A post critiquing the Bombay HC judgment in Anand Khosla on the arbitrability of IP disputes. Does the DHC’s reaffirmation in Zydus v. Controller that patent examination and pre-grant opposition operate in different parallel raise concerns about natural justice? A post discussing the same. And another post examining DHC’s decision in Pearl Engineering v. Philips concerning stay of money decrees. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
The Unresolved Code: Anand Khosla, Arbitrability, and the Ghost of Rights in Rem
In Anand Khosla v. Punam Kumari Singh, the BHC quietly retreats from the Supreme Court’s settled position on the arbitrability of IP disputes. Analysing the decision, Aditya Bhargava argues that it misapplies the rights in rem/personam distinction while considering the arbitrability of IP disputes under Vidya Drolia, and improperly legitimises the splitting of causes of action.
In Zydus v. Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that patent examination is a self-contained, non-adversarial process, separate from pre-grant opposition. While this promotes procedural efficiency, it also raises important questions about the scope of natural justice once an opposition is filed. Arshiya Gupta and Reyansh Khandelwal critically examine whether the Court’s insistence on formalism comes at the cost of substantive fairness in patent prosecution.
Staying the Numbers: Damages Quantification and the Limits of “Exceptionality” after Lifestyle
The DHC’s decision to stay execution of a damages decree in Pearl Engineering v. Philips raises uneasy questions about when money decrees can be put on hold. Aafreen Saraf argues that by relying on doubts in damages computation, the Court stretches the apex court’s narrow “exceptional cases” standard reaffirmed in Lifestyle Equities v. Amazon Technologies.
Other Posts
InPASS New Feature Update: Download Final Granted Patent Specifications with Ease!
In a meaningful upgrade from the Indian Patent Office: InPASS now shows a dedicated “Granted Patent Specification” PDF, making it far easier to identify final granted claims. While the rollout appears uneven, this is a welcome step towards improving patent legibility and public notice. Read Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan’s take on the development.
Nippon v. Controller: DHC Sets the Standard for What Constitutes “Proof of Right”
Recently, in Nippon v. Controller, the Delhi High Court intervened to rein in an unduly rigid view of proof of right adopted by the Patent Office. Explaining the judgement, Dipti examines how the Court dealt with proof of right, employer–employee ownership, and the premature invocation of Section 68, and what these moves mean for patent filing practice in India.
Will Azure Hospitality Saga Impact the PPL-Passcode Litigation?
Delhi HC’s order in PPL v Passcode Hospitality revisits the fallout of Azure v PPL on PPL’s authority to collect licence fees without copyright society registration. Treating the Supreme Court’s stay on the Azure payment direction as operating only inter se between PPL and Azure, the High Court directed Passcode to make ad-hoc payments to PPL, while leaving open questions on the scope of the Supreme Court’s stay. Kartik Sharma writes on this development.
Caution! Trade Marks Protection through Online Service Providers
With the CGPDTM flagging unauthorised online trademark registration services, brand owners may need to rethink how they protect their marks. Tanishka Goswami unpacks the regulatory pushback and the hidden risks in falling for the claims of supposedly low-cost, fast-track trademark filings by such platforms.
One Chance or Two? Madras HC Bars LPAs in Patent Disputes, Deepening High Court Parity
How many chances do you really get to appeal a rejected patent? Recent High Court rulings on Letters Patent Appeals suggest the answer may depend on geography as much as law. Hruthika Addlagatta examines how these conflicting views raise serious concerns about equality and access to appellate justice.
Case Summaries
Living Media India Limited v Zee Media Corporation Limited on 9 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Living Media filed an application for an injunction against Zee for infringement and passing off of its registered device mark “DUNIYADARI” used for a news programme, alleging deceptive similarity. The Court perceived “DUNIYADARI” as a suggestive and non-distinctive word, incapable of giving exclusivity. However, the defendant’s impugned label was found deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among viewers. So, the Court restrained Zee from using the impugned mark in a confusingly similar manner but permitted use of the word “DUNIYADARI”.
