Indian Courts
Monday, 7 September 2026
Blossom Global Trust v. Augustine Educational and Charitable Trust, Madras HC
What Happened
Blossom Global Trust approached the Madras High Court in Application No. 3544 of 2026 seeking interim injunctive relief against Augustine Educational and Charitable Trust. The plaintiff, as the registered proprietor of the trademark PREETHI HOSPITALS, claimed that the defendant adopted a deceptively similar mark to render competing services across the medical and educational sectors. The plaintiff asserted that this unauthorized adoption created confusion in the market and eroded its established commercial reputation. The defendant opposed the application and contended that the interlocutory plea sought to reopen matters that were already deliberated upon and governed by previous Division Bench directions.
Issue
Does trademark registration under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 entitle a proprietor to automatic interlocutory injunctions without regard to earlier appellate findings and procedural history?
Ratio and Result
The Madras High Court affirmed that a certificate of registration under Section 28 confers exclusive statutory rights across the entire territory of India. The Court clarified that this statutory exclusivity does not operate in isolation from the procedural record of the case. Interlocutory relief remains an equitable remedy that must conform strictly to the boundaries established by earlier Division Bench orders. The Court held that statutory rights must be balanced with procedural integrity when evaluating applications for interim injunctions. Read full analysis: Blossom Global Trust v. Augustine Educational and Charitable Trust Case Analysis.
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. v. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, Delhi HC
What Happened
Conqueror Innovations appealed to a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in FAO(OS) (COMM)-147/2025 after a Single Judge denied an interim injunction against Xiaomi Technology India. The dispute involved Indian Patent No. 331776, titled Communication Device Finder System, which claimed a method enabling a lost device to receive incoming calls in an auto-answer mode without physical user intervention. The appellants argued that Xiaomi’s Find Device feature on its smartphones infringed the independent claims of the suit patent. Xiaomi defended that its software functioned differently by relying on internet connectivity and standard alerts rather than an automated, silent call response.
Issue
Did the patentee satisfy the all elements rule and establish a prima facie case of patent infringement under Section 48 and Section 108 of the Patents Act, 1970 to justify an interim injunction?
Ratio and Result
The Division Bench held that a patentee must establish that every essential element of the asserted independent claim maps onto the alleged infringing product. The Court observed that the respondent’s devices did not incorporate an auto-answer function operating without unauthorized user awareness. The Court also held that an unexplained nine-year delay since Xiaomi began selling the devices in 2014 defeated the balance of convenience, particularly when only two months remained before the patent expired. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order refusing interim relief. Read full analysis: Conqueror Innovations v. Xiaomi Case Analysis.
Vikas Mandoth v. Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd., Madras HC
What Happened
Applicant Vikas Mandoth filed Application No. 446 of 2026 before the Madras High Court under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC to vacate an ex-parte interim injunction granted in favor of Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd. The Chinese enterprise filed the commercial suit to restrain the infringement and passing off of its registered trademark GLOBE, used on locks and hardware. Vikas Mandoth argued that he held independent common law rights as a prior user in India dating back to 2012. He also contended that transliterating the word into regional vernacular scripts created distinct commercial impression.
Issue
Can a defendant claim prior common law rights under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to vacate an interim injunction when his formal trademark application claimed adoption on a proposed to be used basis?
Ratio and Result
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the defendant’s 2023 trademark application, filed on a proposed to be used basis, fundamentally contradicted his litigation claim of continuous prior use since 2012. The Court observed that this formal declaration operated as an insurmountable inconsistency that discredited his prior adoption plea at the interlocutory stage. The Court held that transliterating an established brand into regional languages does not dispel deceptive similarity. The Madras High Court dismissed the application and maintained the interim injunction. Read full analysis: Vikas Mandoth v. Shanghai Huanqiu Case Analysis.
Tuesday, 8 September 2026
ITC Limited v. SMM Tobacco Private Limited & Ors., Calcutta HC
What Happened
ITC Limited presented a commercial intellectual property suit before the Calcutta High Court in IP-COM/10/2026 alleging trademark and copyright infringement of its tobacco brands against SMM Tobacco Private Limited. In July 2026, ITC gathered intelligence on unauthorized manufacturing in Muzaffarpur, Bihar, and conducted police raids and seizures under criminal provisions. The company waited until September 2026 to file its civil action. In its plaint, ITC sought an interim injunction alongside an exemption from pre-suit mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. SMM Tobacco resisted the suit on grounds that ITC bypassed the mandatory pre-institution mediation mechanism without showing true civil urgency.
Issue
Does an intellectual property owner satisfy the urgent interim relief exception under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 when it initiates criminal enforcement first and delays civil litigation for several weeks?
