Entering February by announcing the second edition of the SpicyIP Summer School in 2026! A three part book review of “Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia“, edited by Dr. Pratyush Nath Upreti. Case summaries and IP developments from the country and the globe 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
Announcing the Second Edition of the SpicyIP Summer School (2026)
After an incredible inaugural edition, we’re excited to share that the SpicyIP Summer School is back in 2026! If you’re interested in thinking deeply about IP issues beyond textbooks, through enriching conversations, critique, and real-world perspectives, keep an eye out. More details coming soon.
(Part I) Book Review: Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia
“Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia“, edited by Dr. Pratyush Nath Upreti, PhD, is a timely and important intervention that brings together scholars from across the region to examine how IP law is shaped by local legal cultures, policy priorities, and socio-economic realities. The book holds particular significance for us, as it is dedicated to the memory of our founder, Professor Shamnad Basheer, and includes a chapter engaging with his work, recognising the profound influence and enduring inspiration he provided in bringing intellectual property thought from the Global South. Taking forward the engagement with the book, we organized a Book Review Symposium. In the first post of the review symposium, Shama Mahajan reviews Part I of the book, asking why “South Asia” matters as an IP frame, and argues that the region’s particularities, problems, and priorities fundamentally shape how IP has evolved and ought to be understood.
(Part II) Book Review: Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia
Continuing the discussion on the book- “Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia“, edited by Dr. Pratyush Nath Upreti, PhD, Akshat Agrawal reviews part II of the book (Intellectual Property Developments in South Asia) and examines how South Asian IP regimes are shaped and constrained by the imperative to align with TRIPS, often at a high developmental, cultural, and public-interest cost.
(Part III) Book Review: Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia
Reviewing Part III of the book- “Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia”, edited by Dr. Pratyush Nath Upreti, PhD, Prof. Ishupal Singh Kang engages with how institutions, courts, and practices shape IP governance beyond doctrinal boundaries, bringing questions of gender, access, expertise, and social justice into the frame. Reading the chapters in conversation rather than isolation, Prof. Kang reflects on innovation-centric assumptions, the politics of IP expertise, and the role of South Asian historical narratives in re-imagining IP law and its futures.
Case Summaries
The Court registered MediaMonks’ suit, allowed filing-and-document reliefs and exempted the plaintiff from pre-institution mediation. Considering an application for ex parte ad-interim relief against the defendant operating the domain mediamonk.ai, the Court found prima facie trademark infringement and likelihood of confusion with the registered “MediaMonks” mark. It restrained use of the infringing marks/domains, issued notice and set pleading/service timelines.
Physicswallah Limited v. Nikhil Kumar Singh And Orson 23 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court registered Physicswallah’s suit, granted procedural exemptions (including from pre-institution mediation) and issued summons. Plaintiff alleged defamatory videos and trademark infringement by a former employee. On the material before it the Court found a prima facie case and balance of convenience in the plaintiff’s favour, and granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining dissemination of the impugned videos and use of confusing marks.
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal against a commercial court order that had granted a temporary injunction. The trial court had restrained the appellant from using “SHREE RAJLAXMI” or packaging similar to the respondent’s registered “RAJLAXMI” mark. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings of prior use and likelihood of confusion and dismissed the appellant’s challenge.
The Court registered the plaintiff’s suit alleging an unauthorised AI-generated film that misappropriated his name, image and persona and raised privacy/publicity and copyright concerns. After admitting procedural applications, the Court found a prima facie case and risk of irreparable harm, and granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining defendants and associates from creating, publishing or distributing the impugned AI film and ordered identified links taken down.
Sterling Agro Industries Ltd v. Giriraj Gupta on 21 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Sterling Agro’s suit alleging trademark, trade-dress and copyright infringement in respect of its “NOVA” mark and packaging was registered. The Court granted procedural exemptions and found a prima facie case of infringement and likelihood of public confusion. It granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling or advertising goods using “NOVA” or deceptively similar marks; ordered disclosure of sales/stock and fixed timelines for pleadings.
