Into the second week of May with a post on the Bombay HC’s reliance on section 65 for setting aside a refusal of atomic energy patent. Another post examining the Academy’s control on the Oscar statuette that blurs the boundaries between contract, property, and IP law. 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
The Bombay High Court’s ruling in Huntington Alloys v. UOI spotlights a familiar issue-unreasoned IPO orders, now in the complex context of atomic energy patents. Kartik Sharma writes that while the Court rightly sets aside a non-speaking refusal, its reliance on Section 65 raises interpretive concerns. In his post, he unpacks the judgment and questions whether it clarifies or complicates the law on such patent refusals.
The $1 Oscar: Can Contract and IP Quietly Create Illusory Ownership?
The Oscar statuette may look like a personal trophy, but legally, it is something far more controlled. Through a contractual regime supported by intellectual property considerations, the Academy has ensured that an Oscar cannot become an ordinary tradable asset. Soundarya Lakshmi K examines how the Academy’s famous “$1 rule” blurs the boundaries between contract, property, and IP law, while also questioning whether Indian courts would uphold similar restrictions on ownership and transfer.
Other Posts
Shooting The Second Suit: Castrol v Sonavane & The Application of Order II Rule 2
IP disputes rarely unfold in neat, linear ways, and Castrol v. Sanjay Sonavane is a case in point. Faced with a fast-evolving conflict spanning threats, raids, and a coordinated media campaign, Castrol had to navigate a tricky procedural question: one suit or many? In this post, Naman Singh examines the Delhi High Court’s answer and why its nuanced take on “cause of action” under Order II Rule 2 CPC carries significance well beyond the facts of the case.
NALSAR University of Law’s Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law (IJIPL) is now accepting submissions for its 16th Volume. The last date for sending your submissions is August 1. For more details, read the call for submissions.
Case Summaries
Reliance Industries Limited vs Masterchow Foods Private Limited on 4 May, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High court dismissed the suit as both the parties have come to an amicable agreement. The agreement restrained Masterchow Foods Pvt. Ltd. Ads featuring the character from the movie Dhurandhar which was produced by the Plaintiff and snippets having BTS scenes of the movie. The Court passed a John Doe order to restrict further dissemination of the Ad.
The Bombay High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim relief to Novex Communication who is the exclusive owner of the sound recordings of several music labels against Viveda Wellnes Retreat. The Court ruled that Plaintiff’s copyrighted songs were broadcasted unauthorizedly in Defendants’ Premise and they were well aware that playing sound recordings without authorization constitutes copyright infringement. The Court restricted the Defendants to play any work protected by the Plaintiff in their premise.
Pstgems Private Limited vs M/S Brahmastra Pharmacy & Ors on 30 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Pstgems Pvt. Ltd. secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the use of the mark “STAND UP” for sexual wellness products. The Delhi High Court found that the marks STAND UP or the labels of the defendants are deceptively similar as of plaintiff’s. The Court, while holding prima facie infringement and likelihood of consumer confusion restrained further sale and advertisement of such goods by the defendants.
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited vs Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd on 30 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd., secured an interim injunction for their patent of ‘Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail Closure Systems’ and ‘A Tamper Proof Lid Having Spout for Containers’ against the Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. The Delhi High Court restrained the defendants in any manner that that infringe the Plaintiff’s patents while rejecting their argument of prior art.
Guddu Gupta Trading As Ms Leela vs Kalia Gupta And Ors on 2 May, 2026 ( Delhi District Court)
The Delhi District Court granted a permanent injunction to Leela Cosmetics against the use of mark and design of “ROOP LADY” in cosmetic usage. The Court restrained the defendants from using deceptively similar marks, trade dress, and sindoor bottle designs after noting their admission of having no proprietary rights over the impugned branding. The Court also directed delivery of the seized counterfeit goods to the plaintiff, while declining damages due to lack of sufficient proof of loss.
The Delhi High court referred a copyright dispute between ex-licensor and ex-licensee to mediation while directing the Defendant ceasing, publishing, broadcasting, streaming, uploading, of any of the Plaintiff’s exclusive licensed works. The Court also ordered that the Defendant shall take down any such content involving the Plaintiff’s licensed work on communication by the plaintiff.
Reliance Industries Limited vs Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors on 4 May, 2026(Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit against Defendant after recording a settlement in a trademark and copyright infringement dispute concerning the marks “RELIANCE” and “JIO”. Defendant agreed to permanently cease use of the impugned mark “Jioo Organics”, transfer infringing domain names, destroy all infringing materials, and file a compliance affidavit. The Court found the settlement lawful and binding under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.
Indian Explosives Pvt Ltd vs Ideal Detonators Pvt Ltd And Ors on 5 May, 2026(Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court refused to let a copyright plaintiff “fast-track” its way around mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Upholding the rejection of the plaint, the Court held that allegations of confidential information leaks dating back to 2016 lacked the urgency needed to bypass mediation, especially when the plaintiff approached the Court only in 2023.
Select Citywalk Retail Pvt. Ltd. secured an ex-parte interim injunction and passing off concerning the mark “CITYWALK/SELECT CITYWALK.” The Court held that the defendants’ mark was deceptively similar and likely to cause consumer confusion. Observing that plaintiff had acquired significant goodwill since 2004, the Court restrained the defendants from using the impugned mark in any manner.
