Indian IP Law Roundup October 2026: Trademarks, Patents and AI Rights

The month of October 2026 marked a profound recalibration of Indian intellectual property enforcement, characterized by strict procedural gatekeeping, the vigorous protection of prior user rights, and decisive judicial interventions against emerging digital abuses. Across commercial divisions and appellate benches, judges clamped down on speculative litigation, demanding scrupulous fidelity to statutory pre-requisites and clean jurisdictional pleadings. Litigants who attempted to bypass state statutory notice mandates, introduce belated commercial documentation without demonstrating reasonable cause, or maintain fragmented cross-jurisdictional suits faced immediate judicial pushback. The Supreme Court established structural discipline by consolidating multi-state trademark suits under Section 25 CPC, while High Courts utilized summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC to terminate unmerited actions at the threshold.

This roundup analyzes the prominent Indian IP law rulings from October 2026, by subject area.

Trademarks

M/s. The Supreme Industries Limited v. M/s. Supreme Plastic Industries (Supreme Court of India)

The Supreme Industries Limited approached the Supreme Court of India by filing Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 3594 of 2025 (Diary No. 71978/2025), seeking the consolidation of multiple trademark infringement suits. The petitioner, a leading Indian plastics manufacturer owning registered trademarks for SUPREME across pipes and molded plastics, was prosecuting an infringement suit in Gujarat. Simultaneously, the respondents initiated cross-suits in civil courts across Rajasthan and West Bengal to restrain the petitioner from using the mark and to seek negative declarations.

The Supreme Court Division Bench, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, allowed the transfer petition and directed all cross-suits to be transferred to the Commercial Court at Ahmedabad. Exercising its constitutional powers under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Supreme Court held that allowing concurrent trademark suits concerning the identical mark and identical parties to proceed in different high courts invites conflicting judicial decrees and wastes judicial resources. The Court ordered consolidated trial in Ahmedabad to ensure coherent adjudication. Read more at: Supreme Industries v Supreme Plastic Industries Case Analysis.

Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. Asian Beverage Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court)

Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited (Amul Dairy) filed Application No. 770 of 2023 in C.S. No. 161 of 2022 before the Madras High Court, seeking summary judgment to dismiss a trademark infringement suit instituted against it by Asian Beverage Private Limited. Asian Beverage alleged that Amul’s fruit beverage mark TRU infringed its prior registered mark TRUE VALLEY. In its defense, Amul raised a jurisdictional bar, arguing that Asian Beverage failed to serve statutory pre-institution notice under Section 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, which prohibits any suit touching the business of a co-operative society without mandatory advance notice.

Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete allowed Amul’s application and dismissed the suit under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that Section 167 is an absolute condition precedent that binds any party suing a registered co-operative society for acts concerning its commercial business, regardless of the forum where the action is brought. Because the statutory notice was never issued, the commercial suit was stillborn. The ruling establishes that state co-operative statutory protections operate as an effective defense against federal intellectual property suits at the threshold stage. Read more at: Amul v Asian Beverage Case Analysis.

MS Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt. Ltd. v. Vyom Foodcraft Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

MS Cafe Brown Sugar Private Limited instituted CS(COMM) 1008/2024 before the Delhi High Court, seeking an interim injunction against Vyom Foodcraft for alleged trademark infringement regarding food and cafe services under the mark BROWN SUGAR. During interlocutory proceedings, the plaintiff moved an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015), seeking leave to introduce extensive additional commercial invoices and marketing brochures that were not filed alongside the original plaint.

Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the application and refused to permit the late filing of evidence. The Court held that the Commercial Courts Act introduced rigorous procedural discipline requiring plaintiffs to file all documents in their power and possession at the time of presenting the plaint. Under Order XI Rule 1(5), additional documents cannot be admitted without establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure. Vague claims of inadvertent oversight do not constitute reasonable cause, particularly where the documents were within the plaintiff’s custody. The ruling reinforces that commercial litigants cannot cure deficient initial pleadings by introducing belated evidence. Read more at: MS Cafe v Vyom Foodcraft Case Analysis.

Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd. v. Ucon PT Structural System Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

Singapore engineering firm Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd. filed CS(COMM) 661/2024 before the Delhi High Court against its former Indian operating joint venture partner, Ucon PT Structural System. The plaintiff sought an ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendants from using the corporate name and trademark UTRACON in structural engineering and post-tensioning construction contracts. The defendants moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking reference of the trademark infringement dispute to commercial arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause in their foundational joint venture agreement.

Justice Amit Bansal allowed the Section 8 application and referred the parties to arbitration. The Court held that while statutory trademark infringement claims against third parties are actions in rem that remain inarbitrable, disputes between erstwhile joint venture partners arising directly from the termination of an agreement that governs trademark licensing and brand ownership are rights in personam. Because the dispute stemmed directly from contractual covenants regarding brand transition upon joint venture dissolution, the arbitration agreement covered the claims, requiring the referral of the dispute to the arbitral tribunal. Read more at: Utracon v. Ucon Case Analysis.

Kothrud Mitra Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Metropolis Media (Bombay High Court)

Kothrud Mitra Newspapers Private Limited filed Interim Application No. 2031 of 2026 in a commercial trademark suit before the Bombay High Court, where Metropolis Media sought the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The underlying dispute concerned proprietary rights over the publication title PUNE MIRROR. The defendant argued that newspaper titles fall under the exclusive purview of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, and that the commercial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate trademark claims over registered newspaper titles.

Justice Arif S. Doctor rejected the Order VII Rule 11 application and held the commercial suit maintainable. The Court held that registration of a newspaper title with the Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) under the Press Act is an administrative media requirement that does not extinguish or replace proprietary rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. A registered trademark proprietor or common law user retains the statutory right to enforce exclusivity against deceptive imitation in newspaper publishing. The Bench held that the plaint disclosed a valid commercial cause of action that required trial. Read more at: Kothrud Mitra v Metropolis Media Case Analysis.

