Entering the final week of January with the announcement of Pre-finalists for 1st National Policy Brief Competition on IP & Innovation! A post on the recent Zydus v. ER Squibb clarifying biosimilarity is not infringement. A post on the Madras HC’s decision in Rangaraj and Kamal Hassan, shifting India’s personality-rights jurisprudence. 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
Biosimilarity is not Infringement- Full Stop
The recent Zydus v. ER Squibb decision clarifies that mere proof of biosimilarity is not conclusive to prove infringement. Rather, the mapping of the product against the claims of the patent can only be relied upon to decide prima facie infringement. Yogesh Byadwal, hailing this as a positive outcome, argues that it will prompt biologic innovator companies to realign their strategies when filing quia timet injunction applications against biosimilars.
After a rigorous review of several exceptional submissions, we are delighted to announce the results for the 1st Stage of the 1st National Policy Brief Competition on Intellectual Property & Innovation, 2025. The shortlisted teams will present their policy briefs in the pre-final rounds, to be held online on 10 February 2026, before a distinguished panel of judges comprising Mr. Murali Neelakantan, Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran, and Ms. Abhilasha Nautiyal. For the list of shortlisted teams, check out the post
Other Posts
A Course Correction? What Rangaraj and Kamal Haasan Get Right about Personality Rights
The Madras High Court’s recent orders in T. Rangaraj v. Joy Cridzila and Kamal Hassan v. Neeyevidai mark an important shift in India’s personality-rights jurisprudence. Moving away from a reflexive grant of injunctions, the Court appears to tie personality rights to demonstrable commercial misappropriation, rather than mere unauthorised references. Arjun Ishaan examines how the Court’s careful separation of reputational grievance from enforceable legal injury brings much-needed doctrinal discipline to an area increasingly marked by over-expansive claims.
A Terrorization of the Terroir
As climate change alters the taste, texture, and viability of iconic regional crops, the very idea of terroir is under strain. This raises a pressing legal question: when geography changes, can Geographical Indicators afford to remain static? Responding to this question, in his submission for the SpicyIP jhana Blogpost Competition, Rudra Pandey proposes solutions to the Indian GI regime.
Call for Submissions NUALS Intellectual Property Law Review (Vol. VII) [Submit by March 1, 2026]
The Centre for Intellectual Property Rights at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi is inviting submissions for the NUALS Intellectual Property Law Review (Vol. VII). Interested authors can send their submissions by March 1, 2026. For more details, please read their call for papers below.
Case Summaries
Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd vs Smt. Archana Debnath & Anr on 21 January, 2026 (Calcutta High Court)
An ad-interim injunction against a publishing house for violating the late author Narayan Debnath’s copyrights was upheld by the Calcutta High Court. The Court expressed concern about the lack of probate under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act and the delay. In the meantime, the executors of the late author were permitted to take action to prevent unapproved publication and sale of the deceased’s literary assets.
M/S Karim Hotels Pvt Ltd vs Mohammad Talha on 19 January, 2026 (Supreme Court)
The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s ruling allowing the use of the mark “Gulshan-E-Karim” with a disclaimer. The Court restored the injunction issued by the Trial Court and maintained the petitioner’s well-known “Karim’s” restaurant trademark. In order to lessen consumer confusion about the restaurant’s true origin while the lawsuit was pending, the respondent was prohibited from using the deceptively similar mark.
M/S Khandelwal Dhaba vs M/S Khandelwal Dhaba on 15 January, 2026 (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court granted a permanent injunction against the defendant for using an identical trade name for a restaurant situated next to the plaintiff’s established “Khandelwal Dhaba.” The defendant’s adoption of the same name was deemed dishonest by the court because it was done with the intention of taking advantage of the plaintiff’s kindness. The defendant was unable to demonstrate any valid permission to use the trademark, while the plaintiff demonstrated prior use of the mark since 2001.
M/S. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. vs Pyromaitre Inc. on 20 January, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court refused to reject a suit regarding industrial oven design replicas despite the plaintiff’s non-compliance with the mandatory pre-institution mediation. The party is exempt from Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act because the Court determined that ongoing intellectual property infringement is an “urgent” situation. The Court emphasised that the judiciary must act quickly to stop further unauthorised use of proprietary knowledge due to the public interest and the ongoing nature of the harm.
State vs Rajeev Ranjan on 19 January, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Delhi District Court acquitted two individuals accused of selling counterfeit Xerox toners and cartridges. Xerox’s authorized representatives did not provide testimony proving the products were fraudulent. The Court ruled that expert identification of trademark deviations cannot be replaced by police testimony alone. There was an irreversible void in the evidence due to the lack of relevant witnesses. This made it impossible for the state to establish the trademark infringement beyond a reasonable doubt.
Vikas Pahwa vs Ashok Kumar (John Doe) & Ors on 20 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to a Senior Advocate against unidentified defendants for exploiting his professional persona in fraudulent stock-trading schemes. The court determined that the plaintiff’s publicity and proprietary rights were violated by the unapproved use of his photos on websites and WhatsApp. Internet service providers were mandated to remove articles that falsely linked the plaintiff to the scams and to block access to the infringing content.
Yara Green Energy Private Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court remanded a corporate name dispute back to the Regional Director for a reasoned order. The petitioner contested an order to alter its name because it was said to be similar to the “Yara” trademark. The Court observed that the petitioner’s particular claims about its independent industry operations were not addressed in the prior order. It required a new assessment of the conflict and halted the name-change order’s enforcement.
