Announcing the 2026 Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition, a post on the ongoing Cadila-Hetero biosimilar dispute ahead of the Supreme Court hearing, and posts on the Indian Designs Office’s draft GUI Guidelines and the Trade Marks Registry’s proposed framework for the use of AI in proceedings. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Announcing the 2026 Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition on Intellectual Property Law
We are delighted to announce the 2026 edition of the Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition on Intellectual Property Law, celebrating Prof. Basheer’s enduring contributions to IP scholarship. Known for his intellectual rigour, unconventional thinking, and willingness to challenge established ideas, Prof. Basheer’s work continues to inspire new ways of thinking about intellectual property. We invite students and aspiring IP scholars to participate in this year’s competition and carry forward that spirit through their own writing. Find the eligibility criteria, submission guidelines, and details of the prizes above!
On 3 November 2026, the Supreme Court will hear SLPs by Zydus (formerly Cadila) and Hetero against a Delhi High Court discovery order. The DHC order had directed both companies to file their confidential (?) regulatory data on their biosimilars in a sealed cover, for Roche to examine in a confidentiality club. Overall, the matter is a curious one. Roche’s suits are about passing off. But they depend on Roche’s claim that the DCGI approved these drugs wrongly. The order does not say how disclosure of the defendants’ regulatory data follows from the claim of passing off. In this post, Rishabh Upadhyay analyses the reasoning of the order and the questions it leaves open. Why is confidentiality denied, yet a confidentiality club is built that gives only Roche an expert? Why is the DCGI missing from the order? Why is the discovery test narrower than the one the Court quotes? And why were all classes of documents ordered?
[Part I] RAM, Routine, and Rights: Looking at the IP Chapter in the EU-India Draft FTA
The draft India-EU FTA’s Intellectual Property Chapter raises concerns about its potential implications for India’s existing copyright framework, particularly its provisions on temporary and indirect reproduction rights. In Part I of her 2 part post, Maneesha Gupta breaks down how Articles 10.11, 10.12, and 10.13 may introduce expansive reproduction rights for authors, performers, and phonogram producers.
Can an Animation Be a Design? Examining India’s Draft GUI and Icon Design Guidelines, 2026
The Indian Designs Office’s draft GUI Guidelines mark an important step following the Calcutta High Court’s decision in NEC Corporation v. Controller of Patents on the registrability of GUIs. Harshita Bhola writes on the Guidelines, noting that while they are a welcome improvement that could bring greater consistency and predictability to examination practices, the proposed requirement to submit separate representations of individual frames risks overlooking the creative contribution underlying an animation.
The draft Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry seek to address the growing concerns around AI-generated fabricated citations and misleading evidence. However, as explained by Kaustub Boidi, the proposed framework leaves important questions unanswered about the Registry’s own verification responsibilities, the treatment of legitimate AI-assisted translations, and whether the prescribed consequences are proportionate to different forms of non-compliance.
Other Posts
Draft Trade Marks Manual 2026: Gaps DPIIT Must Address Before It Goes Final
The Draft Manual on Trade Marks: Practice & Procedure 2026 updates the 2015 version, adds a chapter on well-known marks and, for the first time, addresses consent for AI-generated representations of a person in a mark. In this post, Gaurangi Kapoor discusses the gaps she found on a close reading: a fifteen-day comment window for a manual of over two hundred pages, an undefined “AI-generated representation” in paragraph 2.6.1 and how it sits with the Registry’s Draft AI Guidelines, an overstated claim on prior user rights in Chapter 7, and a Mumbai-only filing requirement for objections to well-known marks.
Hidden AI Prompts in Petitions: Why Indian Courts Should Take This Up Suo Motu
As courts increasingly turn to AI tools for legal research and document processing, could hidden instructions embedded in pleadings manipulate the outputs they rely on? In this post, Rohit Pradhan examines the threat of prompt injection in judicial proceedings, distinguishes it from AI hallucinations, and proposes safeguards for e-filing systems and legal accountability in India. Rohit Pradhan is an IP litigator based in Delhi, practising before the Delhi High Court.
Can You Trademark Your Way Out of Bad PR? Delhi HC Fines Niva Bupa Re. 1 for Trying
Recently, the Delhi High Court, in Niva Bupa v. Vishal Rattewal, imposed Re. 1 in notional costs after finding the plaintiffs’ suit to be a “misuse” of the IPD’s special jurisdiction. In this post, Aryan Agrawal examines whether the failure of a trademark infringement claim is sufficient to constitute such misuse, and whether the Court adequately considered the IPD Rules’ express inclusion of disparagement within its remit.
