India Monthly News Roundup - March 2026
Interns: Mrinal Mandhana
01 IP Insights — Highlights You Shouldn’t Miss!
-- Patents
- WIRTGEN GMBH Vs. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS & ORS. C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022
- CHUGAI SEIYAKU KABUSHIKI KAISHA & ANR. Vs. BASIL DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS & ORS. CS(COMM) 306/2026
- SAURABH ARORA Vs. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR.
- COMM. MISC. PETITION NO. 46 of 2025
- COMMUNICATION COMPONENTS ANTENNA INC. Vs. ROSENBERGER HOCHFREQUENZTECHNIK GmBH & Co. KG & ORS. CS(COMM) 653/2019 and CC(COMM) 22/2022
- PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE Vs. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 493/2022
-- Trademarks
- SCHLOSS HMA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR TEJWANI & ORS. CS(COMM) 290/2026
- RAJEEV PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. TATA PLAY LIMITED & ANR.
- COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 257 OF 2025
- ELDER PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. ELDER NEUTRACITICALS PRIVATE LIMITED COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) No.27106 of 2025
- PARLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 49/2025
- INFO EDGE (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. PRADEEP NAMDEO & ANR. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 34/2025
-- Copyright
- JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HTTPS//DADDYLIVES.NL & ORS. CS(COMM) 313/2026
- TARUN CHAUDHARY & ANR. Vs. KULDEEP MEENA & ORS. CS(COMM) 297/2026
- SUJOY GHOSH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND SLP (Crl.) NO. 9452 OF 2025
- M/S MRT MUSIC Vs. PARAMVAH STUDIOS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.CS(COMM) 680/2024
IP Insights — Highlights You Shouldn’t Miss!
WIRTGEN GMBH Vs. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS & ORS. C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022
Wirtgen GmbH, a German engineering company specialising in road construction machinery, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which had refused its Indian patent application for the invention titled ‘Bit Holder and Base Part for Receiving a Bit Holder’ a specialised component used in road milling and surface mining machines. The application, filed in December 2010, had been refused in November 2019 on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1) (ja) and failure to define the scope of the claims under Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. Wirtgen contended that several of the Section 10(4)(c) objections that ultimately formed the basis of the refusal had never been raised in the First Examination Report or the hearing notice, thereby depriving the Appellant of a fair opportunity to respond.
The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned refusal order and remanded the application for fresh consideration. The Court held that the examination process under the Patents Act is required to conform to the principles of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule, which mandates that an applicant must be given a genuine opportunity to meet every objection that may ultimately ground a refusal. Since the Controller had introduced new grounds of objection for the first time in the final order, without prior notice, the refusal was procedurally unsustainable. The Court further found that the inventive step analysis failed to apply the prescribed five-step obviousness test in the manner settled by coordinate benches.
CHUGAI SEIYAKU KABUSHIKI KAISHA & ANR Vs. BASIL DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS AND ORS. CS (COMM) 306/206
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha, a leading Japanese pharmaceutical company, and its co-Plaintiff approached the Delhi High Court seeking interim relief to restrain Basil Drugs and Pharmaceuticals and others from manufacturing, using, selling, or offering for sale any product that infringes Chugai’s Indian patent covering the anti-cancer compound Alectinib marketed globally under the brand name ‘Alecensa’ for the treatment of ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer. The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendants were engaged in or imminently preparing to engage in the manufacture and sale of generic Alectinib formulations in India without authorisation, and that such activity would constitute infringement of Chugai’s valid and subsisting Indian patent.
The Delhi High Court, upon examining the Plaintiffs’ prima facie case and the balance of convenience, granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing Chugai’s patent rights in Alectinib and its related compounds, salts, solvates, and intermediates. The Court noted that the suit patent was granted and had not been successfully challenged. Given the sensitivity of anti-cancer pharmaceutical patents, the Court weighed both the patent holder’s right to exclusivity during the patent term and the public interest considerations, ultimately finding that the balance tilted in favour of granting relief at the interim stage.
SAURABH ARORA Vs. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR. COMM MISC PETITION NO 46 of 2025
Saurabh Arora, an individual patent applicant, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order of the Deputy Controller of Patents refusing his patent application. The Appellant contended that the Controller’s refusal was arbitrary and non-speaking in that it failed to engage with the specific amendments and arguments submitted by the Appellant in response to the First Examination Report, and that the Controller had failed to properly apply the five-step test for determining inventive step under Section 2(1) (ja) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Appellant argued that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art cited by the Controller had not been identified and assessed in the manner required under settled patent examination jurisprudence.
The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned refusal order and remanded the matter to the Patent Office for fresh consideration, directing that the Deputy Controller reassess the application in light of the amended claims, afford the Appellant a proper hearing, and pass a reasoned order that identifies and analyses the distinctions between the prior art and the invention claimed. The Court reiterated that a quasi-judicial authority exercising functions under the Patents Act is obligated to pass a speaking order that reflects genuine application of mind, and that cryptic or conclusory refusals without technical analysis do not satisfy the requirements of the Act.
COMMUNICATION COMPONENTS ANTENNA INC Vs. ROSENBERGER HOCHFREQUENZTECHNIK GMBH & CO KG & ORS CS (COMM) 653/2019 AND CC (COMM) 22/2022
The Delhi High Court delivered a judgment in the long-pending patent infringement suit filed by Communication Components Antenna Inc. (CCA), a Canadian telecommunications technology company, against German telecom giant Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH & Co. KG and related entities. The suit concerned CCA’s Indian patent (IN240893) titled ‘Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency’, covering a method and apparatus for increasing subscriber capacity and enhancing the performance of base stations. CCA alleged that Rosenberger had manufactured and sold telecom antennas in India that infringed its patent, including sales made to major Indian telecommunications providers.
After a thorough summary adjudication trial, the first in India to use live transcription of witness evidence and cross-examination the Court upheld the validity of CCA’s patent and rejected Rosenberger’s invalidity counterclaim and ‘hindsight bias’ defence. The Court found that Rosenberger had infringed CCA’s patent and awarded damages of over Rs. 152 crore (approximately USD 17 million), making this one of the largest patent damages awards in India to date. The judgment is widely regarded as a landmark in Indian patent enforcement, demonstrating that Indian courts are capable of conducting technically complex patent trials to international standards, awarding meaningful damages, and protecting the rights of patent holders including foreign entities against large multinational infringers.
