Indian Courts
Tuesday, 15 September 2026
Kasif Ahmed v. M/s Tenax India Stone Products Pvt. Ltd., Delhi HC
What Happened
Appellant Kasif Ahmed preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in FAO (COMM) 263/2026 challenging an order of the District Judge (Commercial)-03, Saket Courts. The dispute originated from CS (COMM) 260/2020 instituted by respondent M/s Tenax India Stone Products Pvt. Ltd. to restrain the infringement of its registered trademark TENAX, registered in 2003 for adhesives and polishing agents. The appellant manufactured competing adhesives under the mark T-MAX. After the appellant failed to file a written statement, the commercial court proceeded ex-parte on April 20, 2023 and decreed the suit on July 7, 2025, granting a permanent injunction along with nine lakh rupees in damages and costs. The appellant then filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the ex-parte decree, claiming that his advocate failed to file the defense and that he lacked digital literacy to track proceedings online.
Issue
Does shifting blame onto engaged counsel and pleading a lack of digital literacy constitute sufficient cause under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside an ex-parte decree in a commercial suit?
Ratio and Result
The Division Bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed the appeal and affirmed the refusal to set aside the ex-parte decree. The Court held that commercial litigants bear an affirmative responsibility to monitor court dockets, stay informed of judicial orders, and track the progress of their cases. The Court rejected the digital illiteracy defense, observing that active business owners handle digital compliances routinely and have full access to online cause lists and virtual hearings. The Court ruled that entertaining such excuses would undermine the time-bound adjudication mandate of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Wednesday, 16 September 2026
The South Point Education Society v. South Point School, Calcutta HC
What Happened
The South Point Education Society filed a commercial trademark suit in IP-COM/55/2025 before the Calcutta High Court seeking an ad interim injunction against South Point School under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The plaintiff established statutory registrations and extensive regional goodwill dating back to 1954 for the mark SOUTH POINT in relation to educational institutions. The defendant operated a school using the identical trade name SOUTH POINT SCHOOL and claimed honest concurrent use under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The defendant argued that geographical separation within West Bengal and several years of peaceful operation eliminated confusion among parents.
Issue
Can a defendant claim honest concurrent use under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to defeat an interlocutory injunction when the competing marks and educational services are identical?
Ratio and Result
The Calcutta High Court granted an ad interim temporary injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark SOUTH POINT or any deceptively similar variation across signage, uniforms, and promotional materials. The Court held that identity of marks and services raises a statutory presumption of confusion under Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court rejected the defense of honest concurrent use, ruling that the defendant could not plausibly claim ignorance of the plaintiff’s established regional reputation. To avoid immediate educational disruption, the Court permitted existing students to complete the academic session, while prohibiting fresh admissions under the disputed name. Read full analysis: The South Point Education Society v. South Point School Case Analysis.
Graviss Foods Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay HC
What Happened
Graviss Foods Private Limited filed a commercial appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Bombay High Court in COMMPL/10288/2026 challenging the rejection of its trademark application for ICE CREAM ROCKS. The Registrar of Trade Marks refused the application on absolute grounds under Section 9(1)(a), treating the mark as non-distinctive and descriptive of frozen confections. The Registrar also cited earlier registrations under Section 11 without conducting a comparative analysis of visual or phonetic differences. Graviss Foods contended that the Registrar ignored extensive evidence of commercial use and violated the anti-dissection rule by examining individual words separately.
Issue
Did the Registrar of Trade Marks err in issuing a template rejection order under Section 9(1)(a) without evaluating the composite mark as an integrated whole and assessing evidence of acquired distinctiveness?
Ratio and Result
The Bombay High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the trademark application to the Registrar for fresh adjudication within four months. The Court held that quasi-judicial authorities must issue reasoned speaking orders that demonstrate an active engagement with the evidentiary record. The Court ruled that composite marks must be examined as an undivided whole under the anti-dissection doctrine rather than broken into isolated terms. The Court also held that establishing acquired distinctiveness under the proviso to Section 9(1) does not require a rigid temporal threshold of commercial use. Read full analysis: Graviss Foods v. The Registrar of Trade Marks Case Analysis.
