After an action-packed week, we have posts remembering one of the most remarkable IP administrators– Mr. P. H Kurian, on the appointment of an amicus in the Vivek Oberoi personality rights case, and on the DHC decision in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents. This and much more in the last Weekly Review of the month. Anything that we are missing out? Drop a comment and let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Remembering Mr. P. H. Kurian (1959-2026)
Few administrators leave an imprint strong enough to reshape both an institution and the discourse around it. P. H. Kurian was one of them. In this tribute, we look back at the reforms and decisions that defined his tenure at the Patent Office, alongside recollections from several prominent members of the Indian IP community on the administrator, decision-maker, and person they remember.
Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order in Array Biopharma v. Deputy Controller
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents highlights a basic but important point: patent objections must be tied to the claims and evidence, not merely asserted. Harsh Kashyap explains how the Court applied this principle to objections on inventive step, Section 3(d), and Section 3(i), while also flagging the questions the judgment leaves unresolved.
The Delhi High Court’s decision to appoint an amicus curiae to represent Vivek Oberoi’s perspective after his counsel withdrew raises an unusual procedural question in a civil suit pertaining to the right of publicity. This tidbit by Vishwas Tripathi examines whether such an appointment fits within the established role of an amicus curiae or risks creating a safety net for plaintiffs who stop actively participating in their own cases.
Other Posts
Adventures of Controller: Citing CGK suo motu in Post-Grant Opposition
A recent Bombay High Court decision adds an important procedural dimension to the growing judicial scrutiny of how Controllers assess obviousness. Maneesha Gupta explains how, in Ashit Padhaya v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the problem was not the absence of evidence for common general knowledge, but the Controller’s reliance on evidence that was never disclosed to the Opposition Board or the patentee before revoking the patent.
What Follows a Breach? Bombay High Court Separates Disobedience from its Consequences
When a court finds that its interim injunction has been wilfully breached, should punishment necessarily follow? Harsh Kashyap explores this in light of the Bombay High Court decision in KVIC v. Jaishukh N. Bhuta, explaining how the Court draws an important distinction between establishing disobedience and deciding its consequences, clarifying that Order XXXIX Rule 2A is primarily meant to secure compliance rather than punish past conduct.
Case Summaries
The Calcutta High Court refused an interim injunction sought by the copyright holders of two English grammar textbooks against their long-standing publisher, who continued to print and sell the books after the original publication agreements and a later co-publishing arrangement had lapsed. The Court held that since the plaintiffs had allowed the publisher to keep publishing for over a decade after the original agreements’ five-year term expired without objection, and had themselves consented to a further co-publishing arrangement, they failed to make out a prima facie case or show irreparable harm, especially as their termination notices did not even refer to the original agreements and one of the claimed copyright holders had not been made a party to the suit. The application for interim relief was accordingly dismissed.
The Delhi High Court decreed two cross-suits for copyright infringement and passing off, filed by Testbook and Collegedunia against each other, pursuant to a settlement reached between the parties through mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Both suits, along with all pending applications, were disposed of, and each plaintiff was held entitled to a refund of the court fees paid in its respective suit.
HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd vs John Does & Ors. on 24 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court allowed HCL’s applications to implead an additional defendant identified through bank KYC records and to amend the plaint accordingly, in a suit against persons impersonating HCL employees to defraud members of the public through fake job offers. The Court extended its earlier ex parte ad interim injunction to the newly added defendants, restraining them from using HCL’s trademarks, directing destruction of all infringing material in their possession, and directing the telecom and banking parties to disclose subscriber details and block the mobile numbers used in the fraud.
Bait Al Tamur Co vs Insiya Global & Anr. on 24 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement and passing off suit concerning the mark ‘DATE CROWN’ in terms of a settlement reached between the parties, under which the defendants agreed to stop using the impugned mark ‘DATE’S CROWN’ and its packaging and domain name, to adopt a changed name and revised packaging without objection from the plaintiff, and to withdraw their pending trademark application for the impugned mark before the Trade Marks Registry.
