# Its IP Time

> Where IP Law Makes Sense


## Posts

- [Jyothy Labs vs. Dabur India: Bombay HC Rules on Trade Dress](https://www.itsiptime.com/jyothy-labs-dabur-trade-dress-infringement/): The Bombay High Court has clarified that trade dress protection extends beyond individual packaging elements to the overall visual impression created for the average consumer. In Jyothy Labs v. Dabur, the Court ruled that strategic emulation of a competitor's trade dress constitutes passing off, even if brand names differ. By applying the global test for similarity under the Trade Marks Act 1999, the judiciary protects established market goodwill against deceptive mimicry. This decision emphasizes that trade dress audits are essential for companies to avoid liability and maintain brand integrity in the competitive FMCG sector.
- [Alder Biochem vs. Zydus: Delhi HC Cancels Deceptively Similar Mark](https://www.itsiptime.com/alder-biochem-zydus-trademark-infringement/): The Delhi High Court recently reaffirmed that adding a prefix to a registered trademark does not shield a defendant from infringement claims in the pharmaceutical sector. In Alder Biochem v. Zydus, the Court held that BIOCHEM is the essential identifier of the plaintiffs' mark, rendering ALDER BIOCHEM deceptively similar. This ruling underscores that under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act 1999, prior usage and phonetic similarity carry decisive weight. Courts will strictly protect established brands to prevent consumer confusion, regardless of third-party usage arguments, prioritizing public health and commercial goodwill.
- [Copyright Law in India: Section 13 Originality and Fair Dealing](https://www.itsiptime.com/copyright-law-india-section-13-originality/): Copyright law in India protects the expression of ideas rather than ideas themselves, requiring a modicum of creativity to meet the statutory threshold for originality under Section 13. As established by Supreme Court precedent, originality is determined by the author's skill and labour, distinct from the mere sweat of the brow. Fair dealing provisions under Section 52 provide necessary exceptions for research and academic use, provided they do not infringe upon the owner's commercial rights. Understanding these principles is essential for balancing creator incentives with public access in the digital landscape.
- [Madras HC Limits Section 17 Rights: FreeElective v. Matrimony.com](https://www.itsiptime.com/freeelective-matrimony-trademark-section-17/): The Madras High Court has restricted the scope of protection for device marks, ruling that registration of a composite mark does not grant exclusive rights to its individual constituent words. In FreeElective v. Matrimony.com, the court relied on Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 to clarify that infringement actions cannot be leveraged against parts of a device mark unless separately registered. This judgment reinforces that Indian law distinguishes strictly between device and word marks, limiting statutory exclusivity to the trademark taken as a whole.
- [Madras HC Denies Injunction: Empee Distilleries v. Universal Spirits](https://www.itsiptime.com/empee-distilleries-trademark-infringement-ruling/): The Madras High Court has clarified that an injunction against alleged trademark infringement requires tangible evidence of consumer confusion, particularly in the spirits industry. In Empee Distilleries v. Universal Spirits, the court applied the dominant feature and anti-dissection rules, denying interim relief where branding differences were sufficient to preclude market deception. This ruling emphasizes that speculative claims regarding brand dilution are insufficient; plaintiffs must demonstrate a high threshold of actual or likely confusion to warrant judicial intervention under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act 1999.
- [SC Strengthens Trade Dress Protection in Dharampal Premchand Ruling](https://www.itsiptime.com/shabu-kn-achary-dharampal-premchand-trademark-ruling/): The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that well-known trademarks and unique trade dress receive robust protection against deceptive imitation. In Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand, the Court confirmed that visual identity holds equal legal weight to registered word marks under the Trade Marks Act 1999. By invoking Section 11(6), the judgment mandates that courts must prioritize the prevention of consumer confusion. This ruling clarifies that established brand equity, supported by consistent promotional evidence, justifies awarding significant damages for trademark and copyright infringement.
- [Esteve Pharmaceuticals v. Controller: Delhi HC Reviews Patent Refusal](https://www.itsiptime.com/esteve-pharmaceuticals-controller-patent-refusal/): The Delhi High Court has reinforced that pharmaceutical patent refusals must demonstrate clear, reasoned justifications regarding inventive step and efficacy. In the matter of Esteve Pharmaceuticals, the court clarified that the Controller must engage substantively with an applicant's technical submissions rather than issuing generic statutory rejections. Establishing a departure from prior art is essential for compliance with Section 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act 1970. This ruling mandates rigorous scientific evidence to overcome obviousness objections and secure patentability for new forms of known substances.
- [Emami v. Dabur: Delhi HC Grants Injunction on Deceptive Trade Dress](https://www.itsiptime.com/emami-v-dabur-trade-dress-injunction/): The Delhi High Court has affirmed that deceptive trade dress in FMCG packaging warrants an immediate injunction to prevent consumer confusion. In Emami v. Dabur, the court prioritized the protection of established brand identity over the operational costs of rebranding, ruling that irreparable injury to a plaintiff’s market equity outweighs the defendant's transition burden. This decision underscores that proving deceptive similarity is the primary threshold for securing judicial intervention under the Trade Marks Act 1999, specifically regarding the balance of convenience in look-alike product litigation.
- [K. Narayanan v. S. Murali: Jurisdiction in Passing-Off](https://www.itsiptime.com/k-narayanan-v-s-murali-passing-off-jurisdiction-analysis/): Territorial jurisdiction in a passing-off suit cannot be established by the mere filing of a trademark application at a specific Registry office. Jurisdiction must be rooted in the geographical location of trade, sales, or the focal point of consumer deception, as defined by the Code of Civil Procedure. A pending application confers no statutory rights and does not constitute a cause of action, as passing off protects goodwill gained through actual market activity. Litigants must differentiate between procedural registry filings and the substantive evidence required to sustain an IP infringement claim.
- [Trademark Clearance Search Strategies for Indian Startups](https://www.itsiptime.com/trademark-clearance-search-india-practitioners-guide/): A comprehensive trademark clearance search is the primary defense against future IP litigation and costly rebrands for Indian startups. By evaluating phonetic, visual, and conceptual similarity alongside consumer sophistication levels, practitioners can identify high-risk marks before filing. Effective searches must extend beyond the CGPDTM database to identify well-known marks and potential oppositions. This strategic assessment, grounded in the Trade Marks Act, provides the necessary predictive clarity to determine whether a brand name is truly registrable or poses a high risk of confusion in the marketplace.
- [Delhi HC Cancels S.S. WHITE Trademark Over Bad Faith Adoption](https://www.itsiptime.com/delhi-hc-rules-on-bad-faith-trademark-registration-ss-white/): The Delhi High Court's 2026 ruling in S.S. White Burs Inc. confirms that bad faith trademark registration under Section 11(10)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, requires proof of dishonest adoption and suppression of material facts. This landmark decision establishes that Rule 33 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, imposes a mandatory duty on the Registrar to cite prior marks. By rejecting defences of honest concurrent use and trans-border reputation based on derivative goodwill, the court reinforces strict standards of candour for applicants and provides a clear strategy for rectification proceedings.
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: August 2–8, 2026](https://www.itsiptime.com/indian-ip-law-digest-august-2-8-2026/): From the Delhi HC's new seven-step test for Section 3(m) patent objections to the Supreme Court's ruling on farmers' rights, stay updated on the week's key IP rulings.
- [Hospitality Trademark Protection: Delhi HC Restrains Real Estate](https://www.itsiptime.com/anantara-ruling-hospitality-trademark-protection-india/): Global hospitality brands can successfully restrain domestic real estate developers by asserting transborder reputation and the doctrine of allied services under Indian trademark law. The Delhi High Court has confirmed that luxury brands need not possess a vast physical presence in India to secure protection, provided they demonstrate international goodwill and a likelihood of confusion among consumers. This ruling reinforces that real estate projects using hospitality-linked names are subject to the same source-identifying scrutiny as direct competitors, particularly when the developer engages in bad-faith registration attempts.
- [Delhi High Court Rebukes Plaintiff: Clean Hands Mandatory in IP](https://www.itsiptime.com/delhi-hc-suppression-trademark-infringement/): A plea of suppression fails in Indian trademark litigation when the alleged withheld facts were already before the court or would not have altered the outcome of the injunction. As established by the Delhi High Court, a party cannot use the suppression doctrine to relitigate findings that attained finality due to their own failure to appeal earlier administrative decisions. Under the Trade Marks Act 1999, parties seeking equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands; however, suppression claims are strictly limited to material facts that genuinely influence the court's judicial discretion.
- [Criminal Copyright Enforcement: Madras HC on Infringement Trials](https://www.itsiptime.com/criminal-copyright-enforcement-madras-high-court-ruling/): Criminal copyright enforcement in India does not require proof of the complainant's personal ownership if the alleged offence is properly disclosed under the Copyright Act 1957. The Madras High Court has affirmed that locus standi is generally not a bar to criminal proceedings, and that questions of mens rea or licensing are matters for trial rather than pre-trial quashing petitions. By applying the test of substantial similarity, courts prioritize protecting creative expression over technical objections, supporting the efficacy of specialised IP enforcement units in handling counterfeit trade dress cases.
- [Defining Section 3(m) Patentability: Delhi HC's New 7-Step Test](https://www.itsiptime.com/delhi-hc-sets-landmark-7-step-test-for-section-3m-patentability/): The Delhi High Court has established a definitive seven-step test to evaluate Section 3(m) patent objections, clarifying the exclusion of mental acts and abstract methods. This framework ensures that examiners distinguish between patentable technical solutions and non-patentable mere schemes or rules under the Indian Patents Act. By incorporating principles from European Patent Office jurisprudence, the Court provides a structured methodology for assessing whether claimed innovations involve physical means integral to performance. This development reduces uncertainty for patent applicants and provides a consistent standard for navigating the exclusion of mental acts.
- [Trademark Renewal Disputes: Delhi HC Clarifies Parties](https://www.itsiptime.com/delhi-hc-rules-on-trademark-renewal-and-impleadment-limits/): The Delhi High Court has ruled that trademark renewal disputes remain strictly bilateral matters between the registrant and the Registry, barring third parties from using impleadment to interfere. In Cipla v. Union of India, the court clarified that renewal does not adjudicate ownership or validity, and therefore cannot be challenged via writ petition by competitors. Any party aggrieved by a mark's continued existence must instead follow the statutory route of a rectification application under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act 1999, ensuring judicial efficiency and the finality of administrative renewals.
- [TVS Motor v. Maurya: Delhi HC Curbs Groundless IP Threats](https://www.itsiptime.com/tvs-motor-v-maurya-curbing-groundless-copyright-threats/): Groundless threats of copyright infringement are not legally sustainable when the claimant fails to identify specific expression rather than just underlying ideas. The Delhi High Court ruling in TVS Motor v. Ram Chandra Maurya affirms that repeatedly issuing notices for rejected claims qualifies as harassment, not litigation. To survive a Section 60 Copyright Act challenge, a notice must prove actual copying of expression. This judgment serves as a protective benchmark for Indian manufacturers facing persistent, bad-faith copyright threats regarding mechanical designs or industrial processes that do not infringe protected literary works.
- [Dynamic Anti-Piracy Blocking Orders in Madras High Court](https://www.itsiptime.com/madras-high-court-ad-interim-injunctions-zee-entertainment-case/): Dynamic anti-piracy injunctions have become an essential procedural tool for protecting Indian cinema revenue during the critical opening weeks of a film's release. By allowing plaintiffs to notify ISPs of newly discovered mirror sites without recurring court appearances, the Madras High Court in Zee Entertainment v. BSNL demonstrates how judicial intervention addresses the rapid proliferation of pirate links. These quia timet orders, supported by CBFC certification and indemnity conditions, ensure that copyright holders can act effectively against digital infringement while maintaining procedural fairness for all internet service providers involved.
