Indian Courts
Monday, 17 August 2026
Aamir Khan Productions Private Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and 28 Others, Madras HC
What Happened
The Madras High Court, in OA.835/2026 filed alongside C.S (COMM DIV) No. 239 of 2026, dealt with the unauthorised streaming and hosting of the film “BATWARA 1947” across multiple websites. Aamir Khan Productions sought relief against BSNL and 28 other respondents, most of them were internet service providers, whose networks were being used to access pirated copies of the film BATWARA 1947.
Issue
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an ad interim injunction under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 restraining the respondents from facilitating infringement of the film, along with a dynamic blocking order covering future mirror sites.
Ratio and Result
The Court accepted the CBFC certificate as sufficient prima facie proof of ownership and found that any delay in granting relief would make a final judgment meaningless given how fast pirated content spreads online. It granted the ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from copying, recording or reproducing the film, and directed blocking of the listed websites along with any future sites using similar prefixes or suffixes to bypass the order. The plaintiff was directed to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC and serve the order on the respondents by registered post. Read the full case analysis here: Aamir Khan Productions v. BSNL Case Analysis.
Vishesh Pictures Private Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and 28 Others, Madras HC
What Happened
In a companion matter, OA.837/2026, the Madras High Court considered a similar plea by Vishesh Pictures over the film AWARAPAN 2. The respondents again included BSNL and 28 other internet service providers accused of allowing access to platforms that hosted the film without authorisation.
Issue
Whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of copyright ownership under Section 13(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to justify an ad interim injunction and a dynamic blocking order against the respondents.
Ratio and Result
Justice K. Surender relied on the CBFC certificate as adequate evidence of title and held that the risk of irreparable harm to the film’s commercial prospects outweighed any inconvenience to the respondents. The Court granted the injunction and directed the respondents to block the identified websites, extending the order to future domains carrying the film’s title in the prefix or suffix. Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC was again made mandatory, with the matter listed for further hearing on 11 September 2026. Read the full case analysis here: Vishesh Pictures v. BSNL Analysis.
Noviets Pharma and Others v. Novartis AG and Others, Delhi HC
What Happened
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court heard FAO(OS) (COMM)-143/2026, an appeal against an ad interim injunction restraining Noviets Pharma from using the mark NOVIETS. Novartis AG had argued that the mark was deceptively similar to its own globally recognised NOVARTIS mark and had obtained relief from a Single Judge on that basis.
Issue
Whether NOVIETS was deceptively similar to NOVARTIS under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and whether using the mark purely as a business identifier could shield the appellants from a passing off claim.
Ratio and Result
The Bench found the phonetic and visual similarity between the two marks significant enough to deceive an average consumer, particularly given the pharmaceutical setting where precision in naming matters. It rejected the business identifier defence, holding that adopting a confusingly similar name in any capacity does not insulate a party from liability. The Court also gave weight to NOVARTIS having been recognised as a well known mark in WIPO and INDRP proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and the injunction against Noviets Pharma was confirmed. Read the full case analysis here: Noviets Pharma v. Novartis Case Analysis.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited v. M/S Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Another, Delhi HC
What Happened
Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Delhi High Court decided C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)-122/2025, a cancellation petition filed by Dr. Reddy’s against the registration of the mark DAPLOGIN under Registration No. 5208898 in Class 05. Dr. Reddy’s argued the mark infringed its own DAPLO brand and created a real risk of confusion between pharmaceutical products.
Issue
Whether the registration of DAPLOGIN should be cancelled under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 on the ground that DAPLO had achieved well known mark status under Section 11(6) and Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act, and that DAPLOGIN was deceptively similar to it.
Ratio and Result
The Court held that where two pharmaceutical marks are used for the same category of goods, even minor similarities carry a higher risk of confusion because the consequences for patients can be serious. It found Dr. Reddy’s prior use and reputation in DAPLO outweighed Razenta’s more recent adoption of DAPLOGIN. The Court ordered cancellation of the DAPLOGIN registration and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the Register within six weeks. Read the full case analysis here Dr. Reddy’s v. Razenta Analysis.
Tuesday, 18 August 2026
Bisleri International Private Limited v. Agrawal Food Product, Bombay HC
What Happened
The Commercial Division of the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, disposed of Commercial IP Suit No. 40195 of 2025 (IAL/40467/2025) after Bisleri and Agrawal Food Product reached a settlement. Bisleri had accused Agrawal Food Product of selling packaged water under the mark BILSSERI with artwork, labelling and bottle design deceptively similar to its own BISLERI trade dress.
