This Week in IP

Image credits: via Pixabay

Drafting credit: Divya Telang, Research Associate

Weekly IPR Update | 13 July 2026 – 19 July 2026

One Letter Too Close: Court Protects ZARA from “ZORA” Copycat

The Delhi High Court overturned a registry decision and ordered the cancellation of the trademark “ZORA”, finding it deceptively similar to the globally recognized Spanish fashion giant “ZARA”.1 Presiding over the matter, Justice Jyoti Singh set aside a prior ruling by the Registrar of Trade Marks which had erroneously permitted Aggarwal Bag House to register the mimicking moniker for various fabrics after performing a flawed, fragmented linguistic analysis. The High Court firmly clarified that an established brand does not require a formal judicial or administrative declaration to be safeguarded as a well-known mark. The court noted that the minimal phonetic variance between the letters “A” and “O” is insufficient to prevent confusion for an average consumer with an imperfect recollection. Concluding that the applicant possessed no honest justification for adopting the name other than to ride the coattails of the fashion brand’s hard-earned reputation, the Court mandated that the Registrar completely expunge the offending mark from the official register within a two-month timeframe.2 Read more here.

Unjha Cumin and Fennel Secure GI Tags, Boosting Market Prices and Fraud Protections

Geographical Indications Registry granted Geographical Indication tags to Unjha cumin and Unjha fennel, expanding Gujarat’s growing roster of legally protected regional delicacies. This regulatory milestone provides vital legal safeguards under the Geographical Indications of Goods Act, 1999, directly certifying the unique geographic origin of these spices to effectively block counterfeit products from entering the market. This special status is anticipated to drive up domestic and international demand, allowing local farmers to command premium prices that are roughly 20% to 30% higher than standard, non-certified options. By establishing these famous regional crops as distinct global brands, the newly enacted protections aim to substantially enhance the financial returns for local cultivation communities while creating fresh avenues for export expansion and specialised agro-businesses.3

Adding Teeth to the Case: L’Oréal Allowed to Amend Lawsuit After Acquiring Trademark Rights

The Delhi High Court overturned a lower court’s decision, allowing cosmetics giant L’Oréal SA to upgrade its ongoing lawsuit against competitors accused of copying its “GARNIER BRIGHT COMPLETE” trademark.4 Originally, L’Oréal had sued rival business for “passing off” for deceptively mimicking its brand’s product using names like “GARUDA BRIGHT COMPLETE 30x” and “6 DROPS BRIGHT COMPLETE 3x”. At the time L’Oréal’s trademark application was still under examination. However, after their trademark was registered, the trial court rejected L’Oréal’s request to add a stronger “trademark infringement” claim, rejected the amendment request, ruling that because the original lawsuit failed to mention the pending trademark application, the newly approved registration created an entirely separate legal claim that would unnecessarily reset the trial’s progress after the plaintiff’s evidence had already wrapped up. The High Court quashed the refusal, clarifying that because the rival companies had already been proceeding ex parte and the core dispute over the copied designs remained completely unchanged, forcing L’Oréal to file a brand-new, separate lawsuit would only waste judicial resources and needlessly prolong the litigation. The High Court set aside the trial court’s order, and directed the trial court to take the newly amended lawsuit on record.5 Read more here.

Delhi High Court Refers ‘SOCIAL’ – ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ Trademark Dispute to Mediation

The Delhi High Court referred the ongoing trademark dispute between “SOCIAL HOUSE” and “SOCIAL” to its mediation and conciliation center.6 The appeal was filed by Vardhaman Choksi, the proprietor of “SOCIAL HOUSE”, seeking to overturn an April 10, 2026, single-judge judgment that cancelled his brand’s registration on grounds of non-use and characterized him as a “trademark squatter”. Choksi contended that he adopted and commercially utilized the name in Mumbai in 2011 prior to the respondent’s use of the “SOCIAL” mark, and argued that the single judge’s characterization caused unwarranted commercial and reputational damage. Because both parties expressed a willingness to explore a settlement, the High Court directed them to appear before the mediation center on July 17, 2026, while scheduling the next Division Bench hearing for August 21, 2026, to report on the outcome of the settlement proceedings.7 Read more here.

