Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: October 11 to 17, 2026 | Its IP Time

Indian Courts

Monday, 12 October 2026

Annapurna Swadisht Limited v. GEF Foods India Private Limited, Madras HC

What Happened

GEF Foods India Private Limited filed a commercial suit against Annapurna Swadisht Limited before the Madras High Court alleging infringement and passing off of its registered trademark ANNAPOORNA in Class 29 and Class 30. GEF Foods claimed proprietary rights tracing back to 1980 through its predecessor Sree Annapoorna Foods, securing an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark ANNAPURNA for packaged snacks, namkeens, and fryums. Annapurna Swadisht filed Application No. 3875 of 2026 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking vacation or modification of the injunction. The applicant demonstrated continuous commercial use of ANNAPURNA SWADISHT since 2015, an annual turnover exceeding four hundred crore rupees, public listing on the National Stock Exchange, and suppression by the plaintiff regarding prior trademark opposition proceedings in 2023.

Issue

Should an absolute ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the use of a mark across all food goods be vacated or modified under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the defendant establishes prior knowledge, honest expansion, and massive commercial operations under Sections 28 and 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Ratio and Result

Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete modified the ex-parte injunction, holding that an absolute commercial blockade was disproportionate and caused grave hardship to an active market enterprise. The Court restrained Annapurna Swadisht from using ANNAPURNA exclusively on raw spices, blended masalas, papads, fryums, and wafers to avoid direct confusion with the plaintiff’s core product line, while permitting it to continue manufacturing and selling other packaged snacks subject to maintaining separate audited accounts. Read full analysis: Annapurna Swadisht Limited v. GEF Foods India Private Limited Case Analysis.

Asian Beverage Private Limited v. Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd & Anr., Madras HC

What Happened

Asian Beverage Private Limited instituted a commercial trademark infringement suit against Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Limited, the cooperative entity marketing Amul products, before the Madras High Court in 2022. The plaintiff claimed registered proprietary rights over the trademark TRUE VALLEY under Class 32 for fruit beverages and fruit juices. Asian Beverage alleged that the defendant’s launch and marketing of fruit beverages under the mark Amul TRU infringed its registered trademark and constituted passing off due to alleged visual and phonetic similarities in label getup. The defendant filed Application No. 770 of 2023 seeking summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, asserting that the plaintiff had no real prospect of succeeding on the claim.

Issue

Can the High Court grant summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss a trademark infringement suit without oral evidence when the rival marks Amul TRU and TRUE VALLEY lack deceptive similarity under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Ratio and Result

Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete allowed the application under Order XIII-A and dismissed the commercial suit by granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The Court held that the prominent inclusion of the well-known house mark Amul dispelled any likelihood of consumer confusion, while the generic word TRU was visually, phonetically, and conceptually distinguishable from the composite mark TRUE VALLEY. The Court ruled that because the plaintiff possessed no real prospect of establishing deceptive similarity or commercial damage, subjecting the parties to a protracted trial was unwarranted. Read full analysis: Asian Beverage Private Limited v. Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd & Anr. Case Analysis.

Tregum Remedies Private Limited v. The Senior Examiner of Trademarks, Madras HC

What Happened

Tregum Remedies Private Limited filed an appeal before the Intellectual Property Division of the Madras High Court challenging an administrative order passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks. The appellant had applied for registration of the composite word and device mark THE SKIN COMPANY under Application No. 5728063 in Class 3 for cosmetic and skincare preparations. The Senior Examiner refused the application under Section 9(1)(a), Section 9(1)(b), and Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, asserting that the mark was devoid of distinctive character, descriptive of skincare products, and conflicted with earlier registered marks. The appellant challenged the refusal, contending that the Registry issued a non-reasoned order that ignored its detailed written rebuttal and improperly dissected the composite mark.

Issue

Did the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks commit a jurisdictional error by issuing a mechanical refusal order without assigning specific reasons under Section 18(5) and by impermissibly dissecting a composite trademark contrary to Section 9 and Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Ratio and Result

Justice P.B. Balaji set aside the refusal order and directed the Trade Marks Registry to advertise the trademark THE SKIN COMPANY in the Trade Marks Journal. The Court held that the Examiner failed to perform the quasi-judicial duty of recording cogent reasons under Section 18(5) and erroneously conflated distinct statutory grounds of refusal. The Court ruled that dissecting the word SKIN from the overall mark violated anti-dissection principles, concluding that the composite combination possessed sufficient prima facie distinctiveness to proceed to public advertisement. Read full analysis: Tregum Remedies Private Limited v. The Senior Examiner of Trademarks Case Analysis.

Asian Paints Limited v. Babita Aggarwal, Bombay HC

What Happened

Asian Paints Limited instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Bombay High Court against Babita Aggarwal alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff asserted exclusive statutory rights in the registered trademark ASIAN and associated trade dress in Class 2 for paints, varnishes, and industrial coatings. Asian Paints moved an interim application seeking an ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and marketing paint products under a deceptively similar trading style. The defendant resisted the application by invoking Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, asserting prior, continuous, and honest commercial use of the contested trading name since 2018, supported by cryptographically verified Goods and Services Tax e-way bills and Invoice Reference Numbers.

