Applications are now open for the second iteration of the SpicyIP Summer School 2026! 1st National Policy Brief Competition on IP and Innovation 2025 successfully organised by SpicyIP and CIPAM, DPIIT. Can a dead patent be revoked? Post on the Delhi HC’s DB judgment in Boehringer Ingelheim v. Controller of Patents. 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
Applications Open for the SpicyIP Summer School 2026!
We’re excited to share that applications for the SpicyIP Summer School 2026 are now open! This year’s theme, Rethinking IP: Foundations, Faults, and Futures, invites participants to examine where IP is currently embedded, where current tensions have manifested, and to develop the analytical frameworks to reason through what is coming next. The Summer School will be an intensive 9-day residential programme held in Bengaluru (June 20–28), and confirmed sessions include a masterclass by Justice Gautam Patel! The cohort is limited to 25 participants, and applications are accepted on a rolling basis, so apply soon! Details and the application link are available on the website: https://spicyip.com/summerschool.
Organised by SpicyIP in collaboration with CIPAM, DPIIT, the competition culminated in a closely contested final round at Vanijya Bhawan, New Delhi, where eight finalist teams presented policy recommendations addressing complex issues spanning trade secrets, confidential information, standard essential patents, and technological progress. The finalists presented their recommendations and responded to the deep engagement provided by our esteemed panel of four judges: Justice Prabha Sridevan, Dr. Zakir Thomas, Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, and Dr. V. K. Unni. Read the post to know more about the top teams from the competition.
Kill it Again – Revoking “Dead” Patents
The DHC’s Division Bench has finally staked the question that’s haunted Indian patent law: can a dead patent be revoked? The answer is yes. In Boehringer Ingelheim v. Controller of Patents, the Court held that patents expired by efflux of time remain liable to revocation, and that an invalidity defence under Section 107 is not the same as a revocation petition under Section 64. Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan unpacks the Court’s reasoning and its implications.
The Kerly’s Impasse: A Relic of the Past?
The Delhi High Court recently engaged with the intriguing “Kerly’s Impasse” in trademark law (where a prior user of a mark with goodwill may face infringement claims from a registered proprietor who started using the mark later). Priyam Mitra explains that while the situation highlights a fascinating clash between rights against infringement and passing off claims, the doctrine might fade in the present digital era.
Infringement Against Contract Manufacturers: Can Patentees Restrain ‘Have-Made’ Rights in India?
Would Indian law recognise “have-made” rights, where a patent licensee has a patented product manufactured by an unlicensed third party? Eleen Garg explores how Indian courts may approach this issue, arguing that they are unlikely to follow the U.S. position on these rights, and explains why this is a pressing question in light of India’s push to expand semiconductor manufacturing under the ISM framework.
Other Posts
Green Patents and Climate Governance: What India Can Learn from Global Leaders in Climate-Tech IP
Can patent systems actually accelerate climate action? In his submission for the SpicyIP–Jhana Blogpost Writing Competition 2025, Abhinav Manchanda explores this question and explains how countries around the world are increasingly designing their IP regimes to support green innovation, while India’s green patent framework is still finding its footing.
While India’s IP system has made significant strides in digital accessibility, Rushil Verma, in his submission for the SpicyIP–Jhana Blogpost Writing Competition 2025, explains how it continues to fall short on intelligibility. He suggests that integrating “Explainable IP” could help transform patent and trademark databases from mere document repositories into inclusive, user-centric public knowledge systems.
Royalty Raja’s Reformation of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012
In light of the different copyright litigations involving musical maestro Ilaiyaraja, Nivedita Krishnakumar argues for a purposive interpretation of the royalty-sharing provisions provided through the Copyright Amendment Act 2012. In her submission for the SpicyIP-jhana Blogpost Writing Competition 2025, she argues that the 2012 amendment must be seen as a remedial statute, making an argument for a retrospective effect of the royalty sharing provisions within the 2012 amendment.
Thinking Out Loud……Literally: Brains And Boundaries
The rise of the brain–computer interfaces mark a technological inflection point, blurring the line between cognition and computation. What happens when thoughts become data, and data becomes patentable subject matter? Soumya Juneja, in her post for the SpicyIP–Jhana Blogpost Writing Competition 2025, engages with these questions and assesses whether there is a need to re-examine invention, prior art, and authorship in the age of neurotechnology.
