What an eventful week it was, with the post announcing the long-awaited results of the SpicyIP-jhana Blogpost Writing Competition, and posts on legal deposits, black-box AI, and house marks. 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 Results of SpicyIP-jhana Blogpost Writing Competition 2025
After carefully reviewing a range of thoughtful and insightful entries from participants across the country, we are delighted to announce the results of the SpicyIP–jhana Blogpost Writing Competition, 2025.
First Prize: Vishno Sudheendra for “Copyright Maximalism by Design: Rethinking DPIIT’s Licensing-Centric Approach to AI Training”
Second Prize: Anjali Tripathi for “Not a Saathi After All: Why Sanchar Saathi Rings Alarm for Trade Secrets”
Third Prize: Rushil Verma for “Beyond PDFs and Portals: Building Explainable IP for a Transparent and Inclusive Indian Innovation Ecosystem”
The SpicyIP team would like to give our heartiest congratulations to the winners, and our gratitude to all the participants for their enthusiastic participation!
As machine learning systems increasingly transform healthcare, patent law faces a fundamental challenge: how should it protect inventions whose inner workings even their creators cannot fully explain? Dr. Gunjan Chawla Arora and Nidhi Krishna examine how India’s patent framework grapples with the rise of “black-box” medical AI, and whether existing disclosure requirements are compatible with the realities of modern machine learning.
The Forgotten Half of the Copyright Bargain – Legal Deposit : Part 1
Every copyright grants an exclusive right, but what does the public receive in return? Akshat Agrawal traces the historical evolution of legal deposit to examine how the obligation to preserve works in public libraries emerged as a cornerstone of the copyright bargain. Tracing its development from Europe to colonial India, the post uncovers the legal and institutional foundations of a doctrine that continues to inform contemporary debates on access to knowledge.
The Forgotten Half of the Copyright Bargain – Legal Deposit : Part 2
As governments increasingly rely on licensing and subscription models to facilitate access to knowledge, questions surrounding the long-term preservation of knowledge have become increasingly significant. Continuing the discussion on legal deposits and copyright, Akshat Agrawal analyzes the ramifications of India’s dormant legal deposit scheme, questioning how its separation from copyright has hampered long-term public access and whether reintegrating the two could better serve the copyright bargain in the digital age.
Other Posts
House Marks without a Doctrine: The Unsettled Law Behind Flipkart vs. Marc
The Supreme Court’s refusal to stay the injunction in Flipkart v. Marc has brought an overlooked trademark question back into focus: can a well-known corporate or “house” brand reduce the likelihood of confusion with a competing mark? Bindushree M argues that while Indian courts increasingly rely on the idea of house marks, the Trademarks Act provides no coherent framework for doing so.
Case Summaries
Zakir Hussain Kanorwala vs Kutubuddin Kanorwala on 16 April, 2026 (Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur)
The High Court refused to stay a trial court’s interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed “UPKAR” trademark, trade name, and trade dress in an ongoing family dispute. Holding that the appellant remained the registered proprietor of the trademark and had established a prima facie case, the Court found that the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm to goodwill justified maintaining the injunction, despite parallel proceedings challenging the partnership dissolution and trademark rights.
M.Manuel vs Malabar Gold Private Ltd on 30 June, 2026 (Kerala High Court)
Partially allowing the appeal against the Trial Court’s interim injunction, the High Court held that there was no passing off by the appellant. The Court, however, retained the injunction, restricting the appellant from using a mark deceptively similar to “Malabar Gold”. The appellant argued that no exclusivity could be claimed over the word “Malabar” since the same is a geographical location and the respondent has not proven an acquired distinctiveness. Although the Court accepted the argument, it held that the impugned “Malabar Fashion Jewellery” mark was deceptively similar to “Malabar Gold” and thus retained the injunction.
