From notable orders of the past week to key national and international IP developments, here’s the latest edition of the SpicyIP Weekly Review. Did we miss anything? Let us know in the comments!
Posts this Week
The Innovation Brief, NLU Delhi, is inviting blog post submissions on the ‘Impact of the Intersection of Innovation and Access by the EU-India FTA’. The last date to share submissions is October 20, 2026. Interested readers can read the call for submissions below.
Case Summaries
Anmol Jain vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2026 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The petitioner, who is a social media content creator, had challenged Meta owned Instagram’s removal of his posts following copyright complaints and suspension of his account, arguing that the Rule, violates Article 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. The Court then held that the social media platform qualifies as an intermediatory under the Information Technology Act, and are required to exercise due diligence, including the removal of any content that infringes copyright or the other proprietary rights. It is also noted that the availability of grievance redressal and appellate mechanisms under the Rules, and thus dismissed the writ petition.
The Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of a patent application concerning an aerosol forming substrate, containing a nitrogen-containing nucleophilic compound. The application had been rejected by the Patent Office on grounds including lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Sections 3(b) and 3€ of the Patents Act. The court found that the controller had relied on reasoning and material that had not been disclosed to the applicant during the examination and had incorrectly assessed the prior art. It also held that that the mere fact that an invention relating to tobacco, nicotine, or an aerosol-generating product could not by itself establish serious prejudice to human health under Section 3(b). The matter was remanded to the controller for fresh consideration after providing the applicant an opportunity of hearing.
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by V.V.V & Sons Edible oils Ltd. concerning the use of the mark “Idhayam” on savouries and sweets manufactured in India for export to the United States. The plaintiff, proprietor of the registered “Idhayam” mark for edible oils, had alleged infringement, while the defendant argued that it was only a contractor manufacturing goods for the US proprietor of “Idhyam South Indian Delite” and that the plaintiff had suppressed earlier proceedings concerning the mark. The single judge bench on the case had rejected the plaint on grounds including suppression of material facts, re-litigation and absence of a cause of action in India. The Division Bench, following its decision is a similar batch of matters, set aside the rejection and restored the suit for adjudication merits, while leaving it open to the parties to place any settlement or undertaking before the Single judge.
The Delhi District Court decreed Nike International Ltd.’s trademark and copyright infringement suit against the defendants concerning the unauthorised use of Nike’s trademarks, labels, trade name and Swoosh device. Relying, inter alia, on the Local Commissioner’s report and photographs, the Court found that the defendants had manufactured or sold products bearing marks and labels infringing Nike’s rights. The Court granted a permanent injunction, directed rendition of accounts of profits and ordered delivery of the infringing goods and related materials for destruction. The suit was decreed against defendant no. 2 along with costs.
Jiostar India Private Limited vs Playz Tv & Ors on 1 October, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of JioStar India Private Limited to restrain unauthorised dissemination of the ongoing West Indies Tour of India 2026 through rogue applications, websites and associated URLs. JioStar claimed exclusive media rights in relation to the BCCI events and alleged that the defendants’ applications were being used to communicate and make available the matches without authorisation. The Court directed domain name registrars and internet service providers to block the identified websites and applications and permitted JioStar to communicate details of newly discovered infringing websites for real-time blocking. The Court also directed the relevant authorities to issue necessary blocking directions and provided for subsequent impleadment of newly identified infringing entities.
The Delhi High Court returned the plaint in a trademark dispute between Himalaya Global Holdings and Himalaya Nutravedics after questioning whether the Court had territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiffs relied, among other things, on the defendant’s sales through e-commerce platforms and the availability of the defendant’s products in Delhi. The Court noted that the question of territorial jurisdiction in online IP disputes was already before a Larger Bench in Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited. Finding that it was not satisfied that it possessed territorial jurisdiction, the Court returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, granting the plaintiffs liberty to pursue their remedies before the competent court.
