Almost at the end of March with a post on the wonder drug Semaglutide’s patent expiry and its impact in India. Post on the Calcutta HC’s judgment removing subject-matter objections to the registration of GUIs as a design under the Designs Act. Another post on the government-led blocking of 3100+ Telegram channels marking a significant shift in India’s intermediary liability regime and censorship architecture. 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
Wonder Drug, Generic Price: What Semaglutide’s Patent Expiry Should Really Mean for India
Semaglutide’s patent expiry in India marks a major shift towards accessibility, with generic alternatives slashing prices dramatically and intensifying competition beyond Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic and Wegovy. But as affordability rises, so do concerns, with the bigger challenge being ensuring these ‘wonder drugs’ are used responsibly, not recklessly. Praharsh Gour and Khushi Krishania write on this development below.
GUIs have joined the Design club! The Calcutta High Court in NEC Corporation v. Controller removed subject-matter objections to the registration of GUIs as a design under the Designs Act. Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan points out how this move creates a doctrinal inconsistency in which GUIs can be both a design and an artistic work at the same time. He further explains that this doctrinal inconsistency may be an outcome of a deeper issue: an expansionist approach to IP subtly influencing legal interpretation, leading to outcomes producing instances of doctrinal inconsistency.
In Associated Broadcasting Company v. Google, the Delhi High Court offers a respite to content creators against copyright strikes through Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Shubham Thakare explains the decision and how it provides creators with a meaningful, if limited, tool to challenge abusive copyright strikes.
Other Posts
Patent’s Gone, War’s On: Inside Novo Nordisk’s Semaglutide Litigation Blitz
Semaglutide’s patent expiry may have opened the market, but it has also triggered a fresh wave of trademark and patent litigation by Novo Nordisk against generics. Praharsh Gour writes on the latest Ozempic–Olymviq trademark dispute and the Semaglutide tablet patent disputes before the Delhi High Court.
The Madras High Court’s Injunction in Sreedevi v. SaReGaMa: Was the Supreme Court Right to Stay It?
In Sreedevi Video Corporation v. SaReGaMa India Ltd., the Madras High Court took the unusual step of allowing an injunction claim to proceed even after holding the plaintiff’s claim to copyright ownership as time-barred. The Supreme Court has since stayed this ruling, signalling concerns with this separation of remedies. Shubham Thakare examines whether an injunction can truly survive a limitation bar on ownership, and the broader implications for copyright disputes under the Copyright Act and limitation law.
Sahyog or Suppression? The New Architecture of Intermediary Liability
The recent government-led blocking of 3100+ Telegram channels marks a significant shift in India’s intermediary liability regime and censorship architecture. Priyam Mitra examines how this move and the newly created Sahyog Platform erode due process and free speech safeguards.
Case Summaries
Schloss Hma Private Limited vs Praveen Kumar Tejwani on 23 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Schloss HMA Pvt. Ltd., proprietor of the well-known “THE LEELA” trademark for ultra-luxury hotels, sued the defendant for using “DESERT LEELA RESORT” as a trade name and domain name for similar hospitality services. The issue was whether such use amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case, holding that the defendant’s use was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion, and granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining use of the mark and the ‘L’ Device.
Yesha Sant, a sustainable fashion brand, alleged that the Defendants copied its apparel designs including its Bandhani-based garments and misused its registered mark. The issue was whether such acts constituted infringement and passing off. The Court found prima facie infringement of the registered mark due to identical use, overlapping trade channels, and actual consumer confusion. However, no protection was granted to unregistered Bandhani marks due to lack of proven distinctiveness. A limited ex-parte injunction was granted to remove all references and images of the impugned products from the Defendant’s social media.
Britannia alleged infringement of its device mark (used with “BRITANNIA”) by Defendant’s mark “RENEWTRIA,” which also featured a pentagonal structure. The issue was whether the marks were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion. The Court held that the marks, when compared as a whole, were dissimilar. The pentagonal shape lacked independent distinctiveness and had no proven goodwill including different consumer bases. Finding no prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable harm, the Court refused an interim injunction.
Tata Sons sued Vikram Tea for trademark infringement and the parties settled with Vikram Tea acknowledging Tata’s ownership of the marks and undertaking not to use them. Vikram Tea later sought to modify the consent decree, arguing its wording implied a merits-based finding of infringement that could harm its own separate trademark proceedings against third parties. The court dismissed the application holding that the decree was passed with Vikram Tea’s full consent in open court and that its concerns about third-party proceedings were entirely misplaced, since the order had no bearing on Vikram Tea’s independent trademark rights.
Jiostar India Private Limited vs Https//Daddylives.Nl & Ors on 25 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining rogue websites from unauthorised streaming of TATA IPL 2026, and upheld Jiostar’s exclusive digital rights. Satisfied on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm, it waived pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act on urgency grounds. Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, ISPs and Domain Name Registrars were directed to block infringing sites and disclose registrant details. A dynamic injunction was also issued, enabling real-time enforcement against newly identified rogue sites without fresh proceedings.
Tarun Chaudhary & Anr vs Kuldeep Meena & Ors on 25 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court declined an ex parte ad interim injunction in a copyright infringement suit over a song, “Teri Yaadon Ki Chadar Odhe,” admittedly composed using the AI tool SUNO AI. Despite the plaintiffs holding a registration certificate, the Court noted a fundamental “quandary” whether an AI-generated work attracts copyright protection under the existing statutory framework, particularly given SUNO AI’s own terms disclaim any copyright in its outputs. The court invoked Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and impleaded the Registrar of Copyrights as a defendant to authoritatively resolve the question of authorship in AI-generated works.
