LiveLawBiz IPR Weekly Digest: September 28 - October 04, 2026
Riya Rathore
7 Oct 2026 10:50 AM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a special leave petition challenging the constitutional validity of the statutory provision under which a patent's 20-year term runs from the date of filing rather than the date of grant, even where years of that term pass during patent prosecution. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice on the plea and appointed Advocate Kruttika Vijay as amicus curiae to assist the court.
Case Title: ILAIYARAAJA VS. SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED
Case Number: DIARY NO. - 50668/2026
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to interfere with music composer Ilaiyaraaja's challenge against the Delhi High Court's dismissal of his review petition in the copyright dispute concerning the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the Tamil film Moodu Pani. The Delhi High Court's Single Judge held that while Ilaiyaraaja retained certain rights in the musical work, he had no copyright in the sound recording or lyrics and therefore could not assign those rights to Vels. The Division Bench subsequently upheld the injunction, permitting use of the song only subject to a ₹30 lakh deposit.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Delhi High Court Restrains Clothing Business From Using 'Men's Darzi' Mark
Case Title: Darzi (India) LLP & Anr. v. Mr. Akhil Jain
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1027/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1044
The Delhi High Court restrained a clothing business from using the "Men's Darzi" mark, its accompanying logo, or any identical or deceptively similar mark in relation to clothing and apparel. Justice A. J. Bhambhani passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction after finding that Darzi (India) LLP had made out a prima-facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour.
Case Title: Punam Chand Kedia v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 44/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1041
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by trademark owner Punam Chand Kedia seeking revival of his “HMP” mark after the Trade Marks Registry rejected his renewal application on the ground of expiration. Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that in the absence of reliable evidence showing that mandatory O-3 notices were dispatched prior to expiration, the Registry could not deny renewal.
Case Title: Global Health Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Denish P Kalariya & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1005/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1040
The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Global Health Limited, operator of Medanta hospitals, in its trademark infringement suit against a seller marketing an ayurvedic weight management medicine as “Medanta Capsule”. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav decreed the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC after the sole contesting defendant failed to file a written statement or oppose the relief sought.
Case Title: JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED V/S HTTPS//CRICHD.CH/ & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1074/2026
The Delhi High Court granted JioStar a temporary dynamic injunction against rogue websites illegally streaming its coverage of the India-West Indies cricket series. Justice A.J. Bhambhani permitted JioStar to have newly discovered pirate sites carrying identical content blocked directly through ISPs without approaching the court afresh each time.
Case Title: Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. M/s Pooja Lubricant
Case Number: CS(COMM) 940/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1033
The Delhi High Court restrained a Pune-based lubricant seller from manufacturing or selling engine oil, gear oil, and other lubricants under the marks "Max Volvo" and "Max Volwo". Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the ad-interim injunction, holding that these marks infringed Swedish auto major Volvo's registered trademarks.
Case Title: DR VIKAS DIVYAKIRTI V/S META PLATFORMS INC & ORS.
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 1015/2026
The Delhi High Court ordered the takedown of fake social media profiles, deepfake endorsements, and unauthorised lecture clips misusing Drishti IAS founder Vikas Divya Kirti's identity. Expressing grave concern over AI deepfakes, Justice A.J. Bhambhani directed intermediaries to take down infringing content while leaving open arguments on re-captioned lecture clips.
Delhi High Court Modifies Google, Meta Takedown Directions In Aniruddha Bapu Personality Rights Case
Case Title: Dr. Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi through Power of Attorney Holder v. John Does Ashok Kumars & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 178/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1026
The Delhi High Court modified its earlier directions to Google, Meta, and X regarding spiritual leader Dr. Aniruddha Joshi, limiting mandatory takedowns of newly identified content to material that is "identical" to content previously covered. For content that is merely "similar," the court directed platforms to evaluate takedowns under their respective content policies.
Delhi High Court Restrains 70 Businesses From Using Agarwal Packers & Movers Trademark
Case Title: Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd & Anr. v. Agarwal Packers and Movers Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1021/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1025
The Delhi High Court restrained 70 defendants from using the “AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS” trademark or deceptively similar variants, including across Google Search and Google Business Profile listings. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that third-party listings using the name created likelihood of consumer confusion in packing and relocation services.
Case Title: Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v. Melody Healthcare Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1054/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1024
The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained Melody Healthcare Private Limited from manufacturing, stockpiling, importing, selling, or exporting pharmaceutical drug products containing Ruxolitinib. Justice Vikas Mahajan held that Incyte Holdings made out a prima facie case of patent infringement regarding its cancer treatment drug.
Case Title: VIVEK ANAND OBEROI v/s COLLECTOR BAZAR & ORS. and Connected Matters
Case Number: CS(COMM) - 105/2026 and Connected Matters
The Delhi High Court decided to club and hear the personality rights suits filed by actors Vivek Oberoi, Janhvi Kapoor, and Aaradhya Bachchan together as a batch. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani noted that these matters raise recurring questions on the scope and legal limits of personality rights protections.
