A post discussing Galgotias University low-quality patent filings and the larger question of India’s patent regime distortion. Another post defending the recent scent trademark of Sumitomo Rubber Industries. Case summaries and IP developments from the country and the globe and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
The Illusion of Innovation: Looking at the Galgotias University Patents
Arguing that India’s patent regime is being distorted by seemingly flawed incentives, Kartikeya Srivastava explains how the NIRF’s publication-focused metrics have turned patent filings into a numbers game divorced from genuine innovation. Through a close reading of two contrasting Galgotias University patents, he highlights a structural system that risks rewarding low-quality filings.
Are You a-live Performer? A Question to Studio Recordist
Discussing Section 2(q) of the Copyright Act and the relevance of the word “live” in defining what legally constitutes a performance, Rajesh Kumar and Akanksha Badika apply the statutory rules of interpretation to argue that the qualifier “live”, limits the scope of “performance” to live performances and not studio performances.
In Defense of Sumitomo, and What It Means for India
On the grant of a scent trade mark to Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Gaurav Dahiya takes a contrarian view to the critics of the order, defending the decision while highlighting where the Controller General’s reasoning could have gone further. He argues that a 7-dimensional vector representation of a rose fragrance can satisfy the graphical representation requirement under the Trade Marks Act, and reflects on acquired distinctiveness and the broader need for a coherent normative framework to evaluate non-traditional trade marks in India.
The Delhi High Court recently upheld an interim injunction against Canva over its “Present and Record” feature, affirming a strong prima facie case of infringement in favour of RxPrism. Priyam Mitra writes on the order explaining that while the ruling leans heavily on claim construction and the doctrine of equivalents, it notably sidesteps the Section 3(k) challenge and relies on the statutory presumption of validity.
The Hidden Stories From Bangalore Habba: Conversations With Artisans Beyond Legal Frameworks
Having visited the MIRAAS Exhibition at the Bangalore Habba, Sonisha Srinivasan reflects on her conversations with the artisans about their craft, lived realities, and their perspectives on geographical indication and culture. From Bhujodi weavers of Kuchch to Kantha stitch artisans of Bardhaman and Kota Doria master craftsmen, the conversations reveal how differently artisans think about culture and craft, shaped by distinct motivations.
Other Posts
Regulating Artificially Generated Media: Unpacking the Amendments to the IT Rules
Recently, MeitY notified the amendments to the IT(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. These amendments are intended to address issues related to ‘synthetically generated information’ and deepfakes. Vikram Raj Nanda breaks down the amendments and discusses what has changed from the earlier draft, as well as their possible impacts.
We are pleased to inform you that admissions are now open for NLU Delhi’s WIPO-NLUD-IPO joint Masters/ LL.M. programme, the Post Graduate Insolvency Programme (PGIP), and Ph.D. Programme. For more detail please read the announcement.
Case Summaries
State vs. Pradeep Gupta & Ors., Delhi District Court on February 16, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The accused were charged with possessing and selling counterfeit “Bosch” products under section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. During the trial, the complainant failed to identify the seized case property because the packaging had deteriorated due to the efflux of time. Since the prosecution could not prove the recovered items were actually counterfeit or spurious, the Court found the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Both accused were acquitted of all charges.
The Court set aside an order by the Registrar of Copyrights that had rejected the appellant’s copyright application. The Court accepted the appellant’s argument that the Registrar failed to properly distinguish between a “person interested” (at the application stage under section 45 of the Copyright Act 1957 read with rules 70(9) and 70(10) of the 2013 Rules) and a “person aggrieved” (post-registration under Sections 50 of the Act). Additionally, the Registrar relied on electronic evidence like the appellant’s promotional material stating that they had produced more than 100 units while the appellant claimed that they had complied with s.15(2) of the Act and not produced more than 50 units. The Registrar did not give the appellant an opportunity to rebut it and the HC held it to be violative of principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for de novo consideration.
