After another busy week and a long weekend, here we are with the SpicyIP Weekly Review with discussions on the Delhi High Court’s evolving approach to personality rights, a closer look at the Court’s decision in the Sugammadex patent dispute. We also had posts on copyright strikes and intermediary due diligence, the ongoing Ribociclib litigation before the Kerala High Court, the paper trail in IPRS v. Hotel Appolo, and the Delhi High Court’s evolving approach towards well-known marks and TM oppositions. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review.
Highlights of the Week
[Part I] The Road Not Taken (Down): Delhi HC Starts Sorting the Personality Rights “Salad Platter”
Personality rights filings have been flooding the Delhi High Court, but a fork in the road appears to be emerging. In Part I of this three-part post, Dr. Aakanksha Kumar looks at some of the August 2026 orders as an early sign of the Court beginning to sort the different claims commonly bundled together in personality rights cases. She maps the template prayers seen in several celebrity personality rights cases and examines the orders that have begun to disaggregate them.
[Part II] The Road Not Taken (Down): Delhi HC Starts Sorting the Personality Rights “Salad Platter”
Continuing the discussion on the growing spate of personality rights filings, Part II examines the Delhi High Court’s contribution to an architecture of increasingly broad claims and grants. Dr. Aakanksha Kumar also considers three questions raised by the Aaradhya Bachchan litigation about the limits and reach of personality rights.
[Part III] The Road Not Taken (Down): Delhi HC Starts Sorting the Personality Rights “Salad Platter”
In the final part of the three-part post, Dr. Aakanksha Kumar turns to fandom, fan merchandise, and fan participation in celebrification, while also considering the possibilities for free speech uses of celebrity personality.
SpicyIP Tidbit: All Eyes on Kerala HC’s Final Hearing in the Ribociclib Matter Today
With the Kerala High Court set to hear the Ribociclib litigation, the question of whether Palbociclib is truly an adequate substitute has moved to the centre of the dispute. Rishabh Upadhyay looks at what CDSCO’s own approval records indicate about this question and what they could mean for the ongoing litigation.
General Comment on the IPO’s Draft Pharmaceutical Guidelines (2026)
The CGPDTM’s Draft Pharmaceutical Guidelines (2026) seek to update a framework that has been in place since 2014. With comments due by September 19, Ambika Aggarwal and Praharsh Gour have written to the IP Office requesting that the consultation period be extended to at least 60 days. They also urge stakeholders to engage with the consultation and communicate their views and concerns to the IP Office.
Unpacking Copyright Strikes, Safe Harbour and Due Diligence under the IT Rules: Part 1
The growing overlap between copyright strikes, platform takedowns, and Section 60 suits has pushed the Delhi High Court to examine how far intermediaries can go in acting on copyright complaints. In Part I, Akshat Agrawal looks at what happens once a user contests a copyright claim and whether a platform can continue keeping content down while maintaining its position as a neutral intermediary.
Unpacking Copyright Strikes, Safe Harbour and Due Diligence under the IT Rules: Part 2
Continuing the discussion on copyright strikes, Part II turns to the platforms’ principal defence that takedowns and account terminations form part of the “due diligence” required under the IT Act and Rules. Akshat Agrawal examines how far this claim can actually take platforms and the implications for intermediary safe harbour.
SpicyIP Tidbit: Paper Trail in IPRS v. Hotel Appolo: Missing Caveat and the IPRS License
Following her earlier post on the licensing dispute between IPRS and Hotel Appolo, Sonisha Srinivasan looks at the Supreme Court proceedings concerning the interim stay granted in the matter. The post flags two significant developments: the apparent absence of consideration of an IPRS caveat when the stay was granted ex parte, and the continuing questions around the IPRS licensing arrangement.
Other Posts
Section 14 is Not Section 25: Delhi High Court Revives Sugammadex Patent Bid
The Delhi High Court’s order in Fresenius Kabi v. Controller may ultimately turn on a Section 14 violation, but the concerns it raises go beyond procedure, extending to hindsight, prior-art mosaicking, and the treatment of technical evidence. Pranay Borupothu examines the decision and unpacks the procedural and substantive concerns arising from the Controller’s reasoning.
