With great sorrow we share the news of the passing of Mr. Nataraj G, founder of LCGN Advocates – a post on his life and work. Marking Prof. Shamnad Basheer’s 50th birthday, a post revisiting his last recorded interview and also announcing three new initiatives! A post on the continuing Section 3(k) saga, Yogesh Byadwal writes on the frameworks within which the Courts are working while deciding objections u/s. 3(k). 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
Remembering Mr. Guruswamy “Nutty” Nataraj (1970-2026)
It is with great sorrow that we share the news that Mr. Nataraj G, founder of LCGN Advocates, renowned for his formidable patent law practice, sharp wit, infectious smile, and warm sense of humour, passed away yesterday. His immense contribution to Indian patent law, his mentorship of young lawyers, and his unmistakable voice in the IP community will continue to inspire many. May his family find strength in this difficult time, and may he rest in peace.
Shamnad at 50: Still Lighting the Way
As we mark what would have been Prof. Basheer’s 50th birthday, we found ourselves revisiting what may have been his last recorded interview from about seven years ago – candid, warm, funny, and full of reflections on everything from how SpicyIP and IDIA began to why he believed so deeply in encouraging others to do more. More than anything else, it reminds us of the care and faith he placed in young people, and his constant effort to help them find their spark. In that spirit, we’re sharing a small excerpt from the interview today, alongside three new initiatives we hope will carry those ripples forward- our regional language podcast series, the SPARC research clinic, and the 2026 Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition.
Another brick in the wall for the Continuing Rights of Authors
In a significant reaffirmation of the purpose underlying the 2012 Copyright Amendments, a Division Bench of the CHC has clarified that authors of underlying literary and musical works continue to retain royalty rights whenever sound recordings are commercially exploited. The decision marks the first appellate-level recognition of the amendments as a substantive shift toward ensuring continuing economic participation for creators. Writing on the judgement, Akshat Agrawal examines the Court’s interpretation of Sections 13, 18, and 19 of the Copyright Act, its rejection of the pre-2012 licensing framework advanced by Vodafone, and its broader implications for the continuing royalty rights of authors.
Keep the ‘Technical’, Let’s Bring Consistency in 3(k)
Section 3(k) may be just 13 words long, but Indian courts continue to struggle with what it actually excludes. In this post, Yogesh Byadwal unpacks the DHC’s recent decision in Blackberry v. Controller and argues that the real problem with 3(k) jurisprudence is not just doctrinal confusion, but inconsistent outcomes arising from competing tests of patentability.
When Fashion ‘MET’ Culture: But Saving Traditional Craft Takes More Than A Red Carpet Tribute!!
This year’s Met Gala reignited conversations around Indian craftsmanship, cultural pride, and “Indian-inspired” fashion. But behind the glamour lies a harder question: can fashion truly celebrate artisans while simultaneously contributing to their erasure? In this post, Shama Mahajan examines the uneasy relationship between luxury fashion, cultural appropriation, artisanship, and IP frameworks like Geographical Indications.
Other Posts
Looking for a FRANDly Precedent? DHC missteps in Malikie v. Xiaomi pro-tem order
The Delhi High Court’s latest pro-tem order in Malikie v. Xiaomi continues the court’s expanding SEP jurisprudence, but not without raising fresh concerns. In this post, Ambika Aggarwal examines how the judgment stretches the logic of earlier pro-tem precedents on essentiality, FRAND rate-setting, and interim security deposits, often by relying on factually distinct cases and parallel foreign proceedings in ways that may further complicate an already unsettled area of Indian SEP law.
As the global gaming industry evolves far beyond entertainment into a sophisticated IP ecosystem built on software, art, music, branding, and competitive digital economies, conversations on questions of classification, cloning, and enforcement are becoming increasingly relevant. Reflecting on his experience attending the University of Geneva’s 2026 IP conference, Dhritiraj Paul Choudhury explains how jurisdictions across the world are actively rethinking copyright enforcement and classification in response to the commercial and technological realities of modern gaming, while Indian copyright jurisprudence has only just begun engaging with these questions.