Surya Hotels and Properties Private Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks (Madras High Court)

Surya Hotels and Properties Private Limited approached the Madras High Court in WP(IPD) No. 1 of 2026, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to transfer a long-pending trademark rectification petition to the Intellectual Property Division. The petitioner operated commercial hospitality establishments and was locked in a concurrent infringement suit in O.S. No. 63 of 2017 before the Principal District Court at Coimbatore against Misty Mountain Plantation Resort. The petitioner filed a rectification petition before the Trade Marks Registry in Chennai to cancel the respondent’s mark, but the Registry failed to act on the petition for years while the district court trial advanced.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy allowed the writ petition, applying the statutory mandate under Section 125(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court held that where a civil infringement suit concerning the same mark is already pending before a competent civil court, any concurrent rectification application must be adjudicated exclusively by the High Court, divesting the Registrar of authority. Emphasizing that administrative delays in the Registry should not frustrate statutory procedures, the Bench directed the Registrar to transmit the physical and digital records of the rectification petition to the Intellectual Property Division within four weeks for consolidated disposal. Read more at: Surya Hotels v Registrar of Trade Marks Case Analysis.

Metro Brands Limited v. Brand Magic and Ors. (Bombay High Court)

Metro Brands Limited instituted Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 6393 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, seeking an ad-interim injunction against Brand Magic and retail associates for trademark infringement and passing off. Metro Brands asserted statutory rights over its registered trademark METRO across footwear classes, arguing that the defendants’ retail marketing of shoes under the mark METRO POLIS created market confusion and diluted its established brand equity. The defendants opposed interim relief by invoking Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, presenting commercial tax invoices establishing continuous market use of METRO POLIS dating back prior to the plaintiff’s registration.

Justice Arif S. Doctor refused to grant an ad-interim injunction against the defendants. The Court held that under Section 34, statutory trademark registration cannot extinguish the vested common law rights of a prior user. The documentary record demonstrated continuous commercial presence and substantial retail sales under the disputed label long before the plaintiff asserted its statutory exclusivity. Because the defendants established an authentic prior user defense, the Court held that the balance of convenience favoured permitting business operations to continue pending trial, while directing the defendants to maintain audited accounts. Read more at: Metro Brands v Brand Magic Case Analysis.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Nectar Lifesciences Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited filed Commercial IP Suit No. 28038 of 2025 in the Bombay High Court against Nectar Lifesciences Limited, alleging trademark infringement and passing off in the medicinal sector. Sun Pharma sought to protect its well-known registered mark REVITAL in Class 5 for nutritional supplements, challenging the defendant’s market adoption of REVITAL LIFE for identical multivitamin capsules. Sun Pharma contended that the shared prefix created extreme confusion in retail pharmaceutical dispensaries. The defendant defended its adoption by citing honest concurrent usage and distinct visual label packaging.

Justice R.I. Chagla declined the prayer for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and issued notice to the defendants. The Court noted that the defendant had placed on record commercial invoices establishing open distribution over a considerable period. While affirming that the Cadila doctrine requires heightened judicial vigilance in pharmaceutical brand disputes, the Court held that where the defendant raises a credible evidentiary defense of concurrent distribution without proven health hazards, an ex-parte restraint is inappropriate. The Bench scheduled a contested hearing to evaluate side-by-side packaging evidence. Read more at: Sun Pharma v Nectar Lifesciences Case Analysis.

Mr. Sunit Shah Proprietor of M/s. Shah Namkeen v. Jabsons Foods Private Limited (Delhi High Court)

Sunit Shah, trading as Shah Namkeen, filed CS(COMM) 641/2024 before the Delhi High Court, seeking an ad-interim injunction against commercial snack manufacturer Jabsons Foods. The plaintiff established continuous commercial use of the trademark HOT MIX for spicy packaged namkeen and snack mixtures since 1992, asserting extensive market goodwill in western India. The defendant, which held a subsequent registration for JABSONS HOT MIX in Class 30, contended that hot mix is a descriptive combination indicating spicy snack ingredients that cannot be monopolized by any single trader under Section 9.

Justice Mini Pushkarna granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Jabsons Foods from using HOT MIX as a prominent source identifier. Applying Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court held that long, uninterrupted prior commercial usage spanning more than three decades confers superior common law rights that defeat a subsequent formal registration. The Court found that while individual words like hot and mix are descriptive, their long-standing compound use by the plaintiff generated secondary meaning in retail savory snack markets, preventing competitors from copying the exact combination. Read more at: Sunit Shah v. Jabsons Foods Case Analysis.

Gaurav Chawla v. Sandeep Jape (Bombay High Court)

Gaurav Chawla moved Interim Application No. 5801 of 2026 in a commercial intellectual property suit before the Bombay High Court, seeking an ad-interim injunction against Sandeep Jape. The plaintiff claimed exclusive common law rights over a distinctive commercial trade name in hospitality and consumer retail, asserting priority through family business inheritance. The defendant opposed the application by producing registered trademark certificates under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, contending that a statutory registration certificate confers absolute commercial immunity under Section 28 against unregistered claimants.

Justice Arif S. Doctor dismissed the plaintiff’s plea for an ad-interim injunction, finding that the applicant failed to prove continuous commercial adoption prior to the defendant’s registered date. The Court held that while Section 34 protects authentic prior users, the evidentiary threshold requires solid, unbroken fiscal documentation of commercial use. Vague family assertions and scattered sales receipts do not satisfy Section 34 to unseat a valid statutory registration. The Court protected the defendant’s registered rights and scheduled the suit for regular trial. Read more at: Gaurav Chawla v. Sandeep Jape Case Analysis.

Kiehberg GmbH v. Capital Airgun Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

German arms manufacturer Kiehberg GmbH and its Indian operating entity filed CS(COMM) 808/2024 before the Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court against Capital Airgun Manufacturers. Kiehberg sought an ad-interim injunction to protect its registered international and Indian trademarks for DIANA and DIANA Device in Class 13 for airguns, sporting rifles, and ammunition. The defendant, a domestic manufacturer, launched sports airguns under the mark DIANA AIRGUN, contending that it had acquired common law rights through domestic manufacturing prior to the plaintiff’s formal market entry.

Justice Amit Bansal granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the DIANA brand. Applying the transborder reputation doctrine established in Whirlpool and Pripos, the Court held that the plaintiff’s sports rifles had acquired extensive goodwill among Indian shooting federations and competitive sportsmen decades before the defendant’s commercial adoption. The Court ruled that domestic manufacturers cannot pirate renowned international shooting brands and claim prior domestic user defense under Section 34 when the foreign mark already enjoyed widespread reputation in specialized sporting communities. Read more at: Kiehberg v Capital Airgun Case Analysis.

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks (Madras High Court)

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited preferred CMA(TM) No. 31 of 2025 before the Madras High Court, challenging the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks that granted registration to a third party for the mark NICE in Class 5 for medicinal preparations. Dr. Reddy’s demonstrated extensive domestic turnover, legendary physician recall, and registered statutory rights over its flagship nimesulide analgesic brand NISE, dating back to 1993. The appellant argued that the Registrar overlooked absolute phonetic identity and the severe public health hazards inherent in confusing medicinal brands.

