Beating the Monday blues after a long weekend, here we are with the first Weekly Review of October, featuring a post on Section 124, case summaries of orders passed by different High Courts last week, and updates on other national and international IP developments. Anything we’re missing? Drop a comment and let us know below.
Highlights of the Week
Can Section 124 be Invoked in Section 47 Cancellation Proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
The interplay between trademark infringement proceedings and non-use cancellation proceedings under Sections 47 and 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 raises a deceptively simple question: can a Section 47 proceeding trigger a stay of an infringement suit? With the Calcutta and Delhi High Courts taking divergent approaches, Arushi Bisht and Snehal Singh examine the statutory and practical implications of treating “rectification proceedings” under Section 124 as encompassing non-use cancellation proceedings.
Case Summaries
Atul Bhaleraav Patil v. State of Gujarat on September 30, 2026 (Gujarat High Court)
A plea to quash an FIR regarding fake Honda car parts and stickers with a Honda wing logo has been rejected by the Gujarat High Court. The applicant claimed that this is really just a case of trademark infringement and therefore he should have access to protections under Section 115(4), the Trademarks Act. The Court ruled that independent rights were granted by copyright protection of the registered artistic logo. Additionally, since the logo was not a “design” within the framework of the Designs Act, it cannot be said to come under section 15(2), of the Copyright Act. It was also found that the absence of a copyright registration certificate in the charge sheet could be cured, and the application for the search and seizure under Section 64 was accepted.
The Delhi District Court rejected a copyright infringement suit relating to the songs “Patthar Ke Sanam”, “Wo Aata Hoga” and “Tum Mere Baad Mohabbat Ko”. The plaintiffs claimed the copyrights to the songs on the basis of agreements and NOCs signed by the singer, lyricist and music composer. The court held that simply getting copyright registration is not proof enough to claim ownership rights to it and must examine the authorship, assignment of rights and prior publication in each song. The plaintiffs failed to prove the valid assignment of copyright in the songs and the suit was dismissed.
In the matter of an appeal against an order granting an interim injunction restraining the appellants from using the trademark “HoneyRaj” and “HoneyRaj Gold Tea” which is claimed to be deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the respondent “Pevand’s Honey Gold,” the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the appeal, holding that both the trademarks have to be compared as a whole in accordance with the Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra which was relied on by the apellants. The Court distinguished the present dispute concerned tea with wrappers having almost identical names, similar colour combinations and design. Interim Injunction was upheld
Rio Children’s Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs Rajesh Jayaraj on 30 September, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court refused a plea seeking transfer of an infringement suit and passing off in respect of the trademark “RIO” to the Intellectual Property Division of the Madras High Court from the Principal District Court, Madurai along with a rectification proceeding in respect of “RIO SCANS AND LABS.” The Court said that the provisions under Rule 14 of the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, which allow for consolidation of cases involving similar trademarks, is discretionary and do not necessarily arise out of the fact that both the cases involve the same or related marks. The Court held that a passing off case must be decided separately based on prior use, goodwill, misrepresentation, and confusion.
The Delhi High Court granted Incyte Holdings Corporation and its co-plaintiffs an ex parte ad interim injunction against Melody Healthcare Private Limited over Indian Patent No. 269841, covering Ruxolitinib. The plaintiff argued that in July 2026 it found the defendant listing Ruxolitinib Phosphate on its own product list and on the third-party platform Pharmacompass. An investigation report dated 9th September, 2026 confirmed the defendant had obtained a manufacturing licence from Maharashtra’s drug control authority and developed an in-house generic version intended for commercial manufacture. The Court held that listing and soliciting enquiries on a commercial platform amounted to an “offer for sale” under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, and found a prima facie case and balance of convenience in the plaintiffs’ favour since the patent remained valid and unexpired while the defendant had yet to actually launch its product, restraining the defendant from manufacturing, stockpiling, selling or otherwise dealing in Ruxolitinib formulations till the next hearing on 20th January, 2027.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors vs M/S Pooja Lubricant on 24 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted Aktiebolaget Volvo an ex parte ad interim injunction against M/s. Pooja Lubricant over “MAX VOLVO” and “MAX VOLWO” lubricants. It held that “MAX VOLVO” reproduced VOLVO in its entirety, with “MAX” merely suggesting a premium variant, while “MAX VOLWO” was visually and phonetically similar, given the common conflation of “V” and “W”. The Court also found no acquiescence since the plaintiffs kept investigating and filed a registry protest after discovering an IndiaMART listing in April 2026. The defendant was restrained from using the impugned marks, directed to take down the listing within a week, and the matter listed for 2nd November, 2026.
Novartis Ag & Anr vs Novosys Life Sciences Private Limited on 25 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit by Novartis AG against Novosys Life Sciences Private Limited over infringement of the well-known mark NOVARTIS, and disposed of two connected rectification petitions together, after the defendant voluntarily undertook by affidavits to cease using NOVOSYS, changed its corporate name to SYSOWN LIFE SCIENCES, took down its domain and initiated withdrawal of its NOVOSYS registrations and applications. It granted the defendant three month to exhaust existing stock, recorded the plaintiffs’ waiver of damages, and directed cancellation of the NOVOSYS registrations.