Thursday, 17 September 2026
Unilever Global IP Limited v. Yash Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., Bombay HC
What Happened
Unilever Global IP Limited presented Commercial IP Suit COMIPL/7770/2026 before the Bombay High Court seeking an ad interim injunction against Yash Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff sought to protect its registered trademark LIFEBUOY, in continuous commercial use for personal hygiene products and soaps. Yash Lifesciences launched a line of medicinal soaps under the contested mark YASHLIFE in Class 5. The defendant resisted the plea, arguing that the word LIFE is common to the pharmaceutical trade and that its composite mark differed in visual packaging, trade channels, and corporate origin.
Issue
Does the adoption of the mark YASHLIFE for medicinal soaps create deceptive similarity with the registered trademark LIFEBUOY under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
Ratio and Result
The Bombay High Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining Yash Lifesciences from manufacturing, distributing, or marketing goods under the mark YASHLIFE or any deceptively similar mark. The Court held that the element LIFE forms the prominent and memorable feature of Unilever’s established brand, giving rise to consumer confusion under the test of imperfect recollection. The Court ruled that adding a corporate prefix does not eliminate deceptive similarity when competing in related hygiene and personal care markets. To balance commercial equities, the Court allowed a 45-day transition window to exhaust existing stock under an audited affidavit, while prohibiting new production. Read full analysis: Unilever Global IP Limited v. Yash Lifesciences Case Analysis.
Friday, 18 September 2026
Pravin Kumar v. ITC Limited & Ors., Calcutta HC
What Happened
Appellant Pravin Kumar filed an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in TEMPAPO-IPD No. 6 of 2025 challenging an interlocutory injunction granted in favor of ITC Limited. The dispute arose from suit IP-COM 12 of 2025, where ITC alleged trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off of its GOLD FLAKE cigarette trade dress by the appellant’s use of IJM GOLD STAG in Punjab. The appellant argued that the Calcutta High Court lacked territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 because the appellant had no business presence in West Bengal. ITC filed cross-objections in OCOT No. 7 of 2025, seeking broader injunctive relief on infringement.
Issue
Does the High Court possess jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction in a composite trademark and copyright action, and did the Single Judge commit an error warranting appellate interference?
Ratio and Result
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya dismissed the appeal and upheld the interlocutory injunction restraining the appellant from using the trade name and trade dress of IJM GOLD STAG. The Court held that the Single Judge possessed jurisdiction to examine the plaint and grant interlocutory relief based on established triable issues. The Bench ruled that an appellate court in a Letters Patent appeal will not disturb a Single Judge’s plausible evaluation of deceptive similarity absent gross perversity or an error of law. The Court also dismissed ITC’s cross-objection, finding that the Single Judge had granted adequate relief covering the registered trademark rights.
GI & Indian IP Registry News
IPO Prohibits Unauthorized Use of Official Logo and Government Insignia
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks issued a comprehensive public notice prohibiting the unauthorized use of the official logos, trade dress, and government emblems of the Indian Patent Office and Intellectual Property India. The directive applies to registered patent and trademark agents, legal practitioners, online legal technology platforms, and third-party service providers who feature official insignias on marketing brochures, websites, stationery, and paid digital advertisements. The administration cautioned that displaying statutory emblems generates a misleading impression of official government accreditation or formal institutional affiliation.
The Controller General directed all individuals and entities currently utilizing the official logo or deceptively similar variations to withdraw and remove the materials within seven days. Continued unauthorized adoption may trigger civil and criminal prosecution under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and relevant penal statutes. The notice also advised applicants, startups, and MSMEs to verify the credentials of intellectual property practitioners directly through the official IP India directory.
DPIIT Launches Dedicated GI e-Filing Portal on National GI Day
The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade introduced an online e-filing portal dedicated to Geographical Indications on September 15, 2026, marking the annual observance of GI Day. The digital platform streamlines the registration workflow by enabling applicant associations, research bodies, and producer groups to submit documents, track status updates, and manage compliance online. The initiative advances the ongoing administrative modernization across Indian intellectual property registries, reducing procedural delays for regional applicant bodies.