The Patent Office had rejected the application on the premise that the parent application was refused. The court observed that the parent patent was eventually granted in March 2025, making the original reason for rejection nugatory. As such, the case was referred back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration, with a direction to pass a fresh order within three months after a proper hearing is held for the appellant.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited filed a petition for the cancellation of the trademark registration for “ROZATAN,” belonging to JBD Life Sciences Private Limited and registered under Class 5 for drugs. The Court issued notices to the respondents and the Registrar of Trade Marks, and a timeline was set for filing responses and rejoinders. The pleadings will be finalized in March 2026, and a hearing will be held on May 6, 2026.
The case related to the infringement of Patent No. 269841, which describes the compound “Ruxolitinib” used for the treatment of bone marrow cancer. The plaintiffs prayed for an injunction as they found the defendant listed as a supplier on a third-party website. The defendant gave an undertaking to the court that it would not commercially exploit the drug within the lifetime of the patent, while reserving the right to use it for research purposes. The Court accepted this undertaking and dismissed the suit on the first day of listing. The court also directed a 50% refund of the court fees.
Veerendra Kumar Sinha vs The Registrar Of Trademark And Anr on January 27, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
An advocate appealed the rejection of his trademark application for “VNS LEGAL PARTNERS,” asserting continuous use of the mark since 2008. He supported his claim with documentation such as vendor bills and a magazine article. The Delhi High Court criticized the Registrar for issuing a “non-speaking order” that failed to provide specific reasons for the rejection. Finding the lack of reasoning unacceptable for a quasi-judicial authority, the Court remitted the matter for reconsideration. The Registrar was ordered to give the appellant a personal hearing and to allow him to submit additional documentation.
Astha Jain & Anr vs Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors on January 28, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court decided a suit for a permanent injunction against trademark and copyright infringement, along with damages and unfair competition. The parties jointly applied for the recording of a settlement arrived at on October 9, 2025, following which the Court passed a decree based on the settlement. As such, all parties are bound by the terms and conditions specified in the aforementioned settlement agreement.
Delhivery Limited v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar And Others on 22 January 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court registered Delhivery’s suit alleging impersonation, trademark/copyright infringement and fraudulent franchise schemes using misleading domains. Granting procedural exemptions, the Court found a prima facie case and issued detailed interim directions: restrained defendants from using DELHIVERY marks; ordered specified domain names suspended/locked; directed banks and intermediaries to furnish KYC and freeze/produce account details, and fixed timelines for service and pleadings.
Vishnu and Company Trademarks Pvt. Ltd. v Dharmani Deni & Ors on 23 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Vishnu filed an infringement and passing off suit over the VIMAL mark as defendants allegedly operating fake websites and social media accounts, despite an earlier decree against some of them. The Court held the fresh suit maintainable due to the recurring and continuing cause of action from ongoing infringing acts. Pre-institution mediation was exempted and a prima facie case of dishonest adoption was found. The Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction, directing blocking of infringing domains, URLs, and accounts and disclosure of subscriber details.
Happi Planet filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark, trade dress and copyright against sellers marketing counterfeit products under identical/deceptively similar mark “Happi Planet”. Based on test purchases and visual comparison, the Court found a strong prima facie case and deceptive similarity in marks and packaging. Therefore, it granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining use of the mark and trade dress and directed platforms to take down and dynamically block infringing listings, blacklist sellers, and disclose subscriber details.
BFMC sought accounts, recovery of ₹1.84 crore, damages and injunction alleging the 1st defendant continued using its “Fetal Imaging Academy” course content after contract termination and withheld revenue details. The suit framed issues on unauthorized use of content, accounts, termination validity and damages. The trial court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to prove unauthorized infringement and its entitlement to relief, therefore answering key issues against it.