AB SKF vs M/S B.M. Bearing Sales & Ors. on 21 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from selling counterfeit ball bearings under the ‘SKF’ mark and in packaging identical to the plaintiff’s, holding that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of trademark infringement, copyright violation and passing off, given the plaintiff’s long-standing use of the mark since 1907 and the safety risk posed by substandard counterfeit bearings. The Court also directed the bank to place a lien on the defendants’ accounts to the extent of the amounts traced from the sale of the infringing goods.
The Orissa High Court, hearing a challenge to an order of the Commercial Court, Sambalpur in a trademark and copyright infringement suit concerning the marks ‘SHIBA BIRI 480’ and ‘SHIBA BIRI 488’, noted that despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite parties. The Court granted the opposite parties one last opportunity to appear; failing which, the matter would proceed ex parte, and listed the case for further hearing on 27 August 2026.
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal against an ex parte ad interim injunction in a trademark and copyright suit concerning the marks CHATORI and CHIKU, recording a settlement between the parties. Under the settlement, the appellant agreed to stop using the marks and packaging found to be deceptively similar to the respondent’s, to pay costs of Rs. 4 lakhs, and to have the seized infringing goods donated after removing and destroying the packaging, while the respondent agreed to have no objection to the appellant’s continued use of the words ‘PASTA’ and ‘KATORI’ and certain of its own labels.
Fox and Mandal and Anr. vs Somabrata Mandal and Ors. on 24 August, 2026 (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court granted summary judgment in a passing off suit filed by the century-old law firm Fox and Mandal, permanently restraining the defendants from holding themselves out as being associated with the firm or from using the marks ‘Fox and Mandal’, ‘Fox & Mandal’ or ‘F&M’, holding that the firm was the prior user and sole owner of the goodwill in the mark, that any claim of the defendant as an heir of a former partner had already been settled and paid out in an earlier suit, and that the defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim so as to warrant a full trial.
Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Kwick Living (I) Private Limited on 25 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, faced with a preliminary objection to its territorial jurisdiction over Hindustan Unilever’s suit against Kwick Living for allegedly disparaging its ‘Vim’ and ‘Surf Excel’ products through the ‘War on What’s Hidden’ campaign, found conflicting lines of its own precedent on when online advertising and e-commerce activity can found jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the CPC and the corresponding provisions of the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act. Rather than deciding the question of jurisdiction itself, the Court referred it to a Larger Bench, cautioning that jurisdiction cannot be allowed to arise in any court merely because the content is accessible on the internet.
Nike Innovate C.V vs Fabulous Fashion on 25 August, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Saket District Court recently decreed a suit filed by Nike Innovate against three counterfeit shoe sellers operating out of Majnu-ka-Tilla, Delhi, by granting a permanent injunction and damages to the Plaintiff. The Court took into account the Authorized Representative’s unrebutted testimony and extensive documentary evidence to show that Nike is the proprietor and prior user of its NIKE logo, swoosh device, and other related marks since 1971. The court stated that all three Defendants, despite initially filing a written statement, failed to cross-examine PW-1 and were ultimately proceeded ex parte. Thus, the Court clearly found evidence of infringement, passing off, and copyright violation and thus awarded appropriate damages for the same given the scale of counterfeit goods.
The Commercial Court in this case allowed the Plaintiff’s application under Order XIII – A CPC for summary judgement and later on granted a permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1, along with appropriate damages. The Plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the mark “GOLDMEDAL” word and device marks used since 1979 for wires, cables and related electrical goods and alleges that the Defendant No. 1 was manufacturing and printing identical packaging boxes bearing the same mark and trade dress. Defendant No. 1 admitted that the seized boxes bear the same marks but claimed he was merely a packaging manufacturer who had unknowingly printed the boxes for a person falsely posing as the Plaintiff’s employee. The Court found such defence to be a sham and unsubstantiated, thus holding that such actions constituted infringement under Section 29(1) and 29(2) of the Trademark Act, 1999. However, on damages, the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s inflated claim of Rs. 76 Lakh and instead awarded a modest amount of Rs. 3 Lakh as damages, and defendant No. 2 was dismissed as no involvement was found.
