Google Ads keyword. Google argues the decision makes India an outlier among major jurisdictions and would hand trademark owners a monopoly over search advertising space. The appeal is expected to be heard shortly and is worth tracking given the underlying ruling’s significance for platform liability.
Traditional Knowledge and GI Registrations
India signed a Traditional Knowledge Digital Library access pact with Australia, bringing the number of patent offices with access under non-disclosure arrangements to eighteen, following a comparable deal with Brazil in February. Separately, India added 125 new GI registrations this financial year, with Madhya Pradesh topping the list at 26, and Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Himachal Pradesh continuing to expand their own GI portfolios across handloom, spice, and agricultural products, alongside continuing progress on the pending India-EU GI agreement.
What July 2026 Tells Us About AI and Copyright in India
July produced the first real body of Indian judicial reasoning on AI training and copyright, and it is worth stating plainly what the month actually settled and what it did not. The Delhi High Court’s ANI ruling treats storage of copyrighted text for training purposes as falling within the research exception under Section 52(1)(a)(i), even for a commercial AI product, so long as the claimant cannot show the model’s outputs substantially reproduce its specific works. That is a narrower holding than “AI training is fair use in India,” and the outcome turned heavily on ANI’s own evidentiary gaps rather than a categorical rule protecting AI developers. The Madras High Court’s order in the same window, granting interim injunctions against scraping for AI training, shows the position is far from settled across benches, and the two rulings sit in real tension. Expect this to be the most litigated question in Indian copyright law through the rest of 2026, and expect appellate clarity to take some time to arrive.
Also Read: Indian IP Law Roundup: June 2026 Key Judgments
References:
- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/CHS01072026FAOC1122025_171135.pdf
- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59401072026SC13102025_181334.pdf
- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/58901072026FAC2002023_204119.pdf
- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59401072026SC10452025_120754.pdf
- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59406072026CAP242023_170117.pdf
- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS02072026SC6252018_192612.pdf
- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/JIS06072026SC5192019_165627.pdf
- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/JIS06072026CAT442025_151027.pdf
- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/JIS06072026CAT522024_201436.pdf
- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/ABL24072026SC10282024_171649.pdf
- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59423072026CAP372023_134904.pdf