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE Vs. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS CA (COMM.IPD-PAT) 493/2022
The President and Fellows of Harvard College filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the refusal of its Indian patent application by the Controller General of Patents. The application related to a significant area of biotechnology or life sciences research developed at Harvard’s laboratories. The Controller had refused the application citing one or more grounds under the Patents Act, 1970, including objections relating to the scope and clarity of claims, inventive step, or patentability under Section 3. Harvard contended that the Controller had failed to properly evaluate the amendments submitted in response to examination objections and that the refusal order lacked the required degree of technical reasoning
The Delhi High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the application to the Patent Office for de novo consideration. The Court held that the Controller’s order was insufficiently reasoned and did not demonstrate a structured application of the relevant patentability criteria, including an analysis of how the cited prior art rendered the claimed invention obvious or otherwise unpatentable. The remand was directed with instructions for the Patent Office to pass a fresh, speaking order after affording Harvard a proper opportunity of hearing.
SCHLOSS HMA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR TEJWANI & ORS CS (COMM) 290/2026
Schloss HMA Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the hotel trademark ‘THE LEELA’, initiated proceedings before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against Praveen Kumar Tejwani, who was found to be operating hospitality services under the name ‘DESERT LEELA RESORT’ and using a similar ‘L’ device logo through a corresponding domain name. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant’s adoption of the word ‘LEELA’ as a prominent part of its trade name, along with a logo element deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s distinctive ‘L’ device, constituted trademark infringement and passing off, and was calculated to mislead consumers into believing that the Defendant’s resort was affiliated with or endorsed by The Leela group.
The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in the Plaintiff’s favour. The Court held that the mark ‘THE LEELA’ had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the luxury hospitality sector, and that the Defendant’s use of ‘DESERT LEELA RESORT’ combined with the similar ‘L’ device was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers. The Court accordingly granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark ‘LEELA’, the ‘L’ device, or any mark or domain name deceptively similar thereto, in connection with any hospitality or related services.
RAJEEV PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. TATA PLAY LIMITED & ANR COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO 257 OF 2025
Rajeev Prakash Agarwal, an astrologer who claimed to operate under the registered trademark ‘ASTRO DUNIA’ since 2005, filed a suit before the Bombay High Court against Tata Play Limited seeking to restrain it from using the name ‘TATA PLAY ASTRO DUNIYA’ for its newly launched DTH/OTT astrology channel. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s adoption of the name was deceptively similar to his registered mark, constituted trademark infringement and passing off, and was likely to cause consumers to confuse the two services.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding no prima facie case of infringement or passing off. The Court observed that the prominent use of the well-known house mark ‘TATA PLAY’ in the Defendant’s name was prima facie sufficient to distinguish the rival marks in the minds of consumers. The Court further noted that the expression ‘Astro Dunia’ merges the clipped English term ‘Astro’ (derived from astrology) with the Hindi word ‘Dunia’ (meaning world), rendering the mark descriptive of the services provided. It found the Plaintiff’s evidence of continuous use since 2005 to be largely self-attested and commercially unsubstantiated.
ELDER PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. ELDER NEUTRACITICALS PRIVATE LIMITED COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO 27106 OF 2025
Elder Projects Limited had obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 26 September 2025 against Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited in a dispute concerning the trademark ‘ELDER’. The Defendant applied to vacate the injunction, contending that the Plaintiff had suppressed material facts while seeking urgent relief without notice specifically, that the Defendant had relied on multiple earlier orders of the Delhi High Court in which that court had held that Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited (EPL), in liquidation, was the registered proprietor of the word mark ‘ELDER’, and that the Plaintiff’s use of that mark after EPL’s liquidation could itself amount to infringement. The Delhi High Court had even observed in earlier proceedings that the Plaintiff had made false claims regarding its rights over the mark.
The Bombay High Court vacated the ex parte injunction and dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for a temporary injunction, holding that the Plaintiff had failed to approach the Court with clean hands. The Court held that the suppression of prior judicial orders particularly those directly bearing on the Plaintiff’s title to the disputed mark was a deliberate act sufficient to disentitle the Plaintiff from equitable relief at the interim stage.
PARLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR CA (COMM.IPD-TM)49/2025
Parle Products Private Limited challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks’ decision to grant registration of the mark ’20-20′ in Class 30 (covering coffee, tea, biscuits and related food products) to Avon Agro Industries. The dispute traced back to September 2007, when Avon Agro applied to register the mark on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis. Parle filed a similar application a week later, also on a proposed-use basis, before subsequently launching products under the ’20-20′ mark between 2007 and 2008. Parle argued that its actual market use should give it priority over Avon Agro’s earlier filing date, relying on the ‘first in the market’ principle and contending that Avon Agro’s prolonged non-use had effectively extinguished its rights.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Parle’s appeal and upheld the Registrar’s order. The Court held that where competing trademark applications are filed on a proposed-use basis, subsequent commercial use by one applicant cannot defeat the earlier filing date of the other. The Court also rejected Parle’s non-use argument, noting that Avon Agro had consistently pursued its application from 2007 until registration was granted in 2025. Notably, the Court pointed out an inconsistency in Parle’s own submissions: having earlier argued that the two marks were phonetically, visually, and conceptually distinct and restricting its own use to biscuits, Parle could not then turn around and claim deceptive similarity. The Court described this as a classic case of a party approbating and reprobating simultaneously, which is impermissible in law.
INFO EDGE (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. PRADEEP NAMDEO & ANR. CA (COMM.IPD-TM) 34/2025
Info Edge (India) Limited, proprietor of the well-known online job portal ‘Naukri.com’, instituted proceedings before the Delhi High Court against Pradeep Namdeo and another, seeking an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from using a deceptively similar mark and domain name in connection with online recruitment and employment-related services. The Plaintiff contended that its mark ‘NAUKRI’ and the domain ‘naukri.com’, in use since 1997, had acquired extensive secondary meaning and goodwill in the Indian market, and that the Defendant’s adoption of an identical or deceptively similar mark was calculated to mislead job seekers and recruiters into believing that the Defendant’s platform was connected with or endorsed by the Plaintiff.
The Delhi High Court, finding a prima facie case of passing off and trademark infringement, granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using any mark or domain name identical or deceptively similar to ‘NAUKRI’ or ‘NAUKRI.COM’. The Court reaffirmed the well-established principle that a descriptive or Hindi-language mark can acquire strong trademark protection once it attains secondary meaning through extensive and exclusive use over a prolonged period. The case underscores the continuing vigilance required to protect well-known digital platforms and internet trademarks against online impersonation and unfair free-riding on established reputation.
JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HTTPS//DADDYLIVES.NL & ORS. CS(COMM) 313/2026
Just days before the commencement of the TATA Indian Premier League (IPL) 2026, JioStar India Private Limited the holder of exclusive digital and broadcast rights for the IPL from 2023 to 2027, acquired through Viacom18 and approved by the BCCI urgently approached the Delhi High Court seeking injunctive relief against a proliferating network of rogue websites and Android-based applications that were streaming IPL matches without authorisation. JioStar identified several dedicated piracy platforms, including daddylives.nl, daddy live.top, daddylive.cv, and daddylive.online, which were found to be hosting or facilitating illegal live streaming of IPL content. In a companion matter CS(COMM) 319/2026, the Court addressed rogue Android applications such as Abbasi TV, CricFY TV, RTS TV, CricPK, and HD Streamz, which were distributing pirated IPL streams through APK files outside the official Google Play ecosystem.
