Indian Courts
Tuesday, July 21
ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Delhi HC | Justice Jyoti Singh | Trademark | Registrability
What happened: ADS Spirits appealed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against the Registrar’s order rejecting its application for the mark OFFER in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages. The Examination Report had objected under Section 9(1)(a), describing the mark, without specifying which category applied, as a common surname, personal name, geographical name, or non-distinctive geometrical figure. The final refusal rested on the ground that OFFER is commonly used to ask for a discount and is devoid of “uniqueness.”
Issue: Whether Section 9(1)(a) requires a mark to be “unique” to qualify for registration, and whether the Registrar had properly assessed distinctiveness of OFFER in relation to the specific goods, alcoholic beverages, given that the Appellant’s reply, its list of 31 registered OFFER-formative marks, and cited precedent were left unaddressed.
Ratio & Result: Section 9(1)(a) bars marks devoid of distinctive character, not marks lacking “uniqueness”; the Registrar applied the wrong test. Distinctiveness must be tested against the specific goods in question, since a word can be generic for one category of goods and arbitrary for another. The impugned order was also unreasoned and failed to engage with the Appellant’s submissions and cited registrations. Impugned order quashed and set aside. Matter remanded to the Registrar for fresh consideration within four months, after granting a hearing.
Thursday, July 23
Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Delhi HC | Justice Tushar Rao Gedela | Patents | Pharmaceutical Combination
What happened: Array Biopharma appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the Controller’s order refusing Patent Application No. 450/DELNP/2015 for a pharmaceutical combination of a B-Raf inhibitor, an EGFR inhibitor, and optionally a PI3K-alpha inhibitor, used to treat proliferative diseases. The application was refused for lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(i).
Issue: Whether the claimed dual and triple combination of Encorafenib, Cetuximab or Erlotinib, and Alpelisib was obvious over four cited prior art documents; whether the claim was in substance a method of treatment barred under Section 3(i); and whether it was a mere derivative of known substances barred under Section 3(d).
Ratio & Result: None of the four prior art documents, individually or read together, disclosed the specific claimed combination, and the impugned order gave no reasoning on why a person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them. On Section 3(d), the Controller never identified which “known compound” the claim was allegedly a derivative of, and a combination of independent active agents cannot be treated as a derivative of itself. On Section 3(i), Claim 1 was held to be a product claim for a “pharmaceutical combination,” with the phrase “for simultaneous, separate or sequential administration” being a functional descriptor rather than a method step. All three objections were found unsustainable as reasoned. Result: Application remanded to the Controller for de novo reconsideration of the objections within six months, after a fresh hearing, uninfluenced by the Court’s observations.
Satinder Singh Sarna & Anr. v. Lama Kitchen
Delhi HC | Justice Jyoti Singh | Trademark | Passing Off
What Happened: The plaintiffs, proprietors of the registered “LAMA KITCHEN” word and device marks in Class 43 for a Himalayan cook-house concept operating out of Hauz Khas Village since 2016, discovered a separate Delhi restaurant using the identical “LAMA KITCHEN” name for Chinese and Tibetan cuisine, replicating their interiors, Tibetan prayer-flag décor, and Instagram branding.
Issue: Whether use of an identical mark for identical restaurant and hospitality services, coupled with copied interiors and décor, made out a prima facie case of infringement and passing off warranting an interim injunction.
Ratio & Result: Adoption of an identical mark for identical services, without any plausible explanation, combined with replication of interior décor and thematic elements, shows an intent to misrepresent association with the registered proprietor and amounts to passing off causing irreparable harm to goodwill built over nearly a decade. Result: Restaurant restrained from using “LAMA KITCHEN” or any deceptively similar mark across its trade name, Instagram handle, social media, packaging, and marketing material, with removal of all references directed within four weeks. Matter next listed on November 16, 2026.
TVS Motor Company Limited v. Ram Chandra Maurya & Ors.
Delhi HC | Justice Jyoti Singh | Copyright | Groundless Threats (Section 60)
What happened: TVS sued for a declaration that a fresh cease-and-desist notice from Ram Chandra Maurya and five co-owners of two copyright registrations, titled “Motion’s Fourth and Fifth Law” and “Motion’s Sixth Law” and registered as “Literary Work,” amounted to a groundless threat under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Maurya had issued similar notices since 2018 alleging TVS’s engines and two/three-wheelers used features covered by these works, and had already failed before the Copyright Authority, the IPAB, the Allahabad High Court, and the Supreme Court, before sending a fresh notice on April 13, 2026 demanding TVS stop manufacturing and enter a royalty-bearing licence.
