Kicking off September with an exciting week featuring posts on the latest guidelines by the Patent Office on the use of AI in patent examination, copyright strikes, the Calcutta High Court order in IPRS v. Hotel Appolo, the Copyright Office’s decision in the Thaler-Dabus case, and the Delhi High Court order in Hindustan Unilever Limited v Kwick Living. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review.
Highlights of the Week
Originality Without Authorship: Analysing the Copyright Office’s Decision in Thaler
In light of the Copyright Office’s refusal to register Dr. Stephen Thaler’s AI-generated artwork, holding that DABUS cannot be recognised as its author, Vikram Raj Nanda and Sumukhi Subramanian unpack the decision. They examine what it gets right on originality, authorship and ownership, and where its reasoning on human creative control and AI disclosure leaves questions unanswered.
The CGPDTM has released fresh draft guidelines for examining pharmaceutical and biotechnology patent applications, updating frameworks that date back more than a decade. Published on September 4, 2026, the drafts incorporate recent case law, newer technologies, and expanded guidance on key patentability issues, with stakeholders invited to submit comments and suggestions by September 19, 2026.
Onto Clearing the Jurisdictional Clutter
Jurisdiction over online acts was supposed to become clearer after Sanjay Dalia and Banyan Tree. Instead, a growing line of decisions has left courts with overlapping tests on where disputes arising from online activity can be heard. In Hindustan Unilever v. Kwick Living, the Delhi High Court has now confronted this maze directly, referring the broader question to a Larger Bench even as the Division Bench has clarified jurisdiction in the dispute before it. Srishti Gaur traces how the jurisprudence reached this point, examines the question now before the Larger Bench, and briefly comments on the Division Bench’s recent reasoning on jurisdiction in the present dispute.
The CGPDTM’s new AI Guidelines place heavy emphasis on human oversight while permitting AI-assisted use across several stages of patent examination. In this first part of a two-part post, Praharsh Gour examines whether that safeguard is really enough when AI itself may shape how examiners approach novelty, inventive step, and sufficiency of disclosure.
[Part II] AI in the Patent Office: When Human Oversight Fails, Who Is Accountable?
Continuing the discussion on the recent AI guidelines, in Part II, Praharsh Gour shifts from the cognitive risks of AI-assisted examination to the institutional safeguards needed when “human oversight” fails. He examines gaps around accountability, disclosure, procurement, data governance, and remedial mechanisms, while also flagging a curious error in the Guidelines’ own definition of hallucination.
Other Posts
Copyright Strikes and Free Speech: Rethinking Automated Takedowns on Social Media
Automated copyright takedowns allow rights-holders to enforce their claims at scale, but often without any meaningful assessment of whether the targeted use is actually infringing or protected under Section 52 of the Copyright Act. In this post, Vishno Sudheendra examines this imbalance and argues for a good-faith undertaking requirement, backed by damages under Section 60, to curb abusive or careless copyright strikes.
Room Service, Rates, Licenses: IPRS v Hotel Appolo
Does a hotel need to pay royalties to copyright societies for the content on the television sets of their guest rooms? The recent dispute between IPRS and Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited deals with this question. In this post, Sonisha Srinivasan unpacks what the Calcutta High Court clarified and where it fell short, what the Supreme Court’s stay changes, and finally some important notes for small hotel businesses!
Reforming Legal Deposit: Why the Jan Vishwas Amendment Falls Short
The Jan Vishwas amendments have given India’s long-neglected legal deposit regime a new enforcement tool: the threat of losing access to ISBN registration. But as Vishno Sudheendra and Charan Ashok argue, changing the penalty may do little if non-compliance continues to go undetected. In this post, they examine why the deeper fix may lie in reconnecting legal deposit with copyright remedies, expanding it to digital works, and treating access to deposited works as part of the broader public-interest bargain underlying copyright.