Justice P.B. Balaji allowed the appeal and cancelled the registration of the impugned mark NICE. Reaffirming the strict scrutiny standard laid down in Cadila Health Care, the Court held that phonetic identity between NISE and NICE in pharmaceutical Class 5 creates an intolerable risk of prescription misinterpretation and accidental drug substitution by retail pharmacists. The Registrar committed a grave error in treating the common English spelling of nice as an excuse to permit conflicting medicinal registrations. The Bench ordered the Trade Marks Register to be rectified immediately. Read more at: Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories v. Registrar Case Analysis.

Glaxo Group Limited v. Shreya Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

British pharmaceutical major Glaxo Group Limited instituted COMMP No. 12 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, seeking the rectification and expunction of the registered trademark LEFOXIN BIOX in Class 5, held by Shreya Life Sciences. Glaxo proved long-standing registered statutory rights in India dating back to 1957 for its life-saving cardiac glycoside drug LANOXIN (digoxin). Glaxo argued that the respondent’s junior mark LEFOXIN BIOX, registered for antibiotic formulations, created severe phonetic similarity capable of causing fatal dispensing errors in hospitals.

Justice Arif S. Doctor allowed the rectification petition and ordered the Registrar to expunge LEFOXIN BIOX from the Register. Applying the heightened pharmaceutical confusion standard under Cadila Health Care and Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, the Court held that phonetic proximity between cardiac drugs and general antibiotics presents grave public health dangers. The Register of Trade Marks must not host junior registrations that create any realistic risk of therapeutic confusion. The Court directed the immediate expunction of the junior mark to preserve healthcare safety. Read more at: Glaxo Group v Shreya Life Sciences Case Analysis.

Mankind Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Terrai Natural Products Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited instituted CS(COMM) 280/2026 before the Delhi High Court, seeking an ad-interim injunction against Terrai Natural Products. The plaintiff owned registered, well-known trademarks for ACNESTAR in Class 5 for anti-acne dermatological formulations. Mankind discovered that the defendant had launched cosmetic skincare creams under the mark ACNE + SCAR, utilizing packaging, typography, and trade dress closely resembling ACNESTAR.

Justice Mini Pushkarna granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Terrai Natural Products from using ACNE + SCAR or any deceptively similar mark for pharmaceutical or cosmetic preparations. The Court held that while acne and scar are common dermatological terms, combining them in a visual manner that closely mimics the phonetic rhythm and packaging layout of the market leader’s brand violates Section 29. In consumer skincare, misleading similarities induce consumers to mistake the imitation for a line extension of the established brand. The Court ordered the removal of all listings from digital marketplaces. Read more at: Mankind Consumer v Terrai Natural Case Analysis.

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Divine Food and Agro Products (Bombay High Court)

Hindustan Unilever Limited instituted Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 15351 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court against Divine Food and Agro Products, alleging trademark infringement and passing off in the packaged tea industry. The plaintiff proved continuous nationwide use and registration of the trademark RED LABEL in Class 30, alongside copyright in its red packaging device featuring a tea cup and steam flourish. The plaintiff demonstrated that the defendants were marketing inferior packaged tea under the mark ROYAL LABEL using an identical crimson red background, layout geometry, and typography.

Justice Arif S. Doctor granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Divine Food from manufacturing, packaging, or marketing tea under the ROYAL LABEL mark or any confusingly similar packaging. The Court held that in FMCG products consumed across broad socioeconomic demographics, consumers rely on visual trade dress recall instead of minute textual reading. The defendants’ packaging was an intentional imitation designed to deceive consumers. To safeguard market integrity, the Court appointed Court Commissioners to seize the defendants’ infringing stock and packaging materials. Read more at: Hindustan Unilever v Divine Food Case Analysis.

Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v. Veepro Lights and Decor (Delhi High Court)

Wipro Enterprises Private Limited filed CS(COMM) 156/2025 before the Delhi High Court against Veepro Lights and Decor, alleging trademark infringement and dilution regarding commercial and residential electrical lighting products. Wipro established statutory ownership of its registered, well-known trademark WIPRO in Class 11 and Class 9 for electrical appliances and lighting hardware. The defendant launched decorative LED luminaires and lighting fixtures under the mark VEEPRO, arguing that the letter ‘V’ and separate ownership of an unregistered logo provided commercial distinction.

Justice Amit Bansal decreed the suit in favor of Wipro, granting a permanent injunction against Veepro Lights. The Court held that VEEPRO was an intentional phonetic and visual simulation of the well-known trademark WIPRO. In electrical goods, consumers who seek energy-efficient luminaires are prone to assume that VEEPRO represents a sub-brand or collaborative product line of Wipro Enterprises. The Court held that well-known trademarks are entitled to strict protection under Section 29(4) against predatory imitations designed to free-ride on their commercial standing, awarding nominal damages to the plaintiff. Read more at: Wipro Enterprises v Veepro Lights Case Analysis.

MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Evoke Hotels and Resorts (Delhi High Court)

MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd. and its luxury hospitality affiliates brought CS(COMM) 267/2026 before the Delhi High Court, seeking an interim injunction against domestic operator Evoke Hotels and Resorts. The plaintiffs owned registered, well-known international trademarks for ANANTARA in Class 43 for luxury resort hotels and leisure hospitality. The plaintiffs discovered that the defendants had branded a luxury retreat in northern India as EVOKE ANANTARA RESORT, promoting the facility on major travel portals and wedding planning websites.

Justice Mini Pushkarna granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the ANANTARA mark for hospitality services. The Court held that ANANTARA is an arbitrary Sanskrit-derived coined mark that has achieved widespread transborder goodwill in high-end international tourism. Incorporating the identical coined mark into a resort name creates an unavoidable perception that the domestic facility operates under the management or franchise of the international luxury chain. The Bench directed online hotel aggregators to unlist the infringing resort name within thirty-six hours. Read more at: MHG IP Holding v Evoke Hotels Case Analysis.