Issue

Can a registered trademark proprietor obtain an ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an enterprise that establishes continuous prior commercial use under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Ratio and Result

The Bombay High Court refused to grant an ad-interim injunction, permitting the defendant to continue commercial manufacturing and marketing operations. The Court held that statutory exclusivity conferred by registration under Section 28 is expressly subordinated to the common law protection of prior users under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court ruled that the defendant’s verified digital tax invoices established an unbroken chain of commercial activity predating the suit, directing the defendant to maintain audited accounts of sales and file quarterly compliance statements before the Court. Read full analysis: Asian Paints Limited v. Babita Aggarwal Case Analysis.

Green Malabar Finance Ventures Limited v. Petromoney Innovations Private Limited & Anr., Madras HC

What Happened

Green Malabar Finance Ventures Limited instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Madras High Court against Petromoney Innovations Private Limited and an associated director. The plaintiff held a prior registered trademark for the word mark PETROMONEY in Class 36 covering financial, monetary, and banking services. Green Malabar alleged that the defendants launched a fintech and digital payment platform under the identical mark PETROMONEY, creating widespread market confusion and diluting its brand reputation. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark PETROMONEY, alongside an order for delivery up of infringing digital and physical promotional materials and damages.

Issue

Does the unauthorized commercial adoption of an identical word mark in relation to financial and monetary services constitute statutory infringement under Section 29 and common law passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Ratio and Result

The Madras High Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark PETROMONEY or any deceptively similar variation. The Court held that the visual, phonetic, and semantic identity between the rival marks in the same commercial class created an unavoidable likelihood of consumer deception under Section 29(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court ruled that the defendants failed to demonstrate honest concurrent adoption, ordering them to withdraw all infringing branding across digital portals, mobile applications, and marketing materials. Read full analysis: Green Malabar Finance Ventures Limited v. Petromoney Innovations Private Limited & Anr. Case Analysis.

Tuesday, 13 October 2026

Kiehberg GmbH & Anr. v. Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited, Delhi HC

What Happened

Plaintiffs Kiehberg GmbH and its Indian authorized commercial partner conceptualized the trademark KIEHBERG in 2011 and continuously used it in India for air rifles, air pistols, and shooting sports accessories since March 21, 2012, accumulating over five billion rupees in sales turnover. Defendant Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited applied for registration of the identical mark KIEHBERG under Application No. 6103985 in Class 13 on a proposed-to-be-used basis on September 11, 2023, obtaining a registration certificate in May 2024. The plaintiffs instituted Commercial IP Suit No. 808 of 2024 as a quia timet action for passing off, accompanied by a cancellation petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Following service of summons, the defendant failed to enter appearance or file a written statement.

Issue

Does continuous prior commercial use under common law confer superior rights over a subsequent registered trademark under Section 27(2) and Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, justifying a summary decree of permanent injunction under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure?

Ratio and Result

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav decreed the commercial suit summarily under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using KIEHBERG and ordering delivery up of all infringing materials. The Court held that statutory trademark registration does not bar an unregistered prior user from securing injunctive relief against imminent passing off. The Court ruled that common law rights flowing from continuous prior commercial usage are superior to subsequent registrations obtained on a proposed-to-be-used basis, directing the expungement of the defendant’s registered mark under Section 57. Read full analysis: Kiehberg GmbH & Anr. v. Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited Case Analysis.

Wednesday, 14 October 2026

Phantom Studios India Private Limited v. Jiostar India Private Limited, Bombay HC

What Happened

Phantom Studios India Private Limited instituted a commercial suit before the Bombay High Court against Jiostar India Private Limited seeking an ad-interim injunction over the cinematographic title QUEEN. The plaintiff produced the acclaimed 2013 Hindi film titled QUEEN and asserted that its commercial success conferred proprietary trademark rights and secondary meaning over the single-word title. Phantom Studios sought to restrain Jiostar India from producing, marketing, distributing, or releasing an upcoming film project titled QUEEN FULL POWER. The plaintiff argued that the proposed title exploited the goodwill of the original film and infringed its exclusive franchise rights, while the defendant contended that QUEEN is an ordinary descriptive word incapable of monopoly absent compelling proof of secondary meaning.

Issue

Does the title of a single cinematographic work function as an enforceable trademark entitled to an ad-interim injunction against an upcoming film title absent proof of secondary source identification?

Ratio and Result

The Bombay High Court dismissed the interim application and refused to grant an injunction restraining Jiostar India from releasing QUEEN FULL POWER. The Court held that titles of single literary or cinematic works do not automatically command trademark protection because the public associates them with the underlying narrative rather than an ongoing commercial source. The Court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish that the ordinary dictionary word QUEEN had attained exclusive secondary meaning that would cause the public to mistake the defendant’s distinct production for an authorized sequel or franchise release. Read full analysis: Phantom Studios India Private Limited v. Jiostar India Private Limited Case Analysis.