Saregama India Limited vs Mr Ilaiyaraaja, Delhi High Court on 13 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The suit was instituted against the famed music composer Ilaiyaraaja to restrain him from exploiting the copyright works of the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant was granting unauthorised licenses to third party music services such as Amazon music, ITunes etc. while claiming that he had the legal title of the various sound recordings and musical works in question. The plaintiff claimed exclusive ownership over the works by virtue of assignment agreements with film producers. The Court noted how under s.17(b) and (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 film producers are treated as first owners of works commissioned for a film. The Court prima facie favored the plaintiff’s case and granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
The division bench overturned the single judge’s order rejecting Lotus Herbals plea of an interim injunction against the actor Deepika Padukone’s brand “82°E” using the mark “Lotus Splash” on facewash/face-cleansing products. The use of “Lotus Splash” as a mark was held by the Court to be deceptively similar and bound to cause confusion in the minds of the average consumer with respect to Herbals’ mark “Lotus”. The respondents sought to rely on s.30(2)(a) and s.35 of the TMA to argue that their use of the mark was a mere description of the lotus extract used as an ingredient in the product. The division bench rebutted this by a) relying on the registration of similar phrases like “Turmeric Shield”, “Ashwagandha Bounce”, etc as trademarks under the umbrella mark of “82°E” and there being other descriptive phrases below the “Lotus Splash mark” and b) noting how the appellant were first in the market to associate “Lotus splash” with a cosmetic product and on these grounds the Court granted a temporary injunction.
Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Chacha Cloth House on 12 February, 2026. (Delhi High Court)
Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal before the Delhi HC for trademark infringement by Chacha Cloth House against the order of the District Judge (Commercial Court) that held “Chacha” as a generic expression and denied interim injunction. The Petitioner claimed that the respondent infringed registered marks of the petitioner “CHACHA SAREE BAZAR PVT LTD” and “CHACHA DI HATTI” by using similar labels/logos. The Delhi HC allowed the appeal granting injunction and held that the lower court had erred on principle. The Court held that distinctiveness as a whole must be examined vis-à-vis the goods and services in respect of which the mark is used. Thus, “CHACHA” is distinctive when used for selling sarees and other garments.
KRBL Limited has filed a suit against Paul Enterprise for infringing the registered trademark “INDIA GATE” and “BABAL HIND”. The petitioner has been using the mark since 1993 and has INDIA GATE WITH DEVICE registered, however, due to a mistake of the Registry the mark had been advertised in the Trade mark Journal as INDIA GATE (word mark) without device of INDIA GATE, an application to rectify the same has been filed. The defendants filed applications for registration of INDIA GATE WITH DEVICE OF INDIA GATE in relation to rice of all kinds. The Court granted ex-parte permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing the mark of the petitioner “INDIA GATE” and diluting the mark by indulging in falsification, unfair and unethical trade practices.
Oswald Books and Learnings Pvt. filed an appeal before the Division Bench of Delhi HC against the order of the Single Judge confirming the refusal order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting the registration of the mark “ONE FOR ALL”. The Petitioner has adopted the mark in relation to its educational publications. The Registrar refused registration as the petitioner failed to prove that its mark has acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning. The Single Judge held that words of ordinary English usage cannot be monopolised. The DB overturned both orders of the Single Judge and the Registrar as “ONE FOR ALL” is not a common-way or slogan. The DB held that the mark is suggestive in nature and satisfies the statutory requirement for registration.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr vs Natco Pharma Limited on 12 February, 2026. (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court settled issues between F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. and Natco Pharma Ltd. over Indian Patent IN 334397 (“Compounds for Treating Spinal Muscular Atrophy”) with their consent. Several issued were framed such as whether plaintiffs are the proprietors of the patent, whether defendant has infringed Plaintiff’s registered Indian Patent, whether Plaintiffs’ Suit Patent IN 334397 is liable to be revoked, and others. Parties agreed on Mr. J.R. Aryan, District Judge (Retd.) as the Local Commissioner for recording of evidence of the parties. Parties will attempt to ensure complete trial and final arguments within one year. Respondents filed an application for confidentiality of certain documents which succeeded and a confidentiality club will be created.
