[This Weekly Review is authored by Vikram Raj Nanda. Vikram Raj Nanda is a third-year student at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, with a keen interest in IP law, Competition Law, and Arbitration. His previous posts can be accessed here.]
Ending May and stepping into June, here is our latest weekly review covering developments from May 25 to June 7. This review brought a mix of contemporary IP disputes and historical reflections. From the DHC’s ruling on keyword advertising and trademark infringement, covered through two posts, to fascinating explorations of copyright history, including a 1901 letter from Oxford suggesting amendments to copyright law and the story behind French becoming the official language of the Berne Convention, there was plenty to unpack. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Public Squares or Private Estates: The Delhi High Court’s Doctrinal Shift in Keyword Advertising
In a significant ruling in Hindware v. Grohe, the Delhi High Court drew a distinction between the use of generic marks and coined, source-identifying marks like “Hindware” as keywords, while simultaneously narrowing the scope of intermediary safe harbour for platforms such as Google. If followed in future cases, it could lead to greater scrutiny of search advertising practices and reshape the scope of intermediary protection in India’s digital trademark regime.
One more shot at Keyword Advertising……. aaaannndd Hit Wicket!
In the recent decision passed by the DHC in Hindware v. Grohe, the Court treats keyword advertising as infringement even without evidence of confusion, diverted sales, or deceptive ads. Discussing the decision, Akshat Agrawal argues that once “diversion” is detached from “deception,” trade marks risk turning into semiotic monopolies over language itself.
Part I: From the Archives: When Oxford Sent a Letter to Amend the Indian Copyright Law in 1901
What begins as a seemingly archival letter from 1901 soon opens onto a far larger story: the tangled, uneven, and deeply contested evolution of copyright in colonial India. Drawing on a fascinating 1901 communication from Oxford concerning vernacular translations, Lokesh Vyas, in this post, excavates the legal, commercial, and imperial anxieties that shaped early Indian copyright law and the politics of translation at its heart.
Part II: From the Archives: When Oxford Sent a Letter to Amend the Indian Copyright Law in 1901
Continuing the discussion on the 1901 Oxford letter responding to vernacular translations of British works in India. Lokesh Vyas digs into the deeper conflict beneath that letter. By revisiting two important copyright disputes and the wider world of colonial print culture, in Part II of the post, he shows how translation became a flashpoint between British publishers seeking control over the Indian market and Indian publishers, educators, and nationalists using translation to circulate knowledge across linguistic publics.
A Brief History of the Official Language(s) of International Copyright Law
Some archives do not merely preserve history; they govern how we read it. The story of the Berne Convention’s official language(s) is also a story about power, access, and who gets to speak authoritatively in international copyright law. Tracing the debates at the 1948 Brussels Revision Conference, Lokesh Vyas explores how battles over French, English, and multilingualism shaped the interpretive architecture of international copyright law that still persists today.
Other Posts
The Copyright Strike as a Commercial Weapon: What Anamika Sood v. Saregama Does Not Say But Should
What happens when copyright enforcement tools become instruments of commercial control rather than legal protection? In a significant ruling in Anamika Sood v. Google LLC & Saregama India Ltd., the Saket District Court declared independent artist Anamika Sood the rightful owner of her song “Ferrareee”, rejecting Saregama’s infringement claims over an expired copyright. But while the judgment resolves the ownership dispute, it leaves unresolved a larger structural concern: the growing misuse of automated copyright strike systems as tools of market leverage against independent creators.
In the Aftermath of Parle: Unsettling Questions for Trade Mark Law
What happens when trademark law privileges filing priority over marketplace reality? The Delhi High Court’s April 10 ruling in the ‘20-20’ dispute raises difficult questions about whether registration can meaningfully coexist with decade-old goodwill, and whether identical marks can survive in the market outside the framework of honest and concurrent use.