Malhotra International Private Limited v. Rohan Malhotra and Ors., Calcutta HC

What Happened

Malhotra International Private Limited instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Calcutta High Court against Rohan Malhotra and associated entities. The plaintiff asserted registered proprietary rights in the trademarks PANAMA and PANAMA PLUS across multiple classes, alleging that the defendants manufactured and marketed razor blades and shaving products bearing deceptively similar branding. During the proceedings, the defendants filed a formal application for trademark registration of PANAMA on September 1, 2026, alongside an earlier rectification petition under Section 57 before the High Court challenging the validity of the plaintiff’s registrations. The defendants subsequently filed an application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking a stay of the infringement suit pending the outcome of the rectification proceedings.

Issue

Must a commercial trademark infringement suit be stayed under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 when the defendant challenges the validity of the plaintiff’s registered marks and initiates formal rectification proceedings?

Ratio and Result

The Calcutta High Court enforced the procedural mandates of Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, structuring the progression of the commercial suit in light of the pending rectification challenge. The Court held that Section 124 establishes a mandatory statutory mechanism to prevent conflicting judicial determinations regarding trademark validity. The Court ruled that while the substantive trial of the infringement suit must await the resolution of the rectification petition, the court retains complete jurisdiction to examine and grant interlocutory orders, interim injunctions, and accounting mandates to protect commercial rights during the pendency of the stay. Read full analysis: Malhotra International Private Limited v. Rohan Malhotra and Ors. Case Analysis.

Ramji Lal Agarwal v. Sourav Agarwal, Calcutta HC

What Happened

Ramji Lal Agarwal instituted a commercial suit before the Commercial Division of the Calcutta High Court against Sourav Agarwal. The dispute arose from an alleged breach of a 2017 family settlement agreement governing the commercial use of the family trade name SINDHARAM SANWARMAL. Under the settlement covenants, the parties demarcated territorial trading zones, specifically prohibiting the defendant from operating or using the trade name within a one-kilometer radius of the ancestral retail establishment at Cotton Street in Kolkata. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining the defendant from operating a competing retail outlet within the restricted radius. The defendant challenged the maintainability of the suit before the Commercial Division, arguing that because the dispute involved a trade name, it fell under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and had to be transferred to the Intellectual Property Division.

Issue

Is a suit seeking enforcement of restrictive territorial covenants in a family settlement involving a trade name maintainable before the Commercial Division rather than the Intellectual Property Division under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?

Ratio and Result

Justice Aniruddha Roy affirmed the maintainability of the suit before the Commercial Division and refused to grant an absolute interim injunction against the defendant. The Court held that the primary cause of action was rooted in the breach of contractual obligations arising from a family arrangement rather than a statutory claim for trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court ruled that while an absolute closure of the defendant’s shop was inappropriate at the interlocutory stage, the balance of convenience required financial protection, directing the defendant to maintain audited accounts of all sales and deposit seventy percent of net profits into a separate bank account. Read full analysis: Ramji Lal Agarwal v. Sourav Agarwal Case Analysis.

New Yorker S.H.K. Jeans GmbH & Co. KG v. Rahul Barlota & Anr., Madras HC

What Happened

German apparel corporation New Yorker S.H.K. Jeans GmbH & Co. KG filed an original petition for trademark rectification before the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Division. The petitioner sought the expungement and removal of Trade Mark Registration No. 2027328 for the word mark FISHBONE registered in Class 25 in the name of respondent Rahul Barlota. The petitioner claimed prior global adoption and ownership of FISHBONE for youth clothing and jeans, asserting that the respondent obtained the registration without a bona fide intention to use it and had failed to use the mark in Indian commerce for a continuous period exceeding five years and three months. The respondent failed to appear or submit evidence of commercial use, leading the High Court to set the proceedings ex-parte.

Issue

Should a registered trademark be expunged from the Register of Trade Marks under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 on grounds of continuous non-use exceeding five years and three months?

Ratio and Result

Justice P.B. Balaji allowed the rectification petition and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to expunge and remove the mark FISHBONE from the Register. The Court held that once an applicant establishes a prima facie case of continuous non-use through market inquiries and investigative affidavits, the evidentiary burden shifts entirely to the registered proprietor to prove active commercial use under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court ruled that the respondent’s default and total absence of sales records confirmed that the mark was maintained as a commercial obstruction, requiring cancellation to preserve the purity of the Register. Read full analysis: New Yorker S.H.K. Jeans GmbH & Co. KG v. Rahul Barlota & Anr. Case Analysis.

Arjun Kapoor v. Artist Booking Company & Ors., Delhi HC

What Happened

Bollywood actor Arjun Kapoor instituted a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court against Artist Booking Company, digital platforms, merchandise sellers, and unnamed John Doe defendants. The plaintiff alleged unauthorized commercial exploitation of his personality, publicity, and common law trademark rights through the creation and dissemination of artificial intelligence deepfakes, face morphing, synthetic voice clones, and unauthorized merchandise. The plaintiff demonstrated that third parties commercially monetized his name, likeness, and artistic persona without license. Following summons, the defendants failed to file written statements or affidavits of admission and denial under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

Issue

Can the High Court grant a summary permanent injunction to protect celebrity personality and publicity rights against unauthorized artificial intelligence exploitation and synthetic voice cloning under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

Ratio and Result

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav decreed the commercial suit under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from commercially exploiting the actor’s name, likeness, voice, or persona across any digital medium, including generative artificial intelligence models and deepfakes. The Court held that a celebrity persona constitutes a distinct proprietary asset that cannot be appropriated for commercial advantage without consent. The Court established an ongoing takedown protocol requiring domain registrars and intermediaries to remove infringing links within thirty-six hours of formal notification. Read full analysis: Arjun Kapoor v. Artist Booking Company & Ors. Case Analysis.