The present appeal was filed to challenge the injunction orders restraining the plaintiffs from using the ‘DASAPRAKASH’ trademark. They claimed rights under a family agreement and further MOUs. The Court observed that the alleged transfer of rights was void due to insolvency and non-compliance with the family agreement. The Court held that appellants had no legal authority to use the mark, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement, and upheld the injunction order.
M/S. Karnataka Cooperative vs Vinod Kanji Shah & Nitin on 19 January, 2026 (Madras HC)
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the rejection of the Federation’s opposition to registration of the mark “nandini” for agarbattis and dhoops. The Court held that despite different goods, the identical word, phonetic similarity, and similar style of writing could mislead consumers, given the Federation’s long-standing reputation. The Trade Marks Registry failed to consider these crucial aspects while rejecting the opposition.
The present appeal was filed challenging the rejection of the appellant’s trademark application for the mark ‘STIMULAID’ for alleged abandonment. It was argued by the appellants that they had complied with the examination report by filing form TM-M and attending the hearing. The Court observed that the application was not abandoned, set aside the earlier order of the Registrar and directed reconsideration of the trademark application for acceptance and advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal.
Gloster Ltd vs. Gloster Cables Ltd on 22 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff filed an appeal challenging the order restraining the use of the ‘GLOSTER’ mark. It was argued by the plaintiffs that the defendant’s use of a deceptively similar mark led to confusion and eroded the brand’s goodwill. The DHC held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off; therefore, it upheld the interim injunction restraining the use of the impugned mark till the final adjudication of the suit.
Edward Charles Troppi Smythe vs. The Controller General of on 18 December, 2025 (Madras High Court)
The Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to accept a delayed request for examination of his patent application, which had lapsed due to a clerical error by his Indian patent agent in assessing statutory deadlines. The Court held that there was no intentional delay of the application, as it resulted from a negligent professional mistake. The Court directed the Patent Office to accept the request and process the application as per law.
Yatishkumar Baburao Gaikwad & Anr vs. Sachin Sariya on 19 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Petitioners challenged the Trial Court’s order which refused to reject a plaint in a trademark infringement suit due to lack of territorial jurisdiction in Delhi. It was argued that no cause of action arose in Delhi. The DHC held that, under Order VII Rule 11, only plaint assertions are relevant, and the availability of products on digital platforms is the threshold required to confer jurisdiction. The Court found the pleading sufficient and dismissed the petition.
The Supreme Industries Limited vs Moorthi Rabeha on 19 January, 2026 (Bombay HC)
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of The Supreme Industries Limited, restraining the defendant from using the mark “SUPREMES GOLD”. The Court found the impugned mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s long-standing “SUPREME” trademark and copyright-protected label. Holding the defendant’s registration to be prima facie illegal, the Court ruled that continued use would amount to trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Ashish Padia vs Arjan Impex Pvt Ltd on 15 January, 2026 (Delhi HC)
The Delhi High Court framed issues in a commercial suit involving alleged infringement of the plaintiff’s patent, registered designs, and copyright relating to various bowl products. The Court will examine infringement, possible revocation of the patent, suppression of facts, and entitlement to injunction and damages. Parties were directed to file witness lists and evidence, and the defendant must continue filing half-yearly sales accounts as earlier directed.
Dr. Dulal Kumar De vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 January, 2026 (Calcutta HC )
The Calcutta High Court upheld the rejection of a patent application as deemed abandoned for failure to respond to the First Examination Report within time. The Court held that service of the FER by email is valid and lawful, and postal service is not mandatory. Since no response was filed within the prescribed or extended period, the abandonment under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act was justified. The writ petition was dismissed.
Geetanjali Salon Private Limited vs Ms. Purvica Chuckal on 14 January, 2026 (Delhi HC)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favour of Geetanjali Salon Pvt. Ltd. after a former franchisee continued using the GEETANJALI/GEETANJALI STUDIO trademarks despite termination of the franchise agreement for non-payment of dues. The plaintiff’s longstanding reputation and registrations supported a trademark infringement and passing off claim, the Court ruled. The defendant was barred from using the marks, ordered to delete signage and social media postings, and stopped infringing pending trial.
Parul Ruparelia And Anr vs Camme Wang And Anr. on 19 January, 2026 (Calcutta HC)
The Calcutta High Court temporarily restored an interim injunction in a trademark infringement and passing-off dispute after it was vacated by the Single Judge. Since the plaintiffs had enjoyed interim protection for over a year, the Division Bench reinstated the earlier interim order until 28 February 2026 or further orders. The appeal was listed for hearing, and notice was waived by the respondents.
Other IP Developments
- Sun Television Moves Madras HC Challenging Interim Restrictions in Ilaiyaraaja’s Plea on Unauthorised Use of Name, Image, and Persona
- Eros Files Trademark And Copyright Infringement Suit Claiming That Aanand L Rai Projected Film As The ‘Spiritual Sequel’ To Raanjhanaa Without Seeking Permission
- IPO Rejects Abbvie’s Cancer Drug Venetoclax’s Patent Application
International IP Development
- EUIPO-OECD Joint Study Details Link Between Global Counterfeit Trade And Labour Exploitation
- Human Artistry Campaign launches new advocacy campaign to protest against the “illegal mass harvesting of copyrighted works” for training GenAI platforms
(Thanks to Aafreen, Arjun, and Dipti for the case summaries.)