SpicyIP Tidbit: IP LEX – A Welcome Cushion for Practitioners and Researchers!
A new resource for tracking Indian IP decisions is now available on the IP India website. IP LEX, developed by the Office of the CGPDTM, brings together section-wise summaries of selected IP rulings and decisions in one place. Maneesha Gupta looks at the new initiative and what it could offer practitioners and researchers.
Well-Known Marks: To Declare or Not to Declare?
When can an unlisted mark still claim the special protection reserved for well-known trademarks? In Columbia Pictures v. Registrar of Trade Marks, the Delhi High Court held that a prior Rule 124 declaration is not necessary. Maneesha Gupta examines the ruling and the questions it raises around notice, cross-class protection, and bad-faith adoption.
Case Summaries
Ashish Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 8 September, 2026 (Patna High Cour)
The Patna High Court allowed anticipatory bail in a case where it was alleged that the accused persons sold duplicate Asian Paints products, under Sections 319(2) and Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 63 of the Copyright Act. In this case, the petitioner’s shop, Ashish Enterprises was searched on 5 January 2026, during which he was found to be in possession of 12 containers of duplicate Asian Paints, which were seized and handed over to the prosecution. In the presence of petitioner’s clean conduct as well as the materials on record, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a bail condition of ₹10,000 with two sureties and also the condition under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.
Delhi High Court dismissed a suit filed by Platinex DB Bathware India Pvt. Ltd. against the defendant for infringing its trademark and copyright as well as for passing off its sanitary and bathroom fittings as the plaintiff’s. The Plaintiff argued that the marks “DB” and “D&B” have been used by him since 2008, while the defendant’s mark was “DBS Faucet” and a faucet device. The Court determined the two marks were not deceptively similar as a whole, and found that the combined similarity of the two marks with the common element “DB” was not enough to constitute trademark infringement. The Court also determined that the defendant’s trademark was not a copy of the Plaintiff’s artworks or substantial portion thereof, and was not a passing off. Consequently, the claims for permanent injunction, damages and rendition of accounts were denied, and the suit was dismissed.
The Madras High Court declined to grant leave for launching a commercial suit for infringement of registered trademark “PREETHI HOSPITALS” and passing off under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The applicants argued that the websites of the respondent were available for access in Chennai, the Chennai Trademark Registry was in the name of the respondent, and that the students, patients, and officials were based in Chennai. The Court said that accessibility of a website in Chennai was not enough to make any part of the cause of action to have originated from that place, especially where there was no transaction, enquiry, admission or actual injury in that place. It also concluded that the alleged infringement and use of the impugned marks was made at Sivagangai and the applicants’ business was conducted at Madurai. For this reason, the Court did not find that any part of the cause of action came to its jurisdiction from Chennai and refused to grant leave under Clause 12 of the Rules; even the Court noted that, otherwise, the forum was not natural or convenient for the disputes that had to be before it.
M/S. Arunachalaa Enterprises vs M/S. R. Sukumar, Proprietor, on 9 September, 2026(Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court dismissed a review petition challenging its earlier order transferring a patent infringement suit from the District Court to the High Court to be heard along with an independent patent revocation petition. The review petitioner contended that revocation of the patent could only be sought by way of a counter-claim after an infringement suit has been instituted and, in the absence of any such counter-claim, the District Court has jurisdiction. The Court did not accept this argument and ruled that Section 64 of the Patents Act allows a defendant to bring a revocation action either as a counter-claim or in an independent revocation action. It also held that, if a suit of infringement is filed before the High Court, after the revocation is sought before that Court, there is no need for parallel proceedings and conflicting decisions and, therefore, the revocation suit may be transferred to the High Court under the proviso to Section 104 and Section 13 of the Letters Patent. The Court did not find any error on the face of the record and hence dismissed the review petition and also closed the application for stay.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit for trademark infringement and passing off in favour of the Plaintiff after the Defendants undertook not to use the impugned marks TENDA-500 and TENDA-CV, or any identical/deceptively similar marks. Defendant No. 1 also stated that the impugned marks had not been used for the preceding three years, while Defendant No. 2 submitted that it had only manufactured products for Defendant No. 1 and had no independent use or future intention to use the marks. Based on these undertakings, the Plaintiff gave up the remaining reliefs, and the suit was decreed in terms of the specified reliefs. The suit and pending application were accordingly disposed of, with Defendant No. 1 directed to file an affidavit of undertaking.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr vs Alkem Laboratories Limited on 1 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court recorded the settlement between the parties in a patent infringement suit concerning Indian Patent Nos. IN 205147 and IN 235625. The parties had amicably resolved their disputes through a confidential Settlement Agreement and agreed to discharge each other from all claims, counterclaims, demands, costs, damages, and causes of action arising from the suit. As part of the settlement, the Defendant agreed to withdraw its challenge to the validity of the suit patents and also waived its right to claim the ₹5 lakh costs awarded in its favour in earlier appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed, the settlement was recorded, and the suit was disposed of.