Thursday, 15 October 2026

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Divine Food and Beverage, Bombay HC

What Happened

Fast-moving consumer goods conglomerate Hindustan Unilever Limited instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Bombay High Court against Divine Food and Beverage. The plaintiff claimed exclusive statutory rights under registered trademarks for the word mark DIVINE in relation to packaged food and culinary products. HUL moved an interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendant from selling snacks and confectionery under the DIVINE mark. The defendant resisted the application by invoking the statutory prior user defense under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, placing on record extensive contemporaneous sales records, Goods and Services Tax invoices, and supply chain filings demonstrating commercial use of the DIVINE mark predating the plaintiff’s trademark application.

Issue

Does continuous prior commercial use supported by verified tax records protect a defendant under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against an ad-interim injunction sought by a registered trademark proprietor?

Ratio and Result

The Bombay High Court refused to grant an ad-interim injunction to Hindustan Unilever Limited, allowing the defendant to continue commercial manufacturing and sales. The Court held that statutory trademark registration under Section 28 cannot override the vested common law rights of a prior user protected by the non-obstante clause of Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court ruled that the defendant’s contemporaneous fiscal records established an unbroken commercial presence that rebutted the plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement, ordering the defendant to maintain audited books of account and submit quarterly sales statements during the pendency of the suit. Read full analysis: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Divine Food and Beverage Case Analysis.

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. AS Print Pack Global Private Limited, Bombay HC

What Happened

Hindustan Unilever Limited instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court against AS Print Pack Global Private Limited. The plaintiff sought urgent interlocutory relief under Interim Application (L) No. 11534 of 2025 to curb alleged trademark and trade dress infringement. HUL alleged that the defendant manufactured and supplied packaging materials, labels, and laminates that copied the distinctive colour combination, artistic layout, graphic elements, and overall trade dress of its established personal care and cleaning products. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant operated as an packaging source for counterfeit consumer goods, causing brand dilution and commercial deception across wholesale distribution channels.

Issue

Does the unauthorized manufacture and supply of packaging materials mimicking the distinctive trade dress and artistic getup of a registered brand constitute actionable infringement under Section 29 and Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Ratio and Result

The Bombay High Court granted protective interim relief in favor of Hindustan Unilever Limited, restraining the defendant from manufacturing, printing, distributing, or selling packaging materials bearing the plaintiff’s registered marks or confusingly similar trade dress. The Court held that commercial packaging manufacturers who replicate proprietary trade dress facilitate market deception and cannot disclaim liability when their printed output mirrors registered branding. The Court ruled that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case and balance of convenience, directing the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the defendant’s premises and seize infringing packaging cylinders, printing plates, and finished labels. Read full analysis: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. AS Print Pack Global Private Limited Case Analysis.

Unilever Global IP Limited & Anr. v. Fine and Shine Cosmetic Pvt Ltd, Bombay HC

What Happened

Unilever Global IP Limited and Hindustan Unilever Limited instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Bombay High Court against Fine and Shine Cosmetic Private Limited. The plaintiffs claimed proprietary rights in registered trademarks, distinctive packaging layouts, and artistic labels used for their well-known skincare and cosmetic ranges. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant manufactured and sold cosmetic preparations under branding that replicated the visual arrangement, colour schemes, font placement, and overall trade dress of their registered products. The plaintiffs moved an interim application seeking an injunction to restrain trademark infringement, copyright infringement in the artistic labels, and passing off, arguing that the rival packaging created immediate consumer deception.

Issue

Does the adoption of packaging that replicates the colour palette, artistic layout, and overall trade dress of a registered cosmetic line constitute deceptive similarity and passing off under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Ratio and Result

The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Fine and Shine Cosmetic Private Limited from manufacturing, advertising, or selling cosmetic goods using the contested trade dress or any deceptively similar packaging. The Court held that evaluating deceptive similarity requires assessing the overall commercial impression from the standpoint of an ordinary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. The Court ruled that the defendant’s minor typographical differences failed to dispel the overwhelming visual similarity of the packaging, finding that the conscious copying of colour palettes and layout established a prima facie case of passing off. Read full analysis: Unilever Global IP Limited & Anr. v. Fine and Shine Cosmetic Pvt Ltd Case Analysis.

Novex Communications Private Limited v. Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Bombay HC

What Happened

Novex Communications Private Limited instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Bombay High Court against the Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Limited, a public sector enterprise of the Government of Gujarat. Novex asserted exclusive public performance and communication rights over an extensive catalog of copyrighted sound recordings assigned to it by major music labels under Section 18 and Section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Novex alleged that the corporation organized and hosted a large public corporate celebration where copyrighted sound recordings from its repertoire were publicly played and performed without obtaining an advance commercial public performance license. Novex sought an interim injunction alongside damages, invoking Section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act.

Issue

Does the public performance of copyrighted musical works at a corporate event without an advance public performance license constitute copyright infringement under Section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957?

