Indian Courts
Tuesday, 25 August 2026
Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, Delhi HC
What Happened
HUL took Kwick Living to the Delhi High Court in CS(COMM) 904/2026 over an ad campaign, claiming commercial disparagement. Kwick Living responded with an immediate jurisdiction objection under Section 20 CPC. The argument was simple: both companies have their headquarters in Mumbai, so how could Delhi have jurisdiction? HUL argued that the disputed digital ads were aimed at consumers in Delhi and supported by regional distribution channels.
Issue
Can a company file a disparagement suit in Delhi when both parties operate from Mumbai, based solely on digital ad viewership in the capital?
Ratio and Result
Justice Amit Bansal looked at the Supreme Court’s ruling in IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia and the Banyan Tree purposeful availment test. The Court made it clear that online visibility alone cannot create territorial jurisdiction without clear proof of targeted commercial activity inside Delhi. The Bench directed both sides to complete their pleadings on the jurisdiction plea and reserved orders on maintainability. Read full analysis: Hindustan Unilever v. Kwick Living Case Analysis.
Zee Learn Limited v. Beauty Singh, Bombay HC
What Happened
When Zee Learn terminated Beauty Singh’s KIDZEE preschool franchise over contract defaults, the franchisee did not stop operations. Instead, she put up a board reading KIDGEE and carried on running the school from the exact same premises. Zee Learn rushed to the Bombay High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for an interim injunction to stop the copycat branding and enforce negative covenants. The respondent claimed that trademark disputes cannot be decided in arbitration.
Issue
Can a franchisor obtain Section 9 interim relief to stop an ex-franchisee from using a copycat mark and running a competing school?
Ratio and Result
Justice Amit Borkar rejected the maintainability objection, holding that post-termination trademark misuse and non-compete breaches arise directly from the franchise contract. The Court found KIDGEE deceptively similar to KIDZEE and held that the adoption was dishonest. The Bombay High Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining Beauty Singh from using KIDGEE and barred her from running a preschool at the site pending arbitration. Read full analysis: Zee Learn v. Beauty Singh Case Analysis.
Thursday, 27 August 2026
The Cinema Resource Centre v. Ganga Rudraiah, Madras HC
What Happened
Can holding old photographic negatives in an archive make you the copyright owner of a classic film’s stills? The Cinema Resource Centre thought so when it sued the family of late filmmaker Rudraiah in the Madras High Court over photos from the 1978 movie Aval Appadithan. The Centre sought a declaration of ownership and an injunction based purely on physical possession of the negatives. Rudraiah’s heirs pushed back, arguing that physical custody of negatives does not convey statutory copyright.
Issue
Does physical possession of archival negatives give a party copyright ownership under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 without a written assignment?
Ratio and Result
The Division Bench ruled that physical custody of film negatives is completely distinct from legal copyright under Section 17. Copyright belongs to the author and passes to another party only through an unbroken chain of written assignments. Because the Centre could not produce any assignment deed from the author or producer, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and refused the injunction. Read full analysis: Cinema Resource Centre v. Ganga Rudraiah Case Analysis.
Friday, 28 August 2026
M/s Vinbros and Co. v. M/s Chamundi Winery and Distillery, Madras HC
What Happened
Vinbros sued rival liquor maker Chamundi Winery for trademark infringement before the Madras High Court. Chamundi quickly filed Application A.2575/2026 to have the case thrown out, pointing out that both manufacturers run their businesses outside Chennai. Vinbros tried to justify filing in Chennai by claiming that its trademark application had been processed at the Trade Marks Registry branch office located in the city.
Issue
Does the presence of a Trade Marks Registry branch in a city give the High Court jurisdiction under Section 134(2) when neither party does business there?
Ratio and Result
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the situs of a Trade Marks Registry office cannot confer jurisdiction for civil suits under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. Section 134 requires the plaintiff to reside or carry on business in the forum, while Section 20 CPC demands that the cause of action arise locally. Filing papers at a registry branch does not create a cause of action, so the Court upheld the objection and held the suit not maintainable in Chennai. Read full analysis: Vinbros v. Chamundi Case Analysis.
YouTube Google LLC v. Sri Eshwar College of Engineering, Madras HC
What Happened
YouTube Google LLC filed an infringement suit against Sri Eshwar College of Engineering and unknown John Doe defendants over alleged broadcast violations. The college filed Application A.191/2026 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint, pointing out that Google never specified its registered trademarks or explained what the college actually did wrong. Google argued that John Doe actions allow for broader, flexible pleadings.
Issue
Can a plaintiff maintain a trademark suit against a named party using John Doe shortcuts without pleading specific trademark registrations or concrete acts of infringement?
