[This Weekly Review is authored by Naman Singh. Naman is an LLB (Hons.) student at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. Having a background in music, film, and media, He enjoys all things at the intersection of IP and law.]
The call for applications for SPARC Cohort 1 is now open! This week, marking the end of April, also saw a batch of interesting discussions that ranged from lapsed trademarks, generics production, the needed evolution of the GI tag conception, as well as the line between media criticism and commercial disparagement. The week featured posts on potential recycling on lapsed trademarks into the market, the IPO’s refusal of a patent for Ventoclax, a post on Surat cut Diamonds GI, and the Delhi High Court’s Judgment in the TV Today v Newslaundry case which deals with commercial disparagement findings in cases of media criticism. If you feel we are missing anything, drop a comment below and let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Launching the SpicyIP Academy Research Clinic (SPARC)!
Applications are now open for the first cohort of SPARC, the SpicyIP Academy Research Clinic. Designed to support researchers on the Indian IP landscape with structured feedback and mentorship, SPARC aims to build a stronger, more connected IP research community, with no fees attached to it! The deadline to apply is May 31, 2026 (midnight IST)—for more details on the number of seats and the process to apply, read the post linked above.
Dead Marks, Live Assets – The Case for a Registry Supervised Auction of Lapsed Trademarks in India
India’s trademark register is quietly bleeding value. Each year, marks with real commercial recall lapse not because they’ve lost relevance, but because renewal deadlines are missed, erasing years of built goodwill from the legal record. In this post, Lakshmidevi Somanath argues that instead of letting these assets vanish, India should rethink its approach and create a system to recycle lapsed trademarks back into the market.
Surat Cut GI tag for Diamond and Terroir: an Unfinished Love Story
The newly granted Surat Cut diamond GI tag promises to recognise craftsmanship, skill, and one of India’s most remarkable industrial success stories. But can a legal framework built to protect places truly capture value created by mobile communities whose expertise travels across borders? Writing on this development, Niharika Salar explores how the Surat GI both advances and exposes the limits of India’s geographical indications regime, where the real story may be less about land and more about labour.
Other Posts
In a clash between legacy broadcast media and digital watchdog journalism, the Delhi High Court’s ruling in TV Today v. Newslaundry confronts a difficult modern question: when does sharp media criticism become actionable commercial disparagement? Naman Singh writes that while the judgment offers important clarifications on interim injunctions, it leaves unresolved the deeper tension between reputational protection and press freedom.
‘Venetoclax’ at the IPO: Why Generics Need More than Patent Refusals
The Indian Patent Office’s rejection of AbbVie’s Venetoclax application has been widely celebrated as a major victory for affordable cancer treatment and domestic generics. But how far can one patent refusal really go in solving the deeper problems of price, quality, delayed access, and combination-drug dependence? In this post, Ambika Aggarwal examines the decision as part of India’s evolving Section 3(d) jurisprudence, while questioning the easy narrative that patent rejection alone guarantees access to lifesaving medicines.
Case Summaries
Le Shark Apparel Ltd. successfully applied to remove the appellant’s “LESHARK” trademark. The appellant appealed. The respondent objected, arguing the Single Judge’s order wasn’t a decree. The Bombay High Court overruled the objection, holding the appeal maintainable. It found that the Single Judge’s order conclusively determined the parties’ rights regarding the trademark, and therefore amounted to a decree under the Commercial Courts Act.
Kiranbhai Lakshmanbhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 24 April, 2026 (Gujarat High Court)
The applicant sought regular bail after being arrested for allegedly selling bidis using the complainant’s counterfeit “M/s Sable Bidi” trademark. The prosecution invoked several sections, including forgery, carrying up to life imprisonment. The Gujarat High Court granted regular bail. It noted that despite the severe sections invoked, the case primarily involved trademark infringement, making it a fit case to exercise discretion and release the applicant on conditional bail.
M/S. Sri Sai Baba Impex vs Wazir Chand Kapoor on 15 April, 2026 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The petitioner, registered proprietor of the “RAM-G GOLD” trademark for sunflower seeds, sued the respondent for using the deceptively similar mark “SRI RAM-G GOLD”. The trial court denied an ad-interim injunction because the respondent’s trademark application was pending. The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted the interim injunction, holding that the trial court had erred. It ruled that the petitioner established prior use, and pending registration does not bar temporary relief.
S.S. White Burs Inc vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks, & Anr on 25 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
S.S. White Burs Inc. sought to cancel the respondent’s “S.S. WHITE” trademark, claiming prior global ownership and that the respondent slavishly copied its stylised device mark. The Delhi High Court cancelled the respondent’s registration, holding that the mark was adopted in bad faith. The court also severely criticised the Registrar for failing to conduct a mandatory Rule 33 search, which vitiated the entire registration process.
