In this edition of the SpicyIP Weekly Review, we have comments submitted by a few of our team members on the IPO’s Draft Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the Field of Pharmaceuticals, 2026, along with case summaries of the orders and judgments we were able to find. If we’ve missed anything, drop a comment below and let us know.
Highlight of the Week
Specific Comments on the IPO’s Draft Pharmaceutical Guidelines (2026)
The IPO’s 2026 Draft Pharmaceutical Guidelines raise several substantive concerns about how key patentability standards are articulated and applied. From novelty and inventive step to Section 3 and unity of invention, the Draft Guidelines introduce ambiguities that warrant closer examination before they are finalised. Ambika Aggarwal, Swaraj Barooah, Praharsh Gour, Maneesha Gupta, Rishabh Upadhyay, Harini Srinivasan, in their submission to the Patent Office, flag some of the key concerns, along with their recommendations for strengthening the draft.
Other Post
[Sponsored] IP8 Expands into Patent Decision Intelligence with Five Connected AI Workflows
A year after launching agentic AI for patent-infringement surveillance, IP8 expands across critical patent decision workflows for law firms and enterprise IP teams. To know more, read their press release linked above.
Case Summaries
Amaan Ahmad vs Shakil Ahmad And Others on 14 September, 2026 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench)
The applicant, a defendant in a suit pending before the Commercial Court, Lucknow, sought transfer of connected criminal proceedings from Barabanki to Lucknow. His grievance was that the Presiding Officer had remarked in open court that he would grant “the reliefs which he will be giving while deciding the temporary injunction application,” and had done so before even ruling on the applicant’s pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. According to the applicant, this showed a closed mind on the injunction sought by the opposite parties over the family’s shared “GLOBE” trademark. The Court held that a mere apprehension of bias, however sincerely felt by a litigant, cannot by itself justify a transfer. Such apprehension must be reasonable and supported by material on record, rather than resting solely on the litigant’s own reading of a remark made in the course of the hearing. Finding the allegations against the Presiding Officer vague and unsubstantiated, and noting that a judge is not expected to remain silent or “sphinx-like” during proceedings, the Court dismissed the transfer application, with no order as to costs.
Two companies containing “Kandamkulathi” in their names challenged orders directing them to change their names under Section 16(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013, following applications by M/s. K.P. Pathrose Vaidyans Kandamkulathy Vaidyasala Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that such an application could only be filed by the registered trademark proprietor, and that the proprietor’s directorship in the applicant company did not confer standing on the company. The Court also declined to extend the limitation period for a fresh application. The orders were accordingly quashed, while leaving it open to the Central Government to act suo motu under Section 16(1)(a).
The Delhi High Court held that a payment made by an Indian resident to a non-resident does not, by itself, mean that the income accrues or arises in India. The ruling arose from a dispute involving Ranbaxy India’s payment of approximately Rs. 1,851 crore to Teva Israel under an arrangement concerning the US commercialisation of generic Atorvastatin. The Court noted that the contractual rights, ANDA, non-compete obligations and underlying sales were all situated in the US, and accordingly found no jurisdictional nexus with India. It therefore quashed the reassessment notices issued against Teva USA for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, and rejected the Revenue’s reliance on US antitrust proceedings to establish either illegality or Indian tax jurisdiction.
The defendants did not appear at the hearing, despite a vakalatnama having been filed on their behalf. The Court adjourned the plaintiff’s interim application seeking discovery of records to 18th September 2026, giving the defendants one final opportunity to respond, with the plaintiff directed to serve notice on them that a final view would be taken on the next date. Counsel for the plaintiff also stated that although the patent underlying the infringement claim had since expired, the plaintiff intended to continue pursuing its claim for damages.
Signatureglobal filed suit against unidentified defendants who were operating a series of look-alike websites using its registered “SIGNATUREGLOBAL” mark. On some of these websites, the defendants were also falsely trading on the plaintiff’s collaboration with Tonino Lamborghini, by reproducing its copyrighted project renders and promotional content. The Court exempted the plaintiff from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, relying on Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815. Finding a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from operating the identified domains, or any others deceptively similar to them. Various registrars and hosting providers, including GoDaddy, Hostinger and Wix, were directed to lock and suspend the specified domains within 72 hours, and to disclose whatever KYC and contact details of the registrants were available to them within four weeks, with compliance affidavits due within six weeks.
