India Monthly News Roundup - February 2026
Interns: Ananya Kanojia
01 IP Insights — Highlights You Shouldn’t Miss!
-- Patents
- PPC Broadband Inc. Vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, C.A. (Comm IPD-Pat) 67/2024
- Manu Chaudhary Vs. The Controller and Patents of Design, C.A. (Comm IPD-Pat) 36/2024
- Yangtze Memory Technlogy Vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) IPD 10/2025
- Wacom Company Ltd Vs. Cirel Systems Pvt Ltd, Civil Petition No. 426 of 2025
-- Trademarks
- Acko Technology and Services Pvt Ltd Vs. Chandra Mohan Mishra & Anr., C.O. (Comm.Ipd-Tm) 48/2024
- Verizon Trademark Services LLC & Ors. Vs. Verizon Careers and Ors., CS(Comm) 15/2025
- Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. Chacha Cloth House, FAO (Comm) 217/2025 & CM Appl. 4953/2025
- Tibbs Food Pvt Ltd Vs. D-Lite Frankies and Foods Pvt Ltd., (T)OP(TM) No. 250 of 2023 and (TM)A No. 13 of 2026
- Asian Paints Ltd Vs. Manju Rani Jindal & Ors., Commercial IP Suit No. 271 of 2015
-- Copyright
- Reliance Industries Ltd Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and 32 Others, C.S (Comm Div) No. 312 of 2025
- Fornnax Technology Pvt Ltd Vs. The Registrar of Copyrights, CA (Comm.Ipd-Cr) 5/2026
- Saregama India Ltd Vs. Mr. Ilaiyaraaja, CS(Comm) 143/2026
IP Insights — Highlights You Shouldn’t Miss!
PPC Broadband Inc. Vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, C.A. (Comm IPD-Pat) 67/2024
In the High Court of Delhi, the appellant challenged the refusal of its patent application titled “Reel Enclosures” under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970 on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja). The invention related to a reel enclosure mechanism designed to prevent rotation of a cable reel when closed and permit rotation when opened. The appellant argued that the Controller had failed to consider the amended set of claims (Claims 1–10) submitted after the hearing and had instead based the rejection on the original unamended claims. It was further contended that the Controller did not properly apply the five-step test for determining obviousness, which require identifying differences between the prior art and the claimed invention and assessing whether those differences would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.
The Court found merit in the appellant’s contentions and held that the impugned order reflected non-application of mind, as it repeatedly relied on deleted claim elements and failed to evaluate the amended claims or the “characterized in that” clause highlighting the inventive features. The Court also observed that the Controller had focused only on similarities with prior art (D1–D7) without sequentially applying for the five-step obviousness test, as reaffirmed in later Division Bench judgments. The Court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Controller to reassess the application in accordance with settled principles of inventive step and after granting the appellant a proper opportunity of hearing.
Manu Chaudhary Vs. The Controller and Patents of Design, C.A. (Comm IPD-Pat) 36/2024
The Delhi High Court, set aside an order refusing a patent for an oral herbal painkiller. The Controller had rejected the application primarily because National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) approval was not submitted within a specific timeframe, despite the appellant proving the application was pending. The Court ruled that under Section 6(1A) of the Biological Diversity Act and relevant guidelines, NBA permission is a prerequisite for the grant of a patent, not a ground for its rejection while the approval is actively being sought.
The Court held that the Controller should have exercised discretion under Section 15 of the Patents Act to defer the final decision until the NBA reached a conclusion. Consequently, the matter was remanded for re-examination, allowing the appellant now in possession of the NBA approval to address the remaining objections regarding non-patentability under Section 3(p). The Court further directed that the appellant must be represented by a qualified Patent Agent or Advocate during the fresh hearing to rectify previous procedural irregularities.
Yangtze Memory Technlogy Vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) IPD 10/2025
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge against an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The Respondent had refused the appellant’s patent application for a “Method for Forming 3D Memory Device,” citing a lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant contended that the Controller failed to provide a reasoned order, specifically neglecting to explain how the cited prior art (D1) rendered the present invention obvious to a person skilled in the art.
The Court presiding over the matter, set aside the refusal order, noting that it lacked the necessary technical analysis. The Court emphasized that while the Controller is not required to write a lengthy judgment, the order must reflect a “quasi-judicial” application of mind by identifying the specific differences between the prior art and the claimed invention. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter back to the Respondent for a fresh, reasoned decision to be issued within four months, ensuring that the appellant is granted a fair opportunity to be heard.
Wacom Company Ltd Vs. Cirel Systems Pvt Ltd, Civil Petition No. 426 of 2025
The Delhi High Court adjudicated an appeal under section 117A of The Patents Act 1970, against an order by the Controller of Patents that had refused a patent application for a “Pen-type Input Device”. The controller’s refusal was primarily based on a lack of inventive step under section 2(1)(ja), asserting that the invention was obvious in light of prior art. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to appreciate the specific technical advancement of their “integrated circuit” and “pressure sensing” mechanisms, which effectively reduced the physical size of the stylus while maintaining high sensitivity, a distinction they claimed that was not present in the prior art.