Ratio and Result

The Bombay High Court upheld Novex’s copyright infringement claims, holding that corporate and state-affiliated entities cannot permit venues to be used for the unauthorized public communication of protected musical recordings. The Court held that Section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957 imposes liability on event organizers who communicate copyrighted sound recordings to the public without obtaining authorization from the designated rights holder. The Court directed the defendant to deposit the requisite licensing fee with the court registry and warned that public sector entities must maintain strict compliance with copyright licensing requirements for corporate events. Read full analysis: Novex Communications Private Limited v. Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Limited Case Analysis.

Novex Communications Private Limited v. Gujrat University Convention and Exhibition Centre & Ors., Bombay HC

What Happened

Novex Communications Private Limited instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Bombay High Court against the Gujrat University Convention and Exhibition Centre and event management operators. The plaintiff claimed registered trademark rights and performance licensing exclusivity over specific event music brands and sound recordings. Novex sought an ad-interim injunction under Interim Application (L) No. 34854 of 2026 to restrain the defendants from organizing commercial exhibitions, entertainment festivals, and cultural events using the contested trade names and musical repertoire without paying licensing fees. The defendants resisted the injunction by invoking Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, producing municipal permits, event contracts, booking receipts, and audited financial statements demonstrating prior, continuous commercial usage of the contested event brand names since 2016.

Issue

Can a registered proprietor obtain an ad-interim injunction against commercial event organizers who prove continuous prior common law use of an event trade name under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Ratio and Result

Justice K.R. Shriram refused to grant an ad-interim injunction to Novex Communications, declining to disrupt the scheduled commercial events. The Court held that registration under the Trade Marks Act does not confer an indefeasible monopoly that can extinguish the established common law rights of a senior continuous user. The Court ruled that the defendants substantiated their historical market presence through credible documentary evidence that satisfied Section 34, concluding that the balance of convenience required maintaining the status quo subject to the defendants submitting quarterly audited statements of event revenues. Read full analysis: Novex Communications Private Limited v. Gujrat University Convention and Exhibition Centre & Ors. Case Analysis.

Healthium Medtech Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras HC

What Happened

Medical device manufacturer Healthium Medtech Limited filed a writ petition before the Intellectual Property Division of the Madras High Court against the Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai. The petitioner had submitted trademark applications under Class 10 covering specialized surgical devices, wound care equipment, and medical sutures. Despite the passage of extended statutory timelines and full compliance with initial examination requisites, the Trade Marks Registry failed to process the filings, issue formal hearing notices, or publish the applications in the Trade Marks Journal. Healthium approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Registrar to conclude administrative processing and issue formal determinations on its pending applications.

Issue

Can the High Court issue a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Trade Marks Registry to adhere to statutory processing timelines under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Ratio and Result

The Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition with binding directions instructing the Registrar of Trade Marks to conclude the examination and processing of the petitioner’s applications within six weeks. The Court held that administrative inertia within the Trade Marks Registry undermines commercial certainty and prejudices enterprise investment in heavily regulated sectors like healthcare. The Court ruled that statutory authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 must adhere to fair procedural timelines, warning that indefinite administrative delay without lawful justification warrants judicial intervention. Read full analysis: Healthium Medtech Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks Case Analysis.

INEXO Cast Metal Solutions Pvt Ltd v. Federal Express Corporation, Madras HC

What Happened

INEXO Cast Metal Solutions Private Limited filed an appeal before the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Division challenging a decision of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellant had applied for registration of the word mark FEDEXO in Class 6 for metal castings and industrial foundry products, claiming honest concurrent use since 2004 derived from its trading style INEXO. Global express transportation corporation Federal Express Corporation, owner of the well-known trademark FEDEX, opposed the application under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Assistant Registrar sustained the opposition and refused registration on October 21, 2024, holding that FEDEXO was deceptively similar to FEDEX and would cause brand dilution. INEXO appealed under Section 91 of the Act.

Issue

Does the mark FEDEXO for industrial metal goods conflict with the well-known mark FEDEX under Section 11(1) and Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 despite differences in commercial classes?

Ratio and Result

The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the refusal of the trademark FEDEXO. The Court held that adding the single letter O to the internationally renowned mark FEDEX created an undeniable visual and phonetic similarity that would deceive consumers into perceiving a commercial association. The Court ruled that under Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, well-known trademarks enjoy cross-class protection against marks that take unfair advantage of or dilute their distinctive reputation, finding that the appellant’s claim of independent coinage lacked convincing factual support. Read full analysis: INEXO Cast Metal Solutions Pvt Ltd v. Federal Express Corporation Case Analysis.

Exponent Energy Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks, Madras HC

What Happened

Electric vehicle technology company Exponent Energy Private Limited filed an appeal before the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Division challenging a refusal order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai. The appellant had applied for registration of the word mark EXPONENT under Application No. 5432621 in Class 42 claiming commercial use since April 8, 2021 for technological, engineering, and research services. The Assistant Registrar summarily refused the application under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, citing two prior registered marks containing EXPONENT. The appellant contended that the Registry issued a perfunctory order that failed to evaluate its plea of honest concurrent use under Section 12 or its offer to restrict service descriptions under Section 18(4).

