(This week’s review is authored by Shubham Thakare. Shubham is currently an intern with SpicyIP. He is a third-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, with an interest in copyright and trademark law.)
As we move further into March, this week’s review brings into focus questions around the limits of IP protection over identity, alongside a series of significant judicial developments across trademarks, patents, and copyright. From clarifying the misplaced claim of copyright in a person’s name to examining posthumous personality rights in the age of generative AI, the posts this week engage with how IP law responds to evolving technological and social contexts. We also cover recent case summaries and notable IP developments from India and across jurisdictions. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Issued in Public Interest: Your Name is Not a Copyrighted Work
Media reports claiming that Rishi Kapoor’s name has been “copyrighted” point to a deeper and persistent confusion around core IP concepts. Kartik Sharma clarifies that a person’s name cannot be protected under copyright law, which is meant to incentivise creative expression rather than identity. The post also situates such concerns within the more appropriate frameworks of trademark law and the evolving doctrine of personality rights.
Rest in IP: Posthumous Personality Rights in the Age of Deepfakes
As generative AI increasingly enables the digital recreation of the dead, difficult questions arise around control over posthumous identity. In this submission for the SpicyIP–Jhana Blogpost Writing Competition 2025, Krisha Sahay argues that a deceased person’s identity should be treated as a quasi-property right, inheritable by their estate. The post proposes a limited framework allowing commercialisation while safeguarding against distortion or misuse.
Other Posts
TWN–IUCIPRS Workshop on Patent Opposition in the Pharmaceutical Field (Apply by March 31)
The Inter-University Centre for IPR Studies (IUCIPRS), CUSAT, in collaboration with the Third World Network, is organising the 7th edition of its workshop on “Patent Opposition in the Pharmaceutical Field” from May 28 to June 1, 2026. The last date to apply is March 31, 2026.
SpicyIP Summer School 2026: Applications Open
Applications are now open for the SpicyIP Summer School 2026, scheduled to be held in Bangalore from June 20 to June 28. With limited seats and rolling admissions already underway, interested applicants are encouraged to apply at the earliest.
Case Summaries
FDC Limited vs Neeraj Agarwal and Anr on 11 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark “ELECTROCAD.” The plaintiff, owner of the “ELECTRAL” mark, alleged trademark and copyright infringement of its distinctive green-and-white trade dress. Finding the packaging deceptively similar and likely to cause consumer confusion, the Court held that a prima facie case for passing off was established. Exemption from pre-institution mediation was also granted under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act.
The Court allowed applications for the impleadment of a domain registrant and registrar and permitted additional evidence. Finding prima facie infringement and passing off of the “SAMSUNG” mark, the Court held the impugned domain’s syntax mirrored the plaintiff’s, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion. Consequently, the Court extended an ex parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 to the new defendants, restraining the unauthorised use of the plaintiff’s trademarks, copyright, and website layout.
The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark “OUD WHITE.” The plaintiff, proprietor of the “BELLAVITA WHITE OUD” mark, alleged trademark and copyright infringement of its distinctive packaging. Finding the defendants’ trade dress deceptively similar and likely to cause consumer confusion, the Court held that a prima facie case for passing off was established. Exemption from pre-institution mediation was granted under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act.
Gpn Commercial Llc (Usa) vs Ashok Kumar John Doe & Anr on 11 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the “ISOPURE” mark. The plaintiff, registered owner of the mark, alleged the defendants were selling counterfeit dietary supplements with identical packaging. Finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, the Court held that these low-quality products cause consumer confusion and pose significant health risks. Exemption from pre-institution mediation was also allowed under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act.
Zota Healthcare Limited vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 11 March, 2026 (Gujarat High Court)
The case was regarding an appeal against the refusal of the trademark application of “DAVABHARAT GENERIC PHARMACY” under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, because it wasn’t unique enough. The appellant stated that the Registrar didn’t properly look at the detailed response to the examination report. The Court said that the refusal order in question was non-speaking and did not show that the applicant’s submissions were given proper thought, which went against the rules of natural justice. The Court set aside the Registrar’s order and remanded the case back to the Registrar of Trade Mark for fresh consideration.
