This Week in IP

Image credits: via Magnific

Drafting credit: Divya Telang, Research Associate

Weekly IPR Update | 08 June 2026 – 14 June 2026

Delhi HC Blocks “Konaflex” for “Koanaflex” Trademark Infringement

Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Jaunpur-based Satyam Industries from using the mark “Konaflex” on its water storage tanks, ruling it deceptively similar to the established “Koanaflex” trademark and logo owned by Modern Pipe Industries.1 Justice Tushar Rao Gedela established that except for a single letter, the marks possess an “uncanny” phonetic, visual, and structural similarity such as sharing identical fonts, thick lettering, and colour schemes that would inevitably confuse an average consumer. While the Plaintiff proved prior usage with sales invoices for water tanks dating back to 2023 and social media presence from 2021, the defendant had applied for registration on a “proposed-to-be-used” basis with its first commercial invoice appearing only in January 2025. The Court also rejected a territorial jurisdiction objection, reaffirming that operating an interactive website accessible within a specific region gives courts in that locality the jurisdiction to adjudicate trademark infringement suits.2 Read more here.

Commercial Court Evasion: Karnataka HC Rejects Undervalued Trademark Suit

Karnataka High Court delivered a critical procedural warning to brand owners by rejecting a trademark infringement suit filed by rice trader MRN Agro Industries, ruling that the plaintiff had deliberately undervalued its legal reliefs to evade the specialized rigors of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.3 Justice Ravi V. Hosmani found that while the plaintiff valued the lawsuit at a mere ₹1,000 for court fees and filed a memo claiming the specified value was under ₹3 lakh, it had explicitly demanded ₹25 lakh in advance damages within its prior cease-and-desist notice. The High Court emphasized that intellectual property valuations cannot be arbitrary or whimsical. Compressing financial figures to bypass commercial chambers and secure a regular civil bench constitutes impermissible forum shopping and an abuse of process.4 Read more here.

Strict Pharma Trademark Standards: Bombay HC Enforces ‘Bare Possibility’ Test to Block ‘ACIPROX’

Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Numen Pharma Private Limited from manufacturing or marketing products under the trademark “ACIPROX”, finding it phonetically similar to Alkem Laboratories’ long-standing registered mark “ALCIPRO”.5 Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh rejected the defendant’s contention that “CIPRO” is merely a descriptive term for the underlying molecule Ciprofloxacin, while also clarifying that courts will not break down conflicting marks syllable by syllable to find minor structural distinctions. Court ruled that trademark evaluations for medicinal products must satisfy the stringent “bare possibility test”. Under this specialized threshold, even a remote chance of public confusion, amplified by India’s multi-lingual society, varying literacy rates, and the high likelihood of a consumer’s hurried utterance or mispronunciation is legally sufficient to arrest the use of an infringing mark. Ultimately, the balance of convenience heavily favoured Alkem, whose superior market goodwill was anchored by a 1990 registration and a ₹13.97 crore sales turnover in 2023, contrasting sharply against Numen’s recent 2023 incorporation.6 Read more here.

Trademarking Heritage: Puri Jagannath Temple Secures Sacred Wordmarks

In a significant expansion of institutional IP enforcement into cultural heritage, the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration of Puri has successfully registered official wordmarks for ‘Ananda Bajara’ and ‘Patitapabana’, alongside a logomark for ‘Nilachakara’ logo. This branding strategy was initiated after the West Bengal government planned to name a new replica temple in Digha as ‘Jagannath Dham’, a move that prompted the managing committee to legally safeguard the 12th-century shrine’s unique institutional and spiritual identity. The temple administration has sought legal protection over a total of 29 indigenous identifiers, with the remaining 26 applications currently in advanced stages of registry examination.7

Condition of Bad Faith must be met: Delhi HC Reverses Microsoft Domain Transfer

Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award that had ordered the transfer of the domain name “exceltotally.in” to Microsoft Corporation, ruling that ‘confusing similarity’ to an established trademark does not automatically establish bad faith under the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“INDRP”).8 The court clarified that the three statutory components of an INDRP complaint- confusing similarity, absence of legitimate rights, and bad faith, are strictly cumulative and must each be independently evaluated and proven. The registrant utilized the domain to host utility software facilitating data interoperability between Microsoft Excel and Tally accounting platforms, maintaining that the name was adopted in 2010 for purely descriptive and functional compatibility purposes. The Court emphasized that because digital enterprises frequently reference third-party platforms for compatibility and interoperability claims, treating only structural similarity as an automatic indicator of bad faith improperly erases required legal distinctions and bypasses the separate inquiry into whether there was an actual, dishonest intent to exploit goodwill or deceive consumers.9 Read more here.