Saved by the Facts: A Critical Look at the Doctrinal Stretches in Jyothy Labs v. Dabur
At first glance, Jyothy Labs v. Dabur looks like a fairly straightforward trademark dispute over the use of “NEEM” on toothpaste packaging. But beneath the favourable factual matrix lies a shakier doctrinal foundation, particularly on essential-feature protection, the descriptive–suggestive divide, and passing off. In this post, Harsh Kashyap examines how the Bombay High Court reached what may well be the right result on the facts, while questioning whether parts of its reasoning can safely travel beyond them.
Case Summaries
Eicher Motors Limited vs Reown Moto & Another on 28 August, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The application sought to combine the cause of action under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Section 14 of the Letters Patent and Order 2 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arising from alleged infringement and passing off of the Plaintiffs’ registered trademarks, including claims of unfair competition and dilution of goodwill. During the hearing, however, the Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a memo seeking withdrawal of the application as not pressed and made a corresponding endorsement on the court record. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application as withdrawn, with no costs.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court considered a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, based on an amicable settlement between the parties. Although the petitioners placed the compromise deed on record, the Court directed the presence of respondent No. 2 to verify the genuineness and correctness of the compromise. The petitioners’ counsel undertook to ensure the presence of the petitioners and respondent No. 2 on the next date. Accordingly, the matter was listed for 7 September 2026, with directions for the parties to remain present before the Court.
Zee Learn Ltd vs Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust on 1 September, 2026(Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court restrained the Respondent from continuing to use the Petitioner’s “MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL”/“MLZS” trademarks and proprietary programme, finding that the Respondent had no right to use them after termination of the licence and that a strong prima facie case existed in the Petitioner’s favour. It also upheld Mumbai as the juridical seat of arbitration and directed removal of the marks from websites and promotional material, along with preservation of records relating to their post-termination use.
The Court considered an Order VII Rule 11 application in a trademark infringement and passing off suit, where the defendants alleged fraud and suppression concerning restrictions on the plaintiffs’ registered trademark. Finding the maintainability and fraud issues inconclusive at this stage, the Court allowed the defendants to file a supplementary affidavit and listed the matter for further hearing on 8 October 2026.
Natco Pharma Limited vs Fmc Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd & Ors on 31 August, 202 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court considered a petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 298645 to the extent of Claim 12. During the proceedings, the parties amicably settled their inter se disputes through a Settlement Agreement dated 31 March 2026. In view of the settlement, the Petitioner, on instructions, sought permission to withdraw the petition. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition, along with all pending applications, as withdrawn in terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Frimline Pvt. Ltd vs Alniche Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 31 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court considered a patent infringement suit seeking a permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No. IN’547960. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 amicably settled their disputes through a Settlement Agreement dated 13 April 2026 executed before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. As regards Defendant No. 2, an affidavit dated 18 May 2026 was filed acknowledging the validity of the patent and undertaking not to use the product under the mark “PALMOVA” or any product having an identical composition as claimed in the patent, until expiry of the patent. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff against Defendant No. 1 in terms of the settlement and against Defendant No. 2 in terms of its undertaking, while preserving Defendant No. 2’s rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970. The suit and pending applications were disposed of, and the Plaintiff was held entitled to a refund of the entire court fees.
State vs. Rahul Arora on 29 August, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Court acquitted Rahul Arora and Vikas Yadav of offences under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, relating to the alleged possession and dealing in counterfeit products bearing the marks of M/s Luk Products and Schaeffler KG. The prosecution case failed after the complainant turned hostile and the seized case property was destroyed in a fire, leaving no admissible evidence to establish that the goods were counterfeit or that the accused knowingly infringed the relevant trade marks. Emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court held that mere recovery of goods bearing a mark was insufficient to establish trade mark infringement and accordingly acquitted the accused.
Juneja Rafik Ibrahimbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 September, 2026 (Gujarat High Court)
The Gujarat High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in an FIR alleging, inter alia, offences under Sections 103, 104 and 108 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, along with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Considering that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation, had no criminal antecedents and had undertaken to remain available during the investigation and trial, the Court found that custodial interrogation was not necessary at that stage. Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Sushila Aggarwal, the Court directed release on anticipatory bail subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with evidence or witnesses, furnishing of the applicant’s address and compliance with travel restrictions.