Ratio and Result
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu made it clear that John Doe procedures are meant for untraceable infringers, not to excuse lazy drafting against known defendants. A commercial trademark suit must specify registered marks and explain the exact acts constituting infringement under Section 29. Because Google relied on vague assertions without essential trademark details, the Madras High Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. Read full analysis: YouTube Google LLC v. Sri Eshwar Case Analysis.
GI & Indian IP Registry News
CGPDTM Introduces ‘IP Pragya’ Knowledge Platform on IP India Portal
The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks has launched IP Pragya on the official IP India website. The platform features analytical articles and administrative perspectives written by Patent Office and Trademark Registry officials. The initiative covers patent examination standards, trademark office guidelines, and regulatory developments across Indian IP offices.
MeitY Reports 52% Growth in Electronics and IT Patent Filings
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology announced a 52% year-on-year increase in patent filings across the electronics and IT sectors for financial year 2025-26. The surge reflects accelerated research and development in domestic semiconductor design, hardware systems, consumer electronics, and communications technologies. MeitY stated that government support schemes and patent facilitation centres spurred domestic patent filings.
Australian Federal Court Dismisses APEDA Appeal in Basmati Rice Dispute
The Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal filed by India’s Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority seeking exclusive certification mark rights for Basmati rice. The court held that the term Basmati refers to aromatic rice cultivated across both India and Pakistan. The ruling preserves Australian market access for Pakistani exporters and denies exclusive certification rights to India.
Himachal Pradesh Governor Distributes GI Certificates to Traditional Artisans
Himachal Pradesh Governor Kavinder Gupta presented Geographical Indication certificates to local artisans in Shimla for three traditional state handicrafts. Speaking at the ceremony, the Governor emphasized that GI tags protect the authentic cultural identity of local weavers and craftsmen against industrial counterfeits. The state government announced marketing initiatives to connect registered authorized users directly with commercial buyers in domestic and export markets.
Infosys Co-Founder Emphasizes Product and IP Ownership for $30 Trillion Economy
Speaking at the PSG College of Technology in Coimbatore, Infosys co-founder Kris Gopalakrishnan stated that India must transition from a service-centric model to a product- and IP-driven economy to achieve a $30 trillion GDP by 2047. He stated that India must build and own domestic technology patents and commercial brands to capture full economic value. He urged universities and industry to focus on translational research.
Also Read: Weekly Indian IP Law Digest Sep 6 to 12 2026 | Its IP Time
International IP Updates
Philips Wins $3 Million Patent Verdict Against Quectel in Delaware
A federal jury in Delaware ordered Chinese communications firm Quectel Wireless Solutions to pay $3,009,749 to Philips for patent infringement. The jury determined that Quectel infringed claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,831,271 covering 3G and 4G wireless communication technologies while clearing the defendant of a second asserted patent. The verdict concludes a multi-year enforcement campaign that included earlier proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission.
US Wireless Carriers Defeat $436 Million Asus Patent Infringement Suit
A federal jury in Texas cleared AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile of all patent infringement claims brought by Asus and licensing affiliate Innovative Sonic. Asus sought $436 million in damages on claims that cellular equipment supplied by Nokia and Ericsson infringed three wireless patents. The jury delivered a complete defense verdict and found that the carriers did not infringe any asserted claims.
WikiHow Files Copyright Lawsuit Against OpenAI Over ChatGPT Training
WikiHow filed a copyright infringement and DMCA complaint against OpenAI in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that OpenAI copied more than 11,000 registered how-to articles to train ChatGPT without authorization and removed copyright management information. WikiHow argued that ChatGPT provides direct answers that substitute for its instructional guides and deplete website traffic and digital advertising revenue.
Federal Court Orders Guardant Health to Pay $245 Million in DNA Sequencing Dispute
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware entered a final judgment ordering Guardant Health to pay $245.2 million to TwinStrand Biosciences and the University of Washington. The award follows a jury finding of willful infringement regarding two patents covering high-accuracy duplex DNA sequencing methods. The final judgment comprises past damages, supplemental awards, interest, and an ongoing 6% royalty on covered diagnostic test sales through patent expiry in 2033.
U.S. Federal Circuit Clarifies ‘Skilled Searcher’ Test for IPR Estoppel
In Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit provided guidance on inter partes review estoppel under 35 U.S.C. Section 315(e)(2). The court held that estoppel applies only when a patent owner proves that a skilled searcher conducting a diligent, non-hindsight search would reasonably have discovered the prior art. The court emphasized that the mere theoretical possibility of finding references among voluminous search results does not satisfy the statutory threshold.
Vietnam Amends Customs Law to Strengthen Border IP Enforcement
The National Assembly of Vietnam passed amendments to its customs legislation to enhance cross-border intellectual property protection effective March 2027. The revised law authorizes customs officers to proactively detain suspect counterfeit shipments, inspect goods in transit, and expedite recordal procedures for registered brand owners. The reform addresses international trade recommendations and strengthens oversight of cross-border e-commerce consignments.
