Starting the week with our weekly roundup of key IP developments and posts on Mavyret patent abandonment, calls for comments on new patent and trademark manuals, and the DHC’s decision in Intra Cellular Therapies v. Controller. This and a lot more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know below.
Highlights of the Week
Mavyret Patent Abandonment Does Not Open the Field for Hepatitis C Generics
Does one patent refusal directly equate to entry for generics? A patent application on AbbVie’s Mavyret, most effective for curing patients of Hepatitis C Virus was refused by the IPO in May 2026, but a closer look at the patent landscape reveals why one patent abandonment may not be enough for Indian HCV patients to access the drug. In this post, Ambika Aggarwal discusses concerns, strategic choices and the larger story of AbbVie’s Hepatitis C patents in India.
Other Posts
One Atomic Substitution, Two Giant Hurdles of Disclosure and Efficacy
In Intra Cellular Therapies v. Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court revisited two recurring fault lines in pharmaceutical patent law: the coverage disclosure distinction in genus-species claims and the therapeutic efficacy threshold under Section 3(d). Arnav Kaman argues that while the Court gets parts of the Section 3(d) analysis right, its treatment of coverage as disclosure, its failure to meaningfully engage with the applicable novelty standard, and its silence on inventive step leave the judgment doctrinally unclear and the law more unsettled than before.
Two notifications, Call for Stakeholder Comments! The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) has released two new notifications regarding updates to the office manuals. Comments and suggestions are invited from stakeholders on the Draft Manual of Patent Office (Practice & Procedure), 2026, to be submitted within the next 30 days, and on the Draft Manual of Trademark Office (Practice & Procedure), 2026, to be submitted within a lesser window of the next 15 days. See Ambika Aggarwal’s post for details and links. And if you’re a stakeholder, do consider sending your comments!
Case Summaries
The Patna High Court, in an Appeal against the rejection of an application for temporary injunction, held that the Commercial Court had erred in treating the distribution of goodwill between the two families as a bar to the grant of interim relief, since the properties of a company cannot be equated with those of its shareholders. However, both parties agreed to fresh consideration, so the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the injunction application to the Commercial Court for fresh consideration within two months. The Court also directed the Defendant to maintain accounts of sales made under the disputed mark (Rajaji).
The Calcutta High Court held that a suit for disparaging a rival product does not become a “commercial dispute” under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, simply because the plaint incidentally refers to the plaintiff’s trademark, copyright and design registrations. The Court further held that no prima facie case of disparagement was made out, since the impugned advertisement used only a generic depiction of “balm” with no distinctive feature linking it to the plaintiff’s product, and the plaint did not plead generic disparagement of the category as a whole. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction order, clarifying that the order would not be binding on the trial court.
Vishal Aggarwal And Ors vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 14 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arising from allegations of the sale of counterfeit branded clothes, on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties. The Court noted that the dispute was predominantly civil and commercial in nature, and the complainant did not wish to pursue the matter, as evidenced by their recorded voluntary statement. The Court noted that continuation of the proceedings despite the compromise would serve no useful purpose. Thus, the FIRs were accordingly quashed.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a batch of eleven rectification applications concerning rival trademarks on the terms of a compromise reached between the parties. Under the terms, the Respondent acknowledged the Petitioners’ proprietorship of the marks “TEXMO”, “AQUATEX” and their device marks. They undertook to permanently cease the manufacture, sale, or advertising of goods under the mark “AROTEX” or any deceptively similar mark, and agreed to withdraw and cancel their own similar (AROTEX) trademark registrations and applications within 20 days. They also undertook not to oppose or seek rectification of the Petitioners’ marks, and agreed to clear the existing stock of the impugned mark within six months. The Court recorded the compromise and disposed of all connected applications in its terms.
Greenhorn Wellness Private Limited vs John Doe & Ors on 12 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff’s application to implead two newly discovered defendants operating mirror or redirect websites to broadcast their copyrighted content and permitted amendment of the plaint. The Court, on the plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction, extended the existing interim injunction to the newly impleaded defendants and directed the domain name registrar to take down the offending URL within 36 hours of receiving the order.
