Indian Courts
Monday, 31 August 2026
Asian Paints Limited v. Deepak Kumar Panwar, Bombay HC
What Happened
Asian Paints filed a commercial suit before the Bombay High Court in Interim Application (L) No. 25814/2026 against Deepak Kumar Panwar. The company sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to halt the manufacturing and sale of paints bearing copycat packaging. Asian Paints established continuous commercial use of its registered trademarks ASIAN PAINTS since 1952 and APEX across several decades. The defendant adopted packaging that replicated the color scheme, layout, and overall artistic trade dress of the genuine products to market competing goods.
Issue
Did the plaintiff establish a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off under Section 29 and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to warrant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and the appointment of a Court Receiver?
Ratio and Result
The Bombay High Court held that the replication of the artistic packaging created a high probability of confusion among consumers. The Court observed that issuing advance notice would defeat the purpose of the plea by enabling the defendant to move or conceal the disputed stock. The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the copycat trade dress and directed the Court Receiver to take custody of the infringing inventory by September 8, 2026. Read full analysis: Asian Paints v. Deepak Kumar Panwar Case Analysis.
ASR Market Ventures Private Limited v. Fitship Private Limited, Delhi HC
What Happened
ASR Market Ventures approached the Delhi High Court under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)-93/2025 seeking to cancel Fitship Private Limited’s trademark registration for FITFEAST. ASR established that it coined and continuously used the mark FITFEAST for nutritional food products since June 2017, backed by domain registration records and sales data. Fitship later secured a trademark registration for the identical mark, which ASR challenged as an improper entry that harmed its established business.
Issue
Does prior commercial use of an identical trademark defeat a subsequent formal registration under Section 57 read with Section 11 and Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
Ratio and Result
The Delhi High Court applied the Supreme Court ruling in S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai and held that prior adoption confers rights superior to subsequent registration. The Court stated that the trademark register must reflect actual market reality and cannot serve to create monopolies against legitimate prior adopters. Finding Fitship’s registration improper, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to expunge the mark from the register. Read full analysis: ASR Market Ventures v. Fitship Case Analysis.
Fresenius Kabi Ipsum SRL v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Delhi HC
What Happened
Fresenius Kabi appealed to the Delhi High Court in C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT)-7/2025 against an order refusing its patent application for an improved synthesis of sugammadex. The company claimed that isolating a di-alkali metal salt before reaction eliminated toxic reagents and cut reaction times compared to prior art methods. A third party filed a pre-grant opposition, and the Assistant Controller rejected the application without providing Fresenius Kabi a separate hearing on the examination objections.
Issue
Is the Patent Office required to provide an independent hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act, 1970 when rejecting an application, even if pre-grant opposition proceedings take place under Section 25(1)?
Ratio and Result
The Delhi High Court ruled that the right to a hearing under Section 14 is an independent statutory safeguard that cannot be merged into opposition proceedings. The Court held that patent rejections must come through speaking orders that engage directly with technical data without hindsight assumptions. The Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing under Section 14. Read full analysis: Fresenius Kabi v. Controller Case Analysis.
Vikrant Kapoor v. Anuj Kohli, Delhi HC
What Happened
A Meerut jeweler filed commercial suit CS(COMM)-161/2026 in the Delhi High Court to recover Rs. 3.34 crores for gold supplies delivered to Delhi buyers. The plaintiff based territorial jurisdiction in Delhi under Section 20 CPC because the delivery of goods occurred within the capital. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to return the plaint based on an invoice condition stating SUBJECT TO MEERUT JURISDICTION.
Issue
Does an invoice condition specifying one city exclude all other competent forums under Section 20 CPC when words like exclusive or only are missing?
Ratio and Result
Justice Subramonium Prasad applied the legal principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius along with Supreme Court rulings in Swastik Gases and EXL Careers. The Court held that specifying one court implies the exclusion of all others, even without restrictive adjectives. The Court allowed the application and directed the return of the plaint for filing before the competent court in Meerut. Read full analysis: Vikrant Kapoor v. Anuj Kohli Case Analysis.
M/s. Evergreen Media P. Ltd. v. T.J. Ashok, Madras HC
What Happened
Evergreen Media appealed to a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in OSA(CAD) Nos. 80 to 82 of 2025 after a Single Judge vacated an ex-parte injunction covering 320 Tamil films. Evergreen claimed exclusive perpetual rights under a 2012 agreement executed with three production firms. Third-party defendants intervened with competing title documents and claimed independent ownership of several scheduled films with continuous exploitation since 2016.
