This Week in IP

Image credits: via Magnific

Drafting credit: Divya Telang, Research Associate

Weekly IPR Update | 06 July 2026 – 12 July 2026

Bombay High Court Refuses to Restrain Cognizant in Hexagonal Emblem Copyright Clash

The Bombay High Court has denied interim relief to fintech software firm Atyati Technologies in a copyright and trademark infringement suit seeking to restrain Cognizant Technology Solutions from utilizing its blue hexagonal logo.1 Atyati had rebranded in 2019 using an orange hexagonal honeycomb design, and alleged that Cognizant’s subsequent adoption of a similar geometric emblem constituted passing-off and copyright infringement. However, the court found that Cognizant prima facie established independent creation of its visual identity, presenting robust documentation, including design agreements, market surveys, and corporate time-entry logs that traced the systematic, internal development of the logo in the United States. Applying the strict legal benchmark of a “reasonable opportunity of access” rather than the mere possibility of it, the court ruled there was no evidence that the U.S.-based design team had encountered Atyati’s work. Additionally, while the court noted that the concept of “reverse passing-off” is maintainable under Indian trademark law, formally parting ways with a contrary view held by the Delhi High Court, it ultimately dismissed the application, noting that Atyati failed to prove standalone commercial goodwill in the logo shape distinct from its primary “ATYATI” word mark.2 Read more here.

Delhi High Court Clarifies Bioavailability Standard in Pharmaceutical Patent Rejection

The Delhi High Court has affirmed the rejection of a patent application filed by Intra-Cellular Therapies Inc. for deuterated organic compounds designed to treat psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, psychosis, and anxiety.3 The pharmaceutical company challenged a 2023 administrative decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs that had denied protection on the grounds that the invention lacked novelty. In upholding the rejection, the court ruled that an asset’s increased bioavailability does not inherently establish enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The bench emphasized that applicants must provide explicit research data demonstrating that such a pharmacokinetic improvement directly translates into an actual therapeutic benefit for patients. Because the invention failed to clear the threshold for novelty on this basis, the court dismissed the appeal without finding it necessary to evaluate secondary objections concerning inventive steps.4 Read more here.

Registration Not Required to Enforce Trademark Assignment, Rules Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited from utilizing the “HAMON” trademark or any deceptively similar variation within its corporate name, trade name, domain name, or commercial services.5 The industrial dispute was initiated by John Cockerill Hamon SA, a Belgian enterprise that acquired the legacy international trademarks originally registered in India in 1988, following cross-border insolvency proceedings. The defendant, under new ownership since 2022, argued it held independent rights to the mark dating back to 1999. However, the court rejected this defence, pointing to the company’s “patently dishonest conduct” before the Trade Marks Registry, where it had paradoxically designated new trademark applications as “proposed to be used” despite claiming a quarter-century of continuous, independent deployment in court. Crucially, the bench clarified that an assignment of a trademark becomes fully valid and enforceable between contracting parties immediately upon execution, legally establishing that formal record on the statutory Register is not a condition precedent to enforcing infringement claims. Given that the defendant was executing public sector industrial projects, the court held that an immediate restraint was in the broader public interest to protect public authorities from commercial deception.6 Read more here.

Crocs Steps in to Heavy Fines After Footwear Design Defeat

The Delhi High Court has directed footwear manufacturer Crocs Inc. USA to pay ₹24.63 lakh in litigation expenses to Bata India Ltd. after a long-running design infringement lawsuit was rendered legally unsustainable.7 Crocs originally initiated the legal proceedings in 2014, asserting that Bata had infringed its registered footwear configuration. However, subsequent judicial assessments determined that the silhouette lacked novelty and had previously occupied the public domain, leading the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs to formally cancel the registration because it was not new or original. Following the final disposal of the core infringement suit, Bata pursued recovery of its cumulative defence expenses across multiple legal tiers, including the district court, the High Court’s division bench, and the Supreme Court. Applying established commercial litigation doctrines dictating that prevailing parties should ordinarily recover costs, the court rejected Croc’s argument that a prior administrative omission constituted a waiver and ordered Crocs to fully reimburse Bata’s undisputed expenditures within three months.8 Read more here.