Case Summaries
State v. Rakesh Chaturvedi on October 15, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Delhi court acquitted Rakesh Chaturvedi of the charges of possessing counterfeit Maruti Suzuki products as well as the printing press and equipment for printing spurious stickers under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The seized articles could not be produced because they were destroyed in a fire at the police station’s malkhana. As a result, the identity of the case property could not be established and the complainant could not identify the accused either. The prosecution was thus unsuccessful, giving the accused the benefit of the doubt.
Sun TV Network Limited v. M/s. RK Movies and Another on October 14, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court issued an interim injunction, prohibiting the second defendant from uploading, streaming, telecasting and otherwise publishing the Telugu films Rowdy Rudhraiya, Ambuli 3D and Nenu Devudni without permission. Under contracts signed on April 19, 2013 and May 28, 2013, Sun TV acquired exclusive copyright assignments of the films. The first defendant acknowledged the assignment in favour of Sun TV, whereas the second defendant contended that he had acquired the rights from the first defendant. The Court granted the injunction on the basis of a prima facie case and risk of irreparable damage and ordered compliance with the third provision of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. Notice was returnable on November 10, 2026.
The ITAT accepted appeals for the assessment years 2022–23 and 2023–24, omitting additions in respect of software distribution receipts valued at about ₹43.55 crore as royalty and fees for technical services (FTS). The Tribunal applied the principle laid down in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. v. CIT that a choice or configuration of existing software modules is not transfer of copyright rights. The Revenue also did not find any actual technical, managerial or consultancy services provided for the impugned consideration. The Assessing Officer was instructed to remove the additions from both the assessment years.
The Commercial Court dismissed Mahesh Namkeen’s trademark infringement and passing off suit for want of territorial jurisdiction. Even though the plaintiff had alleged that the defendant’s products were sold in Delhi, it was unable to prove any actual sale of the product in Delhi. The Local Commissioner had detected the allegedly infringing products at the premises of the defendant in Jaipur but in Delhi, no products were seized. The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s interactive website and online sales is insufficient to create jurisdiction without evidence of the defendant’s commercial activity in Delhi. Since the plaintiff’s principal place of business was in Lucknow and the defendant operated from Jaipur, the suit was dismissed without costs.
Ravi Mohan Studios Private Limited v. M/s. Miracle Movies on October 12, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court granted interim injunctions restraining Miracle Movies from issuing further threats alleging copyright or proprietary rights over the cinematograph film BROO CLUB, and from publishing false statements disputing the plaintiff’s rights to produce, release or commercially exploit it. The film was originally titled BRO CODE, and the plaintiff claimed copyright following a settlement in a separate dispute concerning the earlier title. Miracle Movies subsequently asserted rights over the film through its registration with Qube. Relying on a Tamil Film Producers’ Council communication confirming registration in the plaintiff’s name, the Court found a prima facie case and granted both injunctions. Notice was returnable on November 3, 2026.
State of Karnataka v. Mallikarjuna Angadi on October 9, 2026 (Bengaluru District Court)
The IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, released two accused persons of possessing and selling copyright infringing products of PUMA under Sections 51(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Court had observed that the seized articles had not been produced, the investigating officer was not qualified to make identification of counterfeit articles and the panch witnesses had not been examined. The unproved seizure panchnama, therefore, was the result. The Court also noted that the alleged counterfeit clothing and footwear were not amongst the categories of works protected under Section 13 of the Copyright Act for the alleged Section 63 offence. Prosecutors failed to prove that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Once the appeal period was over, the confiscated merchandise was to be destroyed.
