This Week in IP

Image credits: AI-generated

Drafting credit: Tapasya Bhatia, Research Associate

Weekly IPR Update | 28 September 2026 – 4 October 2026

Delhi High Court to Hear Personality Rights Suits of Vivek Oberoi, Janhvi Kapoor and Aaradhya Bachchan Together

The Delhi High Court has said it will hear together the personality rights suits filed by Vivek Oberoi, Janhvi Kapoor and Aaradhya Bachchan, as the matters raise common legal issues about protecting personality rights. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani suggested clubbing the hearings so that the court can study legal principles emerging from the cases. The disputes concern the unauthorised commercial use of names, images, likenesses and voices, including through content produced by AI, and issues of privacy, dignity and reputation. In the case of Janhvi Kapoor, the Court had refused to grant a blanket injunction against thousands of URLs but had granted interim protection for specified categories of content. In the case of Vivek Oberoi, the Court granted interim protection against the unauthorised use of his identity, including AI-generated deepfakes. Advocate Gautam Bhatia has been appointed by the court as amicus curiae in Kapoor’s case to assist with the broader legal issues involved. 1 Read More

Delhi High Court Clarifies Registrar’s Suo Motu Powers Under Section 57(4) Trade Mark Act

In the case of The Heritage Artifacts v. Registrar of Trade Marks, the Delhi High Court examined the scope of suo motu powers of the Trade Marks Registry under section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The mark “THE HERITAGE ARTIFACTS” had been examined, accepted, advertised and registered before the Registry later cancelled the registration on the basis that the mark was descriptive. The Court opined that the Registrar has the power to revisit a registered mark, but such power must be exercised judiciously and supported by cogent reasons. The Court found that descriptiveness had already been considered in the prosecution of the mark and that the cancellation order did not sufficiently explain the basis for reaching a different conclusion after registration. The Court also stated that the Registry had wrongly considered the elements of the composite mark separately, rather than together. The cancellation was accordingly quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Registry for fresh consideration. The decision strengthens the procedural safeguards that govern the exercise of the Registrar’s suo motu powers once the trademark has gone to registration. 2 Read More

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Ruxolitinib Patent Infringement Case

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction to prevent Melody Healthcare Private Limited from manufacturing, selling, importing, exporting, supplying or stockpiling pharmaceutical products containing Ruxolitinib in a manner that infringes patent rights of Incyte Holdings Corporation. Justice Vikas Mahajan found a prima facie case of patent infringement. Incyte said Melody had registered Ruxolitinib Phosphate as a commercial active pharmaceutical ingredient and had taken actions that indicated it intended to manufacture or stockpile the product. The Court found that the balance of convenience was in favour of Incyte and that there was a risk of irreparable injury to the company if interim relief was not granted. The Court determined that the balance of convenience favoured Incyte and that the company would suffer irreparable injury without interim relief. The injunction will continue to be in force until further orders. 3 Read More

Delhi High Court Restrains 70 Defendants from Using Agarwal Packers & Movers Trademark

The Delhi High Court has prohibited 70 defendants from using the trademark “AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS” or any identical or deceptively or confusingly similar mark. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, who awarded interim protection, said that Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd. had made out a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs said third parties were utilising their trademark, logo, photos and other identifying characteristics in online business listings, including Google Search and Google Business Profile, possibly misleading consumers about their relationship with the company. The Court ordered the removal of certain internet listings that contained the contested marks. The plaintiffs’ request for a dynamic injunction against future online infringements was postponed, and the matter pertaining to Google Maps listings was not resolved. 4 Read More

Delhi High Court Restrains Coskind Pharma from Using ‘KIND’ Formative Marks

An ex parte ad interim order prohibiting Coskind Pharma Private Limited from using the trademarks FLORAKIND, COSKIND, ETORIKIND, PANDOKIND, RABELKIND, and M-PREDKIND for pharmaceutical products has been granted by the Delhi High Court. Judge Jyoti Singh determined that Mankind Pharma, the owner of several “KIND”-formative marks, such as FLOKIND, COXKIND, RABEKIND, and PANTAKIND, had a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The rival marks’ similarities and their application to pharmaceutical products were highlighted by the Court. The Court cited Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., emphasising the need for prudence when evaluating trademark similarities for pharmaceuticals. In compliance with the ruling, the Court designated a Local Commissioner to examine the defendant’s Kanpur location and confiscate any items and documents found to be in violation. 5 Read More

Delhi High Court has restrained “Max Volvo” and “Max Volwo” from being used as trademarks