- [Delhi HC Directs Pro Tem Security in InterDigital vs Transsion](https://www.itsiptime.com/delhi-high-court-sep-pro-tem-security-transsion/): The Delhi High Court's recent pro tem security order in InterDigital v. Transsion underscores India's evolving role in Standard Essential Patent (SEP) enforcement. By clarifying that infringement need not be proven at the pro tem stage, the court has lowered the barrier for SEP holders to secure financial deposits. The ruling affirms that neither an implementer's robust financial health nor the absence of third-party licence data prevents the court from ordering security. This decision cements the 'one-fifth of counter-offer' formula as a standard, reinforcing India as a critical venue for global SEP litigation.
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: July 26 to August 1, 2026](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-indian-ip-law-digest-july-26-august-1-2026/): This digest covers key Indian IP judgments from July 26 to August 1, 2026, including developments in trademark renewal disputes, personality rights, and GI exports.
- [Indian IP Law Roundup July 2026 - AI Training, Trademarks, and Patents](https://www.itsiptime.com/indian-ip-law-roundup-july-2026/): This comprehensive roundup covers critical Indian IP law developments in July 2026, including landmark AI copyright rulings, trademark disputes, and patent updates.
- [ZARA vs ZORA: Delhi HC Clarifies Anti-Dissection Rule for Trademarks](https://www.itsiptime.com/delhi-high-court-trademark-anti-dissection-rules/): In Industria De Diseno Textil v. Registrar, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the anti-dissection rule for trademark comparison, explicitly rejecting the Registrar's practice of isolating syllables. The judgment confirms that phonetic and visual similarity must be assessed through the overall impression of the mark. Crucially, it clarifies that well-known trademark status under Section 11(2) requires substantive evidence rather than a prior formal declaration. This establishes a high bar for applicants seeking registration of marks phonetically similar to established brands, regardless of the goods or services involved.
- [Keshan Infotech vs Oliver Brandt: AI Training and Copyright Law](https://www.itsiptime.com/keshan-infotech-madras-high-court-ai-training-injunction/): The conflict between the Madras High Court in Keshan Infotech and the Delhi High Court in ANI Media reveals a judicial divide on AI training copyright. While ANI suggests fair dealing under Section 52 for LLM development, Keshan Infotech granted an interim injunction against scraping for AI training. This divergence highlights that courts weigh procedural posture and specific evidence of misappropriation—such as logo retention—differently. For Indian litigants, the current landscape necessitates a fact-specific approach, as the definitive legal framework for AI data usage remains under active judicial development.
- [Delhi HC Sets Pharma Patent Standards on Section 3(d) and 3(i)](https://www.itsiptime.com/delhi-hc-sets-standards-for-pharmaceutical-patent-refusals/): The Delhi High Court has clarified that a patent refusal must contain granular reasoning rather than generic objections. In Array Biopharma v. Deputy Controller, the court ruled that a rejection under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 requires a specific, named prior art compound, while Section 3(i) exclusions cannot be invoked against product claims based on dosing descriptions in the specification. This decision provides pharmaceutical patent applicants with a vital legal standard to challenge arbitrary Controller orders, ensuring that the Patent Office adheres to established procedural rigour when evaluating inventive step and therapeutic exceptions.
- [Columbia Pictures vs Ghost Busters: Delhi HC on Well-Known Marks](https://www.itsiptime.com/delhi-hc-rule-124-well-known-trademark-protection/): The Delhi High Court clarified in Columbia Pictures v. Registrar of Trade Marks that a formal well-known trademark declaration under Rule 124 is not a prerequisite for invoking Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The judgment confirms that oppositions can rely on substantive reputation evidence to prevent registration of similar marks on dissimilar goods. By distinguishing the Nandhini Deluxe principle, the court safeguards coined, arbitrary marks from dilution. This ruling empowers brand owners to protect their reputation globally by demonstrating well-known status directly during standard opposition proceedings.
- [AI Training is Fair Dealing: Delhi HC on ANI v. OpenAI](https://www.itsiptime.com/ani-media-v-open-ai-opco-llc-analysis-of-the-delhi-high-court-order/): The Delhi High Court's ruling in ANI v. OpenAI clarifies that training Large Language Models (LLMs) on publicly available data qualifies as 'fair dealing' under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court rejected an interim injunction, holding that such training is transformative, socially beneficial, and does not constitute a market substitute for news content. Crucially, it established that 'research' exceptions are not limited to non-commercial contexts or human actors. This decision provides significant legal breathing room for AI development in India while maintaining existing protections against literal reproduction.
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: July 19 to July 25](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-indian-ip-law-digest-july-19-to-july-25/): Stay updated with the latest Indian Intellectual Property developments from July 19 to July 25, 2026. This week’s digest covers critical rulings, including the Delhi High Court’s landmark dismissal of the interim injunction in ANI Media v. OpenAI, emphasizing the research exception in AI training. We also review significant decisions in trademark law regarding the 'OFFER' mark, copyright groundless threats involving TVS Motor, and dynamic injunctions against piracy. Additionally, catch up on GI tag updates from Haryana and Jharkhand and significant international developments involving the Digital Services Act and Anthropic.
- [New Balance vs. NUBEAT: Delhi HC on Passing Off and N-Marks](https://www.itsiptime.com/new-balance-vs-nubeat-delhi-hc-trademark-ruling/): The Delhi High Court's ruling in New Balance vs. NUBEAT reinforces that passing off remains a potent common law remedy even when parties hold conflicting trademark registrations. By applying the initial interest confusion doctrine, the court underscored that well-known marks are protected against deceptive variants that mimic a brand's visual identity, regardless of the defendant’s attempt to claim commonality in the trade. This decision clarifies that registration is not a shield against passing off claims when prior use and extensive goodwill establish a clear source identifier that third-party labels unfairly exploit.
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: July 12-18, 2026](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-indian-ip-law-digest-july-12-to-july-18-2026/): This week's IP digest covers critical developments in Indian trademark and copyright law. Highlights include the Delhi High Court's stance on amending plaints post-registration, the interplay between competing registered trademarks, and the latest GI tag updates from Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh. We also analyze international developments, including the Apple-OpenAI trade secret dispute and important US patent rulings. Stay informed on the latest jurisprudence from the Delhi and Bombay High Courts, alongside significant updates on GI registrations and global intellectual property trends impacting the Indian market throughout the month of July.
- [Imagine Marketing v. Exotic Mile: Delhi HC Denies Repeat Injunction](https://www.itsiptime.com/delhi-hc-rejects-second-boat-vs-boult-injunction-bid/): A second interim injunction application cannot be filed to revisit relief previously declined by the court absent proof of material changed circumstances or undue hardship. The Delhi High Court in Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd v Exotic Mile affirmed that plaintiffs cannot relitigate settled interlocutory issues simply by citing stray remarks from later appellate orders. This ruling reinforces the doctrine against perpetual interim litigation in Indian trademark law, ensuring judicial finality and protecting defendants from abuse of process under the Civil Procedure Code and the Trade Marks Act 1999.
- [Loreal v. Vekariya: Amending Passing Off to Infringement](https://www.itsiptime.com/delhi-hc-allows-trademark-suit-amendment-post-registration/): A plaintiff may amend a passing off suit to include a trademark infringement claim if they obtain registration during the pendency of litigation. Indian courts apply the 'real controversy test' to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings, acknowledging that the underlying facts of both claims remain identical. Registration obtained post-institution does not constitute a completely new cause of action that precludes amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. This procedural flexibility serves the ends of justice, ensuring that rights holders can effectively enforce their intellectual property without restarting litigation.
- [Zippy vs. Veer Ji: Protecting Factory Footage from Misuse](https://www.itsiptime.com/what-is-the-delhi-hc-passing-off-order-in-zippy-vs-veer-ji-case/): Passing off in the food industry frequently involves the unauthorized use of proprietary manufacturing footage to misrepresent the quality and source of food products. When a brand showcases a supplier’s factory as its own, it commits actionable misrepresentation that misleads consumers and violates the supplier's commercial goodwill. As demonstrated in the Zippy vs. Veer Ji dispute, courts are increasingly granting urgent injunctions to protect trade secrets and brand reputation, holding platforms accountable for the rapid removal of deceptive marketing content that manufactures false trust among the public.
- [Crocs v Bata: Delhi HC Awards Rs 24 Lakhs in Litigation Costs](https://www.itsiptime.com/crocs-inc-usa-v-bata-india-delhi-hc-costs-order/): The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Crocs v. Bata reinforces that actual litigation costs in commercial disputes must reflect real expenses incurred, effectively deterring frivolous IP litigation. By awarding Rs. 24.63 lakh in costs under Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Commercial Courts Act, the Court has signaled that losing parties cannot expect token penalties. This decision shifts the economic burden of protracted design battles, compelling litigants to verify the novelty and registrability of their IP under the Designs Act 2000 before initiating enforcement proceedings.
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: July 5–11, 2026](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-indian-ip-law-digest-july-5-to-july-11-2026/): The second week of July 2026 saw significant activity across Indian courts. Key rulings include the Delhi High Court's rejection of bioavailability as a basis for therapeutic efficacy in patent law and the Bombay High Court's crackdown on unsupported 'common general knowledge' claims by the Patent Office. We also cover the latest developments in trademark disputes, including the boAt v. BOULT matter and new injunctions against AI-driven copyright scraping. Stay updated on these essential legal developments and international IP cases, including the latest in the AstraZeneca and OpenAI litigations.
- [Bombay HC: Patent Rejections Must Substantiate Common Knowledge](https://www.itsiptime.com/deepak-nitrite-v-controller-of-patents-case-bombay-hc/): The Bombay High Court has mandated that patent refusals must be substantiated by specific references to common general knowledge, rejecting the practice of using it as a generic assertion. In Deepak Nitrite Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents, the court held that a reasoned order under the Patents Act 1970 must identify the source, date, and relevance of evidence used to deny inventive steps. Controllers are required to assess claims as an integrated whole rather than dissecting individual steps, ensuring applicants receive a fair and transparent examination of their patent applications.
- [Bombay HC Rules: Permissive Use Ends Trademark Ownership Claims](https://www.itsiptime.com/bombay-hc-in-john-cockerill-hamon-v-hamon-cooling-trademark/): Corporate restructurings often leave subsidiaries holding legacy brand names that belong to the parent entity. When permissive use expires, the subsidiary must cease all branding activity associated with the trademark. As affirmed by the Bombay High Court, goodwill generated under a licensed mark exclusively accrues to the registered proprietor. Claiming independent prior use under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act is legally inconsistent if the party has already admitted to using the mark with the owner's permission, leading to an inevitable injunction.
- [Landmark Crafts v Shalini Garg: HP Trademark Infringement Ruling](https://www.itsiptime.com/landmark-crafts-wins-interim-hp-trademark-injunction/): Justice Jyoti Singh’s order in Landmark Crafts v. Shalini Garg confirms that appending certification marks like ISI to a registered trademark cannot create distinctiveness or evade infringement claims. By granting an ex parte ad interim injunction, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that courts assess the overall impression of a mark, focusing on its dominant features. This case provides a clear roadmap for practitioners on leveraging Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act to skip pre-institution mediation when a defendant's conduct demonstrates clear urgency and bad faith.
