Entering the second half of April with a post on the ANI v OpenAI, judgment of which has been reserved by the Delhi HC. Can an entity that is no longer a registered copyright society continue to demand licensing fees? Post on PPL’s ongoing litigation. Another post on the Delhi HC holding that removing an original mark and replacing it with one’s own does not automatically amount to trademark infringement. Case summaries and IP developments from the country and the globe 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
ANI v OpenAI: Not Everything an LLM Does is Copyright Infringement
With judgment now reserved in ANI v OpenAI, India stands at the cusp of what might be its first major judicial reckoning with the copyright implications of generative AI. The case raises foundational questions on whether AI systems merely process information in new ways or unlawfully appropriate protected expression. Vishno Sudheendra examines two of the most contested issues from the final hearings: chatbot web search functionality and memorisation.
From Delhi to Bombay, Music Licensing Goes Off the Beat
Can an entity that is no longer a registered copyright society continue to demand licensing fees? The ongoing litigation around PPL’s repertoire raises exactly this question. Highlighting the divergent views taken by courts, Ambika Aggarwal explains the emerging judicial split on this issue.
DHC Stunts the Growth of Dynamic Injunctions, Demands the Legislature to Step In
In Mahindra & Mahindra v. Diksha Sharma, the Delhi High Court revisits the expanding use of dynamic injunctions and draws a firm procedural boundary at the post-decree stage. Explaining the decision, Tejaswini Kaushal examines how the Court’s reliance on the principle of functus officio and finality principles may significantly reshape digital IP enforcement in India.
Repair, Remove, Replace: DHC saves the Repair Industry
In a significant boost to India’s repair and refurbishment industry, the Delhi High Court has held that removing an original mark and replacing it with one’s own does not automatically amount to trademark infringement. Yogesh Byadwal unpacks how the ruling clarifies Sections 29 and 30(4) of the Trade Marks Act and exposes gaps in India’s import policy for refurbished goods.
Case Summaries
Pepsico Inc. & Anr vs Parle Agro Private Limited on 15 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in an Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC application, addressed the disobedience of an injunction regarding the tagline “For The Bold.” While finding the failure to delete old social media posts as inadvertent, it held the failure to file bi-monthly sales certificates was a serious violation. In light of the same, the Court imposed a cost of INR 10 Lakhs on the defendant and demanded an unconditional apology.
The Madras High Court dismissed an application to reject a plaint for trademark infringement and passing off involving the mark “MELANGE.” The defendant had challenged the jurisdiction and framing of a composite suit without obtaining leave. The Court, applying Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, held that the plaintiff’s branch office within the jurisdiction. They further held that the defendant’s online availability sufficiently disclosed a cause of action for the proceedings to continue.
Impresario Entertainment And … vs Sid Luxury Homes Llp on 10 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction protecting the well-known trademark “SOCIAL” against the defendant’s use of “SOCIAL LIVING ELEVATED” in Class 43. The Court found that the defendant’s mark fully subsumed the plaintiff’s registered mark and that the hospitality services offered were allied and cognate. Therefore, there existed a clear likelihood of confusion among consumers with the average intelligence and imperfect recollection.
More Than Water Private Limited vs Nesco Limited on 15 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in a passing off action involving “WATER BOX” marks, refused an interim injunction. The plaintiff failed to establish the classical trinity of passing off, specifically lacking evidence of substantial goodwill and continuous prior use since 2018. The Court, finding that neither party proved a dominant market presence, ordered the parties to restrict sales of their respective products to their home states of Gujarat and Maharashtra.
Crocs Inc. & Anr vs Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited on 13 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Crocs sued the defendant for infringing its registered footwear designs, “JIBBITZ” patent, and “CROSLITE” and 3D shape trademarks by selling slavishly copied footwear and accessories. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case of infringement, holding that the blatant imitation was likely to cause consumer confusion. The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or advertising the products and ordered online takedowns.
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR registered for trademark infringement under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act regarding “Star Lite Salt.” The Court noted that a coordinate bench in a previous litigation between the same parties had already determined that no resemblance existed between the contested marks and that permitting criminal prosecution to continue when the substratum of deceptive similarity was already adjudicated as non-existent would constitute an abuse of process.
Navya Network Inc vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And … on 15 April, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The petitioner challenged the Controller’s refusal of its patent application for a “Medical Research Retrieval Engine” on grounds of lacking inventive step and constituting a mere computer program. The Bombay High Court set aside the order, holding that it lacked proper analysis comparing the invention to prior art and introduced new refusal grounds violating natural justice principles. The Court remanded the matter for de novo consideration.
Toprankers and a CLAT 2026 topper sued rival Law Prep Tutorial over a defamatory online campaign involving AI-morphed images and disparaging posts falsely claiming the plaintiffs bought the topper’s rank. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case of disparagement and trademark infringement. It granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from publishing defamatory content or using the student’s likeness, and ordered the takedown of offending posts.
RSPL Limited vs Anoop Kumar Saraswat on 13 April 2026 (Delhi District Court)
RSPL Limited, proprietor of the “GHARI” and “GHADI” trademarks, sued the defendant for infringement and passing off by selling detergent under the deceptively similar “NEW SUPER GHADI” mark and watch device. Noting the defendant’s ex parte status and unrebutted evidence, the Court found clear infringement. It granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the marks, ordered the destruction of seized goods, and awarded Rs. 1,50,000 as damages.
Other IP Developments
- Kerala High Court Refuses To Interfere In Interim Injunction In Trademark Dispute Between LAZZA And HAZZA
- IP Registrations Fall In FY26, After Record High In FY24 and FY25
- Madras High Court Dismisses Damages Plea Filed By Tamannaah Bhatia’s Against Exploiting Of Image
International IP Development
- CJEU Issues Decision On Question Regarding Exceptions To EU Copyright Law
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Issues Decision In Teva Pharmaceuticals In Genus-Species Dispute Of Teva’s Headache Treatment
(Thanks to Adit and Naman for the case summaries.)