Ratio and Result
Justice Arindam Mukherjee held that selecting a criminal route while keeping civil remedies in abeyance negates the immediacy required to skip pre-institution mediation. The Court ruled that while an IP proprietor may pursue civil and criminal remedies simultaneously, a two-month delay after police raids destroys any claim of civil urgency. The Court affirmed the mandatory character of Section 12A as laid down in Patil Automation and ruled that intellectual property disputes carry no automatic exemption from mediation. The Calcutta High Court refused to admit the plaint and directed the registry to return it for mandatory pre-suit mediation. Read full analysis: ITC Limited v. SMM Tobacco Case Analysis.
Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil v. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Bombay HC
What Happened
Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil filed a commercial writ petition before the Bombay High Court in COMMPL/12000/2026 challenging an order passed by the Patent Office under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs had refused the petitioner’s patent application on grounds of non-compliance with Section 7(2) of the Act. The invention originated during the petitioner’s research tenure at the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. The Patent Office found that the applicant failed to furnish formal proof of right or an assignment deed establishing his entitlement to file the application in his individual capacity.
Issue
Is submission of proof of right under Section 7(2) of the Patents Act, 1970 a mandatory statutory precondition that justifies patent refusal under Section 15 when ownership is disputed?
Ratio and Result
The Bombay High Court held that compliance with Section 7(2) is a mandatory procedural barrier that goes to the root of an applicant’s entitlement. The Court observed that the Patent Office cannot grant a patent where the chain of title remains clouded and unproven by legal assignment or institutional waiver. The Court ruled that the Deputy Controller was not required to resolve substantive employment disputes and acted correctly in rejecting the unassigned application. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the refusal of the patent application. Read full analysis: Dr. Tarkeshwar Patil v. IIT Bombay Case Analysis.
Wednesday, 9 September 2026
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors., Madras HC
What Happened
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited initiated a commercial intellectual property suit before the Madras High Court in C.S(COMM DIV).102/2026 against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 32 other telecommunication and internet service providers. Zee filed the action as a quia timet copyright suit under Sections 51, 55, and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff sought comprehensive injunctive orders to restrain anticipated and unauthorized internet streaming, cable broadcast, and online dissemination of its cinematographic work titled SUPER DUPERR. When the matter came up for regular hearing on September 9, 2026, counsel for Zee made a formal endorsement in the court bundle seeking leave to withdraw the suit.
Issue
Can a copyright owner unconditionally withdraw a commercial quia timet infringement suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without judicial determination on the merits?
Ratio and Result
Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete recognized the procedural right of the plaintiff to abandon its claims under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC. The Court recorded the endorsement made by the plaintiff’s counsel on the case bundle and disposed of the matter accordingly. The Court did not enter into the merits of the allegations regarding digital piracy or service provider obligations. The Madras High Court permitted the withdrawal and formally dismissed the commercial suit. Read full analysis: Zee Entertainment v. BSNL Case Analysis.
M/s. Arunachalaa Enterprises v. M/s. R. Sukumar, Madras HC
What Happened
M/s. Arunachalaa Enterprises filed Review Petition Rev.Pet(IPD) No. 2 of 2026 before the Madras High Court seeking to recall an earlier transfer order. The High Court had directed the transfer of a pending patent infringement suit from the District Court to the High Court under the proviso to Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970. The review petitioner argued that the transfer was improper because the defendant had not filed a formal counter-claim seeking patent revocation in the District Court itself. The defendant had initiated independent patent revocation proceedings before the High Court, which triggered the consolidation of the matters.
Issue
Does the proviso to Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970 mandate the transfer of an infringement suit to the High Court when the defendant seeks revocation through an independent petition rather than a formal counter-claim in the trial court?
Ratio and Result
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that Section 64 of the Patents Act gives a litigant an absolute statutory right to seek patent revocation either by counter-claim or by an independent petition. The Court observed that allowing a District Court to determine infringement while the High Court examines patent validity would generate conflicting findings and procedural confusion. The Court held that consolidation before the High Court ensures that complex technical challenges to patent validity receive adjudication before the designated superior forum. The Madras High Court dismissed the review petition and upheld the transfer of the infringement suit. Read full analysis: Arunachalaa Enterprises v. R. Sukumar Case Analysis.
Thursday, 10 September 2026
Meridian Enterprises Private Limited v. Cascade India Pharmaceuticals, Bombay HC
What Happened
Meridian Enterprises Private Limited filed Commercial IP Suit No. 600 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court against Cascade India Pharmaceuticals and its partners Vinay Kumar Jain and Vishal Bindra. Meridian sought a permanent injunction for trademark infringement and passing off to protect its registered mark NASOMIST, used for medicinal and nasal formulations. The defendants manufactured and distributed allied nasal products under the competing mark NACOMIST. The parties subsequently entered into negotiations, resolved their commercial differences, and jointly submitted signed consent terms under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC to dispose of the suit.
Issue
Can the High Court record a formal compromise and pass a consent decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC in a pharmaceutical trademark suit upon explicit undertakings regarding mark abandonment and inventory exhaustion?
Ratio and Result
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar reviewed the consent terms and recorded that the compromise was lawful, written, and duly executed by authorized representatives. The Court accepted the defendants’ undertakings never to use the disputed mark NACOMIST or any deceptive variation in the future. The Court noted that the defendants confirmed the exhaustion of their final manufacturing batch and verified the formal withdrawal of Trade Mark Application No. 5440462 from the Trade Marks Registry. The Bombay High Court decreed the commercial suit in terms of the compromise, disposed of Interim Application No. 6540 of 2025, and directed a refund of court fees under applicable rules. Read full analysis: Meridian Enterprises v. Cascade India Case Analysis.
GI & Indian IP Registry News
IPO Designs Registry to Issue Examination Reports Exclusively via Email
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks issued a public notice announcing a transition to full electronic communication for the Designs Registry. Beginning October 2, 2026, the Registry will communicate all First Examination Reports (FERs) exclusively through electronic mail to the email addresses recorded in patent and design applications. Consequently, the issuance and physical dispatch of hard-copy examination reports through postal services will be discontinued completely. The administration urged registered patent and trademark agents alongside direct applicants to update their digital contact records on the official portal to ensure timely receipt of statutory objections.
Karnataka Focuses on Global Commercial Strategy for 49 GI Products
A policy assessment highlighted that Karnataka holds 49 registered Geographical Indications, yet regional producers encounter persistent hurdles in converting legal status into international market penetration. Across traditional commodities like Indi lemons, Tiptur copra, Nanjangud Rasabale bananas, Dharwad Peda, Bidriware, and Channapatna toys, artisanal groups face constraints in marketing outreach, export logistics, and processing infrastructure. The report emphasized the necessity for structured cooperative societies, institutional export corridors, and strict quality standardization to help grassroots producers secure premium pricing in overseas markets.
Kalaburagi Tur Dal Transformed into Ready-to-Eat Protein Bars
The Bangalore Bioinnovation Centre operates under the Karnataka IT-BT Department and developed ready-to-eat plant-based protein bars from GI-tagged Kalaburagi tur dal (red gram) as part of the Kalyana Karnataka Bio-Economy Mission. The formulation integrates Kalaburagi red gram with black gram, green gram, Bengal gram, roasted peanuts, and pumpkin seeds to create shelf-stable functional food bars. The initiative has entered stability and nutritional evaluation phases alongside FSSAI licensing procedures. The state plans to transfer the production technology to local Farmer Producer Organisations and rural MSMEs to increase agricultural value addition.
Indian GI Handicrafts Showcased at International Fair in Copenhagen
Traditional Indian crafts holding Geographical Indication status were presented to international buyers at a premier cultural and commercial trade exhibition in Copenhagen, Denmark. The Indian pavilion featured master artisanal creations including Koftgiri metal craft from Rajasthan, Kashmir walnut wood carvings, and brass handicrafts from Moradabad. The international display sought to connect traditional Indian artisans directly with European retailers, interior designers, and institutional collectors to establish commercial channels for authentic heritage products.
Bangladesh DPDT Identifies 494 Products for National GI Protection
The Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks in Bangladesh prepared an extensive priority list comprising 494 indigenous agricultural items, handlooms, and artisanal goods for Geographical Indication registration. In coordination with district administrations and non-profit research groups, the agency aims to register at least one distinct local product per district and set a target of 100 registered GI goods by December 2026. The accelerated drive follows cross-border disputes regarding traditional items like the Tangail sari and Sundarbans honey, with authorities seeking to safeguard domestic provenance and enhance export value in foreign markets.
Also Read: Weekly Indian IP Law Digest Aug 31 to Sep 3 2026 | Its IP Time
International IP Updates
OpenAI Urges US Government to Adopt Mandatory Federal AI Safety Standards
OpenAI submitted a policy framework urging the United States government to establish mandatory federal safety standards for frontier artificial intelligence systems. The proposal advocates for uniform national evaluation criteria, cybersecurity testing baselines, and statutory risk disclosures to govern advanced model releases. The company cautioned that a divergent patchwork of individual state laws could create operational friction and fragment technological safety protocols. OpenAI urged lawmakers to establish centralized federal regulatory oversight instead.
Indian Space Startup GalaxEye Secures US Patent for Fused Satellite Sensors
Space-technology company GalaxEye Space, incubated at the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, obtained a patent from the United States Patent and Trademark Office for its proprietary satellite imaging payload. The patented system synchronizes Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and optical imaging sensors on a single satellite bus to overcome adverse weather, cloud cover, and lighting constraints. The hybrid sensing architecture enables continuous, high-resolution earth observation data delivery for environmental monitoring, maritime surveillance, and defense logistics.
Seattle Times and Newsday Sue OpenAI and Microsoft over Copyright Infringement
Newspaper publishers The Seattle Times and Newsday initiated a copyright infringement lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The media organizations allege that the technology companies scraped and reproduced extensive archives of investigative reporting and paywalled news stories without authorization or commercial licensing to train language models. The complaint seeks statutory damages, an injunction against unauthorized content processing, and the destruction of models trained on the publishers’ proprietary journalism.