- [Delhi HC: Deuterated Compounds Fail Patent Efficacy Test](https://www.itsiptime.com/delhi-hc-rejects-patent-in-intra-cellular-therapies-case/): The Delhi High Court's decision in Intra-Cellular Therapies reaffirms that pharmaceutical patents for deuterated compounds must meet strict novelty and efficacy standards. Specifically, demonstrating improved pharmacokinetics, such as higher bioavailability, does not satisfy the 'enhanced therapeutic efficacy' threshold required by Section 3(d) of the Patents Act 1970. The court clarified that coverage in a broad genus patent anticipates species claims, limiting the ability of originators to 'serial parent' drug molecules. Patent applicants must provide clinical evidence of improved patient outcomes to overcome Section 3(d) rejections in the Indian Patent Office.
- [Atyati v. Cognizant: Bombay HC on Reverse Passing Off and Logos](https://www.itsiptime.com/bombay-hc-copyright-ruling-in-atyati-v-cognizant/): Establishing copyright infringement requires proving a reasonable opportunity of access, not merely a theoretical possibility. The Bombay High Court ruled that large multinational corporations cannot be assumed to have copied a logo based on workforce size, emphasizing that contemporaneous evidence of independent creation—such as design briefs, time logs, and market surveys—is essential for defense. Furthermore, while the Court acknowledged reverse passing off as a valid claim under Section 27(2), it maintained that such a claim fails if the senior user lacks distinct, standalone goodwill in the logo itself.
- [Anil Kapoor to AI Deepfakes: Personality Rights in India](https://www.itsiptime.com/what-are-personality-rights-in-india-explained/): Indian personality rights have evolved from a constitutional interpretation of Article 21 into a robust, judge-made property framework. Courts now routinely grant John Doe and dynamic injunctions to protect celebrities, medical professionals, and content creators against AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorised commercial use. By synthesizing Copyright Act performer rights with trademark passing-off principles, the Delhi High Court has bridged legislative gaps, offering urgent relief against digital impersonation. This framework serves as a critical shield for protecting reputation, dignity, and commercial goodwill in the rapidly expanding digital landscape.
- [Beer vs. Whisky: Delhi HC on Allied and Cognate Goods](https://www.itsiptime.com/allied-and-cognate-goods-in-indian-trademark-infringement-law/): Allied and cognate goods represent a vital doctrine in Indian trademark law, enabling protection for marks across different Nice Classes where a trade connection, common consumer base, or complementary end-use exists. Courts determine infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 by assessing commercial reality rather than administrative class boundaries. Decisions such as Devans Modern Breweries establish that even dissimilar products like beer and whisky can be considered cognate if documented business practices and distinct brand reputations demonstrate a likelihood of confusion, rendering the anti-dissection rule a key tool for protecting composite marks.
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: June 28 - July 4, 2026](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-ip-law-digest-june-28-july-4-2026/): Our latest IP law digest covers significant Indian and global developments. Highlights include the Delhi High Court's dynamic injunctions against rogue streaming websites and landmark rulings on SEP security deposits in the InterDigital v. Transsion litigation. We delve into personality rights regarding deepfakes, arbitration clauses in franchise agreements, and international disputes like the Nike-7-Eleven trademark clash. Additionally, learn about the Trademark Registry's upgraded search portal, new patent agent exam registration details, and Shopify’s trade secret settlement. Stay ahead with essential summaries of high-stakes litigation and administrative updates shaping the modern intellectual property landscape.
- [Indian Patent Law Guide: Filing and Rights Analysis 2026](https://www.itsiptime.com/indian-patent-law-faqs-filing-costs-rights/): Indian patent law under the Patents Act 1970 offers a rigorous framework for protecting functional innovation through novelty, inventive steps, and industrial application. Following the 2024 Amendments, inventors and startups must navigate updated filing, examination, and renewal procedures to secure 20-year exclusive rights. Whether you are filing an application or enforcing a patent through the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court, strategic compliance is mandatory. This guide clarifies the distinctions between patentability, provisional specifications, and the statutory obligations of patentees in India.
- [Trademark Renewal 2026: Mandatory RG-3 Notices and TM-R Deadlines](https://www.itsiptime.com/how-to-renew-a-trademark-in-india-form-tm-r-timeline-fee/): Trademark registration in India requires renewal every ten years from the date of the original application, not the registration certificate date. Failure to file Form TM-R within the statutory grace period risks permanent removal, though the Registrar must mandatorily issue an RG-3 notice before cancellation. Under the Trade Marks Act 1999, restoration is discretionary after the six-month grace period but before the twelve-month limit. Maintaining an updated address for service with the CGPDTM is critical to ensuring receipt of renewal reminders and preventing accidental loss of rights.
- [Mastering the Trademark Objection Reply: A Strategic Legal Guide](https://www.itsiptime.com/how-to-respond-to-a-trademark-examination-objection-in-india/): A trademark examination report under the Trade Marks Act 1999 is not a final refusal, but an invitation to justify registration. To overcome Section 9 absolute grounds or Section 11 relative grounds, applicants must submit a targeted, evidence-based reply within one month of the notice. Success hinges on demonstrating inherent distinctiveness or proving acquired secondary meaning through documented sales, advertising data, and market recognition. Failure to engage with the examiner's specific concerns or missing strict deadlines leads to abandonment, necessitating a precise, legally grounded submission to secure your brand rights.
- [Indian IP Law Roundup: June 2026 Key Judgments](https://www.itsiptime.com/ip-law-june-2026-monthly-indian-ipr-roundup-itsiptime/): June 2026 was a landmark month for Indian Intellectual Property law, marked by significant rulings from the Delhi High Court and beyond. From expanded liability for advertising platforms in keyword bidding cases to the formal recognition of PPL India as a copyright society, the developments are far-reaching. We explore crucial updates in trademark, patent, copyright, and geographical indication laws. This digest breaks down essential case law, including landmark decisions on personality rights and AI, helping practitioners stay updated with the rapidly evolving Indian legal landscape across all key IP sectors.
- [Delhi HC Cancels SHAKTI Mark for Lack of Genuine Use](https://www.itsiptime.com/sakthi-vs-shakti-trademark-case-delhi-high-court-2026/): Analysis of Kisan Shakti: Trademark registration for a composite mark does not grant automatic exclusivity over a word buried within it unless that...
- [Section 9 Trademarks: Absolute Grounds for Refusal Explained](https://www.itsiptime.com/what-is-section-9-of-trade-marks-act-explained/): Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 mandates that a mark must possess inherent distinctiveness to be registrable. Objections under Section 9(1)(a) for non-distinctiveness, Section 9(1)(b) for descriptiveness, and Section 9(1)(c) for customary trade usage pose significant hurdles that cannot be ignored. However, the proviso to Section 9(1) offers a critical path to registration if applicants can prove acquired distinctiveness through extensive evidence of use prior to the filing date. Distinguishing between absolute and relative grounds is essential for crafting a successful response to examination reports.
- [Weekly IP Law Digest: June 21-27, 2026](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-ip-law-digest-june-21-27-2026/): This week's IP digest covers crucial Indian judicial developments, including the Delhi High Court's ruling on the Godfather trademark case, confirming that registered marks remain enforceable despite non-use. We explore critical patent insights from Shaafi Naturcure, where post-filing evidence was rejected, and Fraunhofer’s failed biomass patent. The digest also reviews high-stakes copyright battles, trademark rectification petitions involving 'Shakti', and the prestigious induction of Justice Prathiba M. Singh into the International IP Hall of Fame. Additionally, we analyze global IP trends, including US pharmaceutical patent disputes and CJEU platform liability rulings concerning algorithmic content curation.
- [NBA Approval Does Not Guarantee Patentability: Delhi HC Ruling](https://www.itsiptime.com/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-asst-controller-of-patents-delhi-hc/): National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) approval provides no legal nexus to patentability under the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court in Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs confirmed that compliance with the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 does not satisfy the requirements for inventive step or Section 3(p) traditional knowledge exclusions. Patent applicants in the herbal medicine sector must establish synergy within the complete specification; post-filing affidavits cannot compensate for inherent disclosure gaps. Demonstrable technical efficacy remains the bedrock for valid patent protection in India.
- [Devans Modern Breweries v. Cartel Bros: Delhi HC Cancels Whisky Mark](https://www.itsiptime.com/delhi-hc-bars-cartel-bros-from-using-godfather-trademark/): Analysis of Magazine Cover: A registered trademark proprietor maintains an exclusive, enforceable right under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 even...
- [Section 57 Trademark Act: Grounds and Rectification Procedure in India](https://www.itsiptime.com/full-guide-to-trademark-rectification-under-section-57/): Comprehensive analysis of Section 57 Trademark Act: Learn the statutory grounds for rectification of trademark, procedural thresholds post-IPAB abolition, and the step-by-step rectification of trademark procedure before High Courts under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- [Can Registry Orders Ignore Replies? Delhi HC on Natural Justice](https://www.itsiptime.com/purpos-planet-v-registrar-delhi-hc-big-india-trademark/): The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the Trade Marks Registry must pass reasoned, speaking orders that substantively engage with an applicant's arguments. Failing to address specific submissions in an examination reply violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the refusal order legally untenable. Registrars must conduct a holistic assessment of a mark as a whole, rather than dissecting it, and evaluate distinctiveness specifically in relation to the goods applied for. This precedent mandates that the Registry move beyond boilerplate objections to provide transparent, reviewable justifications for all trademark registration denials.
- [DRS Logistics v. Google: Delhi HC Clarifies Platform Liability](https://www.itsiptime.com/drs-logistics-v-google-trademark-contempt-dismissed/): A trademark owner cannot hold an advertising platform in contempt for failing to proactively monitor third-party ads unless a court order explicitly mandates such surveillance. While platforms must adhere to their stated policies regarding trademark protection, the Delhi High Court clarifies that in India, these obligations are complaint-driven rather than automated. Litigants must ensure that any settlement or judicial undertaking is translated into an express operative direction within the final order, as contempt jurisdiction is strictly limited to the breach of explicit judicial mandates, not merely private policy commitments.
- [Blue Cross v. Alto: Bombay HC Slaps 10 Lakhs on Infringers](https://www.itsiptime.com/blue-cross-wins-meftal-spas-trademark-battle-in-bombay-hc/): Pharmaceutical brand owners can effectively protect their market position by coupling trademark registrations with copyright protection for packaging artwork. In cases of blatant imitation, Indian courts prioritize the 'average consumer' test, finding deceptive similarity where there is phonetic and visual overlap. Defendants who fail to contest proceedings reinforce the presumption of dishonesty. Under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, IP owners should proactively lead evidence on actual damages to move beyond nominal costs, ensuring their long-term investment in trade dress and brand identity is fully judicially recognized.
- [Microtek v. Okaya: Delhi HC Rebukes Trademark Disparagement](https://www.itsiptime.com/microtek-v-okaya-delhi-hc-trademark-case-on-fake-whatsapp-ads/): Comparative advertising crosses the threshold into disparagement and trade libel when it relies on fabricated factual claims, such as falsifying court-ordered seizures or misrepresenting a competitor's legal status. Under the Trade Marks Act 1999, Sections 29(8) and 30(1) permit honest comparisons but withdraw safe harbor protections for campaigns that denigrate a rival's reputation through verifiable lies. The Delhi High Court’s swift intervention underscores that digital distribution of false narratives—including via WhatsApp and social media—subjects dealers and employees to immediate injunctive relief and potential liability for trade libel.
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: June 15-20, 2026](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-ip-law-digest-june-15-20-2026-its-ip-time/): Analysis of Artists Style Trade Dress Lanham Act: This week's IP law digest covers critical developments in Indian jurisprudence. The Bombay High Court...
- [Konaflex v. Koanaflex: Delhi HC Cancels Trademark Due to Confusion](https://www.itsiptime.com/konaflex-v-koanaflex-delhi-hc-one-letter-trademark-injunction/): Trademark infringement in India does not require identity; phonetic and visual similarity, especially in oral trade, creates deceptive similarity. The Delhi High Court confirmed that minor variations, such as inserting a single letter, fail to distinguish coined marks when the underlying trade context is prone to oral confusion. In pharmaceutical and industrial sectors where ordering occurs via verbal communication, courts apply the test of the ordinary, hurried purchaser. Trademark protection for coined marks remains robust, as these rely entirely on sound and shape to anchor consumer brand memory.