Trade Marks Registry published Proposed and New declared Well-Known Marks

The Indian Trade Marks Registry, via Journal No. 2268 published on July 6, 2026, introduced significant updates to the country’s “List of Well-Known Trade Marks” under the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. Under Rule 124(4), the Registrar has published Schedule I, inviting public objections within a 30-day window regarding the proposed inclusion of nine major brands—including boAt (Imagine Marketing Limited), adidas (Adidas AG), multiple iterations of the NETFLIX brand and its “N” logo (Netflix, Inc.), YouTube (Google LLC), IFFCO, UNIQLO (Fast Retailing Co. Ltd.), and SULA (Sula Vineyards Limited). Concurrently, under Rule 124(5), the Registry has officially updated Schedule II to formally induct four brands into the established list following judicial declarations and committee determinations: AMBUJA (Ambuja Cements Limited), DABUR (Dabur India Limited), MARRIOTT (Marriott Worldwide Corporation), and SOCIAL (Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Private Limited). Achieving “well-known” status provides these proprietary marks with robust statutory protection across all asset classes, legally preventing unauthorized third parties from registering identical or deceptively similar marks even within entirely unrelated industries.9

Delhi High Court Protects Famous Skincare Brand from Copycat Trade Dress

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining multiple traders from manufacturing, marketing, or selling cosmetic products that copy the distinct branding of the popular South Korean skincare label, “Beauty of Joseon”.10 GoodAI Global Inc., the parent entity behind the skincare brand, initiated the passing-off suit after discovering striking visual duplication across both the trademarked name and the physical trade dress of the defendants’ items. Although the defendants’ own bad-faith trademark registration had already been stripped from the official register by a coordinate bench order, the rogue operators continued to sell their lookalike goods on major e-commerce platforms. Determining that the copycat merchandise posed an immediate threat of irreparable commercial injury and consumer deception, the court ordered the unauthorized items blocked and directed Amazon Seller Services to de-list the specific product listings.11 Read more here.

Google Rejects Proactive Video Monitoring Demand in Delhi High Court, Cites “Safe Harbour” Protections

The Delhi High Court examined a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) alleging video clips of sensitive court proceedings involving prominent political figures that was leaked and circulated online in direct violation of the court’s broadcasting rules. In response to the growing dispute, a Division Bench impleaded the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) to address the unauthorized distribution of these judicial recordings. Responding to the petition, Google LLC filed an affidavit clarifying that while it has already blocked all specifically flagged URLs out of abundant caution, it could not be ordered to proactively monitor YouTube to prevent future re-uploads of the footage.12 Defending its status as an intermediary under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 the tech giant argued that it lacks the editorial control, legal liability, and technical capacity to police millions of user uploads. Grounding its defence in the landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of India precedent, Google emphasized that digital platforms only acquire actionable “actual knowledge” of illegal content through specific court orders or government notifications identifying exact URLs. Ultimately, Google maintained that forcing intermediaries to act as independent censors is legally untenable, incapable of practical implementation, and would create an unlawful chilling effect on free speech.13

Delhi High Court Distinguishes Impersonation Scams from Personality Rights Infringement

The Delhi High Court has raised important questions regarding the boundaries of personality rights in commercial fraud cases, emphasizing that the misuse of a corporate executive’s photograph in a financial scam constitutes criminal impersonation rather than a violation of proprietary celebrity rights.14 The legal distinction emerged during a hearing initiated by Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited against unidentified digital operators running deceptive WhatsApp investment groups. The plaintiff demonstrated that the fraudsters systematically siphoned off investor funds by misusing the company’s trademarked logos and deploying the name and official photograph of the firm’s Managing Director and CEO, A. Balasubramanian, as an administrator’s profile picture. While the company’s legal representatives attempted to anchor the executive’s unauthorized photograph under personality rights, the court firmly rejected the expansion of the doctrine, clarifying that the strategic deceit reflects classic impersonation rather than a targeted commercial exploitation of a person’s individual likeness or voice.15

Official Declaration as Well-known Mark Not Required for Cross-Class Trademark Protection

The Delhi High Court ruled that a trademark proprietor does not need a pre-existing formal declaration of well-known status to invoke cross-class protection during opposition proceedings. Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., the producers of the Ghostbusters film franchise, filed an appeal against a domestic company’s attempt to register the mark “GHOST BUSTER” for pharmaceutical and chemical products under Class 5. The Trade Marks Registrar had dismissed Columbia Pictures’ opposition because the production house only held registrations in Classes 9, 25, 28, and 41, with no evidence of use in the pharmaceutical sector. In reversing the decision, the High Court clarified that Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act does not mandate a pre-existing formal declaration to block cross-class registrations. Instead, protection stems directly from the mark’s actual renown, which the Registrar can dynamically evaluate during the dispute by assessing factors like public recognition and usage history. Because the lower tribunal also ignored claims of bad-faith filing, the Court cancelled the order and sent the matter back for an expedited, three-month review.16 Read more here.