Digital18 Media Private Limited vs Ssrmovies.Style & Ors on 1 October, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte Ad Interim injunction against several rogue websites accused of hosting streaming and making available unauthorised copies of Digital18 Media’s upcoming film Drishyam: The Conclusion. The plaintiff alleged that the websites had previously engaged in widespread piracy, including of Jolly LLB 3, and apprehended that the upcoming film would be made available online immediately after its release. Finding a prima facie case, balance of convenience and a likelihood of irreparable injury, the Court restrained the defendants from communicating, hosting, streaming or making the film available without authorisation. It also directed domain name registrars to block the concerned domains within 72 hours and permitted the plaintiff to notify the authorities of further piracy by unidentified websites for similar action.
Havells India Limited vs Ratheesh Govindan & Ors on 28 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court allowed Havells India Limited’s application seeking joinder of four additional defendants in its trademark, copyright, design infringement and passing off suit. Havells alleged infringement of marks including “STANDARD”, “STANGUARD” and “HOMESAFE”, as well as its registered designs relating to distribution boards. The proposed defendants had been identified as manufacturers and entities connected with the manufacture of the allegedly infringing products following disclosures made by the existing defendants. The Court accordingly impleaded defendants no. 5 to 8 and directed them to abide by the existing interim injunction. The plaintiff was permitted to file an amended plaint and memo of parties, with the matter listed for completion of pleadings.
Colgate Palmolive Co vs John Doe & Ors on 29 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court allowed Colgate Palmolive’s application to substitute the “John Doe” defendants with the importer and exporter of goods bearing the impugned trade dress. The identities of Sheliya Investment Ltd. (Zambia) and Yiwu Wocheng Ecommerce Firm (China) emerged from the Customs report filed under the Court’s order of 17.09.2025, which directed the seizure and inspection of a container at Mundra Port. The Court impleaded them as defendant nos. 1 and 2 and issued summons. Relying on its earlier prima facie findings of infringement and passing off, which had been held back from interim relief until the parties were ascertained, the Court restrained the newly impleaded defendants from using the impugned trade dress. The matter is listed before the Joint Registrar on 26.11.2026.
The Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Regional Director rejecting Topland Engines’ application under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 to rectify the name of Toplad Private Limited. The petitioner, a diesel engine manufacturer, held the registered trademark “TOPLAND”, including in Class 41 (education), while the respondent company offered education services. The Court held that the Regional Director erred by splitting the names into “TOP” and “LAND”/”LAD” instead of comparing them as a whole. It also noted that Section 16 sets a wider and stricter standard than trademark law: the question is only whether the name is identical or too nearly resembles the registered mark, not whether confusion is likely. Finding “TOPLAD” and “TOPLAND” phonetically and structurally similar, as the dropped letter “N” is likely to be slurred in pronunciation, the Court directed Toplad Private Limited to change its name. The Regional Director was directed to take the necessary steps within four weeks.
H. Rajagoplan vs The Registrar of Trade Marks on 30 September, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking transfer of a pending rectification petition from the Trade Marks Registry to its Intellectual Property Division. The rectification application, filed in 2020 against the second respondent’s “Mangalambiga Coffee and Tiffin Centre” device mark, predated the infringement suit (O.S. No. 160 of 2022). A Division Bench had remitted that suit, directed it to be kept in abeyance, and asked the petitioner to take immediate steps to have the rectification transferred. The Court held the case fell under Section 125(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which allows the Registrar to refer a pending rectification to the High Court, and rejected the argument that Section 24 CPC applied. It acknowledged that the petitioner had not first asked the Registrar to exercise this power, unlike in Asia Match Company. However, it excused this on the facts, given the Division Bench’s direction and the Registrar’s participation in the proceedings, and clarified that parties should ordinarily approach the Registrar first. The Registrar was directed to transfer the rectification and its records within four weeks, and the Court will decide it independently on merits.
Gola Sizzlers Private Limited vs M/S GM Foods & Anr on 28 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by defendant no. 1 to refer to a trademark infringement and passing off suit to arbitration. The defendant relied on the arbitration clause (Clause 14.11) in a tripartite lease agreement under which the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 were lessees. The Court noted that the lease agreement itself recognised a separate agreement governing the rights and obligations of the two lessees inter se, so the clause did not bind them in that respect. It held that an arbitration agreement must be construed strictly and cannot be inferred where none exists, and it declined the reference. Interim relief continues, and the matter is deferred to 05.11.2026 in light of a possible arrangement between the parties.