Shikhar Misra vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in a petition challenging the mandatory use of Aadhaar-based authentication for e-KYC and access to the IP India e-filing portal, issued notice to the Respondents. The Petitioner sought, inter alia, quashing of the Public Notice dated 09.07.2026 and subsequent notices, provision of non-Aadhaar-based alternatives for e-KYC, uninterrupted portal access without mandatory Aadhaar authentication, and safeguards against de-registration or restriction of Patent Agents and Trade Marks Attorneys except in accordance with the prescribed statutory procedure. The Respondents accepted notice and were directed to file their counter affidavit within four weeks, after which the Petitioner could file a rejoinder within four weeks. The matter was listed for 05.11.2026, with directions for the order to be uploaded forthwith.
Montblanc-Simplo Gmbh vs Amit Kumar Sehgal on 31 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court recorded the Defendant’s undertaking not to use the Plaintiff’s registered MONTBLANC trademarks, including the Three Ring Device and Star Device, or any identical/deceptively similar marks, on products, websites, or otherwise, in a manner amounting to infringement. The Defendant also agreed to disclose the list of suppliers who had supplied the impugned products. Accordingly, the Court directed the Defendant to file an affidavit of undertaking and disclosure within six weeks, and the matter was listed for 15.10.2026.
The Bombay High Court deprecated IITB’s continued pursuit of a patent application despite its worldwide Deed of Assignment in favour of the petitioner, the original inventor. The Controller had rejected the application under Section 15, finding that IITB failed to establish its right to the patent, while also refusing to recognise the petitioner’s rights on the basis of his status as an IITB employee and the “duty to invent” principle. The Court held that IITB retained no residual right, title or interest after the assignment and that the application should have been processed in the petitioner’s name. It further held that a hearing under Section 25(1)(a) did not preclude a subsequent hearing under Section 14 on merits.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG and Anr. filed a suit before the Bombay High Court seeking damages against the defendants for their alleged past infringement of its patent, which has expired. Since the defendants did not appear before the Court, the Court granted them another opportunity to present their case before taking a final view on the plaintiff’s application seeking discovery of information and records.
The Delhi Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge denying the grant of an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the respondents. The Court observed that the appeal against a discretionary order is governed by the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with the Single Judge’s discretion unless exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or contrary to settled law. The Court found that there was no legal infirmity in the principles followed by the learned Single Judge, who had noted the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate that the essential features of its patent claims were present in the defendants’ devices. The Court, as noted by the learned single judge, also took into account the appellant’s delay in instituting the present proceedings in 2023, when the respondents’ products had been sold in India since 2014, and plaintiff were aware of the same while filing Form 27.
Rajan Monga vs The State And Another on 2 September, 2026(Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR registered for offences punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act after the parties entered into a compromise through a Settlement Deed. In the present case, during a raid conducted by the police, it was found that the premises under the control of the accused were being used for manufacturing counterfeit Levi’s products.
Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Kriplani vs State Of Gujarat on 7 September, 2026(Gujarat High Court)
The Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957, deprecated the practice of camouflaging trademark disputes as copyright infringement, and termed it an “abuse of law”. The Court held that selling duplicate hardware bearing a trademark constitutes trademark falsification under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, rather than copyright infringement. It also noted that the statutory safeguards under Section 115(4) had not been followed, as no prior opinion was obtained from the Registrar and the raid was conducted by a Police Inspector instead of a DSP. The Court further held that commercial packaging, MRP stickers and hardware could not be treated as “literary works” under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act.
Levi Strauss & Co vs Ranjeet Kumar Mahto on 3 September, 2026(Delhi District Court)
The Delhi District Court granted a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff in an ex parte proceeding, in a suit filed for trademark infringement and passing off. In the present case, the defendants infringed the trade mark of the plaintiff by adopting a deceptively similar mark and passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. While noting that, in a case that has proceeded ex parte, the Court is not bound to grant relief merely because the plaint is unrebutted, the Court proceeded to grant an injunction in favour of the plaintiff, taking into account the report of the Local Commissioner and the inventory of impugned goods prepared at the site as evidence on record. Further, the court has also taken adverse inference against the defendants for staying away from the proceedings and entitled the plaintiff to notional damages.
Vikas Mandoth vs Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company … on 7 September, 2026(Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court declined to vacate an ex parte injunction, finding prima facie that the plaintiff was the prior user of the “GLOBE” mark and that the defendants’ phonetically and visually similar mark in a vernacular language amounted to infringement. The Court also noted that the defendants’ mark was filed on a “proposed to use” basis and that opposition/rectification proceedings were pending, negating any presumption of validity. It held that objections concerning alleged document fabrication and the maintainability of the suit could be decided only at trial.
Pawan Kumar & Anr vs State Of Hp And Anr on 7 September, 2026 (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
The petitioners sought quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC read with Sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act. During the trial, the parties amicably settled the dispute, and the complainant confirmed before the Court that the settlement was voluntary and that he had no objection to the proceedings being quashed. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anand Kumar @ Sanjay Lalwani v. State of MP, the Court held that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process and accordingly quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendant’s “War on What’s Hidden” campaign, alleging that its claims about ingredients in VIM and Surf Excel products disparaged them and encouraged consumers to “Switch to BECO.” The defendant argued that the ingredient-specific claims were supported by lab testing and merely stated that the ingredients “can cause” skin irritation. The Court held that disparagement requires both falsity and injury, but found that the campaign’s overall presentation could mislead consumers into believing that the plaintiff’s finished products were unsafe. It accordingly directed the defendant to remove and recall the offending advertisements within one week, while clarifying that the order did not restrain otherwise lawful comparative advertising.
Surya Roshni Limited vs Maddi Ramiah Kutati on 10 September, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff sued the defendant for infringement of its registered “SURYA” trademark and passing off after a Local Commissioner recovered 865 boxes of finished goods and around 15,850 infringing packaging items from his manufacturing unit. The Court rejected the defendant’s claim of innocent adoption, noting that his earlier application for “SURYACAB FR” had been refused for being identical to the plaintiff’s mark and that the scale of his operations indicated deliberate infringement. Finding infringement, passing off and unfair competition, the Court granted a permanent injunction and awarded ₹15,00,000 in punitive damages with 9% annual interest, along with delivery up of the infringing goods and packaging for destruction.
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
- The Delhi High Court restrained unauthorised use of Rajat Sharma’s name, image and voice, including through AI-generated deepfakes
- Authorities in Bengaluru seized a large stock of allegedly counterfeit medicines from a private facility, Krupa Healthcare near Minerva Circle
- The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of an interim injunction against Xiaomi, holding that the plaintiff’s nine-year delay was sufficient to deny interim relief.
- Saregama has approached the Delhi High Court seeking contempt action against Ilaiyaraaja for allegedly violating an earlier copyright order.
International IP Developments
- Samsung argues before the England and Wales High Court that Dua Lipa cannot pursue her $15 million lawsuit over the unauthorised use of her image as English law does not recognise a standalone right of publicity.
- The EU’s top court has allowed IKEA to pursue legal action against Belgian far-right party Vlaams Belang for using its trademarks and branding in an anti-immigration campaign.
- Authors are seeking a greater share of Anthropic’s $1.5 billion copyright settlement, arguing that publishers should not receive portions of the payout attributable to works whose copyrights they do not own.
[Thanks to Harini, Sunidhi, and Vanshika for the summaries.]