Sanjeev Gaur And Anr vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 23 April, 2026 (Gauhati High Court)
The petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings alleging they stole the design of the informant’s surgical glove manufacturing machine located in Assam to build an identical machine in Rajasthan. The petitioners argued the Assam court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the summoning order. It held that the court had jurisdiction since the machine operated there, and witness statements prima facie supported the allegations.
Sanofi Aventis vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr on 28 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Sanofi, proprietor of the “PLAVIX” pharmaceutical trademark, sued the defendants for using “CLAVIX” for identical drugs. The issue was whether this constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi High Court held that the marks were deceptively similar and that the adoption was dishonest. It granted a permanent injunction restraining the use of “CLAVIX”, and awarded nominal damages and costs.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Grupo Bimbo concerning its “Osito Bimbo” bear device. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ “HELLO PANDAA” cookies imitated their registered trademark and their trade dress. The Court observed striking similarities which included imitation of the mascot’s chef hat, which featured the letter “B”, consequently finding a prima facie case of infringement and passing off.
Johnson Paints Co vs Johnson Paints Private Limited on 24 April, 2026 (Patna High Court)
The Patna High Court set aside a lower court order, granting an interim injunction to the plaintiff for the “JOHNSON” mark for paint products. Emphasising the “first user” rule, the Court found that the plaintiff’s prior use since 1987 established superior common law rights. Further, the Court noted that the defendant’s assignment deeds were questionable and insufficient to prove prior adoption or acquiring of proprietary rights.
The Delhi High Court, granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the use of the mark “SHREE SHREE” for electrical switch gears, reasoned that the mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered “SHREE” mark, which was in use since 2005. It ruled that common consumers, including electricians, would likely be confused by the identical stylisation and common distribution channels, consequently leading to irreparable injury to the plaintiff’s established goodwill.
Novartis Ag & Anr vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited on 24 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in a quia timet action, restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling generic Dabrafenib, which is protected by the plaintiff’s patent IN’655 until 2029. The Court relied on an investigation report and RTI data, which confirmed that Intas had obtained manufacturing approvals. This, as per the Court, constituted a credible apprehension of infringement. The injunction excludes activities protected under Section 107A of the Patents Act for regulatory purposes.
Paper Money Guaranty Llc vs Pmgindia & Ors on 24 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction which restrained the defendants from using “PMGIndia” or “Paper Money Grading” marks. Finding these marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered “PMG” and “Paper Money Guaranty” marks for banknote certification, the Court highlighted deliberate imitation by a former member to divert customers. The Court ordered the suspension of the infringing domain and social media accounts.
Shruti Sharma vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks on 22 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court set aside the Registrar’s refusal to register the mark “AROMA SPHERE” in Class 35. The Court, remanding the matter, held that the Registrar failed to assess the dissimilarity of goods/services between the rival marks as required by Section 11. Further, the Court found that the Registrar erred by ignoring the appellant’s user affidavit claiming use since March 2023, improperly treating the application as being on a “proposed to be used” basis.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge’s order which upheld the cancellation of the “Ganjraj Chhappan Bhog” mark. Holding that under Section 100A CPC, no further appeal lies to a Division Bench once a Single Judge has exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, the Court noted that the prohibition applies irrespective of whether the Registrar of Trade Marks is considered a Court.
The Allahabad High Court set aside an ex-parte interim injunction which concerned a patented spreader bar motion device. While doing so, the Court found that the lower court failed to record reasons for bypassing the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Further, the injunction was quashed as neither did the Commercial Court independently satisfy the three-fold test for temporary injunctions, nor did it adequately address jurisdictional objections.
The Delhi High Court decided a trademark infringement suit following a settlement between the parties involved. The defendant agreed to a permanent injunction which restrains the use of “BIRLA WHITE CEMENT,” “BIRLA WALLTECH,” or any mark that may be deceptively similar to the “BIRLA” trademark used by the plaintiff. Further, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff’s exclusive proprietary rights, thereby agreeing to destroy all infringing materials and packaging within a specified timeframe.
M.M.I Tobacco (P) Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court quashed an order of the Registrar of Copyrights that had rejected objections against the registration of rival artistic works. The Court found a manifest error in the fact that the Registrar compared the respondent’s labels with the wrong artistic works of the appellant due to incorrect diary numbers. The matters were remanded for fresh consideration of the comparative similarity between the correct rival works.
Other IP Developments
- Gujarat records 3x increase in patent filings in three years
- IIT Madras incubates 112 startups, files 431 patents in FY26 milestone year
- India exempts the application fee for 3 years for sports-related IP copyright, patent, design or GI products