Asian Paints Limited v. Babita Aggarwal (Bombay High Court)

Asian Paints Limited instituted Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 23472 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court against Babita Aggarwal, trading as Aggarwal Paints, alleging trademark and copyright infringement. Asian Paints established statutory ownership of legendary paint trademarks TRACTOR and APCOLITE in Class 2, alongside registered copyright in their distinctive red and white packaging. The plaintiff discovered that the defendant was marketing synthetic enamels under the deceptively similar label TRACTOR APCOLITE, utilizing color schemes, typography, and layout identical to the plaintiff’s registered packaging.

Justice Arif S. Doctor granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or advertising paints bearing the disputed marks or packaging. The Court held that the defendant’s packaging was a deliberate imitation designed to deceive consumers in rural and semi-urban markets who purchase paints based on visual trade dress. Because the plaintiff made out a strong prima facie case and delay would result in the dissipation of infringing stock, the Court appointed Court Commissioners to enter the defendant’s premises and seize all counterfeit inventory and printing plates. Read more at: Asian Paints v Babita Aggarwal Case Analysis.

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. AS Print Pack Graphics (Bombay High Court)

In Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 11373 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court, Hindustan Unilever Limited sought an extension of an ad-interim injunction against commercial printer AS Print Pack Graphics. HUL established that the defendants operated a large-scale commercial printing operation dedicated to manufacturing counterfeit laminated rolls, cartons, and packaging pouches replicating HUL’s registered trademarks for LIFEBUOY, LUX, and WHEEL. The defendants resisted the extension, arguing that as mere job-work commercial printers, they did not engage in retail distribution and should not face trademark infringement liability under Section 29.

Justice Arif S. Doctor rejected the defense and extended the ad-interim injunction. The Court held that under Section 29(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, commercial printers who manufacture packaging, labels, or cartons bearing registered trademarks without authorization from the proprietor commit direct statutory infringement. Printers are legally required to verify the bona fides and authorization of customers before printing registered brand packaging. The Court held that targeting the printing node of the counterfeiting chain is essential to prevent counterfeit goods from flooding the marketplace. Read more at: Hindustan Unilever v AS Print Pack Case Analysis.

Unilever Global IP Limited v. Fine and Shine (Bombay High Court)

Unilever Global IP Limited and Hindustan Unilever Limited filed Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 12216 of 2026 in the Bombay High Court against manufacturing unit Fine and Shine, alleging statutory trademark and copyright infringement. The plaintiffs established exclusive ownership of the well-known trademark SUNSILK in Class 3, along with registered artistic copyrights in its bottle shape, curvilinear label contours, and distinctive magenta color scheme. The plaintiffs’ private investigators uncovered an illicit manufacturing facility producing counterfeit shampoo bottles bearing the mark SUNSHINE in packaging identical to SUNSILK.

Justice Arif S. Doctor issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing counterfeit hair care products. The Court emphasized that counterfeit personal care products present grave public safety hazards because unverified chemical formulations come into direct contact with human skin. The Court held that advance notice would permit the defendants to destroy evidence and relocate manufacturing machines, appointing Court Receivers with police assistance to seize counterfeit stock, bottles, and packaging dies. Read more at: Unilever Global IP v Fine and Shine Case Analysis.

M/s. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg (Madras High Court)

Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP filed Original Application No. 673 of 2026 in a commercial trademark suit before the Madras High Court, seeking an ad-interim injunction against Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg. The applicant proved registered statutory ownership and continuous commercial operation of vegetarian restaurant chains under the trademark SANGEETHA across southern India and overseas markets since 1979. The respondent opened a dining establishment in Tamil Nadu under the identical name SANGETHAS PURE VEG, arguing that sangeetha is a common cultural word meaning music that cannot be monopolized for food services.

Justice P.B. Balaji granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent from operating dining establishments under the mark SANGETHAS. The Court held that while sangeetha is an everyday word, when applied to restaurant catering services it functions as an arbitrary brand that has acquired nationwide secondary meaning through nearly five decades of commercial operation. Minor spelling omissions do nothing to eliminate absolute phonetic identity. In culinary services, identical names create instant consumer confusion regarding hygiene and food preparation standards, entitling the registered proprietor to statutory protection under Section 29. Read more at: Sangeetha Caterers v Hotel Sangethas Case Analysis.

Inexo Cast Metal Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Federal-Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. (Madras High Court)

Inexo Cast Metal Solutions Private Limited preferred CMA(TM) No. 4 of 2025 before the Madras High Court, challenging an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks that refused registration of its mark FEDEXO in Class 6 for industrial metal castings and metallurgy components. The Registrar refused the mark under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, citing an opposition filed by global logistics conglomerate FedEx Corporation, which asserted well-known status under Section 11(2). The appellant argued that industrial metal castings operate in separate trade channels from international courier services.

Justice P.B. Balaji dismissed the appeal and upheld the Registrar’s refusal. The Court held that well-known trademarks enjoy extended statutory protection under Section 11(2) across non-competing goods where the subsequent mark would take unfair advantage of, or dilute, the distinctive character of the earlier brand. Because FEDEX is an arbitrary coined word possessing global fame, adopting FEDEXO for industrial components created an immediate risk of association. The Court affirmed that commercial entities cannot create derivative coined marks from renowned global brands. Read more at: Inexo Cast Metal v Federal-Mogul Case Analysis.

New Yorker S.H.K. Jeans GmbH & Co. KG v. Rahul Barlota (Madras High Court)

German fashion house New Yorker S.H.K. Jeans GmbH & Co. KG filed an intellectual property rectification petition in OP(TM) No. 68 of 2025 before the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought the expunction of the registered trademark NEW YORKER in Class 25 for apparel, held by domestic trader Rahul Barlota. The petitioner proved international registrations across dozens of countries, worldwide fashion retail presence, and asserted that the respondent had registered the mark defensively in 2007 without ever establishing genuine commercial manufacturing or retail use in India.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu allowed the rectification petition and ordered the Registrar to remove the mark from the Register. Applying Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court held that continuous non-use of a registered trademark for a period exceeding five years and three months from the date of registration renders the entry liable to expunction. The respondent failed to produce a single authentic commercial invoice or tax return demonstrating active sales under the mark. The Court held that defensive registrations cannot be permitted to block international brand owners from entering the domestic market. Read more at: New Yorker S.H.K. Jeans v. Rahul Barlota Case Analysis.

Copyrights

Japan Tobacco Inc. v. The Central Wearhouse (Delhi High Court)

Japan Tobacco Inc. and its Indian affiliate filed C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 814/2022 before the Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court, seeking rectification and cancellation of a registered copyright entry under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The respondent, The Central Wearhouse, had registered an artistic work featuring the mark WINSTON alongside packaging trade dress identical to Japan Tobacco’s internationally renowned cigarette packaging. The respondent challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, arguing that Section 50 rectification applications can only be entertained by the High Court within whose territorial limits the copyright registry office is situated or where the respondent operates.

Justice Amit Bansal rejected the jurisdictional challenge and expunged the respondent’s copyright registration. The Court held that following the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) under the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the jurisdiction to entertain rectification petitions under Section 50 is governed by dynamic commercial nexus. A High Court possesses territorial jurisdiction where the petitioner carries on business or where the disputed artistic work is exploited or causes commercial injury. On merits, the Court held that the respondent fraudulently copied the petitioner’s prior registered international packaging to deceive consumers, ordering the immediate expunction of the entry from the Register of Copyrights. Read more at: Japan Tobacco v Central Wearhouse Case Analysis.

Mrs. Shakti Sagar v. The Delhi Law House (Delhi High Court)

Mrs. Shakti Sagar instituted CS(COMM) 492/2024 before the Delhi High Court against legal publisher The Delhi Law House, alleging copyright infringement in commercial law textbooks. The plaintiff was the legal heir and exclusive copyright assignee of the deceased author of a widely consulted legal treatise on corporate and commercial laws. The plaintiff demonstrated that the defendants had published, printed, and sold unauthorized commercial revisions and derivative editions of the textbook without obtaining a license from the author’s legal heirs, while altering author attribution on the title page.

Justice Amit Bansal decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, awarding an injunction and imposing punitive costs of INR 10 lakhs against the publisher. The Court held that the copyright in literary legal works vests exclusively in the author and devolves upon legal heirs under Section 17 and Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957. A commercial publisher cannot unilaterally commission third-party editors to revise an author’s intellectual work or publish derivative editions without express written consent. The Court held that brazen commercial piracy of academic and legal literature demands exemplary costs to deter copyright infringement in commercial publishing. Read more at: Shakti Sagar v Delhi Law House Case Analysis.

BRG Education Institute v. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

BRG Education Institute filed Interim Application No. 3170 of 2026 in an intellectual property appeal before the Bombay High Court, challenging an interlocutory order that directed the seizure of institute computer hardware in an action instituted by music copyright licensing agency Novex Communications. Novex initiated the underlying suit alleging that the educational institute had played recorded musical tracks during campus cultural celebrations without obtaining a public performance license under Section 31D or Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Justice Arif S. Doctor modified the interlocutory directions and ordered the release of the seized educational computers upon recording formal undertakings. The Court observed that while copyright owners are entitled to protection against unauthorized public performances, interim delivery-up orders under Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC must not paralyze the core academic administration of an educational institution. The Court directed the institute to deposit security while permitting the return of administrative drives, emphasizing that copyright enforcement mechanisms must remain proportionate to the alleged commercial injury. Read more at: BRG Education v Novex Communications Case Analysis.

Aamir Khan Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (Madras High Court)

Aamir Khan Productions Private Limited instituted C.S. (COMM DIV) No. 239 of 2026 before the Madras High Court, seeking dynamic John Doe website blocking orders to protect the theatrical and digital release of a major cinematographic film. The producer joined major telecommunications service providers, government regulatory departments, and unidentified rogue websites as defendants, producing cyber-intelligence reports identifying illegal digital links and torrent portals dedicated to streaming and distributing the copyrighted film.

Justice P.B. Balaji granted an interim dynamic injunction directing internet service providers to block access to dozens of identified rogue websites and mirror URLs. The Court recognized that online film piracy inflicts massive financial losses during the crucial opening weeks of theatrical screening. Applying dynamic injunction principles established in UTV Software and Department of Electronics, the Court empowered the plaintiff to notify the cyber nodal authorities of mirror domains and redirection links created by rogue platforms during theatrical distribution. Read more at: Aamir Khan Productions v. BSNL Case Analysis.

Phantom Studios India Pvt. Ltd. v. JioStar India Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

Phantom Studios India Private Limited instituted Commercial Suit (L) No. 97 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court against JioStar India and prominent film producers, seeking an ad-interim injunction to halt the production, distribution, and release of the upcoming sequel SINGHAM AGAIN. Phantom Studios argued that under a co-production agreement governing the original 2011 film SINGHAM, it held co-ownership rights in the underlying intellectual property, narrative concepts, and character franchise rights, asserting that the defendants could not exploit sequel rights without revenue participation.

Justice Arif S. Doctor refused to grant an ad-interim injunction against the release of the film. The Court held that copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957, extends to original expression, screenplays, and dialogues, not to broad narrative concepts or stock cinematic tropes of honest police officers fighting crime. The Court examined the foundational co-production contract and found that the plaintiff had assigned its exploitation rights and failed to assert ownership across earlier franchise releases. Holding that the plaintiff slept on its claims and that balance of convenience favoured the release of a finished film involving immense third-party investments, the Court declined interim relief. Read more at: Phantom Studios v JioStar Case Analysis.

Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Gujrat Spice (Bombay High Court)

Novex Communications Private Limited filed Interim Application (L) No. 34854 of 2026 in a commercial copyright suit before the Bombay High Court against Gujrat Spice, alleging unauthorized public performance of sound recordings. Novex proved exclusive assignment rights from major record labels for public performance rights in leading musical recordings, alleging that the commercial dining and entertainment venue played its repertoire during commercial events without obtaining prior public performance licenses.

Justice Arif S. Doctor granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from publicly playing sound recordings assigned to the plaintiff without obtaining an advance license. The Court held that under Section 14(a)(iii) and Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, communicating sound recordings to the public at commercial venues without statutory permission constitutes copyright infringement. Commercial establishments cannot exploit copyrighted sound recordings to enhance customer ambiance and generate profits while evading statutory licensing fees. The Court directed the defendant to comply with licensing requirements immediately. Read more at: Novex Communications v Gujrat Spice Public Performance Case Analysis.

Patents

Deakin University v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Madras High Court)

Australian premier research institution Deakin University filed WP(IPD) No. 22 of 2026 before the Madras High Court, challenging an administrative order of the Controller General of Patents that treated its Indian national phase patent application as abandoned under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The university established that its patent attorney had experienced technical transmission timeouts while attempting to upload formal responses to the First Examination Report (FER) on the official patent portal on the final due date. Despite lodging immediate complaints and proof of digital server errors, the Patent Office issued a summary abandonment order without affording a personal hearing.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy allowed the writ petition, quashed the abandonment order, and restored the patent application. The Court held that Section 21(1) must be interpreted in harmony with principles of natural justice and administrative fairness. Where an applicant demonstrates bona fide intent to comply and submits technical evidence of portal failure on the filing date, the Patent Office cannot treat the application as abandoned. The Court held that deemed abandonment operates only where an applicant willfully defaults. The Bench directed the Patent Office to accept the response and proceed with substantive examination on merits. Read more at: Deakin University v Controller of Patents Case Analysis.

NOCIL Ltd. v. Finorchem Ltd. (Calcutta High Court)

Rubber chemicals manufacturer NOCIL Limited instituted IP-COM/25/2024 before the Calcutta High Court against Finorchem Limited, seeking an interlocutory injunction to protect its patented chemical manufacturing process. NOCIL held an active Indian patent under the Patents Act, 1970, for an inventive and environmentally sustainable process for synthesizing rubber vulcanization accelerators. NOCIL demonstrated that the respondents had replicated its proprietary chemical process to produce identical rubber chemical additives at lower production costs, asserting patent infringement under Section 48(b).

Justice Krishna Rao granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from utilizing the patented chemical synthesis process. Applying the statutory reverse burden of proof under Section 104A of the Patents Act, 1970, the Court held that where a patent is granted for a process and the product obtained by the patented process is identical, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that its process is distinct. The respondents failed to disclose their manufacturing flowcharts or establish an independent synthesis method. The Court held that NOCIL made out a strong prima facie case of process patent infringement, enjoining the defendants from commercial exploitation. Read more at: NOCIL v. Finorchem Case Analysis.

The North Face Apparel Corp. v. Controller of Patents and Designs (Madras High Court)

Global outdoor apparel brand The North Face Apparel Corp. preferred CMA(PT) No. 22 of 2025 before the Madras High Court, challenging an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents that rejected its patent application for an inventive multi-layer composite thermal insulation fabric. The Controller rejected the application under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, holding that the invention lacked an inventive step by combining features from three disparate prior art documents spanning industrial non-wovens, consumer apparel, and acoustic insulation.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu set aside the Controller’s rejection and remanded the application for grant. The Court held that the Patent Office had engaged in impermissible hindsight mosaicing, using the applicant’s completed specification as a roadmap to assemble disconnected prior art references that an ordinary skilled person would not have combined without prior knowledge of the invention. The Court observed that the inventive step inquiry must be conducted from the perspective of the skilled person before the priority date, without the benefit of retrospective knowledge. Because the composite fabric achieved superior thermal retention with reduced mass, the Court held that the inventive step requirement was satisfied. Read more at: The North Face v Controller Case Analysis.

Aventose Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (Madras High Court)

Domestic clean technology startup Aventose Energy Private Limited filed CMA(PT) No. 62 of 2024 before the Madras High Court, appealing against a decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents that refused its patent application for an innovative swappable modular battery system for electric two-wheelers. The Controller rejected the application on grounds of obviousness under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3(d) and Section 3(f), holding that the modular battery was an arrangement of known electrochemical cells and standard mechanical latches.

Justice P.B. Balaji set aside the rejection and remanded the patent application for re-examination. The Court held that the Controller passed a cryptic, non-speaking order that failed to analyze the technical synergy between the swappable battery’s heat dissipation structure, electronic locking mechanism, and power delivery busbars. An invention cannot be dismissed under Section 3(f) as a mere combination unless the individual components function independently without cooperative working. The Court directed the Patent Office to appoint a different examiner and conduct a de novo hearing evaluating the technical data. Read more at: Aventose Energy v. Patent Controller Case Analysis.

Ospedale San Raffaele S.r.l. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (Madras High Court)

Italian biomedical research institute Ospedale San Raffaele S.r.l. preferred (T)CMA(PT) No. 116 of 2023 before the Madras High Court, challenging an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents that rejected its patent application for an innovative gene therapy vector and therapeutic delivery protocol. The appeal had remained pending before the erstwhile Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) for multiple years before being transferred to the High Court upon the IPAB’s abolition. During appellate arguments, it emerged that the statutory twenty-year term calculated from the international filing date under Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, had fully expired.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed the patent appeal as infructuous. The Court held that patent rights represent a time-limited statutory monopoly that terminates absolutely upon the expiry of twenty years from the filing date under Section 53. Once the statutory twenty-year period lapses, the patented subject matter enters the public domain by operation of law, and courts cannot grant a patent or extend monopoly terms. While acknowledging the hardship caused by institutional adjudication delays, the Bench ruled that courts have no jurisdiction to breathe life into an expired patent monopoly, dismissing the appeal. Read more at: Ospedale San Raffaele v Assistant Controller Case Analysis.

Kobelco Compressors Corporation v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (Madras High Court)

Japanese industrial equipment manufacturer Kobelco Compressors Corporation filed CMA(PT) No. 26 of 2024 before the Madras High Court, challenging an administrative decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents that rejected its patent application for an advanced oil-free screw compressor rotor design. The Controller rejected the application on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), asserting that minor alterations in rotor profile curvatures represented routine engineering adjustments obvious to a skilled mechanic in the compressor art.

The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the refusal order, and directed the grant of the patent. The Court held that technical advances in mechanical precision engineering that eliminate oil leakage while enhancing thermodynamic compression efficiency by quantifiable percentages cannot be dismissed as routine optimization. The appellant produced comparative finite-element simulation data and empirical test results demonstrating that the specific asymmetry of the screw rotor lobes overcame established aerodynamic turbulence problems. Holding that the invention possessed demonstrable technical advance over cited prior art, the Court ordered the Patent Office to issue the letters patent. Read more at: Kobelco Compressors v Assistant Controller Case Analysis.

Dr. Aloys Wobben v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Madras High Court)

Renowned wind turbine inventor Dr. Aloys Wobben and his green energy corporation prosecuted Writ Petition No. 9729 of 2011 before the Madras High Court, challenging orders of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board that had revoked multiple core Indian patents relating to wind turbine electrical generators and pitch control systems upon revocation petitions filed by domestic competitors. The writ petitions had remained pending before the High Court for over a decade while cross-infringement suits proceeded in various high courts.

The Madras High Court dismissed the entire batch of writ petitions as infructuous. The Court noted that the statutory twenty-year lifespan of all disputed wind turbine patents had completely expired during the pendency of the writ proceedings. Because the statutory term under Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, had ended, the revoked inventions had irrevocably entered the public domain. The Bench observed that while parties may resolve residual past damages claims in pending infringement suits under the principles settled in Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra, public law challenges against revocation orders become moot once the statutory patent lifespan expires. Read more at: Dr. Aloys Wobben v. IPAB Case Analysis.

Geographical Indications and Other IP Developments

Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty v. Medicine Me (Delhi High Court)

Renowned cardiac surgeon and healthcare philanthropist Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty, alongside Narayana Hrudayalaya Limited, instituted CS(COMM) 1053/2024 before the Delhi High Court against digital entities operating under Medicine Me. The plaintiffs sought urgent injunctive relief to restrain the unauthorized commercial misappropriation of Dr. Shetty’s name, medical reputation, face, and voice. The plaintiffs established that the defendants had utilized sophisticated artificial intelligence deepfakes and synthetic audio synthesis to generate fraudulent video advertisements on social media platforms, falsely depicting Dr. Shetty endorsing unverified commercial herbal remedies for blood pressure and heart ailments.

Justice Amit Bansal granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using Dr. Shetty’s name, photograph, likeness, or synthetic voice in any commercial promotional campaigns. The Court held that celebrity personality and publicity rights protect individuals from having their persona commercially exploited without consent, grounded in common law passing off and the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21. In healthcare, deceptive deepfake advertisements created using artificial intelligence constitute an alarming public hazard by misleading vulnerable patients into purchasing dubious treatments. The Court issued comprehensive John Doe takedown orders directing digital social media platforms and telecom providers to block access to the infringing domains and social accounts immediately. Read more at: Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty v Medicine Me Case Analysis.

Arjun Kapoor v. Artist Booking Company (Delhi High Court)

Bollywood actor Arjun Kapoor instituted CS(COMM) 454/2026 before the Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court against Artist Booking Company and unidentified digital platforms. The plaintiff sought urgent protection of his personality, publicity, and moral rights against unauthorized digital exploitation. The plaintiff demonstrated that the defendants operated commercial web portals offering artificial intelligence generated video shoutouts, voice clips, and synthetic merchandise using the plaintiff’s face, likeness, and signature dialogue delivery without authorization or commercial licensing.

Justice Mini Pushkarna granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from utilizing the actor’s name, voice, image, caricature, or digital twin across digital and physical merchandise. The Court held that individual persona constitutes a proprietary commercial asset developed through sustained public exposure. Unauthorized commercial exploitation through artificial intelligence deepfakes, synthetic voice generation, and unapproved booking platforms causes irreparable reputational and commercial damage. The Court granted John Doe relief directing internet service providers to block identified domain names and issued takedown mandates against offending social media handles. Read more at: Arjun Kapoor v Artist Booking Co Case Analysis.

Prime Trace Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. K. Srinivas (Karnataka High Court)

Industrial technology firm Prime Trace Technologies Private Limited preferred Commercial Appeal No. 11 of 2025 before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, challenging an order of the Commercial Court at Bengaluru that rejected its plaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Prime Trace filed the commercial suit against its former senior research engineers and a competitor firm, alleging the theft and misappropriation of proprietary industrial trade secrets, confidential CAD design files, and customer lists. The commercial court held that trade secret misappropriation without an explicit statutory IP registration does not qualify as a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court set aside the rejection order and restored the suit before the Commercial Court. The Court held that under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the legislative definition encompasses intellectual property rights including trade marks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications, and other commercial proprietary rights. Proprietary business information, manufacturing trade secrets, and confidential technical databases constitute protectable commercial property rights under common law equity and contract. The Bench held that commercial courts possess complete subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate trade secret theft and protect corporate intangible assets. Read more at: Prime Trace Technologies v Srinivas Case Analysis.

Collector and Additional Superintendent of Stamps v. Arvind Brands Ltd. (Gujarat High Court)

The revenue authorities of Gujarat preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 54 of 2015 (2026:GUJHC:62248-DB) before the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, challenging a Single Judge judgment that quashed a massive stamp duty demand levied on textile and apparel major Arvind Brands Limited. The state stamp collector had demanded ad valorem stamp duty running into tens of crores on an intellectual property master assignment agreement, asserting that the transfer of registered trademarks and brand goodwill should be assessed at the highest real estate conveyance rates under Article 20 of Schedule I of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958.

The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray, dismissed the revenue’s appeal and confirmed the quashing of the stamp duty demand. The Court held that intellectual property rights, trademarks, and corporate brand goodwill are incorporeal, intangible movable property. An assignment or licensing of a trademark cannot be equated with the conveyance of immovable real property. In the absence of a specific state statutory entry imposing ad valorem duty on intangible intellectual property transactions, revenue authorities cannot artificially expand general conveyance clauses to tax intellectual property assignments. The decision provides substantial fiscal relief and transactional certainty to corporate enterprises structuring brand licensing and IP transfers in Gujarat. Read more at: Collector v. Arvind Brands Case Analysis.

What October 2026 Tells Us About Commercial Thresholds and Substantive Priority

The jurisprudence of October 2026 establishes that Indian commercial divisions will not tolerate procedural laxity or jurisdictional forum manipulation. Litigants who attempt to enforce intellectual property rights must ensure that every statutory pre-condition is scrupulously satisfied before knocking on the doors of the court. The Madras High Court ruling in Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union v. Asian Beverage demonstrates that local legislative protections, such as mandatory statutory pre-institution notice under Section 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, operate as absolute jurisdictional bars that extinguish federal trademark suits at the threshold through summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in MS Cafe Brown Sugar strictly enforced Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC, reminding commercial practitioners that documentary evidence must be produced at the initial presentation of the plaint, and that vague claims of inadvertence will not permit the introduction of belated documents. Across states, the Supreme Court in Supreme Industries exercised constitutional transfer powers under Section 25 CPC to halt parallel litigation, establishing that multi-state trademark conflicts must be concentrated in a single competent commercial forum to eliminate conflicting findings.

Finally, October 2026 established vital doctrinal markers on emerging technology and intangible asset protection. In patent practice, the Madras High Court in The North Face Apparel firmly prohibited the Patent Office from engaging in retrospective hindsight mosaicing, while simultaneously confirming in Ospedale San Raffaele and Dr. Aloys Wobben that expired twenty-year terms cannot be revived, ensuring that expired technologies enter the public domain. In the digital arena, the Delhi High Court delivered landmark personality rights injunctions in Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty and Arjun Kapoor, expanding common law passing off and constitutional privacy to prohibit unauthorized artificial intelligence deepfakes and synthetic audio endorsements. Complemented by the Karnataka High Court confirming commercial court jurisdiction over industrial trade secrets in Prime Trace Technologies and the Gujarat High Court barring ad valorem conveyance stamp duty on trademark assignments in Arvind Brands, Indian intellectual property jurisprudence in October 2026 delivered an integrated, modern framework: uncompromising on procedural compliance, fiercely protective of genuine commercial priority, and fully equipped to restrain novel technological misrepresentations.

Also Read: Indian IP Law Roundup September 2026: Trademarks, Patents and AI Rights

References:

• M/s. The Supreme Industries Limited v. M/s. Supreme Plastic Industries & Ors., Supreme Court of India, T.P.(C) No. 3594/2025 | Diary No. 71978/2025, Decision dated 2026-10-28.
• Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. Asian Beverage Pvt. Ltd., Madras High Court, A.770/2023, Decision dated 2026-10-09.
• MS Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt. Ltd. v. Vyom Foodcraft Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Delhi High Court, CS(COMM)-1008/2024 2026:DHC:9604, Decision dated 2026-10-29.
• Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd. v. Ucon PT Structural System Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High Court, CS(COMM)-661/2024 2026:DHC:9594, Decision dated 2026-10-28.
• Kothrud Mitra Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Metropolis Media & Ors., Bombay High Court, IA/2031/2026, Decision dated 2026-10-21.
• Surya Hotels and Properties v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras High Court, WP(IPD).1/2026, Decision dated 2026-10-01.
• Metro Brands Limited v. Brand Magic and Ors., Bombay High Court, COMIPL/6393/2026, Decision dated 2026-10-08.
• Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Nectar Lifesciences Ltd. & Anr., Bombay High Court, COMIPL/28038/2025, Decision dated 2026-10-08.
• Mr. Sunit Shah Proprietor of M/s. Shah Namkeen v. Jabsons Foods Private Limited, Delhi High Court, CS(COMM)-641/2024 2026:DHC:9547, Decision dated 2026-10-28.
• Gaurav Chawla v. Sandeep Jape, Bombay High Court, IA/5801/2026, Decision dated 2026-10-16.
• Kiehberg GmbH & Anr. v. Capital Airgun Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Delhi High Court, CS(COMM)-808/2024 2026:DHC:9381, Decision dated 2026-10-13.
• Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr., Madras High Court, CMA(TM).31/2025, Decision dated 2026-10-26.
• Glaxo Group Limited v. Shreya Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Bombay High Court, COMMP/12/2026, Decision dated 2026-10-28.
• Mankind Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Terrai Natural Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Delhi High Court, CS(COMM)-280/2026 2026:DHC:9367, Decision dated 2026-10-16.
• Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Divine Food and Agro Products & Ors., Bombay High Court, COMIPL/15351/2026, Decision dated 2026-10-15.
• Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v. Veepro Lights and Decor, Delhi High Court, CS(COMM)-156/2025 2026:DHC:9698, Decision dated 2026-10-27.
• MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors. v. Evoke Hotels and Resorts & Ors., Delhi High Court, CS(COMM)-267/2026 2026:DHC:9396, Decision dated 2026-10-15.
• Asian Paints Limited v. Babita Aggarwal & Ors., Bombay High Court, COMIPL/23472/2026, Decision dated 2026-10-12.
• Hindustan Unilever Limited v. AS Print Pack Graphics & Ors., Bombay High Court, COMIPL/11373/2025, Decision dated 2026-10-15.
• Unilever Global IP Limited & Anr. v. Fine and Shine & Ors., Bombay High Court, COMIPL/12216/2026, Decision dated 2026-10-15.
• M/s. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg, Madras High Court, OA.673/2026, Decision dated 2026-10-30.
• Inexo Cast Metal Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Federal-Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd., Madras High Court, CMA(TM).4/2025, Decision dated 2026-10-15.
• New Yorker S.H.K. Jeans GmbH & Co. KG v. Rahul Barlota, Madras High Court, OP(TM).68/2025, Decision dated 2026-10-27.
• Japan Tobacco Inc. & Anr. v. The Central Wear Corporation & Anr., Delhi High Court, C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR)-814/2022 2026:DHC:8713, Decision dated 2026-10-05.
• Mrs. Shakti Sagar v. The Delhi Law House & Ors., Delhi High Court, CS(COMM)-492/2024 2026:DHC:8862, Decision dated 2026-10-07.
• BRG Education Institute v. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd., Bombay High Court, IA/3170/2026, Decision dated 2026-10-08.
• Aamir Khan Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors., Madras High Court, C.S(COMM DIV).239/2026, Decision dated 2026-10-13.
• Phantom Studios India Pvt. Ltd. v. JioStar India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Bombay High Court, COMS/97/2026, Decision dated 2026-10-14.
• Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Gujrat Spice (IAL/34854/2026), Bombay High Court, IAL/34854/2026, Decision dated 2026-10-15.
• Deakin University v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Madras High Court, WP(IPD).22/2026, Decision dated 2026-10-01.
• NOCIL Ltd. v. Finorchem Ltd. & Anr., Calcutta High Court, IP-COM/25/2024, Decision dated 2026-10-07.
• The North Face Apparel Corp. v. Controller of Patents and Designs, Madras High Court, CMA(PT).22/2025, Decision dated 2026-10-16.
• Aventose Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Madras High Court, CMA(PT).62/2024, Decision dated 2026-10-16.
• Ospedale San Raffaele S.r.l. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Madras High Court, (T)CMA(PT).116/2023, Decision dated 2026-10-30.
• Kobelco Compressors Corporation v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Madras High Court, CMA(PT).26/2024, Decision dated 2026-10-30.
• Dr. Aloys Wobben v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors., Madras High Court, WP.9729/2011, Decision dated 2026-09-29.
• Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr. v. Medicine Me & Anr., Delhi High Court, CS(COMM)-1053/2024 2026:DHC:8897, Decision dated 2026-10-05.
• Arjun Kapoor v. Artist Booking Company & Ors., Delhi High Court, CS(COMM)-454/2026 2026:DHC:9397, Decision dated 2026-10-14.
• Prime Trace Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. K. Srinivas & Ors., Karnataka High Court, COMAP 11/2025, Decision dated 2026-10-14.
• Collector and Additional Superintendent of Stamps v. Arvind Brands Ltd., Gujarat High Court, R/LPA/54/2015 (2026:GUJHC:62248-DB), Decision dated 2026-09-30.