Medecins Sans Frontieres vs Dharma Productions on 30 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court’s recent order against the use of ‘Doctors Without Borders’ trademark in the film Jigra constituted infringement or disparagement. The film depicted the trademark being used in scenes involving illegal border crossings, and the impersonation was done without prior permission. Although the film was contended to be a work of fiction and the use of the disputed trademark was on 25 seconds. The Court declined to grant an interim injunction against the film screening; however, to protect the interests of both parties, it directed that appropriate disclaimers and acknowledgements should be given to avoid harming the reputation by the use of the mark.
Malikie Innovations Ltd & Anr vs Xiaomi Corporation & Ors on 30 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court order deliberated on grant of pro term securities in Standard Essential Patent infringement suits. Malikie, having acquired the portfolio of cellular SEPs from Blackberry, alleged infringement of these patents by Xiaomi through its 4G and 5G devices. Although Malikie could not produce third-party license agreements to substantiate its FRAND claims, the production was deemed irrelevant at the pro term stage. Xiaomi’s initiation of FRAND rate-setting proceedings before the Shenzhen Court was treated as a prima facie admission of the patents’ essentiality. The Court’s order clarified that pro term security order is distinct from an injunction, and it neither halts the sales nor confers any advantage over SEP holders, but merely balances the asymmetrical advantage that an implementer holds over an SEP holder during the pendency of the suit.
Syngenta Participations Ag vs Controller Of Patents Designs on 4 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Syngenta appealed against the Patent Controller’s refusal of its patent application for a crystalline monohydrate form of an agrochemical compound. The Controller had rejected the application for lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. Syngenta argued that the hydrate form had better thermal stability and that this was not an obvious property of polymorphs. The Court held that polymorphism is unpredictable and that the Controller had not properly supported the claim that thermal stability was an inherent property. On Section 3(d), the Court said the test of efficacy depends on the product’s function and that, for this agrochemical, thermal stability could count as enhanced efficacy. The Court set aside the controller’s order and sent the matter for revaluation.
Ars Steels & Alloy International v. Controller of Patents on 7 May, 2026 (Calcutta High Court)
The dispute concerned a cancellation challenge to the ‘XX-Rib’ TMT bar design. The Deputy Controller had upheld the design, finding it novel and aesthetically distinctive. The Calcutta High Court set aside the order, holding that the Controller had failed to consider documentary evidence on record, including the SRMB Srijan decision, and had not properly assessed novelty and prior use. The matter was remanded to a different officer for a fresh decision within three months.
United Biotech Private Limited vs Sun Pharma Laboratories on 4 May, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
Trademark dispute concerning the pharmaceutical products “OCTRIDE” and “OTIDE”. Both of these products have the same active ingredient, which is Octreotide Acetate. The crux of this dispute was the case of passing off and trademark infringement. The court determined that OCTRIDE, which was the product of United Biotech Private Limited, could establish prior use and substantial goodwill and reputation for OCTRIDE since 1999. The Court granted an interim injunction restraining Sun Pharma from using OTIDE or any such similar marks as it was phenotypically similar to OCTRIDE, which established prior use.
ASK Automotive Ltd. v. Mala Ram on 4 May, 2026 (Delhi Commercial Court)
ASK Automotive filed suit for infringement of its registered ‘ASK’ trademark and yellow red trade dress on brake shoe paddle. The defendant did not appear. Despite the ex parte proceedings, the Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff had failed to establish that Mala Ram was the actual infringer; the only evidence linking the defendant to the infringing goods was a statement from the landlord, who was never examined as a witness. Without admissible evidence on this basic point, the suit could not succeed.
Hero Investcorp v. Mohd. Arsad on 6 May, 2026 (Patiala House Commercial Court)
Hero filed suit against copying of its ‘HERO’ trademark, bottle design, and label on engine oil products. The defendant did not appear. A local commissioner conducted a visit and seized 1,200 infringing bottles. The Court decreed the suit in Hero’s favour: permanent injunction, damages of Rs. 50 lakhs calculated on the basis of 1,200 bottles per month over twelve months, and costs of Rs. 2 lakhs. The absence of a defence did not go unnoticed in the relief granted.
Kanpur Flowercycling v. Nirmalaya Wellness on 4 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Decree holder sought execution of a 2023 IP decree comprising permanent injunction and damages exceeding ₹2 crore. The Court declined to decide the execution on merits. It held that execution petitions arising from IP decrees must be placed before the designated roster Bench of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD). Listed before the IPD Bench on 19 May 2026. The order is procedural but clarifies the proper forum for post-decree enforcement in IP matters.
Other IP Developments
- Zee Sues Nykaa For Allegedly Using Its Copyrighted Songs On Social Media To Promote Its Products, Seeks Damages
- Arjun Kapoor’s Personality Rights Protected By Delhi High Court
International IP Development
- Tencent Music Entertainment Removed More Than 250,000 AI Generated Songs Violating Its Copyright Policy During 2025 In China
- EUIPO Concludes The First Cooperation Board Executive Plenary Bringing Together 62 Representatives From EU Member States To Discuss IP Cooperation Initiatives
(Thanks to Krrish, Saesha, and Vedang for the case summaries.)