Wirtgen GMBH vs Controller General of Patents on 23 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
A German company’s Indian patent application for a specialised mining tool component was rejected by the Patent Office in 2019 for lacking inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act and having unclear claims. The Delhi High Court set aside this rejection on two grounds: the examiner raised several new objections for the first time in the final order without giving the applicant a chance to respond, and the reasoning for rejecting the invention as obvious was insufficient under Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act. The matter was sent back to the Patent Office for a fresh review within four months.
M/S Jallan Enterprises vs M/S Sarathi International Inc on 25 March, 2026 (Karnataka High Court)
The Court dismissed appeals against a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from using “TULSI” on incense sticks, and upheld the plaintiff’s registered mark “TULASI” in continuous use since 1950. The Court rejected the defendant’s descriptive-use defence under Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, finding that “TULSI” was displayed in a larger font than the defendant’s own trademark “JALLAN,” and in effect functioned as a brand identifier rather than a fragrance descriptor. Given the phonetic similarity and likelihood of consumer confusion, the court held that the trial court’s discretionary order warranted no interference.
Neeraj Jewellery vs Chandan Sadija on 24 March, 2026 (Chhattisgarh High Court)
A Raipur jewellery shop holding the registered trademark “NEERAJ” sued two traders under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, for using similar names like “NEERAJ A1” and “NEERAJ 100.” The plaintiffs’ registered mark was eligible to be classified as a “well-known” trademark under Section 2(1) (gz) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. Their request for a temporary injunction was rejected by the Commercial Court and again by the High Court. The Court noted that “Neeraj” is a common personal name that cannot easily be claimed exclusively by one business, and that another person had actually applied for and used the disputed marks before the plaintiffs did. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Chugai Seiyaku vs Basil Drugs on 24 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Japanese pharma company Chugai Seiyaku, along with Roche, holds an Indian patent for the cancer drug ‘Alectinib’, valid until 2030. After investigations revealed that Basil Drugs was developing a generic version and planning to launch it by April-May 2026, the plaintiffs approached the Court under Section 48 of the Patents Act. Since the defendant did not appear, the Court granted an ex parte temporary injunction restraining Basil Drugs from manufacturing or selling any product infringing the patent.
Novo Nordisk vs Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories on 24 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Novo Nordisk sued Dr. Reddy’s over a patent for oral Semaglutide tablets, which are used for diabetes and obesity treatment. Rather than contest the injunction, Dr. Reddy’s filed affidavits clarifying that its product uses a quantity of the key ingredient SNAC that falls outside the range covered by Novo Nordisk’s patent. Both parties then agreed on an interim arrangement where Dr. Reddy’s would not manufacture any formulation falling within the patented range, and would provide product samples for independent testing before launch. Dr. Reddy’s also expressly reserved its rights under the Bolar exemption under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970. The matter will be heard again on 24th April 2026.
Rajat Kumar vs Shivankur Gupta And Anr. on 23 March, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act seeking cancellation of Respondent No. 1’s registration of the mark “TRACTORJUNCTION” in Class 35 on grounds of prior use and bad faith. The Bombay High Court held that the Petitioner had established prior and continuous use, whereas the Respondent’s user claim was unsupported. Noting that the Respondent had filed a false affidavit of user and failed to contest the proceedings, the Court held that the registration was obtained in bad faith and in violation of Sections 11(10) and 18, and directed cancellation of the impugned mark.
Sujoy Ghosh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 March, 2026 (Supreme Court of India)
The complainant alleged that the accused had infringed copyright in a film script and initiated criminal proceedings under Section 63 of the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court held that copyright infringement requires at least a prima facie showing of substantial similarity between the competing works, which must be identifiable from the complaint itself. It found that the allegations were bald and unsubstantiated, with no material indicating copying of any protectable elements. The Court also noted that an expert body had found no similarity between the works. In the absence of any prima facie case of infringement, the Court held that continuation of proceedings was an abuse of process and quashed the complaint.
Signatureglobal (India) Limited vs Ashok Kumar And Ors on 13 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its registered trademarks “SIGNATUREGLOBAL” and device marks, copyright, and passing off, alleging that the defendants were operating websites/URLs incorporating its marks and corporate name to deceive consumers. The Delhi High Court noted that several defendants, despite service, failed to appear and were proceeded ex parte. In view of the uncontroverted averments and prior grant of ex parte ad interim injunction, the Court made the injunction absolute and decreed the suit in terms of the prayer clauses, restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks and directing takedown of infringing websites. It further directed transfer of the domain names to the plaintiff.
Tv Today Network Limited vs News Laundry Media Private Limited on 20 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, TV Today Network Limited, instituted a suit against the defendant, News Laundry Media Private Limited, alleging infringement of copyright, defamation and disparagement arising from the use of excerpts of its news broadcasts in programmes published by the defendant. The Delhi High Court held that fair dealing under Sections 52(1)(a) and 39 of the Copyright Act permits use of works for purposes of criticism or review, but the determination of such defence requires a fact-specific inquiry into the purpose, nature and extent of use and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the interim stage. It further held that the availability of such defences does not preclude grant of interim relief. Finding certain impugned statements ex facie disparaging, the Court set aside the order refusing injunction and directed their removal pending trial.
The appellant applied to register a stylised device mark “FITCLUB” in Class 41. The mark was accepted and advertised, but the Registrar withdrew acceptance under Section 19 and refused registration under Section 9(1)(b) as descriptive of fitness services. The Court held that although the Registrar may withdraw acceptance, the refusal was vitiated by procedural irregularity. It observed that device marks must undergo Vienna Codification followed by proper examination, including anticipation search and assessment of the mark as a whole. Mere classification under the Vienna system is insufficient. As the mark was effectively examined as a word mark, disregarding its visual features and disclaimer, the process was flawed. The Court set aside the refusal and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Gurnoor, Karnikah, Khushi, and Shubham for the case summaries.)