After a long weekend, we’re back with our weekly roundup of important and interesting IP updates, featuring posts on the NPPA TMR order, ABS, and a comment on evidence-based IP policymaking. We apologise for the delay in bringing you this week’s edition, which is going out a little later than usual. This, and much more, in this edition of the SpicyIP Weekly Review! This Weekly Review is authored by Adyasha Syam. Adyasha is a third-year law student at National Law University Delhi, with a keen interest in intellectual property rights, international criminal law, and alternative dispute resolution.
Anything we missed? Drop a comment and let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Taping the Pipe: NPPA’s Trade Margin Cap on Anti-Cancer Drugs
The NPPA’s latest Trade Margin Rationalisation order for anti-cancer drugs promises significant price reductions, but does little to address the underlying problem. In this post, Rishabh Upadhyay examines the order’s limitations, including unchanged prices for several expensive drugs, reliance on manufacturer-reported data, weak enforcement, and the absence of a permanent pricing framework. He argues that margin caps are merely a stopgap and that meaningful affordability requires deeper structural reforms.
Other Posts
India’s Intellectual Property Policy Needs Evidence, Not Faith
From GUIs and GenAI to clinical trial data, India’s IP regime is seeking to expand—or is expanding—subject-matter protection under vague claims of “innovation” and “global standards.” Yet exclusionary rights inherently raise access costs and curb competition. The exclusionary rights regime—the extension of capitalism into the domain of capitalism—comes with a rider: rights creep, and any subject-matter expansion must be examined with this in mind. Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan, in this abridged piece initially published at the India Forum, discusses how ceaseless subject-matter expansion sans empirical justification or otherwise can lead to the public paying the price in the end.
Unlike plant genetic resources, animal genetic resources have historically moved across borders through centuries of livestock exchange, breeding and interbreeding, making their origins and subsequent utilisation particularly difficult to trace. In this post, Achyuth B Nandan examines India’s blind spots in monitoring their utilisation under the Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) framework and explores how inter-institutional coordination could help address them.
Case Summaries
Rajesh Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand on October 29, 2026 (Jharkhand High Court)
The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to a 52-year-old shopkeeper who was accused of selling counterfeit Gold Flake and Wills Flake cigarettes from his store in Chauparan, Hazaribagh, thereby violating Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act. The petitioner, who had been in custody since September 9, 2026, argued that the allegations were false, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that there was no allegation of inducing anyone to part with property. The Court directed his release on a bail bond of Rs. 25,000, with two sureties of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh. His release on bail is conditional on his cooperation with the trial, furnishing his mobile number and a photocopy of his Aadhaar card, providing an undertaking not to change the number during the trial, and not annoying or disturbing the witnesses.
Ravindra Singh v. Union of India and 4 Others on October 16, 2026 (Allahabad High Court)
In a writ petition under Article 226, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court was asked to direct the Regional Passport Officer to dispose of the petitioner’s pending application for a fresh passport. The petitioner in this case had been issued a show cause notice to explain a pending criminal case under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act. The Court held that the petitioner should first take steps in accordance with the guidelines and procedure laid down in its earlier decisions in Rahimuddin v. Union of India and Wajiruddin Khan v. Union of India. Following this, the Regional Passport Officer must dispose of the application in accordance with those guidelines and the stipulated timeline. The writ petition was disposed of without any order on the merits of the passport application.