Issue
Can a plaintiff obtain an ad-interim copyright injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC and Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 when competing documents place a cloud over the chain of title?
Ratio and Result
The Division Bench ruled that an assignor cannot convey better rights than it holds under the principle nemo dat quod non habet. The Court held that where conflicting documents create doubt regarding copyright ownership, the dispute requires resolution at trial rather than through interim injunctions. The High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the order vacating the interim injunction. Read full analysis: Evergreen Media v. T.J. Ashok Case Analysis.
Tuesday, 1 September 2026
Screen Scene Media Entertainment Private Limited v. Dr. S. Venkatesh, Madras HC
What Happened
Screen Scene Media filed Application A.3144/2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) 2026 before the Madras High Court to defend an interim injunction secured on June 25, 2026. The injunction restrained Dr. S. Venkatesh from interfering with the commercial exploitation of the Tamil film titled Production No. 9/Karathey Babu starring Jayam Ravi. The defendant filed a motion under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC to discharge the injunction on grounds of commercial hardship and contested ownership claims.
Issue
Did the applicant demonstrate sufficient cause or changed circumstances under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC to vacate an interim injunction protecting cinematograph film exploitation rights under Section 14(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957?
Ratio and Result
The Madras High Court held that an interim injunction protecting time-sensitive cinematographic works should remain intact unless the applicant proves that the initial order was legally unsustainable. The Court found that Screen Scene Media established a prima facie case based on its assignment documentation. The Court dismissed the motion to vacate and maintained the protective injunction pending trial. Read full analysis: Screen Scene Media v. Venkatesh Case Analysis.
Eros Technologies Digital FZE v. Ayngaran International Films Private Limited, Madras HC
What Happened
Eros Technologies filed OA.454/2026 in the Madras High Court seeking an ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC against Ayngaran International Films. Eros claimed that it held exclusive copyright in several cinematographic films through written assignment deeds executed by the defendants. The defendants sought to halt the civil action under a contractual arbitration clause and demanded a reference to arbitration.
Issue
Does an arbitration clause bar a civil court from entertaining an infringement suit brought under Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 by a copyright assignee against its assignor?
Ratio and Result
The Madras High Court held that statutory infringement actions under Section 55 of the Copyright Act protect property rights against the public and cannot be resolved in private arbitration. The Court noted that an assignor exploiting assigned works commits actionable infringement rather than a basic contract breach. The Court rejected the arbitration objection and allowed the civil suit to move forward. Read full analysis: Eros Technologies v. Ayngaran Case Analysis.
Wednesday, 2 September 2026
Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, Delhi HC
What Happened
HUL filed an appeal, FAO(OS)(COMM) 231/2026, before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court after a Single Judge paused hearing its injunction plea against a Kwick Living advertising campaign. The Single Judge had questioned jurisdiction because both firms keep registered offices in Mumbai and referred the matter to a Larger Bench. During the appeal, Kwick Living filed an affidavit admitting that it maintains a GST registration in Delhi, runs a place of business in Naraina, and placed the disputed hoardings in the city.
Issue
Can a commercial suit proceed in Delhi under Section 20 CPC when the defendant concedes that it operates a local place of business and displayed the disputed advertisements locally?
Ratio and Result
The Division Bench ruled that the admissions of a local business location and local advertisements satisfied Section 20(a) and Section 20(c) CPC. With both parties in agreement, the Court granted HUL leave to amend its plaint to incorporate these jurisdictional facts. The Court remanded the case to the Single Judge with instructions to decide the interim injunction application on merits without delay. Read full analysis: Hindustan Unilever v. Kwick Living Case Analysis.
Thursday, 3 September 2026
Shruti Haasan v. Mahalaxmi Arts and Craft Works, Bombay HC
What Happened
Actor Shruti Haasan filed Interim Application (L) No. 26123/2026 before the Bombay High Court against Mahalaxmi Arts and Craft Works alongside unknown digital creators. Haasan sought immediate injunctive relief against the unauthorized commercial use of her name, image, and voice. The evidence showed unauthorized merchandise, posters, AI-generated deepfake clips, and synthetic voice recordings circulating across digital platforms and e-commerce portals.
Issue
Can a public figure obtain a John Doe interim injunction to prevent the commercial distribution of deepfakes, synthetic voices, and unauthorized merchandise under Sections 38 and 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957?
Ratio and Result
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar held that performer rights and moral rights under the Copyright Act protect individuals from commercial misappropriation and digital manipulation. The Court ruled that online anonymity cannot protect infringers from judicial process. The Bombay High Court issued a John Doe injunction restraining the manufacture and distribution of infringing goods and ordered digital platforms to take down unauthorized content. Read full analysis: Shruti Haasan v. Mahalaxmi Arts Case Analysis.