boAt Loses Battle to Block Rival’s Similar Name

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a second interim injunction application filed by Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd., the parent company of the consumer electronics brand “boAt”, seeking to restrain its competitor, Exotic Mile, from utilizing the wordmark “BOULT”.17 The long-standing litigation began in 2019 over claims of trademark infringement and passing off. While an initial temporary order had blocked the “BOULT” name, the final operative decision delivered in January 2020 narrowed the restraint exclusively to specific geometric device marks and a promotional tagline, omitting the wordmark itself. Imagine Marketing argued that this omission was a mere oversight, pointing out that the original judgment explicitly recognized phonetic similarity between the two brand names. However, the court rejected this line of reasoning, ruling that because the brand owner had failed to appeal, clarify, or seek a modification of the original 2020 order for years, it could not now deploy a fresh interim application to secure an injunction that was explicitly absent from the prior decision.18 Read more here.

International Update

Taylor Swift Secures Dismissal of Album Lyric Copyright Lawsuit

A federal copyright lawsuit brought against Taylor Swift by poet Kimberly Marasco has been dismissed after a court ruled that the singer’s hit albums did not infringe upon the writer’s work. Marasco accused Swift of lifting lyrical content from her poetry for more than twelve tracks across several chart-topping albums, including “Lover”, “Folklore”, “Evermore”, “Midnights”, and “The Tortured Poets Department”. In the order granting the dismissal, it was clarified that the alleged similarities involved nothing more than basic, unprotectable creative concepts, everyday vocabulary, and ubiquitous metaphors like “tears as weapons” or “desire as fuel and fire”. Because copyright law protects explicit expression rather than broad thematic tropes or isolated words, the court found the claims legally meritless and blocked further amendments to the complaint.19

Vietnam Intensifies Counterfeit Crackdown Under U.S. Trade Pressure

Driven by intensifying geopolitical pressure, Vietnam has launched a sweeping nationwide campaign to dismantle its massive counterfeit goods market and shed its reputation as a global hub for luxury knockoffs. The escalation follows a report from the Office of the United States Trade Representative that designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country” and labelled it the world’s worst offender regarding intellectual property rights.20 Facing threats of fresh U.S. tariffs and an ongoing commerce investigation, Vietnamese authorities pledged to increase IP enforcement busts by at least 20%. This has led to aggressive surprise inspections at major hubs like Ho Chi Minh City’s Saigon Square, large-scale seizures of thousands of replica items, and the dismantling of an illicit jewellery ring mimicking brands like Cartier and Louis Vuitton that amassed over $1.14 million in profits.21

7-Eleven Sues Nike Over Sneaker Design and Launch Strategy

7-Eleven has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Nike in a Texas federal court, claiming that Nike’s upcoming Air Max 95 “Big Bubble” sneaker unlawfully copies the retailer’s federally registered orange, green, and red “Tri-Color Mark”. Although Nike did not use the actual name “7-Eleven” on the shoe, the lawsuit argues that the company created a false impression of corporate affiliation by combining 7-Eleven’s signature colour scheme with a calculated release date on July 11, historically celebrated as “7-Eleven Day”. The complaint also highlights suggestive marketing details, such as store-shelf graphics printed on the sneaker’s insoles and product descriptions referencing a walk to the corner store. While Nike has since pulled the shoe from its SNKRS app, it has not publicly commented on the litigation. This dispute reflects a structural movement away from standard trademark litigation which traditionally protected discrete symbols like names, logos, and slogans, and moves toward protecting a brand’s overall commercial identity. By testing whether an overlapping colour palette, strategic calendar positioning, and thematic design cues can collectively establish enforceable trademark protection, the outcome of this case will help define the boundaries of trademark law at a time when companies increasingly rely on cohesive visual aesthetics to build consumer recognition.22

