A quick tidbit on the free online version of Feroz Ali’s treatise on patent law, interesting orders from various High Courts, and exciting national and international IP developments in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we’ve missed? Drop a comment and let us know!
Highlights of the Week
SpicyIP Tidbit: Ali on Patents – A Treatise Built for Reading, Citing and Keeping Up
Patent research often means working through lengthy judgments to find the reasoning that matters. Prof. Feroz Ali’s newly launched “Ali on Patents” aims to make this process easier, bringing together judicial decisions and doctrinal commentary in a free, online resource. Rishabh Upadhyay takes it for a spin to see how it works in practice and shares his thoughts.
Case Summaries
In two petitions filed in the Delhi High Court under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, for rectification of the Copyright Register, the Court has disposed of the petitions after a mediated settlement. Respondent No. 1 acknowledged that the petitioner had filed five opposition and rectification proceedings, all of which had been withdrawn. The Court ruled the settlement valid, set the terms of the settlement into its order, and ordered the Registrar of Copyrights to implement the settlement within six weeks of the order. Pending applications were also disposed of.
Beone Medicines I GmbH v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited on 16 October 2026 (Delhi High Court)
In a patent infringement action against MSN Laboratories concerning Zanubrutinib, the company agreed not to supply or sell the drug in India or anywhere in the world, except as allowed under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970. For activities claimed to be within Section 107A, MSN also took steps to prove that the product’s end use and the purpose of any sale or export for the purpose of providing information for submission to regulatory authorities in compliance with Indian or importing-country law were consistent with the holding in Bayer Corporation v. Union of India. The Court recorded the undertaking, bound the defendant to it and disposed of the interim injunction application.
Dr. Reddy’s alleged wilful disobedience of injunction orders restraining the defendants from using the mark VENSIA and operating the associated website. Although earlier stated that the mark and website would no longer be used, the plaintiff alleged that the mark and website continued to be manufactured and sold under VENSIA. Defendants did not reply to the contempt application and did not appear on the previous 2 dates. The Court issued bailable warrants of ₹25,000 each against Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, returnable on 10 February 2027. It also impleaded two proposed defendants as Defendants Nos. 3 and 4.
Exponent Energy Private Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks on 15 October 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court, in Application No. 5432621 before it, in Class 42, quashed the refusal of the word mark EXPONENT, on the ground that the Registrar had not given sufficient reasons or adequately considered the competing marks, service specification, evidence of use and the appellant’s submissions under Sections 12, 18(4) and 20 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The case was remanded for further consideration. The Registrar shall, independently review the cited marks, determine their current status, consider the evidence and determine each statutory request based on reasoned findings within three months of the first hearing.
Shimow Hospitality Private Limited v. M/S Benne Delhi on 16 October 2026 (Delhi High Court)
In a passing off action against the BENNE mark for South Indian dining outlets, the Delhi High Court issued an ex parte ad interim injunction. The plaintiff’s reliance was on its use of the mark and its goodwill in the restaurant business and the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had used a similar mark for the same services. The Court found a prima facie case and irreparable injury, and therefore, prohibited the defendant from using BENNE, BENNE DELHI or any similar or identical mark in its business, advertisement, trade name, domain name or social media profile until the next hearing, to the extent that it is likely to lead to a misapprehension that it is providing the plaintiff’s services.
The Supreme Court had dismissed a special leave petition challenging copyright and the story and screenplay of the film Vinnapalu Vinavale Vinthalu after the two parties had gone through a mediated settlement. The producer agreed to pay the writer a sum of ₹12 lakh as full and final settlement for his contribution and associated rights. The writer was credited in the settlement with the settlement in his name and the screenplay was credited as “Ashok Bommareddy and other names”, with the rights being assigned to the producer. The Court accepted the settlement agreement and ordered the parties to abide by the terms of the agreement.
The Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction barring the defendants from using the marks ACNE SCAR, ACNE + SCAR, ACNESCAR or any similar or confusingly similar mark in connection with any pharmaceutical, medicinal, skin care or allied products. Plaintiff used its registered mark, ACNESTAR, and defendants sold a product using the mark, HEXILAK ACNE+SCAR. The Court concluded that there was a prima facie likelihood of confusion, given the similarity of the marks, overlapping consumer groups and trade channels, and the need to be cautious with medicinal products. Defendant No. 2 was granted two months to recall existing stock and to withdraw the listings, which did not allow for additional sales or supply using the impugned mark.
Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Ishu Singh & Anr. on 16 October 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted ex parte interim relief against a website using EXPERION and the project name “EXPERION EMERELLE RESERVE”, while allegedly misrepresenting itself as an authorised channel partner of the plaintiff. The Court restrained the website owner from dealing in goods or services under EXPERION or deceptively similar marks and from using the plaintiff’s artistic work. The domain registrar was directed to disable, take down and block experionemerellereserve[dot]in within 72 hours of receiving notice and provide the registrant’s basic subscriber information, including contact details, IP logs and registration details, under sealed cover within two weeks.
Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Rishabh Saroha & Ors. on 16 October 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in an ex parte order, issued interim protection to Experion Developers against another website that was allegedly using its EXPERION marks and promoting the plaintiff’s upcoming “EXPERION EMERELLE RESERVE” project without permission. The Court placed a temporary injunction on Defendants Nos. For using the plaintiff’s marks or artistic work in a way that constitutes infringement or passing off, 1 and 2. It also ordered Defendant No. 3, the domain registrar, to shut down or remove experionemerellereserve.com. The defendants were permitted to file replies to the injunction application, and the matter was listed for further proceedings.
The Delhi High Court granted summary judgment to the Plaintiff, the owners of the ANANTARA marks, in the absence of any appearance or filing of written statements by the Defendants. The Court held that the challenged trademarks, namely ANANTARA DOWNTOWN, ANANTARA RESIDENTIAL RESORT and ANANTARA RESIDENCE, were employed in connection with the same or similar hospitality and real estate services and constituted the essential characteristic of the trademarks. It permanently forbade the defendants from using the ANANTARA or any mark which is “deceptively similar” to ANANTARA, including online identifiers and promotional material implying an affiliation with the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs gave up any claims for damages and costs.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Nothing Technology Limited & Ors. on 16 October 2026 (Delhi High Court)
In Philips’ patent infringement action related to Indian Patent Nos. 294973, 375107, 251053 and 248604, the Delhi High Court issued notice on the interim injunction application without deciding the request for interim relief. Philips sought security during the proceedings and the defendants were directed to submit their replies including details of their operations in India and availability of assets. The Court also allowed certain confidential licensing documents and the defendants’ tested devices to be filed in sealed covers and additional documents and an expert affidavit with electronic annexures to be placed on record. The applications were listed for further consideration on 30 November 2026.
SML Limited v. Mohan & Company & Anr. on 15 October 2026 (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
The product ZeekaSulf was found to be infringing the Indian Patent No. 282092, which covers an agricultural composition, and the High Court of the state of Himachal Pradesh dismissed SML’s application for an interim injunction. The Court concluded that SML had failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of territorial jurisdiction, especially in respect of the alleged participation of Defendant No. 2 in the transactions in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Court therefore did not consider the merits of the patent infringement claims. It stated that it would only be observing the interim application and would not decide the merits of the suit. The matter was listed for admission and denial of documents on 6 January 2027.
The Madras High Court allowed North Face’s appeal against refusal of its patent application for “Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management”. The Court determined that the examiner had failed to properly evaluate the claimed invention as a whole, but had instead mixed teachings from the prior-art documents D21–D24. It pointed out that the invention involved the use of invisible markers which were detected by a spectrophotometer to track articles and monitor manufacturing processes, which features were not disclosed by the cited documents, even taken together. The Court found the impugned order to be unsustainable due to the lack of proper analysis of inventive step, and set it aside, thereby remanding the patent application, No. 202147026139, to the Controller for further proceedings.
The Madras High Court dismissed Inexo’s appeal against refusal to register FEDEXO in Class 1. It determined that “FEDEX” had become a well-known mark in India prior to the filing of Inexo’s application in 2009, and that FEDEXO used the FEDEX mark with the mere addition of the letter “O”. The Court found that though the goods and services are different, registration would be a nuisance to FEDEX and would be prima facie unfair use of or damage to its distinctive character or reputation under Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Inexo did not prove honest concurrent use or due cause and inconsistencies in the date of adoption were evidence of bad faith. The refusal was upheld.
Other IP Developments
- Delhi High Court returns Niva Bupa’s trade mark infringement suit against a social media influencer on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The Delhi High Court restrains 63 websites, including 123MoviesHub and Putlocker domain, from unauthorised streaming of copyright works.
- Karnataka High Court clarifies that litigants do not have an absolute right to copies of recordings unless specifically ordered by a Court.
International IP Developments
- AstraZeneca partners with Oracle for AI-driven clinical trials
- US Supreme Court unable to hear a copyright petition by BMG Rights Management LLC and other publishers as 4 judges recuse owing to book publishing deals with the publishers.
[Thanks to Kaustub for case summaries.]
