More on the DPIIT Working Paper on AI and Copyright – a post on lawful access while ignoring copyright law and a two-part post arguing that Copyright law is ill-suited to address labour displacement caused by GenAI! A post critically examining the DHC’s sweeping judgement on Domain Names. 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
DPIIT Working Report: Lawful Access while ignoring Copyright Law
The DPIIT report’s proposal to make “lawful access” a prerequisite for AI training risks narrowing the scope of permissible uses and tilting the AI ecosystem in favour of large incumbents. By relying on Section 65A while overlooking its built-in fair dealing safeguard, the recommendation may unintentionally disadvantage local AI developers and create a distorted playing field. Yogesh Byadwal unpacks these concerns and critically examines the implications of introducing a lawful-access requirement for AI training in India.
Part 1: Copyright is the Wrong Answer
Against the backdrop of DPIIT’s Working Paper on AI and Copyright, Akshat Agrawal argues that both the paper’s proposed framework and a broader turn to copyright are ill-suited to address labour displacement caused by GenAI and risk harming the very creators they claim to safeguard.
Part 2: Copyright is the Wrong Answer
Continuing the discussion on why copyright is ill-equipped to address labour displacement caused by GenAI, Part II of Akshat Agrawal’s post moves beyond copyright to explore alternative frameworks for engaging with the underlying concerns.
Regulating Domain Name System: DHC’s Ex Ante Turn
In a series of sweeping judgments on the Domain Name System, the Delhi High Court has framed anonymous and infringing domain registrations as a problem of systemic online fraud rather than routine trademark disputes. Vishno Sudheendra critically examines the Court’s wide-ranging directions, arguing that their ex ante regulatory turn is overbroad, raises serious data protection concerns, and blurs key doctrinal distinctions in domain name law.
Other Posts
Public Domain Day 2026: What the Entry of Classic Works means for Copyright Law and Creative Freedom
Public Domain Day (January 1st) offers a moment to reflect on the true purpose of copyright law release, not perpetual control. Discussing the importance of this momentous day, Sminal Badge examines India’s neglected public domain, tracing how institutional gaps and private gatekeeping undermine access, creativity, education, and emerging AI innovation, and why treating the public domain as a functional legal resource is now imperative.
TellyTorrents Movie Piracy Case—A Tale of Evidence Missing in Action
In a long-running piracy prosecution concerning the TellyTorrents, the accused were ultimately acquitted for lack of evidence, bringing an end to proceedings that had dragged on for nearly a decade. In this tidbit, Kartik Sharma examines the case and reflects on what the acquittal reveals about the state of criminal copyright enforcement in India. Despite the significance of the acquittal, the decision largely escaped media attention in India and was first flagged by TorrentFreak, a piracy and copyright news website.
How far do TRIPS’ public-health commitments really go in today’s pharmaceutical economy? In her entry for the SpicyIP jhana Blogpost Writing Competition, Tanya Verma explores the growing gap, showing how tariff regimes and expanding trade-secret protections together create a “double bind” that limits the Global South’s ability to both import and manufacture medicines.
When Stature Becomes Substance: Judicial Deference and Moral Rights in the Ilaiyaraaja Injunction
Discussing the role of stardom, fame, and eminence in moral rights jurisprudence and adjudication, Arshiya Gupta argues that fame and stature are good indicators of how seriously Courts treat moral right claims, thus implicitly creating a hierarchy of claims.
When General Powers Swallow Special Design: A Critique of Surinder Kumar Case of the DHC
Did the Delhi High Court compromise on doctrine while maximising outcome? Discussing some knotty procedural law, Arshiya Gupta examines DHC’s decision in Shri Surinder Kumar v. Registrar of Copyrights and argues how it collapses a carefully designed special procedural regime in favour of general transfer powers.
Bata v. Leayan: Examining the Interplay of Sections 17 and 35 of the Trade Marks Act
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd. v. Bata India Ltd. turns on the uneasy interaction between exclusive trademark rights and descriptive use defences. Arshiya Gupta probes the Court’s see-saw framing of Sections 17 and 35, and asks whether collapsing these distinct enquiries risks blurring core principles of trademark doctrine.
