Kicking off the week with a roundup of exciting IP developments from August 10 to August 16, in this edition of the SpicyIP Weekly Review. Discussions on the DHC’s decision in Saregama v. Ilaiyaraaja, Guidelines on Section 3(m) examinations by the Delhi High Court, and a post on India’s ISP copyright problem. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know.
Highlight of the Week
Playing by Different Rules: Why Equating Section 3(m) to European Patent Law Doesn’t Hold Up
The Delhi High Court’s recent T-Mobile v. CGPDTM order proposes a seven-step framework for examining objections under Section 3(m) of the Patents Act, covering mental acts, schemes, rules, and methods of playing games. Swaraj Barooah and Maneesha Gupta examine the framework’s promise and its blind spots, particularly the Court’s treatment of Section 3(m) as pari materia with the EPC, the apparent sidelining of the “playing games” limb, and the practical uncertainties the proposed guidelines may create.
Other Posts
How much evidence is enough to establish copyright ownership at the interim stage? Unpacking the Delhi High Court’s latest decision in the Saregama-Ilaiyaraaja case, Umeshwari Ranjan explains how the decision offers an important answer, while leaving some questions unanswered about assignment validity, irreparable injury, and the scope of decades-old rights in the age of digital exploitation.
India’s ISP Copyright Problem – Self-Inflicted?
India’s intermediary liability framework has long struggled to reconcile copyright enforcement with the protections afforded to platforms under Section 79 of the IT Act. In this post, Anushka Aggarwal argues that the problem may lie deeper, not merely in how Section 79 is interpreted, but in whether it was ever the right statutory framework for addressing intermediary copyright liability in the first place.
Case Summaries
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal against the Registrar’s order treating a trademark application as abandoned under Section 132 of the 1999 Act. The Court held that the Registrar is required to issue a notice calling upon the applicant to remedy any default within a specified time before treating an application as abandoned. Further, the Court set aside the order dated 25.11.2025, and directed the Registrar to grant the appellant an opportunity to furnish the supporting documents and then proceed in accordance with law.
Ram Kishun Agarwal vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 6 August, 2026 (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under provisions of the BNS, the Copyright Act, and the Trade Marks Act. The Court, without going into the merits, on the petitioner’s prayer directed the authorities to follow the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 35(3) of the BNSS before making any arrest.
HCL Infosystems Limited vs CE & CGST Noida on 12 August, 2026 (CESTAT, Allahabad)
CESTAT Allahabad set aside a service tax demand of over Rs. 16.67 crore raised against HCL Infosystems. The demand was for royalty paid to Microsoft under a license to pre-install operating system on computers manufactured by HCL. The Tribunal held that the licensed rights were copyright-based and Copyright is expressly excluded from the definition of Intellectual property right under Section 65(55a) of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, the Tribunal held that the right to use software for commercial exploitation became taxable only from 16.05.2008, under the newly introduced Information Technology Software Services entry. The demand, raised in 2010 for the period from 2006, was time-barred, since the department already had knowledge of the transaction from a 2007 audit. The situation was also revenue-neutral, given the availability of CENVAT credit.
Sentient Solutions for Accounting Pvt. Ltd. vs Ascensus Global Services India LLP on 11 August, 2026
The Telangana High Court disposed of the Civil Revision Petition filed by Sentient Solutions challenging the ex-parte ad-interim injunction obtained by Ascensus Global in a suit against Sentient Solutions for trademark infringement, passing off, and damages regarding Pinnacle Logo and ASCENSUS/ASCEND marks. Sentient Solutions requested to contest the matter before the Commercial Court. The Court directed the revision petitioner to file its counter within 7 days from 12 August 2026 and the Commercial Court to make best efforts to dispose of the interim application.
Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A vs Controller of Patents and Designs on 7 August, 2026
Esteve Pharmaceuticals appealed against the Controller’s rejection of its Patent Application for a co-crystal of tramadol and celecoxib under Section 2(1)(ja), 3(d), 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. Esteve argued that a co-crystal is a distinct crystalline phase that showed enhanced efficacy and synergy, instead of an admixture. However, to a PSITA, reading prior art D5 alongside D7 would have made the invention obvious. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the rejection of the application for lack of inventive step without examining Section 3(d) and 3(e).
Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd & Anr. on 7 August, 2026
Finecure Pharmaceuticals filed a suit against Laborate Pharmaceuticals for using FINEMOX, a registered trademark of Finecure, under Class 5 and identical trade dress on exported drugs. The issue before the Delhi High Court was whether exporting drugs manufactured in India using a registered trademark constituted trademark infringement. The High Court referred the parties to the suit to mediation before returning to the Court on September 14, 2026, and directed Laborate Pharmaceuticals to submit an undertaking and stock statement within 10 days.
Emami Limited vs Dabur India Limited on 10 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
A Delhi High Court Division Bench held that once it upheld the interim injunction, the single judge’s earlier order merged with its judgment. The single judge therefore could not later modify the injunction. However, the Court permitted disposal of the existing stock, treating the conditional permission as though granted by itself, and dismissed the Respondent’s application seeking to be relieved of its obligation to recall unsold stock from wholesalers and retailers.
Empee Distilleries Limited vs Universal Spirits Pvt Ltd on 11 August, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from manufacturing, marketing or selling IMFL products under the marks CLASSIC MARCO POLO DELUXE BRANDY and MARCO POLO DELUXE XXX RUM. The Court held that, irrespective of both parties having originated from the same EMPEE Group, the Applicant held the registered trademark MARCO POLO, and the Respondent’s use of the mark was prima facie likely to deceive consumers into believing an association with the Applicant.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark MOCHA KAFFEE and its variants. The Court held that the mark was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered MOCHA trademarks, given the identical colour scheme, the phonetic similarity between KAFFEE and CAFE, and the similarity of taglines.
The Madras High Court division bench, in an appeal against dismissal of the suit for infringement and passing off of the mark ‘Jodi365’ by the Respondent’s mark Jodii, set aside the single judge’s judgment. The Court further held that a composite trademark cannot be dissected under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act to deny protection to its distinguishing element, particularly where the Respondent itself had applied for registration of Jodii. Relying on the phonetic similarity test laid down in Cadila Healthcare, and finding no evidence to establish the defence of the mark being common to trade, the Court decreed the suit for injunction and destruction of infringing material.
The Supreme Court disposed of an SLP against the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the Petitioner’s appeal in the dispute between Forest Essentials/Forest Essentials Baby and Baby Forest. The Court directed the Petitioner to pursue its pending rectification petitions before the High Court, with a direction that the same be decided expeditiously and without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned judgments of the single judge and the division bench.
The Honest Reveira vs The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr on 5 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court remanded the matter to the Registrar of Trade Marks for fresh consideration after it was conceded that the applicant’s counterstatement had not, owing to a technical glitch, been actually served upon the opponent/Appellant. The Court clarified that the two-month limitation period prescribed under Rule 44 would begin to run only from the date on which the counterstatement is actually served upon the Appellant.
Astrazeneca AB & Anr. vs Micro Labs Limited on 7 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court disposed of a patent infringement suit concerning Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625, in terms of the settlement reached between the parties. As per the settlement, the defendant agreed to withdraw its claim of invalidity in the written statement and waive the Rs. 5 lakh costs earlier imposed on the plaintiffs in appeal, and the plaintiffs were held entitled to a refund of the entire court fees.
Enviro Ambient Corporation vs Assistant Controller Of Patents on 3 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court set aside the Controller’s rejection of a patent application for a carbon dioxide-capturing device and method. The Court held the impugned order unreasoned and non-speaking on objections to the lack of novelty and inventive step under Sections 2(1)(j) and 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970. Further, relying on the five-step test and the three elements laid down for assessing inventive step, the Court found that the Controller had stated mere conclusions without analysing the appellant’s response to the FER or the distinctions urged from the cited prior art and remanded the matter for fresh consideration within three months.