Mahindra & Mahindra, proprietor of the well-known “MAHINDRA” trademark, filed a suit against various packers and movers using identical or deceptively similar trading names and domain names. The issue was whether a decree of permanent injunction should be granted, and whether the Court could, post-decree, authorise the Joint Registrar under Section 151 CPC to implead mirror/redirect/alphanumeric infringing websites. The Court granted a permanent injunction; however, it refused the prayer for a dynamic, post-decree extension, holding that after passing a final judgment, the Court becomes functus officio and cannot delegate such powers.
The Delhi High Court dealt with a writ seeking expeditious disposal of a patent application pending since 2011 due to examination delays and repeated pre-grant oppositions. It held that pre-grant opposition is meant to aid examination, not delay it, and that such prolonged pendency undermines both inventor rights and public interest given the limited patent term. Finding the delay unjustified, the Court directed the authorities to decide the application and all pending oppositions within four months, stressing timely adjudication.
Itw Gse Aps & Anr vs Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors on 12 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court allowed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, deleting Defendant No. 3 from a patent infringement suit concerning PCA units at airports. The plaintiffs had impleaded it as a holding company, alleging involvement in infringing activities. The Court found no specific cause of action or direct role in manufacture or supply. Reiterating that a holding company is a separate legal entity and not liable for its subsidiary’s acts absent exceptional circumstances, it held Defendant No. 3 was neither a necessary nor proper party.
The Court framed issues regarding the infringement and validity of Patent IN 415365, including claims for damages and a permanent injunction. To facilitate an expedited trial, the Court mandated a strict timeline for recording evidence and filing submissions. It further confirmed a modified ad-interim injunction as absolute for the suit’s duration; this order restrains the defendant from infringing the patent while permitting them to bid in tenders with non-infringing products. The matter was referred to the Joint Registrar.
Sanjay Sethi And Anrs vs The State Gnct And Anrs on 12 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 63 of the Copyright Act relating to alleged sale of counterfeit “Rajdhani” products. During proceedings, the parties reached a settlement, with the complainant expressing no desire to pursue the matter and noting that the issue may have arisen from packaging discoloration rather than deliberate infringement. Considering the compromise, lack of continuing grievance, and prolonged pendency, the Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings, subject to payment of costs.
M/S Carson Overseas vs M/S Murphy E Retail & Ors on 13 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling footwear infringing the plaintiff’s registered “ZAPATTA” trademark and copyright. The plaintiff established that the defendants used identical marks and packaging to ride on its reputation. Finding a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, the Court ordered the removal of infringing listings from e-commerce platforms, including Amazon and Flipkart. The Court held that the balance of convenience favored protecting the plaintiff’s established goodwill.
The Plaintiff is the proprietor of the long-standing mark LIVOGEM for pharmaceutical products and alleged that the defendants’ use of LIVOGEM for similar goods amounted to trademark infringement. The Court found a prima facie case, holding that the marks were phonetically similar, stricter standards apply to medicinal products as for medicinal products, even a slight confusion is unacceptable, and rejected the defence that “LIVO” was common to trade. Adoption without proper search was at the Defendant’s own risk. While prima facie infringement was established, passing off was denied due to the distinct packaging.
The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction to Philips Medical Systems, manufacturers of advanced medical imaging equipment such as CT scans, MRI machines, and ultrasound systems, restraining the defendants from infringing proprietary software and IST certificates. Classifying the software as “literary works,” the Court found prima facie evidence of systematic counterfeiting and trade secret misappropriation, noting the resulting public health risks through degraded diagnostic accuracy. It also directed the disclosure of specific bank details and the removal of an infringing Facebook account.
Reversing a trial court order, the Court granted an injunction against the use of the mark “GERMINATOR.” It held the mark was suggestive, not generic, and protected by prior use since 1981 and established goodwill. The Court found the respondents’ minor trade dress changes insufficient to prevent passing off. Satisfied of a prima facie case and irreparable harm, the Court restrained the respondents from using the mark or similar dress during the suit’s pendency.