Onesto Labs Private Limited vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 28 September, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit by Onesto Labs, owner of the mark “CHEMIST AT PLAY”, against defendant no. 1 (a John Doe) for infringement and passing off through the website http://www.chemistatplay.com. The Court noted there was no contest to the suit, made absolute its interim injunction of 04.12.2025, and decreed the suit in terms of prayers (A) and (B), with the plaintiff giving up the remaining reliefs. Defendant no. 4, the domain name Registrar, agreed to transfer the domain name to the plaintiff and was directed to do so within four weeks of the plaintiff providing its account details and completing the formalities. Defendant no. 4 was then deleted from the array of parties, and no relief was sought against defendant no. 6.
Rajkumar Theatres Pvt Ltd vs Wide Angle Creations and Others on 1 October, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court dismissed an application under Section 9(1)(d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to restrain the release of the Hindi remake of “Drishyam 3” pending arbitration. The applicant claimed to be a joint owner of the Hindi remake rights with the first respondent under agreements of 2013 and 2014, and invoked Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The respondents argued that the Hindi sequel rights had been assigned to Viacom 18 under a 2014 assignment and preserved under 2022 settlement agreements. The Court observed that a sweeping worldwide restraint would seriously affect the respondents and third parties, so the applicant had to show a subsisting enforceable right under imminent threat. It found that the material on record did not establish this at the interlocutory stage, as the competing contractual claims required examination of the documents and the parties’ subsequent conduct. The application was dismissed.
M/S. Shiv Textiles vs Iconic IP Interests, LLC on 29 September, 2026 (Supreme Court)
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against a Gujarat High Court judgment that had rejected, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the plaint in a trademark suit filed by Shiv Textiles, the registered proprietor of “Jolly Ranger Legwear” in Class 25. The suit was filed against Iconic IP Interests, LLC, owner of “Jolly Rancher” for candy, after the latter issued three cease and desist notices in 2023. The Court found it difficult to understand how the respondent could argue there was no cause of action, as issuing the notices itself gave rise to one. It also noted that the respondent had itself sued the appellant’s proprietrix over the same issue before the Delhi High Court. The High Court’s judgment was set aside, and Commercial Trade Mark Suit No. 1/2023 was restored to the Commercial Court, Bhavnagar, to proceed in accordance with law.
The Delhi High Court amended the issues raised in proceedings connected with Patent IN 311316 as it noted that issues in the case arose and got merged with the issue connected with infringement. The Court had asked petitioners/plaintiffs to send a list of witnesses and affidavits of evidence within four weeks. Given the life of the patent and pendency of the suit from 2019, the Court also appointed the former Principal District & Sessions Judge, Pawan Kumar Jain, as Local Commissioner for recording evidence on the suit which involves payment of a fee of Rs. 50,000 per day.
Mrs. Shakti Sagar v. The Delhi Law House & Ors. on October 7, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court rejected an application for an interim injunction on alleged use and publication of 47 literary works over which plaintiff claimed copyright. The Court found there was no prima facie case of plaintiff’s ownership of the copyrights, and found that issues of authorship, assignment, and the Wills and other instruments of title were issues for trial. Additionally, it found that the plaintiff had no interest in monetary damages for the lost revenue and the balance of convenience was on the defendant’s side. Hence the interim relief application was dismissed.
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. on October 7, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
An ex parte suit by the firm Levi Strauss & Co. against the use of the deceptively similar “Levi’s” marks on clothes was before the court in the District Court, Delhi, which issued the order. The Court determined that the defendant’s product and marks were deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s, and granted a permanent injunction against trademark infringement and passing off. In addition to the defendant ordered to give up infringing goods and material, he also ordered the destruction of infringing goods and material.The defendant was also ordered to drop the infringing goods and infringing material. Considering 680 pairs of infringing jeans recovered from the premises, the Court fixed a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for the plaintiff. He refused aggravated damages and a decree for rendition of accounts, which amounted to 1,70,000.