The Delhi High Court granted ex parte ad interim injunctions in both matters, recognising that JioStar had established a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement and that the balance of convenience and irreparable harm lay clearly in its favour. The Court observed that piracy through anonymous and constantly evolving digital networks requires real-time enforcement measures, and accordingly granted dynamic injunctions enabling JioStar to notify additional infringing websites in real time to Domain Name Registrars and Internet Service Providers, who were directed to block such platforms without the need for separate litigation.
TARUN CHOUDHARY & ANR Vs. KULDEEP MEENA & ORS CS (COMM) 297/2026
Tarun Chaudhary and another Plaintiff approached the Delhi High Court seeking copyright protection for their original creative work against Kuldeep Meena and other Defendants, who were alleged to have reproduced, copied, or commercially exploited the Plaintiffs’ work without authorisation and in violation of the exclusive rights vested in them under the Copyright Act, 1957. The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendants had infringed their copyright in the work by reproducing its essential elements and making the infringing material available to the public without obtaining a licence or consent, thereby causing irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs’ economic and moral rights.
The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in the Plaintiffs’ favour and granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from further reproducing, distributing, or commercially exploiting any work that infringes the Plaintiffs’ copyrighted material. The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that where a prima facie case of infringement is established, the balance of convenience ordinarily lies with the rights holder, as the loss caused by unauthorised exploitation of creative work is difficult to quantify and may not be adequately compensated in damages.
SUJOY GHOSH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND SLP (CLR)NO 9452 OF 2025
National Award-winning filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, in which the Complainant, Umesh Prasad Mehta, alleged that Ghosh had copied his unpublished script titled ‘Sabak’ to make the 2016 film ‘Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh’. The Complainant claimed to have shared his script with Ghosh in 2015 seeking a recommendation letter. Based on this, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Hazaribagh issued a summoning order against Ghosh in 2018. Ghosh challenged this before the Jharkhand High Court, which declined to interfere and upheld the criminal proceedings, prompting the filmmaker to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court quashed both the summoning order and the Jharkhand High Court’s decision, bringing a decade-long dispute to an end. The Court noted the complete absence of material identifying any specific similarity between the two works and found the allegations to be manifestly frivolous and vexatious. A pivotal finding was that Ghosh had registered the synopsis for the Kahaani sequel in 2012 and the full script in 2013 well before the Complainant’s script even came into existence, making the allegation of copying untenable. The Court also relied upon the finding of the Screen Writers Association’s Dispute Settlement Committee, which had earlier concluded that there was no resemblance between the two works. The Supreme Court reiterated that courts must look beyond bare allegations in the complaint and examine all attending circumstances before permitting criminal proceedings to continue, particularly in cases of alleged copyright infringement where the proceedings may amount to harassment.
M/S MRT MUSIC Vs. PARAMVAH STUDIOS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS CS (COMM) 680/2024
MRT Music, a music label that claimed ownership over two Kannada songs – ‘Nyaya Ellide’ and ‘Omme Ninnanu’ through an assignment deed executed in 2020, filed a copyright infringement suit before the Delhi High Court against Paramvah Studios Private Limited, the Bengaluru-based production house of Kannada actor-director Rakshit Shetty, over the unauthorised use of both songs in the 2023 Kannada film ‘Bachelor Party’. MRT Music contended that the songs were used without obtaining a licence: one was played on a television set during a scene, while the other was sung in a classroom sequence to support the film’s narrative. Negotiations between the parties had broken down over pricing before the film’s release.
The Delhi High Court held Paramvah Studios liable for copyright infringement and willful disobedience of a prior court order, and directed the studio to pay a total of Rs. 25 lakh to MRT Music. The Court decisively rejected the Defendant’s argument that the usage was ‘de minimis’, holding that the principle depends on qualitative impact rather than mere duration the fact that ‘Nyaya Ellide’ was used for only 7 seconds and ‘Omme Ninnanu’ for 31 seconds did not render the use trivial, as both songs had been consciously selected to drive the film’s narrative and were used for commercial gain. The Court also rejected the lapse argument under Section 19(4) of the Copyright Act, finding continued exploitation of the works on digital platforms.
India Monthly News Roundup – March 2026
India Monthly News Roundup – February 2026
India Monthly News Roundup – January 2026
India Monthly News Roundup – September 2024
India Monthly News Roundup - March 2026
Interns: Mrinal Mandhana
01 IP Insights — Highlights You Shouldn’t Miss!
-- Patents
- WIRTGEN GMBH Vs. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS & ORS. C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022
- CHUGAI SEIYAKU KABUSHIKI KAISHA & ANR. Vs. BASIL DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS & ORS. CS(COMM) 306/2026
- SAURABH ARORA Vs. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR.
- COMM. MISC. PETITION NO. 46 of 2025
- COMMUNICATION COMPONENTS ANTENNA INC. Vs. ROSENBERGER HOCHFREQUENZTECHNIK GmBH & Co. KG & ORS. CS(COMM) 653/2019 and CC(COMM) 22/2022
- PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE Vs. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 493/2022
-- Trademarks
- SCHLOSS HMA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR TEJWANI & ORS. CS(COMM) 290/2026
- RAJEEV PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. TATA PLAY LIMITED & ANR.
- COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 257 OF 2025
- ELDER PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. ELDER NEUTRACITICALS PRIVATE LIMITED COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) No.27106 of 2025
- PARLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 49/2025
- INFO EDGE (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. PRADEEP NAMDEO & ANR. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 34/2025
-- Copyright
- JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HTTPS//DADDYLIVES.NL & ORS. CS(COMM) 313/2026
- TARUN CHAUDHARY & ANR. Vs. KULDEEP MEENA & ORS. CS(COMM) 297/2026
- SUJOY GHOSH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND SLP (Crl.) NO. 9452 OF 2025
- M/S MRT MUSIC Vs. PARAMVAH STUDIOS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.CS(COMM) 680/2024
IP Insights — Highlights You Shouldn’t Miss!
WIRTGEN GMBH Vs. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS & ORS. C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022
Wirtgen GmbH, a German engineering company specialising in road construction machinery, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which had refused its Indian patent application for the invention titled ‘Bit Holder and Base Part for Receiving a Bit Holder’ a specialised component used in road milling and surface mining machines. The application, filed in December 2010, had been refused in November 2019 on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1) (ja) and failure to define the scope of the claims under Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. Wirtgen contended that several of the Section 10(4)(c) objections that ultimately formed the basis of the refusal had never been raised in the First Examination Report or the hearing notice, thereby depriving the Appellant of a fair opportunity to respond.
