Stepping into August with posts on the DHC’s order in ANI v. OpenAI, Interdigital v Transsion, the Ribociclib saga, and digital archive. 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
ANI v. OpenAI: User Rights, Fair Dealing, and the Future of AI in Indian Copyright Law (Part I)
The Delhi High Court’s much-awaited interim order in ANI v. OpenAI addresses several important questions at the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence, with significant implications for the future of AI-copyright disputes in India. Vishno Sudheendra examines how the Court’s approach could reshape the balance between copyright holders, users, and AI developers, while critically engaging with its reasoning on fair dealing, commercial use, lawful access, market harm, and the balance of convenience.
ANI v. OpenAI: User Rights, Fair Dealing, and the Future of AI in Indian Copyright Law (Part II)
Continuing the discussion on the ANI v. OpenAI case, Part II of the post by Vishno Sudheendra turns to some of the more contested aspects of the DHC order–questioning the Court’s treatment of the merger doctrine and “adversarial prompts”, as well as its expansive approach to territorial jurisdiction. It also examines what the Court’s findings on memorisation and substantial reproduction mean for the emerging framework of AI-copyright liability.
Part I: To CL Or Not To CL: That Ought Not Be The Question
The hardest legal questions are sometimes about whether the law can work at all. For years, Sections 92 and 100 of the Patents Act have occupied a central place in debates on improving access to patented medicines. Yet, despite repeated calls to invoke them, their practical use has remained limited. In Part I of this two-part series, Rishabh Upadhyay uses the ongoing Ribociclib litigation to examine whether this reflects governmental reluctance or deeper structural limitations within India’s compulsory licensing framework.
Part II: To CL Or Not To CL: That Ought Not Be The Question
Does free always mean accessible? While affordability is often treated as the central challenge, access to medicines depends on much more than price alone. In Part II of this two-part series, Rishabh Upadhyay examines Rajasthan’s model of providing Ribociclib through its essential drugs programme to ask whether bypassing patent law necessarily improves access to medicines. Through this case study, he explores the structural challenges that continue to shape access long after affordability has been addressed.
Announcing the book “Fractures in IP, Trade, and Health: Centering a Public Health Framework”
The relationship between IP, international trade, and public health has long been shaped by attempts to reconcile competing interests, often leaving public health to be accommodated through limited exceptions and corrective measures. Six years after the COVID-19 pandemic, this book by Srividhya Ragavan and Swaraj Barooah asks whether such an approach remains tenable.
The book, aptly titled “Fractures in IP, Trade, and Health”, examines the historical and institutional roots of these tensions, the risks of transplanting IP norms without sufficient attention to local realities, and the policy space available to governments. It ultimately makes the case for moving beyond ad hoc interventions towards a framework that places public health at the centre of global trade and IP governance.
Knowledge has gone digital. Has copyright escaped its print-era mindset? As education and research increasingly rely on digital archives, Maneesha Gupta asks whether India’s copyright exceptions are equipped for this shift, and argues that the next round of copyright reform must strengthen both preservation and meaningful access to knowledge.
Other Posts
InterDigital v. Transsion: A ‘Comparatively’ Better Pro-Tem Order?
Can a temporary order permanently change the law? The Delhi High Court’s decision in InterDigital v. Transsion goes well beyond deciding whether a pro tem security deposit should be granted. In the process, it redraws the contours of India’s evolving SEP jurisprudence, lowering the threshold for pro tem relief, sidelining infringement at the preliminary stage, rethinking the role of foreign decisions, and raising fresh questions about how security deposits should be calculated. Ambika Aggarwal unpacks a judgment whose consequences may well outlast the litigation itself.
When Patent Appeals Survive but Patents Don’t: Taking a Look at the DHC Sulzer Decision
Sometimes, failure makes better precedent. At first glance, Sulzer Mixpac AG v. Assistant Controller appears to be another case involving the rejection of a patent application. A closer look, however, reveals important discussions on the maintainability of intra-court patent appeals and the Court’s approach to inventive step under the Roche five-step framework. In this post, Maneesha Gupta explores why the decision matters beyond the fate of the patent itself.
Who Owns the Tools of Expression? A Copyright Question Across Time
What happens when someone claims ownership over a language? Far from being a thought experiment, this question surfaced before the Government of India in 1958. Revisiting that little-known opinion, the post by Anshika Tripathi explores what it reveals about the limits of copyright, from invented alphabets and constructed languages to fonts and software code, and asks where intellectual property law draws the line between protecting expression and the systems that make expression possible.
The CCPA’s recent dark-pattern orders against PhysicsWallah and McAfee signal a notable shift in India’s consumer-protection enforcement: fixing a manipulative interface after being caught may no longer be enough to avoid a penalty. But these orders also raise harder questions about consistency, statutory interpretation, and the limits of the CCPA’s approach to identifying unfair and misleading conduct. In Part I of the two-part post on this, Anjali Tripathi and Kartik Sharma examine the two orders and ask whether the CCPA has begun developing a coherent enforcement standard — or is still drawing the line case by case.
Continuing the discussion from Part I, Anjali Tripathi and Kartik Sharma turn to the broader interpretive and regulatory questions raised by the CCPA’s recent dark-pattern orders. If the boundaries of an “unfair trade practice” remain open-ended, where does regulatory discretion end and legal uncertainty begin, and what does this mean for those designing digital interfaces? Part II of their post steps back from the individual orders to consider the implications for interface design, innovation, competition, and the future of dark-pattern regulation.