Case Summaries
Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Beardsell Limited on 1 June, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Division Bench dismissed the appellants’ challenge to a passing off injunction over the ‘Beardsell’ corporate name. A 2003 MoU permitted the formation of only one new company to carry on the sold EPS business the singular “a new company” settled the question. Delay in filing suit was acknowledged, but fell short of the conscious encouragement needed to establish acquiescence in law.
Kent RO Systems Ltd. v. A N Polymers Pvt. Ltd. on 1 June, 2026 (District Judge-01 PHC, New Delhi)
Kent’s design infringement suit was dismissed as barred by res judicata under S. 11 CPC. A prior Delhi High Court decree had already restrained the original defendant and all persons claiming under him including distributors from infringing Design No. 219309. Rebranding the product from ‘AQUA GRAND PLUS+’ to ‘AQUA LIV’ created no fresh cause of action; the proper remedy was an execution petition under S. 47 CPC.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Abhinav Jain on 29 May, 2026 (Saket District Courts, New Delhi)
Despite infringement being established through a Local Commissioner’s report showing structurally and visually identical marks, LV’s suit was dismissed on Issue 3 the suit was not instituted by a duly authorised representative. No board resolution was placed on record proving the signatory’s authority, and the LC was never summoned to formally prove the report. Authorisation paperwork must be airtight before approaching Indian courts.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to a rice brand whose red-and-deity trade dress had been near-entirely copied by a rival. The defendant’s packaging replicated the same red background, deity placement, golden-ribbon lapels, and silver-text reverse, satisfying the triple identity test. While no party can claim exclusive rights over a deity’s image, its specific artistic arrangement in trade dress remains protectable.
The Madras High Court decreed in favour of Novartis, holding that the defendant’s export of Vildagliptin API to Egyptian pharma companies was not protected under S. 107A. The defendant’s 2015 consent decree operated as issue estoppel, precluding any invalidity challenge. Diverging from Bayer’s framing of S. 107A as a special provision, the Court held it is an exception placing the onus on the defendant, who produced no regulatory documentation and admitted doing no due diligence
Palanisamy v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Karumathampatti on 1 June, 2026 (Madras High Court)
Bail was denied to the operator of a local Tamil Nadu TV channel, ‘Rasi Prime Movie’, who downloaded the unreleased film “Jananayagan” from an unauthorised source and telecast it. The accused faced charges under the Copyright Act, IT Act, Cinematograph Act, and cable television regulations. With an earlier bail application already dismissed, the Court held enlargement would jeopardise the prosecution.
A modular kitchen trader with thirteen years of continuous use under ‘RAEM Designs’ won permanent and mandatory injunctions against a rival who set up a showroom two kilometres away under ‘RAEM Kitchens’ in 2022. The defendants’ claim of inherited rights through a 2009 dissolution deed failed when DW-1 admitted no assignment deed was ever executed and that Raem Overseas had generated no goodwill in modular kitchens. Mandatory relief includes removal of all signages, deactivation of websites and social media, and withdrawal of TM Application No. 5587253; nominal damages of Rs. 1 lakh were also awarded.
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. on 1 June, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court restrained an unidentified operator running a fraudulent investment scheme that had cloned the well-known ‘GOLDIEE’ spice mark to lure consumers into a phishing operation. Beyond the standard trademark restraint, the Court directed domain registrar Dynadot and web host Cloudflare to block the site within 72 hours and preserve all KYC and payment records. DoT and MeitY were directed to ensure compliance.
Vikas Kumar vs The Registrar Of Trademarks on 29 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Vikas Kumar filed an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, against the Registrar’s order rejecting his opposition to a Class 43 trademark application filed by Respondent No. 2/Aman. The Delhi High Court admitted the appeal, directed the Trade Mark Registry to digitise and furnish the relevant records within four weeks, and listed the matter before the Joint Registrar on 20.08.2026 and before the Court on 28.10.2026.
M/S. Motherson vs Motherson Industries Private Limited on 29 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, a global auto components manufacturer using “MOTHERSON” since 1975, sued the defendants for adopting an identical mark for medical devices. The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, finding the dominant element of the defendant’s mark was “MOTHERSON” in the same red colour as the plaintiff’s device mark. Relying on Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors., the Court held that once prior adoption and use is established, injunction follows as a matter of course, and invoked Section 29(3) to presume likelihood of confusion.
