Indian Courts
Monday, 10 August 2026
Jyothy Labs Ltd v. Dabur India Ltd, Bombay HC
What Happened
The Bombay High Court decided Interim Application No. 1880 of 2021, filed within Commercial IP Suit No. 240 of 2021, concerning an allegation of trade dress copying between two competing FMCG products. Jyothy Labs approached the Court seeking interim relief against Dabur India, arguing that Dabur’s product packaging closely mimicked the visual identity Jyothy Labs had built around its own product. The application required the Court to compare the overall look and feel of the two packagings rather than isolated design elements. The ruling turned on how courts should assess consumer confusion in FMCG trade dress disputes.
Issue
Whether Dabur’s packaging, colour scheme, and layout were deceptively similar to Jyothy Labs’ established trade dress under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the common law tort of passing off.
Ratio and Result
The Court applied the overall impression test rather than conducting a side-by-side, element-by-element comparison of the two packagings. It found that the combination of visual elements in Dabur’s packaging was too close to Jyothy Labs’ established trade dress to be coincidental. Significantly, the Court held that the presence of different brand names on the competing packaging did not, by itself, dispel the likelihood of confusion, because trade dress functions as an independent source identifier separate from the word mark. This reasoning reinforces that FMCG companies cannot rely solely on distinct branding to escape liability if the overall packaging aesthetic is substantially similar. The finding favoured Jyothy Labs, and the interim application was allowed in its favour. Read the full case analysis here: Jyothy Labs Ltd v. Dabur India Ltd Analysis.
Alder Biochem Pvt Ltd v. Zydus Healthcare Ltd, Delhi HC
What Happened
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in FAO(OS)(COMM)-268/2024, heard an intra-court appeal against an ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from using the mark ALDER BIOCHEM. The appeal arose out of infringement proceedings initiated by Zydus Healthcare against the appellant’s use of a mark incorporating the term BIOCHEM. Given that both parties operate in the pharmaceutical sector, the Court had to weigh the heightened risk of consumer confusion associated with look-alike drug names. The appellate bench examined whether the single judge’s ad interim order restraining use of ALDER BIOCHEM had been correctly granted.
Issue
Whether adding the prefix ALDER to the registered mark BIOCHEM was sufficient to avoid infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and whether third-party use of BIOCHEM by other entities weakened Zydus’s claim to exclusivity.
Ratio and Result
The Division Bench held that BIOCHEM was the essential and distinctive element of Zydus’s registered mark, and that merely prefixing it with ALDER did nothing to dispel the likelihood of confusion. The Court placed particular weight on the public health stakes involved in pharmaceutical branding, where even minor confusion between marks can have serious consequences for patient safety. It rejected the appellant’s defence based on third-party use of BIOCHEM by other entities, holding that such use did not dilute Zydus’s rights in the mark. Zydus’s prior use of the mark since 2022, supported by turnover figures demonstrating commercial use, tipped the balance of convenience decisively in its favour. The Division Bench accordingly upheld the ad interim injunction restraining the appellant’s use of ALDER BIOCHEM. Read the full case analysis here
Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd, Supreme Court
What Happened
The Supreme Court, on August 7, decided Civil Appeal No. 10260/2026, addressing allegations of trade dress imitation against the backdrop of a well-known trademark claim. The dispute centred on Dharampal Premchand’s brand, with the plaintiff asserting both trademark and copyright infringement arising from the defendant’s packaging. The appeal reached the Supreme Court after the underlying proceedings had already established liability, leaving the apex court to consider the wider legal questions of well-known trademark status and the appropriate treatment of trade dress. The ruling carries significance beyond the immediate parties given the Supreme Court’s direct involvement in a trade dress and well-known mark dispute.
Issue
Whether Dharampal Premchand’s brand met the well-known trademark threshold under Section 2(1)(zg) and Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and whether the defendant’s packaging infringed both the plaintiff’s trademark and copyright.
Ratio and Result
The Supreme Court found that infringement of the plaintiff’s registered copyright and trademark had been established, and that this finding provided the foundation for an award of damages. It held that trade dress deserves the same protective weight as the word mark itself, rejecting any suggestion that trade dress is a lesser or secondary form of protection. The Court’s order sets a trajectory for quantifying damages tied to the scale and extent of the infringement, rather than awarding only nominal or token relief. Importantly, the judgment reinforces that well-known trademark status is not conferred automatically and requires proactive evidentiary proof of repute, reputation, and recognition among the relevant public. The decision is likely to be cited in future disputes involving both trade dress protection and claims to well-known trademark status. Read the full analysis of Shabu KN Achary case here.
Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v. Controller of Patents and Designs, Delhi HC
What Happened
The Delhi High Court reviewed a patent refusal in C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT)-118/2022, an appeal filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. Esteve Pharmaceuticals challenged the Controller’s rejection of its national phase application 1435/DELNP/2012, arguing that the refusal had not been properly reasoned on the merits. The appeal required the Court to revisit the technical prior art record relied upon by the Controller and assess whether the statutory grounds for refusal had actually been made out. Patent appeals of this kind are closely watched given their bearing on how examiners apply inventive step and efficacy standards in India.