So Near, Yet So Far: A Look at India’s Vaccine Push Caught Between Promise and Policy
Two vaccine developments from March involving Serum Institute of India reveal a striking contradiction in India’s public health landscape. In this post, Tejaswini Kaushal explains how, on one hand, Oxford’s non-exclusive Nipah vaccine licence with SII demonstrates how “good IP” can facilitate technology transfer, decentralised manufacturing, and pandemic preparedness. On the other hand, India’s decision to rely on GAVI-backed Gardasil instead of its own Cervavac for the HPV rollout shows that even when affordable domestic innovation exists, procurement politics, donor influence, and institutional risk-aversion can still shape who gets adopted and who gets sidelined.
Zee v Nykaa: The $210,000 Worth Instagram Reels
Can brands freely use trending Instagram audio for marketing just because it appears in the platform’s music library? The ongoing Zee v. Nykaa dispute before the Delhi High Court shows why the answer may be far more complicated. Discussing this development, Srishti Gaur unpacks the often-overlooked world of music licensing, sync rights, influencer collaborations, and copyright liability in the age of short-form content.
Case Summaries
Cinefil Producers performance ltd. secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Hari Om retail Pvt. Ltd. for unauthorized communication of cinematograph films at its stores. The Court held that the defendant was allegedly displaying copyrighted content through televisions and internet-enabled systems without obtaining the requisite Cinematograph Performance Licence, the Court restrained further public communication of the plaintiff’s repertoire and directed suspension of such transmission facilities until valid licences were obtained.
Universal City Studios Productions vs Playimdb.Com & Ors on 8 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Playimdb.com and several rogue streaming websites accused of unauthorized dissemination of copyrighted cinematograph films belonging to a Hollywood production company. The Court restrained hosting and streaming of the plaintiff’s content, directed domain registrars to suspend the impugned domains, and further ordered ISPs and government authorities to block access to the websites.
Aman Gupta vs John Doe/Ashok Kumar And Ors on 7 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of entrepreneur and “Shark Tank India” judge Aman Gupta against unauthorized exploitation of his personality and publicity rights. The Court put a restrain from using his name, image, voice, trademarks, catchphrases, and AI-generated deepfake content for commercial purposes, including fake endorsements. The Court also directed social media platforms to take down infringing material.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction to Select Citywalk Retail Pvt. Ltd. against the use of the mark “CITYWALK/SELECT CITYWALK”. The Court held that the defendants’ had incorporated the plaintiff’s registered mark. Observing that the plaintiff had acquired significant goodwill since 2004, the Court restrained the defendants from using the impugned mark in any manner.
Arti Srivastava vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents on 11 May, 2026( Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of a patent application titled “Method and System for Detecting Counterfeit Products.” While the Court held that the application failed the sufficiency of disclosure requirement under Sections 10(4)(a) and 10(5) of the Patents Act. Observing that the specification inadequately disclosed the technical architecture, data processing, transmission mechanisms, and authentication workflow necessary for a person skilled in the art to implement the invention without further research.
Hanmi Pharm. Co. Ltd vs The Controller General Of Patents And …. on 11 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court set aside the Patent Controller’s refusal of a pharmaceutical patent application relating to thieno[3,2-d] pyrimidine derivatives of Hanmi Pharma after observing that the impugned order considered only the product claims while completely ignoring the process claims. The Court held that process claims require independent examination and that failure to adjudicate them rendered the order unsustainable and hence the matter was remanded to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings filed for trademark infringement and passing off suit against multiple defendants who were using marks deceptively similar to its well-known registered mark ‘PROTINEX’. PROTINEX is a scientifically formulated protein supplement that has been continuously used in India since 1957. The defendants were using the impugned marks, namely ‘PROTEX’ and ‘PROTRILEX ’, on similar goods. The court had already granted an interim injunction dated 16.10.2024, restraining the defendants from using impugned marks pending the suit, as the use of such marks had been dishonestly adopted and they were deceptive, which consequently could be confusing for consumers. The Court, through an Ex Parte Summary Judgement due to the non-appearance of defendants, found the impugned marks to be structurally, visually, and phonetically similar and decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
M/s Orient Electric vs. Crompton Greaves on 14 May 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Orient Electric sued Crompton for infringing its registered fan Design, which covers the ‘AEON’ fan series. It was a collection of decorative ceiling fans wherein the novelty resided in their shape and configuration, and not in their mechanical or functional aspects. It was claimed that Crompton Greaves introduced the ‘Grace’ Series, which had similar visual features to those of AEON. Crompton argued that AEON design lacked novelty as it mosaicked various elements from their prior art. The Court held that novelty must be assessed by comparing the registered design as a whole against a single prior art, not by combining fragments from multiple prior arts. The defendants were restrained from manufacturing, selling, marketing and using the registered design in any way, including the ‘GRACE’ series and ordered Crompton to maintain and disclose sales records to the Court.