The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned refusal order and remanded the application for fresh consideration. The Court held that the examination process under the Patents Act is required to conform to the principles of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule, which mandates that an applicant must be given a genuine opportunity to meet every objection that may ultimately ground a refusal. Since the Controller had introduced new grounds of objection for the first time in the final order, without prior notice, the refusal was procedurally unsustainable. The Court further found that the inventive step analysis failed to apply the prescribed five-step obviousness test in the manner settled by coordinate benches.
CHUGAI SEIYAKU KABUSHIKI KAISHA & ANR Vs. BASIL DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS AND ORS. CS (COMM) 306/206
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha, a leading Japanese pharmaceutical company, and its co-Plaintiff approached the Delhi High Court seeking interim relief to restrain Basil Drugs and Pharmaceuticals and others from manufacturing, using, selling, or offering for sale any product that infringes Chugai’s Indian patent covering the anti-cancer compound Alectinib marketed globally under the brand name ‘Alecensa’ for the treatment of ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer. The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendants were engaged in or imminently preparing to engage in the manufacture and sale of generic Alectinib formulations in India without authorisation, and that such activity would constitute infringement of Chugai’s valid and subsisting Indian patent.
The Delhi High Court, upon examining the Plaintiffs’ prima facie case and the balance of convenience, granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing Chugai’s patent rights in Alectinib and its related compounds, salts, solvates, and intermediates. The Court noted that the suit patent was granted and had not been successfully challenged. Given the sensitivity of anti-cancer pharmaceutical patents, the Court weighed both the patent holder’s right to exclusivity during the patent term and the public interest considerations, ultimately finding that the balance tilted in favour of granting relief at the interim stage.
SAURABH ARORA Vs. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR. COMM MISC PETITION NO 46 of 2025
Saurabh Arora, an individual patent applicant, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order of the Deputy Controller of Patents refusing his patent application. The Appellant contended that the Controller’s refusal was arbitrary and non-speaking in that it failed to engage with the specific amendments and arguments submitted by the Appellant in response to the First Examination Report, and that the Controller had failed to properly apply the five-step test for determining inventive step under Section 2(1) (ja) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Appellant argued that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art cited by the Controller had not been identified and assessed in the manner required under settled patent examination jurisprudence.
The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned refusal order and remanded the matter to the Patent Office for fresh consideration, directing that the Deputy Controller reassess the application in light of the amended claims, afford the Appellant a proper hearing, and pass a reasoned order that identifies and analyses the distinctions between the prior art and the invention claimed. The Court reiterated that a quasi-judicial authority exercising functions under the Patents Act is obligated to pass a speaking order that reflects genuine application of mind, and that cryptic or conclusory refusals without technical analysis do not satisfy the requirements of the Act.
COMMUNICATION COMPONENTS ANTENNA INC Vs. ROSENBERGER HOCHFREQUENZTECHNIK GMBH & CO KG & ORS CS (COMM) 653/2019 AND CC (COMM) 22/2022
The Delhi High Court delivered a judgment in the long-pending patent infringement suit filed by Communication Components Antenna Inc. (CCA), a Canadian telecommunications technology company, against German telecom giant Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH & Co. KG and related entities. The suit concerned CCA’s Indian patent (IN240893) titled ‘Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency’, covering a method and apparatus for increasing subscriber capacity and enhancing the performance of base stations. CCA alleged that Rosenberger had manufactured and sold telecom antennas in India that infringed its patent, including sales made to major Indian telecommunications providers.
After a thorough summary adjudication trial, the first in India to use live transcription of witness evidence and cross-examination the Court upheld the validity of CCA’s patent and rejected Rosenberger’s invalidity counterclaim and ‘hindsight bias’ defence. The Court found that Rosenberger had infringed CCA’s patent and awarded damages of over Rs. 152 crore (approximately USD 17 million), making this one of the largest patent damages awards in India to date. The judgment is widely regarded as a landmark in Indian patent enforcement, demonstrating that Indian courts are capable of conducting technically complex patent trials to international standards, awarding meaningful damages, and protecting the rights of patent holders including foreign entities against large multinational infringers.
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE Vs. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS CA (COMM.IPD-PAT) 493/2022
The President and Fellows of Harvard College filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the refusal of its Indian patent application by the Controller General of Patents. The application related to a significant area of biotechnology or life sciences research developed at Harvard’s laboratories. The Controller had refused the application citing one or more grounds under the Patents Act, 1970, including objections relating to the scope and clarity of claims, inventive step, or patentability under Section 3. Harvard contended that the Controller had failed to properly evaluate the amendments submitted in response to examination objections and that the refusal order lacked the required degree of technical reasoning
The Delhi High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the application to the Patent Office for de novo consideration. The Court held that the Controller’s order was insufficiently reasoned and did not demonstrate a structured application of the relevant patentability criteria, including an analysis of how the cited prior art rendered the claimed invention obvious or otherwise unpatentable. The remand was directed with instructions for the Patent Office to pass a fresh, speaking order after affording Harvard a proper opportunity of hearing.
SCHLOSS HMA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR TEJWANI & ORS CS (COMM) 290/2026
Schloss HMA Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the hotel trademark ‘THE LEELA’, initiated proceedings before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against Praveen Kumar Tejwani, who was found to be operating hospitality services under the name ‘DESERT LEELA RESORT’ and using a similar ‘L’ device logo through a corresponding domain name. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant’s adoption of the word ‘LEELA’ as a prominent part of its trade name, along with a logo element deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s distinctive ‘L’ device, constituted trademark infringement and passing off, and was calculated to mislead consumers into believing that the Defendant’s resort was affiliated with or endorsed by The Leela group.
The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in the Plaintiff’s favour. The Court held that the mark ‘THE LEELA’ had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the luxury hospitality sector, and that the Defendant’s use of ‘DESERT LEELA RESORT’ combined with the similar ‘L’ device was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers. The Court accordingly granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark ‘LEELA’, the ‘L’ device, or any mark or domain name deceptively similar thereto, in connection with any hospitality or related services.
RAJEEV PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. TATA PLAY LIMITED & ANR COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO 257 OF 2025
Rajeev Prakash Agarwal, an astrologer who claimed to operate under the registered trademark ‘ASTRO DUNIA’ since 2005, filed a suit before the Bombay High Court against Tata Play Limited seeking to restrain it from using the name ‘TATA PLAY ASTRO DUNIYA’ for its newly launched DTH/OTT astrology channel. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s adoption of the name was deceptively similar to his registered mark, constituted trademark infringement and passing off, and was likely to cause consumers to confuse the two services.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding no prima facie case of infringement or passing off. The Court observed that the prominent use of the well-known house mark ‘TATA PLAY’ in the Defendant’s name was prima facie sufficient to distinguish the rival marks in the minds of consumers. The Court further noted that the expression ‘Astro Dunia’ merges the clipped English term ‘Astro’ (derived from astrology) with the Hindi word ‘Dunia’ (meaning world), rendering the mark descriptive of the services provided. It found the Plaintiff’s evidence of continuous use since 2005 to be largely self-attested and commercially unsubstantiated.