Rpg Enterprises Limited vs The Registrar Of Trademarks on 28 September, 2026 (Madras HighCourt)
The Madras High Court dismissed RPG Enterprises’ petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of RPG Marble Pvt. Ltd.’s Class 42 registration, holding the petition barred by acquiescence under Section 33 of the Act rather than ruling on deceptive similarity. The Court found that the plaintiff had issued a notice to the respondent in 2002 and the suit was only filed in 2017. Applying Union of India v. N. Murugesan on the distinction between acquiescence, delay and laches, the Court held that such prolonged inaction after knowledge amounted to acquiescence, rendering the remaining framed issues, including alleged dishonest adoption and the well-known mark’s retrospective effect, unnecessary to decide. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
The Bengaluru Commercial Court decreed a suit filed by Hitek Fine Chemicals Private Limited against Pankaj Chemie Industries for infringement and passing off of the registered marks WONDER, MARBLE WONDER, WHITE WONDER and WONDER ENHANCER. The defendant entered appearance but neither filed a written statement within the statutory 120-day period nor cross-examined PW-1, leaving the plaintiff’s evidence, including its trademark certificates and the retailer’s affidavit, unrebutted, from which the Court drew a presumption that the defendant had no defence. Holding the impugned mark identical with and deceptively similar to the registered WONDER marks, and noting a Court Commissioner’s report indicating defendant transactions of approximately Rs. 80,00,000, the Court granted a permanent injunction against further infringement and passing off, directed delivery up of the infringing stock and material for destruction, declared the plaintiff entitled to damages, and directed the defendant to render accounts of profits, on the basis of which the plaintiff may pursue final decree proceedings to quantify damages.
Shri Kishore Kumar Jain & Anr vs The Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors on 23 September, 2026
The Delhi High Court issued notice on a petition filed under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking removal of the impugned artistic work from the Register of Copyrights. The petitioners contended that respondent No. 3 was claiming rights over the impugned copyright by virtue of an Assignment Deed dated 29.03.1994, which, according to the petitioners, was a forged document, as no such assignment had ever taken place.
Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corp & Anr vs Mr Sandeep Goel & Anr on 28 September, 2026
The Delhi High Court disposed of an application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC seeking a decree in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The suit was filed pertaining to copyright infringement concerning the Plaintiffs’ software programmes. The Court, after finding that the settlement was lawful, reduced to writing and duly signed by the parties, passed a compromise decree in terms of the settlement. The settlement contained a clause under which the Plaintiffs agreed not to initiate any civil or criminal prosecution or institute any complaint against the Defendants in respect of any or all facts constituting the whole or part of the cause of action of the suit, subject to the Defendants not being in breach of any of the terms of the settlement.
Alticor Inc vs Mars Cosmetics Private Limited And Ors on 29 September, 2026
In the present case, after execution of an affidavit with respect to prayers (a) and (b) made in the suit filed by the Plaintiff seeking a permanent/perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks, the Defendants undertook in the affidavit that they shall not infringe the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks. The Plaintiff gave up prayers (c), (d) and (e) made in the suit. The Court accordingly held that the suit stands decreed in terms of the affidavit.
Akums Drugs Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs The Controller Of Patents & Anr on 28 September, 2026
The Delhi High Court disposed of the suit pursuant to a settlement application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), read with Section 151 of the CPC. The suit was filed seeking damages or other reliefs in relation to the alleged past infringement of the Plaintiffs’ patent covering the drug Dapagliflozin, which had expired on 02.10.2020.
Ankur Mahajan vs Vrv Sattvic Private Limited & Ors on 25 September, 2026
The Delhi High Court granted additional time to the Petitioner to file additional documents, as sought by the Petitioner. The petition was filed under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation/removal of the Respondents’ impugned mark from the Register of Trade Marks.
Sh Shashi Bhushan & Ors vs State Of Delhi & Ors on 25 September, 2026
The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR registered under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, after the parties entered into a settlement agreement by way of a compromise deed. The case was filed alleging that the Petitioners were stocking and selling unlicensed products which were counterfeit and bore infringing marks. The Court observed that, although the offences were non-compoundable in nature, they had a commercial/civil flavour of the kind covered by the dicta in Gian Singh v State of Punjab, and accordingly quashed the FIR in view of the settlement between the parties.
Other IP Developments
- Haryana Govt. launches “Patent Support, Commercialisation and Innovation Facilitation Policy 2026-27” under which the govt. will reimburse fees up to INR 50,000 if any student, researcher, or institution gets a patent for its invention registered.
- Kerala High Court clarifies that the Central Govt. can use Section 100 to make exorbitantly priced drugs available on a non-commercial basis
- Delhi High Court expresses concern over Instagram’s Remix feature. Calls it “a tool for copyright violation”
- Supreme Court refuses to interfere with Delhi High Court ruling against Ilaiyaraaja in ‘En Iniya Pon Nilave’ copyright dispute.
- CBI books Dahisar-based patent agent over alleged ₹1.65-lakh bribe demand to influence Patent Office official.
- CGPDTM releases Draft guidelines for registration of designs relating to GUI & icon on October 1. Invites comments within 30 days from relevant stakeholders.
International IP Developments
- US appeals court upholds Thomson Reuters’ win against Ross Intelligence in copyright dispute over alleged use of copyrighted material to train an AI legal-search tool.
- Moderna files a fresh patent infringement suit against BioNTech and Pfizer before the UPC’s Hamburg Local Division over Comirnaty vaccine, seeking damages for alleged infringement of its mRNA vaccine patent
- Huawei agrees to a multi-year patent licensing deal with Qualcomm
[Thanks to Vanshika, Harini and Kaustub for helping us with the case summaries.]
