SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Appoints Amicus Curiae In Patent Case Over Human-AI Integration Technology
Case Title: Caleb Suresh Motupalli v. Controller Of Patents
Case Number: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 20319/2026
The Supreme Court has appointed Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar as Amicus Curiae in a patent dispute concerning an invention that claims to enhance human capabilities by integrating them with artificial intelligence. The inventor describes the technology as creating a "Pan-Environment Super-Cyborg" through a method for super-augmenting a persona. A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe is presiding over the matter.
HIGH COURTS
DELHI HIGH COURT
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. Open AI OpCo LLC
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1028/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 734
The Delhi High Court noted that requiring AI firms to obtain licences from every data source would make the development of Large Language Models (LLMs) economically unviable. The court emphasized that the success of AI models depends on accessing information in the public domain while hearing ANI's copyright infringement suit against OpenAI.
Case Title: TVS Motor Company Limited v. Ram Chandra Maurya & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 767/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 732
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the holders of two copyright registrations from issuing further groundless threats of legal proceedings against TVS Motor Company. The dispute involved allegations that TVS engines and vehicles used features covered by the defendants' registered literary works, which TVS sought to declare as groundless.
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. Open AI OpCo LLC
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1028/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 734
The court dismissed ANI's plea for an interim injunction against OpenAI, ruling that the news agency failed to make out a prima facie case of copyright infringement regarding the training of ChatGPT. Justice Amit Bansal upheld the court's territorial jurisdiction but found no immediate grounds to restrain OpenAI's use of content.
Delhi High Court Restrains 14 More Websites From Using 'BETWAY' Trademark
Case Title: Merryvale Limited v. John Doe & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 678/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 728
The court extended interim protection to Merryvale Limited, the proprietor of the "BETWAY" mark, by restraining 14 additional rogue websites from using the trademark or deceptively similar marks. Justice Jyoti Singh directed that these sites be blocked within 36 hours to prevent further trademark infringement in the online betting sector.
Delhi High Court Restrains Delhi Restaurant From Using 'LAMA KITCHEN' Mark
Case Title: Satinder Singh Sarna & Anr. v. Lama Kitchen
Case Number: CS(COMM) 744/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 726
Justice Jyoti Singh temporarily restrained a Delhi-based restaurant from using the "LAMA KITCHEN" mark after finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the balance of convenience favoured the original Himachal Pradesh-based proprietors of the registered mark.
Case Title: Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited v. Cricgo.pro & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 753/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 725
Observing that rogue websites pose a recurring threat, the court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Sony Pictures. The order restrains 14 websites from unauthorizedly streaming or hosting any part of the Commonwealth Games 2026 and the Australian Open 2027, for which Sony holds exclusive broadcast rights.
Delhi High Court Restrains Former JK Paper Employees From Using Company's Confidential Report
Case Title: JK Paper Limited v. Mr. Subhendu Kesh & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 719/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 724
The court temporarily restrained former IT department employees of JK Paper from using the company's proprietary "Purta/Purtha" report. The company alleged the employees resigned en masse, took confidential data, and set up a competing business. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted protection pending further scrutiny of a forensic report.
Delhi High Court Directs Meta To Remove Zee's Copyrighted Content From 14 Facebook Pages
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Meta Platforms Inc. & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 729/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 722
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed Meta to take down infringing content featuring Zee's television serials and web series from 14 Facebook pages. While declining to block the accounts entirely at this stage, the court granted an ad-interim order to prevent continued copyright infringement.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains NBFC From Using 'Zepto' And 'Zepto Finance' Marks
Case Title: Zepto Limited & Anr. v. Sailendra Kashyap & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 752/2026
The quick-commerce platform Zepto secured an ad-interim injunction against Naman Finlease, restraining it from using "Zepto" and "Zepto Finance" for its lending business. Justice Jyoti Singh found that Zepto is the registered proprietor of the "coined" term, which has no descriptive connection to financial services.
Delhi High Court Restrains Havai Home Products From Using 'HAVAI' Mark in Havells Passing Off Suit
Case Title: Havells India Limited & Anr. v. Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 778/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 718
The court restrained Havai Home Products and Advance Coolers from selling electrical goods under the "HAVAI" marks. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the marks were deceptively similar to Havells' registered trademarks, establishing a prima facie case of passing off.
Uniqueness' Not A Statutory Test For Refusing Trademark Registration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 8/2026 and I.A. 3697/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 723
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside an order refusing registration of the trademark 'OFFER' for alcoholic beverages. It held that the Registrar of Trade Marks rejected the application by applying the non-statutory test of "uniqueness" instead of examining whether the mark was distinctive in relation to the goods for which registration was sought.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Refusal Of Patent For Cancer Drug Combination, Orders Fresh Review
Case Title: Array Biopharma Inc v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 37/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 736
The Delhi High Court has set aside the refusal of a US company's patent application for a pharmaceutical combination used to treat proliferative diseases, including colorectal cancer. Holding that the Deputy Controller's findings on inventive step and patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(i) of the Patents Act could not be sustained, the court remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bombay High Court Dismisses 'SUNDAY' Trademark Renewal Plea, Finds Notice Properly Dispatched
Case Title: Raju Patel & Anr. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.4868 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC BOM 409
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking the renewal of the "SUNDAY" trademark, ruling that the Trade Marks Registry had fulfilled its statutory obligation. The court held that by proving the renewal notice was properly dispatched to the address for service before the registration expired, the Registry triggered the statutory presumption of service.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Niravi From Using 'SAPAT' Trademark For Tea
Case Title: SAPAT International Private Limited v. Niravi Consumer LLP & Ors.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6387 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 612 OF 2025 WITH COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 612 OF 2025 INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 18951 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC BOM 408
The court has restrained Niravi Consumer LLP from using the "SAPAT" trademark for tea, finding that the defendants failed to establish any independent right to the mark. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that Niravi's use of "SAPAT" signages while selling its "NIRAVI" tea was likely to cause consumer confusion and infringed upon the registered trademark of SAPAT International.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case Number: OA Nos. 718 & 719 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 208 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 198
The court temporarily restrained ISPs and cable TV operators from infringing the copyright of the Marathi film Bhootam Bhayam. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu passed the order to prevent "irreversible injury" from apprehended unlawful broadcasts following the film's July 24 release.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Rejection of US Company's Patent For Pet Appetite Drug
Case Title: Elanco US Inc v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Case Number: CMA(PT) No. 37 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 193
The court set aside the Patent Office's rejection of Elanco's application for a pet appetite drug and remanded it for fresh consideration. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu noted contradictions in the Controller's order, which claimed the invention was substantially the same as an earlier one while simultaneously recording differences.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Ltd.
Case Number: CS/96/2008
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 178
Hindustan Unilever and Anchor Health settled an 18-year-old commercial disparagement dispute. Under the terms of the settlement accepted by Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay, Anchor agreed to cease advertising its toothpaste as the "first and only (Sirf)" product containing Triclosan, Fluoride, and Calcium, or as India's "First All-Round Protection Toothpaste"
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Darshan Srinivas & Anr. v. Siri Productions & Ors.
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4257 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 126
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal by actor Darshan and his wife seeking to block the release of the film BOSS. Justice Pradeep Singh held that mere similarities between the film and a pending murder trial in which the actor is an accused were not sufficient to justify an interim injunction.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Nisar Ali Pari v. The Registrar of Trademarks & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 22356 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 138
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed the Registrar of Trademarks to pass orders within three months on two applications that have been pending since 2012 and 2014. The court noted that it was unacceptable for the applications to remain undisposed of for more than a decade.