Striking Out the Giant: Delhi HC Reaffirms Territoriality in MLB Trademark Dispute
The Delhi High Court’s holding that the baseball team- Toronto Blue Jays, had no trans-border trademark reputation in India in 1998, sets the stage for a strong reaffirmation of territoriality in trademark law. Analysing the decision, Aditya Bhargava shows how the Court demands strict, contemporaneous proof of Indian reputation, while firmly rejecting global fame, internet presence, and abandoned registrations as stand-ins for actual market recognition.
Case Summaries
Castrol Limited v. Ramesh Chand Agarwal & Anr. on 17 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Castrol instituted a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off in relation to its lubricants business. The Delhi High Court granted exemptions from advance service and pre-institution mediation, took the plaint on record, and issued summons to the defendants. Procedural directions were passed regarding filing of written statements and replication. The matter was thereafter listed for consideration of interim relief on a subsequent date.
Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd v. Xpert Tricks Softwares & Ors. on 22 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court dealt with a copyright and trademark infringement suit concerning the unauthorised sale and use of pirated “BUSY” accounting software. Noting that several defendants had been duly served but failed to enter appearance or contest the proceedings, the Court decreed the suit against such defendants. It further directed that proceedings against remaining defendants be deleted, with liberty to the plaintiff to pursue remedies separately if required.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Venuse Automobile on 15 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs alleged infringement and counterfeiting of the “HERO” trademark through the manufacture and sale of automobile parts. The Delhi High Court granted procedural exemptions and registered the suit. Upon a prima facie comparison of the marks and goods, the Court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining use of the impugned marks, while issuing timelines for pleadings.
Kohler Co. & Anr. v. Juneja Engg. Works. on 11 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Kohler filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design, trademark, and trade dress relating to showerhead products. The Delhi High Court found that a prima facie case had been made out and granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining manufacture, sale, and advertising of the impugned products. The Court also appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant’s premises and seize infringing goods, and issued further procedural directions.
Voltas Limited v. Your Volta Services Pvt. Ltd. on 22 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Voltas alleged trademark infringement and passing off based on the defendant’s use of the mark “VOLTASTIC,” claimed to be deceptively similar to “VOLTAS.” The Delhi High Court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and issued summons. Finding a prima facie case in favour of Voltas, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining use of the impugned mark and directed the parties to explore mediation, while fixing timelines for pleadings.
Accor v. Novotel Holidays Inn Pvt. Ltd. on 22 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Accor filed a trademark infringement suit alleging misuse of the “NOVOTEL” trademark and trade name by the defendant in relation to hospitality services. The Delhi High Court took note of Accor’s registered trademark rights and its prior success in a WIPO domain name dispute concerning similar branding. Finding that a prima facie infringement was made, the Court granted interim relief restraining the defendant from using the “NOVOTEL” mark or any deceptively similar variant, pending further proceedings.
M/s Siddhi Engineers & Anr. v. Ishrat Akil Shaik. on 17 December 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs sought an ex parte ad-interim injunction alleging infringement of a registered patent. The Delhi High Court declined to grant immediate injunctive relief at the ad-interim stage. Instead, the Court directed the defendant to file a reply and appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the defendant’s premises, prepare an inventory of the allegedly infringing products, and collect limited information regarding manufacturing and existing stock.
Kenvue Brands Llc & Anr vs Rspl Limited on 22 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Kenvue Brands LLC alleged infringement of its patent relating to consumer care products and sought interim injunctive relief restraining the defendant’s manufacture and sale of the impugned products. The Delhi High Court declined to grant an interim injunction at this stage, observing concerns regarding the timing and credibility of the plaintiffs’ expert affidavit. The Court directed the defendant to file its reply, permitted rejoinder, and listed the matter for further consideration after completion of pleadings.
The petitioner challenged a commercial court order refusing to take certain belated applications and trademark registration certificates on record. During proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution, the parties arrived at a consensual arrangement. The Delhi High Court modified the impugned order by permitting the amendments and documents to be taken on record subject to payment of costs, and disposed of the petition accordingly.