- [Bombay HC: Patent Remand Cannot Authorise Fresh Re-examination](https://www.itsiptime.com/qualyst-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-bombay-hc-limits-remand-powers/): A court-ordered remand to the Indian Patent Office for a fresh hearing does not grant the Controller a license to conduct a de novo examination or introduce new prior art. The Bombay High Court has ruled that unless explicitly authorized, a remand triggered by natural justice violations restricts the Controller to clarifying existing objections on the record. This ensures procedural fairness under the Patents Act, preventing the Patent Office from using a limited remand as a mechanism to relitigate an application beyond its original scope.
- [Zee vs. Libas: Instagram Music and Commercial Copyright Risks](https://www.itsiptime.com/instagram-music-copyright-case-zee-v-libas/): Using the Instagram music library for brand promotional content constitutes unauthorized commercial exploitation of sound recordings, violating the owner's exclusive rights under the Copyright Act 1957. While platforms provide technical access to music, this does not grant a synchronization license for commercial advertising or brand marketing. Recent judicial trends, including the Delhi High Court's stance in Zee vs. Libas, confirm that fair dealing exceptions are inapplicable to commercial activities, necessitating that brands secure direct licenses from copyright owners to avoid infringement litigation and significant liability for damages.
- [Patent Rights vs Antitrust: Supreme Court Stays CCI Jurisdiction](https://www.itsiptime.com/patents-vs-antitrust-the-cci-v-swapan-dey-jurisdiction-feud/): The Supreme Court of India in CCI v. Swapan Dey is currently determining whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) holds jurisdiction over anti-competitive practices tied to patent rights. While the NCLAT previously argued that the Patents Act 1970 operates as a self-contained code, the Supreme Court has stayed this exclusion, signaling that patent exclusivity cannot shield owners from antitrust scrutiny. This case is pivotal for clarifying how Section 3(5) of the Competition Act interacts with patent monopolies to prevent the abuse of a dominant position in Indian pharmaceutical markets.
- [Bombay HC Restrains 'New Indian Express' Mumbai Operations](https://www.itsiptime.com/do-names-have-boundaries-indian-express-trademark-case/): Trademark rights derived from settlement agreements and consent decrees are strictly governed by their explicit territorial and functional scope. The Bombay High Court in Indian Express v. Express Publications (Madurai) ruled that a permitted user cannot unilaterally expand trademark use to commercial events outside designated regions. The decision underscores that adding prefixes like 'New' to a registered mark does not grant independent proprietary rights that bypass the terms of a court-recorded agreement. Contractual limits on licensing are binding, and courts will narrowly construe derivative usage in family business splits.
- [CCA v. Rosenberger: Delhi HC Awards 152 Crore Patent Damages](https://www.itsiptime.com/delhi-hc-awards-rs-152-cr-in-historic-cca-v-rosenberger-patents-case/): In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court established the 'Dartboard Model' to penalize speculative prior art challenges in patent litigation. The case of Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Rosenberger affirms that computational MATLAB simulations serve as legally sufficient proof of infringement when physical product access is denied. By applying a royalty-based damages framework with a bad-faith uplift, the court provided a clear roadmap for quantifying relief in oligopolistic markets. This judgment significantly strengthens the enforcement of technology patents in India, emphasizing objective evidence over scattershot defense strategies.
- [Delhi High Court Cancels Descriptive 'GLASS SKIN' Trademark](https://www.itsiptime.com/delhi-hc-cancels-glass-skin-cosmetic-trademark-registration/): The Delhi High Court has affirmed that descriptive terms like GLASS SKIN cannot be monopolised as trademarks under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. In a significant win for fair competition, the court cancelled a registration that hindered legitimate trade usage. This ruling emphasizes that popular lifestyle or industry vocabulary remains in the public domain and cannot be fenced off by a single player without proof of distinct secondary significance. Businesses should rely on established trademarks, not generic product descriptors, to avoid costly litigation and potential registration cancellation.
- [Delhi HC Expands Dynamic Injunctions to Mobile Apps](https://www.itsiptime.com/dynamic-injunctions-for-live-sports-zee-v-soccerbox-copyright-case/): Dynamic injunctions have become the gold standard for protecting live broadcast rights under Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957. In Zee Entertainment v. Soccerbox, the Delhi High Court confirmed that these orders extend to mirror sites, redirect URLs, and mobile applications, allowing rights-holders to block infringing content in real-time. This judicial approach addresses the temporal nature of piracy, ensuring that exclusive broadcast reproduction rights are not rendered otiose during major events. The ruling reinforces that prior piracy patterns justify proactive, site-wide enforcement across ISPs and mobile ecosystems.
- [Export Infringement: Madras HC Rules on Trademark Affixation](https://www.itsiptime.com/trademark-infringement-via-export-madras-hc-ruling/): The Madras High Court has definitively ruled that affixing a trademark in India on goods destined for export constitutes trademark use under the Trade Marks Act 1999. This judgment in V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd. v. Meenakshi Overseas LLC clarifies that Indian trademark owners can initiate infringement proceedings against domestic manufacturers even if the products are not sold in the local market. The act of application is sufficient to establish a cause of action, overriding arguments that domestic consumer exposure is necessary for trademark infringement claims in India.
- [Registry Fails Notice Duty: Rajinder Singh Trademark Case](https://www.itsiptime.com/trademark-condonation-of-6-years-delay-rajinder-singh-v-registrar/): The Delhi High Court has reinforced that the Trade Marks Registry cannot rely on its own procedural failures to extinguish a proprietor's rights. Under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, the Registrar has a mandatory obligation to issue valid renewal notices. When the Registry fails to serve the O-3 notice at the correct address, the resulting lapse is legally void. This decision protects long-standing brand owners from losing their registration due to administrative oversight, confirming that statutory duties of government authorities are not discretionary.
- [SEP Litigation in India: K.K. Bansal v. Philips Reversal](https://www.itsiptime.com/philips-v-rajesh-bansal-and-the-reversal-of-indias-first-sep-patents-decree/): The Delhi High Court's ruling in K.K. Bansal v. Philips establishes a rigorous evidentiary standard for enforcing Standard Essential Patents (SEP) in India. Patent holders must prove essentiality through detailed claim charts mapping claims to technical specifications, comply with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding expert testimony, and provide comparable licence agreements to establish FRAND rates. Furthermore, the court reinforced that international patent exhaustion under Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act prevents patentees from collecting royalties from downstream buyers once a licensed component enters the supply chain.
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: June 07-13, 2026](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-ip-law-digest-from-june-07-to-june-13-2026/): This week’s IP digest covers critical developments across Indian and international courts. Key highlights include the Bombay High Court's application of the 'bare possibility' test in pharmaceutical disputes and the Delhi High Court's landmark ruling on dynamic injunctions for live sports broadcasting. We also track the GI certification of Tezpur litchi, Google’s latest AI copyright defense, and the cancellation of the 'Glass Skin' trademark registration. From procedural registry updates to global AI patent litigation, this digest provides essential updates for practitioners tracking the rapidly evolving Intellectual Property landscape in India and abroad.
- [Bombay HC on Pharma Trademarks: The Bare Possibility Test](https://www.itsiptime.com/alkem-laboratories-v-numen-pharma-bombay-hc-on-pharma-trademark-confusion/): In Indian pharmaceutical trademark law, the 'bare possibility' test is the primary threshold for determining deceptive similarity. Because patient safety outweighs commercial interest, courts do not require proof of actual confusion or probability; they intervene if there is even a remote risk of error during prescription or dispensing. Applying the anti-dissection rule, courts assess marks as a whole rather than by syllable, ensuring that confusingly similar drug names are restrained even when they belong to different therapeutic classes or contain different active ingredients.
- [Moti Mahal Trademark Dispute: Enforcing Franchisee Compliance](https://www.itsiptime.com/moti-mahal-trademark-dispute-franchise-default-infringement-claims/): The Delhi High Court's ruling in the Moti Mahal trademark dispute underscores that post-termination use of a mark by a franchisee constitutes clear-cut infringement. By highlighting the strength of express contractual acknowledgment clauses in franchise agreements, the Court provided a robust mechanism for brand owners to secure immediate relief. The order serves as a definitive guide for protecting intellectual property within franchise networks, affirming that aggregators and digital platforms must also comply with takedown orders to prevent irreparable brand harm and consumer confusion in the hospitality sector.
- [IndiaMart Phishing Injunction: Delhi HC Tackles Cyber Fraud](https://www.itsiptime.com/indiamart-trademark-phishing-case-and-the-delhi-hc-2026-interim-order/): The Delhi High Court's recent IndiaMart injunction marks a major evolution in Indian IP enforcement by targeting the entire infrastructure of cyber fraud, including cloud hosts and telecom providers. By classifying website GUI as original artistic work under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act and treating cloud platform infrastructure as an instrument of infringement, the Court has provided a robust framework for combatting OTP relay attacks. This order serves as a pivotal precedent for platform-wide protection and the accountability of digital intermediaries in preventing systemic trademark abuse.
- [Enforcing Copyrights: Strategies Against Infringement in India](https://www.itsiptime.com/copyright-infringement-in-india-key-principles-case-laws/): Copyright infringement in India hinges on proving both the originality of the work—meeting the modicum of creativity threshold—and substantial similarity of protected expression rather than underlying ideas. Under the Copyright Act 1957, fair dealing is limited to specific categories like news reporting and research, excluding generic transformative use defenses found in other jurisdictions. Recent Delhi High Court jurisprudence, including dynamic injunctions against piracy and Section 60 relief against groundless threats, provides robust mechanisms for rights holders to protect digital assets and GUI designs from systematic imitation.
- [Music Licensing in Restaurants: Bombay HC Injunction Guide](https://www.itsiptime.com/no-copyright-licence-no-performance-bombay-high-court-restrains-restaurants-from-playing-music/): Publicly playing music in any commercial establishment constitutes a 'communication to the public' under the Copyright Act, 1957, requiring valid public performance licences from rights holders. The Bombay High Court confirmed that exclusive licensees, such as PPL, have the statutory standing to enforce these rights and seek injunctive relief without needing to be registered as a copyright society under Section 33. Consequently, commercial operators cannot use ambient music or third-party streaming subscriptions as a defense for unlicensed public playback, as these do not grant the necessary commercial performance authorizations.
- [Kolhapuri Chappal GI: Why Design Copying Remains Unprotected](https://www.itsiptime.com/the-prada-kolhapuri-problem-what-happens-when-a-gi-tagged-product-gets-appropriated-without-credit/): A Geographical Indication (GI) tag in India protects a product's name and origin, but it does not grant a design monopoly or prevent global brands from reproducing traditional aesthetics. The Prada Kolhapuri chappal case demonstrates that current Indian law, under the GI Act 1999, fails to stop the appropriation of artisanal designs as long as the registered GI name is not explicitly misused. Without legislative reform, such as extending Article 23 protections to handicrafts, traditional cultural expressions remain legally vulnerable to foreign corporate exploitation despite existing GI protections.
- [ANI v OpenAI: Navigating AI Training and Copyright Law in India](https://www.itsiptime.com/india-turns-69-what-the-copyright-enactment-day-virtual-session-signals/): The ANI v. OpenAI litigation places Section 52 of the Copyright Act 1957 at the center of India's AI regulatory debate. With the Delhi High Court weighing whether unlicensed training of large language models on copyrighted news content constitutes fair dealing, the outcome will dictate the future of generative AI in India. While the DPIIT explores compulsory licensing, the current impasse highlights the legislative gap left by the 2012 amendment. Simultaneously, the Thaler application regarding AI authorship challenges the interpretation of Section 2(d)(vi) for autonomous, non-prompted machine outputs.