Issue

Is an administrative refusal under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 legally sustainable when the Registrar fails to record reasoned grounds under Section 18(5) and ignores honest concurrent use under Section 12?

Ratio and Result

Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete set aside the refusal order and remanded the application back to the Trade Marks Registry for fresh, reasoned adjudication within three months. The Court held that the Registrar failed to comply with the mandatory quasi-judicial duty under Section 18(5) to provide written grounds and analytical material supporting the refusal. The Court ruled that the Registry committed a fundamental legal error by ignoring Section 12, which permits the registration of honest concurrent marks, directing the Examiner to evaluate whether the appellant’s commercial usage and restricted service specifications allowed peaceful coexistence. Read full analysis: Exponent Energy Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks Case Analysis.

MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors. v. Evergreen Dealcom Pvt Ltd & Ors., Delhi HC

What Happened

Plaintiffs MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd and Minor Hotel Group entities instituted a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court against Evergreen Dealcom Private Limited and associated developers. The plaintiffs held registered trademarks for the mark ANANTARA across multiple classes, including Class 36 for real estate services and Class 43 for luxury hotels and resorts, used globally since 2000. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants launched real estate development projects in Jabalpur using the confusingly similar marks ANANTARA DOWNTOWN, ANANTARA RESIDENTIAL RESORT, and ANANTARA RESIDENCE. Despite valid service of summons, the defendants failed to appear, submit a written statement, or engage in pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Issue

Does the adoption of an identical or formative mark for real estate development create a statutory presumption of consumer confusion under Section 29(2)(c) read with Section 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 justifying a summary decree under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure?

Ratio and Result

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav granted a summary decree of permanent injunction under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, permanently restraining the defendants from using ANANTARA or any formative mark in real estate development, hospitality, and corporate branding. The Court held that using an identical mark for allied real estate services triggers a statutory presumption of confusion under Section 29(2)(c) read with Section 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court ruled that the defendants’ default in pleading demonstrated the absence of a genuine defense, dispensing with a full trial to protect registered brand equity. Read full analysis: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors. v. Evergreen Dealcom Pvt Ltd & Ors. Case Analysis.

Friday, 16 October 2026

The North Face Apparel Corp v. Controller of Patents and Designs, Madras HC

What Happened

The North Face Apparel Corp filed a patent appeal before the Intellectual Property Division of the Madras High Court challenging a decision of the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant sought a patent for an invention titled Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management under Indian Patent Application No. 202147026139. The invention disclosed an integrated tracking and management process combining invisible chemical markers and spectrophotometer monitoring to verify garment authenticity and eliminate supply chain discrepancies. The Controller rejected the application under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, asserting that the claimed features lacked an inventive step by combining disclosures across four disparate prior art documents designated as D21 through D24.

Issue

Did the Controller of Patents commit an error of law by resorting to hindsight mosaicing of disparate prior art documents to deny the existence of an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970?

Ratio and Result

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu set aside the refusal order and directed the Patent Office to grant the patent to the appellant. The Court held that the Controller’s rejection was founded on impermissible hindsight mosaicing, where disparate technical features were artificially pieced together with knowledge of the appellant’s completed invention. The Court ruled that patent examiners cannot assemble isolated elements from unrelated prior art without showing an explicit technical motivation that would lead a person skilled in the art to combine those teachings, concluding that the claimed article management system provided a non-obvious technical advancement. Read full analysis: The North Face Apparel Corp v. Controller of Patents and Designs Case Analysis.

Aventose Energy Pvt Ltd v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Madras HC

What Happened

Clean technology developer Aventose Energy Private Limited filed a patent appeal before the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Division challenging an order dated October 20, 2023 passed by the Patent Office. The appellant had filed Indian Patent Application No. 202141019671 for an invention titled System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain. The invention disclosed an automotive safety control architecture that automatically activates a protective low-power mode upon detecting critical vehicle component faults. The Assistant Controller rejected the application under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 for lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D1 through D4, despite the First Examination Report having initially conceded the novelty of the claims.

Issue

Does an administrative patent refusal for lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 violate principles of natural justice when the Controller fails to provide a comparative technical analysis of cited prior art?

Ratio and Result

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu set aside the rejection order and directed the Patent Office to approve and grant the patent. The Court held that the Controller exercised arbitrary administrative power by rejecting the application without conducting a granular, comparative technical analysis between the claimed drivetrain system and cited prior art. The Court ruled that issuing a summary refusal without addressing the applicant’s written technical rebuttals violates natural justice and procedural fairness, affirming that the claimed automated fault-detection mechanism exhibited patentable inventive step. Read full analysis: Aventose Energy Pvt Ltd v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs Case Analysis.

Gaurav Chawla v. Sandeep Jape & Ors., Bombay HC

What Happened

Plaintiff Gaurav Chawla instituted Commercial IP Suit No. 209 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court against Sandeep Jape and associated business entities. The plaintiff asserted registered trademark ownership under Classes 29 and 30 for food and packaged confectionery products, seeking an interlocutory injunction under Interim Application No. 5801 of 2026. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants manufactured and marketed identical food products using the contested mark, causing confusion in the consumer market. Defendant No. 5, Monu Chawla, resisted the application by invoking Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, placing on record extensive contemporaneous Goods and Services Tax returns, cryptographically generated Invoice Reference Numbers, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India licenses, and e-commerce supply records demonstrating continuous commercial usage since 2018.