The Court, presiding over the case, observed that the impugned mark order was “cryptic” and lacked the necessary technical analysis required for a quasi-judicial decision. The court noted that the Controller failed to perform the mandatory 4-step “obviousness” test, which involves the identifying the inventive concept and comparing it against the state of the art to determine if the differences would be obvious to a person skilled in the art. Consequently, the Court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter back to the respondent for a fresh hearing, emphasizing that any order rejecting a patent must be “speaking” and well-reasoned to with stand judicial scrutiny.
Acko Technology and Services Pvt Ltd Vs. Chandra Mohan Mishra & Anr., C.O. (Comm.Ipd-Tm) 48/2024
The High Court of Delhi, dealt with a rectification petition seeking cancellation of the trademark ‘ACCKO’ registered in class 9. The petitioner, proprietor of the well-known mark ‘ACKO’, argued that the impugned mark was deceptively similar and had not been used since the registration. As the respondent failed to appear and contest the proceedings, the allegation of non-used remained unchallenged.
The court held that the petitioner was a ‘person aggrieved’ and that the marks were phonetically and visually similar, with the mere addition of one letter being insufficient to avoid confusion. Finding both non-use under section 47 and wrongful registration under section 11 and 57, the court ordered cancellation of the impugned mark and directed rectification of the register to maintain its purity.
Verizon Trademark Services LLC & Ors. Vs. Verizon Careers and Ors., CS(Comm) 15/2025
Decided by The High Court of Delhi, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction and summary judgement against the defendant for infringing their well-known trademark ‘VERIZON’. The defendant had created the domain name “verizon-careers.com” and used email addresses and branding identical to the plaintiffs’ mark to conduct a fraudulent recruitment scheme. They used face interview communications and offer letters and extracted money from unsuspecting job applicants under the guise of certification fees. Despite the service of summons, the defendant failed to file a written statement and proceeded ex parte.
The court held that plaintiff had established their statutory rights, including recognition of “VERIZON” as a well-known trademark, and that the defendants use of an identical mark for identical services amounted to infringement, passing off, dilution and tarnishment. Relying on the summary judgement provisions under Order XIII-A CPC, the court observed that the defendant had no real prospect of defending the claim. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in the favour of plaintiff, granting permanent injunction and costs, and reinforcing strong judicial protection against online trademark fraud and impersonation.
Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. Chacha Cloth House, FAO (Comm) 217/2025 & CM Appl. 4953/2025
The plaintiff sought injunction against the defendant for infringement and passing off, of its registered trademark “CHACHA SAREE BAZAR”. The plaintiff contented that it had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the textile market, and that the defendants’ use of the mark “CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE” was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among the consumers. The plaintiff argued that the dominant feature of both marks was the word “CHACHA”. The nature of goods like clothing and textiles was identical or closely related. The court examined the marks as a whole and applied the test of deceptive similarity from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. It held that the shared document element “CHACHA”, coupled with similarity in trade channels with goods, created a likelihood of confusion. The defendant’s adoption of similar marks in the same line of business was found to be dishonest and intended to ride upon the plaintiff’s goodwill. Consequently, court granted injunction in the favour of the plaintiff and restrained the defendant from using the impugned mark.
Tibbs Food Pvt Ltd Vs. D-Lite Frankies and Foods Pvt Ltd., (T)OP(TM) No. 250 of 2023 and (TM)A No. 13 of 2026
In the High Court of Judicature of Madras, the petitioner sought removal of trademark “D-LITE FRANKIES AND FOOD PVT LTD” (application no. 2001235, class 30). During the proceedings, it emerged that the respondent company had been struck off from the registrar of the companies in 2019 and was therefore a non-existent legal entity. Although the mark has allegedly been assigned to one of its director in 2018, no steps were taken to record the assignment with the Trademark Registry, and the trademark continued to stand in the name of the struck off company.
The court held that a trademark cannot subsist in the name of a non-existent entity, and such registration becomes non-est in the eye of law. Since the company was no longer in existence, retaining the mark in its name serves no legal purpose. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the registration within 4 weeks. It further observed that the alleged assignee claimed any independent rights by virtue of assignment deed, he must work out its remedies separately in accordance with law.
Asian Paints Ltd Vs. Manju Rani Jindal & Ors., Commercial IP Suit No. 271 of 2015
Decided by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction for infringement and passing off against the defendants’ use of the mark “SUPER ASIAN PLUS” in relation to wall putty and cement paints. The plaintiff established that it is the registered proprietor of the well-known trademarks “ASIAN PAINTS” and “ASIAN”, with continuous use dating back several decades and substantial goodwill in the market. The court noted that the word “ASIAN” constituted the dominant and essential feature of the impugned mark, and the addition of the words, “SUPER” and “PLUS” did not sufficiently distinguish it, especially since the goods are identical. As the defendant failed to file the written statement or contest the proceedings, the plaintiffs’ evidence remained unchallenged.
The court held that the adoption of the mark “SUPER ASIAN PLUS” was dishonest and amounted to infringement as well as passing off, given likelihood of confusion among consumers. The court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark. The court awarded the compensatory cost of Rs. 3,00,000 each against certain defendants, reinforcing stricter cost regime under commercial litigation.