Amar Tulsiyan vs Corona Plus Industries Limited on 22 August, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
A decision by a District Judge granted an ex-parte IP suit in favour of Amar Tulsiyan against Corona Plus Industries Limited. The Plaintiff in this case was a manufacturer of Pan Masala, Gutkha, and Mouth Freshener using the registered marks “SHUDH”, “SHUDH PLUS”, and “SHUDH PLUS ULTRA”, and brought the suit under Section 142 of the Trademark Act, 1999 against groundless claims issued by the defendant of trademark and copyright Infringement and passing off. The Court declared in this case that the Defendant’s legal notices and letters were groundless threats, issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from issuing further threats or using the infringing marks, and ordered delivery-up and destruction of any seized goods and materials. No damages were given in this case.
Blvck Srl Cdre vs Puneet Juneja Trading As Blvck And Anr on 25 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court in this case allowed a cancellation petition filed by BLVCK Sri CDRE under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking the removal of trademark registration for the word mark “BLVCK” under class 25. Furthermore, Respondent No. 1 claimed that Puneet Juneja appeared in person and filed an affidavit stating that he had no objection to the petition and chose not to contest the proceedings. Thus, the Court accepted the affidavit and oral statement and cancelled the registration; therefore and directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the entry from the Register within six weeks to maintain its purity.
The Delhi High Court recently disposed of a cancellation petition filed by VKC Nuts Private Ltd. Under Section 57 of the Trademark Act, 1999. The petition sought the removal of registration under Class 29 of the mark which was held by Respondent No. 1. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 stated on instructions that the company would initiate appropriate steps to withdraw the registered trademark without prejudice to its rights to enforce its common law right through appropriate legal recourse and thus, the High Court disposed of the petition.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark and copyright infringement suit concerning the ENGLISH OVEN marks in terms of a settlement reached between the parties before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The settlement restrained Respondents from using the mark ENGLISH BAKE or any deceptively similar mark on breads and bakery products. The Court found the terms lawful, declared the settlement agreement part of the decree sheet, and directed a refund of the entire court fees to the plaintiff.
Joy Creators LLP vs Luv Thakral on 21 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit concerning the getups HONEY & ALMOND, SKIN FRUITS, PURE ALOE and COCOA RICH in terms of a settlement reached between the parties. Under the settlement, the defendant agreed to suffer a decree of permanent injunction against the use of the EARTHCON-prefixed marks and paid Rs. 1.5 lakhs towards full and final settlement of the monetary claims. The Court decreed the suit accordingly and directed that the entire court fees be refunded to the plaintiff.
Aerlam @ Muddangula Anuradha vs The State Of Telangana on 20 August, 2026 (Telangana High Court)
The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the preventive detention of the petitioner’s husband as an “insecticide offender” under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. Where the underlying crimes included fraudulently duplicating insecticides and herbicides under the companies’ own brand names, attracting Section 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957, alongside the Insecticides Act. The Court held that the sale and distribution of such counterfeit and misbranded pesticides to farmers satisfied the requirement of activity prejudicial to public order, and that such conduct extends beyond an ordinary law-and-order concern. This, therefore, justifies preventive detention over recourse to the ordinary criminal process, including remedies otherwise available under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act.
Ms/ Nike Innovative C.V vs Mr. Gurmeet Singh on 1 August, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Delhi District Court decreed a suit for infringement of the NIKE mark and SWOOSH Device along with the associated copyright. The Court held that the reports of the Local Commissioners, recording seizure of counterfeit footwear and apparel bearing the impugned marks from the defendants’ premises, remained wholly unrebutted. The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining further use of the NIKE marks along with costs, but declined the reliefs of rendition of accounts and damages since neither had been specifically pleaded or pressed by the plaintiff.
The Delhi District Court decreed a trademark infringement and passing-off suit concerning the well-known mark T.T. against the defendant’s use of TT Bagatt on goods sold on Amazon. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ evidence had gone entirely unrebutted after the defendant was proceeded against ex parte for failing to appear despite service. The Court further held the suit fell within the urgent-relief exception to Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, granted a permanent injunction and an order for delivery up, but declined the claims for damages and rendition of accounts for want of supporting material on record.
The Delhi District Court decreed a trademark and trade dress infringement suit over the GLUCON-D and GLUCON-C marks against the defendant’s use of GLUCOSE-D and GLUCOSE-C. The proceedings were ex parte, and the evidence of deceptive similarity and copied packaging remained unchallenged. The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining use of the impugned marks and packaging, but declined the claim for damages exceeding Rs. 1 crore for want of any evidence establishing the plaintiff’s actual loss.