Alongside the technical rollout, the department released comprehensive Draft Guidelines for Geographical Indications to establish standardized requirements for historical provenance records, territory definitions, and applicant authorizations. The Controller General invited stakeholders and legal practitioners to examine the draft regulatory framework and submit formal observations through designated communication channels to help refine statutory registration practices.
Telangana Files GI Applications for Khara Dupatta, Medak Gogadi, and Tandur Limestone
The Government of Telangana submitted applications to the Geographical Indications Registry in Chennai seeking legal recognition for three distinct regional assets. The filings cover Hyderabad’s royal bridal attire Khara Dupatta, the traditional handwoven woolen blanket Medak Gogadi, and the durable blue limestone extracted in Tandur for architectural flooring. The state government initiated the registration process to protect authentic regional craft traditions against commercial imitation and improve income security for local weavers and quarrying artisans.
The drive complements existing statutory efforts in the state, including the pending application for the Balanagar custard apple facilitated by Sri Konda Laxman Telangana Horticultural University and NABARD. Telangana currently holds 18 registered Geographical Indications, and state facilitators indicated that upcoming initiatives will emphasize quality control protocols, commercial branding, and export logistics to generate greater market value for certified goods.
NABARD Advances Six Traditional Crafts from Delhi for GI Protection
NABARD’s New Delhi Regional Office celebrated the 23rd GI Day with an institutional seminar chaired by Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Professor (Dr.) Unnat P. Pandit. The regional office showcased six traditional Delhi crafts being prepared for formal registration before the Geographical Indications Registry, expanding the local portfolio from three initial products identified in the previous year to nine overall crafts. During the event, NABARD released a documentary film detailing the artistic lineage of each craft and published a commemorative Coffee Table Book.
A regional GI Bazar accompanied the proceedings, providing retail space for 22 artisan groups from Delhi, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. Officials emphasized that securing legal registration is an initial threshold that requires support from institutional credit facilities, Artisan Credit Cards, and QR-based digital provenance verification. The discussions highlighted the need for coordinated action between commercial banks, export development bodies, and artisan societies to link heritage craft clusters directly to consumer markets.
Kashmir Pashmina Certification Lab Expands Capacity Amid Rising Demand
The Pashmina Testing and Quality Certification Centre at the Craft Development Institute in Srinagar initiated a major technical expansion to address growing demand for GI-tagged Pashmina shawls. The testing facility conducts microscopic examination of animal fibers below 16 microns to verify authentic Cashmere wool and prevent synthetic adulteration. While the laboratory processes between 150 and 170 shawls daily, an existing testing backlog of 45 days prompted administrative intervention to augment testing throughput.
The Handloom and Handicrafts Department in Kashmir increased sample testing from 11,000 shawls in the 2024-25 fiscal period to 24,000 shawls in 2025-26, setting an annual target of 50,000 certifications for 2026-27. Authorities are installing advanced digital microscopes and Optical Fibre Diameter Analysers while sending technical staff for specialized training at the Wool Research Association in Thane. Officials noted that mandatory GI certification has built consumer trust and generated premium domestic and export demand for authentic Kashmiri weavers.
Uttar Pradesh Secures National Lead with 83 Registered Geographical Indications
Uttar Pradesh emerged as India’s leading state in registered Geographical Indications, reaching 83 certified goods and surpassing Tamil Nadu’s total of 76 registered items. The Kashi-Purvanchal region forms the central production belt of the state, accounting for 32 certified products spanning handlooms, metal repousse crafts, woodwork, and agricultural varieties. Coordinated filings by artisan associations, regional universities, and institutional facilitators led to a fourfold increase in applications from the Purvanchal cluster over the past decade.
The certified heritage catalogue in eastern Uttar Pradesh includes Banaras Brocades and Sarees, Bhadohi handmade carpets, Gulabi Meenakari, Banaras metal casting, Mirzapur brassware, Banaras Langda mango, and Chandauli Adamchini rice. Legal experts highlighted that long-term grass-roots mobilization and institutional support from NABARD helped local communities secure statutory protection, establishing regional production clusters that safeguard traditional knowledge against industrial replication.
Also Read: Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: October 11 to 17, 2026 | Its IP Time
Key Precedents & Statutory Guidance
- Search recent High Court judgments in our Latest Indian IP Law Cases Directory.