Influencers File Lawsuit Claiming Facebook’s ‘Edit Feature’ Is Weaponized for False Copyright Strikes

Two prominent digital creators, financial educator Pushkar Raj Thakur8 and digital creator Neeraj Joshi,9 filed separate commercial suits before the Delhi High Court alleging that anonymous individuals were exploiting Meta’s copyright enforcement mechanisms to target their Instagram accounts. The lawsuits outline a sophisticated manipulation scheme where bad actors allegedly upload unrelated media to their old Facebook posts and later use the desktop “Edit Post” feature to replace that media with a creator’s newly published original video. Because Facebook retains the original upload date on the edited post, it falsely appears as though the infringer published the video first, allowing them to initiate automated copyright strikes through Meta’s Rights Manager. The plaintiffs contend that Meta’s automated systems failed to verify edit histories or metadata. Justice Jyoti Singh directed Meta to investigate Joshi’s account, preserve his verified profile, and hand over IP logs within three weeks to help unmask the anonymous perpetrators, and set an interim injunction hearing on August 5. Meanwhile, in Thakur’s suit, the creator is claiming approximately Rs. 2 crore in damages for lost commercial goodwill and seeking strict platform safeguards like KYC and metadata verification. Meta stated that it would restore deleted videos upon receiving their URLs and protect the account from closure, pending further hearings.10

Jurisdiction in Jeopardy: High Court Denies Injunction due to Forum-shopping Tactics in Agrochem Dispute

Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected SML Limited’s application for an interim injunction against Happy Agro Chemicals, manufacturer Mitul Industries, and wholesaler ULink, ruling that the company failed to establish a valid legal presence in the state to maintain its patent infringement suit.11 SML which holds a patent for its crop-yielding zinc fertilizer formulation “TECHNO Z” alleged that the defendants’ rival micronutrient product, “SELZIC”, was a direct copy. SML sought an emergency court block and the destruction of the defendant’s stock. SML filed a suit for the same in Shimla, relying on three “trap purchases” (which are targeted, documented test purchase arranged by a rights holder to secure physical evidence of an intellectual property infringement) made from an independent retail outlet in Rohru, alongside online listings on IndiaMart and the wholesaler’s website, arguing that the product was actively being offered to local consumers. The defendants argued that they had no commercial ties to the local shop and were only legally authorized under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, to distribute their products in select states that completely excluded Himachal Pradesh. The court dismissed SML’s interim application, holding that the isolated invoices were rigged purely to drag the case to a preferred forum and that online product listings do not equal targeted local commerce especially since the delivery dropdown options did not even list Himachal Pradesh.12 Read more here.

Hair Cream Maker Slammed with Rs. 82 Lakhs Penalty for Violating 14-Year-Old Trademark Injunction

Bombay High Court imposed over Rs. 82 lakhs in legal and exemplary costs on Harichand Nagpal, the proprietor of Ravi Industries, for deliberately violating a long-standing intellectual property injunction.13 In 2007, Dr. Ashok M. Bhat, the registered owner of the “NOVA” trademark and artistic label for hair cream, discovered that Ravi Industries was selling counterfeit versions of his product. In November 2010, the High Court restrained the defendant from using the “NOVA” mark or any deceptively similar artistic variations. Despite the court order, the defendant attempted to circumvent the restriction by switching the product’s word mark to “NONI” while keeping the background artwork virtually identical to the plaintiff’s registered design. The violation came to light during a February 2025 court receiver raid, which uncovered stock bearing both the “NONI” label and a direct variation called “NOVA MINI” on the manufacturer’s premises. The court held the business’s actions as a brazen and dishonest attempt to hoodwink the court. Furthermore, the defendant provided selective, incomplete sales records to hide the revenue generated from the infringing goods. Pointing out that the proprietor was a habitual infringer with a history of counterfeiting other prominent brands like “VASELINE”, the court ordered the defendant to pay Rs. 32.42 lakhs in legal costs alongside Rs. 50 lakhs in exemplary damages within four weeks, while demanding a full disclosure of all illicit sales under oath.14 Read more here.