EU General Court Clarifies Rules on Trademark Acquired Distinctiveness

The European Union General Court has dismissed an appeal by Finnish company Veikkaus Oy, ruling that a composite trademark containing descriptive elements cannot be deemed inherently distinctive simply because one of its components has acquired distinctiveness through market use. The dispute arose after the company sought to register the phrase “FOR BETTER GAMING – VEIKKAUS” for gaming and gambling services, which the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) rejected on the grounds that the combination functioned merely as an ordinary, descriptive advertising message for the Finnish public. In upholding the refusal, the General Court emphasized that Article 7 of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation maintains a strict separation between a sign’s intrinsic characteristics and those acquired through actual market exposure. Citing established precedents involving Daimler and the mark “MORE-BIOTIC”, the judges affirmed that the prior commercial reputation of a single element cannot be used to bootstrap inherent distinctiveness onto an otherwise non-distinctive, descriptive phrase. Consequently, because Veikkaus failed to provide evidence showing that the entire combined sign immediately enables consumers to distinguish its services from competitors without prior market exposure, the court rejected the application, leaving the EUIPO to evaluate the company’s alternative claim for acquired distinctiveness across the entire phrase.23 Read more here.

Federal Circuit Rejects Deep Learning Dental Claims Under 35 U.S.C. Section 101

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) has affirmed a summary judgment ruling that invalidated several deep learning patent claims owned by Dental Monitoring SAS, holding them ineligible under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. The litigation began when Dental Monitoring sued Align Technology, Inc., alleging that Align’s “Invisalign Virtual Care AI” platform infringed its patents covering automated dental arch image analysis and orthodontic aligner shape assessment. Using the two-step Alice framework, both the district court and the CAFC determined that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analysing, and transmitting image data using generic hardware tools. Dental Monitoring argued that training its deep learning models on a dataset of over 1,000 images provided a high-precision technological solution. However, the CAFC rejected this assertion, clarifying that training a device on a specific dataset is merely incident to the basic nature of machine learning and does not constitute a technical improvement. Because the patent specifications relied on standard, widely available neural networks to perform tasks traditionally handled by orthodontists, the court found no “inventive concept” to rescue the claims, reinforcing that applying generic machine learning tools to a specific field of use is insufficient to establish patent eligibility.24 Read more here.

Louis Vuitton Secures Trademark Victory Against Molly Tea

The Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court has ruled in favour of Louis Vuitton Malletier, ordering Shenzhen Molly Tea Catering Management Co., Ltd. to pay RMB 10.3 million (approximately $1.5 million) in damages for trademark infringement. The legal dispute centered on Molly Tea’s unauthorized adoption of a black-and-white four-petal flower logo, which Louis Vuitton successfully proved infringed seven of its registered Chinese trademarks protecting individual components of its iconic Monogram pattern. The luxury house deconstructed a complex composite canvas into distinct, individually registered visual elements, allowing it to enforce rights over an isolated graphic. Operating under China’s strict “first-to-file” intellectual property framework, Louis Vuitton maintained exclusive enforcement rights, a position further solidified by the China National Intellectual Property Administration’s prior refusal of Molly Tea’s own trademark applications.25

