Bringing you a roundup of all the important IP developments from the last week, here is the SpicyIP Weekly Review featuring posts on the ongoing Satluj controversy, reflections on the SpicyIP Summer School 2026, and the Bombay High Court ruling on Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Reflections from the 2nd SpicyIP Summer School!
After 9 fantastic days, the 2nd edition of the SpicyIP Summer School came to an end on June 29th! And we couldn’t be happier with how it went! Wonderful speakers, wonderful participants, and a wonderful organising team (if we don’t say so ourselves!). Read all about it here. Swaraj Barooah provides a ‘behind the scenes’ of how the Summer School came to be, after which Maneesha Gupta lays out her experience with the Summer School this year!
Everything Flows, Except Satluj…Through Your ZEE5 App
What does it take to make a film disappear today? A streaming platform, an unpublished order, and a law never meant to apply in quite this way. Anjali Tripathi unpacks the reported takedown of Satluj, examining whether the government’s actions were legally sustainable, what they reveal about the scope of Section 69A, and how copyright may have inadvertently become a mechanism for restricting, rather than enabling, access to culture.
Other Posts
Brand Name Extensions by Pharma May Finally Be Receiving Scrutiny?
In a long-overdue move, the CDSCO has invited comments on the use of brand name extensions by pharmaceutical companies, bringing renewed attention to the persistent problem of identical drug brand names for different formulations in India. The deadline for filing the comments is July 17.
Can a procedural lapse outweigh the merits of a legal claim? In analysing the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Pragya Jain explores the tension between procedural flexibility and legal certainty, questioning whether the judgment preserves the spirit of the Trade Marks Rules, or reshapes it.
Case Summaries
Preity G Zinta vs Google Llc on 8 July, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to actor Preity Zinta in a personality rights suit against social media platforms, AI companies and other online intermediaries over the unauthorised use of her identity. Observing that AI-generated deepfakes can be endlessly replicated online, making damages an inadequate remedy, the Court ordered the removal of infringing content and directed an AI platform to block the creation of chatbot characters using her identity.
The Calcutta High Court restrained Aditya Birla Lifestyle Brands from using “PRO”, including as part of “BALANCE PRO”, on its footwear in a trademark infringement suit filed by Khadim India. While the defendant argued that “PRO” is a generic term and that differences in trade dress, price range and customer base ruled out confusion, the Court held that “PRO” remained the essential feature of Khadim’s registered mark and that adding a prefix or suffix did not avoid infringement.
Crocs Inc Usa vs M/S Bata India Ltd And Ors on 2 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court directed Crocs to pay Bata ₹24.63 lakh as litigation costs after its design infringement suit came to an end following the cancellation of Crocs’ registered footwear design for lack of novelty. Noting that Bata had defended the litigation across multiple forums, the Court relied on Uflex to reiterate that successful parties in commercial disputes should ordinarily recover realistic litigation costs, which also serve to deter frivolous and vexatious litigation.
Eastman Auto And Power Limited vs M/S Hind Enterprises & Anr on 3 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the use of the mark “EASTHRON” in a trademark infringement suit filed by Eastman Auto and Power. Eastman alleged that the defendants had adopted not only a deceptively similar mark but also a substantially identical trade dress for their products. On a prima facie assessment, the Court found “EASTHRON” deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “EASTMAN” mark and trade dress, and restrained its continued use.
Deepak Nitrite Limited vs The Assistant Controller on 6 July, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court set aside the Patent Office’s rejection of Deepak Nitrite’s patent application for a food-grade sodium nitrite product and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Holding that the Controller cannot reject a patent application based on an unsupported assertion of “common general knowledge”, the Court said such an approach was arbitrary and contrary to natural justice, and reiterated that Controllers must pass reasoned, speaking orders that engage with the applicant’s submissions, prior art and the basis for their conclusions.
Landmark Crafts Limited vs Shalini Garg on 6 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the use of an allegedly infringing “HP” device mark on screws, nuts, bolts and other fasteners. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had placed the letters “ISI” before “HP” to create the impression that its products were ISI-certified “HP” goods while retaining “HP” as the dominant feature of the mark. Finding a prima facie case of deceptive similarity, the Court held that the mark was likely to misrepresent an association with the plaintiff and trade upon its goodwill.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the interim injunction application by Atyati Technologies for copyright infringement and passing off regarding its hexagonal “C” logo against Congnizant Technology Solutions. Cognizant proved, prima facie, that its logo was an ‘independent creation’. This failed the claim of copyright infringement. Both traditional and reverse passing-off claims were defeated because the Court found no likelihood of confusion or deception among consumers. This was so because both companies provided IT services, highly specialized in nature, to sophisticated institutional clients with high deliberation.
Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. vs. The Controller Of Patents on 6 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Inter-Cellular Therapies challenging the Controller’s rejection of their CNS disorder drug patent application for lacking novelty and therapeutic efficacy. Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 requires ‘enhanced’ therapeutic efficacy and bioavailability. Also, genus patents negate derivative novelty. The Court ruled that increased drug exposure only proved pharmacokinetic bioavailability and that prior patents D1/D7 already covered the chemical structures, and so defeated novelty.