Delhi High Court Restrains Swiss Footwear Maker Over ‘Deceptively Similar’ Logo

The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction against Swiss footwear company Astormueller AG and its Indian subsidiaries, blocking them from using their standalone “n:” logo and the “nu:beat” logo mark, during an ongoing lawsuit filed by New Balance Athletics Inc.15 New Balance argued that the defendant illegally copied its famous upper-case “N” logo, which it has used globally since the 1970s, and has had its “N”, “NEW BALANCE”, and “NB” marks declared well-known trademarks by the court. Astormueller countered that its lower-case letter “n” coupled with a unique colon device was visually and phonetically distinct from New Balance’s upper-case letter. Applying the legal principle of “initial interest confusion”, where a trademark violation occurs if a consumer experiences confusion when looking at a product, the court found that because both brands sell identical types of shoes through the exact same retail markets, consumers could easily mistake the brands. Taking into account New Balance’s prior use rights in India, a major contradiction in Astormueller’s own official registry filings, where the company had described the logo as a mix of the letter’s “n” and “B”, the judge noted that reading the logo phonetically as “NB” directly infringes on New Balance’s protected brand name. The court allowed Astormueller to keep using its standard “nu:beat” text brand name because it sounded distinct, but it completely barred the company from manufacturing, marketing, or selling footwear featuring the copycat logos till the matter is decided.16 Read more here.

International Update

Game Over: Court Cites ‘Doom’ to Invalidate Gaming Patent in Sony Dispute

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) cancelled 12 video game patent claims owned by Intellectual Pixels Limited (“IPL”), ruling that the technology was simply too obvious to be patented. The dispute began when Sony challenged the patent, which covers a system where an external server handles all the heavy lifting of generating and compressing game graphics before sending them to a player’s device. The court looked at older technology, specifically noting that the classic 1993 game Doom already relied on creating new images in real time, meaning IPL’s idea wasn’t actually new. IPL tried to save its patent on a legal technicality, arguing that the patent board shouldn’t have been allowed to review the data compression part of the invention during a second look at the case. However, the judges rejected this excuse, clarifying that because the compression issue was never officially decided in the first round of the lawsuit, the patent board had every right to examine it and ultimately throw out the patent.17 Read more here.

Show and Tell Secrets: Apple Sues OpenAI for Scheming to Steal Its Tech

The tech giant Apple has filed a major federal lawsuit against OpenAI, it’s hardware subsidiary io Products, and two former Apple employees, alleging a systematic, coordinated scheme to steal proprietary hardware designs and manufacturing secrets. The legal action centres on accusations against former engineer Chang Liu who allegedly kept his company laptop, exploited a software bug to access Apple’s servers after quitting, and downloaded dozens of confidential files, as well as former Apple design executive and current OpenAI hardware chief Tang Yew Tan, who is accused of instructing job candidates to bring actual Apple device components to their interviews for “show and tell” sessions. The lawsuit demonstrates that human factors, such as unreturned company devices, private messaging apps, and deceptive hiring practices, can still compromise a company’s most valuable intellectual assets.18

Sour Notes for Tech Giant: Musician Gets Green Light to Fight Apple’s Trademark Filings

A Californian Magistrate Judge dismissed some complaints from a professional trumpet player’s fraud lawsuit against Apple, but is allowing two highly specific complaints to move forward in court. The long-running dispute is with regards to musician Charles Bertini, who owns the “Apple Jazz” brand and is trying to cancel Apple’s trademark on the word “APPLE” for entertainment services. While the Judge threw out most of Bertini’s accusations of deception as legally weak, she ruled that he presented enough initial evidence to sue over two suspect proofs of business activity that Apple submitted to the trademark office. Specifically, Bertini can now argue that Apple fabricated a 2018 website screenshot before the page was actually live to the public, and that in 2022, the tech giant sneakily passed off a screenshot of its Canadian website to prove it was doing business in the United States. Though the court has emphasized that it is not yet deciding who is telling the truth, Bertini has been given until July 23, 2026, to file his updated lawsuit and put these two specific claims to the test.19 Read more here.

USPTO Moves International Trademark Filings to WIPO Platform

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) announced that it is phasing out the Trademark Electronic Application System (“TEAS”), for outbound international applications. Instead, it will begin using the Madrid e-Filing system, by the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) that is already utilized by over 40 countries. The Madrid Protocol is an international treaty that allows a brand owner to seek trademark protection in multiple countries simultaneously by filing just one single application. By moving to WIPO’s dedicated interface, the USPTO aims to streamline the international application process, minimize user data-entry errors, establish a direct and secure communication channel to fix mistakes during the registration process, and drastically reduce the number of formal application rejections and subsequent appeals. Applicants can choose between the old TEAS portal and the new WIPO system up to September 30. Madrid e-Filing will become the mandatory, exclusive platform for international applications from October 1, 2026. Accordingly, applicants will need to set up a personal WIPO account. To legally accommodate the platform shift, the USPTO has updated its official regulations, swapping out specific software names for broader terminology in its rulebooks.20 Read more here.