Issue: Whether a notice that baldly asserts copyright infringement, without identifying the protectable expression allegedly copied or comparing it against TVS’s engines, amounts to a groundless threat under Section 60, warranting interim restraint pending suit.
Ratio & Result: The notice contained only a bare assertion of infringement, with no explanation of how TVS had allegedly copied the “literary works” and no comparison between those works and TVS’s products. This, combined with Maurya’s unbroken record of failure before every forum he had approached and abandoned patent applications for the same subject matter, showed the notice was intended to harass rather than assert a genuine claim. Held to constitute a groundless threat under Section 60, risking substantial harm to TVS’s reputation and goodwill. Result: Defendants restrained, until the next hearing, from issuing further groundless threats of copyright infringement proceedings against TVS, and directed to give at least seven days’ prior written notice before initiating any fresh infringement or passing-off proceedings over the two registrations.
Friday, July 24
ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC
Delhi HC | Justice Amit Bansal | Copyright | AI Training & Fair Dealing
What happened: ANI sought an interim injunction restraining OpenAI from using its news content to train and operate ChatGPT, raising both a training claim, unauthorised storage and reproduction of ANI’s articles, and an output claim, that ChatGPT’s responses reproduce ANI’s content.
Issue: Whether storage of ANI’s works for training a large language model, and outputs generated using that training, infringe copyright under Sections 14 and 51; whether such storage falls within the “private or personal use, including research” exception under Section 52(1)(a)(i); and whether the balance of convenience favoured an interim injunction.
Ratio & Result: Storage of literary works for LLM training falls within the research exception under Section 52(1)(a)(i) even where the use is commercial, applying an updating construction that treats machine-assisted research as within the exception’s purpose. ANI failed to establish that ChatGPT’s outputs substantially reproduced its works or that memorisation or regurgitation had occurred, particularly since ANI’s illustrative examples post-dated the relevant models’ training cut-off dates. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury were held to favour OpenAI, since ANI’s own licence offer showed its claim was quantifiable in damages. Interim injunction application dismissed; suit to proceed to trial on evidence.
Read full case analysis here: ANI Media v Open AI Opco LLC Case
Saturday, July 25
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Madras HC | Justice K. Kumaresh Babu | Copyright | Anti-Piracy (John Doe)
What happened: Ahead of the July 24, 2026 release of its Marathi film “Bhootam Bhayam,” Zee Entertainment sought John Doe-style directions against 29 internet service providers to block websites hosting pirated content, and against four cable TV operators restraining unauthorised recording, camcording, and broadcast of the film.
Issue: Whether apprehended, pre-emptive piracy of a newly released cinematographic film justifies a dynamic ad-interim blocking injunction against ISPs and cable operators before any confirmed instance of infringement has occurred.
Ratio and Result: Given the CBFC certificate confirming Zee as producer and the imminent release date, irreversible injury would occur unless unlawful broadcast was pre-emptively prevented. Ad-interim injunction granted restraining ISPs from hosting or enabling access to infringing content and cable operators from recording or broadcasting the film without licence, conditional on Zee furnishing an indemnity to protect the legitimate business interests of respondents. Injunction to operate for four weeks, matter listed thereafter.
GI and IP News
Sirsa Kinnow Becomes Haryana’s First Agricultural GI Tag
During a visit to Sirsa, Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini announced that Sirsa Kinnow has been granted a Geographical Indication tag, making it the state’s first agricultural product to receive one. Officials said the recognition will help citrus growers command better prices, boost exports, and protect the produce’s identity, which had previously often been mixed with kinnow from other states before reaching markets.
Jharkhand Aims to Expand GI-Tagged Products to 25
Jharkhand, whose tally of GI-tagged products has grown from a single registration in 2019 to around a dozen following a batch of 11 grants this June covering silk sarees, Dokra craft, Munda jewellery, bamboo craft, and Kesaria Kalakand, is now working toward registering as many as 25 products. Officials say applications are in the pipeline for items including Deoghar’s Attha Mutton, Seraikela turmeric, Paithkar painting, Nimucha shawls, Deoghar peda, Kusumi lac and lac bangles, alongside agricultural produce such as sal seeds, mahua flowers, karanj seeds, ragi, rugra, and dhuska.