The Madras High Court granted an interim injunction in a suit alleging trademark infringement by the “Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg Restaurant” in Thanjavur. The plaintiff, Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP, runs a restaurant chain and holds registrations in Classes 42 and 43 for marks such as “SVR Sangeetha”, “Sangeetha Veg. Restaurant SVR”, “Sangeetha VEG express”, etc. The Court noted that the defendant’s Tamil signboard was an exact reproduction of “Sangeetha”, and that the restaurant was located near a temple frequented by visitors, making the plaintiff’s absence from Thanjavur immaterial. The Court held that the adoption of the name was not honest or bona fide, since the defendant is a recent user with no registration. A hungry customer would not notice differences in colour scheme, spelling or device marks, and would associate the name with the plaintiff. Thus, the Court held that the plaintiff satisfied the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The interim injunction was granted, restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff’s registered marks and operating under the impugned name pending disposal of the suit.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash a criminal complaint registered under Sections 63, 64 and 65 of the Copyright Act for want of prosecution. Proceedings before the Trial Court had been stayed since July 4, 2019. Moreover, adjournments had repeatedly been sought by both sides, the parties did not appear for mediation or before the Court on four dates in July and September 2025, and proxy counsel again sought an adjournment on the day of decision. Observing that a matter in which trial proceedings have been stayed for years cannot be kept pending indefinitely, the Court found no justification for further adjournment and dismissed the petition. The interim stay of July 4, 2019 was vacated, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law. The Court clarified that if an application for revival were to be moved, the parties’ counsel must be fully prepared to argue the matter on merits.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark suit by consent, disposing of an application for summary judgment. The plaintiff had sued for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark “VOLIKING”, alleged to infringe its registered mark “VOLINI”. The plaintiff also claimed infringement of copyright in its artistic label, passing off and damages. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 informed the Court that they had no objection to a decree of permanent injunction provided no damages or costs were awarded against them, and the plaintiff, on instructions, stated that it was not pressing for damages and costs against them. The Court accordingly decreed the suit against Defendant Nos. 1 and 3, restraining them from manufacturing, marketing or selling medicinal preparations under VOLIKING or any deceptively similar mark, whether as infringement or passing off, and from using a label with a font, get-up and trade dress similar to the plaintiff’s artistic label. It also directed delivery up of infringing goods, labels, cartons and other material for destruction or erasure.
Novex Communications Private Limited v. Waltair Club on October 29, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief against a club accused of publicly performing copyrighted sound recordings without permission. The plaintiff had sued for copyright infringement and also brought a quia timet action for apprehended further violations, claiming copyright over sound recordings through assignment agreements. The defendant had already been served an affidavit of service, alongside numerous orders in the plaintiff’s favour, including an order of the Bombay High Court dated September 10, 2026. Despite this, the defendant did not appear. The Court noted that the assignment agreements prima facie demonstrated the plaintiff’s copyright and that the defendant was likely to infringe further. Thus, the Court restrained the defendant and anyone acting on its behalf from publicly performing or communicating the sound recordings, or allowing premises under its control to be used for that purpose, pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit.
M/s Nayasa Superplast v. M/s Shree Ji Industries on October 29, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court declined to vacate an ex parte ad interim injunction in a design and copyright dispute. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of a design for the article “Casserole”. A 2025 injunction restrained the defendant from dealing in products bearing the impugned or a deceptively similar design. The defendant sought vacation on the ground that the design lacks novelty under Sections 4 and 19 of the Designs Act, 2000, based on eight third-party design registrations, images of 18th and 19th century porcelain tureens, and online listings. It alleged concealment of colour-specific registration, which failed since the defendant had not produced a certified copy or Design Office record showing the same. The alleged suppression of prior designs was rejected because the material was not shown to be within the plaintiff’s knowledge. On novelty, the Court held that the museum images showed only the general idea of a covered vessel and could not be assessed without a feature-by-feature comparison, that the online listings were undated or described a different article, and that the third-party registrations required a comparison of representations. Thus, the Court left the interim protection in place, holding that vacating the order on a tentative view would not serve the interests of justice.
Sh. Vikas Malik v. Sh. Dharmendra Ahuja on October 30, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The District Judge of the Tis Hazari Court decreed a trademark suit for permanent injunction and damages, filed by the proprietor of Fashion Footwear against the proprietor of Marc Leather Shoes. The plaintiff claimed rights in the mark “MARC” for footwear in Class 25 since 1997, though his 1997 application was abandoned, and alleged that the defendant’s application for “MARC LEATHER SHOES” and its trade dress infringed his statutory and common law rights. The defendant argued that the suit had become infructuous because he had surrendered the “MARC LEATHER” mark and now used the different mark “L&SMARC”, and that he had in fact applied for “MARC LEATHER” first. The Court found that the defendant had been an employee of the plaintiff or his father for years before starting the same business near the plaintiff’s shop. It held that the plaintiff had proved use of “MARC”, “MARCX” and “MARC LEATHER SHOES”, and registration of “MARC LEATHER SHOES” in Class 25, notwithstanding his admitted abandonment of the 1997 application. It further found that the defendant had violated the plaintiff’s rights, noting the admission that his GST registration was in the name “MARC” and had been suspended by the department rather than formally surrendered, because surrender was said to be expensive. Thus, a decree was passed restraining the defendant and his representatives from using “MARC”, “MARCX” and “MARC LEATHER SHOES” to the detriment of the plaintiff’s rights.