Commercial Partners, Commercial Liability: EU Court Rules Google Can Be Responsible for YouTube Videos

The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled that Google is not immune from liability for illegal content uploaded by YouTube creators who have commercial partnership deals with the platform. The decision stems from a €750,000 fine imposed by Italy’s communications regulator (“AGCOM”) after a partnered creator uploaded videos promoting online gambling, which is prohibited under Italian law. Google argued it was shielded from liability under EU e-commerce rules that protect intermediaries from being penalized for third-party content. However, the CJEU rejected this defence, stating that a platform only qualifies for immunity if it acts as a passive, neutral intermediary with no knowledge or control over the stored data. Because Google actively reviewed the channel’s theme, its top and newest videos, and the associated metadata to establish the revenue-sharing partnership, the court determined that the tech giant gained specific knowledge of the content and lost its status as a passive middleman.21 The case currently has been sent back to Italy’s Council of State for a final determination on whether Google could have reasonably been unaware of the illegal gambling promotions, setting a significant precedent that could make social media networks liable across Europe for content uploaded by their commercial partners.22

Italy Ends Endless Court Injunctions, Giving Businesses a Fast Way to Fight Back

Following a landmark ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreting a 2004 EU directive, Italy has enacted Decree-Law No. 100/2026 to fix a highly controversial loophole in its intellectual property system.23 Under the prior framework, when a company believed its trademark or patent was being copied, it could ask an Italian judge for a “preliminary injunction” an emergency, temporary court order that immediately blocked a competitor from selling the disputed product while the legal dispute was sorted out. However, once a company secured this preliminary injunction, they were under no legal obligation to actually follow through with a full, formal trial. This allowed companies to keep their competitors’ products blocked indefinitely without ever having to fully prove their case in court. The new decree eliminates this practice, launching a strict 60-day transitional countdown from June 12, 2026, that allows targeted businesses a rare opportunity to wipe out these lingering restrictions. The reform forces brand owners to either quickly launch formal lawsuits to defend their active injunctions or risk losing their market protections entirely.24

Software Slip-Up Costing Millions: Court Orders Recalculation of $12.6 Million Government Copyright Penalty

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered a partial recalculation of a 12.68 million penalty that the U.S. government was ordered to pay for copyright infringement. The case began when the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs made thousands of unauthorized copies of a healthcare record software called TETRA, thereby breaking the explicit rules of its licensing agreement. To decide on the final fine, the trial court used a method known as a “hypothetical negotiation”, where a judge imagines what a fair price would have been if the two sides had sat down to make a deal right when the copying started. However, the appeals court ruled that the trial court made a significant mistake by misapplying the “Book of Wisdom” doctrine. This legal rule allows judges to look at what happened after an infringement occurred to help figure out a fair price. But the trial court wrongly used it to lower the fine based on an unpredictable later event, that is, a shift in government’s leadership that caused the government to cancel the software project before it was ever fully deployed. The appeals court clarified that courts cannot use subsequent, completely unforeseeable events to change the value of a deal that should have been negotiated in the past. The Judge tossed out the trial court’s arbitrary flat fee of 150,000 dollars for one of the software components and ordered the trial court to properly recalculate the actual licensing rates owed by the government.25 Read more here.