Pithora Painting’s GI Tag Spotlighted for Gujarat’s Tribal Artists
Pithora painting, the ritual wall art of Gujarat’s Rathwa, Bhil, and Bhilala tribal communities, has continued to draw attention for the Geographical Indication protection it secured in 2021, with recent coverage highlighting how the tag, combined with the state’s Garvi Gurjari initiative, has helped artisans transition the art from ceremonial mud-wall paintings to canvas and commercial products, while raising incomes and connecting the craft to wider markets.
Also Read: Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: June 15-20, 2026
International Courts
European Commission v. AliExpress (Alibaba Group)
European Commission | Digital Services Act | Counterfeit Goods
What happened: The European Commission fined Alibaba-owned AliExpress a record EUR 550 million, about USD 629 million, for failing to prevent the sale of illegal, unsafe, and counterfeit products, including fake clothing, unsafe toys, and dangerous cosmetics, on its marketplace.
Issue: Whether AliExpress had diligently assessed and mitigated the risks of illegal and counterfeit product dissemination as required under Articles 34 and 35 of the DSA, and whether its “brand authorisation” anti-counterfeiting programme and penalty system for offending sellers were adequate.
Ratio & Result: The Commission found AliExpress’s brand authorisation system ineffective, understaffed, and easily circumvented, and that sellers penalised for illegal listings were often able to keep operating on the platform, allowing counterfeit and unsafe goods to remain online for extended periods. Largest fine issued under the DSA to date, following a EUR 200 million fine against Temu in May 2026. AliExpress must submit a corrective action plan by October 20, 2026, or face further escalating penalties; the company has said it will appeal.
Authors (Bartz, et al.) v. Anthropic PBC
US District Court, N.D. California | Copyright | AI Training (Books)
What happened: US District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted final approval of Anthropic’s USD 1.5 billion settlement of a class action brought by authors who alleged Anthropic used pirated copies of over 480,000 books to train its Claude models, overruling objections that the settlement was too small or wrongly excluded some copyright owners.
Issue: Whether the settlement, allocating roughly USD 3,000 per work across an estimated 500,000 works, was fair and adequate, given that the Court had earlier held Anthropic’s AI training itself was fair use, but that its retention of over 7 million pirated books in a “central library” was not.
Ratio & Result: Final approval granted; the largest known settlement of a US copyright case. The underlying fair-use ruling on AI training itself was not disturbed and remains good law. Some authors and publishers who opted out have filed separate, still-pending suits against Anthropic.
University of Tennessee Research Foundation v. Anthropic PBC
US District Court, District of Delaware | Patent | Neural Network Technology
What happened: The University of Tennessee Research Foundation, which licenses the university’s intellectual property, sued Anthropic for allegedly infringing two patents covering neuromorphic and neuroscience-inspired computing developed at the university’s TENNLab, naming Claude Code and its underlying architecture, in what is reported to be the first patent infringement suit against Anthropic.
Issue: Whether Anthropic’s AI systems use machine-learning methods covered by the Foundation’s patents without a licence, and if so, what damages and injunctive relief are warranted. The Foundation seeks unspecified monetary damages and an order barring further infringement. The suit was filed days after Anthropic’s $1.5 billion book-piracy settlement gained final approval, and was framed by the university as evidence of a broader pattern rather than an isolated dispute.
Hachette Book Group, Inc. et al. v. Google LLC
US District Court, S.D.N.Y. | Copyright | AI Training / Publishing
What happened: Hachette Book Group, Cengage Learning, Elsevier, and author Scott Turow, along with his company S.C.R.I.B.E., Inc., filed a proposed class action against Google, alleging that Google reproduced millions of copyrighted books and journal articles, obtained through Google Books, Google Play Books, and Google Scholar partnerships, as well as through unauthorised web scrapes from piracy sources, to train its Gemini AI models without authorisation.
Issue: Whether Google’s use of works supplied for limited, defined purposes such as search snippets, ebook sales, or scholarly indexing, to separately train a generative AI model exceeds the scope of any licence or fair use, and whether such training amounts to willful copyright infringement.
Stage: Case No. 1:26-cv-05870 (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, an injunction against the alleged infringement, and destruction of unauthorised training copies. The suit follows the publishers’ earlier, contested attempt to intervene in the pre-existing In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, withdrawn over statute-of-limitations concerns. Notable as a second major front, alongside the pending OpenAI and Authors Guild litigation, in US publishers’ fight over AI training data.