Gaurav Garg v Aly Morani & Ors on 9 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction alleging infringement of his moral rights u/s 57 of the Copyright Act, as an author of the concept of “IPL Awards” event. His relation with the defendant company was found to be that of employer-employee, thereby attracting Section 17(c). The plaintiff failed to establish authorship. He even failed to prove the existence of any binding agreement for revenue sharing. Therefore, the Court dismissed the suit in its entirety.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Shashi Kumar & Ors on 9 January, 2026 (Tis Hazari Court, Delhi)
Panasonic sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing and passing off its registered trademark “ANCHOR” in relation to electrical goods. Defendants failed to dispute Panasonic’s registered rights or justify the use of the mark by them. The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining use of the impugned mark, ordered delivery up of seized infringing goods, and awarded punitive damages of ₹5,00,000 against Defendant No.2, while declining liability against Defendant No.1, who was only the landlord of the premises.
PPL sought continuation of an ad hoc interim arrangement directing Pass Code to deposit licence fees for public performance of sound recordings pending adjudication of the interim injunction application. The defendants sought modification and refund of amounts deposited, relying on the Division Bench decision in Azure Hospitality, which held that PPL cannot license sound recordings without being a registered copyright society under Section 33 of the Copyright Act or a member of one. The Court held that the issue of PPL’s licensing competence is sub judice before the Supreme Court and the applicability of RMPL tariffs remains pending consideration. The Court directed continuation of the ad hoc arrangement on existing terms and directed the defendant to deposit a further ₹15 lakhs, while permitting partial withdrawal by the plaintiff, subject to the outcome of pending applications.
The Plaintiff filed an appeal challenging the refusal of its patent application related to a pharmaceutical invention by the Assistant Controller of Patents. They contended that the impugned order failed to present proper reasoning and didn’t deal with the submissions. The Court held that the controller failed to pass a reasoned speaking order as required under the patent law. The Court set aside the order on the basis of a violation of principles of natural justice and remanded the case for fresh consideration.
Holy Cow Foundation vs Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas (Trust) on 9 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff filed a rectification petition under Section-57 of Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal of the trademark “PATANJALI GONYLE FLOOR CLEANER’, alleging it was deceptively similar to their mark ‘GAUNYLE’ used for cow urine based floor cleaners. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove prior use and further found that prominent use of the well-known mark ‘PATANJALI’ sufficiently differentiated it from the impugned mark, thereby, the rectification process was dismissed and registration upheld.
The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction alleging infringement and passing off of its mark ‘TIGER GOLD BRAND’ against the defendant’s use of ‘TIGER PREMIUM BRAND’ for agricultural implements. The Court held that words like ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ were common to trade and common, conferring the plaintiff no exclusive rights. Hence, the Court compared the marks as a whole and declared no deception; thereby, the interim injunction was dismissed.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v. Sh. Gautam Tank & Ors. on 9 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in a long-pending commercial suit relating to trademark “POSTMAN” (groundnut oil brand) dealt with final arguments on infringement, passing off, account of profits and damages. The plaintiffs asserted continuous historic reputation and rights in the mark despite non-use since 2000, while the defendants claimed bona fide use of “SUPER POSTMAN” and abandonment by the plaintiffs. The suit was heard on the merits with evidence complete and judgment reserved.
Zydus Lifesciences Ltd v. E. R. Squibb & Sons LLC & Ors. on 12 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court addressed a patent infringement appeal concerning a biosimilar cancer therapy drug, ZRC 3276. The Court critiqued the absence of product-to-claim mapping fundamental to patent infringement, disagreed with the Single Judge’s indirect infringement reasoning, and emphasised that public interest and mapping requirements weigh against an outright injunction without proper claim correlation.
Anurag Saxena v. Nishant Singh & Ors. on 9 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
In a trademark infringement dispute alleging similarity between HAMMER OF THOR and D’ HAMMER THOR, the Court held that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, leading to the Court granting an ad-interim injunction.
Colgate Palmolive Co. & Anr v. Dabur India Ltd on 12 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court rejected the plaintiff’s application to amend its plaint to challenge new 2025 advertisements disparaging fluoride in toothpastes. The Court held that ingredient disparagement was already pleaded and that proposed amendments were unnecessary after six years, directing the impugned ads to be taken on record. The plaintiffs were cautioned to proceed with the trial without undue delay.