NOCIL Ltd. v. Finorchem Ltd. & Anr. on October 7, 2026 (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court has granted interim relief in a suit against alleged infringement of its process patents on 4-ADPA and breach of confidentiality to NOCIL. The Court concluded that there was a strong prima facie case of substantial similarity between the Process the respondent disclosed and the patented Processes, and the need to abide by his obligations under the NDA to the former employer. It also determined that the respondents have taken inconsistent positions on their process and did not make a credible challenge to the validity of the patents. The Court granted the interim reliefs sought, finding that weighings of nature and injury was in favour of NOCIL.
John Vadassery v. The Registrar of Trade Marks on September 30, 2026 (Kerala High Court)
Heroin’s proposition that an authorisation issued by a trademark agent under Section 145 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 together with the provisions of Rule 19 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is an instrument of authority to represent another person and has the attributes of a power of attorney was accepted by the Kerala High Court. So the Court decided that it is necessary for the stamp to be stamped under the appropriate Stamp Act if the authorisation is issued. This petitioner’s challenge to the requirement was rejected, and the Court held that the petition was without merit.
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed the appellant’s application and made absolute the ad interim injunction in a suit for specific performance. The Trial Judge had refused interim relief only because the property description in the plaint schedule did not tally with the agreements of 2009 and 2013. The Court held that this minor error was negligible, since the suit concerns the agreements themselves, and noted that amendment applications were already pending. Relying on Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Stamp Act, 1899, In Re (2024) 6 SCC 1, it held that insufficiently stamped agreements are not void or unenforceable, that the defect is curable by impounding, and that the agreements could be relied on at the interim stage. It rejected the objection under Section 48 of the Companies Act, 1956 (company seal), because the suit was against individuals whose signatures appear on the agreements. It also held that the absence of a time limit only meant time was not of the essence, and that a cause of action had been made out. The respondents were restrained from selling, transferring, alienating or creating third-party interests in the property, or altering its nature, till disposal of the appeal. The Trial Court may proceed with the final hearing of the injunction application and the suit.
Rajesh Kumar & Others vs Jwala Devi on 7 October, 2026 (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed a petition under Article 227 filed by the defendants against an appellate order in a suit between co-sharers over jointly owned land. The plaintiff had sought an injunction restraining construction and change in the nature of the land until partition. The Trial Court dismissed her Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 application, but the Appellate Court reversed this and restrained the defendants from raising new construction or changing the land’s nature. Relying on Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi (2024) 11 SCC 351 and the Wander v. Antox line of cases, the High Court held that an appellate court may interfere with a discretionary interim injunction order only where it is perverse, arbitrary or contrary to settled principles. The Appellate Court had reassessed the material as if it were the Trial Court, without finding any perversity in the Trial Court’s order. Citing Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu, 2026 INSC 434, the Court set aside the Appellate Court’s order and restored the Trial Court’s order dismissing the application. It clarified that its observations are not on the merits of the case.
Glisten LLC vs The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs on 1 October, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of Indian Patent Application No. 202017005875, titled “Gemstone Coating and Methods of Making and Using the Same”. The Assistant Controller had refused the application under Section 15 on the ground that claim nos. 1 to 17 lacked inventive step. The inventive step objection in the Section 14 hearing notice, however, was confined to claim no. 18, on the basis that it lacked working examples. The appellant gave up claim no. 18, and the Controller then refused the application by holding claims 1 to 17 obvious over D1 and D2. The Court held that the hearing notice narrows the dispute to the objections that remain, and an applicant may rely on it at face value. A ground on which the Controller proposes to refuse must first be put to the applicant, and written submissions cannot substitute for notice. Relying on Perkinelmer, Proprietect and Phillip Morris, it held that the refusal violated Section 14 and the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the application was restored to the Controller for fresh consideration, with all contentions on merits left open.
Reliance Industries Limited vs Rahul Meena & Ors on 7 October, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted Reliance Industries an ex parte ad interim injunction against the use of “JIO LOTTERY”-formative marks and domain names in relation to lottery and gaming services. Finding that the websites prima facie satisfied the test of a rogue website laid down in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to, which applies a qualitative rather than a quantitative approach, the Court restrained defendant no. 1 from using the impugned marks. The domain name registrars (defendant nos. 2 to 10) were directed to suspend the websites listed in Annexure A, which includes mirror and redirecting websites, and defendant no. 11 (Blogger) was directed to take down the impugned blogspot page. The Court also exempted the plaintiff from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in light of Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, since urgent interim relief was sought. Summons were issued, and the matter is listed before the Court on 30.11.2026 and before the Joint Registrar on 10.12.2026.