Issue
Whether the Controller correctly applied Section 2(1)(ja) on inventive step and Sections 3(d) and 3(e) on efficacy and mere admixture in refusing national phase application 1435/DELNP/2012.
Ratio and Result
Citing Biomoneta Research v. Controller General of Patents, the Court scrutinised whether the cited prior art documents, D1 and D2, actually anticipated the claims in the manner the Controller had assumed. It held that the Controller’s order fell short because it applied the obviousness test in a generic fashion, without a concrete, claim-linked analysis connecting the prior art to the specific claims under examination. The Court emphasised that a First Examination Report response asserting efficacy is not sufficient on its own, and that patentees must support such claims with empirical, technical data. The order directs re-examination or grant of the application depending on the outcome of a proper technical merit assessment. The decision reinforces a broader trend in Indian patent jurisprudence requiring detailed, claim-specific reasoning rather than boilerplate rejection under Sections 3(d) and 3(e). Read the full case here.
Emami Ltd v. Dabur India Ltd, Delhi HC
What Happened
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court decided FAO(OS)(COMM)-177/2026, an appeal concerning Dabur’s product “Dabur Cool King Thanda Tel,” which Emami alleged copied the trade dress of its own cooling oil product. The appeal arose from interim injunction proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure, with Emami seeking to restrain Dabur from continuing to sell the allegedly infringing product pending trial. The Division Bench had to weigh the competing harms each party would suffer depending on whether the injunction was granted or refused. Given that both companies compete directly in the cooling oil segment, the outcome carried immediate commercial consequences for shelf presence during peak season.
Issue
Whether the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable injury favoured granting an interim injunction against Dabur under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Ratio and Result
The Division Bench held that Dabur would suffer no irreparable harm from complying with an injunction, reasoning that rebranding or repackaging a product is a foreseeable and manageable business risk that companies must anticipate. By contrast, it found that Emami’s brand would suffer erosion that would be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse once a confusingly similar product remained on shelves alongside its own. This asymmetry in the two parties’ respective harms weighed decisively in the balance of convenience analysis. The Court accordingly affirmed the interim injunction restraining Dabur from selling the allegedly infringing “Dabur Cool King Thanda Tel” packaging pending the outcome of the suit. The ruling illustrates how Indian courts continue to treat brand equity erosion as a form of harm warranting urgent interim protection in FMCG trade dress disputes. Read the full case analysis here
Tuesday, 11 August 2026
FreeElective Network Pvt Ltd v. Matrimony.com Ltd, Madras HC
What Happened
In OSA(CAD).159/2022, the Madras High Court examined a dispute over whether registration of a device mark allows its owner to claim exclusivity over a word appearing inside that device. FreeElective Network, the registered proprietor of the device mark Jodi365, sought to restrain Matrimony.com from using the mark Jodii on the ground that it infringed the standalone word “Jodi” embedded within its registered device. The appeal required the Court to determine the scope of protection that a composite or device mark actually confers on its individual components. The matrimonial services sector, where such marks are common, made the question of practical significance beyond the two parties involved.
Issue
Whether FreeElective, as holder of a registered device mark Jodi365, could restrain Matrimony.com’s use of Jodii by asserting infringement over the standalone word “Jodi” under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Ratio and Result
The Court held that registration of a composite device mark protects the mark as a whole, and does not, without more, extend exclusivity over the individual words or elements making up that composite mark, absent separate registration of that constituent part. Since FreeElective had not separately registered the word “Jodi” on its own, its infringement claim over that standalone word was dismissed. The Court clarified, however, that this finding does not foreclose a passing off claim grounded in prior use under Section 27 of the Act, which remains a distinct and independent cause of action available to FreeElective. On the facts before it, the Court declined to grant the interim injunction sought. FreeElective was left to pursue its remedies, if any, through the passing off route or at trial. Read the full case here
Empee Distilleries Ltd v. Universal Spirits Pvt Ltd, Madras HC
What Happened
The Madras High Court, in OA.492/2026, considered an application for an ad interim injunction concerning the use of the mark MARCO POLO in the liquor sector. Empee Distilleries, the registered proprietor of the MARCO POLO mark, objected to Universal Spirits’ use of the term as a prefix or suffix across its product line, including on a product sold as “MARCO POLO DELUXE XXX RUM.” The application required the Court to assess, at the interim stage, whether the evidence placed on record was sufficient to establish a likelihood of consumer confusion in the liquor market. Given the low evidentiary threshold typically expected at the ad interim stage, the outcome turned heavily on the quality of the material Empee had placed before the Court.
Issue
Whether Universal Spirits’ use of MARCO POLO as a prefix or suffix, including in “MARCO POLO DELUXE XXX RUM,” was deceptively similar to Empee’s registered mark under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Ratio and Result
Applying the anti-dissection rule and the dominant feature test, the Court examined the competing marks as composite wholes rather than breaking them into isolated components. It found that the evidence advanced by Empee to demonstrate actual or likely consumer confusion was too weak or speculative to justify the grant of interim relief at this stage. The Court was not persuaded that verbal similarity alone, without stronger supporting material such as consumer survey data or market evidence, met the threshold required for an ad interim injunction. Accordingly, the application was dismissed, though the dismissal was without prejudice to Empee building a fuller evidentiary record for trial. The ruling signals that mark owners in the liquor sector cannot rely on bare assertions of similarity and must come prepared with concrete confusion evidence even at the interim stage. Read the full analysis of Empee Distilleries case here.