Issue

Does continuous prior commercial use substantiated by digital tax and regulatory records protect an enterprise under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against an interlocutory injunction sought by a registered proprietor?

Ratio and Result

Justice Riyaz I. Chagla refused to grant an interlocutory injunction, declining to restrain the defendant’s commercial operations. The Court held that statutory exclusivity under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is subordinate to the common law protection granted to continuous prior users under Section 34. The Court ruled that the defendant’s verifiable digital tax returns and regulatory certifications established an unbroken chain of commercial trade predating the plaintiff’s registration, permitting the defendant to continue operations subject to filing quarterly audited sales reports before the Court. Read full analysis: Gaurav Chawla v. Sandeep Jape & Ors. Case Analysis.

Nitin Chawla v. Sandeep Jape & Ors., Bombay HC

What Happened

Plaintiff Nitin Chawla instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Bombay High Court against Sandeep Jape and associated entities alleging trademark infringement and passing off under Commercial IP Suit No. 209 of 2026. The plaintiff moved Interim Application No. 5862 of 2026 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from using the contested brand name for packaged food items. The plaintiff relied upon its registered trademark certificates under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Defendant No. 5 resisted the injunction by establishing prior commercial use under Section 34 of the Act, submitting verifiable GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B filings, e-way bills with Invoice Reference Numbers, and transport consignment receipts proving continuous market sales commencing in 2018.

Issue

Can a registered trademark proprietor obtain an interlocutory injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the defendant proves senior continuous commercial use under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Ratio and Result

Justice Sandeep V. Marne refused the application for an interim injunction, allowing the defendant to continue business operations pending the final disposal of the suit. The Court held that the non-obstante clause in Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 prevents a registered proprietor from interfering with the rights of a continuous prior user. The Court ruled that the defendant’s authenticated tax filings and logistical documentation rebutted the presumption of validity arising from registration, directing the defendant to maintain audited books of account and submit quarterly compliance statements to ensure full transparency. Read full analysis: Nitin Chawla v. Sandeep Jape & Ors. Case Analysis.

Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited v. Alaina Healthcare Private Limited & Anr., Delhi HC

What Happened

Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Delhi High Court against Alaina Healthcare Private Limited and A. Menarini India Private Limited. The plaintiff asserted exclusive rights in the registered coined trademark ACNESTAR in Class 5 for anti-acne preparations, demonstrating continuous commercial use since 2005 and sales exceeding five hundred and forty crore rupees. The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restrain the defendants from manufacturing and marketing dermatological gel under the mark HEXILAK ACNE + SCAR or ACNE SCAR. The defendants pleaded that ACNE was generic, that SCAR was descriptive, that they had entered the market in 2022, and that the prominent addition of their house mark HEXILAK eliminated any likelihood of confusion.

Issue

Does the adoption of ACNE + SCAR for dermatological products constitute deceptive similarity under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and can the infringement of a coined mark be avoided by prefixing a corporate house mark?

Ratio and Result

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ACNE SCAR, ACNE + SCAR, or ACNESCAR for pharmaceutical and cosmetic preparations. The Court held that registration of the coined mark ACNESTAR creates a presumption of validity under Section 31(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that adopting its structural and phonetic elements for identical dermatological goods causes statutory confusion under Section 29(2)(b). The Court ruled that superimposing a house mark like HEXILAK does not cure the infringement of a distinctive mark, rejecting the defendants’ claims of descriptiveness. Read full analysis: Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited v. Alaina Healthcare Private Limited & Anr. Case Analysis.

GI & Indian IP Registry News

Office of CGPDTM Issues Draft Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence Misuse and Squatting Following Delhi High Court Mandate

In compliance with judicial directions issued on October 13, 2026 by the High Court of Delhi in writ petition W.P.(C)-IPD 16/2026, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks issued a public notice on October 17, 2026 inviting stakeholder comments on draft guidelines governing artificial intelligence. The regulatory initiative addresses the misuse of computational tools in IP prosecution and formulates measures to curb the menace of bad-faith trademark and domain name squatting.

The draft framework establishes screening mechanisms within the Trade Marks Registry and Patent Office to identify automated bulk filings, deceptive digital submissions, and bad-faith registrations intended to obstruct legitimate brand adoption. By instituting public consultations, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade aims to ensure administrative transparency, protect registered proprietors from algorithmic exploitation, and strengthen enforcement protocols across digital registries.

Gujarat’s Iconic Ambaji Temple Mohanthal Prasad Awarded Geographical Indication Tag

On the first day of the Sharadiya Navratri festival, the Government of India formally granted the Geographical Indication tag to Mohanthal Prasad, the traditional sweet offering of the famous Ambaji Temple located in the Banaskantha district of Gujarat. The official GI certificate was presented to the Shri Arasuri Ambaji Mata Devasthan Trust at a ceremonial gathering in Ambaji town attended by Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Prof. (Dr.) Unnat P. Pandit and Banaskantha Collector Mihir Patel.

