[This Weekly Review is prepared by Kaustub Boidi. Kaustub is a final-year law student at SVKM’s NMIMS, Hyderabad.]
Here’s this week’s roundup of IP developments, from posts on the Kerala High Court’s Ribociclib decision, the Delhi HC’s tiered approach to patent appeals in Esteve Pharmaceuticals, the PABS Annex of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, to key judicial decisions and national and international IP updates. Anything we missed out on? Drop a comment below to let us know!
Highlights of the Week
Ribociclib: Access to Medicine Collides with Patent, Price and Policy
Ribociclib could become the highest-selling drug in Novartis’ history, yet access to this life-saving medicine remains a pressing concern for patients who cannot afford it. The Kerala High Court’s recent ruling on government use of patented inventions under Section 100 raises questions about the data needed to invoke this provision and the role of government policy in enabling access.
Ambika Aggarwal and Rishabh Upadhyay examine the ruling as a missed opportunity for a public-health-centric approach, situating it alongside other Ribociclib patent disputes and potential changes to patent enforcement and drug pricing rules.
The Ghost of Section 100’s Past!
As Halloween approaches, a particular editorial at ET seems spooked by the prospect of lawful and equitable access to medicines! In doing the opposite of what its title suggests, ‘Protect Patients and Patents Smartly’, the editorial piece published on October 15, 2026 is an unfortunate example of legal misinformation and misinterpretation, stuck in the old binary of access versus patent. Ambika Aggarwal explains how this published piece runs contrary to years of judicial wisdom, contradicts itself, conflates different legal questions and advocates for a rather shocking political consequence.
Equitable Pandemic Response: Delink Data Access from Benefit Sharing in the PABS Annex
In May 2025, WHO member states adopted the Pandemic Agreement, which cannot open for signature until its Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) Annex is finalised. Negotiations remain deadlocked over whether benefit sharing should be tied to pathogen data access. In this post, Rishabh Upadhyay examines the EU’s Hybrid Model, the African Group’s Federated Model, and KEI’s proposal to delink the two, arguing that KEI’s approach offers a more robust solution but requires one key fix.
Other Posts
SpicyIP Tidbit: Putting the Cart Before the Horse: A Look into Esteve Pharmaceuticals vs CPD
In Esteve Pharmaceuticals, the Delhi High Court found that a patent application lacked inventive step and declined to examine whether it also fell foul of the exclusions under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, invoking judicial economy. But does this approach get the sequence of patentability assessment right? Maneesha Gupta takes a closer look at the statutory scheme and examination guidelines and raises questions about whether the Court has put the cart before the horse.
The Centre for Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR), Institute of Law, Nirma University is inviting submissions for the Journal of Intellectual Property Laws(JIPL), Volume X. The last date for submission is 30 November. For more details, read the call for submissions
Case Summaries
M/S Al-Yamin Multi Cuisine v. M/S Al Ameen Multi Cuisine on September 23, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court issued an ad interim injunction in favour of Al-Yamin, a restaurant chain and registered proprietor of the trademark “AL-YAMIN” in Class 43, against Al Ameen Multi Cuisine. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had used the names “AL-YAMIN”, “AL-YAMEN” and “AL-AMEEN” and the same logos, menus and uniforms and had used restaurant décor similar to the plaintiff’s. The Court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the meanings of the Arabic words were different and found a prima facie case for infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement.
The Bombay High Court issued an ad-interim order to prevent Karnavati Club and other defendants from performing or communicating the sound recordings assigned or authorised to Novex Communications or allowing the premises to be used for the same. Novex claimed that its copyrighted songs were previously being played without permission and it apprehended further violation during “Shankus Dandiya 2026” from 11 to 19 October, 2026. The Court pointed to the plaintiff’s assignment agreements and that the defendants were unrepresented, even though they were served. The injunction was issued until the suit was decided, and the replies and rejoinders were to be filed by the dates directed.
