A three-pass funnel for patent searches and NLUJ’s call for papers for the latest volume of the Journal of Intellectual Property Studies feature in this edition of the SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know.
[Sponsored] 300 to 30 to 5: A Three-Pass Funnel for Patent Searches Under Deadline
Finding relevant patents is no longer the bottleneck. The bottleneck is deciding which of the hundreds of relevant records actually matter and doing so before the deadline arrives. This post by PatSeer explores a structured approach to moving from large result sets to a focused, defensible shortlist. The workflow described here draws on features available within PatSeer’s patent intelligence platform, including Ask & Refine, AI Summaries, and PatAssist.
National Law University, Jodhpur’s Journal of Intellectual Property Studies (JIPS) is inviting original, unpublished manuscripts for publication for its upcoming issue (Volume X, Issue II). The last date for submissions is July 15, 2026. For further details, please read the journal’s call for papers above.
Case Summaries
Adidas Ag vs Anil Jain on 9 June, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
A District Court of Delhi decided a trademark infringement case resulting from the allegations of counterfeit of Adidas products. Upon the conclusion of the survey and investigation, infringing products were recovered from the defendants’ possession; therefore, the case was decided in favour of the plaintiff, with a decree of a mandatory and permanent injunction issued against the defendants, and the plaintiffs were additionally awarded nominal damages of Rs. 3 Lakh along with costs.
A Delhi Commercial Court held that the defendants’ use of the mark “AYURLAND” for Ayurvedic products infringed the plaintiff’s long-standing and registered “AYUR” trademark. The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks and directed them to remove infringing content from websites and online platforms. It also awarded the plaintiff ₹2 lakh in damages and litigation costs, while declining exemplary damages because the defendants had discontinued use after the interim injunction.
Tag Heuer S.A vs Joginder Singh on 9 June, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
In this case, the Delhi District Court decreed the suit in favour of Swiss luxury watchmaker Tag Heuer S.A., holding that the defendants’ sale of counterfeit watches bearing the “TAG HEUER” mark amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. Relying on the unchallenged Local Commissioner’s report, which recorded the seizure of 235 watches and 15 boxes bearing the mark, the Court permanently restrained the defendants from using the mark and directed delivery up of infringing goods. However, it declined to award damages or rendition of accounts due to the absence of evidence regarding financial loss.
Delhi Commercial Court held that Royal Engineering Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. remained the lawful owner of the “ROYALSHIELD” trademark, finding that the alleged assignment deed transferring the mark to the defendants was not proved and appeared doubtful, with disputed signatures and unexplained notarization in Chennai. The Court permanently restrained the defendants from using the mark, made the interim injunction absolute, dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim, and awarded the plaintiff ₹70,000 in costs, while declining rendition of accounts.
Loreal Sa vs Seema Cosmetics on 5 June, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
A Delhi Commercial Court dismissed L’Oréal’s trademark and copyright infringement suit against Seema Cosmetics, holding that L’Oréal failed to prove that the defendant was using the impugned mark “TIANNUO MAGIC KAJAL” or that it was deceptively similar to “L’OREAL KAJAL MAGIQUE.” The Court emphasized the absence of primary evidence such as invoices, original registration documents, and proof of copyright ownership, and further held that “kajal” is a generic term over which no monopoly can be claimed.
Info Edge India Ltd vs Synapseindia Outsourcing Pvt Ltd & Anr on 10 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court disposed of the dispute between Info Edge (AmbitionBox) and SynapseIndia on the basis of consent terms, permitting AmbitionBox to continue hosting company review pages while undertaking to review complaints, remove unlawful or patently fake content, and disclose user details pursuant to court orders. Importantly, the Court left open the question of whether AmbitionBox qualifies as an intermediary entitled to safe-harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act.
The Delhi High Court set aside the Patent Office’s refusal of AbbVie’s divisional patent application relating to processes for preparing an intermediate compound, holding that the Controller’s order was non-speaking and failed to adequately analyse both maintainability under Section 16 and inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja). The Court also observed that where a divisional application is filed pursuant to the Controller’s own objection of lack of unity of invention, the applicant cannot subsequently be denied the right to file such an application, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The Delhi High Court condoned Jain Irrigation’s delay in filing and re-filing its appeal against the dismissal of its patent revocation counterclaim, holding that a bona fide mistake based on incorrect legal advice may constitute “sufficient cause” where the litigant has otherwise diligently pursued its remedies. The Court emphasized that, particularly where the validity of a patent remains sub judice in connected proceedings, procedural delays should not ordinarily defeat a party’s substantive right to appeal, though it imposed costs for the re-filing delay.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Nippon Paint’s rectification petition against Glossy Paints’ “INFINITY” trademark and granted an interim injunction restraining use of Nippon’s “INFINITY” mark for paints, holding that the impugned mark had wholly subsumed the registered mark and was deceptively similar. The Court further held that Nippon, having itself sought registration of the impugned mark, was estopped from contending that “INFINITY” was descriptive, and viewed its invalidity challenge as an afterthought raised only after mediation failed.
The Delhi High Court upheld the interim injunction restraining Flipkart’s use of the “MARQ” mark for electronic appliances, holding that it was deceptively similar to Marc Enterprises’ prior “MARC” trademark and likely to cause consumer confusion despite the use of the house mark “Flipkart.” The Court further held that online sales do not diminish the relevance of phonetic similarity, and that subsequent registration of “Flipkart MarQ” in certain classes did not defeat the infringement and passing off claims.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant’s application for rejection/return of the plaint and held that it possessed territorial jurisdiction over the patent infringement suit, finding that the Delhi-based tendering activities of the Airports Authority of India and the pending revocation proceedings before the same Court constituted sufficient jurisdictional links. The Court further allowed the plaintiffs’ amendment application, holding that the proposed amendments were merely clarificatory, did not introduce a new cause of action, and were necessary for effective adjudication of the patent dispute.
The Delhi High Court reaffirmed the doctrine of trans-border reputation while looking into Toyota’s claim over the “ALPHARD” mark. Basing itself on material like independent imports, media coverage, online discussions, and consumer recognition across India, the Court concluded that reputation isn’t always tied to formal domestic sales. The reasoning really says that goodwill can still be built through market awareness among a smaller, niche consumer segment, even if sales aren’t formally recorded.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a contempt petition, about alleged non compliance with an earlier order, which had told the Trade Marks Registry to decide a pending review petition. During the course of the proceedings , the Registry told the Court that a hearing had been fixed, and it undertook to pass a decision quickly after that hearing. After noting this undertaking, the Court closed the contempt proceedings.
Other IP Developments
[Thanks to Ansa and Shruti for the case summaries.]