  1. Atyati Technologies Private Limited v. Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation & Anr., I.A. (L) NO. 7958/2024 in COM IP SUIT NO. 613/2025. ↩︎
  2. ET Bureau, Bombay High Court: Relief for Cognizant in Atyati Logo Dispute, Economic Times (July 7, 2026), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/bombay-high-court-relief-for-cognizant-in-atyati-logo-dispute/articleshow/132244718.cms?from=mdr. ↩︎
  3. Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. v. The Controller of Patents, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 24/2023. ↩︎
  4. Riya Rathore, Delhi HC Rejects Intra-Cellular Therapies’ Patent Appeal, Holds Bioavailability Alone Insufficient, LiveLaw Biz (July 8, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/patent/delhi-high-court-upholds-rejection-of-intra-cellular-therapies-patent-for-deuterated-antipsychotic-compounds-540399. ↩︎
  5. John Cockerill Hamon SA v. Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited & Anr., I.A. No. 345/2026 in COM. IP SUIT No. 7/2026. ↩︎
  6. Maulik Vyas, Bombay HC offers John Cockerill Hamon interim relief in trademark dispute, Economic Times (July 10, 2026), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/bombay-hc-offers-john-cockerill-hamon-interim-relief-in-trademark-dispute/articleshow/132297263.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst. ↩︎
  7. Crocs Inc. USA v. M/S Bata India Ltd. & Ors., CS(COMM) 625/2018. ↩︎
  8. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Orders Crocs To Pay ₹24.63 Lakh Costs To Bata After Design Registration Was Cancelled, LiveLaw Biz (July 9, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/design/delhi-high-court-orders-crocs-to-pay-2463-lakh-costs-to-bata-after-design-registration-cancelled-540490. ↩︎
  9. IP India, Trade Marks Journal No. 2268, Ministry of Commerce & Industry (July 6, 2026), p. 1028- 1032, https://search.ipindia.gov.in/IPOJournal/Journal/Trademark. ↩︎
  10. GoodAI Global Inc. v. Shahnawaz Siddiqui & Ors., CS(COMM) 679/2026. ↩︎
  11. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Restrains Traders From Using ‘Beauty Of Joseon’ Trademark And Trade Dress, LiveLaw Biz (July 8, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-grants-interim-injunction-in-beauty-of-joseon-trade-dress-dispute-directs-amazon-to-delist-infringing-urls-540413. ↩︎
  12. ANI, Google tells Delhi HC it can’t proactively monitor alleged court hearing video re-uploads, ET Legal World (July 6, 2026), https://legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/litigation/googles-stand-on-monitoring-court-hearing-videos-sparks-legal-debate-in-delhi-hc/132212210. ↩︎
  13. Prashant Jha, Impossible to monitor and remove unauthorised court recordings from YouTube: Google to Delhi High Court, Bar and Bench (July 6, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/news/impossible-to-monitor-and-remove-unauthorised-court-recordings-from-youtube-google-to-delhi-high-court. ↩︎
  14. Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Ltd. V/S John Doe & Ors., CS (COMM) – 716/2026. ↩︎
  15. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Questions Invoking Personality Rights Over Investment Scammers Using AMC CEO’s Photo, LiveLaw Biz (July 9, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/personality-rights/delhi-hc-asks-are-we-now-confusing-personality-rights-with-ceos-of-companies-in-aditya-birla-suit-against-whatsapp-scammers-540563. ↩︎
  16. S N Thyagarajan, ‘Ghostbuster’ row: Trademark need not be formally declared well-known to get cross-class protection, says Delhi HC, Bar and Bench (July 11, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/ghostbuster-row-trademark-need-not-be-formally-declared-well-known-to-get-cross-class-protection-says-delhi-hc. ↩︎
  17. Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Exotic Mile, CS(COMM) 519/2019. ↩︎
  18. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Dismisses boAt’s Second Bid to Restrain ‘BOULT’ Wordmark, LiveLaw Biz (July 10, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-dismisses-boat-second-bid-to-injunction-boult-wordmark-540662. ↩︎
  19. ToI Entertainment Desk, Taylor Swift defeats Kimberly Marasco’s copyright lawsuit as judge dismisses lyric-copying claims over hit albums, Times of India (July 8, 2026), http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/132255703.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst. ↩︎
  20. Thompson Hine LLP, USTR Launches Section 301 Investigation into Vietnam’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Intellectual Property, Lexology (May 29, 2026), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=18fc6adc-3e5f-41da-8dd2-e036cfb60304. ↩︎
  21. Gavin Butler, A global hub for fake luxury goods, Vietnam cracks down on its black market, BBC (July 6, 2026), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdx7zzywz7wo. ↩︎
  22. Grace Lamendola, Beyond the Logo: 7-Eleven v. Nike and the New Frontier of Brand Identity, IP Watchdog (July 8, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/07/08/beyond-the-logo-7-eleven-v-nike-and-the-new-frontier-of-brand-identity/. ↩︎
  23. Marcel Pemsel, When acquired distinctiveness is not enough to establish inherent distinctiveness, IPKat (July 9, 2026), https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2026/07/when-acquired-distinctiveness-is-not.html. ↩︎
  24. Rose Esfandiari, Federal Circuit Finds Deep Learning Patents Ineligible, IP Watchdog (July 7, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/07/07/federal-circuit-finds-deep-learning-patents-ineligible/. ↩︎
  25. Julie Zerbo, What Louis Vuitton’s Latest Win Reveals About Modern Brand Protection, The Fashion Law (July 6, 2026), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/what-louis-vuitton-molly-tea-victory-reveals-about-modern-brand-protection-strategy/. ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

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

Related Articles