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

The month of September 2026 brought intense judicial focus on the procedural boundaries that govern intellectual property enforcement in India. The Supreme Court and High Courts clamped down on administrative dilution and forum shopping, demanding strict fidelity to statutory forum guarantees. Litigants who attempted to bypass statutory pre-institution mediation, manufacture territorial nexus through casual digital footprints, or dilute District Judge forum requirements through state-level executive notifications faced immediate judicial resistance. Across commercial divisions, judges reaffirmed that access to equitable interlocutory remedies requires rigorous procedural discipline and complete factual candor. This roundup analyzes the essential Indian IP law rulings from September 2026, arranged by subject area.

Trademarks

I.S.D.S. Private Limited v. Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)

I.S.D.S. Private Limited challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I at Jamshedpur to adjudicate Commercial Suit No. 11 of 2023, an action alleging trademark infringement. The appellant contended that Section 134(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 explicitly prohibits any court inferior to a District Court from entertaining trademark infringement suits. The respondent defended the trial court’s authority by relying on a Jharkhand state government notification that constituted Civil Judges (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, arguing that Section 21 of the 2015 Act overrides the Trade Marks Act. The Supreme Court Division Bench, comprising Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, identified sharp precedential friction between Kandla Export Corporation, which upheld the primacy of special enactments over the Commercial Courts Act, and Jaycee Housing, which permitted subsequent commercial court designations to override earlier forum definitions.

Applying a genus and species analysis, the Court observed that commercial disputes constitute the broad genus, whereas intellectual property rights form a specific statutory species under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii). The Bench exposed the pecuniary absurdity created by Jharkhand’s notification, where a low-value trademark suit below Rs. 3 lakhs was heard by a District Judge, while a high-value suit exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs was relegated to an inferior Civil Judge. Holding that executive notifications cannot dilute explicit parliamentary safeguards that ensure trademark suits are heard by experienced District Judges with a direct right of first appeal to the High Court, the Supreme Court stayed the underlying commercial suit and referred the conflict to a Larger Bench. This decision provides brand owners with strong authority to stay proceedings improperly instituted before sub-district courts. Read more at: ISDS v Khemka Case Analysis.

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited (Delhi High Court)

Hindustan Unilever Limited appealed against a Single Judge order that declined to decide its ad-interim injunction application in FAO(OS) (COMM)-231/2026. In the commercial suit, the plaintiff sought urgent relief against Kwick Living regarding an allegedly infringing advertising campaign. The Single Judge had reserved judgment on territorial jurisdiction, referred the jurisdictional question to a Larger Bench, and stayed the interim injunction application pending that reference. The respondent argued that because both corporate entities maintained registered offices in Mumbai, the Delhi High Court lacked territorial nexus.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, resolved the procedural impasse. During appellate proceedings, the respondent filed an affidavit confirming its possession of a GST registration in Delhi and identifying a principal place of business in the Naraina Industrial Area. The respondent also conceded that physical hoardings containing the disputed advertisements were erected in Delhi prior to the suit. The Court held that these admissions satisfied Section 20(a) and Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By consent, the Court granted leave to amend the plaint to incorporate these jurisdictional facts, declared territorial jurisdiction settled, and remanded the suit to the Single Judge for an expedited hearing on the interim injunction. Read more at: Hindustan Unilever v. Kwick Living Case Analysis.

Novartis AG v. Novosys Life Sciences Private Limited (Delhi High Court)

Novartis AG and its Indian operating subsidiary instituted CS(COMM) 404/2026 alongside two rectification petitions, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 128/2026 and C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 129/2026, before the Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court. Novartis sought to protect its registered, well-known trademark NOVARTIS in Class 5 against Novosys Life Sciences, which marketed allopathic medicinal formulations under the mark NOVOSYS and operated the website novosyslifesciences.com. The defendant held registrations for NOVOSYS in Classes 5 and 35, and LINOVOSYS in Class 5. Novartis established deceptive phonetic and visual similarity, asserting that the shared NOVO prefix and overlapping trade channels created grave risks of medicinal misattribution.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav decreed the suit and rectification petitions in favor of Novartis. Relying on Cadila Health Care, the Court emphasized that confusing similarity between medicinal brands demands strict scrutiny because confusion in therapeutic products carries severe public health risks. The defendant submitted formal undertakings on affidavit agreeing to permanently cease using NOVOSYS, surrendered its domain, changed its corporate name to Sysown Life Sciences Private Limited, and consented to trademark cancellation. Applying Noorali Babul Thanewala, the Court held that an undertaking given on affidavit possesses the identical force of an injunction backed by contempt sanctions. The Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to expunge the defendant’s registrations, treated pending applications as withdrawn, curtailed the defendant’s stock run-off request to three months, and granted Novartis liberty to issue takedown notices to e-commerce platforms. Read more at: Novartis v Novosys Case Analysis.