Consern Pharma sued the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that their pharmaceutical marks “Betakon-20”, “Etimust Forte”, “Pregakon”, “Psychodol”, and “Aripkon” were deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered marks “Betapax”, “Etosort”, “Pregacon”, “Psycloze”, and applied mark “Aripicon”. The Delhi High Court issued notice on the ex-parte ad-interim injunction application and directed the defendants to file a reply within three weeks.
M/S Speechgears India Pvt Ltd vs MJ Talk Tools & Ors on 29 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Speechgears, a manufacturer of speech therapy tool kits for children with autism and speech impairment, sued the defendants for copying the shape, trade dress, and brochure content of its products verbatim. The Court found prima facie infringement compelling, noting the defendant even copied the plaintiff’s ISI registration number on its brochure. However, it declined a full ex-parte injunction since the plaintiff failed to explain its inaction for 1.5 years after issuing a cease and desist notice. Instead, the Court directed IndiaMart to delist the defendant’s product URLs pending the next hearing.
Amber Nutrition Private Limited vs Ms. Neetu Choudhary & Anr on 29 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Amber Nutrition, manufacturer of “AMBER KREAM TOFFEE” since 2016, sued the defendant for repeated infringement of its trademark, trade dress, and copyright. Despite a 2023 cease and desist undertaking, the defendant resumed infringement under the minimally altered mark “MILAN’S KREAMY TOFFEE”. The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, finding the defendant a habitual infringer whose packaging copied the plaintiff’s white maroon colour combination, rainbow device, font, candy depiction with crimped edges, wave pattern, and overall commercial impression.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd vs Https://Soccerbox.Me/ & Ors on 3 June, 2026
Zee Entertainment, which holds exclusive broadcasting rights for FIFA World Cup 2026 in India via its platform ZEE5, sued multiple rogue websites for illegally streaming its content. The Delhi High Court granted a dynamic injunction restraining the rogue websites from hosting or streaming FIFA 2026 content, directed domain name registrars to suspend infringing domains in real-time, ISPs to block access, and DOT and MEITY to ensure compliance. The Court also extended protection to rogue mobile applications, noting that without real-time blocking, the plaintiff’s rights would be rendered meaningless.
Burberry Limited vs Krishan Kumar on 29 May, 2026 (Saket District Court, New Delhi)
Burberry sued five Gaffar Market traders for selling counterfeit goods bearing its trademarks. The suit was dismissed against most defendants due to serious evidentiary failures: the Local Commissioner’s report did not record trademark details on seized goods, the plaintiff’s witness was not present during the commission, and the authority letter authorising the suit had expired before filing. Only defendant no. 3 faced an adverse finding, with the court awarding Rs. 3 lakh in compensatory and punitive damages after drawing an adverse presumption from his failure to produce the seized goods.
L’Oreal SA vs Angel Enterprise on 4 June, 2026 (Saket District Court, New Delhi)
L’Oreal sued the defendants for copying the trade dress of its “GARNIER BRIGHT COMPLETE” serum, including its colour combination, font, golden strip, droplet depiction, and overall packaging. The suit was dismissed on two grounds: the constituted attorney lacked a valid board resolution authorising her to file the suit, and the witness had no demonstrable personal knowledge of the transactions, having been appointed attorney only after the cause of action arose, rendering her evidence insufficient to prove the case even on a preponderance of probabilities.
Shree Swaminarayan Sarvopari Siddhant Digvijay Trust filed a suit against Sukhmay Karan Satsang Foundation. Swaminarayan, a religious and charitable trust, held registered trademarks for ‘KARAN SATSANG’. A former trustee left the Trust in 2024 and helped incorporate the ‘SUKHMAY KARAN SATSANG’ Foundation. It was alleged that they unlawfully adopted ‘KARAN SATSANG’ as a dominant part of their corporate name and filed trademark applications using similar marks. The Court found the Swaminarayan Trust has established a prima facie case in its favour and granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction, restraining defendants from using ‘KARAN SATSANG’ or similar marks and directed takedown of all infringing content.