The Delhi High Court issued notice on a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 filed by V-Guard Industries seeking cancellation of the registration of “G-GUARD” (no. 3799287) in Class 11. The petitioner claimed to have adopted “V-GUARD” in 1977 and to be its prior user and registered proprietor in several classes. The respondent had applied for the impugned mark in 2018, claiming user since 2006. The mark was published in the Trade Marks Journal on 27.07.2020 and registered on 26.01.2021. According to the petitioner, the publication escaped its attention due to an oversight, so no opposition was filed. The Court allowed the petitioner to file additional documents within 30 days. Reply is to be filed within four weeks, and the matter will be re-notified on 30.11.2026.
M/S Ralson (India) Limited vs Union of India & Ors on 7 October, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Trade Marks Registry to accept renewal fees for Trade Mark Registration No. 499083 in Class 1 and issue a renewal certificate. The petitioner stated that no notice under Rules 66 and 67 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 and Rule 58 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 was ever issued. The respondents submitted that the notice in Form O-3 under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was not traceable, and that the petitioner could file a fresh renewal application with the requisite fees. Recording this, the Court directed that any fresh application be considered by the Registry within four weeks, and that fees already paid be adjusted against it.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v. HT Media Limited on October 7, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court observed that Section 31D(5) of the Copyright Act, 1957 was not being adhered to, even though it had been recorded in an earlier order that the plaintiff was in favour of compliance. Super Cassettes filed that it wanted to file an affidavit on the matter. The Court ordered the plaintiff to do so prior to the next hearing, and allowed HT Media to submit a response if one was prepared within three weeks. The matter is listed for December 14, 2026.
High Court on its Own Motion v. Shri Dilip Wagh on October 5, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
Dilip Wagh, who was found recording court proceedings without permission and trying to delete the footage from his mobile phone, had his device confiscated by the Bombay High Court. The Court pointed out that the High Court Rules clearly prohibit unauthorised recording and that this may be viewed as contempt of court. While accepting Wagh’s apology, the Court directed him to pay ₹10,000 to the High Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks. It also cautioned against any future similar incident, as it may trigger more legal action.
The Delhi High Court issued an ex parte ad interim order, prohibiting Chakr Innovation from using, accessing, installing or distributing the plaintiffs’ SolidWorks software, which is pirated or unauthorized. The plaintiffs based their claims on infringement reports showing 160 incidents of suspected unauthorised use on at least 12 computer systems of the defendant. The Court also prohibited the defendant from “formatting any computer systems identified” or from deleting any “relevant data and log files. The matter will be heard further after completion of service and pleadings.
Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr. v. Medicine Me & Ors. on October 5, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court ruled in a case related to the unauthorised use of the name of cardiac surgeon Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty and the trademarks of Narayana Hrudayalaya in fabricated videos on social media, including the use of AI-generated content, which claimed to offer medical treatments. The Court granted its previous interim injunction in full and ordered Meta and Google to abide by the takedown instructions. The plaintiffs also were authorized to provide an affidavit of merit to the platforms notifying them of subsequent infringing content. The Court did, however, set aside the issue of whether the plaintiffs’ marks were well-known, since the statutory factors had not been considered.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. John Doe & Ors. on October 1, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court has granted an order allowing for a standing procedure for dealing with future cases of live sports piracy, thus making it unnecessary to make new applications in regard to any new case of infringement in the future. In addition to this, the Court has also directed FanCode to bring its attention to domain registrars, hosting companies, and ISPs in regard to any new cases of infringement, mirror sites, redirections, and URL issues in light of evidence regarding such cases. It is mandatory for the concerned parties to act within 24 hours and for the designated authority to send notices to ISPs within 36 hours, subject to specified safeguards.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
[Thanks to Khushi, Kaustub, and Nishita for the case summaries.]