Umendra Exports Private Limited v. Four Cubes Investments Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

Umendra Exports Private Limited appealed against an order of the District Judge (Commercial Court), Saket, which returned its commercial plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff filed a composite suit in Delhi seeking recovery of export sale proceeds for cosmetics supplied to a Zambian buyer, alongside claims against a freight forwarder for wrongful detention of cargo. The freight forwarder filed an application under Order VII Rule 10, asserting that carriage claims fell under the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, with exclusive jurisdiction resting in Mumbai where its principal office was situated. The trial court accepted this plea and returned the entire plaint.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain, set aside the return order and restored the suit. Citing Dhodha House and Dabur India, the Court held that procedural joinder under Order II Rule 3 CPC cannot enlarge territorial jurisdiction, and each cause of action must establish its own nexus under Section 20 CPC. However, applying Paragon Rubber Industries, the Bench held that where a court has territorial jurisdiction over one substantive cause of action based on contract acceptance and payment in Delhi, the court cannot mechanically return the entire plaint. The trial court must grant the plaintiff an opportunity to amend pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC or elect which claims to pursue. The Court granted the appellant four weeks to seek appropriate amendments before the commercial court. Read more at: Umendra Exports v Four Cubes Case Analysis.

ITC Limited v. SMM Tobacco Private Limited (Calcutta High Court)

ITC Limited presented a commercial plaint before the Calcutta High Court alleging trademark and copyright infringement against SMM Tobacco Private Limited. Dedicated investigators discovered illicit cigarette manufacturing in Muzaffarpur, Bihar, prompting ITC to lodge a police complaint in July 2026. A criminal search and seizure operation conducted on July 22, 2026 seized counterfeit tobacco stock and manufacturing machinery. Having disrupted the supply chain, ITC waited until September 2026 to file its civil infringement suit, praying for dispensation of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 on grounds of ongoing emergency.

Justice Arindam Mukherjee refused to admit the plaint and ordered its return. Scrutinizing the plaint under Patil Automation and Yamini Manohar, the Court held that Section 12A is a mandatory statutory requirement that cannot be bypassed on vague assertions of continuing wrong. While dual civil and criminal remedies are available, choosing to execute a police raid and keeping civil remedies in abeyance for over a month destroys the procedural immediacy required to evade pre-suit mediation. The Court ruled that corporate brand owners cannot manufacture urgency after sleeping on their civil rights, though it permitted ITC to reuse its court fees upon completing mediation. Read more at: ITC Limited v. SMM Tobacco Case Analysis.

Pravin Kumar v. ITC Limited (Calcutta High Court)

Pravin Kumar challenged an interlocutory order in an intellectual property appeal before the Calcutta High Court in TEMPAPO-IPD/6/2025. ITC Limited had initiated the underlying action seeking an interim injunction against the appellant for using trade marks, packaging styles, and trade dress allegedly deceptively similar to its Gold Flake brand. The plaintiff asserted statutory infringement alongside common law passing off. The appellant contended that ITC was using registered marks to curtail legitimate competition in the tobacco sector, challenging the invocation of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act.

Justice A.K. Mukherjee, presiding over the Bench, granted only partial interim relief, declining to impose a blanket commercial ban against the appellant. The Court held that registration of a trademark does not automatically entitle a proprietor to absolute exclusivity over broad visual themes in trade dress. In passing-off claims, courts require granular, side-by-side evidence demonstrating actual consumer deception and likelihood of confusion. Because statutory trademark infringement and common law passing off require distinct standards of proof, the Court refused to grant sweeping prophylactic relief without concrete evidence of deceptive intent in the marketplace. Read more at: Pravin Kumar v. ITC Limited Case Analysis.

The South Point Education Society v. South Point School (Calcutta High Court)

The South Point Education Society instituted a commercial suit in the Calcutta High Court seeking an ad-interim injunction against South Point School under IP-COM/55/2025. The plaintiff demonstrated continuous operation of its educational institutions in West Bengal under the SOUTH POINT banner since the mid-twentieth century, holding registered trademarks in educational services. The defendant, operating a school under an identical name, opposed the injunction by raising the defense of honest concurrent user under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, citing geographic separation and delay in filing.

The Calcutta High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using SOUTH POINT on promotional boards, uniform designs, and digital platforms. The Court held that in the educational sector, public trust and brand recall are critical, reducing the threshold required to prove consumer confusion among parents. Given the legendary reputation of the plaintiff’s institutions, the defendant’s plea of honest adoption was deemed implausible. To prevent academic disruption, the Court crafted a practical transition carve-out: the defendant was permitted to complete the ongoing academic session for enrolled pupils, but was strictly barred from admitting new students under the mark and ordered to adopt a distinct name before the next academic year. Read more at: South Point Education Society v. South Point School Case Analysis.

Graviss Foods Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks (Bombay High Court)

Graviss Foods Private Limited filed a statutory commercial appeal before the Bombay High Court in COMMPL/10288/2026, challenging the summary refusal of its trademark application for ICE CREAM ROCKS. The Registrar of Trade Marks rejected the application under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, asserting that the mark was generic and descriptive. The Registrar also held that the statutory proviso for acquired distinctiveness could not apply without proof of long and continuous prior use.

The Bombay High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the application for fresh adjudication. The Court held that the Registrar committed a patent error of law by dissecting the composite mark into individual words, violating the anti-dissection rule that mandates evaluating ICE CREAM ROCKS as an integrated whole. In addition, the statutory proviso to Section 9(1) contains no rigid temporal threshold, allowing distinctiveness to be established through intensive commercial penetration over shorter periods. Citing Huhtamaki Oyj and Section 18(5), the Court rebuked the Registry for issuing unreasoned, boilerplate rejection orders that ignore submitted user evidence, directing the Registrar to pass a speaking order within four months. Read more at: Graviss Foods v. Registrar of Trade Marks Case Analysis.

Unilever Global IP Limited v. Yash Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

Unilever Global IP Limited initiated Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 7770 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, seeking an ad-interim injunction against Yash Lifesciences for marketing medicinal soaps and personal hygiene products under the mark YASHLIFE. Unilever asserted that the mark infringed its registered trademark LIFEBUOY in Classes 3 and 5. The defendant contended that the word LIFE was descriptive and common to the pharmaceutical trade, and that prefixing its corporate name YASH created a distinct composite mark under Section 17.

The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using YASHLIFE. Balancing the anti-dissection rule with the dominant feature doctrine, the Court held that LIFE forms the primary, memorable feature of the plaintiff’s brand identity. Adding a corporate prefix failed to eliminate the likelihood of confusion among retail buyers of average intelligence with imperfect recollection. Recognizing that dilution of an established mark causes irreparable harm, the Court restrained fresh manufacturing while providing a 45-day transition window for the defendant to exhaust existing retail inventory under strict accounting obligations. Read more at: Unilever Global IP v. Yash Lifesciences Case Analysis.

Meridian Enterprises Private Limited v. Cascade India Pharmaceuticals (Bombay High Court)

Meridian Enterprises Private Limited instituted Commercial IP Suit No. 600 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court to protect its registered trademark NASOMIST, registered under Trade Mark No. 597366 for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. The plaintiff sought to restrain Cascade India Pharmaceuticals and its partners from marketing allied medicinal formulations under the mark NACOMIST. The parties executed written consent terms under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, resolving all pending disputes.

Justice Madhav J. Jamdar decreed the suit in terms of the compromise and disposed of Interim Application No. 6540 of 2025. The defendants submitted to a perpetual injunction and undertook never to adopt any deceptively similar mark in the future. Crucially, the Court accepted these covenants as formal undertakings given to the Court, ensuring that any future breach triggers contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The decree formalized batch-specific inventory exhaustion for Batch No. 4403, recorded the formal withdrawal of the defendant’s trademark application No. 5440462 from the Registry, and permitted a refund of court fees. Read more at: Meridian Enterprises v. Cascade India Case Analysis.

Vikas Mandoth v. Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd. (Madras High Court)

Vikas Mandoth moved Application No. 446 of 2026 in C.S. (COMM DIV) No. 307 of 2025 before the Madras High Court to vacate an ex-parte interim injunction granted in favor of Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd. The Chinese plaintiff asserted statutory rights in its registered GLOBE trademark and trade dress for padlocks and hardware. The defendant argued that he had independently adopted the mark, secured a trademark registration for the same device in the Tamil script, and challenged the suit for non-compliance with Section 12A mediation.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed the application and confirmed the injunction. The Court held that the defendant’s own trademark application, filed in 2023 on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis, created a legal estoppel that directly contradicted his litigation claim of prior common law use. Transliterating an identical mark into a regional language script does not provide a valid defense, as phonetic and visual impressions remain deceptively similar in the hardware market. Technical challenges regarding Section 12A and document verification were held to be triable issues reserved for full trial. Read more at: Vikas Mandoth v. Shanghai Huanqiu Case Analysis.

Blossom Global Trust v. Augustine Educational and Charitable Trust (Madras High Court)

Blossom Global Trust instituted a commercial suit in the Madras High Court, moving Application No. 3544 of 2026 for an ad-interim injunction against Augustine Educational and Charitable Trust. The plaintiff asserted exclusive nationwide rights over the registered mark PREETHI HOSPITALS under Trade Mark Nos. 5466102 and 5466103 in Classes 41 and 44, alleging that the defendant adopted a deceptively similar mark for medical and educational services.

The Madras High Court held that while Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 grants an exclusive right to use a registered mark throughout India, the grant of interim relief remains subject to equitable discretion and strict adherence to judicial hierarchy. The Court noted that interlocutory applications cannot be used to reopen questions previously examined and restricted by Division Bench orders in the same litigation. The ruling clarifies that registered status provides a strong foundation, but plaintiffs must support injunction prayers with proof of active usage while respecting prior appellate findings. Read more at: Blossom Global Trust v. Augustine Educational Case Analysis.

Pradeep Cholayil v. Karnataka Soaps and Detergents (Madras High Court)

Pradeep Cholayil, proprietor of the registered trademarks MYSOP and MYSPO in Class 3, instituted Commercial Suit No. 225 of 2018 before the Madras High Court against Karnataka Soaps and Detergent. The plaintiff alleged that the state-owned defendant’s introduction of soaps under the mark MYSOAP infringed his registered trademarks and constituted actionable passing off, praying for permanent injunctions, damages, and mandatory destruction of materials.

The Madras High Court decreed the commercial suit, granting a permanent injunction, a mandatory injunction for destruction of packaging, a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts, and Rs. 10,00,000/- in damages. Applying the imperfect recollection test, the Court held that in fast-moving consumer goods like soaps, oral transactions dominate retail purchases. The addition of the single vowel ‘A’ in MYSOAP failed to dispel absolute phonetic equivalence with MYSOP. In high-frequency, low-involvement retail purchases, oral identity completely overshadows minor packaging differences. Read more at: Pradeep Cholayil v. Karnataka Soaps Case Analysis.

Ashique Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Koyenco Soaps and Detergents (Madras High Court)

Ashique Exports Pvt. Ltd. prosecuted Commercial Suit No. 687 of 2017 before the Madras High Court to protect its registered trademark Dr. WASH under Registration No. 1130214 in Class 3. The plaintiff had marketed washing soaps under this brand for over 15 years, establishing substantial consumer goodwill and distinctive packaging. The defendant introduced washing soaps with identical color schemes and trade dress, relying on a pending rectification petition to challenge the plaintiff’s title.

The Madras High Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the confusing trade dress and mark. Applying the triple identity test, the Court found that the goods, consumer demographic, and retail trade channels were identical, creating an immediate risk of consumer deception. The plaintiff’s continuous 15-year commercial history established acquired distinctiveness that successfully neutralized the pending rectification challenge, confirming that courts will protect established trade dress against deceptive imitation. Read more at: Ashique Exports v. Koyenco Soaps Case Analysis.

Texmo Industries v. Gayatri Industries (Madras High Court)

Texmo Industries instituted C.S. (COMM DIV) No. 89 of 2026 before the Madras High Court against Gayatri Industries, alleging infringement and passing off of its registered trademark TARO across Classes 7, 9, and 17. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s use of ATARO PUMPS for industrial pump equipment infringed its proprietary rights and prayed for a declaration of TARO as a well-known mark under Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete disposed of the commercial suit in terms of a recorded joint compromise memo. Under the settlement, the defendants conceded the plaintiff’s proprietary exclusivity, agreed to permanently cease using ATARO PUMPS, and submitted to a permanent injunction. The Court incorporated the compromise memo into a binding decree, noting that the settlement balanced the registered rights of the plaintiff against the commercial interests of the defendants, preserving market integrity in the industrial equipment sector. Read more at: Texmo Industries v. Gayatri Industries Case Analysis.

Mohammed Usman Sait v. Mohammed Saleem Sait (Madras High Court)

Mohammed Usman Sait filed Application No. 990 of 2026 in C.S. No. 138 of 2022 before the Madras High Court, alleging that the respondent had breached an existing judicial status quo order regarding the disputed family trade name Joonus Sait. The applicant contended that the respondent had opened new commercial retail outlets in Anna Nagar and Alsa Mall, Egmore, expanding his retail presence without authorization.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed the applications. The Court accepted the respondent’s evidence establishing that the Anna Nagar premises operated under the identical, pre-existing GST registration as a spatial division for winter apparel, while the Alsa Mall location was used strictly for warehouse inventory storage. The Court held that proof of a status quo violation requires objective fiscal documentation showing the creation of an independent commercial entity. The Bench warned litigants against filing repetitive interlocutory applications to force competitors into settlements during active litigation. Read more at: Usman Sait v Saleem Sait Case Analysis.

M. Ramesh v. S. Srinivasan (Madras High Court)

M. Ramesh preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 3941 of 2026 before the Madras High Court against an order of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, in Commercial Original Suit No. 1 of 2023. Three partners originally filed the commercial suit to protect the registered trademark Sri Valli Vilas against an infringing company promoted by family members. When the commercial court rejected the plaint, the 2nd Plaintiff (Ramesh) single-handedly prosecuted Appeal CAD No. 21 of 2023 to restore the suit, after Plaintiffs 1 and 3 withdrew their appeal and sought firm dissolution in arbitration. Upon restoration, Ramesh sought to transpose Plaintiffs 1 and 3 as defendants under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, alleging hostility and collusion.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the refusal of transposition. The Court highlighted that under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, a counterclaim cannot lie solely between co-defendants without seeking relief against the plaintiff, meaning transposition would legally paralyze co-owners from defending the firm’s trademark against third-party infringers. Under Section 47 of the Indian Partnership Act, partners retain the authority to protect firm assets during winding up. The Court held that where internal partner conflicts threaten trial progress, the proper procedural mechanism is Order I Rule 2 CPC, which empowers the trial court to put plaintiffs to election or order separate trials without stripping partners of their substantive intellectual property standing. Read more at: Ramesh v Srinivasan Case Analysis.

RPG Enterprises Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks (Madras High Court)

RPG Enterprises Limited filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, docketed as (T)OP(TM).482/2023 before the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought the cancellation and expunction of the registered trademark RPG in Class 12, held by a subsequent domestic registrant. RPG Enterprises established prior commercial use dating back decades, substantial market goodwill, and well-known brand recognition across diverse industrial sectors.

The Madras High Court allowed the rectification petition and ordered the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the impugned mark from the Register. The Court held that a subsequent registration cannot stand when it is identical to an established legacy brand. The identity of the mark created an unavoidable risk of consumer confusion and trade-source misattribution. The judgment reaffirms that the Trade Marks Register must be purged of conflicting entries obtained by late-comers, protecting the equity of well-known commercial houses. Read more at: RPG Enterprises Ltd v. Registrar of Trademarks Case Analysis.

Rio Childrens Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajesh Jayaraj (Madras High Court)

Rio Childrens Hospital Private Limited filed an application under Rule 14(2) of the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, seeking to transfer and consolidate an infringement and passing-off suit pending before the Principal District Court at Madurai with a subsequent rectification petition pending before the High Court. The applicant argued that because both proceedings involved the identical mark RIO and identical parties, consolidated adjudication was necessary to prevent conflicting findings and secure judicial economy. The respondent opposed the transfer, arguing that the civil suit in Madurai involved independent common law claims and regional evidentiary questions regarding prior user from 2016 under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete dismissed the consolidation application, holding that administrative IPD rules do not create an automatic vehicle for jurisdictional migration. The Court clarified that the discretionary phrasing in Rule 14 requires a clear demonstration of failure of justice, and commonality of marks alone does not warrant transfer. Under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Parliament provided for the stay of suit proceedings pending rectification decisions, and the trial court retains full authority over factual evidence. Because passing-off claims survive independently of the register and depend on local witness testimony and regional sales records, the district judiciary remains the appropriate forum to evaluate commercial facts. This ruling prevents litigants from using High Court rectification filings as a procedural device to drag local defendants away from their territorial trial forums. Read more at: Rio Childrens Hospital v. Rajesh Jayaraj Case Analysis.

Copyrights

Eros Technologies Digital FZE v. Ayngaran International Films Private Limited (Madras High Court)

Eros Technologies Digital FZE, as the assignee of exclusive copyright in cinematographic works, instituted a commercial suit in C.S. (COMM DIV) No. 130 of 2026 before the Madras High Court. The plaintiff moved Original Application No. 454 of 2026 for an ad-interim injunction against the original assignors, Ayngaran International Films, for unauthorized commercial exploitation. The defendants resisted the suit by invoking an arbitration clause contained in the underlying assignment agreement, seeking a reference to arbitration.

The Madras High Court rejected the arbitration objection and held the commercial copyright infringement suit maintainable. The Court ruled that statutory claims for copyright infringement instituted under Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 remain within the jurisdiction of civil courts. When an assignor acts in derogation of transferred rights, the dispute constitutes an actionable infringement of statutory property rights enforceable against the world at large, going beyond a mere contractual breach. The statutory right to seek urgent interim injunctions cannot be defeated by a private arbitration clause. Read more at: Eros Technologies v. Ayngaran Case Analysis.

Screen Scene Media Entertainment Private Limited v. Dr. S. Venkatesh (Madras High Court)

Screen Scene Media Entertainment Private Limited secured an ad-interim injunction on June 25, 2026, restraining Dr. S. Venkatesh from interfering with the licensing and commercial exploitation of the Tamil cinematograph film Production No. 9/Karathey Babu. The defendant subsequently filed Application No. 3144 of 2026 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, seeking to vacate the injunction by challenging the plaintiff’s chain of title under Sections 14(d) and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

The Madras High Court dismissed the application and maintained the interim injunction. The Court held that an interlocutory injunction protecting time-sensitive cinematographic works will not be disturbed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC absent clear proof of altered circumstances or material suppression. The plaintiff’s documentary chain of title under Section 19 established a prima facie entitlement, and the balance of convenience favored preserving the status quo to safeguard the commercial value of the film pending final adjudication. Read more at: Screen Scene Media v. Venkatesh Case Analysis.

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Madras High Court)

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited instituted C.S. (COMM DIV) No. 102 of 2026 before the Madras High Court against BSNL and 32 other respondents, including internet service providers and cable operators. The plaintiff sought dynamic injunctions under Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, to restrain the unauthorized digital dissemination and online piracy of its cinematographic film SUPER DUPERR. When the matter came up for hearing, the plaintiff sought permission to withdraw the proceedings.

Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete dismissed the commercial suit and connected applications as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. The Court recorded the plaintiff’s formal endorsement under Order XXIII CPC, illustrating the procedural flexibility available to rights holders who utilize dynamic injunction suits to protect initial theatrical windows and voluntarily exit once commercial objectives are realized. Read more at: Zee Entertainment v. BSNL Case Analysis.

Patents

Conqueror Innovations Private Limited v. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited (Delhi High Court)

Conqueror Innovations Private Limited appealed against a Single Judge order refusing an interim injunction in FAO(OS) (COMM)-147/2025 before the Delhi High Court. The appellants asserted infringement of Indian Patent No. 244963 for a Communication Device Finder System against Xiaomi’s Find Device feature in smartphones and tablets. The appellants sought to enforce Element E2 (non-erasable security data re-install) and Element E3 (silent auto-answer mode). Xiaomi had marketed the devices in India since 2014, while the suit was filed in 2023, and the patent was set to expire within two months of the hearing.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, dismissed the appeal. Applying the All Elements rule of claim construction, the Court held that every essential feature of an independent claim must be present in the accused device. Xiaomi’s devices lacked the silent auto-answer mechanism and the specific auto-reinstall element, precluding a finding of infringement. In addition, the unexplained nine-year delay and the imminent expiry of the patent made interim injunctive relief disproportionate. The trial court’s order directing Xiaomi to file half-yearly accounts was affirmed as an adequate remedy to protect potential damage claims. Read more at: Conqueror Innovations v. Xiaomi Case Analysis.

Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil v. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (Bombay High Court)

Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil filed a commercial petition in COMMPL/12000/2026 before the Bombay High Court, challenging an order of the Deputy Controller of Patents that refused his patent application under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Patent Office rejected the application due to non-compliance with Section 7(2), which requires proof of the right to apply when the applicant is not the sole inventor. The invention was developed while the petitioner was associated with IIT Bombay, and parallel foreign applications in the USPTO had faced similar ownership objections.

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan dismissed the petition and affirmed the patent refusal. The Court held that submitting proof of right under Section 7(2) is a mandatory condition precedent to establish a valid chain of title. The Patent Office is an administrative authority and not an adjudicatory forum for resolving institutional employment disputes. Without a formal assignment or institutional waiver from IIT Bombay, the application remained incomplete, justifying refusal under Section 15 regardless of the invention’s technical merit. Read more at: Dr. Patil v. IIT Bombay Case Analysis.