Delhi High Court Directs Toplad To Change Name, Finds 'TOPLAD' Too Nearly Resembles 'TOPLAND'
Case Title: Topland Engines Private Limited v. Toplad Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 9341/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1058
The Delhi High Court directed Toplad Private Limited to change its company name, holding that "TOPLAD" too nearly resembles the registered "TOPLAND" trademark of Topland Engines Private Limited. Justice Amit Mahajan observed that except for the letter 'N', both words completely resemble each other and would confuse a person of average intelligence, setting aside a May 15, 2023 order of the Regional Director.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Calcutta High Court Lifts Gag Order On YouTuber Arpit Mangal Over Emami Zandu Ashwagandha Video
Case Title: Arpit Mangal & Anr v. Emami Limited & Anr
Case Number: F.M.A. No. 1036 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 238
The Calcutta High Court set aside an ex-parte injunction restraining YouTuber Arpit Mangal from publishing videos evaluating Emami's “Zandu Ashwagandha Gold Plus”. A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De held that the YouTuber presented a bona fide defence of truth at the interim stage.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case Title: Bhupatbhai Manjibhai Sindhav & Anr. vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 21985 of 2014
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 139
The Gujarat High Court quashed a criminal copyright FIR against cable operators accused of transmitting Zee and Turner pay channels beyond licensed boundaries. Justice P. M. Raval held that transmitting cable signals across administrative boundaries constitutes a regulatory or commercial breach rather than criminal copyright piracy under the Copyright Act, 1957.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case Title: M/s Series 5 Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Transhelp Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1102 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 182
The Karnataka High Court held that using the Tummoc app for e-ticketing in Goa did not constitute contempt of court. The bench observed that the trial court's interim injunction in the underlying patent suit filed by Series 5 Labs was confined to BMTC/DTC and had already been stayed by the High Court in appeal, meaning no contempt was made out for using the app in Goa.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Case Title: In Re Exorbitant Pricing of Life Saving Patented Medicines
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 18999 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 186
The Kerala High Court held that Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970 permits the Central Government to authorize the manufacture and non-commercial sale of patented medicines to needy patients when prices charged by patent holders are exorbitant. Justice Harisankar V. Menon held that Section 100 imposes no restriction on who the purchaser could be.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Case Title: RPG Enterprises Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks & Ors.
Case Number: (T)OP(TM) No. 482 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 281
The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark rectification petition filed by RPG Enterprises seeking cancellation of the mark "RPG Marble Pvt. Ltd.". Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the petitioner sat on its rights for nearly 15 years after learning of the mark and was barred by the doctrine of acquiescence.
Case Title: M/s Arunachalaa Enterprises v. M/s R. Sukumar (trading as M/s Sri Sustainable Recycling) & Anr.
Case Number: REV.PET(IPD) No. 2 of 2026 and (PT) A No. 7 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 294
The Madras High Court ruled that a party facing a patent infringement suit can seek revocation of the patent either through an independent revocation petition or by filing a counterclaim in the infringement suit. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that this statutory right cannot be whittled down by forcing the litigant to choose a remedy only through a counterclaim.
Case Title: Rajkumar Theatres Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Wide Angle Creations & Ors.
Case Number: OA (C.D.)No. 1050 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 293
The Madras High Court refused to restrain the worldwide release and commercial exploitation of the Hindi remake of Malayalam film Drishyam 3, starring Ajay Devgn. Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed Rajkumar Theatres' application on October 1, 2026, holding that the applicant failed to establish that it continued to hold an exclusive or joint copyright in the Hindi remake rights.
Case Title: The President Match Company & Ors. v. Sri Balamurugan Match Works & Anr.
Case Number: CRP(MD) NO. 933 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 289
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order that allowed an amendment of pleadings in a trademark suit concerning the “Acha Dholak” safety match brand. Justice R. Poornima held on October 1 that the mere framing of issues does not by itself establish that the trial has substantially commenced.
Madras High Court Refuses To Transfer 'RIO' Trade Mark Suit For Joint Trial With Rectification Plea
Case Title: Rio Children's Hospital Pvt Ltd v. Rajesh Jayaraj (trading as Rio Scans and Labs)
Case Number: (TM) A No. 8 of 2026 IN OP(TM) NO. 64 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 287
The Madras High Court on 30 September dismissed Rio Children's Hospital Pvt Ltd's plea to transfer its trade mark infringement and passing off suit against Rajesh Jayaraj from the Principal District Court, Madurai, to the High Court's Intellectual Property Division for joint trial with a rectification petition concerning the “RIO” mark. Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that Rule 14 of the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022 cannot be invoked “as a matter of course” merely because the suit and rectification petition concern the same mark.