The Delhi High Court restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling or distributing beer under the mark “THUNDER 15000”. The Court held it to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered and long-used mark “THUNDERBOLT”. The Court noting, the defendant’s use of the dominant and essential feature (THUNDER) of the plaintiff’s mark, and, given the identical goods and shared trade channels, held that consumer confusion was inevitable. Therefore, found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off in the plaintiff’s favour, and restrained the defendants from using the marks pending further hearing.
Phonographic Performance Limited vs Heramb Shelke on 7 August, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
A Single bench of the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction by restraining the defendant and other affiliated entities from publicly performing or communicating sound recordings assigned to Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) without first securing a valid public performance license to do the same. As per the records, PPL established a prima facie case of copyright infringement by submitting an affidavit and video evidence showing unauthorized commercial broadcasting of its performance at the Defendant’s premises after the expiration of the previous license. Thus, in the absence of representation from the defendant despite served notice and the Court allowed the interim relief through 3rd September.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal against a single judge’s interim injunction restraining it from using “ALDER BIOCHEM” or any mark containing the term “BIOCHEM”, in a suit filed by Zydus Healthcare. The Court applied the established principle in Wander v. Antox of limited appellate interference and the Court upheld that Zydus was the prior user and the presumption of validity under Section 31 favored Zydus, and “BIOCHEM” was entitled to protection as its dominant feature in the mark. The Court further went on to reject the Plaintiff’s common to trade defense and held that Plaintiff must be estopped from claiming non-distinctiveness having itself sought registration of “ALDER BIOCHEM”. Finally, the Court found that balance of convenience and irreparable harm also favored Zydus.
Jyothy Labs Ltd vs Dabur India Ltd on 10 August, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court recently granted Jyothy Labs an interim injunction against Dabur, restraining use of the label mark in which “NEEM” features as the leading and essential element for toothpaste, and holding that Jyothy had made out a prima facie case of both trademark infringement and passing off based on its registered composite marks. The Court finally held that although “NEEM” was not separately registered, but as per the essential feature doctrine it allowed protection of a composite mark dominant element without violating the anti-dissection rule. The Court found “NEEM” to be at-most suggestive rather than descriptive or generic in nature given its use across categories of products. Thus, Dabur was estopped from denying the distinctiveness of “NEEM” as it was separately enforcing similar rights over “MESWAK” and “BABOOL”. At the end, the Court finally granted an unconditional stay of 6 weeks on Dabur’s.
A Single Bench of the Delhi High Court recently decreed a trademark infringement and passing off suit in terms of amicable settlement reached between the parties. The Plaintiff had filed a suit to restrain the Respondent from manufacturing, marketing or selling agricultural products such as rotavators under the mark of “SHAKTIMAN/SHAKTINAM WBH”, which infringed upon its registered trademark of “SHAKTIMAN”. As per the terms of settlement, the defendant agreed to permanently cease the impugned mark, pay 1 lakh Rupees damages and other costs within three weeks.
Metro Brands Limited vs Pauls Metro Shoe Shoppe And Ors on 11 August, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court recently allowed Metro Brands Ltd. to withdraw its trademark infringement and passing off suit with liberty to institute a fresh one. The Plaintiffs main demand was withdrawal after realizing that pleadings in the current suit omitted material facts regarding a prior 2021 suit against the defendants as well as recent developments involving the defendants online presence and a trademark application for “PAUL’S METRO SHOE SHOPPE”. The Court finally granted leave to file a consolidated suit, permitting a refund of court fees and disposing of the pending interim application and leave petition.
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction to Novex Communications, in a suit alleging copyright infringement and apprehended infringement, restraining defendants (except Nos. 14 and 15, who were not yet served) from publicly performing or communicating sound recordings assigned to it. The Court noted that Novex had obtained numerous similar orders from courts across India and that its assignment agreements prima facie established its copyright. Since Defendant No. 2 sought time to file a reply, the plea for ad-interim relief against it was deferred to 27 August 2026, while an injunction was granted against Defendant Nos. 1, 3 to 13, with liberty to serve and seek relief against Defendant Nos. 14 and 15 later.