The application portal for LL.M. at Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC) is now open! Take a look at their sponsored post to know more about the benefits of the programme.
The NUALS Intellectual Property Law Review (IPLR) has extended the last date for submissions to Volume VII until March 10. For more information, please see the extension announcement.
Case Summaries
The Court dismissed the appeal challenging rejection of the patent application for a “Herbicidal Composition for Field Crops”. The application had been refused pursuant to pre-grant oppositions on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step and being a mere admixture without proven synergistic effect. The Court held that the Controller correctly applied the inventive step test laid down in F-Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. & Anr. v. Cipla Ltd.
Md Mohsin And Ors vs Lenskart Solutions Limited on 25 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and issued summons in a suit seeking permanent injunction for infringement of the registered Geographical Indication “Bidriware”. The Plaintiffs are amongst the 181 authorised users of the GI and allege that Lenskart used the term “Bidri” and similar patterns for eyewear products and online listings which misleads consumers as to geographical origin (Bidar, Karnataka). The Court issued notice to the Defendant and listed the matter for hearing.
Novartis Ag & Ors vs Natco Pharma Limited on 26 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court recorded a settlement Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC between Novartis and Natco in a patent infringement suit relating to Entresto. During the pendency of the suit, the patent expired on 16.01.2023 which rendered the suit and counterclaim for the revocation infructuous. In view of the expiry the parties agreed to release each other from all claims. The Court found the settlement lawful and ordered it to form part of the decree.
The Court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff restraining the Defendants from using the mark “SIL-WET” held to be phonetically identical and deceptively similar to the registered trademark “SILWET.” The Court prima facie found a case of passing off and observed that permitting identical agricultural products which carry formidable reputation was a matter of grave concern. It directed blocking of the impugned URL and restrained use of the mark across all platforms.
The Court disposed of an appeal arising from refusal of interim injunction in a dispute between competing trademarks in the same industry: Appellant’s- ‘Institute of Directors’ and Respondent’s- ‘Directors Institute’. Observing the likelihood of confusion in a passing off action, the Court suggested a settlement to protect goodwill. The Respondents agreed to use “World Development Corporation Directors’ Institute” as a prefix without undue emphasis on ‘Directors Institute’. The modified mark was ordered to be used by the Respondent across all platforms and all pending applications accordingly amended.
The Appellant challenged the respondent’s objection that the claimed patent was barred as it was based on traditional knowledge under Section 3(b) of the Patent’s Act. Thereby, the Court took on record a Biodiversity Agreement executed between the Appellant and the National Biodiversity Authority on 19.01.2021. Additionally, noting that the respondent had not specifically addressed the appellant’s inventive step chart, the Court granted 6 weeks’ time to file a detailed response for clarification and in the interest of justice.
The Court allowed Daikin’s appeal against refusal of its patent application for a Shell-And-Plate Heat Exchanger. The Court without deciding on the novelty of the claim, held that that amendments to claims are permissible even at the appellate stage under Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970, provided they are only made by way of disclaimer, correction or explanation, incorporate actual facts and remain within the scope of claims as originally filed.
Associated Broadcasting Company vs Google Llc & Ors on 28 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, a news broadcaster, used brief footage claimed to belong to defendants who are foreign entities in its news coverage, who filed YouTube copyright strikes in response without proving ownership. The Delhi High Court held that raw, mechanical recordings of weather events and current affairs carry no copyright or creative authorship. The Court held that even assuming copyright existed, the coverage would attract fair dealing under Section 52(1)(a)(iii) and the de minimis doctrine. It further held that the issuance of strike notices without infringement proceedings attracted Section 60, and restrained further threats.
The Plaintiff, a law firm and a registered trademark holder since 2005 with continuous use since 1997, sued a Delhi chartered accountancy firm operating under the identical name and domain. The Delhi High Court held that the defendants had adopted the dominant element of the plaintiffs’ registered mark and that mere addition of the suffix “Chartered Accountants” could not avoid infringement. Relying on Section 29(2) of the TM Act and the doctrine of Initial Interest Confusion, the Court held that even threshold confusion would lead to infringement, granting an ex parte injunction and directing defendants to remove all infringing content within 72 hours.