Lawrence School Sanawar Society vs Mr Subodh Sinha & Ors on 16 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction for trademark infringement, passing off, and defamation involving the well-known marks “SANAWAR” and “THE LAWRENCE SCHOOL, SANAWAR.” Finding the defendants used identical marks, insignia, and school imagery on a Facebook group to pose as an official alumni forum while publishing derogatory content, the Court held this caused irreparable injury to the school’s historic reputation. It restrained the unauthorized use and directed Meta to take down the offending material.
Mr. Anil Gopalji Thacker vs Mr. Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra on 16 March, 2026
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld refusal of interim injunction in a trademark dispute over “Shree Kshetrapal.” It held that the plaintiff, owner of a registered device mark, could not claim exclusivity over the word “Kshetrapal,” which is non-distinctive and commonly used. The Court found material suppression of facts, including prior joint business dealings, and noted the defendant’s prima facie prior use since 2014. Emphasising the anti-dissection rule and Section 34, it ruled that prior user rights override subsequent registration.
Embassy Of Peru vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court dismissed Peru’s appeal seeking standalone GI registration for “PISCO,” upholding the mandatory prefix “PERUVIAN.” Under Section 9(a) of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, the Court held that exclusive rights would cause public confusion given Chile’s shared historical use of the alcoholic beverage. It clarified that trademark principles like “priority of use” are irrelevant under the GI Act if registration leads to deception. Therefore, the prefix was mandated under Section 11(6) to differentiate products and ensure that geographical origins are identifiable for the consumers.
The Court granted an ad-interim injunction against Vijayawada Distilleries for infringing the well-known mark “OFFICER’S CHOICE.” Applying Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court found “EXECUTIVE CHOICE” and “OLD CROWN” (mimicking the registered “OC” abbreviation) deceptively similar. As the defendants were erstwhile bottlers, their adoption of an identical trade dress (including colour schemes and gold borders), amounted to bad-faith passing off. A prima facie case was established for intentionally trading on the Plaintiff’s long-standing reputation and goodwill.
The Court dismissed an appeal challenging the refusal of a patent application for an “in vitro screening method” used to select cancer patients who would benefit from telomerase inhibitor therapy. Interpreting Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, the Court held that the method constitutes a “diagnostic process” because it enables medical practitioners to make treatment decisions based on telomere length. It affirmed that Section 3(i) excludes both in vivo and in vitro processes that contribute to diagnosis for treatment from patentability. Finding the invention inherently diagnostic and integral to medical treatment, the Court upheld the Controller’s refusal.
Gulab Chand Gupta vs The State of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
The Court dismissed petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings for cheating and copyright infringement under the IPC and Copyright Act. The petitioners allegedly rebranded inferior PVC pipes using the “Jain Irrigation” brand identity to deceive consumers. Rejecting the claim that the dispute was purely civil, the Court held that the FIR prima facie disclosed cases involving offences involving deception and dishonest intention under the penal code. As the investigation revealed triable issues requiring evidence, the Court refused to interfere using its inherent powers and directed the trial to proceed.
Rynox Gears vs Steelite India on 17 March, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
Rynox Gears, known for motorcycle gear under “RYNOX,” alleged infringement and passing off against “RHYNOX” used for helmets. The Court found no prima facie case, noting both parties were registered proprietors and the defendant’s registration was unchallenged, barring infringement. It also held that the plaintiff failed to show goodwill in the helmet segment, and that the marks and trade presentation were sufficiently dissimilar, defeating the passing off claim.
The Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC in a suit alleging passing off and copyright infringement relating to the mark “PADAN.” The Single Judge had rejected the plaint as disclosing an illusory cause of action after examining the merits and defence documents. The Division Bench held that at this stage, courts must consider only the plaint’s averments and assume them to be true. Since the plaint alleged continuous use, goodwill, and deceptively similar packaging by the defendants, it disclosed a triable cause of action. The suit was restored for adjudication on merits.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
(Thanks to Karnikah, Khushi, and Shubham for the case summaries.)