Delhi HC Restricts Business Use of Instagram’s Music Library

Delhi High Court clarified that music available in Instagram’s native licensed library is strictly for personal use and cannot, prima facie, be utilized by business accounts for commercial or promotional purposes.10 The observation was made during a copyright infringement suit filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited against Zivore Apparel Private Limited, which had featured songs from Zee’s repertoire in promotional Instagram reels without independent authorization. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela reviewed Instagram’s Music Guidelines, noting that the platform explicitly prohibits business accounts from using its audio library for commercial exploitation unless separate, appropriate licenses are obtained. Rejecting the defense that the app’s internal policies permitted such use, the Court referred the parties to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre after binding Zivore to a formal undertaking to cease using Zee’s music repertoire pending the final layout of the injunction application.11 Read more here.

Third-Party Business Directory Listings Can Trigger Out-of-State Trademark Suits

Delhi High Court refused to dismiss a trademark infringement suit filed by Astral Ltd against Astral Marketing Syndicate, establishing that an online business directory listing can create territorial jurisdiction even in the absence of completed physical sales in that region.12 As the defendant’s Justdial listing allowed users within Delhi to explore its product catalogue, download business cards, initiate online chats, and submit direct enquiries, its functionality actively facilitated commercial transactions and gave rise to a part of the cause of action in the capital. The defendant sought to reject the plaint by arguing that both companies held their principal operations in Ahmedabad and that the advertisement was intended solely for customers in Gujarat, rendering any digital visibility in Delhi as mere accidental spillover. However, the Court rejected this preliminary objection under the ‘demurrer principle’, ruling that the combination of the plaintiff’s subordinate office in Delhi and the interactive nature of the digital listing prima facie anchors the suit in Delhi, leaving the final determination of online interactivity and transaction history to be resolved during trial.13 Read more here.

Tag Heuer Secures Permanent Injunction but Fails to Recover Damages

The Delhi District Court ruled in favour of Swiss luxury watchmaker Tag Heuer S.A. in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit, issuing a permanent injunction against a network selling counterfeit timepieces bearing the “TAG HEUER” mark. Relying heavily on an unchallenged Local Commissioner’s report that recorded the seizure of 235 counterfeit watches and 15 branded boxes, the court ordered the permanent restraint of the defendants and directed the immediate delivery up of all infringing goods. However, providing a vital litigation lesson for brand protection teams, the court completely denied Tag Heuer’s claims for financial damages or a rendition of accounts. The court emphasized that despite clear proof of physical counterfeiting, monetary awards cannot be granted in the absence of distinct, quantifiable evidence establishing the plaintiff’s actual financial loss or the defendants’ exact illicit profits.14

International Update

Federal Circuit Revives Google’s Hotword Detection Patents in Dispute with Sonos

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded two decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that had found certain claims of Google’s patents relating to “hotword” detection technology unpatentable. The patents concern systems designed to prevent multiple smart devices from responding simultaneously to voice activation phrases such as “Hey Siri” or “OK Google”. The PTAB had concluded that the challenged claims were anticipated by a prior-art reference, Rosenberger. On appeal, Google argued that the Board had incorrectly interpreted Rosenberger as disclosing communication between devices while they remained in a low-power listening mode. Agreeing with Google, the Federal Circuit held that the evidence showed the devices in Rosenberger exited the low-power mode before exchanging signals, meaning the reference did not disclose a key limitation of the claimed inventions. Finding the PTAB’s anticipation analysis unsupported by substantial evidence, the court reversed the decisions and remanded the matter for further proceedings, including consideration of Sonos’ alternative arguments.15