The Madras High Court allowed two appeals filed by Adyar Ananda Bhavan against orders treating its trademark applications abandoned under Rule 46(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, for filing delayed evidence of use. The appellant explained that the delay occurred because notice of the opponent’s evidence had been sent to its counsel’s old address, despite an application to update it to the new address, and that its affidavit was filed promptly upon gaining knowledge. Finding that proper communication had not been made to the appellant’s correct address, and invoking principles of natural justice, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters to the Registrar to decide on merits.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against a trial court order that had vacated an ex parte injunction restraining the respondent from using DIGESTO PLUS, said to be deceptively similar to the appellant’s mark HASLAB’S DIGESTO. The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the appellant failed to show continuous use of its mark between 1981 and 2007, that DIGESTO was descriptive and common to the trade (with third-party use traced back to 1946), and that the respondent had prima facie established prior and continuous use since 1980. Further, the Court also held that the appeal filed with a 76-day delay was time-barred.
Parle Agro Private Limited vs Varun Beverages Limited & Anr on 18 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Varun Beverages and its co-defendant from using the mark SMOOTH for a proposed dairy-based yoghurt drink, holding it prima facie deceptively similar to Parle Agro’s registered SMOODH marks. The Court found that Parle Agro had built substantial goodwill in SMOODH through sales, promotion, and celebrity endorsements since 2021, and that the defendants’ adoption of SMOOTH, coupled with packaging that de-emphasised their own brand CALPIS, amounted to smart copying likely to cause confusion and infringement. Further, related applications, including an exemption from pre-institution mediation, were also allowed.
The Bombay High Court partly allowed Phantom Studios’ application to amend its plaint in a suit over rights to a sequel of the film ‘Queen’, permitting it to implead Digital 18 Media as an additional defendant after it emerged that rights under the original co-production agreement had, via an NCLT-sanctioned scheme, actually vested in Digital 18 rather than Jiostar India. The Court held the amendments did not introduce a new or time-barred case, but only an additional approach to already-pleaded facts, and allowed them except for one paragraph seeking to rely on an undisclosed social media post, which was held impermissible under Order XI of the CPC.
Siddharth Vij vs Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Ors on 17 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court disposed of two appeals over the cancellation of the appellant’s PONTA word and device trademarks, based on consent terms recorded in affidavits filed by both sides. The appellant undertook to stop fresh manufacture under the PONTA marks, sell off existing stock (about 53,790 pieces) by 31 March 2027, cease all promotion by that date, and destroy unsold stock thereafter, in return for which the respondents undertook not to pursue any infringement or passing-off action for use during this transition period. The Court accepted and recorded these undertakings as binding, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to comply with the earlier single-judge order within four weeks.
Voltas Limited vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 27 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit filed by Voltas Limited for permanent injunction against a John Doe defendant running a fraudulent website, http://www.myvoltascare.com, that mimicked Voltas’ look and feel to sell goods under the VOLTAS mark without delivering them. Finding Voltas to be the registered proprietor of the well-known VOLTAS mark and the defendant’s domain and website confusingly similar, the Court granted a permanent injunction against the John Doe defendant and directed the domain registrar to transfer the infringing domain to Voltas within six weeks.
The Calcutta High Court heard continuing arguments from Godrej in an interim application arising from Reckitt Benckiser’s suit over the shape, size, and get-up of a bottle with a nozzle. Godrej argued that Reckitt’s registered device mark does not extend to the bottle’s shape, which would need separate registration under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that the shape, having earlier been claimed as a technical advancement for patent purposes, is barred from trademark protection under Section 9(3). Godrej also argued that only the infringement and disparagement claims and not passing off could be maintained in the same suit. As arguments were not concluded, the matter was listed to continue on 2 September, 2026.
Other IP Developments
- Zydus agrees not to launch any product containing dabrafenib till the expiry of Novartis’ patent on the cancer drug.
- Hindustan Unilever moves Delhi High Court alleging disparagement by Beco’s ‘harmful chemical’ ad campaign targeting Vim and Surf Excel.
- Supreme Court stays the Calcutta High Court judgement mandating copyright license for music played through cable TVs in hotel rooms.
- Kerala High Court impleads a breast cancer patient in the ongoing Ribociclib patent dispute.
International IP Developments
- Rolex sues Canadian jewelry store Bijoux Medusa over customized watches, alleges trademark infringement.
- Sun Pharma claims to have received a favorable ruling from an US appellate court in an antitrust case pertaining to a 2008 patent litigation settlement agreement with Pfizer concerning generic version of Lipitor.
- Moderna and Merck say mRNA cancer vaccine succeeded in late- stage melanoma trial.
Thanks to Harsh and Vishwas for the case summaries.