Aines Food & Beverages vs Abdulla Muhammed Sali on 30 June, 2026 (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court clarified that once a defendant in a registered design infringement suit raises a defence challenging the validity of the registered design under Section 19, Section 22(4) mandates that the suit be transferred to the High Court. The dispute arose from a design infringement and passing off suit concerning the shape of a bottle, where the defendants challenged the validity of the plaintiff’s registered design in their written statement on Section 19 grounds. Accordingly, the Kerala High Court held that Section 22(4) mandates transfer of such suits to the High Court once a validity challenge is raised, set aside the Commercial Court’s interlocutory order as being without jurisdiction, and directed the immediate transfer of the suit.
Sony Pictures Networks India Private Ltd. vs Cricfree.Cyou & Ors on 1 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Finding a prima facie case of copyright infringement and the imminent risk of irreparable harm during ongoing New Zealand tour of England (Men’s) 2026, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte dynamic injunction, directing domain registrars, ISPs, DoT, and MeitY to block the infringing websites while permitting the plaintiff to seek blocking of newly discovered mirror and rogue websites during the currency of the sporting events.
Itc Limited & Anr vs Adyar Gate Hotels Limited on 1 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Refusing to intervene with the Single Judge’s order refusing to grant an interim injunction against the use of “Dakshin” trademark by the defendant, the Delhi High Court ruled that the respondent has been using the “Dakshin” mark since 1989. This was contrary to the argument put forth by the plaintiff that the defendant’s use of the “Dakshin” mark commenced only in 2015 after an Operating Service Agreement between the parties concluded. The Court held that the appellant could not show that it possessed any independent goodwill in the mark before 1989 and also held that the plaintiff’s failure to challenge the defendant’s registration of the mark would amount to acquiescence.
Saregama India Limited vs Black Madras Films & Ors on 1 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court upheld an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendant, holding that the film producer is the first owner of the copyright in musical composition and not the composer. In the present case, the producer had assigned the rights to the plaintiff, which instituted the suit against ace composer Ilaiyaraja, who claimed copyright over the musical composition composed by him for 134 films.
Newgen It Technologies Ltd vs Newgen Software Technologies Ltd on 1 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Setting aside the order of a commercial court, the Delhi High Court clarified that mere name change of a party will not result in the dispute not being arbitrable. The dispute pertained to the appellant’s decision to change its name to “Newgen IT Technologies” bearing the respondent’s “Newgen” mark. The respondent filed an infringement suit, whereas the appellant argued that as per the partnership agreement between the parties, the dispute should be settled by arbitration. In the impugned judgement, the commercial court had held that by changing the name, the agreement had ended by its “natural death”. Setting aside the impugned order, the High Court held that the commercial court’s reasoning was not sustainable on either facts or the law.
Itm Trust And Ors vs Samata Lok Sansthan on 30 June, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court held that the Registrar of Trade Marks can be regarded as a court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Section 24 CrPC, enabling the transfer of pending trademark rectification proceedings. Observing that the Registrar exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court under the Trade Marks Act and possesses the trappings of a civil court, the Court directed the transfer of the applicant’s three rectification proceedings from the Registrar to the High Court to be heard together with the related trademark suit and 17 connected rectification proceedings by the defendant, in the interest of efficient and consistent adjudication.
More Than Water Pvt. Ltd. V. Nesco Ltd. on 01 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court refused interim relief to the plaintiff in its trademark dispute after finding that both parties had relied on prima facie unreliable or fabricated documents to support their claims of prior use. While setting aside territorial restrictions on the parties’ sales, the Court restrained the defendant from relying on its registered “MY WATER BOX” trademark until it establishes the authenticity of the documents submitted to secure the registration, and warned that perjury proceedings may follow if forged evidence is proved at trial.
Rukhmani Keshwani vs Raju Agarbatti Works & Anr on 1 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court set aside the Commercial Court’s order returning a trademark and copyright infringement suit for lack of territorial jurisdiction, holding that interactive online commercial activities, IndiaMART listings, and actual sales in Delhi constituted a material part of the cause of action. Clarifying that the Supreme Court’s ruling in IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia does not bar jurisdiction where an independent territorial nexus exists, the Court restored the suit for adjudication on merits.