Natco Pharma Limited vs The Controller Of Patents & Ors. on 5 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court issued a notice limited to the question of maintainability after the Respondents contended that the petition was barred in view of the equally efficacious remedies of post-grant opposition under Section 25(2) and revocation under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Petitioner contended that they did not seek to reopen factual findings on novelty, obviousness, or an inventive step, and confined their challenge to the Controller’s failure to consider certain aspects raised by them.
Allcargo Logistics Limited vs Ashok Kumar & Ors. on 4 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Defendants No. 1 to 37 from using marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s well-known GATI marks. The Court held that the impugned marks and rogue websites were adopted to encash the goodwill of the Plaintiff. Noting that the GATI mark is included in the Trade Marks Registry’s list of well-known marks and that the WHOIS details of the infringing domains were masked, the Court directed Defendants No. 38 to 48 to lock and suspend the impugned domains within 36 hours.
Tabassum Jamal Hashmi vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 6 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of actress Tabassum Jamal Hashmi (Also known as “Tabu”), restraining various defendants from misappropriating her personality rights, which include her name, moniker “Tabu”, voice, image, and likeness through unauthorized use in AI-generated content, defamatory publications, false endorsement, and merchandise sales. The Court also found a strong prima facie case by noting her decades-long reputation and goodwill, and held that unauthorized commercial exploitation of a celebrity’s persona causes irreparable harm and violates her right to dignity. Thus, the Court directed specific intermediaries like Google, Meta, Reddit, etc to take down and disable listed infringing URLs, and finally, the Plaintiff was also exempted from pre-institution mediation and Section 80 CPC notice requirements.
Shabu Kn Achary vs Dharampal Premchand Limited on 7 August, 2026 (Supreme Court)
The Supreme Court recently set aside a High Court order that had abolished a cross-examination question asked to the plaintiff regarding documentary proof showing when its “BABA” trademark was first used. The Court also held that even when a Defendant’s written statement is not taken on record, the Defendant still remains entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff on foundational facts and documentary evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s claim of trademark infringement and damages. Finally, the Court directed the Trial Court to recall the Plaintiff’s witness to answer the disallowed cross-examination question and proceed with the trial.
Gola Sizzlers Private Limited vs M/S Gm Foods & Anr on 5 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the registered trademarks “GOLA”, “GOLA SIZZLERS”, and “GOLA RESTRAUNTS” across various restaurant signages, menus, promotional materials, and third-party food delivery platforms. The Court also noted that the Defendants operated an outlet in Mohali under an oral franchise arrangement that was validly terminated by the plaintiff following substantial royalty defaults, suppressed sales records, and operational non-compliance. The Court held that post-termination use of identical marks without written authorization lacks legal standing u/s 2(r)(ii) and constitutes trademark infringement and passing off, and thus, finally restrained the Defendants to prevent public deception and irreparable harm to the Plaintiff’s brand goodwill.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals … vs Scott Edil Pharmacia Limited And Anr on 5 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling pharmaceutical products under the impugned marks “NEXPORIN” and “ZETUM”. The Court held that the marks are structurally, visually, and phonetically deceptively similar to Glaxosmithkline’s registered trademarks “NEOSPORIN” and “CEFTUM”, which utilize identical active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). The Court reaffirmed that stringent standards must be applied to medicinal products to prevent consumer confusion and public health hazards. The Court also found that the Defendants’ adoption of the marks constitutes prima facie case of trademark Infringement and passing off, and thus, directed the Defendants to remove all online listings of the products within two weeks.
Other IP Developments
- Delhi High Court to examine whether social media platforms can suspend accounts based on copyright strikes
- FICCI panel calls for new copyright framework to govern AI
- MSME Ministry, DPIIT sign MoU to boost global market access for India’s GI products
- Delhi High Court directs Sun Pharma Laboratories to take its prior approval before launching semaglutide tablets.
- Delhi High Court to examine whether family name’s reputation flows down generationally.
- Delhi High Court clarifies that telecasting Gurbani for genuine religious purpose not copyright infringement
