Entering the second week of April announcing the faculty line up for the SpicyIP Summer School 2026! Two-part post on the purpose of copyright in academic work in the context of Sci-Hub litigation. Another post discussing whether trademark law can be used to reclaim what design law has deliberately released into the public domain? Case summaries and IP developments from the country and the globe and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Our Faculty Line Up For the SpicyIP Summer School 2026, With A Few More To Be Announced Soon!
Interested in spending 9 days with a fantastic cohort of folks super interested in IP, and getting to learn from this wonderful faculty list? Check the link for how to apply. Acceptance offers have started going out, so if you are interested, apply soon!
The Sci-Hub litigation has dragged on for years without confronting the core question it presents: what is the purpose of copyright in academic works? As the Court circles procedural issues, Rishabh Upadhyay and Pragati Upadhyay argue that a deeper structural failure remains unaddressed, one that, in Hohfeldian terms, allows publishers to enforce claim-rights while evading their correlative duties. The result is a system that converts publicly funded research into privately controlled access. Before addressing the symptom, they argue, the law must reckon with the system that produced it.
Continuing the discussion on the Scihub litigation, Rishabh Upadhyay and Pragati Upadhyay turn to the August 2025 order as a vantage point to examine what the litigation has, so far, failed to do. They argue that the procedural exclusion of intervenors and the Court’s reliance on contempt have sidelined the core question of academic access under Section 52. Building on this, they make the case for reimagining fair dealing as an ex ante right to access, rather than a post facto defence.
Other Posts
After Crocs, After Carlsberg: Does Harpic v. Spic Finally Clear the Air?
Can trademark law be used to reclaim what design law has deliberately released into the public domain? Khushi Krishania writes on the Calcutta High Court’s recent Division Bench decision in the Harpic v. Spic dispute, explaining how it revisits this uneasy intersection, but ultimately leaves its most difficult questions unresolved.
Case Summaries
Delhivery Limited vs John Doe/Ashok Kumar And Others on 6 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Delhivery sued the defendants for unauthorizedly using its “DELHIVERY” trademark and forged documents to run fake franchise scams, duping the public. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case of trademark and copyright infringement. It granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the marks, and directed authorities to block the infringing domain names and bank accounts.
The plaintiff, owner of “THE TIMES OF INDIA” trademark, sued the defendants for operating an infringing website domain (timesofindiaa.news), reproducing news articles, and using its “TOI” device mark to mislead users. The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademarks or copying copyrighted content, and ordered the takedown of the infringing domains.
Grasim Industries Limited vs Saboo Tor Private Limited on 6 April, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
Grasim sued for infringement of the “BIRLA” trademark. A Single Judge initially denied an interim injunction, citing a lack of documentary evidence connecting Grasim to the Birla Group’s trademark rights. On appeal, the Bombay High Court allowed the plaintiff’s application to adduce additional evidence, such as a scheme of arrangement, to establish its trademark rights and do substantial justice.
Home Box Office Inc vs Moviebox.Ph & Ors on 6 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
HBO sued numerous rogue websites for unauthorised streaming and distributing its copyrighted series “Euphoria,” including an upcoming season. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case of copyright infringement. To prevent irreparable commercial loss, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim dynamic injunction, directing Internet Service Providers and Domain Name Registrars to suspend and block access to the infringing websites.
Novex Communications Private Limited vs Hindva Hospitality Llp on 7 April, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
Novex sued the defendant hotel for copyright infringement after its representative recorded the hotel playing the plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings at a New Year’s Eve party without a license. Finding a prima facie case of infringement, the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from publicly performing or communicating the copyrighted sound recordings.
Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr vs Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited on 30 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs sued the defendant for using the mark “OLYMVIQ” for pharmaceutical products, claiming it infringed their “OZEMPIC” trademark. The defendant agreed to stop using the impugned mark and transition to “OLYMRA”. The Court decreed the suit based on this settlement but permitted the defendant 30 days to sell its existing stock of diabetes injections in the public interest.