The Delhi High Court issued summons in a trademark infringement and passing off suit and referred the parties to mediation without granting ex parte interim relief. The plaintiffs sought an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in goods or services under the mark “ARS” or any identical or deceptively similar mark, and a direction for takedown of the defendants’ listing on IndiaMart and similar platforms. The Court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, because the suit contemplated urgent interim relief. Summons were issued and the defendants were asked to file a written statement along with an affidavit of admission or denial within 30 days of receipt, and the plaintiffs given liberty to file a replication within 30 days thereafter. Noting that the defendants had applied for the mark “ARS India”, which they abandoned as recorded in the Trade Mark Registry’s orders of June 26, 2025, the Court referred the parties to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, directing them to appear on November 17, 2026. If mediation fails, the interim relief prayer will be considered at the next hearing.
In a 246-page judgment, the Delhi High Court returned 17 commercial IP suits under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC for lack of territorial jurisdiction. It held that mere website accessibility, online listings or a plaintiff-arranged test purchase cannot confer jurisdiction, and that using investigators to create it amounts to “concocting jurisdiction”, subject to limited exceptions. In the lead matter, a Mumbai-based plaintiff had sued an Indore-based defendant, alleging that its “V21” vodka infringed the “YELLO” mark and bottle design. The Court found no material showing sales in Delhi and held that a GST “principal place of business” does not show that business is carried on in Delhi. The Court also held that both infringement and passing off require independently established jurisdiction. A company carries on business at its registered office. Passing off needs commercial-scale sales in the forum. Online infringement requires deliberate targeting and concluded transactions. Courts may decline jurisdiction on forum non conveniens and may disregard bald assertions under the demurrer doctrine. The plaints were returned to be filed before the proper courts.
Kriti Sanon v. BBE Marketing Inc and Others on October 29, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted a narrow ad interim arrangement in an actress’s suit over misuse of her name, image, likeness and voice, declining the omnibus restraint sought. The plaintiff complained of impersonating accounts, AI-morphed and sexually explicit content, chatbots and voice models, merchandise, and pornographic deepfakes. The Court held, prima facie, that “personality rights” is not a single cause of action but a label for distinct claims, including publicity, passing off, privacy, defamation and trade mark or copyright claims. Privacy and dignity are personal and non-assignable, while the right of publicity protects licensable commercial value and is available to everyone, not only celebrities. No statute creates the right, so a plaintiff must specify claims defendant-wise and content-wise. The Court stated that intermediaries are parties for compliance, and directions must identify specific material. Noting the 2026 IT Rules amendments on synthetically generated information, it held the order constitutes actual knowledge under Rule 3(1)(d). Thus, the Court ordered intermediaries to take down listed URLs, and authority defendants to block listed websites. It also restrained other defendants from similar impersonating, explicit, chatbot and merchandise content. However, news, review, criticism, commentary, satire, parody, caricature or fan expression are not covered by the order.