- [Google Liable for Trademark Infringement in Keyword Bidding](https://www.itsiptime.com/hindware-v-google-trademark-case-when-a-platform-cannot-hide-behind-its-own-tool/): The Delhi High Court has established that Google is liable for trademark infringement when it auctions coined, registered trademarks as keywords to direct competitors. By actively selecting and monetising these marks, Google forfeits its safe harbour protection under the IT Act. This landmark ruling clarifies that invisible backend bidding constitutes use in advertising under Section 29(6)(d) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. Rights holders can now hold platforms directly accountable for exploiting brand equity, regardless of whether the trademark appears in the visible sponsored advertisement text.
- [Heineken v Wagh: Why Copyright Registration Is Not a Verdict](https://www.itsiptime.com/a-copyright-registration-records-a-claim-not-a-right-the-heineken-tiger-artwork-case/): Copyright registration in India serves as an administrative record of a claim rather than a conclusive verdict on originality. The Delhi High Court in Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Vijay Keshav Wagh reaffirmed that registrations obtained for labels lacking originality or violating the Section 45 proviso—requiring search certificates for conflicting trademarks—are vulnerable to rectification under Section 50. Brand owners must ensure their label designs are truly original, as the intersection of copyright and trademark law allows for dual enforcement when artistic works are copied onto commercial products.
- [Delhi HC Rebukes Patent Office: Natural Justice Rules in VIB VZW](https://www.itsiptime.com/when-the-patent-office-ignores-your-reply-the-rejection-cannot-stand/): When the Indian Patent Office issues a refusal order that ignores an applicant’s prior submissions, it violates the fundamental principles of natural justice. Under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, the Delhi High Court has clarified that controllers must engage substantively with an applicant's response to the First Examination Report. A failure to address these arguments, combined with a disregard for the mandatory five-step F. Hoffmann-La Roche test for inventive step, renders a rejection order legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside for procedural error.
- [Dominant Feature Test: Himalaya Liv-52 Landmark Ruling](https://www.itsiptime.com/a-different-number-does-not-create-a-different-brand-the-liv-22-trademark-dispute/): Trademarks are protected by their dominant and distinctive features, not by superficial changes in numerals or punctuation. The 'dominant feature test' in India establishes that if a junior mark retains the essential identifying element of a well-known brand—such as 'Liv' in liver-care products—a change in a suffix or numeral is insufficient to escape liability. Courts look to the overall commercial impression of the mark to prevent trademark dilution and consumer confusion, reinforcing that one cannot appropriate established goodwill through trivial, cosmetic modifications.
- [Disney and Universal Win: US Court Allows MiniMax AI Trial](https://www.itsiptime.com/disney-universal-and-warner-bros-v-minimax-the-ultimate-ai-copyright-case-to-watch/): Courts are now actively permitting copyright infringement claims regarding AI training data to proceed to trial, signaling a major shift in legal risk for generative AI developers. The refusal of the US court to dismiss the Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros v. MiniMax case confirms that utilizing copyrighted works without authorization for model training constitutes a legally sufficient claim for direct and secondary infringement. For Indian IP practitioners, this sets a critical precedent for how global courts evaluate the unlicensed ingestion of protected content in commercial AI systems.
- [Similar Trademarks: Inside the Doctrine of Coexistence in India](https://www.itsiptime.com/why-similar-trademarks-are-not-always-infringing-three-lessons-from-indian-trademark-law/): Trademark coexistence in India is determined by the likelihood of confusion rather than mechanical similarity of marks. As established in Nandhini Deluxe, registration does not grant absolute monopolies across all goods within a class if the commercial sectors differ significantly. Similarly, surnames like Goenka require proof of acquired distinctiveness to earn protection. Courts employ a holistic approach, weighing consumer perception, trade channels, and honest concurrent use under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 to determine if similar marks can legitimately function alongside one another.
- [Asian Beverage v. Kaira District: Madras HC Grants Summary Judgment in 'TRUE VALLEY' Trademark Dispute](https://www.itsiptime.com/asian-beverage-kaira-district-summary-judgment/): The Madras High Court recently dismissed a trademark infringement suit via summary judgment, signaling a shift in how Indian courts handle weak IP claims under Order XIII-A.
- ['TRUE VALLEY' vs 'Amul TRU': Madras HC Dismisses Trademark Suit](https://www.itsiptime.com/madras-hc-dismisses-true-valley-vs-amul-tru-trademark-summary-judgment/): The Madras High Court dismissed an infringement suit against 'Amul TRU' via summary judgment. It found 'TRUE VALLEY' had no prospect of success, preventing a meritless trial.
- [Madras HC Dismisses Trademark Suit Against Amul for Statutory Lapse](https://www.itsiptime.com/madras-hc-dismisses-trademark-suit-against-amul/): The Madras High Court dismissed Asian Beverage's infringement suit against Amul for failing to issue mandatory pre-institution notice under the Gujarat Act.
- [GEF Foods v. Annapurna Swadisht: Madras HC Modifies Interim Injunction](https://www.itsiptime.com/gef-foods-annapurna-swadisht-madras-hc-trademark-injunction/): The Madras High Court modified an ex-parte interim injunction, limiting its scope to prevent trademark confusion on spices while protecting the defendant's snack business.
- [Bombay HC Orders Seizure of Computers in BRG Education and Novex Dispute](https://www.itsiptime.com/bombay-hc-copyright-delivery-up-novex/): The Bombay High Court ruled that educational exceptions under Section 52 do not cover commercial campus fests, ordering the delivery-up of computers in a major copyright dispute.
- [Bombay HC Restrains Nectar Life Care in Sun Pharma Trademark Dispute](https://www.itsiptime.com/bombay-hc-sun-pharma-nectar-trademark/): The Bombay High Court held that differing therapeutic uses do not excuse trademark infringement or passing off when pharmaceutical marks share deceptive phonetic and visual similarities.
- [Bombay HC Reaffirms Prior User Rights: Sun Pharma v. Nectar Life Care](https://www.itsiptime.com/bombay-hc-sun-pharma-nectar-life-care-prior-user-defense/): Bombay HC denies Sun Pharma's injunction, confirming that statutory registration under the Trade Marks Act cannot defeat established common law prior user rights.
- [Metro Brands v. Brand Magic: Bombay HC Protects Prior User of METRO Mark](https://www.itsiptime.com/metro-brands-v-brand-magic-bombay-hc-prior-user-trademark/): The Bombay High Court refused to grant an ad-interim injunction to Metro Brands, ruling that Section 34 prior user rights override Section 28 registration exclusivity.
- [Shiva Stuti Copyright Dispute: Oral Tradition, Authorship, and Moral Rights in Ustad Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman](https://www.itsiptime.com/shiva-stuti-copyright-ustad-wasifuddin-dagar-ar-rahman/): An analysis of the Shiva Stuti copyright dispute (Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman), examining oral classical music traditions, authorship thresholds, and moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act.
- [Delhi HC Protects Dr Devi Prasad Shetty Likeness from AI Deepfakes](https://www.itsiptime.com/shetty-deepfake-delhi-hc-personality-rights/): The Delhi High Court protected Dr Devi Prasad Shetty personality rights by permanently restraining unauthorized AI deepfakes and enforcing trademark rights without a trial.
- [Patents vs Trade Secrets in India: Strategic Choices, Reverse Engineering, and the Draft Bill 2024](https://www.itsiptime.com/patents-vs-trade-secrets-india-strategic-choices/): An analysis of the strategic tension between patent protection and trade secrets in India, examining reverse engineering risks, TRIPS Article 39, confidentiality clubs, and the Draft Trade Secrets Bill 2024.
- [NOCIL v. Finorchem: Calcutta HC Restrains Process Patent Infringement](https://www.itsiptime.com/nocil-v-finorchem-calcutta-hc-process-patent-injunction/): The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Finorchem from manufacturing 4-ADPA, reinforcing the burden of proof shift under Section 104A.
- [Shakti Sagar v. Delhi Law House: Delhi HC Refuses Copyright Injunction](https://www.itsiptime.com/delhi-hc-shakti-sagar-copyright-injunction-chain-of-title/): The Delhi High Court refused an interim injunction in Shakti Sagar v. Delhi Law House, ruling that copyright ownership claims require an unbroken written chain of assignment.
- [India-Brazil TKDL Agreement: Traditional Knowledge Protection, Patent Prior Art, and South-South Cooperation](https://www.itsiptime.com/india-brazil-tkdl-agreement-traditional-knowledge-patents/): An analysis of the India-Brazil TKDL access agreement between CSIR and INPI Brazil, exploring defensive patent protection, anti-biopiracy diplomacy, and South-South intellectual property cooperation.
- [Marketplace Liability for Counterfeits: Amazon, Flipkart and Indian IP Law](https://www.itsiptime.com/marketplace-liability-counterfeits-amazon-flipkart-indian-ip-law/): An analysis of e-commerce marketplace liability for counterfeits under Indian IP law, examining safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act, Trade Marks Act provisions, and landmark Delhi High Court rulings involving Amazon and Flipkart.
- [Good Drop v Controller: Madras HC Orders Swift Trademark Rectification](https://www.itsiptime.com/trademark-rectification-india-madras-hc/): Seeking to resolve trademark rectification India delays, the Madras High Court ordered the Registrar of Trademarks to decide Good Drop Wine Cellars' petition in eight weeks.
- [Japan Tobacco v Central Wearhouse: Delhi HC Dismisses CAMEL Copyright Rectification for Lack of First Ownership Proof](https://www.itsiptime.com/japan-tobacco-central-wearhouse-delhi-hc-copyright-rectification-first-owner/): Analysis of Japan Tobacco International: Delhi High Court rejects Japan Tobacco's copyright cancellation petition against CAMEL label, holding marketing...
- [Deakin University v Controller of Patents: Madras HC Restores Deemed Abandoned Patent Under Article 226](https://www.itsiptime.com/deakin-university-controller-patents-madras-hc-restore-deemed-abandoned-patent/): Madras High Court IPD exercises Article 226 writ jurisdiction to restore patent application deemed abandoned under Section 21(1) due to gross negligence of patent agent.
- [Booma Rani v Registrar of Trade Marks: Madras HC Enforces Right to Renew Mark Not Removed from Register](https://www.itsiptime.com/r-booma-rani-registrar-trade-marks-madras-hc-renewal-removal/): Madras High Court rules Trade Marks Registry cannot refuse renewal fee under Rule 58(3) so long as mark remains on the Register without formal statutory removal.
- [Surya Hotels v Registrar of Trade Marks: Madras HC Transfers Rectification to IPD Under Section 125(2)](https://www.itsiptime.com/surya-hotels-registrar-trade-marks-madras-hc-transfer-rectification/): Madras High Court IPD exercises Section 125(2) Trade Marks Act and Article 226 powers to transfer pending trademark rectification from Registry to High Court.
- [Copyright Protection of Video Games in India: Software, Audiovisual Layers, and Patentability Barriers](https://www.itsiptime.com/copyright-protection-video-games-india/): A doctrinal analysis of how Indian intellectual property law protects video games across distributive layers, from literary software code and audiovisual assets under the Copyright Act, 1957, to patentability hurdles under Sections 3(k) and 3(m).
- [Weekly Indian IP Digest: Sept 28 to Oct 3, 2026 | Its IP Time](https://www.itsiptime.com/indian-ip-law-digest-september-28-oct-3-2026/): This weekly Indian IP law digest analyzes critical High Court judgments on trademark territorial jurisdiction, patent expirations, and the CGPDTM GUI design guidelines.