Reliance Industries Ltd Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and 32 Others, C.S (Comm Div) No. 312 of 2025
In the High Court of Madras, the plaintiff, Reliance Industries Ltd (through its division Jio Studios), instituted a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against multiple telecoms and internet service providers and cable operators. The relief was sought under the provision of the Copyright Act 1957, in relation to the cinematographic film “DHURANDHAR”. The plaintiff prayed for directions to block infringing websites and restrain unauthorized copying, transmission, camcording, uploading and downloading of the film various digital and physical mediums thereby seeking pre-emptive protection against online piracy upon the film’s release.
However, at the stage of hearing, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that he had received instructions to withdraw the suit, and an endorsement to that effect was made before the Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn without any order as to costs and closed the connected applications. Thus, the matter did not culminate in any substantive adjudication on copyright infringement or intermediary liability, and the withdrawal effectively brought the proceedings to an end at a preliminary stage.
Fornnax Technology Pvt Ltd Vs. The Registrar of Copyrights, CA (Comm.Ipd-Cr) 5/2026
In The High Court of Delhi, the appellant challenged a common order of the Registrar of Copyright rejecting its copyright application for an artistic work titled “Cutting Chamber Part of Secondary Shredder R-4000 Front View.” The principal controversy revolved around whether the respondents were entitled to oppose the copyright application at the pre-registration stage. The appellant argued that only a “person interested” under Section 45 read with Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 could participate at that stage, whereas the Registrar erroneously treated the respondents as “persons aggrieved” under Section 50 (which applies post-registration) and allowed their opposition. It was further contended that the Registrar wrongly invoked Section 15(2) of the act relating to industrial application of designs based on electronic materials such as website content and videos, which were allegedly not supplied to the appellant for rebuttal.
The Court found merit in the procedural objections raised by the appellant and held that the Registrar had failed to properly address the distinction between “person interested” and “person aggrieved,” and had also relied on materials without ensuring adequate opportunity to rebut them. Observing that such lapses affected the fairness of the inquiry under Section 45(2), the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for de novo consideration.
Saregama India Ltd Vs. Mr. Ilaiyaraaja, CS(Comm) 143/2026
In the High Court of Delhi, the plaintiff sought an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant, a renowned music composer, from exploiting certain sound recordings and musical works forming part of numerous cinematograph films. The plaintiff contended that between 1976 and 2001 it had entered into assignment agreements with various film producers, thereby acquiring exclusive, perpetual and worldwide copyright in the sound recordings and underlying musical and literary works.
It was alleged that the defendant had uploaded the works on digital platforms and was issuing licences to third parties while simultaneously disputing the plaintiff’s title. Relying on Section 17(b) and (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. vs. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association, the plaintiff argued that the producer, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, is the first owner of copyright in works incorporated in a cinematograph film.
The Court, after examining the assignment agreements and sample materials placed on record, held that a prima facie case had been established in favour of the plaintiff. It observed that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, and that irreparable harm would ensue if the alleged infringing acts continued. Accordingly, the Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant and those acting on his behalf from exploiting, licensing, or claiming ownership over the plaintiff’s copyrighted works listed in Annexure A to the order.
India Monthly News Roundup – February 2026
India Monthly News Roundup – January 2026
India Monthly News Roundup – September 2024
NEWSLETTER GLOBAL –AUGUST
India Monthly News Roundup - February 2026
Interns: Ananya Kanojia
01 IP Insights — Highlights You Shouldn’t Miss!
-- Patents
- PPC Broadband Inc. Vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, C.A. (Comm IPD-Pat) 67/2024
- Manu Chaudhary Vs. The Controller and Patents of Design, C.A. (Comm IPD-Pat) 36/2024
- Yangtze Memory Technlogy Vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) IPD 10/2025
- Wacom Company Ltd Vs. Cirel Systems Pvt Ltd, Civil Petition No. 426 of 2025
-- Trademarks
- Acko Technology and Services Pvt Ltd Vs. Chandra Mohan Mishra & Anr., C.O. (Comm.Ipd-Tm) 48/2024
- Verizon Trademark Services LLC & Ors. Vs. Verizon Careers and Ors., CS(Comm) 15/2025
- Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. Chacha Cloth House, FAO (Comm) 217/2025 & CM Appl. 4953/2025
- Tibbs Food Pvt Ltd Vs. D-Lite Frankies and Foods Pvt Ltd., (T)OP(TM) No. 250 of 2023 and (TM)A No. 13 of 2026
- Asian Paints Ltd Vs. Manju Rani Jindal & Ors., Commercial IP Suit No. 271 of 2015
-- Copyright
- Reliance Industries Ltd Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and 32 Others, C.S (Comm Div) No. 312 of 2025
- Fornnax Technology Pvt Ltd Vs. The Registrar of Copyrights, CA (Comm.Ipd-Cr) 5/2026
- Saregama India Ltd Vs. Mr. Ilaiyaraaja, CS(Comm) 143/2026
IP Insights — Highlights You Shouldn’t Miss!