Asian Paints Limited v Sheuly Datta & Ors on 21 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Asian Paints filed a suit seeking interim injunction against the unauthorized use of its well-known trademark “ASIAN PAINTS” in relation to a fraudulent token-redemption scheme operated through the website paintertoken.com and a mobile application. The Court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, holding that the parties operate in the same or identical trade with a common or identical consumer base, creating a likelihood of confusion and deception. Accordingly, the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff, and the defendants were restrained from using the impugned mark and directed to block infringing URLs.
Mr. Mahboob sued Flipkart and third-party sellers alleging trademark infringement and passing off of his mark “SKYSPIRIT” through marketplace listings and “more seller” mapping. The Court held the plaintiff failed to prove prior use, whereas Defendant No.2 established earlier use through invoices. Additionally, defendants sold under distinct brand names as that of plaintiff. Flipkart was held as an intermediary entitled to safe harbour protection u/s 79 IT Act. Therefore, the suit was dismissed.
REFEX filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Regional Director rejecting its application under Companies Act seeking rectification of the name “REFEX HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED” on the ground that it was identical to its registered trademark “REFEX”.The Regional Director had dismissed the application solely on the ground that the business activities of the parties are totally different. The court set aside the impugned order and Respondent No. 2 was directed to change its name to any other name as under Companies Act, the test is whether the name is identical or too nearly resembles an existing company name or registered trademark and dissimilarity in business activities is not a relevant criteria. The Court found “REFEX” to be a coined, distinctive and prominent part of the petitioner’s name and held the respondent’s name to be undesirable as stipulated under Section 4(2)(a) of the Act of 2013.
Novartis AG v Novarise Gastro Bariatrics & Ors on 20 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
“NOVARTIS” filed a suit seeking interim injunction against infringement of its well-known trademark “NOVARTIS” by use of the mark “NOVARISE” in relation to its medical and healthcare services. The Court noted that “NOVARTIS” is an arbitrary, well-known mark with longstanding global and Indian registrations and reputation. It found that “NOVARISE” adopted the dominant and distinctive element. The Court observed a strong likelihood of confusion and false association and granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark.
Rexcin filed a suit to get a permanent injunction against infringement of its trademark “REXCIN,” which is used for pharmaceutical preparations. The defendants’ mark “REKIN” was allegedly similar to that of Rexcin. The Court observed that both marks were phonetically and structurally similar, especially considering the imperfect recollection of consumers. The Court reiterated the stricter standard for confusion in medicinal products. Recognizing a clear likelihood of deception and passing off, the Court granted a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from using the mark “REKIN” or any other mark that could confuse consumers.
Canva Pty Ltd & Ors v Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited on 28 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Canva filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against infringement of its well-known trademark “CANVA.” Allegedly “RXPRISM” used a deceptively similar mark and domain name without authorization in connection with digital and design services. The Court noted that “CANVA” is a coined and inherently distinctive mark with extensive global reputation and registrations, and the defendant’s use of a confusingly similar mark was dishonest and intended to ride upon Canva’s goodwill. The Court found that there was a likelihood of confusion, dilution, and an unfair advantage taken from Canva’s reputation. As a result, it granted a permanent injunction.
Other IP Developments
- Delhi High Court Rules Against Canva In A Patent Infringement Dispute Concerning Technology For Creating And Sharing Interactive Content
- Dpiit Releases Concept Note Proposing Amendments To Designs Act
- Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Defamatory Comments Against Physicswallah By Former Employee
International IP Development
- Smith Drug Accuses Novo Nordisk Of Using “Pay-For-Delay” Scheme For Allegedly Monopolising Diabetes Drug Victoza
- Independent Society Of Musicians Launches Report On The Impact Of Gen AI On The Creative Industries
- Music Publishers Allege Mass Piracy Of Copyrighted Works Against Anthropic In Us District Court
(Thanks to Aafreen, Aditya, and Hruthika for the case summaries.)