Mr. Abdul Nazer v. The Controller of Patents & Designs on October 8, 2026 (Calcutta High Court)
The Controller of Designs was asked to rule on an application filed for the restoration of a registered design for a “package for food” by the Calcutta High Court. The petitioner had originally filed a request for 10 years protection for the design, which was registered on July 24, 2014, but failed to file an extension before the expiration of the design protection, and instead applied for restoration of the design on November 24, 2025. Noting that the application has been pending for more than the stipulated period, the Court directed the Controller concerned to consider the application after affording a hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and on or before December 31, 2026. The writ petition was disposed of without making any order for restoration.
Mr. Arun Narayanan v. State of Karnataka on September 28, 2026 (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court quashed an order of the Magistrate for taking cognizance of criminal proceedings against the complainant for the offence under the Indian Penal Code and the Copyright Act on a private complaint. The Court observed that some of the petitioners were living beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and that the compulsory inquiry as required by section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been held. It also found that the cognizance order contained legal weaknesses like the lack of proper explanation of the ingredients of the alleged copyright infringements. The case was sent back for re-hearing before the Magistrate pursuant to the law, whether or not the case had acquired a criminal hue.
State v. Mukesh Kumar on September 15, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Delhi District Court acquitted Mukesh Kumar of offences under the Copyright Act, 1957, under Sections 63 and Trade Marks Act, 1999 under Sections 103 and 104, for allegedly counterfeit Bosch products seized from his shop. The prosecution’s case was based on insufficient and non-specific identification evidence and a lack of reliable corroborating evidence, which the Court could not accept as proof beyond reasonable doubt that the seized goods were counterfeit. It also identified shortcomings in determining the exact copyright infringement that is claimed and the information needed under Section 63. The prosecution was therefore unable to establish the ingredients of the offences charged.
A petition to secure territorial jurisdiction to entertain an application for return of a trademark infringement plaint was rejected by the Delhi High Court. Inbrew claimed that Mount Distilleries was infringing on its brand “HONEY BEE” by selling brandy under its brand name “HONEY GOLD” with packaging and trade dress similar to its “HONEY BEE” in Sikkim. The defendant contended that the cause of action was in Sikkim and there was no link with Delhi. The Court found that the suit could be filed in Delhi under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as Inbrew had its registered office in Delhi, relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia.
Amazon Seller Services had contended that it was only a host for third-party listings and that it was an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) in the case of this book. The author claimed that Amazon had changed the book into Kindle format and had still been selling it after being notified of infringement. The Court determined that Amazon’s role needed to be substantiated and that it should stay in the case. But it explained that the trial court’s observations did not amount to findings of the nature or extent of Amazon’s liability.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of DS Intellectual Properties LLP and Dharampal Satyapal Limited in a trademark infringement case where a website allegedly used the “DS GROUP” and “RAJNIGANDHA” marks to solicit funds from the general public by misleading them into believing that the website was a platform for the sale of “distributorships”. The Court took into account the length of time the marks had been used, registrations and promotional activities, and enforcement history. It stated that the “DS GROUP” trademark and its logo were well-known trademarks under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 with the assistance of Section 11(6) of the same Act. The impugned activities were barred by a permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 5. Plaintiffs had waived their claims for damages and costs.
In a suit filed in 1996, Bombay High Court granted an application to Colgate-Palmolive for reinstatement of Legal Proceedings Certificates for six trademark registrations. Previously, Anchor had objected to their admission, including on the grounds of their authenticity and relevance. The Court ordered the six certificates to be designated as Exhibits P-50 through P-55, and allowed two other certificates to be designated as P-56 and P-57. It held that Anchor could still attack their evidentiary value and probative value, but reopening the question of the mode of proof was not among its options. No fees were charged, and further directions were given to the parties to approach the Court Commissioner.
In a design infringement case, the Delhi High Court condoned the delay of one day in filing the plaintiffs’ rejoinder and granted permission to the defendant to place more documents on record. The defendant wanted to introduce full catalogues and design inventories as evidence of prior art, as well as consignment notes for the delivery of its wares. While the plaintiffs argued that the documents were self-generated and should have been submitted earlier, the Court determined that the relevance, admissibility, and proof of the documents could be reviewed at trial. The defendant was allowed to file the documents, which the parties could challenge at the proper time.