M/s. Arunachalaa Enterprises v. M/s. R. Sukumar (Madras High Court)

Arunachalaa Enterprises filed Review Petition (IPD) No. 2 of 2026 before the Madras High Court to recall an order that transferred a patent infringement suit from a District Court to the High Court. The transfer was ordered so that the suit could be heard alongside an independent revocation petition filed by the respondent under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that under the proviso to Section 104, transfer is permissible only when a formal counterclaim for revocation is filed within the infringement suit itself.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed the review petition. The Court held that Section 64 confers an independent statutory right enabling a defendant to seek patent revocation either through a counterclaim or via an independent petition before the High Court. The proviso to Section 104 is an affirmative transfer mandate for counterclaims, not a negative restriction preventing the High Court from transferring suits where a parallel revocation petition is pending. Relying on Clause 13 of the Letters Patent Act and inherent powers to prevent conflicting decisions, the Court confirmed that centralized patent adjudication in the High Court serves the interests of justice. Read more at: Arunachalaa Enterprises v. R. Sukumar Case Analysis.

Sri Somnath Mondal v. Maitra Servicenter (Calcutta High Court)

Sri Somnath Mondal instituted a commercial suit in CS-COM/94/2026 before the Calcutta High Court, seeking specific performance of a commercial agreement alongside an interim injunction application. The Court initially granted leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Order II Rule 2 CPC. The primary defendants operated outside Calcutta, and the physical partnership assets were located outside the jurisdiction. The plaintiff attempted to anchor territorial jurisdiction in Calcutta based on an incidental social media publication.

Justice Aniruddha Roy revoked the leave granted under Clause 12 and ordered the return of the plaint. The Court held that while written plaint averments are accepted at initial filing, an application for an ad-interim injunction requires a searching inquiry into territorial jurisdiction, because establishing a prima facie case requires proving the court’s territorial competence. An incidental digital post cannot establish cause of action for a contract dispute centered elsewhere. Because territorial jurisdiction failed, companion leaves under Section 12A and Order II Rule 2 collapsed automatically. The Court directed the return of the plaint and refund of court fees for presentation before the proper forum. Read more at: Somnath Mondal v. Maitra Servicenter Case Analysis.

Other IP Developments

Shruti Haasan v. Mahalaxmi Arts and Craft Works (Bombay High Court)

Actor Shruti Haasan instituted Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 26117 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, seeking urgent protection of her personality and publicity rights. Moving Interim Application (L) No. 26123 of 2026, the plaintiff demonstrated that defendants were commercializing unauthorized merchandise, posters, and artificial intelligence content, including deepfake videos, manipulated photographs, and synthetic voice clones that mimicked her persona without authorization. The suit joined physical manufacturers alongside digital intermediaries and unidentified John Doe entities.

Justice Madhav J. Jamdar granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff’s name, voice, image, or likeness, and issued a John Doe order against unknown digital actors. Grounding personality rights in common law passing off, privacy under Article 21, and performers’ moral rights under Sections 38 and 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Court held that individual persona constitutes a proprietary interest. Freedom of expression does not permit commercial misappropriation through artificial intelligence fabrications. The Court directed digital platforms to expeditiously remove and disable infringing URLs upon receiving notification. Read more at: Shruti Haasan v. Mahalaxmi Arts Case Analysis.

Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. v. Yohan Tengra (Bombay High Court)

Serum Institute of India and its Chief Executive Officer Adar Poonawalla filed Interim Application No. 5853 of 2025 in Suit No. 558 of 2023 before the Bombay High Court, seeking mandatory takedown directions against X Corp alongside contempt action against anti-vaccine influencer Yohan Tengra. The plaintiffs had secured an ad-interim injunction in June 2023 restraining the defendants from publishing defamatory videos that disparaged the company’s vaccines and damaged executive goodwill. On the night the injunction was pronounced, the principal defendant uploaded a defiant video mocking the judicial order. While Google complied with takedown requests, X Corp refused to remove the content, contending that the earlier order was addressed solely to the individual creators and contained no operational direction requiring the platform to act. The plaintiffs sought mandatory removal of the video and algorithmic pre-moderation.

Justice Gauri Godse partially allowed the application, directing X Corp to immediately remove and disable access to the specific URL containing the defiant video. Interpreting Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 alongside the Shreya Singhal actual knowledge doctrine, the Court held that a binding court order establishing the unlawful character of specific material constitutes actual knowledge. When served with a valid judicial order and identifiable URLs, an intermediary loses its statutory safe harbour immunity and owes a mandatory duty to remove the content, regardless of whether the platform was explicitly commanded in the original decree. However, the Court rejected prayers for algorithmic pre-censorship and blanket account deactivation, as intermediaries cannot function as private adjudicators. The Court also issued show-cause notices under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC against the primary defendants for willful disobedience. Read more at: Serum Institute v Tengra Case Analysis.