In a trademark infringement and passing off suit, the defendants applied to revoke the dispensation granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, contending that the plaintiff had suppressed prior knowledge of the impugned mark and that no urgency existed. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the challenge, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Novenco that in continuing IP infringement, every act of manufacture or sale constitutes a fresh cause of action, making urgency inherent in the nature of the wrong. Therefore, the Section 12A dispensation was validly granted and the application was dismissed.
The Plaintiff, a restaurant brand, sued its former franchisee for continuing to operate a restaurant under the mark “MOTI MAHAL” after termination of the Franchise Agreement. The Delhi High Court held that the defendant’s right to use the mark flowed solely from a limited, non-exclusive licence, which ceased upon termination. As the Plaintiffs were registered proprietors under Section 28 of the TM Act, continued use after termination constituted infringement and passing off. The Court restrained further use of the mark and directed withdrawal of all infringing materials from physical and online platforms.
Louis Vuitton Malletier vs M3M India Private Limited & Anr on 27 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Louis Vuitton Malletier sued the Defendants for using their well-known “LOUIS VUITTON” and interlocked “LV” marks in real estate advertisements and social media reels to falsely suggest that it was launching stores or investing in their projects. The Delhi High Court noted that the plaintiff’s marks have been registered in India since 1985 and have been declared well-known trademarks. It held that the Defendants’ use of identical and misspelled variants such as “LOIS VUTTON” was prima facie dishonest, causing infringement and dilution. The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining use of the marks and directing immediate takedown of all infringing online and offline material.
The Court set aside the Registrar’s order abandoning Appellant’s application for the mark “SAKTHI.” The Court held that the registration certificate granted in 2005 had been unilaterally cancelled without notice to the appellant and even in such a case only rectification proceedings can be filed post registration. Further, the application was later treated as abandoned after opposition proceedings. This entire procedure was arbitrary, violated principles of natural justice, and was contrary to the Act. The Court directed reinstatement of the registration.
The dispute concerned the mark “ORBIT THE CABLE PEOPLE (Device)” registered by the Plaintiff’s. The Respondent’s claimed prior use of the mark “ORBIT” for electrical goods and filed a rectification petition seeking removal of the mark from the register. Meanwhile, both parties had already filed mutual infringement and passing-off suits before the Additional District Court Delhi. The Madras High Court held that a rectification petition challenging a registered trademark cannot be maintained when prior civil suits between the same parties are pending and no issue regarding the invalidity of the trademark has been framed in those suits.
Sporta Technologies Private Limited vs Come Sports & Ors on 24 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, Sporta Technologies, sought an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using its registered ‘DREAM11’ and ‘DREAM SPORTS’ marks and from reproducing its copyrighted mobile application and advertisements. The Delhi HC held that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, and restrained Defendant No.1 while directing DoT and MeitY to block the impugned domain names.
G S Srinivasa Rao vs V Purnachandra Rao on 9 February, 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff in a trademark infringement and passing off dispute concerning the mark “N.V. GOPAL & CO.” used for calendars and Telugu panchangams. The Court held the plaintiff to be the prior user and registered proprietor, and found the defendant’s mark “S.V. GOPAL & CO.” and trade dress deceptively similar. Concluding that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, the Court granted permanent injunction and costs.
The Court considered appeals challenging a common order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks concerning the mark “Big Bite.” The Registrar had rejected 7-Eleven’s application and opposition while allowing the third respondent’s application for the same mark. During the proceedings, the mark was assigned to another entity which was substituted as respondent. On examining the record, the Court found that the respondent had shown continuous use, sales and promotion of the mark in India since 2004, whereas the appellant had not shown prior commercial use. The Registrar’s order was upheld.
The Court dismissed writ petitions filed by the Plaintiff seeking directions to adjourn opposition proceedings against Khoday India Limited’s trademark applications and to consolidate the oppositions pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks. The Court held that the petitions were based on mere apprehension that the Registrar might proceed with the applications despite a pending suit before the Bombay High Court. Since the Registrar had not taken any final decision and had adjourned the matter for years, the Court disposed of the writ petitions.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Gurnoor and Khushi for the case summaries.)