Marico Limited v Prahalad Rai Kedia on 11 December, 2025 (Madras High Court)
Marico filed a review petition seeking reconsideration of an earlier order concerning a copyright dispute, alleging that the Court failed to consider prior Delhi High Court judgments in its favour and errors on the face of the record. The Court held that the cited judgments were never placed before it during the original proceedings and reiterated the limited scope of review jurisdiction. Finding no error apparent on record, the review petition was dismissed.
Sana Herbals Private Limited vs Mohsin Dehlvi & Anr on 5 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The present appeal was filed against the Commercial Court’s order refusing to grant interim injunction. The plaintiffs alleged that the respondents’ proposed use of ‘NOKUF’/ ‘KufNo Syrup’ amounted to infringement and passing off. On facts, DHC found no case of infringement against the registered proprietor; therefore, only passing-off action was examined. Since the defendants had done prior adoption and registration of the mark ‘NOKUF’, additionally, the assignment had disputed and unresolved issues of goodwill and abandonment, the court declined the interim injunction and upheld the dismissal of plaintiff’s application.
The plaintiff filed suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages for infringement of its patent relating to EFM+ coding technology used in DVDs. The defendants contended that they merely did mechanical replication, denying infringement. The Single Judge held that both the encoding process and final DVD contained an encoded signal. As the patent had expired, the claim for infringement was denied, and only the claim for damages remained. The defendants filed an appeal praying for a stay of the decree. The Double-Bench of DHC held that no exceptional grounds were there and upheld the damages awarded.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against infringement and passing off on its trademarks and logos related to Major League Baseball. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, without authorisation, was selling outfits and merchandise deceptively similar to MLB marks. The Single Judge held that the plaintiff had adopted earlier use and goodwill to the marks, therefore, the defendant’s use of the marks amounted to infringement, and an injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants filed an appeal challenging the order; the court upheld the finding of infringement and continued the injunction while dismissing the appeal.
Automat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. And Ors vs Aquestia Limited & Anr on 5 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The present appeal was filed against the single judge’s order granting injunction against the plaintiffs ‘Hydromat Valve for infringing respondent’s patent on fluid control valves. The Division Bench found prima facie errors: restricting infringement analysis to the narrow ‘characterized’ portion of Claim 1, contrary to the holistic construction under Indian Patent Law. Additionally, the court took note of the misapplication of diaphragm with the sealing bridge, overlooking the fundamental technological difference between the products, thereby staying the injunction order.
The plaintiff applied for an injunction to restrain the continued use of its registered trademarks, logos and copyrighted labels after expiry of the franchise agreement by the defendant. The Court found that the defendant had no right to use the marks post-termination of franchise agreement and also noted the failure to adhere to the cease-and-desist notice. A strong prima facie case was made out, and the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off.
Ipca Laboratories Limited vs Anrose Pharma on 5 January, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction for infringement and passing off its registered trademark ‘ZERODOL’ against the defendant, who used ‘ZEROVOL-P’ for their medicinal products. The Bombay High Court found the defendant’s marks to be visually and phonetically similar. As the defendant remained absent and evidence was unchallenged, the court held that the defendant’s adoption was dishonest, thereby decreeing the suit. It also granted a permanent injunction restraining the use of the trademark and also awarded costs to the plaintiff.
M/s Bongchie India Pvt. Ltd. v Manoj Kumar Etc on 5 January, 2026 (Tis Hazari Court, Delhi)
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining trademark infringement and passing off of its registered marks “BONGCHIE” and “PERFECT ROLL” in respect of pre-rolled cones and smoking accessories. While the Court found no infringement by Defendant No.1, it held that Defendant No.2 was in possession of infringing packaging material without justification. The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining Defendant No.2 from using the impugned marks, but declined damages and rendition of accounts.
The plaintiffs sought an injunction against unauthorised use of their well-known trademark “VERIZON” and a deceptively similar domain name “verizonprojects.co.in” for interior design and allied services. The Court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting the plaintiffs’ extensive registrations in more than 200 countries and also recognition of “VERIZON” as a well-known mark. The Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining use of the impugned marks and directed suspension and takedown of the infringing domain name.