Trimurti Films claimed copyright infringement over the song titled ‘Tirchi Topiwale’ from the movie ‘Tridev’. Trimurti claimed that the song appeared in the film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ as a remix with the song title ‘Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)’. Trimurti sought an interim injunction restraining streaming and exploitation of the film and song across OTT and digital platforms. The defendant relied on a 1988 agreement between the parties, which broadly assigned all literary, dramatic, and musical rights in the songs, including rights to create future adaptations. Defendants further revealed that songs from ‘Tridev’ had previously been used in ‘Azhar’ and ‘KGF: Chapter 1’ without any legal challenge from Trimurti, suggesting acquiescence. The Court found that the agreement prima facie granted all rights in the musical, literary, and dramatic works, excluding only the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ itself. It also found serious suppression of material facts by Trimurti in its pleadings. Applying the principle of ‘suppressio veri suggestio falsi,’ the Court held that a party seeking discretionary relief must come with clean hands and denied the interim injunction. However, to balance equities and protect potential royalty claims, the court directed Defendant to deposit ₹50 lakhs with the Registrar General in an interest-bearing FDR, to be awarded to the successful party at the end of the trial.
Puma SE vs. Sanjay Sachdeva on 13 May 2026 (District Court, Patiala House Court, Delhi)
In this Ex Parte decision, Puma SE, the German sportswear giant, filed a suit against two Delhi based footwear traders for trademark infringement and passing off. Puma alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling footwear and clothing bearing an identical mark. PUMA’s trademark has been in use since 1948 and is registered in India in multiple classes, including footwear and clothing, with registrations dating back to 1983, specifically of the Form Strip Logo. Puma contended that the defendants’ adoption of its identical logo was deliberate, mala fide, and intended to misrepresent their goods as Puma products and make illegal profits by associating themselves with the Plaintiff’s brand. Defendants did not contest the matter, which led the court to issue an ex parte order directing that Puma had conclusively proved trademark infringement and passing off, and accordingly granting permanent injunctions against both defendants, restraining them from using the PUMA mark or any deceptively similar mark.
Ahmed Perfumes LLC v. Mohammed Faisal Rehman Sultan Ahmed on 7 May 2026 (Bombay High Court)
Two UAE-based perfume companies sued a Mumbai trader, a former purchaser who had once sought Indian distributorship for adopting near-identical marks including ‘Ahmed Al Maghribi’. The Bombay High Court declined interim relief on passing off: Indian sales barely crossed ₹5.5 lakhs in 2021, no identifiable Indian customers were on record, and advertising spend directed at India was negligible. A globally accessible website does not establish a transborder reputation. Interim relief was, however, granted on copyright the defendant had slavishly reproduced the plaintiffs’ Arabic calligraphic device mark.
Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. on 11 April 2026 (Delhi Commercial Court)
Manash Lifestyle, owner of the ‘PURPLLE’ beauty platform, sued over twenty defendants operating confusingly similar domain names. Nineteen domains lapsed during pendency and most defendants were dropped after compliance. The only remaining contest was with Shikha Singh (purpllelady.com), who appeared, admitted no business had been conducted, confirmed the domain had expired, and undertook not to use ‘PURPLLE’ again. The Court passed a decree of permanent injunction.