ELDER PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. ELDER NEUTRACITICALS PRIVATE LIMITED COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO 27106 OF 2025
Elder Projects Limited had obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 26 September 2025 against Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited in a dispute concerning the trademark ‘ELDER’. The Defendant applied to vacate the injunction, contending that the Plaintiff had suppressed material facts while seeking urgent relief without notice specifically, that the Defendant had relied on multiple earlier orders of the Delhi High Court in which that court had held that Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited (EPL), in liquidation, was the registered proprietor of the word mark ‘ELDER’, and that the Plaintiff’s use of that mark after EPL’s liquidation could itself amount to infringement. The Delhi High Court had even observed in earlier proceedings that the Plaintiff had made false claims regarding its rights over the mark.
The Bombay High Court vacated the ex parte injunction and dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for a temporary injunction, holding that the Plaintiff had failed to approach the Court with clean hands. The Court held that the suppression of prior judicial orders particularly those directly bearing on the Plaintiff’s title to the disputed mark was a deliberate act sufficient to disentitle the Plaintiff from equitable relief at the interim stage.
PARLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR CA (COMM.IPD-TM)49/2025
Parle Products Private Limited challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks’ decision to grant registration of the mark ’20-20′ in Class 30 (covering coffee, tea, biscuits and related food products) to Avon Agro Industries. The dispute traced back to September 2007, when Avon Agro applied to register the mark on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis. Parle filed a similar application a week later, also on a proposed-use basis, before subsequently launching products under the ’20-20′ mark between 2007 and 2008. Parle argued that its actual market use should give it priority over Avon Agro’s earlier filing date, relying on the ‘first in the market’ principle and contending that Avon Agro’s prolonged non-use had effectively extinguished its rights.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Parle’s appeal and upheld the Registrar’s order. The Court held that where competing trademark applications are filed on a proposed-use basis, subsequent commercial use by one applicant cannot defeat the earlier filing date of the other. The Court also rejected Parle’s non-use argument, noting that Avon Agro had consistently pursued its application from 2007 until registration was granted in 2025. Notably, the Court pointed out an inconsistency in Parle’s own submissions: having earlier argued that the two marks were phonetically, visually, and conceptually distinct and restricting its own use to biscuits, Parle could not then turn around and claim deceptive similarity. The Court described this as a classic case of a party approbating and reprobating simultaneously, which is impermissible in law.
INFO EDGE (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. PRADEEP NAMDEO & ANR. CA (COMM.IPD-TM) 34/2025
Info Edge (India) Limited, proprietor of the well-known online job portal ‘Naukri.com’, instituted proceedings before the Delhi High Court against Pradeep Namdeo and another, seeking an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from using a deceptively similar mark and domain name in connection with online recruitment and employment-related services. The Plaintiff contended that its mark ‘NAUKRI’ and the domain ‘naukri.com’, in use since 1997, had acquired extensive secondary meaning and goodwill in the Indian market, and that the Defendant’s adoption of an identical or deceptively similar mark was calculated to mislead job seekers and recruiters into believing that the Defendant’s platform was connected with or endorsed by the Plaintiff.
The Delhi High Court, finding a prima facie case of passing off and trademark infringement, granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using any mark or domain name identical or deceptively similar to ‘NAUKRI’ or ‘NAUKRI.COM’. The Court reaffirmed the well-established principle that a descriptive or Hindi-language mark can acquire strong trademark protection once it attains secondary meaning through extensive and exclusive use over a prolonged period. The case underscores the continuing vigilance required to protect well-known digital platforms and internet trademarks against online impersonation and unfair free-riding on established reputation.
JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HTTPS//DADDYLIVES.NL & ORS. CS(COMM) 313/2026
Just days before the commencement of the TATA Indian Premier League (IPL) 2026, JioStar India Private Limited the holder of exclusive digital and broadcast rights for the IPL from 2023 to 2027, acquired through Viacom18 and approved by the BCCI urgently approached the Delhi High Court seeking injunctive relief against a proliferating network of rogue websites and Android-based applications that were streaming IPL matches without authorisation. JioStar identified several dedicated piracy platforms, including daddylives.nl, daddy live.top, daddylive.cv, and daddylive.online, which were found to be hosting or facilitating illegal live streaming of IPL content. In a companion matter CS(COMM) 319/2026, the Court addressed rogue Android applications such as Abbasi TV, CricFY TV, RTS TV, CricPK, and HD Streamz, which were distributing pirated IPL streams through APK files outside the official Google Play ecosystem.
The Delhi High Court granted ex parte ad interim injunctions in both matters, recognising that JioStar had established a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement and that the balance of convenience and irreparable harm lay clearly in its favour. The Court observed that piracy through anonymous and constantly evolving digital networks requires real-time enforcement measures, and accordingly granted dynamic injunctions enabling JioStar to notify additional infringing websites in real time to Domain Name Registrars and Internet Service Providers, who were directed to block such platforms without the need for separate litigation.
TARUN CHOUDHARY & ANR Vs. KULDEEP MEENA & ORS CS (COMM) 297/2026
Tarun Chaudhary and another Plaintiff approached the Delhi High Court seeking copyright protection for their original creative work against Kuldeep Meena and other Defendants, who were alleged to have reproduced, copied, or commercially exploited the Plaintiffs’ work without authorisation and in violation of the exclusive rights vested in them under the Copyright Act, 1957. The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendants had infringed their copyright in the work by reproducing its essential elements and making the infringing material available to the public without obtaining a licence or consent, thereby causing irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs’ economic and moral rights.
The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in the Plaintiffs’ favour and granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from further reproducing, distributing, or commercially exploiting any work that infringes the Plaintiffs’ copyrighted material. The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that where a prima facie case of infringement is established, the balance of convenience ordinarily lies with the rights holder, as the loss caused by unauthorised exploitation of creative work is difficult to quantify and may not be adequately compensated in damages.