The plaintiff applied for injunction alleging infringement and passing off of its mark “MINCO INDIA” against the defendant’s use of “MINCO” as part of its trade name for identical industrial goods. The Court declined interim relief, holding that the defendant had openly used the mark since 2012 with the plaintiff’s knowledge and consent, and that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts and acquiesced. No prima facie case of confusion or passing off was established.
The present appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the Trade Mark Registry’s order that refused registration of the mark ‘TRICITY’ in Class 12 for two and three-wheeled vehicles. The registry had rejected the application, citing Section-11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, mentioning likelihood of confusion, without giving appropriate reasons. The High Court held that the order violated the principles of natural justice as it was non-speaking. Hence, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited vs A One Cosmo on 5 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction for infringement and passing off against their registered trademark ‘MORNI’ used for cosmetic and personal care products. The plaintiff alleged that defendants used a deceptively similar mark for similar goods, leading to confusion. On facts, the court established the plaintiff’s long standing use and goodwill in the mark, thereby finding the defendant’s adoption dishonest. Hence, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant mark from using the impugned mark and packaging.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction for infringement and passing off against their registered trademark ‘WONDER’ used for stone and marble chemicals. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant used a similar mark for similar products. The Bengaluru court held that since the plaintiff was the registered proprietor, the defendant had no right to use the mark. Hence, the court granted a permanent injunction but refused damages due to lack of evidence.
Pioneer Corporation vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 7 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark and copyright infringement suit after a settlement. The defendant acknowledged Pioneer’s exclusive rights and submitted to permanent injunctions against counterfeit goods. All infringing materials were destroyed and the defendant paid INR 5,00,000 in damages. The conflicting trademark registrations got cancelled as well. The Court passed decrees binding these defendants to the recorded terms.
The Delhi High Court heard a trademark infringement suit by Capital Foods against Nilons Enterprises regarding the deceptive similarity between “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” and “SZECHUAN CHUTNEY”. The Court took note of the plaintiff’s significant market presence and the defendant’s rectification proceedings which are pending. Ultimately, the Court referred the dispute to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Mr. Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors vs Ferrero S.P.A & Ors on 6 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
In an appeal regarding the infringement of Ferrero’s “NUTELLA” trademarks and distinctive glass jar shape to the Delhi High Court, the appellants were identified as “knowing infringers” for manufacturing deceptively similar empty jars. The Court upheld the permanent injunction, and modified the lower court’s order. The seized jars were ordered to be handed over to the respondents for mandatory destruction instead of charitable repurposing for conformity with the Trade Marks Act.
Goldmedal Electricals Pvt Ltd vs Abuzar Mohammed on 8 January, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Delhi District Court adjudicated an infringement suit where Goldmedal Electricals alleged use of its mark by Sahara Pipes without consent. The defendant acknowledged the infringement and sought summary judgment after the seizure of infringing goods by a Local Commissioner. The Court granted a permanent injunction, along with an order to destroy seized materials. A sum of ₹2,50,000 was awarded to the plaintiff as nominal damages and costs.
The Calcutta High Court set aside a patent rejection for a glass fiber composition, on the ground that the order lacked reason. Since the invention used higher amounts of magnesium oxide notwithstanding previous art demonstrating that this was detrimental, the Court emphasised the Controller’s failure to address the “teaching away” doctrine. The Court stressed that decisions about innovation must be backed by thorough scientific study and remanded the case.
Other IP Developments
- CCI Closes Complaint Alleging Anti-Competitive Against Eros Over AI-Altered Re-Release of ‘Raanjhanaa’
- Celebrity Personality Rights Cannot Be Used to Secure Interim Gag Orders Without Establishing Commercial Exploitation: Madras High Court
- Madhav Dhananjaya Gadgil, India’s Pre-eminent Ecologist Passes Away at the Age of 83
International IP Development
- Ninth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment Absolving Apple from Antitrust Claims Over Heart Rate Data
- EPO Announces Expansion of AI Pilot Program to All Oral Proceedings in Examination, Opposition
- SEC Filing Announces Genentech-Roche License for Structure’s GLP-1 Agonists
(Thanks to Aafreen, Arjun, Aditya, and Hruthika for the case summaries.)