Friday, 14 August 2026
Yes Bank Ltd v. Modi Rubber Ltd, Delhi HC
What Happened
The Delhi High Court, in FAO(OS)(COMM)-31/2020, examined which forum has jurisdiction to try patent and design infringement suits under Indian law. The dispute required the Court to reconcile the specialised forum provisions in the Patents Act and the Designs Act with the general commercial court framework introduced in 2015. The ruling addressed a procedural question that has recurred across IP litigation since the Commercial Courts Act came into force. Litigants and lower courts alike had sought clarity on whether such matters must compulsorily proceed before the Commercial Division.
Issue
Whether Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000 and Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970 mandate that patent and design infringement suits be tried by the Commercial Division, or whether the reference to “the High Court” in these provisions operates independently of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Ratio and Result
The Court held that suits under both the Designs Act and the Patents Act must be heard and disposed of exclusively by the Commercial Division, and that this reference is not discretionary. It relied on the precedents in Glaxo Smith Kline v. Controller of Patents and Designs and Neena Aneja v. Jai Prakash Associates to hold that the specialised jurisdiction is mandatory rather than optional. The Court reasoned that treating the provisions as independent of the Commercial Courts Act would create parallel and potentially conflicting fora for the same category of disputes. As a result, patent and design litigation will now proceed through the Commercial Division as a matter of course, and this ruling forecloses forum-related objections going forward. The decision brings consistency to how IP infringement suits are routed within the Delhi High Court’s registry. Read the full case analysis here
IP Registry and GI News
Patent Office Issues AI Guidelines for Examiners
The Indian Intellectual Property Office published Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Patent Examination Procedures on August 7, 2026. The Guidelines permit AI-assisted functions such as prior art searching, preliminary patentability analysis, and machine translation, but draw a firm line against automated decision-making. Human oversight and verification stay mandatory, and confidential patent material cannot be run through public AI tools. Responsibility for the final decision remains with the Examiner or Controller.
Kannauj’s Itar Industry and Its GI-Protected Deg Bhapka Process
Coverage this week revisited Kannauj’s centuries-old itar and attar-making tradition, built around the deg bhapka hydro-distillation method using copper stills, wood-fired furnaces, and sandalwood oil bases. Kannauj Perfume has carried GI protection since 2014, registered under item 157 of the GI Act, 1999, shielding the name from use by producers outside the region.
DPIIT and MSME Ministry Sign MoU for GI Products
DPIIT and the Ministry of MSME signed an MoU on August 5 at Vanijya Bhawan to accelerate commercialisation, quality standardisation, and global market access for India’s GI products. The framework covers onboarding GI collectives onto ONDC and GeM under a Bharat GI banner, co-sponsoring GI pavilions at trade expos, and integrating the One District One Product scheme into both agencies’ programming. The initiative targets artisans, weavers, and producer collectives who hold GI recognition but lack scalable market access.
Rain and Labour Shortages Hit Goa’s GI Okra Ahead of Chaturthi
Sat Shiro Bheno, Goa’s seven-ridged okra variety that received its GI tag in 2023, faced supply disruption this week as heavy monsoon rain and labour shortages hit harvests ahead of Ganesh Chaturthi. The episode illustrates a recurring tension for GI agricultural products, where legal protection secures the name but does no work against climate and labour pressures on the underlying crop.
Also Read: Weekly Indian IP Law Digest Sep 6 to 12 2026 | Its IP Time
International IP Updates
Shein Loses UK Copyright Suit Against Temu
The High Court in London ruled against Shein in its copyright claim over roughly 2,559 product listings on Temu’s UK site that used Shein’s own product photographs. Judge Kelyn Bacon held Temu did not know or have reason to believe the photographs, uploaded by third-party sellers, infringed Shein’s copyright, and that any reproduction occurred outside the UK since Temu’s servers sit in Ireland. Temu’s separate competition law counterclaim against Shein goes to trial in 2027.
SEC Drops Insider Trading Suit Against Pardoned Ontrak Executive
The SEC moved to dismiss its civil insider trading case against Terren Peizer, former CEO of Ontrak, who was convicted in 2024 for using a prearranged stock sale plan to avoid roughly 12 million dollars in losses and was later pardoned by President Trump. The dismissal follows the pardon and closes the parallel civil track after the criminal conviction had already been set aside in effect.
FlightAware Withdraws Suit Against Kalshi Over Flight Data Use
FlightAware filed and then withdrew, within a single day, its lawsuit accusing prediction market operator Kalshi of using FlightAware’s data and name without permission to run flight cancellation betting markets. The dismissal was without prejudice, filed in the Southern District of New York, and came as Kalshi adjusted its disclaimer language to attribute outcomes to a “Primary Source Agency” rather than naming FlightAware directly.