PPC Broadband Inc. Vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, C.A. (Comm IPD-Pat) 67/2024
In the High Court of Delhi, the appellant challenged the refusal of its patent application titled “Reel Enclosures” under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970 on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja). The invention related to a reel enclosure mechanism designed to prevent rotation of a cable reel when closed and permit rotation when opened. The appellant argued that the Controller had failed to consider the amended set of claims (Claims 1–10) submitted after the hearing and had instead based the rejection on the original unamended claims. It was further contended that the Controller did not properly apply the five-step test for determining obviousness, which require identifying differences between the prior art and the claimed invention and assessing whether those differences would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.
The Court found merit in the appellant’s contentions and held that the impugned order reflected non-application of mind, as it repeatedly relied on deleted claim elements and failed to evaluate the amended claims or the “characterized in that” clause highlighting the inventive features. The Court also observed that the Controller had focused only on similarities with prior art (D1–D7) without sequentially applying for the five-step obviousness test, as reaffirmed in later Division Bench judgments. The Court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Controller to reassess the application in accordance with settled principles of inventive step and after granting the appellant a proper opportunity of hearing.
Manu Chaudhary Vs. The Controller and Patents of Design, C.A. (Comm IPD-Pat) 36/2024
The Delhi High Court, set aside an order refusing a patent for an oral herbal painkiller. The Controller had rejected the application primarily because National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) approval was not submitted within a specific timeframe, despite the appellant proving the application was pending. The Court ruled that under Section 6(1A) of the Biological Diversity Act and relevant guidelines, NBA permission is a prerequisite for the grant of a patent, not a ground for its rejection while the approval is actively being sought.
The Court held that the Controller should have exercised discretion under Section 15 of the Patents Act to defer the final decision until the NBA reached a conclusion. Consequently, the matter was remanded for re-examination, allowing the appellant now in possession of the NBA approval to address the remaining objections regarding non-patentability under Section 3(p). The Court further directed that the appellant must be represented by a qualified Patent Agent or Advocate during the fresh hearing to rectify previous procedural irregularities.
Yangtze Memory Technlogy Vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) IPD 10/2025
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge against an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The Respondent had refused the appellant’s patent application for a “Method for Forming 3D Memory Device,” citing a lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant contended that the Controller failed to provide a reasoned order, specifically neglecting to explain how the cited prior art (D1) rendered the present invention obvious to a person skilled in the art.
The Court presiding over the matter, set aside the refusal order, noting that it lacked the necessary technical analysis. The Court emphasized that while the Controller is not required to write a lengthy judgment, the order must reflect a “quasi-judicial” application of mind by identifying the specific differences between the prior art and the claimed invention. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter back to the Respondent for a fresh, reasoned decision to be issued within four months, ensuring that the appellant is granted a fair opportunity to be heard.
Wacom Company Ltd Vs. Cirel Systems Pvt Ltd, Civil Petition No. 426 of 2025
The Delhi High Court adjudicated an appeal under section 117A of The Patents Act 1970, against an order by the Controller of Patents that had refused a patent application for a “Pen-type Input Device”. The controller’s refusal was primarily based on a lack of inventive step under section 2(1)(ja), asserting that the invention was obvious in light of prior art. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to appreciate the specific technical advancement of their “integrated circuit” and “pressure sensing” mechanisms, which effectively reduced the physical size of the stylus while maintaining high sensitivity, a distinction they claimed that was not present in the prior art.
The Court, presiding over the case, observed that the impugned mark order was “cryptic” and lacked the necessary technical analysis required for a quasi-judicial decision. The court noted that the Controller failed to perform the mandatory 4-step “obviousness” test, which involves the identifying the inventive concept and comparing it against the state of the art to determine if the differences would be obvious to a person skilled in the art. Consequently, the Court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter back to the respondent for a fresh hearing, emphasizing that any order rejecting a patent must be “speaking” and well-reasoned to with stand judicial scrutiny.
Acko Technology and Services Pvt Ltd Vs. Chandra Mohan Mishra & Anr., C.O. (Comm.Ipd-Tm) 48/2024
The High Court of Delhi, dealt with a rectification petition seeking cancellation of the trademark ‘ACCKO’ registered in class 9. The petitioner, proprietor of the well-known mark ‘ACKO’, argued that the impugned mark was deceptively similar and had not been used since the registration. As the respondent failed to appear and contest the proceedings, the allegation of non-used remained unchallenged.
The court held that the petitioner was a ‘person aggrieved’ and that the marks were phonetically and visually similar, with the mere addition of one letter being insufficient to avoid confusion. Finding both non-use under section 47 and wrongful registration under section 11 and 57, the court ordered cancellation of the impugned mark and directed rectification of the register to maintain its purity.
Verizon Trademark Services LLC & Ors. Vs. Verizon Careers and Ors., CS(Comm) 15/2025
Decided by The High Court of Delhi, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction and summary judgement against the defendant for infringing their well-known trademark ‘VERIZON’. The defendant had created the domain name “verizon-careers.com” and used email addresses and branding identical to the plaintiffs’ mark to conduct a fraudulent recruitment scheme. They used face interview communications and offer letters and extracted money from unsuspecting job applicants under the guise of certification fees. Despite the service of summons, the defendant failed to file a written statement and proceeded ex parte.