The Delhi High Court has set aside a settlement in a trademark infringement and passing off case involving the defendant university’s trademark “Maharaja Agrasen”. The settlement allows the university to continue using the current statutory name for its academic, regulatory, administrative, and statutory purposes only, and not for any new promotional or branding purposes, until the name-change process is finalized. The Court entered the settlement into its order, adjusted the previous interim restraint, and scheduled the case for July 13, 2027, for compliance monitoring.
Cobble Stone Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks on October 9, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court quashed the decision of the Trades Mark Registry in refusing to register Cobble Stone Private Limited’s application for the mark “COBBLE STONE” in Class 19 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The application had been rejected based on the cited marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 11. The appellant argued that it had been using the mark since 2011 and that it had not been taken into account that it had requested to submit supporting invoices. The Court ordered the Registrar to re-consider the application de novo within 60 days.
The Delhi High Court issued an ex parte ad interim order in favor of Archian Foods, the owner of the “LAHORI” family of beverage marks, to prevent the use of competing packaging and trade dress for beverages bearing marks like “INDIAN ZEERA”, “INDIAN NIMBOO” and “INDIAN SHIKANJI”. The Court determined that there was a prima facie likelihood of confusion because of similar colour schemes, labels, logos and bottle designs, as well as the plaintiff’s goodwill. The defendants were barred from using the challenged or confusingly similar marks and trade dress in the sale of beverages until further action could be taken. The use of the term “Indian” was only to be considered after pleadings had been filed.
Alucopanel Industries v. Imperia Decor Industries & Anr. on October 7, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court issued an ex parte ad interim injunction prohibiting the defendants from using “ALUMAC”, which it held to be visually and phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark “ALOMAX”. The plaintiff is a manufacturer of aluminium composite panels and other building products and alleged to have been using its mark for a long time. The Court also observed that one of the defendant company’s former directors was also connected to the plaintiff. The defendants were restrained from using “ALUMAC” or a deceptively similar mark for the goods in question for the purposes of infringement and passing off pending further proceedings.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v. M/s Havells PVC Pipes Industry on October 7, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Havells India Limited and its co-plaintiff in a trademark infringement action against the defendant, who was using “HAVELLS” in relation to electrical products and in its trade name and domain name. The defendant did not appear or file a written statement despite service and was proceeded against ex parte. The Court granted the substantive reliefs sought in the plaint, based on the uncontroverted pleadings and evidence, including the report of the Local Commissioner which recorded the import and sale of goods carrying the impugned mark, and ordered the payment of ₹5 lakh towards costs of the suit, including costs of litigation and commission.
Ashok Jain v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. on October 9, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an FIR and the consequent criminal proceedings against Ashok Jain, accused of committing offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 in relation to the making of counterfeit goods with the mark “PIONEER”. The complainant and petitioner had reached an agreement in a memorandum of understanding, where the petitioner had agreed to pay ₹1 lakh and that he would not undertake to do any counterfeiting. The Court, under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, set aside proceedings against the petitioner. It also directed the police to destroy the seized counterfeit goods in the complainant’s counsel’s presence.
The Madras High Court quashed the decision of the Registrar of Trademarks to reject the application of Tregum Remedies for trademark “THE SKIN COMPANY” in Class 3. The Court determined that the Trade Marks Registry had issued a generic order without providing any adequate reasoning, and had not considered the applicant’s reply to the objections raised under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It said that the composite mark could not be broken down to evaluate the word ‘SKIN’’ alone, and it saw no merit in the Section 11 objection. The Court ordered the Registry to advertise the application in terms of Section 20(1) of the Act, in conjunction with Rule 39 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 and then determine the application in terms of the law.
In a suit filed by Malhotra International for infringement and passing off of its registered trademark “PANAMA” and “PANAMA PLUS”, the Calcutta High Court refused to grant an exemption to the petitioner from pre-institution mediation pursuant to Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In May 2026, the plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit in rectification proceedings, which the Court underscored was a means for him to be aware of the defendants’ actions for at least six months. The Court noted that the plaint did not show any urgency for interim relief and that the infringement and passing-off claims could not be separate, and gave directions to return the plaint for compliance with Section 12A.