- Review nationwide litigation trends in our Monthly IP Law Roundup.
International IP Updates
Lenovo Ends US Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Asus Over Laptop Technologies and Judicial Analysis of Nike Patent September 2026 New Patent
Lenovo formally dismissed its patent infringement lawsuit against rival computer manufacturer Asus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint, originally filed in November 2023, claimed that Asus’s ZenBook Pro and ZenBook Flip 14 laptops infringed four Lenovo patents covering wireless communication standards, diagonal touchpad scrolling mechanisms, and hinge assemblies for convertible 2-in-1 computers. Lenovo also pursued concurrent enforcement actions before the United States International Trade Commission seeking import prohibitions against the contested hardware.
The dismissal in federal court followed an administrative determination by the International Trade Commission in favor of Asus, after which Lenovo abandoned its appellate proceedings. The voluntary termination of the California litigation concludes the domestic patent dispute between the two technology manufacturers, ending claims across the asserted hardware patents.
OpenAI Unveils Astra for Law Platform with Specialized Legal Search Index
OpenAI launched Astra for Law, an enterprise artificial intelligence platform tailored for law firms and corporate legal departments, powered by its GPT-6 Astra foundation model. The specialized system was trained on legal corpora to perform statutory research, brief drafting, contract review, and compliance analysis. Internal performance evaluations using legal research benchmarks indicated a 40 percent improvement in analytical accuracy compared to standard models utilizing general web retrieval.
The platform incorporates a dedicated legal search index containing over 230 million URLs covering United States case law, federal statutes, procedural rules, and administrative decisions. OpenAI introduced the system alongside integrations with legal technology providers including Thomson Reuters, Intapp, and Harvey. The tool includes specialized security architecture to safeguard client confidentiality during document analysis.
Nike and Lululemon Resolve Four-Year Patent Dispute Over Mirror Fitness Hardware
Nike and Lululemon Athletica resolved their long-running patent infringement dispute concerning the connected Mirror interactive fitness device. The companies submitted a joint stipulation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice, permanently barring either party from refiling the asserted patent claims. The specific commercial terms governing the settlement remained confidential.
Nike commenced the litigation in January 2022, alleging that the wall-mounted Mirror system and its digital applications infringed six patents relating to athletic exertion tracking, performance metrics, and competitive interactive features. During the course of the litigation, Lululemon initiated inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, securing administrative decisions that invalidated several asserted patent claims prior to the final federal court disposition.
Frankfurt Regional Court Holds Meta Liable for Algorithmic Promotion of Fake Advertisements
The Frankfurt Regional Court in Germany held Meta Platforms legally responsible for third-party fraudulent advertisements displayed across Instagram and Facebook. The proceedings originated from a lawsuit brought by an online financial portal and its founder after bad actors misappropriated their registered trademark and executive portrait in misleading investment advertisements. The court rejected Meta’s argument that it served as an immune hosting service under the European Union Digital Services Act.
The court determined that Meta’s algorithmic distribution and automated delivery systems actively curate the placement and sequencing of commercial content, stripping the platform of passive intermediary protections. The judgment directed Meta to remove the deceptive advertising materials, provide an accounting of advertising revenue generated from the promotions, and pay damages to the affected trademark owners.
New Balance Sues Decathlon in Massachusetts Over Running Shoe Logo Confusion
Athletic footwear brand New Balance filed a federal trademark infringement complaint against the United States subsidiaries of French retailer Decathlon in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit asserts that the stylized letter K logo displayed on Decathlon’s Kiprun line of performance running shoes infringes New Balance’s famous N trademark, which has been in continuous commercial use since the 1970s. New Balance contends that the mirrored layout of Decathlon’s mark creates visual resemblance and consumer confusion.
The complaint alleges that the disputed branding causes initial interest confusion and post-sale deception, citing social media commentary from runners who questioned whether the Kiprun models were produced in collaboration with New Balance. The suit targets eight running shoe models priced between 130 and 350 dollars. New Balance seeks an injunction prohibiting commercial distribution of the shoes, an order recalling existing inventory, and monetary damages following unsuccessful pre-suit discussions.