M/S Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. filed an application under Order SLI Rule 27 CPC to add documents showing registration of its marks ‘Flipkart MarQ’ and ‘MarQ by Flipkart’. Application was filed as part of an ongoing appeal against Delhi High Court order of 2018 in favour of M/S Marc Enterprises. The Impugned Order restrained the petitioner from using the Mark ‘MarQ’ granting interim injunction to the defendant. The Delhi HC held that the petitioner was negligent in not filing registration documents. However, the Court allowed the additional documents to be filed as they are relevant for the purpose of the adjudication of the appeal, subject to the Petitioner paying Rs. 2 lakhs as cost to the respondent.
Tata Power Renewable Energy Ltd. & Anr. filed a Commercial suit against http://Www.Tatasolarpowers.com & Ors. for infringing their registered trademark and passing off marks like ‘TATA’, ‘TATA POWER’, ‘TATA POWER SOLAR’, and ‘TATA POWER SOLARPROOF’ used in solar energy services. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have misappropriated the trademarks of the Plaintiffs by incorporating them in their communications, forged and fabricated approval letters, certificates, invoices and legal franchise agreements, etc., duping innocent consumers under the promise of providing services on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction, suspension of http://www.tatasolarpowers.com, blocking impugned mobile numbers, and freezing impugned bank accounts.
M/S. Green Energy Resources, Sambalpur has filed a writ petition before Orissa High Court at Cuttack for restoration of the Patent granted in his favour in 2017 in respect of Patent No.343974, “a Novel Method For Detoxification Of Spent Potlining (SPL) By Controlled Head Treatment”. The Patent ceased to have effect in 2021 due to failure to deposit the renewal fees by the Petitioner. The Court allowed the writ petition and permitted the petitioner to make an application for restoration. The Court held that the Petitioner had no intention to abandon the patent, there was a mistake of the authorized patent agent and the Petitioner is able to establish full diligence also expiration occurred during the covid pandemic.
Dcm Shriram Limited vs Mr Arvind Kumar & Anr on 13 February, 2026. (Delhi High Court)
A clarification was sought from the Delhi High Court with respect to court fee refund in commercial suit CS(COMM) 1060/2024 filed by DCM Shriram Ltd. against Mr. Arvind Kumar and Anr. The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, copyright and passing off along with other ancillary reliefs. The parties arrived at a settlement before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (‘SAMADHAN’). The corrected order was passed and the registry was directed to refund 100% Court fee in favour of the petitioner within six 6 weeks with regard to Section 16 and 16A of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
LexisNexis sought an ex parte ad interim injunction against defendants selling counterfeit legal textbooks, including “Pollock & Mulla“. The plaintiff demonstrated that the counterfeit books used scans of original text but featured inferior binding and invalid QR codes on holograms. The court found a prima facie case of copyright and trademark infringement. Justice Jyoti Singh granted the injunction, restraining the defendants from further dealing in these counterfeit publications.
Loreal Sa vs Dholiya Monil Sanjaybhai on 18 February, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
L’Oreal sued for trademark and copyright infringement regarding its “GARNIER BRIGHT COMPLETE” trade dress. The defendant used an identical “WHITE BON BRIGHT COMPLETE” design with the same colour scheme and packaging. During proceedings, the original defendant was deleted after disclosing the designer, Ravibhai Vekariya, who was then impleaded. The court found the imitation dishonest. It decreed a permanent injunction and awarded Rs. 1,00,000 in damages.
Sauss Home Products appealed an interlocutory injunction regarding the “Flying Bird” device mark used for laundry products. While both parties held registrations, the court focused on the priority of the user. Reckitt established its user since 2000, whereas Sauss relied on a “Sainik Newspaper” from 1997 that was found to be fabricated as it reported future events. The Division Bench upheld the injunction, citing the appellant’s lack of clean hands.
The petitioner, selling rice under the “SWASTIK” label since 1998, sued for infringement after the respondent adopted an identical “New SWASTIK” mark. Despite the service, the respondent failed to file a written statement. Applying Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, the court held that the uncontroverted facts established the petitioner’s prior rights and the respondent’s deceptive similarity. Consequently, the court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Drishti, Fazal, and Priyam for the case summaries.)