The Delhi High Court granted summary judgment under Order XIIIA of the CPC and decreed a dynamic-injunction suit by six studios (Universal, Warner Brothers, Columbia, Netflix, Paramount and Disney) against 12 original rogue websites and 63 others impleaded later. ISPs, the Department of Telecommunications and MeitY were joined only to ensure compliance. No defendant website filed a written statement, and the ex parte injunction of 12 December 2022 was never challenged. The Court held the application to be maintainable, since it was a specific application on record, summons had been served and issues had not been framed. The Court relied on Order VIII Rule 5(2) of the CPC, which provides that where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, though the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved the Court held the defendant websites to be rogue websites with no real prospect of defending the infringement claim. The suit was decreed for a permanent injunction, ISP blocking, DoT and MeitY notifications and registrar disclosure of operator details.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a Section 50 petition seeking cancellation of the “JEET BIRI with photo device” copyright registration. The petitioner, the proprietor of Andaz Bidi Factory, claimed prior use and relied on the respondent’s own averments in a 2014 Murshidabad civil suit as admitting similarity. The Court compared the labels and found marked differences in name, colour scheme, artwork and the photograph used (an elderly man versus a young boy). The shared features (a name banner, a photograph in a circle and the bidi number), were only ideas or a general format, in which no copyright subsists. The Court said no one can claim exclusivity over generic industry features, and that bust photographs were common on bidi labels. The earlier pleadings were held not to be an admission, since they constituted the respondent’s own untried case. Thus, the petition was dismissed and pending applications were disposed of.
Godpower Media Private Limited v. John Does on November 2, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief against piracy of the film “Namit Malhotra’s Ramayana”, scheduled for theatrical release on 5 November 2026. The plaintiff sued for copyright infringement, damages and rendition of accounts, partly for past leaks and partly as a quia timet action. It joined John Doe defendants, 27 ISPs, five social media and messaging platforms, and MeitY and the DoT as proforma defendants. The footage from its first trailer, shown at a confidential launch on 18 July 2026, and its second trailer, was leaked online, and the plaintiff highlighted dormant links already claiming to offer the film free. The Court found a prima facie real and well-founded apprehension of recording, uploading and streaming, noting that other High Courts had passed similar orders. Granting the relief pressed, the Court restrained the John Doe defendants from infringing the film or any part of it through any medium. It directed ISPs to block, and platforms to take down, the infringing URLs and similar ones the plaintiff notifies, and directed the Government defendants to issue blocking notifications within 36 hours. The ISP and platform defendants were directed to act as soon as the plaintiff notified them of a publication, and the matter was listed again for December 2026.
The Delhi High Court granted limited interim protection against two former senior managers and a company they incorporated, and appointed three Local Commissioners to preserve evidence. The petitioner, which provides customer benefit and loyalty programmes to banks and financial institutions, alleged that the respondents copied confidential data on client categorisation, campaign tracking and commercial terms with Visa and Mastercard, to divert clients. Clause 9 of the 2023 employment contracts made confidentiality survive termination, and Clause 17 treated supplied information as the petitioner’s property. The Court found a prima facie case that customer segmentation and usage data, campaign trackers and client-specific commercial information are protectable. It stated that respondents cannot ordinarily be barred from competing merely because they were former employees, and that the stipulated two-year non-compete must be examined under Section 27 of the Contract Act. The Court restrained the respondents from unauthorised use or disclosure of identifiable confidential information and from running business using it, and directed them to preserve records. The Local Commissioners, at ₹2 lakh per day, were ordered to complete the exercise within one week, avoiding any roving search of the respondents’ personal, private or commercial records.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte and interim injunction in a suit by The Indian Hotels Company Limited, which alleged that the defendant was infringing its well-known marks ‘TAJ’ and ‘VIVANTA’ and copying its hotel photographs on a website offering unauthorised hotel memberships. The plaintiff stated that it has never authorised any third party to sell its memberships, and that the defendant used a fake address and a suspended GSTIN. Finding a prima facie case of infringement and an attempt to suggest association with the plaintiff, the Court restrained the defendant from using the marks or photographs. It directed the registrar and host to disable the domain, also directing the bank to freeze the account and the telecom providers and WhatsApp to block the numbers. The matter was listed on February 12, 2027.