Indus TMT Industries Ltd vs M/S.Hoysala TMT on 17 August, 2026 (Bangalore District Court)
The Bangalore Commercial Court decreed a suit for design infringement and passing off concerning the plaintiff’s registered honeycomb and X-rib TMT bar designs. The Court held the defendant’s “Hoysala 550 SD TMT” rods were deceptively similar and noted the defendant’s failure to contest despite due service. The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining further use of the impugned design, directed the defendant to surrender its moulds, dies, and related materials for destruction, and ordered rendition of accounts of profits from the infringing sales, declining the claim for Rs. 3,00,000 per month in damages for want of evidence on the defendant’s turnover or actual profits.
Suprajit Engineering Limited vs Toheed on 19 August, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Delhi District Court decreed a suit for trademark and copyright infringement and passing off over the PHOENIX mark used on automotive headlamps. The Court held that the Local Commissioner’s report established infringement, and rejected the defendant’s plea that the goods were genuine stock purchased without a bill to avoid GST for want of any supporting document. The Court further granted a permanent injunction, awarded Rs. 50,000 in damages along with costs, and directed the destruction of the seized infringing goods.
M/S Rspl Limited vs Amol Ashokrao Nilawar & Anr. on 30 July, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Rohini District Court recently passed a summary judgement under Order XIII-A CPC in favour of RSPL Ltd., who is the proprietor of the well-known detergent trademark “GHARI”/” GHADI” and tagline “Pahle Istemal Karen Fir Vishwash Karen”. The Court granted a permanent injunction against two defendants, who were initially sued as Ashok Kumar as per the John Doe principle but were later identified through a Local Commissioner for manufacturing and selling counterfeit detergent powder/soap in near-identical packaging and trade dress. The Defendants, despite given service of summons, never appeared and were proceeded against ex parte. Thus, by applying the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Reliance Eminent Trading v. DDA, the Court found that the defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and clear visual/phonetic similarity between marks. The Court also recognized the protectability of the plaintiff’s tagline by citing the principle established in Proctor & Gamble v. Anchor Health.
Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Sameer Enterprises on 23 July, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Court of Additional District Judge Dharmender Rana recently decreed a commercial IP suit in favour of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) against Sameer Enterprises, a sole proprietorship of Mr. Madhu Sudan Aggarwal. In the case, HUL clearly established that the defendant’s detergent mark and packaging “KESRI EXCEL QUICKWASH” infringes upon HUL’s registered trademarks and copyrighted trade dress for “SURF EXCEL” and “SURF EXCEL QUICK WASH”. Furthermore, following the defendant’s default and ex-parte classification, the Court finally granted a permanent injunction against the trademark/copyright Infringement and passing off claims, thus ordered the delivery and destruction of seized counterfeit inventory and awarded damages of up to 1.5 Lakh Rupees.
State vs . Manmeet Singh Anand And Ors. Mishra on 14 August, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi, recently acquitted three accused individuals of criminal charges u/s 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and u/s 103 & 104 of the Trademark Act, 1999. The case originally started from a police raid in 2015 that allegedly recovered counterfeit “CEAT” inner tubes and packaging. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish foundational facts that the complainant IPR agency representatives were untraceable and dropped from the witness list, and CEAT Ltd. Legal Manager never appeared to prove legal authorization, and no technical expert from the brand was examined to establish the authenticity of the goods captured. Thus, after citing the fundamental right to speedy trial u/A 21 of the Indian Constitution, the Court acquitted all the accused.
State vs . Harish Kumar. on 7 August, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
In the present case, Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra recently acquitted Harish Kumar, an accused in the case charged with criminal charges u/s 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and u/s 103 & 104 of the Trademark Act, 1999. The prosecution alleged in the case that the accused was stocking and selling counterfeit personal care and cosmetic products bearing the protected trademarks and copyright works of brands like “Lotus Herbal” and “Dabur”. Furthermore, the Court held that the state failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the primary complainant stopped appearing mid-trial without producing an original authorization letter, and no technical expert from either brand was examined to prove IP ownership and authenticity of goods subsequently. Thus, the Court finally stated that police seizures alone cannot prove trademark infringement or copyright piracy; thus, the Court acquitted the accused following a 12-year trial delay.