FMI Limited v. Avon Electrical Industries & Anr. on October 12, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court has granted FMI Limited permission to rectify typographical errors in its application for an injunction against Avon Electrical Industries. The application inadvertently referred to “perfumes, deodorants” instead of “measuring tapes” in two paragraphs concerning the impugned goods. The Court determined that the correction would not be prejudicial to the defendants who had not been served. It accordingly allowed for the amendment and issued the plaintiff an order to serve the amended application with the injunction order.
Sunil Jain v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. on October 12, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court permitted Sunil Jain to withdraw Prayer (b) in his appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks. Counsel suggested that the appellant will be filing another petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, the Court made it clear that any such petition would be evaluated on its own merits and that no prejudice would be caused to the withdrawal of the prayer in the pending appeal. The matter was listed for hearing on November 17, 2026.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction to Amazon Seller Services to stop websites that allegedly stream and download the upcoming film Nayyi Navelli without the permission of the copyright owners. When the Court found that the plaintiff was sincerely contemplating an urgent relief, it excused the plaintiff from the pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It curtailed the identified websites from sharing the film with the public without permission and instructed the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to ease website blocking. The Court also allowed measures to deal with mirror and redirect websites.
M/s KRBL Limited v. Rakshit Trading Company & Ors. on October 13, 2026 (District Court, Delhi)
The Delhi Commercial Court dismissed KRBL Limited’s suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement by Rakshit Trading Company and its proprietors through packaging allegedly imitating its “INDIA GATE CLASSIC” basmati rice label. On comparing the competing packaging, the Court concluded that the dominant marks “INDIA GATE” and “MUGHAL KHWAISH” were different. It noted that similarities in colour schemes, logo placement and other packaging features did not when considered together, create a deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion. The suit was dismissed without an order as to costs.
The Delhi Commercial Court has ruled in favour of Shriram Pistons and Rings Limited’s ex parte suit filed against a defendant who was selling the counterfeit automotive components with its trademarks “SHRIRAM”, “SPR” and “USHA”. The Court determined that there was clear resemblance between the two sets of marks, labels, and packages and that the defendant’s use of the marks constituted trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off. It issued a permanent injunction that prohibited the defendant from selling goods that used the plaintiff’s marks or from using deceptive artistic works and trade dress. The Court further awarded damages of ₹1 lakh and costs to the complainant.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v. Sourav Agarwal on October 14, 2026 (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court ruled that a suit for violation of a family settlement stipulating the prohibition of use of the trade name “Sindharam Sanwarmal” within one kilometre of an existing shop was maintainable before its Commercial Division. In its reasoning, the Court argues that the claim was about compliance with the settlement, not an infringement of an IP right. It refused to grant an injunction, which amounted to an interlocutory order to provide a final remedy, and ordered the defendant to maintain its business accounts, set profits aside, and provide monthly statements to the plaintiff. The defendant was permitted to use 30% of the profits in the ordinary course of business.
ITC Limited v. SMM Tobacco Private Limited & Ors. on October 12, 2026 (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court dismissed ITC Limited’s appeal against the refusal to exempt its trademark and copyright infringement suit from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In July 2026, police search and seizure operations were carried out, with the assertion that the defendants were involved in counterfeit cigarette manufacturing and distribution. The Court found that an alleged infringement’s ongoing nature was not enough to justify waiving mediation requirements. Finding that ITC had not adequately explained its delay in initiating civil proceedings, the Court declined to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision to return the plaint.
The Delhi High Court decreed GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA’s trademark infringement and passing-off suit in accordance with a settlement between the parties. Human Biolife India has committed to discontinue using the marks, to withdraw or cancel relevant applications and registrations, to recall and destroy impacted products, and to limit the use of certain “RIX”-formative marks for vaccines and injectable preparations. The Court extended the recall and destruction period from 15 days to two months and gave the intermediaries a deadline of one week from the date of receipt of the order to recall and destroy specific online listings. Settlement terms were used to dispose of the suit and pending applications.