GI & Indian IP Registry News
Rajasthan Processors Seek GST Parity with Gujarat over Isabgol
The Rajasthan Isabgol Processors Association petitioned the state government to address a tax disparity at the upcoming GST Council meeting. While Rajasthan produces 75% of India’s isabgol, state tax authorities classified stored seeds as dried goods that attract 5% GST. In contrast, Gujarat tax authorities classified raw seeds as fresh agricultural produce and granted an exemption. This disparity triggers business diversion risks for Rajasthan’s 18 operational processing units.
Goa Prepares GI Tag Application for Indigenous Pipyri Cucumber
Goa’s agriculture department finalized plans to seek Geographical Indication protection for the Pipyri cucumber, a traditional variety cultivated in Ponda, Madkai, and Honda. The tender, finger-sized vegetable is known for its sweet flavor and is grown using traditional pest-control methods without synthetic chemicals. State officials plan to submit the GI dossier once the AgriStack crop survey establishes total acreage and yield figures.
Tamil Nadu Plans GI Registration Drive for Ten Agricultural Products
Tamil Nadu Agriculture Minister R. Vinoth announced an allocation of Rs 30 lakh to secure GI tags for ten regional agricultural items across the state. The nominated goods include Kancheepuram Parimilagai, Poyyur Kathiri from Nagapattinam, Chidambaram Black Gram, Karumandurai Kadukkai, Thiruvaiyaru Elai Vazhai, Eraiyur Karunai Kilangu, Cuddalore Vettiver, Manapparai Brinjal, Ooty Garlic, and Javvadhu Pei Sesame.
Nagori Ashwagandha Secures GI Tag and Global Attention at G7
Nagori Ashwagandha, grown in the arid Nagaur region of Rajasthan, obtained Geographical Indication registration under GI No. 1143. The crop gained international visibility when Prime Minister Narendra Modi presented it as a traditional gift during the G7 Summit in France. Research teams at ICAR-Directorate of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Research in Anand validated the unique phytochemical profile and high withanolide content of the root.
Indian Patent Office Issues Draft Examination Guidelines for Biotechnology
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks published draft examination guidelines for biotechnology patent applications on September 2, 2026. The updated framework seeks to provide consistency in assessing biological materials, sequences, and novelty criteria across examination branches. The registry invited written feedback from industry stakeholders within 15 days of the notice.
Also Read: Weekly Indian IP Law Digest Sep 6 to 12 2026 | Its IP Time
International IP Updates
China Adopts Major Trademark Law Overhaul Emphasizing Genuine Use
China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee approved a comprehensive revision of the Trademark Law, scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027. The revised statute introduces direct administrative fines of up to RMB 100,000 for malicious filings and up to RMB 200,000 for complicit trademark agencies. The law also shortens the opposition window to two months and adds explicit statutory protection for motion marks.
Delaware Jury Orders Qiagen Unit to Pay $4.8 Million in 10x Genomics Patent Suit
A federal jury in Delaware found that Qiagen subsidiary Parse Biosciences willfully infringed three single-cell sequencing patents licensed by 10x Genomics from Roche. The jury awarded $4.8 million in reasonable royalties based on a 14% rate on sales of Parse’s Evercode products through June 2026. The verdict upheld the validity of all three patents, and 10x Genomics indicated plans to seek enhanced damages.
Seattle Times and Newsday File Copyright Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft
The Seattle Times and Newsday filed a copyright infringement action in Manhattan federal court against OpenAI and Microsoft. The news publishers claim the technology firms scraped thousands of copyrighted articles and paywalled publications to train ChatGPT and Copilot models without licenses. The suit requests statutory damages and an order requiring the destruction of models trained on the publishers’ materials.
BASF Unit trinamiX Sues Apple over Face ID Authentication Patents
BASF optical sensing subsidiary trinamiX filed a patent infringement complaint against Apple in the Western District of Texas. The lawsuit alleges that recent iPhone and iPad models infringe seven patents covering skin and material detection methods used to defeat biometric spoofing. The German company seeks monetary damages and an injunction against infringing devices sold in the United States.
California Passes Legislation Regulating Attorney Use of Generative AI
The California Legislature passed Senate Bill 574 to establish statutory obligations for attorneys who employ artificial intelligence in legal practice. The bill prohibits lawyers from delegating legal practice to automated systems, mandates independent verification of AI-generated citations, and requires disclosure when submitting AI-assisted documents to courts. The measure now awaits review and signature by Governor Gavin Newsom.