John Cockerill Hamon SA vs Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited on 6 July, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Hamon Cooling from using “HAMON” in its corporate name and trade even after expiry of its temporary project-completion usage rights, as the defendant admitted its initial use was permissive, mutually destroying its independent prior user defense. The Court’s reasoning was based on Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, under which trademark assignment is effective upon execution inter partes, and permissive use cannot transition into an independent proprietary claim.
M/S. Shubh Industries vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks on 26 May, 2026 (Rajasthan High Court)
The High Court of Rajasthan admitted the batch of matters, and the same were marked as part-heard. The court rescheduled these matters for hearing on 29.06.2026. The issue was whether high courts hold concurrent jurisdiction with the Registrar of Trade Marks for trademark rectification since the abolishment of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The plaintiff argues that the forum conveniens grants jurisdiction where the cause of action arises. Whereas the respondent argued that the applications must go to the original authority, i.e, the Registrar.
Adidas Ag vs D K Traders on 6 July, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Delhi District Court partly decreed Adidas AG’s trademark and copyright infringement suit against a trader dealing in counterfeit Adidas products. The plaintiff argued that the low-quality counterfeit goods harmed its reputation and goodwill. Relying on the Local Commissioner’s seizure of infringing goods worth approximately ₹6.45 lakh, the Court held that the defendant had adopted identical and deceptively similar Adidas trademarks and logos with the intent to trade upon the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation. It granted a permanent injunction and awarded ₹6.45 lakh in damages.
Ravindra Shukla Alias Ravi Kishan vs Ashok Kumar (John Doe) & Ors on 2 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction protecting Ravi Kishan’s personality rights against unauthorized online use of his name, image, voice and likeness. The plaintiff argued that AI-generated and manipulated content, including obscene and defamatory material, commercially exploited his persona and harmed his reputation. Holding that personality rights protect these attributes and that their unauthorised use infringes privacy, dignity and goodwill, the Court directed the removal and blocking of the infringing content.
Gemini Edibles And Fats India Ltd vs M/S Hema Industries on 2 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendant’s use of the “FREEDINE” mark and similar trade dress for edible oils. The Court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, observing that the defendant had adopted a phonetically, visually and structurally similar mark and closely copied the distinctive trade dress of the plaintiff’s “FREEDOM” edible oil brand, including its colour scheme, sunflower device and overall get-up, to ride on the plaintiff’s goodwill.
Glaxo Group Limited And Anr vs Mr. Lokesh Chhabra And Ors on 2 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark infringement suit concerning pharmaceutical products after the parties reached a settlement. Under the settlement, the defendants acknowledged the plaintiffs’ trademark and trade dress rights, agreed to stop manufacturing and selling products under the impugned marks, adopt dissimilar packaging, and direct their manufacturers to cease production and destroy related templates and mock-ups.
M/S Pk Industries vs M/S Rg Associates on 6 July, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Delhi District Court granted a permanent injunction in a trademark dispute over industrial fasteners after finding that the defendant’s “PARAMARSH” mark and trade dress were deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “PARAMHANS” trademark. Observing that the competing marks, packaging and overall get-up were likely to confuse consumers, particularly on e-commerce platforms, the Court held that the defendant’s use amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.
Bristol Bakery vs Grupo Bimbo S A B De C V on 6 July, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court clarified that where both parties hold valid registrations for identical trademarks, an infringement action cannot ordinarily succeed solely on the basis of registration. However, a passing off action remains maintainable, with priority of use and goodwill continuing to be the decisive factors. The Court also reiterated that a claim of trans-border reputation must demonstrate sufficient spillover of goodwill into India before it can prevail over the rights of a prior user.
Sml Limited vs M/S Happy Agro Chemicals on 2 July, 2026 (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
The Himachal Pradesh High Court refused interim relief in a patent infringement suit after holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish territorial jurisdiction. The defendants argued that the alleged sales were contrived transactions intended only to create territorial jurisdiction. Agreeing with this contention, the Court held that mere website listings or a solitary trap purchase, without evidence of targeted commercial transactions in the forum State, are insufficient to confer jurisdiction.
Other IP Developments
- Madras High Court restrains “Happy Raj” makers from using Ilaiyaraaja’s ‘Murattu Kaalai’ song
- Finance Ministry notifies rules for determination of origin of goods under India-UK trade pact
- India and Australia Sign Agreement on Access to Council of Scientific and Industrial Research’s Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (CSIR-TKDL) to Strengthen Protection of Traditional Knowledge
- Delhi High Court clarifies that no formal declaration of ‘well-known’ mark is required to raise a defence under Section 11
International IP Developments
- Sterlite wins a key patent battle against Fujikura in the UK over optical fibre cables
- Midjourney seeks to compel Hollywood studios to reveal how they use AI in ongoing copyright infringement litigation
- United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed poet Kimberly Marasco copyright infringement suit against Taylor Swift.
- New York Times-led group asks court to sanction OpenAI in US copyright dispute
Thanks to Maneesha and Maanya for the case summaries