- [Artificial Intelligence and Patent Law: Sufficiency of Disclosure and Inventive Step](https://www.itsiptime.com/artificial-intelligence-patent-law-disclosure-india/): Examining disclosure standards and inventive step thresholds for AI-generated and AI-assisted inventions under Indian patent jurisprudence.
- [Gujarat High Court Bars Stamp Duty Demand on Arvind Brands Trademark](https://www.itsiptime.com/arvind-brands-trademark-stamp-duty/): The Gujarat High Court held that a trademark's legal situs is fixed at the statutory registry, preventing state authorities from demanding extraterritorial stamp duty.
- [Trademark Protection of Religious Deities and Sacred Symbols: The R.S. Kandasamy Precedent](https://www.itsiptime.com/trademark-protection-religious-deities-symbols-india/): Examining whether names of deities and religious symbols can be monopolized as trademarks under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- [Madras HC Permits Plaint Amendment in 'Acha Dholak' Trademark Suit](https://www.itsiptime.com/madras-hc-plaint-amendment-acha-dholak-trademark/): Madras High Court upheld an order allowing a trademark infringement plaint amendment to detail business origin and chain of title under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
- [Madras HC Directs Transfer of Trademark Rectification in Rajagoplan Case](https://www.itsiptime.com/madras-hc-trademark-rectification-section-125-transfer/): The Madras High Court mandates the Registrar to transfer trademark rectification proceedings to the High Court, bypassing administrative inertia to ensure judicial efficiency.
- [Madras HC Dismisses 'Wobben' Patent Appeals as Infructuous](https://www.itsiptime.com/madras-hc-dismisses-wobben-patent-appeals-as-infructuous/): The Madras High Court dismissed patent revocation challenges as infructuous after confirming that the underlying patent terms had expired, rendering the matter moot.
- [Indian IP Law Roundup September 2026: Trademarks, Patents and AI Rights](https://www.itsiptime.com/indian-ip-law-roundup-september-2026/): A comprehensive monthly review of September 2026 Indian IP jurisprudence, analyzing 28 landmark rulings across trademarks, patents, copyright, and AI personality rights.
- [Madras HC Denies Consolidation of Trademark Suit with Rectification](https://www.itsiptime.com/madras-hc-denies-consolidation-trademark-suit-rectification/): The Madras High Court ruled that IPD Rules do not allow automatic transfer of district court infringement suits to the High Court, prioritizing statutory jurisdiction.
- [Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions: Section 3(k) Jurisprudence in India](https://www.itsiptime.com/patentability-computer-related-inventions-section-3k-india/): A doctrinal analysis of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, examining Indian judicial and patent office guidelines on software and computer-related inventions.
- [Serum Institute v Tengra: Bombay HC Rules on Section 79 IT Act and YouTube Takedown](https://www.itsiptime.com/serum-institute-v-yohan-tengra-bombay-hc-section-79-it-act/): Bombay HC issues mandatory injunction against X Corp for anti-vax defamation, clarifying Section 79 IT Act intermediary liability and YouTube takedown rules.
- [Traditional Knowledge and Patent Issues in India: Biopiracy, TKDL, and Case Studies](https://www.itsiptime.com/traditional-knowledge-patent-issues-india/): A comprehensive analysis of traditional knowledge protection under Indian patent law, examining biopiracy prevention, the TKDL repository, and landmark disputes including Neem, Turmeric, Basmati, and Ayahuasca.
- [RPG Enterprises Ltd v. Registrar of Trademarks: Madras HC Orders Rectification of Impugned Mark](https://www.itsiptime.com/madras-hc-rpg-enterprises-trademark-rectification/): The Madras High Court has ordered the removal of a conflicting mark from the Register, reinforcing that prior established goodwill prevails over subsequent trademark registration.
- [Ramesh v Srinivasan: Madras HC Clarifies Order I Rule 10 in Trademark Suits](https://www.itsiptime.com/ramesh-srinivasan-trademark-transposition-order-1-rule-10-madras-hc/): Madras High Court clarifies that co-plaintiff partners cannot be transposed as defendants in trademark suits under Order I Rule 10 CPC, affirming Order I Rule 2 safeguards.
- [Novartis v Novosys: Delhi HC Enforces Cadila Doctrine in Pharma Trademark](https://www.itsiptime.com/novartis-novosys-pharma-trademark-infringement-delhi-hc/): Delhi HC resolves Novartis v Novosys trademark suit, enforcing the Cadila public health doctrine and directing cancellation of deceptively similar marks.
- [Umendra Exports v Four Cubes: Delhi HC Curbs Order VII Rule 10 Return in Composite Suits](https://www.itsiptime.com/umendra-exports-four-cubes-order-vii-rule-10-delhi-hc/): Delhi HC Division Bench holds in Umendra Exports v Four Cubes that courts cannot mechanically return composite suits under Order VII Rule 10 without permitting amendment.
- [Trade Secrets Protection in India: Law, Precedents, and the Draft Bill 2024](https://www.itsiptime.com/trade-secrets-protection-india-draft-bill-2024/): A comprehensive legal analysis of trade secret protection in India: TRIPS Article 39, judicial standards in American Express and Anil Gupta, confidentiality clubs, and the 22nd Law Commission Draft Protection of Trade Secrets Bill 2024.
- [Geographical Indications and Community Brand Equity in India](https://www.itsiptime.com/geographical-indications-community-brand-equity-india/): Evaluating the statutory enforcement of Geographical Indications in India and legal strategies for protecting community brand equity.
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest Sep 20 to 26 2026 | Its IP Time](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-ip-digest-sep-20-to-26-2026/): Discover key Indian IP law developments from Sep 20-26, 2026: Supreme Court Section 134 trademark jurisdiction referral, Madras High Court rulings (MYSOP, Dr. WASH, TARO, Joonus Sait), and DPIIT Ayush patent status report.
- [Usman Sait v Saleem Sait: Madras HC Denies 'Joonus Sait' Injunction](https://www.itsiptime.com/usman-sait-v-saleem-sait-madras-hc-trademark/): The Madras HC refused to grant an interim injunction, holding that retail expansion under a unified GST registration does not violate a trademark litigation status quo order.
- [Emerging Copyright and Trademark Protection in Digital Media](https://www.itsiptime.com/copyright-trademark-digital-media-india/): A detailed legal review of modern copyright boundaries and statutory protections in contemporary Indian digital media.
- [Trade Secrets and Employee Mobility: Delhi High Court Jurisprudence on Confidentiality in India](https://www.itsiptime.com/trade-secrets-employee-mobility-delhi-high-court/): Examining the judicial balance between trade secret protection and post-employment mobility under Indian contract and intellectual property jurisprudence.
- [Jan Vishwas Act and Intellectual Property in India: Decriminalisation, Fines, and Compliance](https://www.itsiptime.com/jan-vishwas-act-intellectual-property-decriminalisation-india/): An in-depth analysis of the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act and its statutory decriminalisation of minor procedural offences across Indian IP legislation.
- [Texmo Industries v. Gayatri Industries: Madras HC Disposes 'TARO' Trademark Suit on Compromise Terms](https://www.itsiptime.com/texmo-industries-gayatri-industries-trademark-infringement/): The Madras High Court disposed of a trademark infringement and passing off suit in Texmo Industries v. Gayatri Industries after recording a joint compromise memo over the mark 'ATARO PUMPS' in relation to 'TARO'.
- [Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures: Bombay HC Protects Personality Rights Against AI Voice Cloning](https://www.itsiptime.com/arijit-singh-codible-ventures-ai-personality-rights/): The Bombay High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining AI platforms, merchandisers, and unauthorized domain holders from cloning Arijit Singh's voice, name, and likeness without authorization.
- [Ashique Exports v. Koyenco Soaps: Madras HC Restrains Trademark Infringement](https://www.itsiptime.com/ashique-exports-koyenco-soaps-trademark-infringement/): The Madras High Court in Ashique Exports v. Koyenco Soaps reaffirmed that established trade dress and long-term usage provide robust protection against deceptive imitation in the FMCG sector.
- [Madras HC Restrains 'MYSOAP' due to Phonetic Identity with 'MYSOP'](https://www.itsiptime.com/madras-hc-mysop-mysoap-trademark-infringement/): The Madras High Court ruled that phonetic similarity in consumer goods triggers immediate trademark infringement, restraining 'MYSOAP' for mimicking the registered mark 'MYSOP'.
- [ISDS v Khemka: Supreme Court Refers Trademark Dispute to Larger Bench](https://www.itsiptime.com/trademark-jurisdiction-section-134-sc/): Does the Commercial Courts Act override the trademark forum requirements under Section 134? The Supreme Court referred this critical jurisdictional conflict to a larger bench.
- [Customs IP Recordal in India: Procedures, Rules and ICeR Portal](https://www.itsiptime.com/customs-ip-recordal-india-guide/): Recording intellectual property with Indian Customs prevents counterfeit imports at the border. Learn how the IPR Enforcement Rules and ICeR registration protect your brand.
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest Sep 13 to 19 2026 | Its IP Time](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-ip-digest-sep-13-to-19-2026/): Explore this week's key Indian IP updates, featuring crucial trademark rulings from the Delhi, Bombay, and Calcutta High Courts alongside major DPIIT and GI Registry developments.
- [Pravin Kumar v. ITC Limited: Calcutta HC Grants Partial Injunction on 'Gold Flake' Trade Dress](https://www.itsiptime.com/pravin-kumar-itc-gold-flake-injunction/): Calcutta High Court issues partial injunction in Pravin Kumar v. ITC Limited, clarifying the evidentiary threshold for trade dress infringement and passing off claims.
- [Bombay HC Restrains 'YASHLIFE' Over 'LIFEBUOY' Infringement](https://www.itsiptime.com/bombay-hc-lifebuoy-yashlife-infringement/): Bombay High Court restrains Yash Lifesciences from using 'YASHLIFE', ruling that its phonetic similarity to 'LIFEBUOY' causes trademark infringement under Section 29.
- [Bombay HC Sets Aside 'ICE CREAM ROCKS' Rejection for Graviss Foods](https://www.itsiptime.com/ice-cream-rocks-trademark-bombay-hc/): The Bombay HC set aside the 'ICE CREAM ROCKS' trademark rejection, ruling that the Registry cannot dissect composite marks or demand rigid timelines for acquired distinctiveness.
- [Calcutta HC Restrains South Point School From Using 'SOUTH POINT' Mark](https://www.itsiptime.com/south-point-school-trademark-infringement/): Analysis of South Point High School Case: Analysis of South Point School Case: Analysis of South Point Case: The Calcutta High Court restrained South Point School from using the 'SOUTH POINT' mark,...
- [Calcutta HC Revokes Letters Patent Leave in Maitra Servicenter Dispute](https://www.itsiptime.com/clause-12-letters-patent-jurisdiction/): Can online posts establish territorial jurisdiction in commercial suits? The Calcutta HC rules that interim injunctions require a strict jurisdictional audit under Clause 12.
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest Sep 6 to 12 2026 | Its IP Time](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-ip-digest-sep-6-12-2026/): This week's digest covers critical rulings from the Delhi, Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta High Courts alongside CGPDTM updates and international AI copyright disputes.
- [Calcutta HC Returns ITC Plaint for Skipping Section 12A Mediation](https://www.itsiptime.com/calcutta-hc-itc-section-12a-mediation/): Can brand owners bypass pre-suit mediation after a criminal raid? Calcutta High Court rules that delaying civil suits after police raids defeats Section 12A emergency exemptions.