State vs . Rakesh Kohli on 25 August, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Chief Judicial Magistrate at Tis Hazari acquitted four accused of offences under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act arising from alleged manufacture and sale of counterfeit Bajaj Auto parts and packaging. The Court found that the complainant could not identify the accused, the prosecution’s technical expert was never examined, and the seized goods were not produced, leaving no reliable evidence linking the accused to counterfeit articles.
Elevar Advisors Llc vs Elever Investment Adviser Private … on 31 August, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court dismissed as withdrawn a rectification petition seeking cancellation of the “ELEVER” trademark in Class 42 and removal of related entries from the Trade Marks Register. The Court did not examine the merits after the parties informed it that the trademark dispute had been amicably settled under a Settlement Agreement dated 11 August 2026.
M/S. Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd vs Shamim Akhter on 1 September, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Court permanently restrained the defendants from infringing and passing off the plaintiff’s registered “GOLDIEE” trademark, finding the defendants’ mark phonetically and visually similar and likely to cause confusion in relation to similar goods. It also awarded ₹3.05 lakh in damages, noting the substantial quantity of infringing products seized by the Local Commissioner.
The Division Bench held that the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction over the suit, reversing the Single Judge’s doubts on maintainability. It found that the impugned advertising hoardings had been displayed in Delhi and that the Respondent’s GST records identified Naraina as its principal place of business, satisfying Sections 20(a) and 20(c) CPC.
The Delhi Court upheld its jurisdiction over Apollo Pipes’ trademark infringement suit, holding that the plaintiff could sue in Delhi under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act because its principal place of business was located there. It also noted that the plaintiff’s products were available through e-commerce platforms accessible in Delhi, further supporting territorial jurisdiction.
The Delhi High Court held that hearings under Sections 14 and 25(1) of the Patents Act are distinct, and a pre-grant opposition hearing cannot substitute the applicant’s separate right to be heard under Section 14. It further held that denial of a Section 14 hearing violates a substantive right by depriving the applicant of an opportunity to respond to objections and amend the application.
State vs . Sumit Verma on 31 August, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Court acquitted the accused under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish ownership of the asserted IP rights or prove that the seized goods were counterfeit. It stressed that, in IP prosecutions, the complainant must establish the validity of the rights claimed, identify the infringing goods, and explain how they differ from genuine products.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking cancellation of the registered “FITFEAST” trademark, holding that ASR’s unregistered use could not qualify as an “earlier trademark” under Section 11. It also rejected the passing off claim, finding that ASR had not shown use of “FITFEAST” as a badge of origin or established independent goodwill in the mark.
Other IP Developments
- BRICS IP Offices adopted updated Operational Guidelines for cooperation at the 18th Meeting of Heads of IP Offices of BRICS Countries held in New Delhi.
- Sayani Gupta filed a ₹9 crore defamation suit against filmmaker Vinita Negi over allegedly false copyright infringement claims concerning her short film Aasmani.
- Saket Commercial Court awarded Nike ₹3.1 lakh in damages and permanently restrained three Delhi traders from selling counterfeit products bearing its registered trademarks, including the Swoosh and Jordan Jumpman logos.
- DRDO will retain ownership of the IP in its conventional missile technologies while licensing them on a non-exclusive basis to Indian defence companies for domestic production, with free access to its patent pool and concessional royalty terms.
International IP Developments
- Sony Music, Warner Chappell, others sue Anthropic over copyright infringement in a Northern California federal court.
- The Seattle Times and Newsday sued OpenAI and Microsoft in the Southern District of New York
- The Trump administration has backed OpenAI in its copyright dispute with The New York Times, arguing that the use of copyrighted works to train AI models can qualify as fair use.
- India and Denmark strengthened cooperation on MSME development, innovation and intellectual property at the 4th Joint Working Group meeting.
[Thanks to Sunidhi, Vishaka, and Harini for the case summaries.]