Gracure Pharmaceuticals was arrayed as Defendant No. 3 in Original Suit No. 370 of 2024, pending before the Commercial Court, Gautam Budh Nagar. It filed this petition under Article 227, challenging an order dated 2nd May 2026 that had closed its opportunity to file a written statement under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The grounds raised were identical to those already raised by co-defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in earlier, connected Article 227 petitions, which had been decided by a composite judgment dated 30th July 2026. That earlier judgment had set aside the Commercial Court’s order to the extent it foreclosed the defendants’ right to file a written statement. It had directed that the written statements already tendered be taken on record, and required the Commercial Court to decide the plaintiff’s pending application for permission to file the product dossier and an affidavit of Mr. Sukund Juneja in a sealed cover. It had further set a timeline for any additional written statement and reply. Since counsel on both sides agreed that the present petition was squarely covered by that earlier ruling, the Court disposed of it in the same terms, without going into the merits independently, and left all legal and factual questions open for the parties to raise before the Commercial Court.
Ashish Barman vs State Of Assam on 11 September, 2026 (Gauhati High Court)
The Gauhati High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in connection with a case registered under Section 318(4) BNS, Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, concerning the alleged sale of counterfeit “Bigest Killer Mosquito Agarbatti” products. The Court noted that the alleged infringing goods and relevant documents had already been seized by the Investigating Officer and that, considering the nature of the allegations, custodial interrogation was not necessary. Accordingly, the Court directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, subject to appearing before the Investigating Officer within 10 days and not tampering with evidence or hampering the investigation.
The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors vs Mr Abhishek Khanna & Ors on 9 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs’ applications to bring on record more documents and filed evidence of their investigation on a DVD/pen drive. The Court further granted the application for amendment/addition of claims for infringement by other trademarks, trade names, domain names and email addresses. Plaintiffs’ application for the production of interrogatories was taken on record, with the Defendants directed to reply to it within 4 weeks. The Court in the new instituted Commercial suit directed the registration of Plaint, issue of summons and filing of written statements and replications within the stipulated time periods. The Plaintiffs had also received notice for an ex parte interim injunction issued under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, which they now had 14 days to do so and to file rejoinders. The matters have been placed for further proceedings on 16.11.2026.
Nikhil Agarwal vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police on 15 September, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court modified the condition imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner who had been arrayed in a case under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 63(a) and 63(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner had been directed to attend the police station every day at 10:00 a.m., and had asked for relaxation as he lives in Andhra Pradesh and the police station is in Coimbatore. Considering that the petitioner had been complying with the condition regularly after 01.09.2026, the Court modified the condition and directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent police every Monday at 10 a.m. till further orders. Thereupon the Criminal Original Petition was allowed.
State vs . Yaqub on 9 September, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Delhi District court acquitted the accused, Yaqub, of offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arising from the alleged seizure of counterfeit HP, Canon and Epson products. Although the prosecution relied on raids, seizure memos and other police evidence, the complainant and the person who had authorised him to lodge the complaint were not examined, and the expert evidence necessary to establish that the seized goods were counterfeit was also absent. The Court held that mere recovery or seizure of goods bearing a mark does not, by itself, establish counterfeiting, ownership or infringement of intellectual property rights. Since the prosecution failed to prove these essential elements through admissible evidence and the case had remained pending for nearly seven years, the Court held that the deficiencies in evidence went to the root of the prosecution case and acquitted the accused.
The Delhi Court decreed the suit in favour of Hamdard, restraining the defendant, “Hamdard Jankalyan Avam Shiksha Samiti,” from using the word “Hamdard” in its name in any form. The Court found that Hamdard had established its registered trademark rights, long-standing use and substantial public recognition, and held that use of the mark by the defendant society could lead the public to believe that it was associated with or originated from the plaintiff. Relying on Helpage India v. Helpage and Childcare, the Court held that a business entity can restrain a charitable trust or society from using its trademark as part of its name. The defendant was also directed to pay ₹50,000 as damages and the actual costs of the suit.
Dayanand Anglo-Vedic College Trust & vs D A V School on 15 September, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Court partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, who held registered trademarks for “Dayanand Anglo Vedic”, “D.A.V.” and the DAV logo/device in relation to educational services. The defendant, an unaffiliated school operating as “DAV School”, was found to have used the essential feature “DAV” without authorization, which the Court held infringed the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks and was likely to create an impression of affiliation or association with the DAV educational network. The Court therefore granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks and a mandatory injunction directing surrender/delivery-up of infringing material such as letterheads, stationery and signboards for destruction or erasure. However, the Court declined the plaintiffs’ claim for rendition of accounts/account of profits and the consequential money decree, holding that although infringement was proved, the plaintiffs had not produced sufficient financial evidence to establish the profits attributable to the unauthorized use. The plaintiffs were awarded the costs of the suit.