Universal City Studios LLC & Ors. v. 123Movieshub.TC & Ors. on October 7, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court clarified that a summary judgment may be issued in an infringement of copyright action even in the absence of a separate application under Order XIIIA CPC and oral proof would not be required where the pleadings and documents adequately proved the claims. In UTV Software Communications Ltd. v. 1337X., the Court found that the defendant websites were rogue websites with a primary purpose to infringe or facilitate copyright infringement. It permanently barred the relevant websites from providing the plaintiffs’ copyrighted information to the public over the Internet, and ordered Internet service providers to block access to the websites. Plaintiffs also were allowed to implead mirror and redirect and alphanumeric sites that offered an alternative way to access the websites they sought to enjoin.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to bar the defendants from trading in electrical goods including wires or having packaging and presentation similar to RK Cables, which looked like V-Guard’s popular black and yellow branded presentation. The Court further directed IndiaMART and TradeIndia to delete or disable the product descriptions of the impugned product within 1 week of the order. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, provided that mediation would be dispensed with before the institution of a proceeding where the court considers the request for an interim order to be plausibly urgent and genuinely considered. V-Guard was exempted from pre-institution mediation because the Court found the request for interim order to be plausibly urgent and genuinely considered. The case was set for hearing before the Court on 4th February, 2027.
The Kerala High Court rejected the civil suit filed under Designs Act, finding that there was no representation made by the plaintiff despite having issued a notice in this regard to both parties. The Court noted that the plaintiff had not appeared on a prior occasion, which further suggested that he was not interested in pursuing the matter. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed for default.
M/S L’Oreal v. M/S Shiva Enterprises on October 22, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Delhi District Court decreed L’Oreal’s suit concerning the import of counterfeit cosmetics bearing its trademarks, which had been seized by Customs in 2016. Defendant was not found, service was made by publication, and was proceeded against ex parte. The Court observed that the seized products were counterfeit and were bound for destruction and further restrained the defendant from selling or otherwise supplying any products under the L’OREAL mark or identical or deceptively similar mark, packages or labels. Withdrawal of Plaintiff’s prayer for relief in regard to release of seized goods.
The State of Karnataka v. Syed Habeed on October 23, 2026 (Bengaluru District Court)
Two accused persons in connection with allegations of possessing pirated DVDs and MP3s and their sale under Sections 52(a) and 68A of the Copyright Act, 1957 have been acquitted by the IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru. The Court referred to the acquittal of a co-accused in the main case and the verdict of the Karnataka High Court which extended acquittal to similarly placed accused persons, and concluded that the acquittal was available to the accused as well. The prosecution side case was found lacking in providing identification of pirated materials and on copyright ownership proof. After the appeal period the seized DVDs and MP3s were ordered destituted.
In denying the appeal of Dr. Reddy against the acceptance of the device mark “nice” by the Madras High Court in Class 10, the Madras High Court had relied on the earlier mark “NISE” in Class 5. While the Court determined the marks were phonetically similar, it noted that there was also a difference in the nature of the goods sold and the trade channels involved, which were pharmaceutical preparations versus specialised neonatal medical equipment, and a difference in the type of customers served, which were patients versus doctors, nurses, and hospital employees. The appellant was also not able to prove that the additional elements of protection as a well-known mark and dishonest adoption or passing as elements. The Court upheld the order of the Registrar without any cost.
Leena Gandhi Tewari v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors. on 23 October 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The plaintiff filed a petition for leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to institute a suit against unknown persons allegedly running fake Facebook accounts in her name, which the Bombay High Court granted. The plaintiff, Chairperson of USV Private Limited, alleged that the accounts misappropriated her identity and deceived members of the public into transferring money under false assurances of monetary benefits. The Court granted the requested leave as a material part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai.
The Supreme Court disposed of the cross transfer petitions filed by the parties in the Delhi High Court and Commercial Court at Indore in respect of the competing trademark infringement proceedings. Both parties agreed that the suits should be tried before one court, although each opposed the other’s preferred forum. Both the suits were transferred to Ahmedabad by exercising the transfer jurisdiction to the City Civil Court by the Court. The respective courts were directed to send the plaints on an urgent basis and the parties were directed to appear before the Ahmedabad Court on 26 November 2026.
Advy Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. v. Swaraj Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. on 23 October 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court has partially allowed a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in relation to the termination of a supply agreement with respect to a herd of goats used to manufacture Anti-Human IgG serum. The Court directed the preservation of the goats, plasma and confidential technical information, permitted the petitioner’s Livestock Supervisor access to the farm and appointed a Court Commissioner to inspect the herd and inventory the plasma. The petitioner was also directed to pay the pending invoice amounts and pay the maintenance costs. The parties were instructed to start the arbitration proceedings within 90 days.
Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Shreya Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. on 28 October 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court allowed Glaxo’s rectification petition seeking removal of Shreya’s registered mark ‘LEFOXIN BIOX’ in Class 5, finding it deceptively similar to Glaxo’s earlier registered mark ‘LANOXIN’. The Court concluded that the existence of the various pharmaceutical ingredients, indications and export-only use of the competing products did not preclude the likelihood of confusion, especially in the context of medicinal products. The Registrar was directed to cancel the impugned mark from the Register from 31 December 2026, giving Shreya the opportunity to rebrand from 1 January 2027.
The Delhi High Court granted an application made under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for arbitration of a trademark infringement dispute. The Court found that the issue about the defendants’ continued use of the ‘UTRACON’ marks following the expiration of a licence agreement was a contractual matter of rights in personam and not necessarily non-arbitrable. It also found that the conflict between the contracting party and its affiliates and directors was stemming from the same contract. All applications and the suit were therefore dismissed and the parties directed to arbitration.
The Delhi High Court issued an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the proprietors of the ‘ANANTARA’ marks to restrain the defendant from using the marks ‘ANTARA’ and ‘ANTARA RESORT & BANQUETS’ for the hospitality services. The Court found a prima facie case of deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion and issued the restraining order against the defendant and those acting on its behalf in respect of its hospitality services under the impugned marks and any deceptively similar marks. The Court also granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service and the case was listed for 8 February 2027.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction restraining Jabsons Foods from using the mark ‘HOT MIX’ for namkeen and allied goods, finding its use deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered ‘SHAH HOT MIX’ label mark. The Court found no evidence that ‘HOT MIX’ was common to the trade and that Jabsons had used it as a product mark and not descriptively. It stated that the house mark ‘JABSONS’ and the words ‘hot’ and ‘mix’ which describe the product could be used by Jabsons. Defendant’s request for vacating the injunction was denied.
Greenmount Spices Pvt. Ltd. v. Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. on 27 October 2026 (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court dismissed Greenmount Spices’ appeal against an order granting a temporary injunction in favour of Wipro Enterprises in a trademark dispute involving the mark ‘BRAHMINS’. Greenmount argued that its mark was ‘GREENMOUNT’ and that the phrase ‘Brahmin Sambar Powder’ was merely descriptive. The Court held that Wipro had made a prima facie case with material evidence of prior commercial use of ‘BRAHMINS’ mark. The Court did not find any perversity or arbitrariness in the discretion exercised by the trial court and thus did not interfere with the injunction.
Surya Roshni Ltd. v. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari on 28 October 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Commercial Court in the case of Surya Roshni vs the defendant held that the defendant used the mark ‘JAYSURYA’ on electrical products, infringing Surya’s registered ‘SURYA’ trademarks, and also found the defendant liable for copyright infringement and passing off. The Court permanently restrained the Defendant from using the impugned mark or deceptively similar marks, directed delivery of infringing goods and also awarded damages of ₹3,75,000 with costs. The Court also denied the defendant’s objection under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In the proceedings relating to the unconditional apology for the possible disobedience of the interim injunction, no further penalties were imposed.
State v. Amit on 27 October 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, acquitted the accused of a case under Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957, on alleged possession of counterfeit spare parts of automobiles having IP rights belonging to Tata Motors. The Court determined that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged recovery or the infringing character of the seized articles. The complainant was not present at the raid or able to identify the accused or products, the technical expert was not examined after repeated opportunities and the case property was destroyed. The accused was thus acquitted by granting the benefit of reasonable doubt.
Naivedya Associates v. M/s Kriti Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. on 23 October 2026 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
The application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the trademark infringement suit was dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court for failure to comply with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court concluded that the suit was an interim relief, the plaint by the Delhi court and later instituted at Indore was a fresh institution. The plaintiff had applied for the statutory exception to pre-institution mediation as it had sought urgent protection against the allegedly infringed ‘KRITI’/‘KIRTI’ mark by the petitioner’s ‘NAV KIRTI’ mark. The trial court was directed to proceed with the suit.
Other IP Developments
- Goa announces its AI policy 2026
- Bombay High Court allows Godwoman Radhe Maa to file personality rights suit against Google
- ITAT Mumbai Deletes ₹433 Crore Royalty Addition on Novartis Trademark Assignment
- MP High Court upholds IT Rules allowing social media platforms to remove copyright-infringing posts
- Indian Patent Office denies patent to TB Alliance’s BPaL combo
- EC refuses to name software used to flag SIR errors, cites ‘trade secrets’ RTI exemption: Report