State vs . Gaurav Bansal on 6 August, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi, recently acquitted individuals Gaurav Bansal and Om Prakash Gupta of criminal charges u/s 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The case stemmed from a 2013 police raid that alleged the recovery of counterfeit electric wires bearing the protected artistic works of M/S Havells India Ltd. The Court later held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the primary complainant failed to enter the witness box, and no technical expert from Havells was examined to establish copyright ownership or verify that the seized wires were fake. Finally, reaffirming that physical recovery by police alone cannot prove copyright infringement and citing the constitutional right to a speedy trial u/A 21 of the Constitution, the Court acquitted the accused after 13 years of litigation.
M/S. Sanchar Wireless Communications vs M/S. P. Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd on 13 August, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The District Court in this case substantially dismissed the Plaintiff’s suit for trademark infringement, passing off, delivery up and damages, by granting only a limited permanent injunction. The Plaintiff alleges that defendant No. 1 was selling counterfeit products under the Plaintiff’s trademark and the word “Sanchar” caused confusion and passing off. Furthermore, the Court refused to grant a permanent injunction over the word “Sanchar” as the Plaintiff failed to prove it had any registered trademark, and the Court also found it to be a generic term in the communications trade. The Court further found that products of the Plaintiff’s were recovered from the Defendants’ premises during the Local Commissioner’s visit were old, used, and unpacked that the Plaintiff refused to collect after terminating the dealership, which directly undermines the passing off claim. Finally, the Court dismissed the claims for damages and delivery up, and the suit was disposed of.
M/S. Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Sarada Electricals on 25 July, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The District Court in this case allowed the Plaintiff’s suit for trademark infringement, passing off, and infringement of copyright, granting a decree of permanent injunction along with delivery up and rendition of accounts. The Plaintiff alleges that defendant No. 1 was manufacturing and selling counterfeit wires, cables, and electrical goods under a trademark, trade dress, and packaging identical to the plaintiff’s registered marks “KUNDAN, KUNDAN CAB, and FYBROS”, which causes confusion and passing off its goods as those of the Plaintiffs. The Court, in its findings, found that the Plaintiff had long established and continued usage of their trademarks and copyrights, and that the Defendants had failed to appear or contest the suit; the Plaintiff’s evidence remained entirely unrebutted. Finally, the Court held that the Defendants had infringed the Plaintiff’s trademarks and Copyrights and had passed off their goods as the Plaintiff’s, and the Court granted a permanent injunction, delivery up of counterfeit goods for destruction, and removal of infringing marks from online platforms, rendition of accounts for damages, and the suit was disposed of in favour of the Plaintiffs.
The District Court decreed a commercial IP suit in favour of the Plaintiff, which was using the registered trademark and label “SAFEX” since 2011, and sought to restrain the Defendants from using the infringing mark, trade name, and domain name “SAFEX BIO ORGANICS”. Although the Defendant’s director initially appeared, offered an undertaking to discontinue the mark, and reported a corporate name change, the defendants subsequently abandoned the trial by failing to submit financial records and were proceeded against ex parte. Thus, the Court granted a permanent injunction, awarded damages, and ordered litigation costs against Defendant No. 1.
Landmark Crafts Limited vs on 18 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi Court granted an ad interim injunction to Landmark Crafts, restraining Siddharth Shantinath Hardas, who applied to register “HP Power” under Class 6 for similar goods on a “proposed to be used” basis, creating an inevitable likelihood of consumer confusion and diluting Landmark Crafts’ mark.
Mhg Ip owns the global luxury brand ANANTARA (the mark registered and used since 2001). It filed a suit against Anantara Spa and Massage for using an identical/similar mark- ANANTARA SPA without authorization. The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Anantara Spa from using the mark, ordered removal of online references within 3 weeks, and exempted Pre-Institution Mediation.
Novo Nordisk filed patent infringement suits against Sun Pharma and Alkem Laboratories regarding Patent IN’697 that expired on March 20, 2026. The issue was whether these suits should proceed post-expiry and how alleged violations of undertakings are handled. The Delhi High Court disposed of the Sun Pharma suit while preserving rights on infringement claims. It referred the Alkem suit to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre as the parties agreed to mediation due to alleged undertaking violations.