Pawan Kumar & Anr vs State Of Hp And Anr on 7 September, 2026 (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
The petitioners filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 292 of 2021, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan for offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioners submitted that during the pendency of trial before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, the parties had amicably settled the dispute with the intervention of respectable persons and villagers, and that the complainant Sushil Kumar had voluntarily compromised and had no objection to the FIR and all consequential proceedings being quashed. The Court held that since Sushil Kumar was himself the victim who had set the criminal law in motion and had personally authorised the settlement, the proceedings could be quashed, and that their continuation would otherwise amount to an abuse of the process of law. The FIR and all consequential proceedings were accordingly quashed and the petition disposed of.
The plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendant from running its “War on What’s Hidden” campaign, which the plaintiff alleged disparaged its VIM and Surf Excel products by claiming that the presence of Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate and Benzisothiazolinone caused skin irritation, while directing consumers to “Switch to BECO.” The defendant argued that every statement in the campaign was ingredient-specific, backed by NABL-accredited lab testing, and framed only as a capability (“can cause”) rather than an assertion of actual harm, and that truth is a complete defence to disparagement. The Court held that a mere derogatory comparison is not by itself actionable, and that disparagement requires the conjunctive elements of falsity and injury, but found that even if the individual ingredient-level claims were accurate, the campaign’s overall effect misled the average consumer into believing the plaintiff’s finished products were unsafe, particularly when juxtaposed with the exhortation to switch products. The defendant was accordingly directed to pull down, remove and recall all advertisements containing the offending statements within one week and file a compliance affidavit within a further week, with the Court clarifying that the restraint did not bar the defendant from otherwise carrying out lawful comparative advertising.
Surya Roshni Limited vs Maddi Ramiah Kutati on 10 September, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
Surya Roshni Limited sued Maddi Ramiah Kutati, trading as Safety Power Wires & Cables, for infringement of its registered trademark “SURYA” and passing off, after investigation found the defendant manufacturing wires and cables under “SURYA CAB” from a full-fledged unit in Telangana. A Local Commissioner’s inspection recovered 865 boxes of finished goods, roughly 15,850 items of infringing packaging and six dies. The defendant claimed to be an innocent, uneducated small-scale trader who had adopted “Surya” as a generic word for the sun without knowledge of the plaintiff’s rights, and undertook to stop using the mark. The Court rejected this as false on its face: the defendant’s own application to register “SURYACAB FR” had already been refused in 2024 for being identical to the plaintiff’s registered mark, and the scale of operations machinery, GST registration since 2019, a self-declared turnover of ₹1.5-5 crore and a ₹21 lakh quotation, showed deliberate infringement. Finding the defendant guilty of infringement, passing off and unfair competition, and noting his separate use of a cancelled BIS certification mark belonging to a third party, the Court held that punitive damages were warranted. It decreed a permanent injunction restraining use of “SURYA CAB” or any similar mark, awarded ₹15,00,000 in damages with 9% annual interest from judgment, and directed delivery up of all infringing goods, dies and packaging for destruction after removal of the mark, with costs to the plaintiff.
Sai Silks (Kalamandir) Limited appealed against a common order of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing its applications for appointment of a Local Commissioner and an ex parte ad interim injunction against the use of “Kanchipuram Varahi Lakshmi Silks,” which it alleged was deceptively similar to its registered marks “Kancheepuram Vara Mahalakshmi Silks” and “Vara Mahalakshmi.” The Division Bench upheld the dismissal, reasoning that “Kancheepuram” is a geographical term denoting a city already recognised as a Geographical Indication for its silk sarees, while “Vara Mahalakshmi” is a common Sanskrit reference to Goddess Lakshmi, so that under Section 17(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 the appellant could claim no exclusive right over either word within its composite label mark. Finding no single dominant or distinctive feature in the appellant’s mark, and noting that saree purchases are typically planned, the Bench held that the traditional test of an average consumer with imperfect recollection should give way to that of a perceptive, informed consumer unlikely to confuse the two shops. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Other IP Developments
- SWA finds no copyright infringement against Sayani Gupta in the Aasmani case, but the breach of confidence charge remains unresolved.
- Indian IP Office prohibits unauthorized use of its logo, name and insignia
- Kerala High Court reserves the verdict in Suo Motu case on exorbitant pricing of life-saving patented drugs.
- The Indian IP Office issued a Public Notice on 7 September 2026 stating that First Examination Reports for design applications will ordinarily be communicated via email.
- The Delhi High Court has directed 11 websites to refrain from hosting, streaming, downloading, or otherwise making Amazon’s film “VIBE” available without authorisation.
- Calcutta High Court upholds injunction in ITC’s ‘Gold Flake’ dispute, says the word ‘Gold’ has acquired secondary meaning.
International IP Developments
[Thanks to Vanshika and Sunidhi for the case summaries.]