Safex Chemicals India Limited vs Safex Seed India Llp & Anr on 26 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Safex Chemicals India Limited filed a suit against Safex Seed India LLP for trademark infringement. Safex Chemicals adopted the trademark and trade name ‘SAFEX’ in 1991 for agrochemical products like herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides. Safex Seed India was alleged to be using the identical mark ‘SAFEX’ and ‘SAFEX SEED’ for agricultural and fodder seed products. The Court also found the logo of Safex Seed to be deceptively similar to Safex Chemicals. The word ‘SEED’ was held to be merely descriptive and insufficient to distinguish Safex Seeds mark from Safex Chemicals registered trademark. The Court noted that the end consumers in this case being farmers and agriculturists are likely to be confused, as they would recall the brand simply by the word ‘SAFEX’. The Court, thus, finding a prima facie case in favour of Safex Chemicals, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Safex Seed from using the deceptively similar mark, logo, or trade name.
M/S Bharati Bhawan Publishers And v Sanjay Singh And Ors on 26 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Bharati Bhawan Publishers and Distributors filed a suit against Sanjay Singh and other publishers, including the e-commerce platform Meesho, for copyright infringement and trademark violation. Bharati Bhawan holds registered trademarks for ‘BHARATI BHAWAN PUBLISHERS AND DISTRIBUTORS’ and its logo and owns copyright over all its publications. It was alleged that unknown online sellers were selling counterfeit and pirated copies of its books on Meesho. The counterfeit books bore Bharati Bhawan’s registered trademark and logo but didn’t have the distinctive hologram and 3D security sticker that authenticate genuine copies. It was alleged that the counterfeit books were of sub-standard quality, damaging its image and diluting its copyright and trademarks, besides causing financial harm. The Court found a prima facie case, and granted an ex parte adinterim injunction in favour of Bharati Bhawan.
Indiamart Intermesh Limited vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 26 May, 2026, (Delhi High Court)
IndiaMart Intermesh Limited filed a suit against Ashok Kumar and others for trademark infringement, copyright violation, and online fraud. IndiaMart holds registered trademarks for ‘INDIAMART’ and enjoys copyright over its unique website layout, GUI, icons, and trade dress. The Court found a prima facie case in IndiaMart’s favour and granted an ex parte ad interiminjunction restraining the defendants from operating fake URLs, WhatsApp accounts, and bank accounts using IndiaMart’s registered marks. Further, Vercel, GitHub, and Netlify were directed to take down all identified infringing URLs within 36 hours. WhatsApp was directed to block the identified fraudulent accounts within 36 hours and disclose subscriber information.
Alfa Therm Limited vs M/S Scientico Through Its Proprietor Mr, on 26 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Alfa Therm Limited filed a suit against M/S Scientico for copyright infringement of proprietary photographs. Alfa Therm holds registered trademarks for ‘ALFA-THERM’ and is in the business of manufacturing and supplying advanced environmental and waste management systems. Alfa Therm owns copyright over original photographs of its machinery installations at client sites under Section 17(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957. It was alleged that M/S Scientico website was displaying Alfa Therm’s proprietary photographs without any permission or authorisation. The Court found prima facie that the photographs originated with Alfa Therm, noting the 2019 website screenshots bearing Alfa Therm’s trademark, and that the M/S Scientico’s use appeared deliberate and not bona fide. An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted restraining the M/S Scientico from reproducing or displaying the copyrighted photographs, and directing immediate takedown from its website and all other online platforms.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. vs. Manju Kumari & Anr. on 20 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi HC allowed a Section 57 rectification petition and cancelled the registration of “PROTRILEX” in Class 05. Danone’s mark “PROTINEX” has been in use since 1957, and a prior decree in CS(COMM) 905/2024 where Respondent No. 1 was herself a defendant had already returned a finding of deceptive similarity on structural, visual, and phonetic grounds. Respondent No. 1 chose to remain ex parte throughout these proceedings as well. The Registrar was directed to rectify the Register within four weeks.