SUJOY GHOSH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND SLP (CLR)NO 9452 OF 2025
National Award-winning filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, in which the Complainant, Umesh Prasad Mehta, alleged that Ghosh had copied his unpublished script titled ‘Sabak’ to make the 2016 film ‘Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh’. The Complainant claimed to have shared his script with Ghosh in 2015 seeking a recommendation letter. Based on this, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Hazaribagh issued a summoning order against Ghosh in 2018. Ghosh challenged this before the Jharkhand High Court, which declined to interfere and upheld the criminal proceedings, prompting the filmmaker to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court quashed both the summoning order and the Jharkhand High Court’s decision, bringing a decade-long dispute to an end. The Court noted the complete absence of material identifying any specific similarity between the two works and found the allegations to be manifestly frivolous and vexatious. A pivotal finding was that Ghosh had registered the synopsis for the Kahaani sequel in 2012 and the full script in 2013 well before the Complainant’s script even came into existence, making the allegation of copying untenable. The Court also relied upon the finding of the Screen Writers Association’s Dispute Settlement Committee, which had earlier concluded that there was no resemblance between the two works. The Supreme Court reiterated that courts must look beyond bare allegations in the complaint and examine all attending circumstances before permitting criminal proceedings to continue, particularly in cases of alleged copyright infringement where the proceedings may amount to harassment.
M/S MRT MUSIC Vs. PARAMVAH STUDIOS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS CS (COMM) 680/2024
MRT Music, a music label that claimed ownership over two Kannada songs – ‘Nyaya Ellide’ and ‘Omme Ninnanu’ through an assignment deed executed in 2020, filed a copyright infringement suit before the Delhi High Court against Paramvah Studios Private Limited, the Bengaluru-based production house of Kannada actor-director Rakshit Shetty, over the unauthorised use of both songs in the 2023 Kannada film ‘Bachelor Party’. MRT Music contended that the songs were used without obtaining a licence: one was played on a television set during a scene, while the other was sung in a classroom sequence to support the film’s narrative. Negotiations between the parties had broken down over pricing before the film’s release.
The Delhi High Court held Paramvah Studios liable for copyright infringement and willful disobedience of a prior court order, and directed the studio to pay a total of Rs. 25 lakh to MRT Music. The Court decisively rejected the Defendant’s argument that the usage was ‘de minimis’, holding that the principle depends on qualitative impact rather than mere duration the fact that ‘Nyaya Ellide’ was used for only 7 seconds and ‘Omme Ninnanu’ for 31 seconds did not render the use trivial, as both songs had been consciously selected to drive the film’s narrative and were used for commercial gain. The Court also rejected the lapse argument under Section 19(4) of the Copyright Act, finding continued exploitation of the works on digital platforms.
India Monthly News Roundup – March 2026
India Monthly News Roundup – February 2026
India Monthly News Roundup – January 2026
India Monthly News Roundup – September 2024
India Monthly News Roundup - March 2026
Interns: Mrinal Mandhana
01 IP Insights — Highlights You Shouldn’t Miss!
-- Patents
- WIRTGEN GMBH Vs. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS & ORS. C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022
- CHUGAI SEIYAKU KABUSHIKI KAISHA & ANR. Vs. BASIL DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS & ORS. CS(COMM) 306/2026
- SAURABH ARORA Vs. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR.
- COMM. MISC. PETITION NO. 46 of 2025
- COMMUNICATION COMPONENTS ANTENNA INC. Vs. ROSENBERGER HOCHFREQUENZTECHNIK GmBH & Co. KG & ORS. CS(COMM) 653/2019 and CC(COMM) 22/2022
- PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE Vs. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 493/2022
-- Trademarks
- SCHLOSS HMA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR TEJWANI & ORS. CS(COMM) 290/2026
- RAJEEV PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. TATA PLAY LIMITED & ANR.
- COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 257 OF 2025
- ELDER PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. ELDER NEUTRACITICALS PRIVATE LIMITED COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) No.27106 of 2025
- PARLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 49/2025
- INFO EDGE (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. PRADEEP NAMDEO & ANR. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 34/2025
-- Copyright
- JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HTTPS//DADDYLIVES.NL & ORS. CS(COMM) 313/2026
- TARUN CHAUDHARY & ANR. Vs. KULDEEP MEENA & ORS. CS(COMM) 297/2026
- SUJOY GHOSH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND SLP (Crl.) NO. 9452 OF 2025
- M/S MRT MUSIC Vs. PARAMVAH STUDIOS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.CS(COMM) 680/2024
IP Insights — Highlights You Shouldn’t Miss!
WIRTGEN GMBH Vs. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS & ORS. C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022
Wirtgen GmbH, a German engineering company specialising in road construction machinery, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which had refused its Indian patent application for the invention titled ‘Bit Holder and Base Part for Receiving a Bit Holder’ a specialised component used in road milling and surface mining machines. The application, filed in December 2010, had been refused in November 2019 on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1) (ja) and failure to define the scope of the claims under Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. Wirtgen contended that several of the Section 10(4)(c) objections that ultimately formed the basis of the refusal had never been raised in the First Examination Report or the hearing notice, thereby depriving the Appellant of a fair opportunity to respond.
The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned refusal order and remanded the application for fresh consideration. The Court held that the examination process under the Patents Act is required to conform to the principles of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule, which mandates that an applicant must be given a genuine opportunity to meet every objection that may ultimately ground a refusal. Since the Controller had introduced new grounds of objection for the first time in the final order, without prior notice, the refusal was procedurally unsustainable. The Court further found that the inventive step analysis failed to apply the prescribed five-step obviousness test in the manner settled by coordinate benches.
CHUGAI SEIYAKU KABUSHIKI KAISHA & ANR Vs. BASIL DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS AND ORS. CS (COMM) 306/206
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha, a leading Japanese pharmaceutical company, and its co-Plaintiff approached the Delhi High Court seeking interim relief to restrain Basil Drugs and Pharmaceuticals and others from manufacturing, using, selling, or offering for sale any product that infringes Chugai’s Indian patent covering the anti-cancer compound Alectinib marketed globally under the brand name ‘Alecensa’ for the treatment of ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer. The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendants were engaged in or imminently preparing to engage in the manufacture and sale of generic Alectinib formulations in India without authorisation, and that such activity would constitute infringement of Chugai’s valid and subsisting Indian patent.
The Delhi High Court, upon examining the Plaintiffs’ prima facie case and the balance of convenience, granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing Chugai’s patent rights in Alectinib and its related compounds, salts, solvates, and intermediates. The Court noted that the suit patent was granted and had not been successfully challenged. Given the sensitivity of anti-cancer pharmaceutical patents, the Court weighed both the patent holder’s right to exclusivity during the patent term and the public interest considerations, ultimately finding that the balance tilted in favour of granting relief at the interim stage.
SAURABH ARORA Vs. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR. COMM MISC PETITION NO 46 of 2025
Saurabh Arora, an individual patent applicant, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order of the Deputy Controller of Patents refusing his patent application. The Appellant contended that the Controller’s refusal was arbitrary and non-speaking in that it failed to engage with the specific amendments and arguments submitted by the Appellant in response to the First Examination Report, and that the Controller had failed to properly apply the five-step test for determining inventive step under Section 2(1) (ja) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Appellant argued that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art cited by the Controller had not been identified and assessed in the manner required under settled patent examination jurisprudence.
