Beginning April with a rundown of the major IP developments in 2025 on SpicyIP TV! Post on two recent Delhi High Court decisions in Geron and Hirotsu clarifying the boundaries of diagnostic methods exclusion. And another post on the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Emotional Perception AI Limited v Comptroller General of Patents marking a doctrinal shift in how subject-matter eligibility questions regarding computer programmes are evaluated. 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
Let’s IPsa Loquitur: a Quick Rundown of the Major IP Developments from 2025
Catch the latest episode of Let’s IPsa Loquitur for a quick rundown of the key trademark developments of 2025, in Part 1 of this three-part series. We will be releasing Part 2 on Patent Law Developments and Part 3 on Copyright and Other IP Developments shortly. Do give it a listen and stay tuned for the rest of the series!
What happens when patent oppositions are filed, heard, but never decided? Highlighting the specific instances of prolonged delays at the Patent Office, Prathibha Sivasubramanian explains how administrative inaction is undermining a critical safeguard in patent law and how such delays can quietly enable monopolies and impact access to essential medicines.
The UK Supreme Court’s decision in Emotional Perception AI Limited v Comptroller General of Patents marks a doctrinal shift in how subject-matter eligibility questions regarding computer programmes are evaluated. Irrespective of its impact, Pragati Upadhyay argues that the judgment is marked by a test that the Supreme Court itself chose not to apply and further contains three errors of reasoning.
Section 3(i) of the Patents Act has long left the boundaries of diagnostic method exclusions uncertain, despite repeated judicial engagement. Two recent Delhi High Court decisions in Geron and Hirotsu now offer the clearest articulation yet, bringing much-needed coherence to this evolving area of law. Shubham Thakare and Arpanjot Kaur explain these orders, highlighting how they not only clarify the legal position but also sharpen the policy tensions underlying the provision.
Other Posts
The GUI Verdict: A Celebration of Progress, or a Lament for Leadership?
The Calcutta High Court’s decision in NEC Corporation marks a significant step forward for GUI design protection in India. However, beyond the celebration surrounding this development, Sachin Sharma points out that a more uncomfortable question remains—why did it take judicial intervention for this shift to occur at all?
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has quashed proceedings against Sujoy Ghosh in the Kahaani 2 dispute. Khushi Krishania writes on the Supreme Court order and explains how weak copyright infringement claims can spiral into unwarranted criminal proceedings.
In the Acharya Balkrishna personality rights case, the DHC had an opportunity to rein in the overreach of personality rights. Explaining the order, Shubham Thakare argues that rather than correcting course, the decision deepens an already concerning pattern of privileging reputational claims over free speech.
Case Summaries
Varun Chopra & Anr vs Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf & Ors on 28 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction against the defendants’ use of “NATRAJ” variant marks. Recognising the matter as a family dispute over shared ancestral business goodwill, the Court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of exclusive ownership. Finding no irreparable injury, the Court refused to restrain the defendants.
The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from using “THE LEELA” and related marks. The plaintiff, operating “THE LEELA” luxury hotels, alleged trademark infringement and passing off. Finding the marks identical for similar hospitality services, the Court held that a prima facie case was established. Exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A was also granted.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services vs The Gold Stone & Anr on 27 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court directed the defendant to remove all references to “MOTI MAHAL” marks. The plaintiffs, owners of the “MOTI MAHAL” mark, alleged trademark infringement after the defendant continued using it post-franchise termination. Finding the marks identical and likely to cause confusion, the Court held that a prima facie case of infringement was established.
Bombay Metals Pvt Ltd vs Tara Singh And Anr on 28 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court allowed the petition and expunged the respondent’s copyright registration. The petitioner, owner of a registered copyright in cycle parts packaging, alleged the respondent’s sticker was a substantial reproduction. Finding the respondent’s artistic work lacked originality and was substantially similar in layout and colour, the Court cancelled the impugned copyright registration.
Scipharm Sarl vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And … on 27 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court remanded the patent application back to the Controller after permitting the appellant to delete Claim 1. The appellant’s application was originally refused under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. Noting the Controller’s agreement that deleting the claim would resolve the non-patentability objection, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the processing of the remaining claims.
Jiostar India Private Limited vs Abbasi Tv & Ors on 25 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd., a major broadcaster owning exclusive digital rights to IPL 2026 through JioHotstar, alleged that several rogue Android apps and websites were illegally streaming its content via downloadable APK files. These apps had previously streamed its broadcasts and were likely to do so again during the tournament. The Court granted an ex-parte dynamic injunction, directing blocking of identified and future mirror websites to prevent ongoing piracy and revenue loss.
Mj Grain Products Pvt. Ltd vs Mamata Food Products & Anr on 27 March, 2026 (Calcutta High Court)
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was passing off rice products using a deceptively similar “RANJEET” trade dress and sought an urgent injunction. Due to delay in hearing before the District Court, it approached the High Court under Article 227. The issue was whether supervisory jurisdiction could be invoked for interim relief. The Court held that exceptional circumstances justified intervention, issued notice, and granted a limited two-week interim injunction restraining infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright and trade dress.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited vs Zawadi Healthcare Limited on 1 April, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Court allowed an interim application for trademark infringement against the mark “PANTOZED-40” for being deceptively similar to “PANTOCID.” It held that manufacturing drugs in India for export constitutes “use” under Section 56 of the Trade Marks Act, satisfying the infringement criteria under Section 29(6). The Court rejected the “common to trade” defence, ruling that the unique combination of the prefix “PANTO” with “CID” was distinctive. Since the plaintiff had registered the mark in 1998, the balance of convenience favoured an injunction to prevent confusion.