Living Media India Ltd & Anr v. Charcha Aaj Ki on 9 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The High Court granted multiple procedural applications, including exemption from pre–institution mediation, and ordered summons issuance. On interim injunction, the plaintiffs (media companies owning the ‘AAJ TAK’ marks) showed prima facie trademark infringement and passing off by the defendant’s use of a deceptively similar mark and colour scheme on a news platform. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the use of the impugned mark was granted.
The Delhi High Court heard an infringement suit by Khadi against “KHADI VEDA” for using its well-known trademarks. The Court found the defendants’ adoption dishonest as they ignored the cease-and-desist notices issued earlier. Further, an exemption from pre-institution mediation was granted, along with an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The Court directed the takedown of infringing social media and e-commerce listings, along with a suspension of the domain.
M/S. Sun Tv Network Ltd vs M/S. Writemen Media Pvt. Ltd on 7 January, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court allowed Sun TV Network’s copyright infringement suit after the defendant failed to appear and was set ex parte. The Court found that Sun TV had proved ownership of the film rights and showed evidence of unauthorised telecast by the defendant. It granted a permanent injunction and ordered the defendant to render accounts, but declined damages due to lack of proof, awarding ₹3 lakhs as costs.
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using “Siyaram” in their corporate name and trademark. The Court held that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the well-known mark “SIYARAM” with decades of exclusive use, and it acquired distinctiveness. Further, the defendants could not prove any valid prior use. Therefore, they were found to have adopted the mark dishonestly, with knowledge of the plaintiff’s trademarks in an attempt to pass-off.
Laboratoires Griffon Pvt Ltd And Anr vs Rajiv Mukul & Ors on 13 January, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court adjudicated a suit alleging that defendants used the “GLYZET” and “GLYNET” mark, which was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered “GLIMET” trademark. The Court noted the deliberate breach of prior undertakings, dishonest adoption, and false statements on oath issued by the defendants. An injunction was granted, and the Registry was directed to initiate perjury proceedings. The Court highlighted the strict standards in pharmaceutical trademark disputes due to public health concerns, and imposed an exemplary cost of ₹50 lakhs.
Reliance Industries Limited vs Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors on 13 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court passed a decree in an infringement suit concerning unauthorized use of “RELIANCE” and “JIO” trademarks. After a joint application was filed, the Court decreed the suit against a defendant based on settlement terms. The defendant acknowledged Reliance’s exclusive proprietary rights in the well-known trademarks “RELIANCE” and “JIO” and undertook to permanently cease all infringing use across goods, trade names, packaging, online platforms, and domain names. Lastly, the defendant was directed to pay ₹50,000 in costs.
The Madras High Court dismissed Steer Engineering’s appeal against the Joint Controller’s July 31, 2024 refusal to grant Patent No.202142059972. The Court agreed the amended claims for a fiber-reinforced PVC/ABS composition and its process lacked inventive step and overlapped with the parent application, upholding the Controller’s prior-art analysis. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
E.R. Squibb & Sons Llc vs Union Of India on 5 January, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Opposition Board’s recommendation in a post-grant opposition to a cancer-related patent. The Court held that the recommendation is only advisory and not a final decision, and that the petitioners must raise all objections before the Controller during the hearing. As an alternative statutory appeal remedy was available, the writ was held to be premature and not maintainable.
The ITAT held that ₹1 crore received by Asia Today Ltd. for granting non-exclusive television broadcasting rights of Hindi films was not taxable as royalty. The Tribunal found that no copyright was transferred, only limited telecast rights were given for a fixed period. Since the law then excluded film sale or distribution from “royalty,” the addition made by tax authorities was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Other IP Developments
- Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Unauthorised Images Of Bhuvan Bam But Says Cannot Give Findings On Personality Rights On First Hearing
- The Indian Hotels Company Limited, Which Operates Taj Hotels Gets Sound Mark Registered For Hospitality And Digital Services
International IP Development
- South Korean Creator And Copyright Groups Oppose ‘Use First, Pay Later’ Stance In Government AI Plan
- Euipo Announces Highest Number Of Trademark Filings During 2025, Largest Single-Year Total For Trademark Applications Since 1996
(Thanks to Aafreen, Aditya, Arjun, Dipti, and Hruthika for the case summaries)