Issue
Whether the Court should record the parties’ Consent Terms as a decree, and what relief should follow given claims of trade mark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off.
Ratio and Result
The Court verified the authority of the representatives appearing for both sides and passed a decree in terms of the Consent Terms. Agrawal Food Product was permanently restrained from using BILSSERI or any deceptively similar mark, and from using the disputed bottle shape, label or artwork. The defendant was directed to withdraw its pending trade mark application within a week, destroy all infringing stock in the presence of the plaintiff’s representative, and pay Rs. 1,00,000 in settled damages, with a further Rs. 1,00,00,000 in damages payable in the event of any breach. Read the full case analysis here Bisleri v. Agrawal Food Product Analysis.
Thursday, 20 August 2026
Hahnemann Scientific Laboratory India Pvt. Ltd. v. Meera Rastogi Trading as Hahnemann Memorial Laboratory, Delhi HC
What Happened
The Delhi High Court decided FAO (COMM)-182/2026, an appeal against a trial court order that had refused an interim injunction to Hahnemann Scientific over the mark HASLAB’S DIGESTO. The respondent used the mark DIGESTO PLUS for a competing digestive preparation, and the trial court had found the word DIGESTO to be descriptive and long used by third parties.
Issue
Whether the trial court exercised its discretion arbitrarily in denying the interim injunction, and whether a 76 day delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under the Limitation Act, 1963 on the basis of a fresh trade mark registration obtained after the impugned order.
Ratio and Result
The Division Bench applied the settled principle that appellate courts should not disturb a trial court’s discretionary order unless it is arbitrary or contrary to law. It agreed that DIGESTO was descriptive and publici juris, and noted the appellant had failed to disclose an old disclaimer over the word in its earlier lapsed registration. The Bench also rejected the argument that a registration granted after the impugned order could justify condoning the delay in appeal. The appeal was dismissed and the trial court’s refusal of injunction was upheld. Read the full case analysis here Hahnemann Scientific v. Meera Rastogi Analysis.
JRPT Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. HT Process Controls Private Limited, Supreme Court
What Happened
The Supreme Court, comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, dealt with SLP(C) No. 29465/2026 arising from CS(COMM) No. 560 of 2024 pending before the Delhi High Court. JRPT Automation had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC to discharge an injunction, but the High Court had a related contempt application also pending and the Rule 4 application had not been taken up for hearing.
Issue
Whether the application to discharge the injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC should be heard before or alongside the pending contempt application against the petitioner.
Ratio and Result
The Supreme Court agreed that proceeding with a contempt application while the underlying injunction remains open to challenge is procedurally unfair, since the validity of the order allegedly breached should be settled before penal consequences are considered. Rather than issue a rigid direction, the Court left it open to the petitioner to renew the request before the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, who was asked to consider hearing both applications together or in a sequence consistent with the interest of justice. The petition was disposed of without touching the underlying trade mark dispute. Read the full case analysis here JRPT Automation v. HT Process Controls Analysis.
Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another, Delhi HC
What Happened
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora decided FAO(OS) (COMM)-167/2026. Celagenex, proprietor of the registered mark NUREWIRE, had obtained an ex-parte ad interim injunction against Nugenesys over the mark RewireX in May 2026, along with the appointment of a Local Commissioner to verify stock. Nugenesys challenged the injunction, arguing that Celagenex had known of the RewireX application and the appellants’ identity since October 2025 but withheld this from the trial court.
Issue
Whether the ex-parte injunction should be vacated on the ground that Celagenex suppressed material facts, including an earlier cease and desist notice and a formal opposition to the RewireX application, when seeking urgent relief.
Ratio and Result
The Bench held that a party seeking ex-parte relief owes the court a duty of utmost good faith, and found that Celagenex’s claim of only discovering the infringement in May 2026 was contradicted by its own earlier notice and opposition filed months before. It held that this suppression was wilful rather than an oversight, and that the manufactured urgency undermined the basis on which notice to the appellants had been dispensed with. The Division Bench vacated the ex-parte injunction, while allowing the underlying suit to proceed on its merits. Read the full case analysis here Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals v. Celagenex Analysis.
GI & Indian IP Registry News
CGPDTM Releases Draft Manual on Patent Practice and Procedure
The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks has released the Draft Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure, 2026, and invited stakeholders to submit comments and suggestions. The proposed revision updates the existing 2019 manual to reflect developments including the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024, the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023, the Shanti Act, 2025, the 2025 Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions and recent judicial decisions, while also addressing greater automation and electronic processing within the Patent Office.