Domino’s IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/s Domind Pizza & Ors. on October 8, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court issued a summary judgment against three pizza enterprises over the marks “Domind’s Pizza” and “Domzz Pizza” which the plaintiffs alleged were a violation of their “Domino’s” trademarks. The Court noted that the defendants’ listings on food-delivery platforms and their phonetically similar names could mislead consumers into believing that the businesses were associated with Domino’s. Thereupon, the Court proceeded with ex parte proceedings against these defendants and was unable to discern any legitimate reason for their action and granted a permanent injunction of their use of the impugned marks or any identical or deceptively similar marks. Plaintiffs did not seek damages or costs for their claims.
DAZN Limited v. Stremeo.ru & Ors. on October 12, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
DAZN Limited has obtained an ex parte ad-interim injunction against websites that are alleged to have infringed upon the plaintiff’s rights of licence to broadcast “Serie A Football Season 2026-27” without the proper permission. The Court prohibited the identified rogue websites from disseminating the event to the public and ordered domain name registrars and internet service providers to prevent access to the identified websites. It also ordered the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to assist with blocking and enabled DAZN to designate other infringing sites for expeditious action. The Court ruled that the protection extended to mirror and redirect sites, as limited by the conditions in the order.
K. Rangadoss (Deceased) v. Lyca Productions on October 7, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court rejected an appeal against the rejection of a copyright infringement case involving Kaththi. The plaintiff said the movie produced by Lyca Productions plagiarized his registered script Seerkazhi Pakkam Maathaanam and that the defendants were accordingly liable for the Telugu remake, Khaidi No. 150. The Court, applying the principles as enunciated in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, compared both the scripts and ruled that there was no substantial similarity. It concluded that there was no substantial copying and that the similarities found by the plaintiff were remote or incidental. The Court upheld the dismissal of the suit and awarded costs.
The Supreme Court disposed of an appeal arising from a trademark suit over “MILLENNIUM” (CS (Comm) 865/2016, Delhi High Court) in terms of a settlement dated 22 September 2026, following mediation by former CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna. The appellant accepted the respondent’s rights in the mark and logo in Classes 35 and 43, but may continue using its corporate and domain names and the names of two specified Kochi hotels, subject to a prominent non-affiliation disclaimer. Use of “MILLENNIUM” for other hospitality businesses is prohibited, while its jewellery and supermarket businesses remain unaffected. Invoking Article 142, the Court incorporated the settlement into its order and disposed of the proceedings.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd vs Sanskar Singhaniya & Ors on 8 October, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court decreed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by The Indian Express against the defendants using “THE BHARAT EXPRESS” and the associated flame-of-hope logo. The Court had earlier granted an interim injunction on 17 September, 2026, in view of a communication from defendants nos. 1 and 2 stating that they did not intend to contest the matter and had adopted a new name and logo. The defendants did not appear despite service and filed no written statement, so the averments in the plaint remained uncontroverted. The Court held that the claim stood admitted by the communication and decreed the suit in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (d) to (h). Refund of court fees was ordered as per rules.
Vijay Sai Deverakonda vs Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors on 8 October, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted actor Vijay Deverakonda an ex parte ad interim injunction protecting his personality rights against unauthorised merchandise, impersonation, false endorsements, and AI-generated, morphed and obscene content. It restrained the defendants, including John Does, from exploiting his name, image, voice and other attributes, including through AI and deepfakes. The Court declined ex parte relief over the colloquial name “Rowdy” under passing off, but held that AI-generated or morphed images used with the expression would violate his personality rights. It directed platforms to remove specified content within 72 hours and MeitY and DoT to issue blocking directions to ISPs and TSPs. The matter is listed before the Joint Registrar on 3 December 2026 and the Court on 2 February 2027.
Adverio Pharma GmbH vs Healing Pharma India Private Limited on 15 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted Adverio Pharma, a Bayer Group subsidiary, an ex parte ad interim injunction in a patent infringement suit over Indian Patent No. 316570 covering the molecule Vericiguat. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was offering a generic product, “Vercicatch 10 mg”, sold as “Vericiguat 10 mg”, including on IndiaMART, without any licence. On a preliminary appreciation, the Court found a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in the plaintiff’s favour. It restrained the defendant from using, making, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in Vericiguat products infringing the patent, till the next date of hearing. The Court allowed the plaintiff to rely on the defendant’s Delhi GST address to support territorial jurisdiction, and exempted it from pre-litigation mediation. The matter is listed before the Joint Registrar on 08.12.2026.