The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned refusal order and remanded the matter to the Patent Office for fresh consideration, directing that the Deputy Controller reassess the application in light of the amended claims, afford the Appellant a proper hearing, and pass a reasoned order that identifies and analyses the distinctions between the prior art and the invention claimed. The Court reiterated that a quasi-judicial authority exercising functions under the Patents Act is obligated to pass a speaking order that reflects genuine application of mind, and that cryptic or conclusory refusals without technical analysis do not satisfy the requirements of the Act.
COMMUNICATION COMPONENTS ANTENNA INC Vs. ROSENBERGER HOCHFREQUENZTECHNIK GMBH & CO KG & ORS CS (COMM) 653/2019 AND CC (COMM) 22/2022
The Delhi High Court delivered a judgment in the long-pending patent infringement suit filed by Communication Components Antenna Inc. (CCA), a Canadian telecommunications technology company, against German telecom giant Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH & Co. KG and related entities. The suit concerned CCA’s Indian patent (IN240893) titled ‘Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency’, covering a method and apparatus for increasing subscriber capacity and enhancing the performance of base stations. CCA alleged that Rosenberger had manufactured and sold telecom antennas in India that infringed its patent, including sales made to major Indian telecommunications providers.
After a thorough summary adjudication trial, the first in India to use live transcription of witness evidence and cross-examination the Court upheld the validity of CCA’s patent and rejected Rosenberger’s invalidity counterclaim and ‘hindsight bias’ defence. The Court found that Rosenberger had infringed CCA’s patent and awarded damages of over Rs. 152 crore (approximately USD 17 million), making this one of the largest patent damages awards in India to date. The judgment is widely regarded as a landmark in Indian patent enforcement, demonstrating that Indian courts are capable of conducting technically complex patent trials to international standards, awarding meaningful damages, and protecting the rights of patent holders including foreign entities against large multinational infringers.
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE Vs. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS CA (COMM.IPD-PAT) 493/2022
The President and Fellows of Harvard College filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the refusal of its Indian patent application by the Controller General of Patents. The application related to a significant area of biotechnology or life sciences research developed at Harvard’s laboratories. The Controller had refused the application citing one or more grounds under the Patents Act, 1970, including objections relating to the scope and clarity of claims, inventive step, or patentability under Section 3. Harvard contended that the Controller had failed to properly evaluate the amendments submitted in response to examination objections and that the refusal order lacked the required degree of technical reasoning
The Delhi High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the application to the Patent Office for de novo consideration. The Court held that the Controller’s order was insufficiently reasoned and did not demonstrate a structured application of the relevant patentability criteria, including an analysis of how the cited prior art rendered the claimed invention obvious or otherwise unpatentable. The remand was directed with instructions for the Patent Office to pass a fresh, speaking order after affording Harvard a proper opportunity of hearing.
SCHLOSS HMA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR TEJWANI & ORS CS (COMM) 290/2026
Schloss HMA Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the hotel trademark ‘THE LEELA’, initiated proceedings before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against Praveen Kumar Tejwani, who was found to be operating hospitality services under the name ‘DESERT LEELA RESORT’ and using a similar ‘L’ device logo through a corresponding domain name. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant’s adoption of the word ‘LEELA’ as a prominent part of its trade name, along with a logo element deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s distinctive ‘L’ device, constituted trademark infringement and passing off, and was calculated to mislead consumers into believing that the Defendant’s resort was affiliated with or endorsed by The Leela group.
The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in the Plaintiff’s favour. The Court held that the mark ‘THE LEELA’ had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the luxury hospitality sector, and that the Defendant’s use of ‘DESERT LEELA RESORT’ combined with the similar ‘L’ device was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers. The Court accordingly granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark ‘LEELA’, the ‘L’ device, or any mark or domain name deceptively similar thereto, in connection with any hospitality or related services.
RAJEEV PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. TATA PLAY LIMITED & ANR COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO 257 OF 2025
Rajeev Prakash Agarwal, an astrologer who claimed to operate under the registered trademark ‘ASTRO DUNIA’ since 2005, filed a suit before the Bombay High Court against Tata Play Limited seeking to restrain it from using the name ‘TATA PLAY ASTRO DUNIYA’ for its newly launched DTH/OTT astrology channel. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s adoption of the name was deceptively similar to his registered mark, constituted trademark infringement and passing off, and was likely to cause consumers to confuse the two services.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding no prima facie case of infringement or passing off. The Court observed that the prominent use of the well-known house mark ‘TATA PLAY’ in the Defendant’s name was prima facie sufficient to distinguish the rival marks in the minds of consumers. The Court further noted that the expression ‘Astro Dunia’ merges the clipped English term ‘Astro’ (derived from astrology) with the Hindi word ‘Dunia’ (meaning world), rendering the mark descriptive of the services provided. It found the Plaintiff’s evidence of continuous use since 2005 to be largely self-attested and commercially unsubstantiated.
ELDER PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. ELDER NEUTRACITICALS PRIVATE LIMITED COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO 27106 OF 2025
Elder Projects Limited had obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 26 September 2025 against Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited in a dispute concerning the trademark ‘ELDER’. The Defendant applied to vacate the injunction, contending that the Plaintiff had suppressed material facts while seeking urgent relief without notice specifically, that the Defendant had relied on multiple earlier orders of the Delhi High Court in which that court had held that Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited (EPL), in liquidation, was the registered proprietor of the word mark ‘ELDER’, and that the Plaintiff’s use of that mark after EPL’s liquidation could itself amount to infringement. The Delhi High Court had even observed in earlier proceedings that the Plaintiff had made false claims regarding its rights over the mark.
The Bombay High Court vacated the ex parte injunction and dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for a temporary injunction, holding that the Plaintiff had failed to approach the Court with clean hands. The Court held that the suppression of prior judicial orders particularly those directly bearing on the Plaintiff’s title to the disputed mark was a deliberate act sufficient to disentitle the Plaintiff from equitable relief at the interim stage.
PARLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR CA (COMM.IPD-TM)49/2025
Parle Products Private Limited challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks’ decision to grant registration of the mark ’20-20′ in Class 30 (covering coffee, tea, biscuits and related food products) to Avon Agro Industries. The dispute traced back to September 2007, when Avon Agro applied to register the mark on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis. Parle filed a similar application a week later, also on a proposed-use basis, before subsequently launching products under the ’20-20′ mark between 2007 and 2008. Parle argued that its actual market use should give it priority over Avon Agro’s earlier filing date, relying on the ‘first in the market’ principle and contending that Avon Agro’s prolonged non-use had effectively extinguished its rights.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Parle’s appeal and upheld the Registrar’s order. The Court held that where competing trademark applications are filed on a proposed-use basis, subsequent commercial use by one applicant cannot defeat the earlier filing date of the other. The Court also rejected Parle’s non-use argument, noting that Avon Agro had consistently pursued its application from 2007 until registration was granted in 2025. Notably, the Court pointed out an inconsistency in Parle’s own submissions: having earlier argued that the two marks were phonetically, visually, and conceptually distinct and restricting its own use to biscuits, Parle could not then turn around and claim deceptive similarity. The Court described this as a classic case of a party approbating and reprobating simultaneously, which is impermissible in law.