The court held that plaintiff had established their statutory rights, including recognition of “VERIZON” as a well-known trademark, and that the defendants use of an identical mark for identical services amounted to infringement, passing off, dilution and tarnishment. Relying on the summary judgement provisions under Order XIII-A CPC, the court observed that the defendant had no real prospect of defending the claim. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in the favour of plaintiff, granting permanent injunction and costs, and reinforcing strong judicial protection against online trademark fraud and impersonation.
Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. Chacha Cloth House, FAO (Comm) 217/2025 & CM Appl. 4953/2025
The plaintiff sought injunction against the defendant for infringement and passing off, of its registered trademark “CHACHA SAREE BAZAR”. The plaintiff contented that it had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the textile market, and that the defendants’ use of the mark “CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE” was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among the consumers. The plaintiff argued that the dominant feature of both marks was the word “CHACHA”. The nature of goods like clothing and textiles was identical or closely related. The court examined the marks as a whole and applied the test of deceptive similarity from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. It held that the shared document element “CHACHA”, coupled with similarity in trade channels with goods, created a likelihood of confusion. The defendant’s adoption of similar marks in the same line of business was found to be dishonest and intended to ride upon the plaintiff’s goodwill. Consequently, court granted injunction in the favour of the plaintiff and restrained the defendant from using the impugned mark.
Tibbs Food Pvt Ltd Vs. D-Lite Frankies and Foods Pvt Ltd., (T)OP(TM) No. 250 of 2023 and (TM)A No. 13 of 2026
In the High Court of Judicature of Madras, the petitioner sought removal of trademark “D-LITE FRANKIES AND FOOD PVT LTD” (application no. 2001235, class 30). During the proceedings, it emerged that the respondent company had been struck off from the registrar of the companies in 2019 and was therefore a non-existent legal entity. Although the mark has allegedly been assigned to one of its director in 2018, no steps were taken to record the assignment with the Trademark Registry, and the trademark continued to stand in the name of the struck off company.
The court held that a trademark cannot subsist in the name of a non-existent entity, and such registration becomes non-est in the eye of law. Since the company was no longer in existence, retaining the mark in its name serves no legal purpose. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the registration within 4 weeks. It further observed that the alleged assignee claimed any independent rights by virtue of assignment deed, he must work out its remedies separately in accordance with law.
Asian Paints Ltd Vs. Manju Rani Jindal & Ors., Commercial IP Suit No. 271 of 2015
Decided by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction for infringement and passing off against the defendants’ use of the mark “SUPER ASIAN PLUS” in relation to wall putty and cement paints. The plaintiff established that it is the registered proprietor of the well-known trademarks “ASIAN PAINTS” and “ASIAN”, with continuous use dating back several decades and substantial goodwill in the market. The court noted that the word “ASIAN” constituted the dominant and essential feature of the impugned mark, and the addition of the words, “SUPER” and “PLUS” did not sufficiently distinguish it, especially since the goods are identical. As the defendant failed to file the written statement or contest the proceedings, the plaintiffs’ evidence remained unchallenged.
The court held that the adoption of the mark “SUPER ASIAN PLUS” was dishonest and amounted to infringement as well as passing off, given likelihood of confusion among consumers. The court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark. The court awarded the compensatory cost of Rs. 3,00,000 each against certain defendants, reinforcing stricter cost regime under commercial litigation.
Reliance Industries Ltd Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and 32 Others, C.S (Comm Div) No. 312 of 2025
In the High Court of Madras, the plaintiff, Reliance Industries Ltd (through its division Jio Studios), instituted a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against multiple telecoms and internet service providers and cable operators. The relief was sought under the provision of the Copyright Act 1957, in relation to the cinematographic film “DHURANDHAR”. The plaintiff prayed for directions to block infringing websites and restrain unauthorized copying, transmission, camcording, uploading and downloading of the film various digital and physical mediums thereby seeking pre-emptive protection against online piracy upon the film’s release.
However, at the stage of hearing, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that he had received instructions to withdraw the suit, and an endorsement to that effect was made before the Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn without any order as to costs and closed the connected applications. Thus, the matter did not culminate in any substantive adjudication on copyright infringement or intermediary liability, and the withdrawal effectively brought the proceedings to an end at a preliminary stage.
Fornnax Technology Pvt Ltd Vs. The Registrar of Copyrights, CA (Comm.Ipd-Cr) 5/2026
In The High Court of Delhi, the appellant challenged a common order of the Registrar of Copyright rejecting its copyright application for an artistic work titled “Cutting Chamber Part of Secondary Shredder R-4000 Front View.” The principal controversy revolved around whether the respondents were entitled to oppose the copyright application at the pre-registration stage. The appellant argued that only a “person interested” under Section 45 read with Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 could participate at that stage, whereas the Registrar erroneously treated the respondents as “persons aggrieved” under Section 50 (which applies post-registration) and allowed their opposition. It was further contended that the Registrar wrongly invoked Section 15(2) of the act relating to industrial application of designs based on electronic materials such as website content and videos, which were allegedly not supplied to the appellant for rebuttal.