  1. Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr., C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 52/2024, I.A. 33885/2024. ↩︎
  2. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Cancels ‘ZORA’ Trademark, Holds It Deceptively Similar To Well-Known ZARA Mark, LiveLaw Biz (July 15, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-cancels-zora-trademark-registration-holds-it-deceptively-similar-to-zara-541409. ↩︎
  3. Abhinay Deshpande, Gujarat’s Unjha cumin and fennel receive GI tag, The Hindu (July 14, 2026), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/gujarat/gujarats-unjha-cumin-and-fennel-receive-gi-tag/article71220596.ece. ↩︎
  4. Loreal SA v. Vekariya Nikunj Arvindbhai & Ors., CM(M)-IPD 21/2026 & CMs 91/2026, 92/2026. ↩︎
  5. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Allows L’Oreal To Amend ‘Garnier Bright Complete’ Suit To Add Trademark Infringement Plea, LiveLaw Biz (July 15, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-allows-loreal-to-amend-garnier-bright-complete-suit-to-add-trademark-infringement-plea-541423. ↩︎
  6. Vardhaman Choksi v. Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality, LPA 480/2026 CM APPL. 41723-41727/2026. ↩︎
  7. Apoorva, Delhi High Court issues notice in “SOCIAL HOUSE” Trade mark appeal; Refers long-running “SOCIAL” brand dispute to Mediation, SCC Online (July 18, 2026), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/07/18/delhi-high-court-social-house-trademark-appeal-mediation-social-brand-dispute/. ↩︎
  8. Pushkar Raj Thakur v. John Doe and Ors., CS(COMM) 647/2026. Read more here. ↩︎
  9. Neeraj Joshi v. John Doe and Ors., CS(COMM) 713/2026. Read more here. ↩︎
  10. S N Thyagarajan, Facebook’s edit function misused to backdate posts and claim copyright: Influencers move Delhi HC, Bar and Bench (July 18, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/facebooks-edit-function-misused-to-backdate-posts-and-claim-copyright-influencers-move-delhi-hc. ↩︎
  11. SML Limited v. M/s Happy Agro Chemicals, OMP No.34 of 2024 in COMS No.3 of 2024. ↩︎
  12. Maneesha Gupta, When Three Invoices Went to Shimla: A Case Analysis of SML Limited vs M/S Happy Agro Chemicals, SpicyIP (July 14, 2026), https://spicyip.com/2026/07/when-three-invoices-went-to-shimla-a-case-analysis-of-sml-limited-vs-m-s-happy-agro-chemicals.html. ↩︎
  13. Dr. Ashok M. Bhat v. Harichand Nagpal & Ors., I.A. (L) No. 9324/2025 in COM IP Suit No. 378/2021, Notice of Motion No. 1269/2016 IN COM IP Suit No. 378/2021. ↩︎
  14. Riya Rathore, Bombay High Court Imposes ₹82 Lakh Costs On Hair Cream Manufacturer For Breaching ‘NOVA’ Trademark Injunction, LiveLaw Biz (July 16, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/bombay-high-court-imposes-82-lakh-costs-on-hair-cream-manufacturer-for-breaching-nova-trademark-injunction-541565. ↩︎
  15. New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Astormueller AG and Ors., CS(COMM) 962/2025. ↩︎
  16. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Restrains Astormueller From Using ‘n:’ And ‘nu:beat’ Marks In New Balance Trademark Suit, LiveLaw Biz (July 16, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-restrains-nubeat-from-using-n-logo-marks-in-trademark-suit-by-new-balance-541605. ↩︎
  17. Rose Esfandiari, CAFC Affirms PTAB Obviousness Finding in Sony IPR Remand, IP Watchdog (July 13, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/07/13/cafc-affirms-ptab-obviousness-finding-in-sony-ipr-remand/. ↩︎
  18. John Losinger, Apple’s Recent Lawsuit Against OpenAI Serves as a Reminder That Companies Must Be Vigilant in Protecting Their Trade Secrets, JD Supra (July 14, 2026), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/apple-s-recent-lawsuit-against-openai-4868940/. ↩︎
  19. Rachel Mount, Magistrate Judge Allows Two Narrow Fraud Theories to Proceed Against APPLE Trademark Registration,IP Watchdog (July 15, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/07/14/magistrate-judge-allows-two-narrow-fraud-theories-proceed-against-apple-trademark-registration/. ↩︎
  20. USPTO, Press Release, USPTO announces Madrid e-Filing as the new platform for international trademark filings, (July 15, 2026). ↩︎
  21. CJEU, Press Release No. 109/26, Multimedia platforms: Google may be held liable for the YouTube videos of a content creator with whom it has a commercial partnership, (July 16, 2026), https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2026-07/cp260109en.pdf. ↩︎
  22. Foo Yun Chee, No liability exemption for Google in Italian YouTube spat, EU court says, Reuters (July 16, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/world/eu-court-upholds-googles-854250-italian-fine-over-gambling-advertising-2026-07-16/. ↩︎
  23. M.M. Ristorazione v. Villa Ramazzini, Case C-132/25, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62025CJ0132. ↩︎
  24. Jones Day, Italy’s IP Reform: A Narrow Window to Challenge Existing Preliminary Injunctions, JD Supra (July 13, 2026), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/italy-s-ip-reform-a-narrow-window-to-8461683/. ↩︎
  25. Eileen McDermott, Federal Circuit Partially Vacates Court of Federal Claims’ Assessment of Copyright Award, IP Watchdog (July 16, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/07/16/federal-circuit-partially-vacates-court-federal-claims-assessment-copyright-award/. ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

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

Related Articles