Phonographic Performance Limited sued the defendant for communicating its copyrighted sound recordings to the public without obtaining or renewing a license. Based on an investigator’s affidavit proving unauthorised commercial exploitation, the Bombay High Court found a prima facie case. The Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from publicly performing the plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings.
The plaintiff sued for trademark infringement over the mark “Really”, allegedly passing off its “RALLI” mark. A Single Judge revoked the Section 12A leave and vacated the interim injunction due to the plaintiff suppressing its prior knowledge of the defendant’s mark. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff used the urgent relief prayer merely to bypass mandatory pre-litigation mediation.
The plaintiff sued the defendants for trademark and trade dress infringement, alleging the unauthorized use of the “SUPER AGRO-TECH” mark and deceptively similar apple-themed packaging for agricultural goods. The Court dispensed with pre-institution mediation and granted an ex-parte interim injunction, holding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and that ongoing infringement would cause immediate and irreparable commercial injury.
Phonographic Performance Limited vs Grand Club on 8 April, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction against Grand Club for unauthorised broadcasting of PPL’s copyrighted sound recordings. PPL provided video evidence of the infringement and the Court also noted that the defendant’s previous license had expired and was not renewed. Given the failure of the defendant to appear despite being serviced, the Court upheld PPL’s exclusive right under Section 30 to license its assigned repertoire for commercial exploitation.
The petitioner challenged the Registrar’s rejection of its “ENTERO” device mark application, which was refused due to an existing, albeit unused, registered mark “EnteroGG”. The Court set aside the rejection, holding the Registrar passed an unreasoned order that completely ignored the petitioner’s evidence of honest and concurrent use since 2018. The application was remanded to a different Registrar.
The appellant challenged a Single Judge’s interim injunction restraining their use of the trademarks “OUD WHITE” and “WHITE OUD”, alongside specific perfume packaging and trade dress, arguing a lack of foundational pleadings. The Court modified the order, allowing the appellant to temporarily sell specific perfumes provided they maintain sales accounts, pending the Single Judge’s final decision on the injunction applications.
Jvco 2024 Limited vs Syed Jalaluddin Alias Afzal Trading As … on 7 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction protecting the MOTHERCARE brand against the deceptively similar mark “MOTHER CARE”. The plaintiff who held rights via assignment, alleged that the defendants were, in a clandestine manner, selling diapers and baby products under the identical mark. Noting that the defendants had abandoned a previous similar trademark application after the plaintiff’s opposition, the Court found a clear prima facie case of bad faith adoption and consumer confusion.
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction and damages of INR 64.8 lakhs against Zoneonne Venture for infringing Dassault’s SOLIDWORKS software copyright. Using its “Phone Home” security technology, the plaintiff had detected unauthorised usage on seven unauthorised systems. The Court found that the defendants knowingly used pirated versions of the software for commercial activities and awarded damages based on the full market value of genuine licenses.
The Bombay High Court passed an ad-interim injunction against the defendant, protecting the PPL’s sound recordings from being communicated to the public in the absence of a valid license by the defendant. An investigation confirmed the defendant was playing songs assigned to PPL for commercial gain. The Court reaffirmed PPL’s rights under the Copyright Act, holding that unauthorised performance of a registered repertoire constitutes a prima facie case of infringement.
The Delhi High Court issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the sale of counterfeit sexual wellness products under the mark “POSITIVE MIND”, which is deceptively similar to “POSITIVE GEMS”. Trap purchases revealed a fraudulent scheme where the defendant accepted payments via its website and Meesho but failed to deliver any goods. The Court ordered the removal of infringing listings to protect both the plaintiff’s brand reputation and the broader public interest.
Ritik Kumar vs R.H. Agro Overseas on 7 April, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court modified an order concerning rice brands NAFIS and NAFEEZA to correct a procedural irregularity. While the trial court granted an ex-parte injunction, it had also finally disposed of the application without hearing the defendant. This, constituting a breach of natural justice principles, needed amending. Maintaining the ad-interim injunction to prevent potential consumer confusion, the Court restored the application for a fresh, time-bound hearing to allow the defendant to file a reply.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Aditi and Naman for the case summaries.)