A round-up of all the important developments from the last 2 weeks, here is the SpicyIP Weekly Review featuring discussions on the Delhi High Court decision in the OpenAI case, the comments submitted to CDSCO on brand name extension, and the missing public consultations on the proposed Copyright Act amendments. This and much more in this week’s Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out? Drop a comment and let us know.
Highlights of the Weeks
In a highly anticipated development for India’s emerging AI and copyright jurisprudence, Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the application prima facie holding that OpenAI’s storage of ANI’s copyrighted works for training the large language models underlying ChatGPT was protected under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and therefore did not amount to copyright infringement. The Court also held that ANI had failed to establish that ChatGPT’s outputs were substantially similar to, or involved the memorisation or regurgitation of, its copyrighted works.
Copyright Amendments in the Offing – Whither Consultation Process?
It appears that there is a copyright amendment bill in the offing, which if true, is concerning due to the lack of any public consultation processes! As Swaraj Barooah discusses in this post, following this process is especially important due to the access to education impacts that amendments in Copyright can hold. If there is an amendment bill in the works, this would provide an excellent opportunity to update our laws and copyright exceptions for educational purposes in line with the National Education Policy 2020, as well as of course for the various other fields that copyright touches.
Comments on CDSCO’s Brand Name Extension Policies
Brand Name Extension practices by pharmaceutical companies have been a long standing problem which haven’t yet found way in popular discourse. We submitted our comments to Directorate General of Health Services, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) on this! The comments are divided into three parts: The first part outlines the distinct problems posed to public health by brand name extensions, the second proposes recommendations to address these problems, and the third lists out indicative examples of the problems outlined, along with an international perspective on the issue. These examples clearly illustrate the issue and the need to address it! The comments put together and submitted by Swaraj Barooah, along with two of our SpicyIP Summer School alumni, Rishabh Upadhyay and Umeshwari Ranjan are linked to the post above.
Other Posts
When Three Invoices Went to Shimla: A Case Analysis of SML Limited vs M/S Happy Agro Chemicals
Can a handful of carefully orchestrated “trap purchases” create territorial jurisdiction in a patent infringement suit? In this post, Maneesha Gupta explains that the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in SML Ltd. v. M/s Happy Agro Chemicals rightly rejects attempts to manufacture jurisdiction through isolated purchases, while offering important guidance on forum shopping and online listings.
Case Summaries
The High Court dismissed the defendants’ revision petition and upheld the Commercial Court’s refusal to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It held that the plaint, read as a whole, disclosed a triable cause of action not only for trademark infringement but also for passing off based on the plaintiff’s prior use and goodwill in the tagline “Swaad Khushiyo Ka”. The Court clarified that the defendants’ reliance on Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act raised a defence on the merits, which must be decided at trial and cannot justify rejection of the plaint at the threshold.
Themis Medicare Limited vs The Controller General Of Patents … on 14 July, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The High Court set aside the Controller’s rejection of a patent application for injectable diclofenac compositions and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Court found the impugned order internally contradictory, as it simultaneously stated that no supporting data had been provided while also claiming that the available data had been considered, without explaining why it failed to establish enhanced therapeutic efficacy under Section 3(d). Emphasising the need for a reasoned order consistent with principles of natural justice, the Court directed the Controller to specifically engage with the experimental data, including the animal testing reports, before deciding the application afresh.
Sri Syed Wasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 July, 2026 (Karnataka High Court)
High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under the Copyright Act against the petitioners, holding that the allegations concerning the sale of counterfeit branded goods, if at all, attracted offences under the Trade Marks Act rather than the Copyright Act. Relying on its earlier decisions, the Court further held that the prosecution was vitiated because the mandatory procedure under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, requiring search and seizure by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police after obtaining the Registrar’s opinion, had not been followed.
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs Inox India Private Limited on 7 July, 2026 (Gujarat High Court)
The High Court upheld the Commercial Court’s grant of an interim injunction in a dispute concerning alleged copyright infringement in proprietary engineering drawings for cryogenic semi-trailers. Rejecting the defendants’ challenges based on originality, public-domain specifications, design law, and the Copyright Act’s exclusions, the Court held that it could not undertake a mini-trial at the interlocutory stage where the trial court had already found a prima facie case and balance of convenience in the plaintiff’s favour. Given the Supreme Court’s earlier directions for an expeditious trial, the High Court directed the Commercial Court to complete the suit within the prescribed timeline without unnecessary adjournments.
The High Court set aside the Commercial Court’s order deleting the principal contractor from a trademark infringement and passing-off suit involving alleged counterfeit “JINDAL” TMT bars. The Court held that the Commercial Court could not decide an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC without first issuing notice to the proposed defendants (the suppliers), who were entitled to oppose their impleadment, making the order procedurally unsustainable. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication of the impleadment application after hearing all affected parties, with the High Court refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute.
New Balance Athletics Inc vs Astormueller Ag And Ors on 13 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court restrained Astormueller AG and its Indian subsidiaries from using the “n:” and “nu:beat” logo marks in a trademark suit filed by New Balance. The Court held that the impugned logos were prima facie deceptively similar to New Balance’s registered “N” marks, with the letter “n” being the dominant feature, and found that prior use and brand reputation tilted the balance of convenience in New Balance’s favour.
The Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction restraining Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. and Advance Coolers from using the ‘HAVAI’ mark for electrical goods, holding that its stylised use is deceptively similar to Havells’ well-known ‘HAVELLS’ trademark. Finding a prima facie case of passing off, the Court observed that the altered font of the letter ‘I’ appeared to be a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers into believing an association with Havells.
Sapat International Pvt Ltd vs Niravi Consumer Llp on 21 July, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained Niravi Consumer LLP and its associated entities from using the “SAPAT” mark in relation to tea, holding that its continued use on shop signages was likely to mislead consumers into believing an association with SAPAT International’s tea business. Finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, the Court held that Niravi had failed to establish any independent right to use the mark for tea, though it stayed the injunction for four weeks.
Sony Pictures Networks India Private Ltd. vs Cricgo.Pro & Ors on 20 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court has granted Sony an ex parte interim injunction against 14 rogue websites accused of illegally streaming its exclusive broadcasts of the Commonwealth Games 2026 and Australian Open 2027. Holding that Sony had established a prima facie case of copyright infringement, the Court directed domain registrars and internet service providers to block the websites and extended a dynamic injunction to cover any mirror or newly discovered infringing websites during the events.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks on 21 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court has set aside the Trade Marks Registry’s refusal to register the mark “OFFER” for alcoholic beverages, holding that the Registrar applied the incorrect legal test by assessing the mark’s “uniqueness” rather than its distinctiveness under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. Observing that the impugned order was cryptic, unreasoned, and failed to consider the applicant’s submissions, the Court remanded the application for fresh consideration in accordance with the correct legal principles.
Tvs Motor Company Limited vs Ram Chandra Maurya & Ors on 23 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of TVS Motor Company, restraining the defendants from issuing further groundless copyright infringement threats based on two registered literary works relating to engine technology. The Court also noted that the defendants’ patent applications covering the same subject matter had been abandoned after objections from the Patent Office, reinforcing TVS’s contention that the copyright registrations were being used to assert rights over functional inventions. Prima facie finding the cease-and-desist notice vague and unsupported by any particulars of infringement, the Court held that the threats appeared unjustified under Section 60 of the Copyright Act and directed the defendants to provide seven days’ prior notice before initiating any related legal proceedings.