Mohanthal is an artisanal sweet prepared using gram flour, pure cow ghee, and sugar, embodying centuries of religious tradition and culinary heritage associated with the historic Shaktipeeth shrine. The statutory recognition secures legal protection against unauthorized commercial imitations and ensures that commercial producers outside the designated geographical sanctuary cannot market confectionery under the protected religious name.

Bihar Government and NABARD Expedite GI Tag Registration for Gaya Tilkut to Boost Global Exports

Bihar Assembly Speaker Prem Kumar announced that Tilkut, the iconic century-old sesame sweet originating from Gaya, is scheduled to receive a Geographical Indication tag within three months. The comprehensive application documentation and historical evidence were officially submitted to the Geographical Indications Registry in Chennai through the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development.

The preparation of Tilkut involves specialized pounding of roasted sesame seeds and jaggery or sugar, providing livelihood to more than five thousand artisans and sweet makers across more than two hundred and fifty establishments in Gaya. Formal research conducted by the Bihar Institute of Public Administration and Rural Development established the deep cultural roots of the craft, paving the way for expanded export linkages to overseas markets across North America and Europe once the GI certificate is issued.

Also Read: Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: October 5 to 10 2026 | Its IP Time

International IP Updates

Federal Jury Orders Comcast to Pay $213 Million in Streaming Guide Patent Dispute

A federal jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Tampa ordered telecommunications corporation Comcast to pay 213 million dollars in damages for patent infringement to streaming technology firm WhereverTV. The lawsuit, originally filed in 2018 by WhereverTV and inventor Mark Cavicchia, asserted infringement of United States Patent No. 8,656,431 covering interactive program guide architecture that consolidates live broadcast channels and digital streaming applications into a unified graphical user interface.

The jury found that Comcast’s flagship Xfinity X1 platform and associated set-top entertainment boxes infringed the asserted patent claims. Comcast maintained that the patent was invalid and that its software architecture was independently developed, confirming plans to challenge the verdict through post-trial motions and an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Biocon Reaches Global Patent Settlement with Genentech and Roche Over Breast Cancer Biosimilar Pebrilzo

Indian biopharmaceutical manufacturer Biocon announced a comprehensive global patent settlement and licensing agreement with Genentech and its parent corporation Roche, resolving all pending patent litigation concerning its proposed biosimilar drug Pebrilzo. Pebrilzo is a biosimilar version of Roche’s blockbuster oncology medication Perjeta (pertuzumab), which is prescribed for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer.

Under the terms of the settlement, the patent infringement lawsuit pending between Genentech and Biocon in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey was formally dismissed. The agreement clears the regulatory path for Biocon to launch Pebrilzo in the European Union and the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 2027, followed by a commercial launch in the United States in the third quarter of 2028, with specific financial terms remaining confidential.

Federal Jury Finds Arm Breached Architecture License Agreement with Qualcomm

A federal jury in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware delivered a verdict in the high-stakes contractual and patent licensing battle between semiconductor giant Qualcomm and British chip designer Arm Holdings. The jury determined that Arm breached its Architecture License Agreement by withholding crucial software updates, verification suites, and technical tools required for Qualcomm’s custom Oryon central processing unit cores, while also intentionally interfering with Qualcomm’s business negotiations with Meta Platforms.

Despite finding Arm liable for contractual breach, the jury awarded Qualcomm nominal damages of two dollars, while finding in favor of Arm on five separate counter-allegations. Critical commercial questions remain before United States District Judge Maryellen Noreika, who must determine whether Arm’s contractual breach legally entitles Qualcomm to suspend multi-year royalty payments under the architectural license, a ruling carrying billions of dollars in commercial implications for the semiconductor industry.

Major Global News Publishers Join SPUR Coalition to Prevent Unpaid AI Content Scraping

A coalition of international news organizations, including The New York Times, The Economist, Agence France-Presse, and The Atlantic, joined the Standards for Publisher Usage Rights coalition to prevent artificial intelligence developers from using journalistic works without licensing and remuneration. With the addition of more than forty international media houses, the global coalition now represents more than eighty news publishers across twenty nations, joining founding members such as the BBC, Financial Times, The Guardian, and the Associated Press.

The SPUR initiative focuses on deploying technical protocols, including the open-source Content Telemetry Standard, to monitor, track, and verify how automated web crawlers and generative artificial intelligence engines retrieve and synthesize journalistic reporting. The coalition does not operate as a collective licensing entity, allowing individual publishers to maintain full autonomy to pursue commercial agreements or enforce copyright claims in federal court against artificial intelligence corporations.

MIT Files Federal Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Amazon Over Cloud Security Technology

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon Web Services in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, docketed as Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Amazon Web Services Inc. The complaint asserts infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,681,103 and 7,818,569, which claim physical unclonable function technology based on academic research conducted by MIT computer science professor Srinivas Devadas.

The asserted patents cover hardware-level security systems that exploit microscopic manufacturing variations in silicon chips to generate unique, unclonable cryptographic keys on demand. MIT alleges that Amazon Web Services incorporates patented static random-access memory security mechanisms into its cloud computing hardware without a commercial license, following a similar patent infringement action initiated by the university against Microsoft in federal court.