Shashi Tharoor v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. on 8 May 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, a serving MP and former UN Under-Secretary-General, filed suit after AI-generated deepfakes falsely depicted him praising Pakistan’s diplomatic strategy timed, notably, to coincide with the Kerala assembly election campaign. The Delhi High Court granted interim relief, affirming that public figures hold exclusive personality rights over their name, likeness, voice, mannerisms, and vocabulary. Meta had blocked the Instagram links by the time of the order. X (Twitter) was directed to take down the identified URLs, and both platforms were required to disclose uploader identity details within three weeks.
Matrimony.com Ltd. v. People Interactive Pvt. Ltd. 22 April 2026 (Madras High Court)
Six years into a trademark infringement suit between two online matrimonial platforms, Matrimony.com sought to add Google India and Google LLC as defendants, alleging the defendant used Google’s advertising infrastructure to infringe. The Madras High Court allowed the impleadment both Google entities qualify at least as proper parties but was unsympathetic to the timing. Costs of ₹50,000 each were imposed on the plaintiff, payable to the original defendant and to Sankara Nethralaya.
Santosh Kumar R.S. v. Aditya Dhar & Ors. on 22 April 2026 (Karnataka High Court)
The petitioner alleged that the Hindi film ‘Dhurandhar-2’ plagiarised his registered script ‘D-Saheb’, and sought cancellation of its CBFC certification by way of writ. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition. Copyright infringement demands a full civil trial proof of access, originality, and substantial similarity cannot be assessed in writ jurisdiction. The CBFC’s mandate extends only to public order and morality, not to adjudicating script ownership disputes. The petitioner was directed to approach a civil court.
T.T. Krishnamachari & Co. v. Godrej Agrovet Ltd. on 20 April 2026 (Madras High Court)
A passing off suit over ‘YUMMIES’ versus ‘YUMMIEfiled in 2007 was finally decided after nearly two decades, and the plaintiffs lost. The Madras High Court found no misrepresentation on a comparison of the packaging, no adequate evidence of goodwill or reputation, and noted that the plaintiffs’ own trademark registration carried a disclaimer expressly excluding exclusive rights to the word ‘YUMMIES’. None of the three elements of the passing off trinity were established. Costs of ₹5 lakhs were awarded to the defendant.
Eight Brothers Sales Pvt Ltd v. Finegrow Industries Pvt Ltd on 7 May 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trade dress dispute between two broom manufacturers over the defendant’s yellow-dominated packaging. During the proceedings, the defendant voluntarily redesigned its packaging, replacing yellow with green and altering the layout, fonts, and logo placement, which the Court found sufficiently distinct. The defendant was directed to destroy existing old stock in the plaintiff’s presence, and IndiaMART had separately complied with a takedown direction.
Greenhorn Wellness Pvt Ltd v. Zbullet Enterprises Limited And Ors on 11 May 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Greenhorn Wellness, the parent company of micro-drama platform StoryTV. The defendant had run Facebook advertisements featuring clips from the plaintiff’s copyrighted shows alongside its mark, redirecting users to a competing application. The Court directed Meta to disclose the identity details of the uploaders.
Parfums Christian Dior v. Maja Health Care Division on 12 May 2026 (District Court, New Delhi)
The District Court dismissed Parfums Christian Dior’s suit for infringement of its ‘Poison’ perfume mark. In cross-examination, the plaintiff’s Authorised Representative admitted to having no knowledge of Dior’s legal identity, no board resolution authorising his appearance, and having received ₹25,000 to sign the plaint, with documents sourced from Wikipedia. Finding the AR lacked authority and personal knowledge, the Court dismissed the suit with costs of ₹2 lakhs.
JFE Steel Corporation v. Assistant Controller of Patents on 12 May 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of JFE Steel’s patent application relating to a continuous annealing furnace process, where the Assistant Controller had refused solely on Section 10(4) grounds while leaving other objections in the hearing notice unaddressed. The Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration of all outstanding grounds within six months.
