Entering the last week of May with a post tracing Indian copyright doctrine and what exactly does it protect. Post on the Delhi HC’s ruling in Bansal v. Philips, a consequential SEP/FRAND decision. And a post on the expanding and increasingly amorphous scope of personality rights in India, most recently in the case of Aniruddhacharya Ji Maharaj. 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
Defragmenting the “Work” : A Critique of Ivy Entertainment’s “Hook” Injunction
What begins as a dispute over a single Bhojpuri lyric line quickly opens into a much larger question: what exactly is the “work” that copyright protects? Akshat Agrawal traces how Indian copyright doctrine has steadily moved from protecting works as wholes to carving out proprietary rights over fragments, hooks, and motifs, and why that shift carries serious doctrinal and cultural costs.
The Delhi High Court’s recent Division Bench ruling in Bansal v. Philips Division Bench Judgment may well become one of the most consequential SEP/FRAND decisions in India so far. In an incisive post, methodically breaking down the Division Bench decision, Aniruddh Bhatia explains in detail the decision as it deals with essentiality, infringement, FRAND dance, calculation of damages, confidentiality clubs and exhaustion.
In the Aftermath of Parle: Unsettling Questions for Trade Mark Law
What happens when trademark law privileges filing priority over marketplace reality? The Delhi High Court’s April 10 ruling in the ‘20-20’ dispute raises difficult questions about whether registration can meaningfully coexist with decade-old goodwill, and whether identical marks can survive in the market outside the framework of honest and concurrent use. In this post, Eleen Garg examines the structural tensions the decision leaves unresolved between registry formalism, consumer protection, and passing off.
A Personality Too Spiritual for Satire?
The Delhi High Court’s recent interim order in favour of Aniruddhacharya Ji Maharaj raises difficult questions about the expanding and increasingly amorphous scope of personality rights in India. Through a close reading of the order, Ambika Aggarwal argues that the absence of clear doctrinal boundaries risks transforming personality rights into a sweeping tool capable of subsuming free speech, parody, fan culture, and even otherwise legitimate forms of social commentary.
Other Posts
Ready, Set, Enclose? India’s Sports-IP Waiver and the Problem of Turning Play into Property
The Government’s new fee waiver for “sports-related” IP registrations appears, at first glance, to be straightforward. But beneath the news lies a deeper question: what exactly is “Sports IP,” and what kinds of ownership, exclusivity, and control is the State choosing to subsidise through this policy? Aryan Agrawal argues that the waiver is significant not just as an innovation measure but as part of a broader movement toward the enclosure of sporting culture, fandom, and access.
From Blueprints to Bistro: Rethinking Culinary Creativity After Cryogas
What happens when creativity is both functional and aesthetic at the same time? The Supreme Court’s decision in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd., though rooted in design law, raises a larger question about forms of expression that do not fit neatly within existing IP categories. Nidhi Jaiswal uses culinary plating as a lens to explore how copyright and design law may leave certain kinds of creative labour structurally under-protected.
Can the Indian Copyright Act Accommodate Fully Autonomous AI Generated Output?
As the Delhi High Court directs the Registrar of Copyright to consider Stephen Thaler’s bid to register a fully AI-generated artwork under Indian copyright law, a deeper question emerges: was the Copyright Act ever designed to recognise non-human authorship at all? In light of this development, Rashi Singhal argues that the architecture, rationale, and core provisions of the Act remain fundamentally human-centric, making fully autonomous AI authorship difficult to accommodate within the existing framework.
Breaking: Breakthrough for India’s SEP Jurisprudence in new Philips v. Rajesh Bansal ruling!
A momentous decision has been delivered by the Delhi High Court today – a big, refreshing and important update for the developing standard essential patent (SEP) jurisprudence. The division bench decision comes from Justices Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla and is a turning point in the decade long SEP litigation between Philips and Rajesh Bansal. The case was among the initial SEP litigations before the Indian courts and had resulted in the first post-trial Indian SEP judgement. Will the new, seemingly landmark, observations once again change the game? Ambika Aggarwal takes us through a quick run down of this.
Case Summaries
Reddy Pharmaceuticals vs Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories on 18 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Division Bench of Delhi High Court dismissed Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories(“ RPL”) appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s decree granting permanent injunction against RPL from using the mark “REDDY” for pharmaceutical products. The Court held that Reddy Pharmaceuticals (“DRL”) established prior use, goodwill, and passing off. RPL’s adoption was dishonest; no acquiescence or bona fide use under Section 35. IPAB’s order removing “REDDY” trademark from the Register was also upheld.
Ravinder Singh vs Regoshin Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Ors on 15 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application seeking return of the plaint in a trademark infringement and passing off suit concerning the marks “ROYA/ROYAL”. The Court held that, at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, plaint averments must be accepted as true. The Court held that a prima facie part cause of action arose within Delhi as defendants’ websites, and third-party listings were accessible in Delhi and could facilitate commercial interaction
K K Bansal vs Koninklijke Electronics Nv on 18 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the Single Judge’s decree awarding royalty and damages to Philips. The Court held that Philips failed to prove the suit patent was a Standard Essential Patent nor been able to establish infringement. The court observed that patent rights stood exhausted as the appellant had purchased chips/PCBs from authorised market sources.