The Court found merit in the procedural objections raised by the appellant and held that the Registrar had failed to properly address the distinction between “person interested” and “person aggrieved,” and had also relied on materials without ensuring adequate opportunity to rebut them. Observing that such lapses affected the fairness of the inquiry under Section 45(2), the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for de novo consideration.
Saregama India Ltd Vs. Mr. Ilaiyaraaja, CS(Comm) 143/2026
In the High Court of Delhi, the plaintiff sought an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant, a renowned music composer, from exploiting certain sound recordings and musical works forming part of numerous cinematograph films. The plaintiff contended that between 1976 and 2001 it had entered into assignment agreements with various film producers, thereby acquiring exclusive, perpetual and worldwide copyright in the sound recordings and underlying musical and literary works.
It was alleged that the defendant had uploaded the works on digital platforms and was issuing licences to third parties while simultaneously disputing the plaintiff’s title. Relying on Section 17(b) and (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. vs. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association, the plaintiff argued that the producer, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, is the first owner of copyright in works incorporated in a cinematograph film.
The Court, after examining the assignment agreements and sample materials placed on record, held that a prima facie case had been established in favour of the plaintiff. It observed that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, and that irreparable harm would ensue if the alleged infringing acts continued. Accordingly, the Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant and those acting on his behalf from exploiting, licensing, or claiming ownership over the plaintiff’s copyrighted works listed in Annexure A to the order.
India Monthly News Roundup – February 2026
India Monthly News Roundup – January 2026
India Monthly News Roundup – September 2024
NEWSLETTER GLOBAL –AUGUST
India Monthly News Roundup - February 2026
Interns: Ananya Kanojia
01 IP Insights — Highlights You Shouldn’t Miss!
-- Patents
- PPC Broadband Inc. Vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, C.A. (Comm IPD-Pat) 67/2024
- Manu Chaudhary Vs. The Controller and Patents of Design, C.A. (Comm IPD-Pat) 36/2024
- Yangtze Memory Technlogy Vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) IPD 10/2025
- Wacom Company Ltd Vs. Cirel Systems Pvt Ltd, Civil Petition No. 426 of 2025
-- Trademarks
- Acko Technology and Services Pvt Ltd Vs. Chandra Mohan Mishra & Anr., C.O. (Comm.Ipd-Tm) 48/2024
- Verizon Trademark Services LLC & Ors. Vs. Verizon Careers and Ors., CS(Comm) 15/2025
- Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. Chacha Cloth House, FAO (Comm) 217/2025 & CM Appl. 4953/2025
- Tibbs Food Pvt Ltd Vs. D-Lite Frankies and Foods Pvt Ltd., (T)OP(TM) No. 250 of 2023 and (TM)A No. 13 of 2026
- Asian Paints Ltd Vs. Manju Rani Jindal & Ors., Commercial IP Suit No. 271 of 2015
-- Copyright
- Reliance Industries Ltd Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and 32 Others, C.S (Comm Div) No. 312 of 2025
- Fornnax Technology Pvt Ltd Vs. The Registrar of Copyrights, CA (Comm.Ipd-Cr) 5/2026
- Saregama India Ltd Vs. Mr. Ilaiyaraaja, CS(Comm) 143/2026
IP Insights — Highlights You Shouldn’t Miss!
PPC Broadband Inc. Vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, C.A. (Comm IPD-Pat) 67/2024
In the High Court of Delhi, the appellant challenged the refusal of its patent application titled “Reel Enclosures” under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970 on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja). The invention related to a reel enclosure mechanism designed to prevent rotation of a cable reel when closed and permit rotation when opened. The appellant argued that the Controller had failed to consider the amended set of claims (Claims 1–10) submitted after the hearing and had instead based the rejection on the original unamended claims. It was further contended that the Controller did not properly apply the five-step test for determining obviousness, which require identifying differences between the prior art and the claimed invention and assessing whether those differences would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.
The Court found merit in the appellant’s contentions and held that the impugned order reflected non-application of mind, as it repeatedly relied on deleted claim elements and failed to evaluate the amended claims or the “characterized in that” clause highlighting the inventive features. The Court also observed that the Controller had focused only on similarities with prior art (D1–D7) without sequentially applying for the five-step obviousness test, as reaffirmed in later Division Bench judgments. The Court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Controller to reassess the application in accordance with settled principles of inventive step and after granting the appellant a proper opportunity of hearing.
Manu Chaudhary Vs. The Controller and Patents of Design, C.A. (Comm IPD-Pat) 36/2024
The Delhi High Court, set aside an order refusing a patent for an oral herbal painkiller. The Controller had rejected the application primarily because National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) approval was not submitted within a specific timeframe, despite the appellant proving the application was pending. The Court ruled that under Section 6(1A) of the Biological Diversity Act and relevant guidelines, NBA permission is a prerequisite for the grant of a patent, not a ground for its rejection while the approval is actively being sought.