CGPDTM Releases Draft Manual on Trademark Practice and Procedure
The CGPDTM has also released the Draft Manual of Trademark Office Practice and Procedure, 2026, inviting stakeholder comments on the proposed overhaul of trademark practice. The draft updates the procedural framework to reflect the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, modernises filing and Registry workflows, incorporates recent case law and expands guidance on opposition proceedings, prior-user claims and well-known marks, including a new chapter dedicated to these latter concepts.
Australia Federal Court Rejects APEDA Appeal in Basmati Dispute
The Federal Court of Australia has dismissed an appeal by India’s Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) concerning its attempt to secure exclusive certification rights over the term “Basmati” in Australia. The decision upholds the earlier finding that Basmati is not exclusively associated with India, recognising that the rice is also traditionally produced in Pakistan and that Pakistani producers have a legitimate claim to use the term. The ruling represents a setback to India’s efforts to secure exclusive protection for Basmati in the Australian market.
Amritsar Shawl Moves Closer to GI Protection
The Centre has initiated the process for obtaining GI protection for the traditional Amritsar shawl, seeking to strengthen the identity and commercial value of the city’s established shawl industry. Amritsar accounts for an estimated ₹1,700 crore of India’s roughly ₹3,000-crore shawl and stole market, including around ₹600 crore in exports. GI registration could help distinguish authentic Amritsar shawls from imitations, protect the region-linked reputation of the product and improve branding and market opportunities for local manufacturers, artisans and exporters. The GI Registry currently records the Amritsar Shawl application as Application No. 1373, filed in Classes 24 and 25.
GI Tag Gives Fresh Momentum to Kashmir’s Traditional Shawl Trade
GI protection is providing renewed visibility to Kashmir’s traditional shawl industry, with Kani and Pashmina shawls attracting greater interest from international visitors and buyers seeking authenticated products. Artisans and manufacturers in the Valley say the GI tag helps distinguish genuine handwoven products from cheaper machine-made imitations and strengthens consumer confidence in their authenticity. The development illustrates the commercial role that GI protection can play in preserving traditional craftsmanship while improving the market positioning of region-specific handicrafts.
Tamil Nadu Seeks GI Protection for Five Traditional Products
The Tamil Nadu government has applied for GI tags for five traditional food and beverage products: Kodaikanal Panrimalai coffee, Karamanikuppam karuvadu, Kumbakonam degree coffee, Nilgiri ghee and Palamedu palkova. The applications have been submitted by the Tamil Nadu Food Processing and Agri Export Promotion Corporation through the Tamil Nadu State Council for Science and Technology to the Geographical Indications Registry. The State is seeking GI recognition to strengthen the identity and market visibility of these products, expand their domestic and international market potential and improve economic opportunities for the communities involved in their production.
Also Read: Weekly Indian IP Law Digest Sep 6 to 12 2026 | Its IP Time
International IP Updates
Cytek Ordered to Pay $56 Million in Cell-Analysis Patent Dispute
A Delaware federal jury has found Cytek Biosciences liable for infringing a patent owned by Beckman Coulter covering technology used to analyse single-cell blood and tissue samples. The jury awarded Beckman Coulter $56 million in damages following the finding that Cytek’s cell-analysis products infringed the asserted patent, marking a significant financial setback in the competing biosciences technology sector.
Round Hill Sues Anthropic and Suno Over AI Training
Independent music publisher Round Hill Music has filed separate copyright infringement suits against Anthropic and AI music company Suno in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that both companies used copyrighted lyrics from more than 500 songs without authorisation to train their AI systems. The works reportedly include songs associated with artists such as James Brown, The Kinks and the Goo Goo Dolls, and Round Hill has indicated that the litigation could potentially expand to more than 10,000 compositions, with claimed damages potentially exceeding $1 billion.
Australia Introduces Levy for Tech Giants Using Local News Content
Australia has enacted the News Bargaining Incentive, requiring major technology platforms to enter commercial agreements with local news publishers or face a levy of 2.5% of their Australian advertising revenue. The measure applies to qualifying platforms including Google, Meta, TikTok and LinkedIn with more than A$250 million in local advertising revenue, while platforms can avoid the levy by reaching agreements with at least eight publishers, with different offsets available for spending on large and small-to-medium news organisations.