Also Read: August 2026 Indian IP Law Digest | Its IP Time

References:

• I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Supreme Court of India, SLP(C) No. 6793/2026 (Diary No. 60138/2025), Order dated 21 September 2026.
• Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, Delhi High Court (Division Bench), FAO(OS) (COMM)-231/2026, 2026:DHC:7445-DB, Judgment dated 02 September 2026.
• Novartis AG & Anr. v. Novosys Life Sciences Private Limited & Anr., Delhi High Court (Intellectual Property Division), CS(COMM) 404/2026, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 128/2026 & C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 129/2026, 2026:DHC:8433, Decision dated 25 September 2026.
• Umendra Exports Private Limited v. Four Cubes Investments Ltd. & Ors., Delhi High Court (Division Bench), FAO (COMM) 96/2025 & CM APPL. 23361/2025, 2026:DHC:8384-DB, Judgment dated 28 September 2026.
• ITC Limited v. SMM Tobacco Private Limited & Ors., Calcutta High Court, IP-COM/10/2026, 2026:CHC-OS:388, Order dated 08 September 2026.
• Pravin Kumar v. ITC Limited & Ors., Calcutta High Court, TEMPAPO-IPD/6/2025, Order dated 18 September 2026.
• The South Point Education Society v. South Point School, Calcutta High Court, IP-COM/55/2025, Order dated 16 September 2026.
• Graviss Foods Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay High Court, COMMPL/10288/2026, Order dated 16 September 2026.
• Unilever Global IP Limited v. Yash Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., Bombay High Court, COMIPL/7770/2026, IA No. 1385/2026, Order dated 17 September 2026.
• Meridian Enterprises Private Limited v. Cascade India Pharmaceuticals & Ors., Bombay High Court (Commercial Division), Commercial IP Suit No. 600 of 2025, IA No. 6540 of 2025, Order dated 10 September 2026.
• Vikas Mandoth v. Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd. & Anr., Madras High Court, Application No. 446 of 2026 in C.S. (COMM DIV) No. 307 of 2025, Order dated 07 September 2026.
• Blossom Global Trust v. Augustine Educational and Charitable Trust, Madras High Court, Application No. 3544 of 2026 in C.S. No. 115 of 2024, Order dated 07 September 2026.
• Pradeep Cholayil v. Karnataka Soaps and Detergent, Madras High Court, C.S. No. 225 of 2018, Judgment dated 21 September 2026.
• Ashique Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Koyenco Soaps and Detergents, Madras High Court, C.S. No. 687 of 2017, Judgment dated 21 September 2026.
• Texmo Industries v. Gayatri Industries & Anr., Madras High Court, C.S. (COMM DIV) No. 89 of 2026, Order dated 21 September 2026.
• Mohammed Usman Sait v. Mohammed Saleem Sait, Madras High Court, Application No. 990 of 2026 in C.S. No. 138 of 2022, Order dated 21 September 2026.
• M. Ramesh v. S. Srinivasan & Ors., Madras High Court, Civil Revision Petition No. 3941 of 2026 & CMP No. 17257 of 2026, Order dated 24 September 2026.
• RPG Enterprises Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks & Anr., Madras High Court, (T)OP(TM).482/2023, Order dated 28 September 2026.
• Eros Technologies Digital FZE v. Ayngaran International Films Private Limited & Ors., Madras High Court, OA No. 454 of 2026 in C.S. (COMM DIV) No. 130 of 2026, Order dated 01 September 2026.
• Screen Scene Media Entertainment Private Limited v. Dr. S. Venkatesh, Madras High Court, Application No. 3144 of 2026 in C.S. (COMM DIV) No. 125 of 2026, Order dated 01 September 2026.
• Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & 32 Ors., Madras High Court, C.S. (COMM DIV) No. 102 of 2026, Order dated 09 September 2026.
• Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. v. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, Delhi High Court (Division Bench), FAO(OS) (COMM)-147/2025, 2026:DHC:7584-DB, Judgment dated 07 September 2026.
• Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil v. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Bombay High Court, COMMPL/12000/2026, Order dated 08 September 2026.
• M/s. Arunachalaa Enterprises v. M/s. R. Sukumar, Madras High Court, REV.PET(IPD).2/2026 in CMA(PT)/16/2023, Order dated 09 September 2026.
• Sri Somnath Mondal v. Maitra Servicenter & Ors., Calcutta High Court, CS-COM/94/2026, GA-COM/1/2026, 2026:CHC-OS:385, Judgment dated 10 September 2026.
• Shruti Haasan v. Mahalaxmi Arts and Craft Works & Ors., Bombay High Court, Interim Application (L) No. 26123 of 2026 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 26117 of 2026, Order dated 03 September 2026.