Rajinder Singh v. Registrar of Trade Marks on 12 May 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court permitted the petitioner to file a fresh renewal application for his ‘B.P.R.’ mark. The Registry had dispatched the renewal notice in Form RG-3 to the agent’s old address, where it was returned undelivered, despite having used the agent’s current address in prior correspondence including when issuing the registration certificate. The Court held the Registry could not rely on a stale address when the current one was already on record.
Sri Gourdas Saha v. Sri Dipankar Majumdar on 11 May 2026 (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court set aside an ex-parte injunction restraining publication of a chemistry book, granted by the trial court on the basis of a copyright claim over two of its chapters. The Court held that the dispute involved IP rights falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, and that the trial court had recorded no reasons for bypassing the notice requirement under Order XXXIX Rule 3.
Firoz A. Nadiadwala vs. Seven Arts International Limited on 24 April 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court dismissed an application seeking rejection of the plaint in a copyright dispute involving the films Ramji Rao Speaking, Mannar Mathai Speaking, and their Hindi remakes. The Court held that issues relating to limitation, the identity of the true assignee, and whether the agency survived the principal’s death required detailed examination during trial and not at the preliminary stage.
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals in a trademark dispute involving the marks “ASCORIL” and “ASCOTRAL.” The Court found the marks are visually and phonetically similar and likely to confuse consumers. The confusion in medicinal products could have serious consequences; the Court restrained the defendant from using the mark.
The Commercial Court at Saket decreed a copyright infringement suit filed by the Petitioner against unauthorised sellers of its nursing textbook Fundamentals of Nursing on Amazon and Flipkart. The Court found that the defendants sold the books at heavily inflated prices. It granted a permanent injunction against the defendants and awarded damages of ₹1.5 lakh against Defendants 1 to 3.
The Commercial Court at Saket dismissed a trademark infringement and passing-off suit between two restaurant businesses operating under the name “Sanjha Chulha.” The Court held that registration of a label or logo did not give exclusive rights over the words under Section 17(2) of the Trade Marks Act. It also found no mala fide intention in the defendant’s adoption of the name and dismissed the suit without costs.
Puma SE vs. Gaurav Chauhan & Ors. on 25 April 2026 (District Court, Central Delhi)
The Commercial Court at Tis Hazari decreed a trademark infringement and passing-off suit filed by Puma SE against shops selling counterfeit “first-copy” PUMA products. Two defendants settled the dispute and agreed not to use the PUMA mark. The third defendant failed to contest the suit despite notice. The Court passed a permanent injunction against Defendant 3 for the same.
Prashant Tomar vs. Pawan Negi & Ors. on 8 May 2026 (District Court, Saket, New Delhi)
The Commercial Court at Saket decreed a copyright and passing-off suit filed by the Petitioner against his former employees for misusing confidential business information to start a rival business. As the defendants failed to effectively challenge the claims, the Court granted a permanent injunction restraining them from uploading or circulating infringing content online.
The Calcutta High Court decided on appeals concerning royalties for caller tunes and ringtones used in Vodafone’s services. The Court held that music companies could not transfer rights in a manner that defeated authors’ statutory rights under the Copyright Act; therefore, Vodafone cannot continue exploiting such works without authorisation from IPRS. It further held that agreements contrary to Sections 18 and 19 of the Act would be void.
Other IP Developments
- Personality Rights: Delhi High Court Orders Takedown off Deepfake Content Featuring YouTuber Bhuvan Bam
- Reliance-Disney Sues Zee For Unauthorised Broadcast of Bollywood films
International IP Development
- EGC Issues Ruling Nullifying EUIPO Decision Rejecting Application to Invalidate the Registered EU Trademark “Obelix” Covering Firearm and Ammunition Goods
- U.S. Committee on House Administration Votes Unanimously to Advance Bill Changing Oversight of the U.S. Copyright Office to the U.S. President
(Thanks to Bindushree, Krrish, Saesha, and Vedang for the case summaries.)