Biba Fashion Limited vs M/S The Wholesale Bazaar And Anr on 27 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Biba Fashion Ltd. alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling counterfeit garments using its well-known “BIBA” mark at significantly lower prices causing confusion and reputational harm. The issue was whether an ex-parte ad-interim injunction should be granted for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation. The Court found a prima facie case, held that balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, and granted an injunction restraining sale and promotion of counterfeit goods, along with appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit premises and seize infringing products.
Lucy Group Ltd vs The Registrar Of Trademarks on 27 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court allowed Lucy Group’s appeal against the refusal of its “GEMINI” trademark (Class 09), holding the Registrar’s order unreasoned, “non-speaking,” and suffering from non-application of mind. The rejection failed to comparatively analyse the goods’ distinct nature, function, and consumer base against cited marks, ignored the appellant’s bona fide use since 2016, and overlooked the abandonment of a cited mark, all of which negated likelihood of confusion under Section 11. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter, reiterating that quasi-judicial authorities must pass reasoned, speaking orders.
Communication Components Antenna Inc vs Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh on 30 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court upheld the validity of Patent IN’893 and found the defendants liable for infringement. Rejecting the revocation challenge under Section 64, the Court characterised the defendants’ reliance on unrelated prior arts as a “Dartboard Model” of impermissible hindsight bias. Using MATLAB simulations, the plaintiff successfully proved that the defendants’ antennas mirrored the patented asymmetrical beam technology. The Court granted a permanent injunction and awarded damages of approximately ₹152 crores, calculated at a 20% royalty rate, while emphasising that manufacturing for export constitutes infringement under Section 29(6).
The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, restraining defendants from selling counterfeit or pirated copies of the plaintiff’s educational books on e-commerce platforms. Upon visual inspection, the Court noted that the infringing products lacked the plaintiff’s unique 3D security sticker and used substandard materials. Finding a prima facie case of copyright and trademark infringement, the Court restrained defendants 1-17 from further sales and directed defendant no. 18 (Flipkart) to remove the infringing listings.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors vs Mr. Ashraful Islam on 30 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark “HIMALAYA THE NUTRA HEALTH CARE” and the domain himalayanutrawellness.com. The Court found that the defendant’s branding and liver suspension packaging deliberately imitated the plaintiff’s well-known “LIV.52” trade dress and registered “HIMALAYA” trademarks. Holding that the adoption was dishonest and intended to capitalise on the plaintiff’s century-long goodwill, the Court restrained the defendant from manufacturing or selling the infringing products. It granted exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A.
M/S Dux Naturals vs Babu G Store And Co & Anr on 27 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark “Babu ji DUKK DARLING,” which was found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark “DUX DARLING.” The Court observed that the defendants’ packaging imitated the plaintiff’s distinctive trade dress, font, and logo placement, creating a likelihood of confusion among unwary consumers. Holding that such use amounted to trademark infringement and passing off under the CPC and Copyright Act, the Court restrained further manufacturing and sales through both offline and online platforms.
Gautam Gambhir vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors on 25 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction protecting Gambhir’s personality and publicity rights against AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorized merchandise. Reinforcing the right to control one’s persona, the court held that unauthorised commercial exploitation of distinctive attributes such as name, voice, or likeness, constitutes identity dilution and infringement. Platforms must execute takedowns within 36 hours, signaling judicial zero-tolerance for AI-fueled digital impersonation and passing-off in the e-commerce sphere.
Mankind Pharma Limited vs Alkakind Pharmaceuticals Private … on 27 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court addressed trademark infringement regarding the ‘KIND’ family of marks. The Court granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendant from using the mark “ALKAKIND” or any suffix-based form of “KIND.” It held that Mankind Pharma’s long-standing use and “well-known” status of its marks created a strong likelihood of consumer confusion, as the suffix had acquired distinctiveness through extensive commercial use.
Apex Metchem Private Limited vs Asian Paints Limited on 30 March, 2026 (Bombay High Court)
The Court vacated an ex-parte injunction, reinforcing the equitable duty of full disclosure under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. it held that prior user rights are material facts that must be disclosed when seeking urgent relief. Finding that Asian Paints suppressed the defendant’s 1995 incorporation, the Court emphasised that registered trademarks cannot be weaponised through material suppression to unfairly disrupt long-standing, legitimate businesses.
The Court set aside a patent refusal for lab-engineered ‘SC-β cells’, identifying a glaring error where the Controller ignored amended claims filed post-hearing. Shifting focus from broad compositions to specific non-native cells, the court noted that technical intervention could potentially overcome Section 3(j) (biological parts) and 3(e) (mere mixtures) exclusions. The ruling lays that Controllers must evaluate the actual scope of amended claims before determining non-patentability, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Nec Corporation vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And … on 28 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Dismissing the appeal, the Court applied a rigorous inventive step analysis under Section 2(1)(ja). It held that deriving adaptive quantisation offsets for video coding is obvious when prior art (D1-D3) already discloses color space switching and parameter adjustments. For a Person Skilled in The Art (PSITA), combining known technical elements from existing standards does not constitute a non-obvious advance, reinforcing that incremental optimisations of known coding methods lack patentability.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Aditi, Harshvardhan, Khushi, Naman, and Shubham for the case summaries.)