After an RTI response revealed that BDR Pharmaceuticals obtained a Gujarat FDCA license to manufacture DABRAFENIB (a targeted anti-cancer medication of Novartis AG), Novartis sued BDR in a quia timet action. The Delhi High Court noted BDR’s admission of lacking commercial authorization. The Court directed that BDR shall move an appropriate application before this court seeking prior approval before commercial manufacturing.
Novartis AG & Anr vs Zydus Lifesciences Limited on 18 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Novartis AG filed a patent infringement suit against Zydus Lifesciences before the Delhi High Court regarding patent compound DABRAFENIB under IN’655. Zydus undertook not to commercially manufacture or launch DABRAFENIB during the patent’s validity while reserving research rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act.
M/S Sayy Partnership Firm vs Bhuva Ankitkumar Jaysukhbhai on 21 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
M/S Sayy, the owner of the trademark SAYY registered in Class 03 and in use since May 2025, filed a passing-off suit against Bhuva Ankitkumar for using SCALP SAYY on Amazon and Nykaa. The Delhi High Court exempted Pre-Institution Mediation and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Bhuva Ankitkumar from using SCALP SAYY and directing removal of online listing within two weeks.
This order resolves two connected trademark disputes over the trademark PREM DI HATTI in Class 43. Smt Anita filed an appeal challenging the Registrar’s decision to reject her opposition to Phoola Rani’s trademark application. Phoola Rani filed a rectification petition seeking to cancel Smt Anita’s registered trademark. Both parties participated in mediation through the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and executed a Settlement Agreement on August 21, 2026, wherein they agreed to withdraw their respective case.
Ayu Lifescience challenged the rejection of its Class 05 trademark application for the mark “marl containing AYU LIFESCIENCE”. The Controller refused registration under Section11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, citing three prior AYU marks- one of the cited marks was unprosecuted since 2020, and another was opposed. Under Section 11(1), trademarks must be compared as a whole without dissecting components. Opposed or inactive marks cannot be automatic bars. The Delhi High Court set aside the refusal. It remanded the matter for fresh consideration as the Controller failed to consider the cited marks’ status and ignored the distinctiveness of “LIFESCIENCE” alongside the device elements.
Other IP Developments
- Urban Company files a disparagement suit in the Delhi High Court against Kent RO over misleading claims against “Native” water purifiers.
- Netflix’s Gandhari has landed in a copyright dispute after writer Kalyan Bandi alleged similarities with his earlier story of the same name, claims the film’s production house has denied.
- A 30-year-old man was arrested in Indore for allegedly operating the ZEEFLIX app, which provided around 20,000 subscribers unauthorised access to copyrighted content belonging to JioStar and other broadcasters.
- Bengaluru court issues gag order on alleged ‘false, defamatory’ content on ‘Toxic’ film.
- Music composer Ilaiyaraaja has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of his review plea in the En Iniya Pon Nilave copyright dispute with Saregama.
- The Calcutta High Court has restrained a rival firm from using the “Fox & Mandal” name, holding that the heir of a former partner cannot claim rights in the goodwill of the partnership merely on the basis of a familial connection.
International IP Developments
- An MIT study has identified “attribution decay” in AI image models, suggesting that as training datasets grow, individual works may become increasingly difficult to trace to specific AI-generated outputs, complicating copyright, attribution and creator-compensation debates.
- WikiHow sued OpenAI in Manhattan federal court for allegedly misusing its instructional material to train ChatGPT.
- A London High Court has ordered Samsung to pay Swatch Group $11.6 million in damages for trademark infringement over third-party smartwatch apps that copied watch-face designs of brands including Omega, Longines and Breguet.
- WIPO has launched a new framework for comparing green-technology patent data across countries.
- The EU’s new Pharma Package will retain eight years of regulatory data exclusivity but cut automatic market protection from two years to one, with additional protection tied to specified clinical, access and innovation-related criteria.
- The US FDA has approved daraxonrasib (Rasonque), a first-in-class RAS inhibitor for metastatic pancreatic cancer, after trials showed median survival of 13.2 months compared with 6.7 months with standard chemotherapy.
[Thanks to Harsh, Maneesha, and Vishwas for the case summaries.]