Ivy Entertainment Private Limited vs Rahul Singh & Ors on 15 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff in a copyright infringement dispute concerning the song “Bachpan Ka Pyar.” The Court prima facie recognised the plaintiff’s ownership over the song and its iconic hook line, restraining the defendants from unauthorized use. The Court further directed disclosure of revenues earned through the infringing YouTube content and restrained further dissemination of the impugned material.
Hugo Boss AG v. Shubham Jain on 14 May 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The DHC granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the Defendants from using marks “BOSS”, “HUGO BOSS”, and “HUGO BOSS HOME”. The Court noted that the plaintiff has been using the marks extensively, with worldwide registrations and presence and has built substantial goodwill. It found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, and copyright violation.
The Delhi District Court decreed a trademark infringement and passing off suit in favour of Nexus Automotive International S.A. against entities using the marks “NEXUS”. Observing that the plaintiff had established substantial international reputation and trans-border goodwill in India, the Court held that the defendants’ use of identical marks and the domain name “nexusauto.in” was likely to cause consumer confusion and amounted to passing off. The defendants were permanently restrained from further use of the impugned marks and domain name.
Capital Foods Pvt. Ltd. secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction for their mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” under their popular brand for Ching’s. The Delhi High Court held that such defendant’s adoption was prima facie dishonest and likely to cause consumer confusion and dilution of goodwill as defendants’ marks and trade dress were deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered and well-known mark “Schezwan Chutney”.
The DHC granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, finding a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, and restraining the defendants from using the trademarks “MOTI MAHAL”, “MOTI MAHAL DELUX”, and “MOTI MAHAL DELUXE TANDOORI TRAIL” after the franchise agreement between them was terminated. The contract expressly acknowledged that the defendant has no proprietary rights over the marks after termination. The Court held that continued usage of the mark amounts to trademark infringement and passing off.
Mr Ilaiyaraaja vs Saregama India Limited on 21 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Ilaiyaraaja appealed against an injunction granted to Saregama India Limited restraining the use of his 1980 song ‘En Iniya Pon Nilave’ from the film Moodu Pani in a new film, Aghathiyaa. Saregama argued it owned the copyright in the song’s sound recording as per their agreement with Raja Cine Arts in 1980. The Court distinguished between the rights of the parties, stating that Ilaiyaraaja, as a composer, is the author and holds rights to the musical work of the song, but not to the sound recording or the lyrics. The rights over sound recording, which were vested with Raja Cine Arts initially, had been duly assigned to Saregama India Ltd. via an agreement in 1980 and were never with Ilaiyaraaja in the first instance. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the injunction against the use of the recreated song in Aghathiyaa.
DHC granted a summary judgment in favour of YouTuber Karl Rock. The defendant “VidBrew” reused content from the plaintiff’s YouTube channel to attract views, amounting to passing off, copyright infringement, and misrepresentation of origin. As all the defendants were ex parte, and there was no real prospect of a successful defence, a case was made under Order XIII-A CPC. The court awarded Rs. 5 Lakhs in damages, Rs. 2 Lakhs in costs, and granted a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
A permanent injunction was granted by DHC, restraining the defendants from using “JAY SHREE.” The Court noted that online listings and the sale and delivery within Delhi is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. It found a similar visual impression and packing style to the plaintiff’s registered trademark. However, the claim for damages and rendition of accounts was rejected due to a lack of evidence.
DHC granted a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff for the mark “MAHA SHAKTI BHOG”. It noted that the Defendant used a deceptively similar mark, logo, colour scheme, and packaging, thereby amounting to trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off. Alongside the restraint, the Court granted Rs. 5 Lakhs in damages. However, it declined to direct the withdrawal of the defendant’s trademark application before the Registrar.
Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited vs. Open AI Inc. & Ors. on 20 May 2026 (Calcutta High Court)
The Court dismissed IndiaMART’s plea seeking interim relief against OpenAI, which alleged that ChatGPT unfairly excluded IndiaMART’s links from search responses, harming the business’s trademark. The Court held that no private entity has the legal right to claim visibility or promotion on another private company’s platform. The Court found no infringement or violation. It remarked that, prima facie, ChatGPT is more of an “originator” than an “intermediary” under the IT Act.
Jyothy Labs Limited vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors. on 18 May 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court quashed an order dismissing Jyothy Lab’s trademark opposition due to failure to file evidence under Rule 45 of the Trademark Rules, 2017. The Appellant argued that the counter-statement was not served, preventing timely filing. The Registrar admitted that a technical glitch caused non-service. The Court remanded to the Registrar for fresh service and continuation of opposition proceedings.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Bindushree, Krrish, and Saesha for the case summaries.)