China Standardizes IP Fact-Finding to Protect Agri-Tech and Seed Innovation

China’s Supreme People’s Court released its first dedicated judicial framework for the agricultural sector, the “Guidelines for Ascertaining Technical Facts in Cases Involving New Plant Varieties”,16 aiming to streamline seed-industry litigation, protect biodiversity, and secure predictable returns for agri-tech innovators. The 40-article guideline introduces a structured, multi-pathway framework for judges to resolve complex biological questions, such as varietal identity, parentage, and essentially derived varieties, utilizing technical investigation officers, expert panels, and specialized appraisal agencies. For businesses and industry stakeholders handling Chinese enforcement, the regulations establish critical procedural benchmarks- court-commissioned appraisal agencies must deliver their technical findings within 30 working days (extendable to 60 days for complex matters), and while both molecular marker testing and field observation are recognized, field testing results will legally prevail in the event of a conflict. Crucially, to lower the enforcement burden on rights holders, the guidelines direct courts to actively initiate independent judicial appraisals if a company’s privately commissioned technical report exhibits evidentiary deficiencies, rather than summarily dismissing the infringement suit. However, any independent experts retained by litigants must now physically appear in court to face cross-examination by judges and opposing counsel, demanding higher transparency and rigorous scientific backing from corporate litigants.17

CAFC holds Unambiguous Claim Language Trumps Disclosed Embodiments

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Dynapass against Bank of America (“BOA”), establishing that clear claim language strictly limits a patent’s scope even if an alternative embodiment is explicitly disclosed in the specification. Dynapass had claimed that the two-factor authentication feature within BOA’s Mobile Banking Application infringed its U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658, which covers a token-based user authentication system. The dispute centered on the structural construction of the phrase “receiving the password”. CAFC agreed with the District Court that the patent’s repeated juxtaposition of a password and its required parts unambiguously precluded an authentication process where a “passcode” and a “token” are received separately. Chief Judge Moore emphasized that the mere disclosure of an alternative configuration in a patent’s written description does not outweigh the precise boundaries of the final claim language when supported by intrinsic evidence.18

Proposed U.S. Bill to Strip Watchlisted Foreign Entities of Patent Rights

U.S. House Republicans introduced the Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act of 2026, a national security measure that would block the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from issuing new patents to individuals or entities on federal watchlists, specifically Chinese military-affiliated organizations, and render their existing U.S. patents completely unenforceable.19 While the bill includes a 180-day renewable presidential waiver provision to maintain consistency with international obligations, it strictly restricts covered foreign firms by barring them from expedited review programs like the Patent Prosecution Highway. The Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP) issued a counter-statement on June 10, 2026, cautioning that the legislation poses a significant risk of severe, unintended consequences. C4IP warned that stripping patent enforcement rights from foreign entities may conflict with U.S. treaty obligations, erode global confidence in the foundational principle that patents are secure property rights, and ultimately invite aggressive international retaliation, potentially exposing American innovators to retaliatory technology theft and misappropriation abroad.20

EUIPO Hardens Data Security Rules for Staff Generative AI Use

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) announced updated staff guidelines for the responsible use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools, establishing a critical operational benchmark for institutional and corporate AI governance. The refreshed framework introduces explicit protocols governing prompt engineering and information handling, mandating a strict operational distinction between public, restricted, confidential, and secret information assets. For enterprise leaders and IP professionals navigating corporate data integration with AI, the EUIPO’s proactive measure highlights an essential risk-mitigation strategy: safeguarding proprietary trade secrets and sensitive institutional intelligence requires robust data classification models and clear boundaries before deploying automated workflows.21