- [Meridian v. Cascade: Bombay HC Restrains 'NACOMIST' Under Consent Terms](https://www.itsiptime.com/trademark-settlement-consent-terms-bombay/): The Bombay High Court decreed a permanent injunction in Meridian v. Cascade, resolving a pharmaceutical trademark dispute over NASOMIST using binding consent terms under CPC.
- [Traditional Knowledge Digital Library in India: Patent Examination](https://www.itsiptime.com/traditional-knowledge-digital-library-india/): The Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) in India serves as a vital defensive mechanism, enabling patent examiners to identify traditional knowledge as prior art to prevent invalid patent grants.
- [Geographical Indications in India: Registration, Rights and Enforcement](https://www.itsiptime.com/geographical-indications-india-registration-rights/): Geographical Indications in India are governed by the GI Act 1999, providing legal protection to products based on their unique regional origin, reputation, and quality.
- [Zee Entertainment v. BSNL: Madras High Court Permits Withdrawal of Copyright Suit](https://www.itsiptime.com/zee-entertainment-bsnl-madras-high-court-withdrawal/): The Madras High Court recently allowed Zee Entertainment to withdraw its copyright infringement suit against BSNL and others regarding the film 'SUPER DUPERR'.
- [Arunachalaa Enterprises v. R. Sukumar: Madras HC Upholds Transfer of Patent Suit to High Court](https://www.itsiptime.com/arunachalaa-enterprises-vs-sukumar-patent-transfer/): The Madras High Court confirmed that patent infringement suits can be transferred to the High Court for consolidation with independent revocation petitions, even without a formal counter-claim.
- [Dr. Patil v. IIT Bombay: Bombay HC Upholds Patent Refusal for Missing Section 7(2) Proof of Right](https://www.itsiptime.com/patil-v-iit-bombay-patent-refusal/): The Bombay High Court judgment in Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil v. IIT Bombay affirmed the refusal of a patent application for missing Section 7(2) proof of right, setting strict chain of title standards for academic inventions.
- [Compulsory Licensing in India: Statutory Grounds, Procedure and Scope](https://www.itsiptime.com/compulsory-licensing-india-patents-act/): Analysis of Compulsory Licensing of Patents in India: Learn how Section 84 of the Patents Act 1970 and landmark rulings like Bayer Corporation v. Union of India regulate the grant of a compulsory licence of patent in India.
- [Blossom Global Trust v. Augustine Educational: Madras HC Upholds Registered 'PREETHI HOSPITALS' Exclusivity](https://www.itsiptime.com/blossom-global-trust-augustine-educational-trademark/): The Madras High Court affirmed the exclusive rights of the registered proprietor of 'PREETHI HOSPITALS' while clarifying the procedural limits of reopening interlocutory injunctions.
- [Xiaomi Find Device Patent Case: Delhi HC Denies Injunction in Conqueror Innovations v. Xiaomi](https://www.itsiptime.com/conqueror-innovations-xiaomi-patent-infringement/): Analysis of Xiaomi Find Device Patent Case: The Delhi HC dismissed an appeal by Conqueror Innovations against Xiaomi, ruling that the 'Find Device' feature...
- [Semiconductor Layout Design in India: Protection and Registry Guide](https://www.itsiptime.com/semiconductor-layout-design-protection-india/): Learn how the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 protects chip topology in India through registration, eligibility tests, and enforcement remedies.
- [Vikas Mandoth v. Shanghai Huanqiu: Madras HC Rejects 'Proposed to be Used' Defense in 'GLOBE' Trademark Dispute](https://www.itsiptime.com/vikas-mandoth-shanghai-huanqiu-trademark-dispute/): Vikas Mandoth Trademark Case: Madras High Court upholds injunction protecting 'GLOBE' mark, rejecting defendant's 'proposed to be used' prior use claims.
- [INDRP in India: Domain Name Disputes, Cybersquatting and Bad Faith | Its IP Time](https://www.itsiptime.com/indrp-in-india-domain-disputes-and-bad-faith-test/): Learn the INDRP framework for resolving domain disputes in India. Master the evidentiary standards for bad faith and protect your trademark from cybersquatting.
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest Aug 31 to Sep 3 2026 | Its IP Time](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-ip-digest-aug-31-to-sep-3-2026/): This week features landmark rulings on trademark trade dress, patent examination rights, and AI-driven personality rights across the Delhi, Bombay, and Madras High Courts.
- [Shruti Haasan v. Mahalaxmi Arts: Bombay HC Issues AI John Doe Order](https://www.itsiptime.com/shruti-haasan-mahalaxmi-arts-ai-personality-rights/): The Bombay HC in Shruti Haasan v. Mahalaxmi Arts has issued a landmark John Doe injunction protecting personality rights against unauthorized AI-generated content.
- [Clouded Copyright Titles: Madras HC Denies Injunction for Film Rights](https://www.itsiptime.com/madras-hc-evergreen-media-copyright-injunction/): The Madras High Court ruled that an interim injunction cannot be granted in copyright disputes where the chain of title is contested and plagued by rival claims.
- [ASR Market Ventures v. Fitship: Delhi HC Cancels Trademark](https://www.itsiptime.com/asr-market-ventures-fitship-trademark-cancellation/): The Delhi High Court in ASR Market Ventures v. Fitship reaffirmed the primacy of prior use over registration, ordering the cancellation of a deceptively similar mark.
- [Fresenius Kabi v. Controller: Delhi HC Voids Patent Refusal](https://www.itsiptime.com/fresenius-kabi-controller-patent-refusal/): The Delhi High Court has set aside a patent refusal, ruling that the Controller cannot consolidate Section 14 examination rights with Section 25 opposition hearings.
- [Hindustan Unilever v. Kwick Living: Delhi HC Settles Jurisdiction](https://www.itsiptime.com/hindustan-unilever-kwick-living-jurisdiction-2/): The Delhi High Court in Hindustan Unilever v. Kwick Living settles territorial jurisdiction by leveraging defendant admissions, ensuring expedited interim relief adjudication.
- [Vikrant Kapoor v. Anuj Kohli: Delhi HC Defines Ouster Clause](https://www.itsiptime.com/vikrant-kapoor-anuj-kohli-jurisdiction-clause/): The Delhi High Court in Vikrant Kapoor v. Anuj Kohli ruled that naming a specific forum in invoices effectively ousts other courts, even without 'exclusive' language.
- [Screen Scene Media v. Venkatesh: Madras HC Denies Motion to Vacate](https://www.itsiptime.com/screen-scene-media-madras-hc-copyright/): The Madras High Court in Screen Scene Media v. Dr. S. Venkatesh affirmed an interim injunction, ruling that cinematograph film ownership requires clear chain of title.
- [Madras HC: Copyright Infringement Claims Not Subject to Arbitration](https://www.itsiptime.com/eros-technologies-copyright-infringement-arbitration/): The Madras High Court in Eros Technologies Digital FZE v. Ayngaran International Films rules that Section 55 copyright infringement claims override private arbitration clauses.
- [Asian Paints Secures Ex-Parte Injunction in Trade Dress Battle](https://www.itsiptime.com/asian-paints-bombay-hc-trademark-injunction/): The Bombay High Court has granted Asian Paints an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Deepak Kumar Panwar, affirming protection for its 'APEX' trade dress and marks.
- [August 2026 Indian IP Law Digest | Its IP Time](https://www.itsiptime.com/august-2026-indian-ip-law-digest/): The August 2026 Indian IP law digest highlights a landmark Delhi High Court seven-step test for Section 3(m) patentability and key rulings on trademark well-known marks.
- [Stephen Thaler DABUS Case: Indian Copyright Office Denies AI Authorship](https://www.itsiptime.com/dabus-copyright-ai-authorship-india/): Stephen Thaler DABUS Case Analysis: The Registrar of Copyrights has formally rejected Dr. Stephen Thaler's application naming AI system DABUS as author of 'A Recent Entrance To Paradise', ruling that statutory authorship under the Copyright Act 1957 requires a human creator.
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: Aug 23-29, 2026 | Its IP Time](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-indian-ip-law-digest-august-23-29-2026/): Stay updated with our Weekly Indian IP Law Digest covering crucial rulings from the Delhi, Bombay, and Madras High Courts, alongside essential updates from the CGPDTM.
- [Madras HC Dismisses YouTube John Doe Suit Over Vague Pleadings](https://www.itsiptime.com/youtube-google-sri-eshwar-madras-hc-dismissal/): The Madras High Court has dismissed a John Doe suit filed by YouTube Google LLC against Sri Eshwar College of Engineering, citing a critical lack of specificity in the pleadings regarding registered trademark infringement. Under the Commercial Courts Act and Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, courts now demand rigorous evidentiary standards for injunctions. Plaintiffs must definitively identify the specific trademark registrations breached and demonstrate a concrete legal injury, rather than relying on broad, speculative assertions to justify the use of John Doe procedural mechanisms.
- [Madras HC: Registry Situs Alone Cannot Establish IP Jurisdiction](https://www.itsiptime.com/vinbros-chamundi-trademark-jurisdiction/): The Madras High Court in Vinbros and Co v. Chamundi Winery has decisively ruled that the mere administrative situs of the Trademark Registry cannot confer territorial jurisdiction for infringement litigation. Jurisdictional competence under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62 of the Copyright Act remains tethered to the plaintiff’s place of business or the defendant's actions, rather than the location of the registry office. This prevents forum shopping and ensures that judicial resources are aligned with the operational realities of the parties involved in the dispute.
- [The Cinema Resource Centre: Madras HC on Copyright Proof](https://www.itsiptime.com/madras-hc-cinema-resource-centre-copyright/): The Madras High Court has established that possession of photographic materials does not equate to ownership of copyright. In a ruling concerning historical film assets, the court denied injunctive relief because the plaintiffs failed to produce a written assignment proving a clear chain of title. This case serves as a critical precedent for IP practitioners, emphasizing that without valid legal instruments as per Section 17 of the Copyright Act, claimants cannot sustain a declaration of ownership. Establishing the initial authorship and the subsequent transfer of rights is non-negotiable in copyright litigation.
- [Hindustan Unilever v. Kwick Living: Territorial Jurisdiction](https://www.itsiptime.com/hindustan-unilever-kwick-living-jurisdiction/): The Delhi High Court is currently examining the threshold for territorial jurisdiction in disparagement and IP infringement cases where digital content is involved. Relying on the Banyan Tree framework, the court evaluates whether a plaintiff can sue at a branch office or if they are restricted to the principal place of business. This case highlights that mere website accessibility is insufficient to establish jurisdiction; plaintiffs must provide concrete evidence of purposeful availment, such as targeted commercial activities, to successfully defend a jurisdictional challenge under Section 20 of the CPC.
- [Zee Learn v. Beauty Singh: Bombay HC Restrains KIDGEE Mark](https://www.itsiptime.com/zee-learn-beauty-singh-trademark-ruling/): The Bombay High Court has upheld the use of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to grant interim protection against hold-over franchisees. By enforcing negative covenants in a franchise agreement, the court restrained the unauthorized use of the trademark KIDGEE, citing it as deceptively similar to the registered brand KIDZEE. This ruling confirms that post-termination disputes are fundamentally contractual and arbitrable, allowing franchisors to protect their intellectual property and brand equity through targeted interim relief despite the infringer's attempt to use a generic-sounding mark.
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: August 16 - 22 | Its IP Time](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-indian-ip-law-digest-august-16-22-2026/): Stay updated with the latest Indian IP law developments, including Madras HC dynamic blocking orders, Delhi HC trademark cancellation rulings, and new CGPDTM manuals.