Sri Bharath Reddy v. M/S Nagarjuna Group of Restaurants on November 3, 2026 (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Commercial Court order allowing the plaintiff’s amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC in a trademark suit. After the trial began, the plaintiff sought to delete the words “Andhra Style” and describe its registered trademark as “Nagarjuna 1984”, calling the earlier wording an oversight. The petitioner, who runs “Nagrajuna Andhra Style”, argued that the amendment alters the basis of the suit and takes away admissions. The Court held that the amendment only brings the pleadings in line with the registration certificate, introduces no new cause of action and takes away no admission. As the plaintiff stated that no further evidence would be led, the Court found no prejudice to the petitioner and declined to interfere.
NRB Bearings Limited v. NRB Industrial Bearings Limited on November 4, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court partly allowed a Section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, restraining the respondent from using “NRB Industrial”, “NRB Industrial Bearings” or “NRB INDL” for mobile vehicle bearings. The dispute arose from the 2012 Scheme of Arrangement and the Inter-Company Agreement of 20 January 2025. The Court held that under Clause 1.5.5(c) of the Scheme, “NRB Industrial” was transferred only for industrial bearings. The expiry of the six-year non-compete period freed the respondent to carry on the automotive business but gave it no wider trade mark right. Its Class 12 registration did not prove use and could not override the Agreement, which Clause 4.2 made subject to its restrictions. The Court found a prima facie case of breach and passing off. The respondent’s use of “NRB” in white in its launch presentation and its “NRB Group” representation breached the Scheme, which also required the respondent to change “NRB IBC Bearings Private Limited”, but had not been complied with. The Court directed that the name change be completed within six weeks and stock disclosed within two weeks. It rejected cancellation of the Class 12 registration and refused a stay.
Hermes International v. Eziere Technologies Private Limited on November 2, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark suit by consent, disposing of Hermes International’s claims of infringement, passing off, dilution and tarnishment over replicas and lookalikes of its BIRKIN, PICOTIN and BOLIDE bags, H ORAN sandals, ORAN Nano and RODEO bag charms and silk ribbons. The plaintiff relied on registrations for the BIRKIN bag shape, H ORAN and its H logos, noting that the BIRKIN shape and H ORAN have been declared well-known by this Court. The defendant had removed the infringing listings from its Instagram handle and website and filed an undertaking dated 31 October 2026 to cease dealing in the impugned products and refrain from infringement and passing off. It acknowledged the plaintiff’s proprietary rights in the suit marks and products, undertook to hand over the remaining eight damaged units, and stated that it had bought the goods through Alibaba.com. The Court accepted the undertakings, which bind the defendant on pain of contempt, and directed a full refund of court fee under Section 16 of the Court Fee Act, 1870.
M/s. Prople Health Care v. The Registrar of Trade Marks on October 30, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to the Registrar of Trade Marks to permit renewal of the mark “ARIPEL” in Class 5. The ten-year period ended on February 2, 2025, and the petitioner attempted renewal online only in June 2026. The petitioner argued that the Registrar had not served the notice required under Section 25 of the Trade Marks Act and that the mark remained on the Register. The Registrar relied on a notice sent by speed post on November 19, 2024 to the admitted address, and on a presumption of service. The Court held that once receipt is disputed, the Registrar must produce proof of service. In the present case, no proof was provided to show that the notice was actually served. The Court states that where a mark has not been removed from the Register for non-payment of the renewal fee, delay cannot be held against the petitioner. The Registrar was thus directed to accept the renewal application in physical or online mode, subject to payment of the prescribed fees and charges, and to give effect to the renewal as per law.
Other IP Developments
- Namit Malhotra’s Ramayana secures interim copyright protection via ad-interim injunction from the Bombay High Court.
- Delhi High Court holds that the national capital cannot be the venue of every brand dispute through forum shopping.
- Ministry of Culture signs MoU with Google Arts & Culture to digitise India’s cultural heritage.
- Bombay High Court passes ad interim order to protect Ananya Pandey’s personality rights.
International IP Developments
- Toblerone sues British vegan chocolate brand due to similarities in shape.
- US court dismisses ‘Swim’ copyright lawsuit against South Korean group BTS and HYBE.
- Sony Music & Warner Chappell sue Anthropic for mass copyright infringement in training AI models.
- GSK settles patent litigation with Moderna over COVID-19 and RSV vaccine through cross-licensing agreement.