Case Summaries
V.Guard Industries Limited vs M/S.Kangaro Industries on 30 July, 2026 (Madras High Court)
A division bench of the Madras High Court held that the time limit prescribed under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 for filing evidence in support of an opposition is mandatory, and not directory. It found that failure to file evidence or rely on the notice of opposition within the prescribed two-month period results in deemed abandonment under Rule 45(2), with no extension available under Section 131 or Rule 109. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Single Judge’s order remanding the matter and upheld the Assistant Registrar’s decision treating the opposition as abandoned.
Opella Healthcare Group vs Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd on 22 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in deciding an application filed under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Rule 27 of Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, held that when the defendant is left with no real prospects to successfully defend itself against the claims made in plaint and no useful purpose would be served by recording oral evidence, then a summary judgment may be granted without requiring the plaintiff to lead ex parte evidence.
M/s Mangal Marketing vs M/s Mangal and Mangal on 31 July, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court dismissed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking the rejection of the plaint for non- exhaustion of section 12A of the Commercial Court Act, 2015. The Court held that the infringement of intellectual property is a continuing wrong to be assessed in the context of ongoing injury, and that the requirement of section 12A stands exempted, irrespective of delay in filing the suit after the C&D notice.
The Madras High Court made the earlier interim injunction restraining the Respondent from operating its hotel under the name ‘Grand Sangeetham Inn’, absolute. The Court held that the adoption by the Respondents was an attempt to circumvent an earlier judgment and decree passed against the Respondent’s family members over the mark SANGEETHA, coupled with an order of removal of a related trade mark registration. Noting the admitted relationship between the Respondent’s proprietor and the earlier defendants and the common business premises, the Court further clarified that the Respondent could not disclaim liability merely on the ground of being a separate legal entity.
M/s HMS Medical Systems vs B Jayamani and Another on 31 July, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court made the earlier interim injunction restraining the Respondent from using the trademark BMS DIGILASER PRO, absolute, subject to the outcome of the Respondent’s pending ratification petition. The Court held that the Respondent’s defence, that the mark was descriptive (DIGI & PRO denoted a technical feature) and distinct, couldn’t be tested at the interlocutory stage and would be determined only after the trial.
The Delhi High Court, using the dominant mark test, made the interim injunction against use of “Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University”, absolute. The court noted that the defendant has adopted the impugned name only after being restrained from using its earlier name Himalayan Garhwal pursuant to the District Judge order in an unrelated dispute and held that the Respondents had used the dominant and essential feature of the Plaintiffs’ logo.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. vs Nintendo Info Tech Private Limited & Ors. on 29 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court restrained Defendants No. 1-3 from using the trade name ‘NINTENDO INFO TECH PRIVATE LIMITED’ and the mark NINTENDO, holding it to be deceptively similar to Nintendo’s registered marks, incorporating NINTENDO in its entirety. Further, finding Defendant No. 1 non-operational and merely registered to sit on the corporate name, the Court held the adoption satisfied Section 29(4) and amounted to infringement and passing off.
Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited vs Shweta Agrawal on 7 July, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court granted ad interim injunction restraining use of ‘LAVIE LUXURY’ and its domain. The court held it to be deceptively similar to the registered marks LAVIE, LAVIE LUXE and LAVIE SPORT, proceeding on the footing that the plaint stood uncontroverted, given the defendant’s non-appearance. The Court Receiver was appointed with powers of search and seizure at the defendant’s Agra premises.
Yuvraj Singh vs Ashok Kumar & Ors. on 29 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining multiple defendants from exploiting the plaintiff’s name, image, voice, and likeness through AI-generated and deepfake content and unauthorised merchandise, holding this to violate his personality and publicity rights. Accordingly, the court ordered Meta, Flipkart & Amazon to take down the impugned URLs within 24-36 hours.
Siga Technologies Inc vs The Controller General Of Patents on 24 July, 2026 (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court set aside the Controller General of Patents’ rejection of Siga’s patent application for its invention under section 2(1)(ja), 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patent Act, 1970. The court held the rejection to be violative of Natural justice as the appellant was never given the opportunity to respond to a document introduced only in post-hearing written submission. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing within 3 months.
Other IP Developments
- Delhi High Court seeks responses from Meta and the Central Government on a plea alleging extortion via copyright complaints and strikes.
- Delhi High Court restrains Zepto finances from using “Zepto” mark.
- Union Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw states that Centre has blocked 1,263 Websites, 4,996 Telegram Channels over complaints alleging Film Piracy
- Zee Entertainment Enterprise alleges copyright infringement by Blinkit over Instagram content published by the e-commerce platform.
- BRICS Culture Working Group discusses creator rights, copyright, fair remuneration, AI, and stronger IP frameworks in the digital environment.
- Delhi HC restrains use of ‘Saurashtra Aaj Tak’, orders Newspaper to change name.
- Times Now Navbharat Moves Delhi HC against Network18 and journalist Sushant Sinha, alleging that their show ‘Desh Ki Pathshala’ infringes the trademark and copyright of its ‘News Ki Pathshala’ programme.
- Delhi High Court discharges Vivek Oberoi’s counsel after the actor evaded proceedings and counsel stopped receiving instructions; appoints amicus curiae to represent his position.
International IP Developments
- Munich Regional Court stops Suno using GEMA-protected music.
- China releases draft cyberbullying law covering AI-enabled abuse
Thanks Harsh for the help with the Case Summaries.