- [Nugenesys v. Celagenex: Delhi HC Vacates Ex-Parte Injunction](https://www.itsiptime.com/nugenesys-pharmaceuticals-celagenex-injunction-vacated/): The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that parties seeking ex-parte injunctions must uphold uberrima fides, or the duty of utmost good faith. In a recent ruling, the court vacated an ad-interim order due to the suppression of material facts, specifically prior cease-and-desist notices and trademark opposition filings. This judgment clarifies that manufactured urgency cannot be used to bypass procedural safeguards under the Commercial Courts Act. Practitioners must ensure full disclosure in pleadings to avoid the risk of having equitable relief vacated for failing the test of judicial candor.
- [JRPT Automation: Supreme Court Mandates Procedural Fairness](https://www.itsiptime.com/jrpt-automation-ht-process-controls-sc-ruling/): The Supreme Court of India has ruled that courts must ensure procedural fairness by linking contempt applications with pending Order XXXIX Rule 4 applications under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This landmark directive prevents the premature penalization of litigants when an injunction itself is under challenge. For IP practitioners, this decision underscores the tactical necessity of synchronizing interlocutory proceedings in commercial litigation to ensure that the validity of an injunction is adjudicated before breach proceedings are enforced, ultimately upholding the principle of natural justice in high-stakes commercial disputes.
- [Delhi HC Denies Injunction: Why Descriptive Marks Face Hurdles](https://www.itsiptime.com/hahnemann-scientific-meera-rastogi-trademark-injunction/): The Delhi High Court has clarified that descriptive trademarks lack the exclusivity required for injunctive relief in passing off actions unless secondary meaning is proven. Relying on the Wander v. Antox precedent, the court emphasized that appellate interference in discretionary orders is restricted, particularly when the appellant fails to disclose historical prosecution disclaimers. This ruling highlights the necessity of robust evidence for prior use and warns practitioners that subsequent trademark registrations cannot retroactively justify delays in filing appeals under the Limitation Act.
- [Bisleri vs. Agrawal: Bombay HC Decrees Settlement on 'BILSSERI'](https://www.itsiptime.com/bisleri-agrawal-food-trademark-infringement/): The Bombay High Court has validated a consent decree that effectively resolves a trademark infringement and passing off dispute by imposing strict punitive consequences for future violations. By leveraging the Commercial Courts Act 2015, the parties achieved an enforceable resolution that includes the destruction of infringing goods, withdrawal of trademark applications, and a substantial financial penalty clause. This judgment underscores the efficacy of well-drafted consent terms in securing proprietary interests while bypassing the extended duration of trial proceedings in high-stakes intellectual property litigation.
- [Vishesh Pictures v. BSNL: Madras HC Extends Dynamic Blocking Net](https://www.itsiptime.com/vishesh-pictures-bsnl-copyright-injunction/): The Madras High Court’s decision to grant a dynamic blocking order against internet service providers underscores the judiciary's proactive stance in protecting cinematographic intellectual property. By invoking Section 13(1)(b) and Section 51 of the Copyright Act 1957, the court recognized that the immediate restraint of rogue websites is essential to preventing irreparable harm. This case serves as a vital precedent for IP lawyers, highlighting that comprehensive evidentiary schedules and precise adherence to Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code are critical to securing effective interim relief.
- [Aamir Khan Productions v. BSNL: Madras HC Grants Dynamic Injunction](https://www.itsiptime.com/aamir-khan-productions-bsnl-dynamic-injunction/): The Madras High Court has issued a landmark dynamic injunction to combat film piracy, ordering multiple internet service providers to block access to both existing and future unauthorized mirror websites hosting copyrighted content. Grounded in Section 51 of the Copyright Act 1957, this ruling confirms that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate serves as prime facie evidence of ownership. Practitioners should utilize broad, future-facing prayer clauses to effectively neutralize digital piracy and prevent the persistent migration of infringing content to new domain names.
- [Madras HC Orders Registry to Notify Parties in Trademark Rectification](https://www.itsiptime.com/suzlon-cotton-mills-trademark-rectification/): The Madras High Court has established that a transfer of rectification proceedings from the Registrar of Trade Marks to the High Court under Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 mandates strict adherence to natural justice. An administrative oversight in serving notice to the petitioner constitutes a fatal procedural defect, warranting the restoration of the plea. Legal practitioners must independently verify case statuses via the High Court docket, as relying solely on the registry’s administrative machinery poses significant risks to client property rights and procedural standing.
- [Dr. Reddy's vs. Razenta: Delhi HC Cancels DAPLOGIN Trademark](https://www.itsiptime.com/dr-reddys-razenta-daplogin-trademark-cancellation/): The Delhi High Court has reinforced the sanctity of the Trade Marks Register by ordering the cancellation of a conflicting mark under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act 1999. In Dr. Reddy's v. Razenta, the Court prioritized the rights of a prior user, emphasizing that well-known marks require absolute protection, particularly in the healthcare sector where confusion could lead to medical errors. This judgment confirms that registration is not an absolute defense and that the Court will exercise its rectification powers to remove deceptive marks that undermine existing brand reputation.
- [Noviets Pharma vs. Novartis: Delhi HC Upholds Injunction](https://www.itsiptime.com/noviets-pharma-novartis-delhi-hc-injunction/): The Delhi High Court has affirmed that using a mark as a business identifier does not exempt an entity from trademark infringement liability if the mark is phonetically similar to a well-known brand. In Noviets Pharma v. Novartis, the Court upheld an injunction, citing the triple identity test and the global reputation of the NOVARTIS mark. By prioritizing consumer protection and international recognition via WIPO and INDRP findings, the ruling serves as a stern warning against riding on the coattails of established corporate identities within the sensitive Indian pharmaceutical market.
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: August 9 to 15, 2026 | Its IP Time](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-indian-ip-law-digest-august-9-to-15-2026/): This digest examines recent Indian IP rulings, including Bombay HC's trade dress standards in Jyothy Labs and Delhi HC's jurisdictional clarity on patent litigation.
- [Delhi HC: Patent and Design Suits Mandated for Commercial Division](https://www.itsiptime.com/yes-bank-modi-rubber-commercial-division/): The Delhi High Court has confirmed that all patent and design infringement suits must be adjudicated by the Commercial Division of the High Court to ensure specialized oversight. In Yes Bank v. Modi Rubber, the bench held that Section 104 of the Patents Act 1970 and the Designs Act 2000 are inextricably linked to the Commercial Courts Act 2015. This procedural mandate streamlines litigation, ensuring that complex technical disputes are handled by benches equipped for commercial matters, thereby reducing jurisdictional ambiguity and fostering consistent judicial administration for intellectual property rights nationwide.

## Pages

- [Legal Disclaimer and BCI Compliance](https://www.itsiptime.com/disclaimer/): Bar Council of India compliance statement, informational disclaimer, and legal notice for Its IP Time.
- [Terms of Service](https://www.itsiptime.com/terms-of-service/): Terms of Service and conditions of use for Its IP Time legal publication and research workbench.
- [Patent & Trademark Agent Exam Prep](https://www.itsiptime.com/exam-prep/)
- [IP Class Finder](https://www.itsiptime.com/ip-class-finder/)
- [Certificate Verification](https://www.itsiptime.com/verify-internship-certificate/)
- [Latest Indian IP Law Cases](https://www.itsiptime.com/latest-indian-ip-law-cases/): Track the latest IPR cases in India, landmark High Court judgments, recent patent cases in India, and trademark litigation across Delhi, Bombay, and Madras High Courts.
- [Cookie Policy](https://www.itsiptime.com/cookie-policy/): This Cookie Policy explains how Its IP Time ("Its IP Time," "we," "us," or "our"), accessible at www.itsiptime.com, utilizes cookies, browser local storage, service workers, and related technologies when you access our publication or install our Progressive Web App (PWA).
- [Indian IP Law Digests and Monthly Roundups (2026 Archive)](https://www.itsiptime.com/digests/): Explore the complete archive of weekly Indian IP law digests and monthly roundups: landmark High Court judgments, patent prosecution, and trademark disputes.
- [Topics](https://www.itsiptime.com/topics/): Explore comprehensive legal analysis, case briefs, and statutory commentary across every major branch of Indian intellectual property law.
- [Install our App](https://www.itsiptime.com/install-our-app/): Wish to receive regular IP law updates?
- [Write With Us](https://www.itsiptime.com/write-with-us/): Its IP Time is an independent publication focused on Indian Intellectual Property Law.
- [Everything You Need to Know About Patent Law in India](https://www.itsiptime.com/patent-law/): Analysis of A Patent Covers: Analysis of Patent A Product: Analysis of Patent Is A Form Of: Comprehensive 2026 Guide to Indian Patent Law: Explaining...
- [Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: High Court Judgments and Policy Updates](https://www.itsiptime.com/weekly-ip-digest/): Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: Curated weekly legal roundups tracking Indian Supreme Court and High Court IP decisions, interim injunctions, and CGPDTM practice circulars.
- [IP Guides](https://www.itsiptime.com/ip-guides/): Its IP Time Guides provide structured, step-by-step reference primers covering the practical fundamentals of Indian intellectual property law and procedure.
- [Articles](https://www.itsiptime.com/articles/)
- [AI & Other IP](https://www.itsiptime.com/ai-ip/): Artificial intelligence is testing the limits of IP law faster than the law can keep up with it.
- [Geographical Indications](https://www.itsiptime.com/geographical-indications/): A Geographical Indication ties a product's identity to the place it comes from, like Darjeeling tea, Banarasi sarees, or Nagpur oranges.
- [Designs](https://www.itsiptime.com/designs/): Design law protects how a product looks rather than how it works.
- [Patent](https://www.itsiptime.com/patent/): A patent rewards the inventor who solves a problem nobody else has managed to solve.
- [Copyright](https://www.itsiptime.com/copyright/): Copyright protects the expression of an idea the moment it's fixed in some tangible form, whether that's a manuscript, a film, a piece of code, or a song.
- [Trademark](https://www.itsiptime.com/trademark/): A trademark is usually the first thing a customer notices, well before they read a product label or scroll through a company's terms.
- [What Is Design Law in India? A Complete Guide](https://www.itsiptime.com/design-law/): A product succeeds or fails on shelves for reasons that often have nothing to do with how well it works.
- [Monthly Indian IP Law Roundup: Comprehensive Judicial and Case Law Reviews](https://www.itsiptime.com/monthly-ip-law-roundup/): Monthly Indian IP Law Roundup: Comprehensive judicial reviews of High Court orders, patent decisions, trademark disputes, and CGPDTM policy updates across Indian Courts.
- [Editorial Policy](https://www.itsiptime.com/editorial-policy/): Its IP Time adheres to rigorous standards of accuracy, legal rigor, and transparency in reporting and analyzing Indian intellectual property law, statutory reforms, and commercial court jurisprudence.
- [Contact Us](https://www.itsiptime.com/contact/): We welcome feedback, editorial inquiries, research submissions, and academic collaboration proposals from advocates, trademark agents, patent attorneys, law faculties, and researchers.
- [Privacy Policy](https://www.itsiptime.com/privacy-policy/): Last updated: September 1, 2026.
- [Copyright Law in India: Everything You Need to Know](https://www.itsiptime.com/copyright-law/): Let us say Raj writes a song one evening.
- [Trademark Law in India: Registration, Rights and Infringement](https://www.itsiptime.com/trademark-law/): Judicial analysis of Rights And Marks under Indian IP law: statutory principles, High Court precedent, and key case holdings.
- [About](https://www.itsiptime.com/about/): Its IP Time is an independent digital publication and research workbench dedicated exclusively to Indian Intellectual Property (IP) jurisprudence, statutory developments, and commercial litigation practice.

## Optional

- [Agent (MCP protocol)](websites-agents.hostinger.com/www.itsiptime.com/mcp)

[comment]: # (Generated by Hostinger Tools Plugin)