  1. Modern Pipe Industries v. Raj Kumar Maurya Proprietor Of M/S Satyam Industries & Anr., C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 283/2025. ↩︎
  2. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Finds ‘Konaflex’ Deceptively Similar To ‘Koanaflex’, Grants Injunction To PVC Pipe Maker, Live Law Biz (June 9, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-restrains-konaflex-from-using-mark-deceptively-similar-to-pvc-pipe-maker-koanaflex-537313. ↩︎
  3. M/S. Shri Prasanna Anjaneya Agrotech v. M.R.Pavan Kumar, MIS. Appeal No. 7600 of 2024 (IPR) in CRP No.614/2024. ↩︎
  4. Riya Rathore, Karnataka High Court Rejects Trademark Suit After Finding Reliefs Were Undervalued To Avoid Commercial Court, Live Law Biz (June 10, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/ipr/karnataka-high-court-rejects-trademark-suit-after-finding-reliefs-were-undervalued-to-avoid-commercial-court-537419. ↩︎
  5. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Numen Pharma Private Limited, IA No. 1606 of 2026, in Com. IP Suit No. 679 of 2025. ↩︎
  6. Riya Rathore, ‘Bare Possibility Of Confusion’ Enough In Pharma Marks: Bombay High Court Restrains Use of ‘ACIPROX’, Live Law Biz (June 10, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/bare-possibility-of-confusion-enough-in-pharma-marks-bombay-high-court-restrains-use-of-aciprox-537436. ↩︎
  7. Diana Sahu, ‘Patitapabana’, ‘Ananda Bajara’ & ‘Nilachakara’, now intellectual property of Puri temple, Times of India (June 11, 2026), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhubaneswar/patitapabana-ananda-bajara-nilachakara-now-intellectual-property-of-puri-temple/articleshow/131643156.cms. ↩︎
  8. Mr. Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr. v. Microsoft Corporation, O.M.P. (COMM) 223/2026. ↩︎
  9. Shivani PS, Similarity With ‘Excel’ Alone Not Bad Faith; Delhi HC Sets Aside Award Transferring ‘exceltotally.in’ To Microsoft, Live Law Biz (June 11, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/arbitration/similarity-with-excel-alone-not-bad-faith-delhi-hc-sets-aside-award-transferring-exceltotallyin-to-microsoft-537539. ↩︎
  10. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Zivore Apparel Private Limited, CS(COMM) 651/2026 & I.A. 15855/2026. ↩︎
  11. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Refers Zee-Zivore Copyright Dispute Over Instagram Music To Mediation, Live Law Biz (June 12, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/zee-entertainment-copyright-suit-against-apparel-firm-over-instagram-reel-music-referred-to-mediation-by-delhi-hc-537643. ↩︎
  12. Astral Ltd. v. M/S Astral Marketing Syndicate & Anr., CS(COMM) 294/2024. ↩︎
  13. Riya Rathore, Delhi HC Refuses to Reject Astral’s Trademark Suit Against Astral Marketing Over Justdial Listing Accessible In Delhi, Live Law Biz (June 15, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/justdial-listing-sufficient-to-sustain-delhi-jurisdiction-delhi-high-court-refuses-to-reject-astral-ltd-trademark-suit-537889. ↩︎
  14. Tag Heuer S.A vs Joginder Singh. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/89082222/. ↩︎
  15. Eileen McDermott, Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Findings of Unpatentability for Google’s ‘Hotword’ Patents, IP Watchdog (June 10, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/09/federal-circuit-reverses-ptab-findings-of-unpatentability-for-googles-hotword-patents/. ↩︎
  16. Original text available in Chinese only. See, https://www.court.gov.cn/fabu/xiangqing/502391.html. ↩︎
  17. Aaron Wininger, China’s Supreme People’s Court Issues Guidelines for Ascertaining Technical Facts in Cases Involving New Plant Varieties, The National Law Review (June 9, 2026), https://natlawreview.com/article/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-issues-guidelines-ascertaining-technical-facts-cases. ↩︎
  18. Eileen McDermott, CAFC Affirms Dismissal of Infringement Case Against Bank of America, IP Watchdog (June 12, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/11/cafc-affirms-dismissal-infringement-case-against-bank-of-america/. ↩︎
  19. U.S. Select Committee on China, Press Release, Moolenaar, Fitzgerald, and Issa Introduce Legislation to Prohibit Adversarial Chinese Patents, (June 8, 2026), https://chinaselectcommittee.house.gov/media/press-releases/moolenaar-fitzgerald-and-issa-introduce-legislation-to-prohibit-adversarial-chinese-patents. ↩︎
  20. Rose Esfandiari, Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act Would Limit Patent Rights of National Security-Designated Entities, IP Watchdog (June 12, 2026) https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/11/prohibiting-adversarial-patents-act-would-limit-patent-rights-of-national-security-designated-entities/. ↩︎
  21. EUIPO, EUIPO updates guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI tools, (June 8, 2026) https://www.euipo.europa.eu/en/news/euipo-updates-guidelines-on-the-responsible-use-of-generative-ai-tools. ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles