Indian Courts
Wednesday, 1 July 2026
Sony Pictures Networks v. Rogue Websites
Delhi High Court | Dynamic injunction
What happened: Sony Pictures approached the Delhi High Court seeking urgent protection against a set of rogue websites broadcasting its exclusive broadcast of the ongoing India vs. England cricket series.
Issue: Whether interim and dynamic injunctive relief can be granted against unidentified rogue websites to prevent live, time-sensitive broadcast telecast, and whether intermediaries can be directed to block access proactively.
Ratio and Result: The Court held that live sports broadcasts have a short commercial shelf-life, making urgent, broad-based blocking orders necessary to make injunctive relief meaningful. ISPs and Domain Name Registrars were directed to immediately block access to the identified domains. The Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction against these websites. It also issued a dynamic-injunction style direction covering future mirror/redirect domains carrying the same infringing streams. The dynamic injunction format allows the rights-holder to notify the Court/authorities of new mirror domains without filing a fresh suit each time. Reinforces the Delhi High Court’s now-settled practice of granting dynamic injunctions for live sporting content, extending the logic from earlier film/OTT piracy orders.
ITC Ltd. v. Adyar Gate Hotels Ltd.
Delhi High Court (Division Bench) | Trademark
What happened: ITC sought to restrain Adyar Gate Hotels from using the mark “DAKSHIN” for its restaurant, alleging infringement of ITC’s own “DAKSHIN” trademark used for its restaurant chain.
Issue: Whether a registered proprietor’s long, unexplained silence in the face of a rival’s open use of a similar mark defeats its claim for interim injunctive relief, even where infringement is otherwise arguable.
Ratio and Result: The Court held that ITC’s inaction between 2015 and 2023, despite clear knowledge of Adyar Gate’s use, amounted to acquiescence. This delay was fatal to the interim injunction application because it allowed Adyar Gate to build up its own reputation under the mark without objection. The appeal was dismissed and no interim relief granted, leaving the underlying suit to proceed on merits. A useful acquiescence/delay precedent to keep in mind when advising clients on timelines for enforcing marks against long-running, visible third-party use.
(In case you’ve missed it, here’s our Monthly IP Law Roundup)
Radhey Krishna Trademark Suit (Agarbatti Matter)
Delhi High Court | Trademarks
What happened: A trademark suit concerning the “RADHEY KRISHNA” agarbatti mark had been returned by a lower court for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that the infringing goods were listed and accessible via IndiaMART, an online marketplace reachable from Delhi, which was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Delhi courts.
Issue: Whether the mere accessibility of infringing goods on an online marketplace listing, viewable from Delhi, is sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction for a trademark suit filed in Delhi.
Ratio and Result: The High Court held that online marketplace listings accessible from within the forum state are enough to confer territorial jurisdiction, restoring the suit that had been returned by the lower court. This continues a clear line of Delhi HC reasoning (echoed in other recent jurisdiction rulings involving IndiaMART/Justdial listings) that e-commerce accessibility, not just a defendant’s physical presence, can ground jurisdiction. Practically useful for structuring where to file infringement suits against sellers operating primarily through online marketplaces.
Saregama India Limited v. Black Madras Films & Ors.; Saregama India Limited v. Mr Ilaiyaraaja
Delhi High Court | Justice Tushar Rao Gedela | CS(COMM) 1310/2025 & CS(COMM) 143/2026 (common order)
What happened: Saregama sought to make absolute two ex-parte interim injunctions passed in two connected suits: one restraining music composer Ilaiyaraaja from broadcasting/licensing songs from 134 films across platforms like Amazon Music, Apple iTunes, and JioSaavn; and a separate one restraining Black Madras Films (with Ilaiyaraaja impleaded as a co-defendant) from using the song “Naguva Nayana” (from Pallavi Anupallavi) in their film Mask without a valid license.
Issue: Whether a composer retains any copyright over the sound recording (as opposed to just the underlying musical work) embodied in a cinematograph film, and whether a Producer’s assignee can enforce sound-recording rights against the composer decades later despite the composer’s competing exploitation and licensing.
Ratio and Result: Applying the Division Bench’s earlier ruling in Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama (FAO(OS)(COMM) 52/2025, 21 May 2026), the Court held that Section 13(4) read with Sections 17 and 2(f) confines a composer’s rights strictly to the “musical work” (excluding lyrics), while copyright in the sound recording and cinematograph film vests in the Producer/assignee. Both ex-parte injunctions were made absolute. Ilaiyaraaja remains restrained from broadcasting the songs, and Black Madras Films remains restrained from using “Naguva Nayana” in Mask absent the earlier deposit/removal condition. The Court rejected misjoinder, limitation/acquiescence, and improper-service objections.
Newgen IT Technologies Ltd v. Newgen Software Technologies Ltd
Delhi High Court (Division Bench) | Trademarks | FAO (COMM) 112/2025
What happened: Newgen Software had sued its former franchise partner (originally Vcare Infotech, renamed Newgen IT Technologies in 2024) for trademark infringement and passing off after the name change, seeking a permanent injunction and damages. The Commercial Court had refused to refer the dispute to arbitration, holding the Partner Agreement’s arbitration clause “died” along with the agreement when the corporate name changed. A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla set this aside and referred the parties to arbitration.
Issue: Whether a party’s unilateral change of corporate name extinguishes an arbitration clause in a subsisting commercial agreement, and whether a trademark infringement claim pleaded as a breach of that agreement is arbitrable.
Ratio and Result: The Court held that a mere change in corporate name does not terminate a contract or void its arbitration clause, accepting otherwise would let a party escape its contractual obligations by simply rebranding. Relying on the Supreme Court’s K. Mangayarkarasi v. N.J. Sundaresan (2025), the Bench applied the negative competence-competence doctrine: since the trademark claim was pleaded as a direct breach of a specific article of the Partner Agreement, arbitrability itself was a jurisdictional question for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide first, not the civil court. The Commercial Court’s order was quashed, the Section 8 application allowed, and the parties referred to arbitration. Useful precedent for franchise/licence disputes where a rebrand is used to try to dodge an arbitration clause.
InterDigital Patent Holdings Inc. & Anr. v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Delhi High Court | Patents | SEP | CS(COMM) 1046/2025, with companion suit InterDigital VC Holdings Inc. & Anr. v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. & Ors. (I.A. 24420/2025)
What happened: InterDigital, as part of its global cellular-SEP and video-coding-patent enforcement campaign against Transsion (parallel suits also run in the UPC and Brazil), sought pro tem security from Transsion in the Delhi proceedings pending final adjudication of infringement and FRAND issues.
Issue: Whether an implementer facing SEP infringement claims should be directed to deposit pro tem security before liability is finally determined, and how the asymmetry between SEP holder and implementer bears on that.
Ratio and Result: The Court ordered Transsion to pay pro tem security to InterDigital, holding that granting pro tem security balances the asymmetric advantage an implementer otherwise holds over an SEP holder during protracted litigation. This continues Delhi HC’s now well-established pro tem security jurisprudence (Nokia v. Oppo; InterDigital v. Oppo) and adds another data point to India’s active SEP/FRAND forum status amid the wider Transsion litigation wave (Ericsson and LG Electronics are also suing Transsion in Delhi).
K. Narayanan and Another v. S. Murali
Supreme Court of India | Passing Off & Trademarks
What happened: A passing-off dispute reached the Supreme Court on the question of territorial jurisdiction, specifically, whether merely filing a trademark application before the Registry (as opposed to actual commercial use) can itself generate a cause of action enabling a passing-off suit in a particular forum.
Issue: Whether the act of filing a trademark application, without more, gives rise to a cause of action for passing off, and how this interacts with territorial jurisdiction and the distinction between registration proceedings and civil remedies.
Ratio and Result: The Court drew a firm line between registration proceedings (which test registrability before the Registry/Appellate forum) and passing-off actions (civil remedies resting on actual use, goodwill, and misrepresentation in the market). It held that the bare filing of an application does not, by itself, constitute use sufficient to found a passing-off cause of action. Reaffirms the settled Cadila-line principle that consumer confusion from an average purchaser’s perspective, not formal registration status, drives passing-off analysis. Worth citing if a client tries to pre-empt a passing-off claim purely on the back of a pending application.
Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd v. Chegu Vasudeva Siva Kumar
Delhi High Court | Trademark | Trade Dress
What happened: Gemini Edibles sued the defendant for selling sunflower oil under the Freelite mark with packaging deceptively similar to its well-known Freedom brand. The plaintiff asserted statutory and proprietary rights over its trade dress and mark used for edible oils.
Issue: Whether the defendant’s adoption of Freelite and its trade dress infringes the plaintiff’s Freedom trademark and trade dress.
Ratio and Result: The Court found a prima facie case of infringement, noting the rival marks and trade dress were likely to cause confusion among consumers with imperfect recollection. It held that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff and irreparable injury would occur without protection. Consequently, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the Freelite mark and impugned trade dress.
Kamdhenu Limited v. Ashiana Ispat Limited & Ors
Delhi High Court | Trademark
What happened: A dispute arose after Kamdhenu KL terminated a license agreement with Ashiana AIL who continued using the AL KAMDHENU GOLD mark claiming prior rights. KL later adopted the AL prefix itself, prompting cross-suits.
Issue: Whether a former licensee can claim ownership of a mark after termination and if KL’s adoption of the AL prefix was valid.
Ratio and Result: The Division Bench held AIL was merely a licensee whose ownership claim was contingent on a registration that never occurred. AIL was restrained from using the mark as its rights were extinguished upon termination. However, the Court also restrained KL from using AL KAMDHENU GOLD pending final adjudication, terming its adoption of the AL prefix a tactical move to checkmate the defendant rather than a bona fide use.
Thursday, 2 July 2026
Telegram Ban / NEET-UG Paper Leak Case
Delhi High Court | Platform Liability | Injunction
What happened: Though primarily a Section 69A IT Act matter concerning the NEET-UG paper leak, the Court’s order upholding a temporary ban on Telegram services connected to the leak carries IP-adjacent platform-liability implications. The Court emphasised that platform liability cannot be evaded merely because specific infringing or illegal channels cannot be individually isolated.
Issue: Whether a blanket restriction on a platform’s services is justified when unlawful content (here, leaked exam material) is distributed through channels that cannot be individually identified and blocked.
Ratio and Result: The Court upheld the temporary ban, holding that platforms cannot escape liability or blocking directions simply by pointing to the difficulty of isolating specific bad-actor channels within a larger service. This reasoning parallels intermediary-liability arguments frequently raised in IP piracy contexts (e.g., rogue streaming apps, Telegram-based counterfeit sales channels) and is likely to be cited in future platform-blocking applications involving IP infringement distributed via encrypted/anonymous channels.
Jain Shikanji Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Jain
Delhi High Court | Justice Jyoti Singh | CM(M)-IPD 36/2026
What happened: Latest chapter in the long-running Jain Shikanji contempt saga. Petitioner (the trademark infringer from the 2023 appeal, FAO(COMM) 185/2022) challenged a Trial Court order dated 01.06.2026 that refused to accept an unconditional apology from Anubhav Jain, the Petitioner-company’s Director, and instead issued fresh non-bailable warrants, property attachment, and Rs. 5 lakh exemplary costs.
Background: Jain willfully disobeyed a 2022 interim injunction restraining use of the JAIN SHIKANJI mark (upheld on appeal in FAO(COMM) 185/2022, 1 March 2023); was held in contempt in 2023 with a 6-month property attachment and 8-week civil imprisonment order; lost his appeal against the contempt order when the Division Bench dismissed it on 17 September 2025 and vacated the stay; and then had his SLP and review petition both dismissed as withdrawn. He never surrendered, non-bailable warrants came back unexecuted, marked “not traceable.”
Issue: Whether a Trial Court’s refusal to accept a belated unconditional apology, and its issuance of fresh arrest/attachment warrants against a contemnor who has evaded a surrender direction affirmed through the Division Bench and Supreme Court, warrants interference under Article 227.
Ratio and Result: The Court found no legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order, holding that Anubhav Jain had shown no regard for judicial orders and flouted them “willfully, deliberately and knowingly, to suit his convenience” noting his contradictory excuses (claiming stress-related non-appearance while simultaneously insisting on appearing only via video conferencing) despite a categorical surrender direction affirmed up to the Supreme Court. The petition was dismissed and the Trial Court’s order upheld, with only the exemplary cost reduced from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 3 lakh, payable within two weeks. A useful marker on the limited scope of Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction over enforcement/contempt orders once willful, repeated disobedience is documented across multiple tiers.
S.S. White Burs Inc. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Delhi High Court | Trademarks
What happened: S.S. White Burs Inc. (a US dental-products company tracing its mark to 1844, with an Indian registration dating to 1993/2001) sought cancellation of a rival Indian registration for “S.S. WHITE” held by S.S. White Dental Private Limited (incorporated 1992, registered the mark in 2013 in Classes 5 and 10). The Indian company had also filed a cross-rectification seeking to cancel the petitioner’s earlier mark.
Issue: Whether the respondent’s Indian trademark registration for “S.S. WHITE” could survive where the adoption was allegedly dishonest, material facts were suppressed before the Registry, and the Registry failed to conduct the mandatory Class 10 search that would have flagged the petitioner’s prior mark.
Ratio and Result: The Court found the respondent’s own explanation for adopting the mark internally inconsistent, noted 1993 correspondence showing prior knowledge of the petitioner’s rights, and held the stylised device mark was copied. It ruled that suppression of material facts before the Registry amounts to bad faith under Section 11(10)(ii), and that the Registrar’s Rule 33 examination duty is mandatory, its absence here rendered the resulting registration vulnerable. The respondent’s registration was cancelled under Section 57(2); the cross-rectification against the petitioner’s mark was dismissed; costs of ₹20 lakh awarded to the petitioner, with a one-month sell-off window for existing stock. Relevant for bad-faith rectification strategy and trans-border reputation arguments for foreign-origin marks.
Ravi Kishan v. John Doe & Ors
Delhi High Court | Personality Rights
What happened: Actor-politician Ravi Kishan filed a suit against unknown entities and platforms for circulating AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorized advertisements. The content included vulgar videos and false endorsements attributed to him.
Issue: Violation of personality rights through deepfakes and false attribution of content to a public figure.
Ratio and Result: The Court ordered intermediaries to take down specific URLs containing explicit content and material that falsely attributed actions to the plaintiff. It held that liability arises not just from vulgarity but from the false attribution that erodes personality rights. The Court directed compliance within a fixed timeline while leaving defamation issues for trial.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v. Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Delhi High Court | Trademark and Pharma
What happened: Sun Pharma appealed a Single Judge’s order that had refused to injunct Finecure from using the mark Pantopacid, which was alleged to be deceptively similar to Sun Pharma’s Pantocid.
Issue: Whether Pantopacid is deceptively similar to Pantocid in the pharmaceutical sector.
Ratio and Result: The Division Bench set aside the earlier order, holding that the marks were phonetically and visually similar despite the common Panto prefix. Citing the strict standards for pharmaceutical trademarks to prevent medical errors, the Court restrained Finecure from manufacturing or selling goods under the impugned mark, though it allowed four months to deplete existing stock.
Saturday, 4 July 2026
Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Madras High Court | Copyright and Dynamic Injucntion
What happened: Yash Raj Films filed a lawsuit seeking pre-release copyright protection for its Alia Bhatt-starrer film “Alpha”. The production house requested a dynamic injunction to block mirror websites, rogue links, and redirect domains prior to its theatrical debut. It also sought to restrain intermediaries, DTH platforms, cable operators, and internet service providers from duplicating or illegally distributing the movie. The production house submitted its CBFC certificate to substantiate its ownership and copyright claims.
Issue: Whether a filmmaker can obtain a proactive, dynamic injunction to block websites and prevent potential digital piracy before a film’s theatrical release.
Ratio and Result: The Court ruled that the unauthorized dissemination of a cinematographic film could cause severe and irreversible financial harm if not restrained proactively. However, it noted that wide-scoping pre-release blocking orders could inadvertently disrupt the legitimate business operations of some internet intermediaries. To strike a fair balance, the court granted the dynamic interim injunction on the condition that the plaintiff must indemnify the respondents for potential business losses. The court allowed the dynamic blocking of pirated links and scheduled the next hearing after four weeks.
Also read our previous weeks’ digests: June 21 to 27, June 15 to 20.
GI and Other IP Updates
Joha Rice – GI Export Milestone
APEDA facilitated the first commercial export of Joha Rice (GI-tagged aromatic rice from Assam) to Vietnam, Kuwait, and other Middle Eastern markets, a commercial milestone for this GI.
New GI tags to Assam products
Four new GI tags granted to Assam products, including Karbi Anglong Handloom, Assam Bihu Pepa, and Assam Bamboo Crafts.
Trademark Registry Launches Upgraded Public Search Portal
The Trademark Registry officially transitioned to an advanced public search platform on July 1, 2026. The new interface provides streamlined filtering and much faster data processing for trademark availability checks. Intellectual property professionals must clear their browser caches and update all saved bookmarks to avoid system disruptions. This upgrade aims to improve digital transparency and reduce search lag times across India.
Registration Opens for 2027 Patent and Trademark Agent Exams
The official application portal for the upcoming Patent Agent and Trade Marks Agent Examinations went live on July 1, 2026. Aspiring practitioners can submit their online applications until the strict closing deadline of September 30, 2026. Application fees are fixed at ₹1,600 for the Patent exam and ₹4,500 for the Trademark exam. No physical submissions or late registrations will be entertained by the CGPDTM office.
Well-Known Trademark Electronic Filing Module Refreshed
A freshly streamlined electronic module dedicated to filing Well-Known Trademark Applications became fully operational this week. The updated interface simplifies data population flows and documentation uploads for elite brand protection status. It reduces the processing bottlenecks that previously slowed down high-profile trademark recognition. Brands looking to secure cross-category legal defense can now leverage this smoother filing system.
Also Read: Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: June 07-13, 2026
International IP Cases and Updates
7-Eleven v. Nike (Air Max Sneaker Trademark Dispute)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern/Southern District of Texas – July 2, 2026
What happened: Convenience store giant 7-Eleven filed a federal trademark infringement lawsuit against sportswear manufacturer Nike. The retailer accuses Nike of illicitly copying its iconic corporate identity for an upcoming sneaker release. Specifically, the footwear design incorporates 7-Eleven’s distinct orange, green, and red stripe configuration. Nike intentionally timed the product debut to drop on July 11, widely celebrated as “7-Eleven Day”.
Issue: Does Nike’s thematic shoe design create consumer confusion or dilute 7-Eleven’s trade dress?
Ratio and Result: The plaintiff claims Nike’s unapproved design exploits established brand equity for commercial benefit. Because the suit was freshly initiated on July 2, 2026, the court has not yet issued a final ruling or injunction. No immediate legal ratio has been established as the defendant has yet to answer the complaint. The immediate procedural result is an active case docket awaiting Nike’s formal legal response or settlement talks.
Shopify Software Trade Secret and Copyright Settlement
Federal District Court (U.S.) – July 2, 2026
What happened: Major e-commerce giant Shopify resolved a major, ongoing intellectual property lawsuit against an emerging market competitor. The underlying litigation accused the rival software firm of systematically copying proprietary digital architecture. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant explicitly cloned its underlying codebases to fast-track a clone platform.
Issue: Did the competing platform’s software development constitute actionable copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets?
Ratio and Result: The case terminated short of trial adjudication due to a private binding settlement agreement. Consequently, no judicial precedent or definitive ratio regarding the software code similarities was published. The formal result is a voluntary dismissal of all pending litigation claims by Shopify. The precise financial and operational parameters of the compromise remain strictly confidential between the corporate parties.
Definium Therapeutics v. Clinical Trial Provider
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware – July 1, 2026
What happened: Psychedelic medicine developer Definium Therapeutics successfully defended itself against high-stakes proprietary data theft allegations. An external clinical-trial contractor brought the lawsuit, claiming the biotech firm unlawfully co-opted its intellectual assets. Specifically, the dispute centered on specialized operational data accumulated during experimental LSD therapy trials.
Issue: Did the clinical-trial provider plead sufficient, specific facts to sustain an actionable claim for trade-secret misappropriation?
Ratio and Result: The presiding federal judge determined that the plaintiff’s complaint lacked the necessary legal specificity. Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, generic assertions of proprietary methods fail without distinct evidence of protected information. The result is a complete dismissal of the trade-secret lawsuit in favor of Definium. The biotech firm successfully fended off the claims, allowing its LSD-based therapy programs to advance.
In Re: Kim Dotcom Extradition Appeal
Court of Appeal / Supreme Court of New Zealand – July 1, 2026
What happened: Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom suffered a major legal setback in his long-running international battle. The tech entrepreneur lost his latest high-level appeal aimed at blocking his forced relocation. He faces severe criminal prosecution in America stemming from his defunct cloud storage platform. US prosecutors allege the site intentionally fostered massive, worldwide digital copyright piracy and money laundering.
Issue: Do valid legal grounds or procedural errors exist to overturn the judicial execution of the extradition order?
Ratio and Result: The appellate body affirmed that the prior judicial findings satisfied all statutory requirements for extradition. The legal ratio establishes that local sovereignty arguments cannot bypass valid, multi-jurisdictional mutual legal assistance treaties for digital crimes. The definitive result is the rejection of Dotcom’s appeal, exhausting another layer of his defense. This decision moves him significantly closer to facing criminal copyright infringement charges on American soil.
Trump Administration v. Top Copyright Official
Supreme Court of the United States – June 30, 2026
What happened: The U.S. Supreme Court intervened in a separation-of-powers dispute over administrative governance of federal IP bodies. The high court rejected a petition by Donald Trump to summarily terminate the country’s leading copyright chief. This executive action forms part of a larger ongoing political campaign targeting civil service leaders.
Issue: Does the U.S. President possess unilateral constitutional authority to dismiss senior copyright officials without cause?
Ratio and Result: The Supreme Court declined to grant the executive branch immediate removal power over the official for now. The ratio leans toward preserving established statutory job protections for specialized IP regulators until full hearings conclude. The immediate result is that the top copyright official remains securely in office, insulated from presidential dismissal. This order marks a temporary defeat for the administration’s civil service overhaul plans.
Rise Brewing Co. v. PepsiCo (Mtn Dew Rise Dispute)
Supreme Court of the United States – June 29, 2026
What happened: The U.S. Supreme Court officially agreed to review an aggressive trademark dispute between beverage makers. Boutique coffee producer Rise Brewing filed the action to hold conglomerate PepsiCo liable for infringement. The legal clash centers on PepsiCo’s rollout of a morning energy drink branded as “Mtn Dew Rise”.
Issue: What standard of visual and market similarity governs trademark confusion when a massive corporation enters a niche space?
Ratio and Result: By granting a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court has chosen to clarify conflicting appellate rules on trademark dilution. No definitive ratio on the merits has been delivered yet, as the justices merely accepted the case for review. The procedural result is that the lower court’s decision will undergo intense constitutional and statutory scrutiny. Oral arguments and a final determination are slated for the upcoming judicial term.
Swatch Group v. Samsung Electronics Co.
High Court of Justice (United Kingdom) – June 28, 2026
What happened: Swiss horology giant Swatch launched a massive, high-valuation trademark infringement action against tech giant Samsung. The watchmaker is demanding $170 million in damages, marking a historic escalation for UK trademark litigation. Swatch claims Samsung allowed third-party developers to upload unauthorized digital replicas of its dial faces. These cloned faces were actively downloaded by consumers onto Samsung smartwatches worldwide.
Issue: Is an app store platform provider directly liable for trademark infringement for hosting user-generated digital smartwatch replicas?
Ratio and Result: The case underscores the tightening legal duties imposed on tech ecosystems hosting intellectual property. Swatch asserts that app marketplaces bear an active duty to police and prevent blatant brand replication. As the case is actively progressing through the UK commercial courts, a definitive trial judgment has not yet been rendered. The immediate result is that Samsung must defend its platform liability policies against a massive financial claim.
Must read: How to respond to a trademark objection in India?
~ Adv. Koushik Chittella
References:
