After an exciting week of discussion on GIs, ambush marketing, and the right of publicity, here is a round-up of the week with the latest edition of the Weekly Review for April. This week featured discussions on the Delhi High Court’s orders in the Peruvian Pisco appeal and the Allu Arjun personality rights matter. We also had posts on ambush marketing and the IPO’s rejection of Dr. Stephen Thaler’s patent application for a DABUS-invented invention. Are we missing anything? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
The Inventor is still Human: Indian Patent Office’s DABUS Refusal
The Indian Patent Office’s recent decision marks the latest addition to the list of cases concerning Dr. Thaler’s patent application, with DABUS listed as the inventor. Going beyond the formal issue of whether an AI system can be named as an inventor, the Office also examined the claimed invention on its merits and rejected it for lack of inventive step. In this post, Ambika Aggarwal analyses the decision, situates it within global DABUS litigation, and considers what it signals for India’s emerging approach to AI-related patent claims.
Part I: Flower Nahi, Fire: Delhi HC Waters the Wrong Rights (Again!)
Recent personality rights orders from the Delhi High Court continue to push the doctrine into uncertain territory, with the latest ruling in favour of Allu Arjun marking a particularly sharp turn. In Part I of the two-part post on the order, Dr. Aakanksha Kumar argues that by characterizing the likeness of the actor as “copyrights of the plaintiff”, the Court collapses distinct IP doctrines into an overbroad conception of “personality rights,” raising serious concerns for copyright and right of publicity jurisprudence in India.
Part II: Flower Nahi, Fire: Delhi HC Waters the Wrong Rights (Again!)
Building on Part I’s critique of the DHC’s doctrinal conflation in the Allu Arjun case, Part II of the post turns to a related concern: the Court’s failure to distinguish between vastly different forms of unauthorised use. In this post, Dr. Aakanksha Kumar explains how collapsing fan practices, commercial merchandise, and AI-driven misuse into a single category produces an overbroad and structurally flawed approach to personality rights.
Other Posts
Crashing the Game, Not the Law: Ambush Marketing and IP Law
A very happy World IP Day to our readers! As the IPL frenzy returns, so does the battle for consumer attention, this time fought as much through witty notifications and real-time campaigns as on the cricket field, and raising familiar questions about the legality and limits of ambush marketing. In this post, Anooja Padhee and Jyoti Panigrahi argue that non-deceptive ambush marketing reflects creative competition and that IP law should protect rights without stifling humour, parody, and innovation.
It’s the time to Pisco: Delhi HC Dismisses Peru’s GI Hopes Again!
In its latest ruling in the long-running Pisco dispute, the Delhi High Court Division Bench revisits the contested terrain of homonymous geographical indications under Indian law. Tanishka Goswami examines how the Court balanced consumer confusion, statutory interpretation, and the Registrar’s powers while ultimately upholding “Peruvian Pisco” as a registrable GI.
AIR-1, Right of Publicity-0: Delhi HC’s CLATastrophic Mix-Up
The DHC’s recent interim order in the Toprankers–LawPrepTutorial dispute over CLAT 2026 AIR-1 exposes a deeper doctrinal confusion in Indian personality rights jurisprudence. Dr. Aakanksha Kumar and Kartik Sharma write that while the Court rightly recognised the student as a pawn in a commercial turf war, its reasoning on “personality rights” blurs settled distinctions between fame, identity, and the right of publicity. They argue that the real issue was not whether the topper was famous enough, but whether her identity was commercially misappropriated at all.
Case Summaries
Dr Sanjiv Goenka vs Google LLC & Ors on 15 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Dr Sanjiv Goenka sued various defendants and tech platforms for violating his personality rights and defaming him through derogatory social media posts, AI-generated content, and deepfakes. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case of infringement and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction. It restrained the unauthorised commercial exploitation of his name and likeness, and ordered the takedown of the infringing URLs.
The appellant challenged the Registrar’s decision granting the respondents registration for the “GANESHA” device mark for gram flour, citing its prior “GANESH” mark. The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the registration. The Court found that the respondents established honest and concurrent use of the mark since 1995, thus entitling them to protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act.
M/S Kakas Hospitality vs Kake Daa Hotel Through Proprietor Ms … on 15 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, operating restaurants under the well-known “KAKE-DA-HOTEL” mark, sued multiple defendants for operating similar eateries and listing deceptively similar names like “KAKE DAA HOTEL” on food delivery platforms like Zomato. Finding a prima facie case of passing off, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the confusingly similar marks and ordered Zomato to block the infringing listings.
Allu Arjun vs Frankly Retail Private Limited & Ors on 17 April 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Actor Allu Arjun sued the defendants for unauthorizedly exploiting his personality rights, registered trademarks, and voice through AI voice-cloning tools, deepfakes, and the sale of counterfeit merchandise. Finding a strong prima facie case, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from utilising his name, likeness, or trademarks, and directed platforms to take down the infringing URLs.
Nippon Steel Corporation vs The Controller Of Patents on 17 April 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The appellant challenged the Controller’s order refusing its patent application for a manufacturing process due to a purported lack of inventive step. The Delhi High Court quashed the refusal order, holding that it violated natural justice by merely copying texts from prior art documents without providing any technical analysis or reasoning. The court remanded the application for a de novo consideration.
R.Kishore Kumar vs M/S.R.R.Cine Productions on 8 April, 2026 (Madras High Court)
In cross-suits over the copyright ownership of the Tamil film “MANI” (also censored as “MONEY” and “DHADHA”), both the director and the editor claimed to be the producer. Evaluating evidence like daily wage agreements and the bound script, the Madras High Court declared the director as the true producer and copyright owner. It granted him a permanent injunction and dismissed the editor’s rival suit.
The plaintiff sued its former Indian distributor for passing off counterfeit plumbing valves under its “RB” trademark, while the distributor countersued for defamation over the plaintiff’s customer warning notices. Reversing a Single Judge’s decision, the Madras High Court Division Bench found cumulative evidence of passing off and granted the plaintiff an injunction. Consequently, it set aside the defamation damages previously awarded to the distributor.
State vs Azad Kumar Singh on 17 April, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The accused was charged under the Copyright Act for allegedly manufacturing and selling counterfeit books published by Tata McGraw-Hill. The Delhi District Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Crucially, the prosecution failed to examine the company expert who identified the books as counterfeit, and also failed to join independent public witnesses during the search.
The Delhi District Court, Tis Hazari, granted a permanent injunction which protects Dhanuka Agritech’s fungicide-use registered mark “SIXER” against the defendant’s “KEMICIDES SIXER.” The Court ruled that “SIXER”, albeit of a generic nature, has acquired secondary meaning by virtue of extensive use since 1999. The Court, while highlighting identical trade channels and the high chance of confusion among farmers who may be uneducated, awarded Rs. 5 Lakhs in damages while rejecting the defendant’s plea of acquiescence.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd vs Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd on 21 April, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court upheld the summary dismissal of Hatsun Agro’s suit against Patanjali’s use of “PATANJALI AAROGYA” mark for biscuits. Ruling that “AROKYA” (Class 29) and “AAROGYA” (Class 30) covered distinct goods, the Court precluded a “real prospect of success.” The Court, invoking Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, held that infringement actions against another registered proprietor of a similar mark cannot be maintained for non-identical products.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Kbir Wellness from using the mark “Liv-82 DS”, finding that there exists striking visual and phonetic similarities to the plaintiffs’ “Liv.52 trademark for liver care products. While emphasising identical goods and trade channels, the Court held that an unwary consumer with imperfect recollection would likely be deceived by the defendant’s similar get-up and slight numeric variation.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against Home of Diagnostics for using marks deceptively similar to “H.O.D” and “HOUSE OF DIAGNOSTICS” while noting that the defendant’s “HOD” and “Home of Diagnostics” were nearly identical to the plaintiffs’ registered marks. The Court held that, given that both parties provide identical diagnostic services, there existed a high likelihood of confusion. Further, the Court noted the defendant’s prior trademark refusal.
Mansueto Ventures Llc vs Dnyaneshwar Ashok Kamble Trading As … on 21 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Masueto Ventures secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the use of the mark “Inc” for business magazines. The Delhi High Court found that the title “The Inc Magazine” and the domain, both used by the defendant, are deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s well-known “Inc.” brand. The Court, while citing actual subscriber confusion and unauthorised solicitations, restrained the defendant from riding on the substantial goodwill the plaintiff has established in India since 1979.
The Delhi High Court set aside an injunction against the mark “SHATAM JEEVA.” The Court emphasised the anti-dissection rule for composite marks and held that “SHATAM JEEVA BY BAIDYANATH” was conceptually and visually distinct from “JIVA.” Holding that generic Sanskrit terms like “Jiva” cannot be monopolised in isolation, the Court found that the “Baidyanath” source-identifier sufficiently precluded any likelihood of confusion among average consumers.
The Bombay High Court granted a permanent injunction against “ABSUN PHARMA”, finding that it infringed upon the “SUN PHARMA” trademark. While rejecting the coined term defence of the defendant, the Court ruled that the plaintiff’s mark was completely subsumed. The Court crucially applied Section 56, holding that applying a trademark in India for goods intended solely for exports constitutes “use” under the Act, thereby establishing both infringement and passing off.
Waymo Llc vs P-Waymo Electric Vehicles Private … on 20 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction protecting the “WAYMO” trademark against “P-WAYMO” for electric vehicles. While recognising “WAYMO” as an invented, highly distinctive word associated with autonomous driving technology, the Court found no scope for bona fide adoption. Additionally, the Court ruled that the defendant’s use of the mark for allied transportation services was a calculated attempt to capitalise on the plaintiff’s global reputation.
Other IP Developments
- The Central government initiates talks with Novartis regarding shortage of thalassemia drug supplies.
- Bombay High Court clarifies that there is no difference between a housemark and a trademark, grants protection to Sun Pharma against Absun Pharma in a trademark infringement suit.
- A Chandigarh district court stays the release of Sonam Bajwa-starrer ‘Pit Syapa’ over copyright infringement allegations.
- The Central Government told the court that YouTube channel 4 PM was blocked for spreading anti-Indian propaganda and digitally lobbying a one-sided narrative.
- Bombay High Court protects the personality rights of Kartik Aaryan.
International IP Developments
- CureVac alleges patent infringement of its Covid vaccines by Moderna, files a suit in the Delaware federal court
- Anthropic asks a California federal court to rule in its favor in a copyright lawsuit filed by Universal Music Group, Concord, and ABKCO, arguing that using song lyrics to train its AI chatbot Claude qualifies as fair use.
- Youtube expands its AI likeness detection tool to include celebrities for preventing misuse of their identities through deepfake content.
- The Onion agrees to a new deal to take over conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ far-right media company “Infowars”.
- US International Trade Commission rejected Masimo’s request to reinstate the Apple watch import ban.
Thanks to Naman and Aditi for the case summaries.
