Entering March with a post on whether unjust enrichment act as a residual measure for claiming compensation for the use of biological resources? Another post on the working of the National IP Pendency Elimination Karma-Mission (NIPEKM). Case summaries and IP developments from the country and the globe 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
Unjust Enrichment as a Residual Remedy for Biopiracy? Rethinking ABS Failures Beyond MAT
Can unjust enrichment act as a residual measure for claiming compensation for the use of biological resources when contractual arrangements don’t work? Examining this legal doctrine and its relevance to access and benefit-sharing, Achyuth B. Nandan argues that, in light of varying state capacity to implement the ABS mechanism and weak user-side enforcement, unjust enrichment can act as a residual measure within the ABS framework and aid in furthering the purpose of ABS.
The Bad “Karma” of Interim Measures- Analysing NIPEKM’s Potential Long-term Impacts
As part of the continuing saga of the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) trying to clear the huge pendency of applications, the National IP Pendency Elimination Karma-Mission (NIPEKM) was launched through an office circular on February 17, 2026. Priyam Mitra argues that the circular, though rather ambitious, falls into the same pitfalls as earlier (failed) attempts at reducing pendency.
Case Summaries
Swami Ramdev vs. John Doe(s) and Ors. on 18 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Swami Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurveda sought a permanent injunction against “John Doe” defendants for disparaging their “Dant Kanti” toothpaste through a viral video. The video falsely claimed the product caused cancer and contained charcoal. The court found the video’s claims prima facie malicious and unsubstantiated. Justice Anish Dayal granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, directing social media platforms to remove the offending content.
Kajol Vishal Devgan vs. Kash Collective & Ors. on 20 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Actress Kajol filed a suit to protect her personality and publicity rights against unauthorized use of her name, likeness, and voice by various entities. The defendants were using AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorized images for commercial purposes, including fake endorsements. Finding a prima facie case of irreparable harm, Justice Navin Chawla granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from misappropriating her personality traits.
Ipca Laboratories Ltd. vs. Rikon Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. on 23 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Ipca Laboratories sought a permanent injunction to protect its registered trademark “FALCIGO,” used for anti-malarial drugs since 1996. The defendant used the mark “FALCIGARD” for identical medicinal products. The court observed that “FALCIGO” is a well-known mark and the defendant’s mark was deceptively similar, posing a risk to public health. Justice Sanjeev Narula granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from using “FALCIGARD”.
Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar vs. A.R. Rahman on 20 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff alleged that A.R. Rahman’s song “Veera Raja Veera” from the film PS-II infringed the copyright of a “Shiva Stuti” composed by his father and uncle. Rahman contended the composition was a traditional “Dhrupad” piece in the public domain. While the court noted similarities, it found no immediate ground for an ex parte injunction. Instead, it directed the defendants to file their response and re-notified the matter.
Levi Strauss and Company vs. Beyoung Folks Private Limited on 23 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Levi Strauss sued to protect its iconic “Arcuate Stitching Design” trademark, used on jeans pockets since 1873. The defendant was selling apparel featuring a stitching pattern nearly identical to the Arcuate design. The court found the defendant’s use of the mark was a prima facie attempt to trade upon Levi’s established goodwill. Consequently, Justice Mini Pushkarna granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction against the defendant.
Lalit Kumar vs. State of Punjab on 24 February, 2026 (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Lalit Kumar sought regular bail in a case involving the recovery of 3,000 tablets of “Clovidol 100 SR” (Tramadol), a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The petitioner argued he was merely a passenger in the vehicle and had been in custody for over a year. However, the court denied bail, citing the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the gravity of the offence.
Boehringer Ingelheim appealed the rejection of its patent application for a “Medicament for the treatment of metabolic disorders”. The Controller had refused the patent, citing a lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The High Court set aside the rejection, ruling that the Controller failed to provide a reasoned analysis regarding the technical advancement and the “efficacy” requirements.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Drishti for the case summaries.)