The Court held that the Controller should have exercised discretion under Section 15 of the Patents Act to defer the final decision until the NBA reached a conclusion. Consequently, the matter was remanded for re-examination, allowing the appellant now in possession of the NBA approval to address the remaining objections regarding non-patentability under Section 3(p). The Court further directed that the appellant must be represented by a qualified Patent Agent or Advocate during the fresh hearing to rectify previous procedural irregularities.
Yangtze Memory Technlogy Vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) IPD 10/2025
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge against an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The Respondent had refused the appellant’s patent application for a “Method for Forming 3D Memory Device,” citing a lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant contended that the Controller failed to provide a reasoned order, specifically neglecting to explain how the cited prior art (D1) rendered the present invention obvious to a person skilled in the art.
The Court presiding over the matter, set aside the refusal order, noting that it lacked the necessary technical analysis. The Court emphasized that while the Controller is not required to write a lengthy judgment, the order must reflect a “quasi-judicial” application of mind by identifying the specific differences between the prior art and the claimed invention. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter back to the Respondent for a fresh, reasoned decision to be issued within four months, ensuring that the appellant is granted a fair opportunity to be heard.
Wacom Company Ltd Vs. Cirel Systems Pvt Ltd, Civil Petition No. 426 of 2025
The Delhi High Court adjudicated an appeal under section 117A of The Patents Act 1970, against an order by the Controller of Patents that had refused a patent application for a “Pen-type Input Device”. The controller’s refusal was primarily based on a lack of inventive step under section 2(1)(ja), asserting that the invention was obvious in light of prior art. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to appreciate the specific technical advancement of their “integrated circuit” and “pressure sensing” mechanisms, which effectively reduced the physical size of the stylus while maintaining high sensitivity, a distinction they claimed that was not present in the prior art.
The Court, presiding over the case, observed that the impugned mark order was “cryptic” and lacked the necessary technical analysis required for a quasi-judicial decision. The court noted that the Controller failed to perform the mandatory 4-step “obviousness” test, which involves the identifying the inventive concept and comparing it against the state of the art to determine if the differences would be obvious to a person skilled in the art. Consequently, the Court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter back to the respondent for a fresh hearing, emphasizing that any order rejecting a patent must be “speaking” and well-reasoned to with stand judicial scrutiny.
Acko Technology and Services Pvt Ltd Vs. Chandra Mohan Mishra & Anr., C.O. (Comm.Ipd-Tm) 48/2024
The High Court of Delhi, dealt with a rectification petition seeking cancellation of the trademark ‘ACCKO’ registered in class 9. The petitioner, proprietor of the well-known mark ‘ACKO’, argued that the impugned mark was deceptively similar and had not been used since the registration. As the respondent failed to appear and contest the proceedings, the allegation of non-used remained unchallenged.
The court held that the petitioner was a ‘person aggrieved’ and that the marks were phonetically and visually similar, with the mere addition of one letter being insufficient to avoid confusion. Finding both non-use under section 47 and wrongful registration under section 11 and 57, the court ordered cancellation of the impugned mark and directed rectification of the register to maintain its purity.
Verizon Trademark Services LLC & Ors. Vs. Verizon Careers and Ors., CS(Comm) 15/2025
Decided by The High Court of Delhi, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction and summary judgement against the defendant for infringing their well-known trademark ‘VERIZON’. The defendant had created the domain name “verizon-careers.com” and used email addresses and branding identical to the plaintiffs’ mark to conduct a fraudulent recruitment scheme. They used face interview communications and offer letters and extracted money from unsuspecting job applicants under the guise of certification fees. Despite the service of summons, the defendant failed to file a written statement and proceeded ex parte.
The court held that plaintiff had established their statutory rights, including recognition of “VERIZON” as a well-known trademark, and that the defendants use of an identical mark for identical services amounted to infringement, passing off, dilution and tarnishment. Relying on the summary judgement provisions under Order XIII-A CPC, the court observed that the defendant had no real prospect of defending the claim. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in the favour of plaintiff, granting permanent injunction and costs, and reinforcing strong judicial protection against online trademark fraud and impersonation.
Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. Chacha Cloth House, FAO (Comm) 217/2025 & CM Appl. 4953/2025
The plaintiff sought injunction against the defendant for infringement and passing off, of its registered trademark “CHACHA SAREE BAZAR”. The plaintiff contented that it had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the textile market, and that the defendants’ use of the mark “CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE” was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among the consumers. The plaintiff argued that the dominant feature of both marks was the word “CHACHA”. The nature of goods like clothing and textiles was identical or closely related. The court examined the marks as a whole and applied the test of deceptive similarity from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. It held that the shared document element “CHACHA”, coupled with similarity in trade channels with goods, created a likelihood of confusion. The defendant’s adoption of similar marks in the same line of business was found to be dishonest and intended to ride upon the plaintiff’s goodwill. Consequently, court granted injunction in the favour of the plaintiff and restrained the defendant from using the impugned mark.