In this patent suit over Ruxolitinib, defendant no. 1 filed an affidavit dated 19.09.2026 stating that it manufactures and supplies Ruxolitinib and Ruxolitinib Phosphate only as an API, and will not supply them for commercial use in India or abroad until the plaintiffs’ patent expires on 12.12.2026. It also stated that it would deal with the drugs only as permitted under Sections 47 and 107A of the Patents Act, 1970. The plaintiffs indicated they might accept the undertaking if defendant no. 1 also filed an affidavit, with supporting documents, disclosing its supplies of the two drugs so far. Defendant no. 1 agreed to do so. The Court directed it to file the additional affidavit and cleared the earlier affidavit for placement on record, and bound defendant no. 1 to its statement and undertaking in the meantime. The defendants’ application to delete defendant no. 2, a holding company, remains pending, and the matter is to be re-notified on 14.10.2026.
V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd vs S. Chelliah Chettiar Firm on 11 September, 2026 (Madras High Court)
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowed two appeals by V.V.V. & Sons, owner of the registered mark “Idhayam”, against a Single Judge’s order rejecting its plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Single Judge had found suppression of earlier proceedings in the USA and in C.S. No. 726 of 2017, re-litigation, and no cause of action within India, since the alleged infringing acts, involving exports to the USA, were confined to that country. The Division Bench noted that on 05.06.2026 it had set aside similar orders rejecting plaints in a connected batch and restored those suits. It held that this decision would benefit the appellant, given that the issues were substantially similar. The impugned order was set aside and the suit restored, with the Single Judge to proceed in accordance with law. The respondent said it no longer manufactures or markets the goods and was willing to give an undertaking, and the parties may place their settlement before the Single Judge.
The Delhi High Court issued notice in a trademark infringement suit by Defifine Fashion, owner of the registered marks “DEMIFINE” and “DEMI-FINE”, against a jewellery seller using them. The defendant argued that the terms are used merely descriptively, as a category of jewellery, and are protected under Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court did not grant an ex parte injunction, and directed the defendant to file a reply within ten days. On territorial jurisdiction, it noted that the defendant has several stores in Delhi and accepted that it sells jewellery there. Despite the reference in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Kwick Living (I) Pvt. Ltd. on the limits of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in certain IP disputes, the Court was persuaded to entertain the suit. The plaintiff was exempted from pre-litigation mediation, and the caveat was discharged. The matter is listed before the Joint Registrar on 07.12.2026 and before the Court on 27.10.2026.
PhonePe Limited vs The Registrar of Trademarks & Anr on 21 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal by PhonePe against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks dated 19.12.2025 in opposition proceedings. The appellant’s short point was that respondent no. 2’s counter statement had not been served on it, as required under Section 21(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Registrar confirmed from its records that the counter statement was not served, and respondent no. 2 also confirmed this. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Registrar to decide the opposition after issuing the requisite notice and completing pleadings. It directed the Registrar to decide it as expeditiously as possible and within four months.
Universal Spirits Pvt. Ltd vs Empee Distilleries Limited on 16 September, 2026 (Madras High Court)
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of three appeals against an order of a Single Judge restraining Universal Spirits from using the marks “Classic Marco Polo Deluxe Brandy” and “Marco Polo Deluxe XXX Rum”. The appellant stated that it had stopped manufacturing the products from 11.08.2026, and filed an affidavit dated 15.09.2026 undertaking not to deal in products bearing these or deceptively similar marks, pending disposal of the Section 47 cancellation applications before the Registrar of Trade Marks. It sought permission to sell stock already manufactured, in the quantities stated in the affidavit. The respondent accepted the undertaking. The Court took the undertaking on record as binding and allowed the appellant to dispose of the stated stock within three months, while maintaining accounts to be produced before the Single Judge. It clarified that the permission does not extend to any further manufacture or sale.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
[Thanks to Khushi Kharpas for help with some of the case summaries.]