INFO EDGE (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. PRADEEP NAMDEO & ANR. CA (COMM.IPD-TM) 34/2025
Info Edge (India) Limited, proprietor of the well-known online job portal ‘Naukri.com’, instituted proceedings before the Delhi High Court against Pradeep Namdeo and another, seeking an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from using a deceptively similar mark and domain name in connection with online recruitment and employment-related services. The Plaintiff contended that its mark ‘NAUKRI’ and the domain ‘naukri.com’, in use since 1997, had acquired extensive secondary meaning and goodwill in the Indian market, and that the Defendant’s adoption of an identical or deceptively similar mark was calculated to mislead job seekers and recruiters into believing that the Defendant’s platform was connected with or endorsed by the Plaintiff.
The Delhi High Court, finding a prima facie case of passing off and trademark infringement, granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using any mark or domain name identical or deceptively similar to ‘NAUKRI’ or ‘NAUKRI.COM’. The Court reaffirmed the well-established principle that a descriptive or Hindi-language mark can acquire strong trademark protection once it attains secondary meaning through extensive and exclusive use over a prolonged period. The case underscores the continuing vigilance required to protect well-known digital platforms and internet trademarks against online impersonation and unfair free-riding on established reputation.
JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HTTPS//DADDYLIVES.NL & ORS. CS(COMM) 313/2026
Just days before the commencement of the TATA Indian Premier League (IPL) 2026, JioStar India Private Limited the holder of exclusive digital and broadcast rights for the IPL from 2023 to 2027, acquired through Viacom18 and approved by the BCCI urgently approached the Delhi High Court seeking injunctive relief against a proliferating network of rogue websites and Android-based applications that were streaming IPL matches without authorisation. JioStar identified several dedicated piracy platforms, including daddylives.nl, daddy live.top, daddylive.cv, and daddylive.online, which were found to be hosting or facilitating illegal live streaming of IPL content. In a companion matter CS(COMM) 319/2026, the Court addressed rogue Android applications such as Abbasi TV, CricFY TV, RTS TV, CricPK, and HD Streamz, which were distributing pirated IPL streams through APK files outside the official Google Play ecosystem.
The Delhi High Court granted ex parte ad interim injunctions in both matters, recognising that JioStar had established a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement and that the balance of convenience and irreparable harm lay clearly in its favour. The Court observed that piracy through anonymous and constantly evolving digital networks requires real-time enforcement measures, and accordingly granted dynamic injunctions enabling JioStar to notify additional infringing websites in real time to Domain Name Registrars and Internet Service Providers, who were directed to block such platforms without the need for separate litigation.
TARUN CHOUDHARY & ANR Vs. KULDEEP MEENA & ORS CS (COMM) 297/2026
Tarun Chaudhary and another Plaintiff approached the Delhi High Court seeking copyright protection for their original creative work against Kuldeep Meena and other Defendants, who were alleged to have reproduced, copied, or commercially exploited the Plaintiffs’ work without authorisation and in violation of the exclusive rights vested in them under the Copyright Act, 1957. The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendants had infringed their copyright in the work by reproducing its essential elements and making the infringing material available to the public without obtaining a licence or consent, thereby causing irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs’ economic and moral rights.
The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in the Plaintiffs’ favour and granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from further reproducing, distributing, or commercially exploiting any work that infringes the Plaintiffs’ copyrighted material. The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that where a prima facie case of infringement is established, the balance of convenience ordinarily lies with the rights holder, as the loss caused by unauthorised exploitation of creative work is difficult to quantify and may not be adequately compensated in damages.
SUJOY GHOSH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND SLP (CLR)NO 9452 OF 2025
National Award-winning filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, in which the Complainant, Umesh Prasad Mehta, alleged that Ghosh had copied his unpublished script titled ‘Sabak’ to make the 2016 film ‘Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh’. The Complainant claimed to have shared his script with Ghosh in 2015 seeking a recommendation letter. Based on this, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Hazaribagh issued a summoning order against Ghosh in 2018. Ghosh challenged this before the Jharkhand High Court, which declined to interfere and upheld the criminal proceedings, prompting the filmmaker to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court quashed both the summoning order and the Jharkhand High Court’s decision, bringing a decade-long dispute to an end. The Court noted the complete absence of material identifying any specific similarity between the two works and found the allegations to be manifestly frivolous and vexatious. A pivotal finding was that Ghosh had registered the synopsis for the Kahaani sequel in 2012 and the full script in 2013 well before the Complainant’s script even came into existence, making the allegation of copying untenable. The Court also relied upon the finding of the Screen Writers Association’s Dispute Settlement Committee, which had earlier concluded that there was no resemblance between the two works. The Supreme Court reiterated that courts must look beyond bare allegations in the complaint and examine all attending circumstances before permitting criminal proceedings to continue, particularly in cases of alleged copyright infringement where the proceedings may amount to harassment.
M/S MRT MUSIC Vs. PARAMVAH STUDIOS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS CS (COMM) 680/2024
MRT Music, a music label that claimed ownership over two Kannada songs – ‘Nyaya Ellide’ and ‘Omme Ninnanu’ through an assignment deed executed in 2020, filed a copyright infringement suit before the Delhi High Court against Paramvah Studios Private Limited, the Bengaluru-based production house of Kannada actor-director Rakshit Shetty, over the unauthorised use of both songs in the 2023 Kannada film ‘Bachelor Party’. MRT Music contended that the songs were used without obtaining a licence: one was played on a television set during a scene, while the other was sung in a classroom sequence to support the film’s narrative. Negotiations between the parties had broken down over pricing before the film’s release.
The Delhi High Court held Paramvah Studios liable for copyright infringement and willful disobedience of a prior court order, and directed the studio to pay a total of Rs. 25 lakh to MRT Music. The Court decisively rejected the Defendant’s argument that the usage was ‘de minimis’, holding that the principle depends on qualitative impact rather than mere duration the fact that ‘Nyaya Ellide’ was used for only 7 seconds and ‘Omme Ninnanu’ for 31 seconds did not render the use trivial, as both songs had been consciously selected to drive the film’s narrative and were used for commercial gain. The Court also rejected the lapse argument under Section 19(4) of the Copyright Act, finding continued exploitation of the works on digital platforms.
India Monthly News Roundup – March 2026
India Monthly News Roundup – February 2026
India Monthly News Roundup – January 2026