Tibbs Food Pvt Ltd Vs. D-Lite Frankies and Foods Pvt Ltd., (T)OP(TM) No. 250 of 2023 and (TM)A No. 13 of 2026
In the High Court of Judicature of Madras, the petitioner sought removal of trademark “D-LITE FRANKIES AND FOOD PVT LTD” (application no. 2001235, class 30). During the proceedings, it emerged that the respondent company had been struck off from the registrar of the companies in 2019 and was therefore a non-existent legal entity. Although the mark has allegedly been assigned to one of its director in 2018, no steps were taken to record the assignment with the Trademark Registry, and the trademark continued to stand in the name of the struck off company.
The court held that a trademark cannot subsist in the name of a non-existent entity, and such registration becomes non-est in the eye of law. Since the company was no longer in existence, retaining the mark in its name serves no legal purpose. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the registration within 4 weeks. It further observed that the alleged assignee claimed any independent rights by virtue of assignment deed, he must work out its remedies separately in accordance with law.
Asian Paints Ltd Vs. Manju Rani Jindal & Ors., Commercial IP Suit No. 271 of 2015
Decided by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction for infringement and passing off against the defendants’ use of the mark “SUPER ASIAN PLUS” in relation to wall putty and cement paints. The plaintiff established that it is the registered proprietor of the well-known trademarks “ASIAN PAINTS” and “ASIAN”, with continuous use dating back several decades and substantial goodwill in the market. The court noted that the word “ASIAN” constituted the dominant and essential feature of the impugned mark, and the addition of the words, “SUPER” and “PLUS” did not sufficiently distinguish it, especially since the goods are identical. As the defendant failed to file the written statement or contest the proceedings, the plaintiffs’ evidence remained unchallenged.
The court held that the adoption of the mark “SUPER ASIAN PLUS” was dishonest and amounted to infringement as well as passing off, given likelihood of confusion among consumers. The court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark. The court awarded the compensatory cost of Rs. 3,00,000 each against certain defendants, reinforcing stricter cost regime under commercial litigation.
Reliance Industries Ltd Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and 32 Others, C.S (Comm Div) No. 312 of 2025
In the High Court of Madras, the plaintiff, Reliance Industries Ltd (through its division Jio Studios), instituted a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against multiple telecoms and internet service providers and cable operators. The relief was sought under the provision of the Copyright Act 1957, in relation to the cinematographic film “DHURANDHAR”. The plaintiff prayed for directions to block infringing websites and restrain unauthorized copying, transmission, camcording, uploading and downloading of the film various digital and physical mediums thereby seeking pre-emptive protection against online piracy upon the film’s release.
However, at the stage of hearing, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that he had received instructions to withdraw the suit, and an endorsement to that effect was made before the Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn without any order as to costs and closed the connected applications. Thus, the matter did not culminate in any substantive adjudication on copyright infringement or intermediary liability, and the withdrawal effectively brought the proceedings to an end at a preliminary stage.
Fornnax Technology Pvt Ltd Vs. The Registrar of Copyrights, CA (Comm.Ipd-Cr) 5/2026
In The High Court of Delhi, the appellant challenged a common order of the Registrar of Copyright rejecting its copyright application for an artistic work titled “Cutting Chamber Part of Secondary Shredder R-4000 Front View.” The principal controversy revolved around whether the respondents were entitled to oppose the copyright application at the pre-registration stage. The appellant argued that only a “person interested” under Section 45 read with Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 could participate at that stage, whereas the Registrar erroneously treated the respondents as “persons aggrieved” under Section 50 (which applies post-registration) and allowed their opposition. It was further contended that the Registrar wrongly invoked Section 15(2) of the act relating to industrial application of designs based on electronic materials such as website content and videos, which were allegedly not supplied to the appellant for rebuttal.
The Court found merit in the procedural objections raised by the appellant and held that the Registrar had failed to properly address the distinction between “person interested” and “person aggrieved,” and had also relied on materials without ensuring adequate opportunity to rebut them. Observing that such lapses affected the fairness of the inquiry under Section 45(2), the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for de novo consideration.
Saregama India Ltd Vs. Mr. Ilaiyaraaja, CS(Comm) 143/2026
In the High Court of Delhi, the plaintiff sought an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant, a renowned music composer, from exploiting certain sound recordings and musical works forming part of numerous cinematograph films. The plaintiff contended that between 1976 and 2001 it had entered into assignment agreements with various film producers, thereby acquiring exclusive, perpetual and worldwide copyright in the sound recordings and underlying musical and literary works.
It was alleged that the defendant had uploaded the works on digital platforms and was issuing licences to third parties while simultaneously disputing the plaintiff’s title. Relying on Section 17(b) and (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. vs. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association, the plaintiff argued that the producer, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, is the first owner of copyright in works incorporated in a cinematograph film.
The Court, after examining the assignment agreements and sample materials placed on record, held that a prima facie case had been established in favour of the plaintiff. It observed that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, and that irreparable harm would ensue if the alleged infringing acts continued. Accordingly, the Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant and those acting on his behalf from exploiting, licensing, or claiming ownership over the plaintiff’s copyrighted works listed in Annexure A to the order.
India Monthly News Roundup – February 2026
India Monthly News Roundup – January 2026
India Monthly News Roundup – September 2024