Trademark infringement and passing off suit concerning the “Kesar” family of marks for hosiery products, decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants’ packaging was found deceptively similar in colour scheme, layout, font, and overall trade dress. Defendant No. 3 had already settled; a permanent injunction was passed against Defendants No. 1, 2, and 4. Notably, the Court declined the claim for damages of ₹50 lakhs and rendition of accounts no sales data from the defendants had been placed on record by the plaintiff to support the figures claimed.
The Division Bench dismissed an appeal against refusal of an interim injunction in a passing off suit between two UPSC coaching institutes. The Court agreed that “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and “VAJIRAO & REDDY INSTITUTE,” read as composite marks, are not deceptively similar, and that the Appellant had not established standalone goodwill in the word “VAJIRAM.” What stood out was the Court’s sharp observation on the Appellant’s conduct: issues were framed in January 2020, yet not a single witness had deposed before the Local Commissioner in six years. The Appellant was directed to commence evidence in July 2026, failing which the suit would be liable to dismissal for non-prosecution.
A suit filed back in 2017 was finally decreed in Nike’s favour against dealers of counterfeit footwear at Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Seven gunny bags of goods bearing the “NIKE” mark had been seized by the Local Commissioner at the threshold of the suit itself. Three of the four defendants settled during the proceedings; Defendant No. 2 never appeared and was proceeded against ex parte. The Court passed a permanent injunction, ordered delivery up of the seized counterfeit goods for destruction, and awarded damages of ₹5 lakhs.
Ocean Pearl Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prestige Estates Projects Ltd. on 20 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in this quia timet action, restraining Prestige Estates from using “PRESTIGE OCEAN PEARL”/“OCEAN PEARL” for a luxury residential project in Kozhikode. The Court observed that ‘Prestige’ appeared to function only as a house mark, with ‘OCEAN PEARL’ in bold capitals being the dominant and subsisting element of the defendant’s branding. Ocean Pearl Hotels has been using its mark since 2010, recording a turnover of over ₹118 crores in FY 2024–25. The defendant’s websites and domain names were directed to be taken down forthwith.
Calcutta High Court refused to grant an interim injunction for the alleged passing rt off of the trademark “PRASAD GROUP”. The petitioner argued prior use and goodwill of 35 years, whereas the defendants claimed protection under Section 35 of the Act. The court held that the petitioner’s delay in approaching the bench weakened the merits of infringement, and the passing off will be decided by the trial.
Jyothy Labs Limited vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors. on 18 May 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The DHC quashed an order dismissing Jyothy Lab’s trademark opposition due to failure to file evidence under Rule 45 of the Trademark Rules, 2017. The Appeallant argued that the counter-statement was not served, preventing timely filing. The Registrar admitted that a technical glitch caused non-service. The court remanded to the Registrar for fresh service and continuation of opposition proceedings.
Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited vs. Open AI Inc. & Ors. on 20 May 2026 (Calcutta High Court)
The Court dismissed IndiaMART’s plea seeking interim relief against OpenAI, which alleged that ChatGPT unfairly excluded IndiaMART’s links from search responses, harming the business’s trademark. The Court held that no private entity has the legal right to claim visibility or promotion on another private company’s platform. The Court found no infringement or violation. It remarked that, on prima facie, ChatGPT is more of an “originator” than an “intermediary” under the IT Act.
The Saket District Court decreed a trademark infringement finding the Defendants guilty of trademark violation by selling counterfeit goods, thereby infringing on the Petitioner’s “POLO” and “RALPH LAUREN” marks. A permanent injunction was granted, and Rs. 5 Lakh damages were awarded.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
Thanks to Bindu, Vedang, Nilisa, Saesha for the case summaries.