The Delhi High Court restrained a Pune-based lubricant producer from producing, marketing, or distributing engine oil, gear oil, and other lubricants under the trademarks “Max Volvo” and “Max Volwo”. Volvo and its group firms were deemed to have a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off by Judge Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav. The Court noted that “Max Volvo” replicated the VOLVO trademark, whereas “Max Volwo” was phonetically and visually similar, raising the possibility of consumer misunderstanding. The Court observed that the rival goods were supplied to car owners, mechanics, and workshops via comparable commercial channels. It ordered the removal of pertinent listings, including those on IndiaMART, and prohibited the defendant from utilising the contested marks on internet platforms. 6 Read More

Supreme Court Notifies on Constitutional Challenge to Patent Term under Section 53

The Supreme Court has issued notice in a Special Leave Petition seeking to challenge the constitutionality of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, which provides a patent term of 20 years from the date of filing. The petition concerns a patent application for a fuel cell system and eco-friendly vehicle filed on May 2, 2005, but granted on December 28, 2012. The petitioners contend that the delay in granting the patent has resulted in only a brief period of protection after the patent is granted and has also posed questions in relation to Section 11A(7) of the Act. The Calcutta High Court had earlier validated Section 53 on the ground that the provision is in a separate field and that the pendency of the application is not a sufficient reason for increasing the statutory patent period. The Supreme Court bench gave notice and appointed Advocate Kruttika Vijay as amicus curiae. 7 Read More

Delhi HC Orders Takedown of Deepfake and Impersonation Content in Divyakirti Personality Rights Case

The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to all the social media platforms to block or deactivate links to fake accounts, deepfake videos and unauthorised copies of the lectures of educator Vikas Divyakirti. Advocate Diya Kapoor had filed a claim that Divyakirti’s name, image and likeness have been used without his permission to set up fake accounts, promote betting and trading sites and disseminate unauthorized lectures. The Court highlighted the difficulties in determining who is behind the impersonation account and reviewed the possibility of platforms having to make publicly available basic information about their subscribers and IP logs to help identify those behind the impersonation account. The Court postponed the consideration of edited lecture videos that allegedly misrepresented the statements of Divyakirti, citing possible issues with copyright and personality rights/fair dealing under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It also raises questions regarding the correlation of the Information Technology Act with civil remedies for violations of the right to privacy and the right to personality. 8 Read More

Madras High Court Dismisses RPG Enterprises’ Trademark Rectification Petition on Acquiescence

The Madras High Court has denied permission to the petitioner, RPG Enterprises Limited, to strike off the trademark “RPG Marble” of the company from the Trade Marks Register, finding that the company had acquiesced to its use for almost 15 years. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu pointed out that RPG Marble Pvt. Ltd.’s mark had been registered in Class 42 in 2006. RPG Enterprises said the name was too similar to its registered “RPG” trademark, but RPG Marble said the name was from the directors’ initials, and the name was used in connection with a different business. Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. N. Murugesan (2022), the Court concluded that RPG Enterprises’ inaction for a long period was tantamount to acquiescence. In view of this, the petition was denied under Section 33 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the remaining issues were not examined. 9 Read More

Madras High Court Refuses Injunction Against Release of Drishyam 3 Hindi Remake

The Madras High Court has denied an interim injunction to block the worldwide release of Ajay Devgn’s Drishyam 3 in the Hindi language. Rajkumar Theatres had tried to block the release, alleging that they owned a 50 per cent stake in the Hindi-language film rights, which they had acquired in 2013 and 2014. The respondents contended that following the assignment and settlement contracts, the relevant rights had been transferred. Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi noted that there were serious disagreements on the rights of the Hindi remake. The Court noted that the material submitted did not show that the continuing exclusive or joint rights enjoyed by Rajkumar Theatres were justified for granting the wide injunction sought. The application was thus rejected, and the other competing claims to the copyrights were left to be decided in the pending proceedings. 10 Read More

Delhi High Court Declares “DS Group” Trademark and Logo Well-Known

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the “DS Group” trademark and logo are well-known trademarks and permanently barred five persons and entities from using them in relation to a fraudulent website of the Rajnigandha distributorship. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted the defendants had attempted to falsely claim to be distributors of the plaintiffs’ trademarks, and the defendants had taken money from the public under the names of the plaintiffs and their corporate address. The Court determined that the use was an infringement of the trademark rights, passing off, and dilution. It also ruled that copying the plaintiffs’ privacy policy constituted copyright infringement. Given the fact that the mark has been in use, promoted, registered and recognised by the relevant public for a long time, the Court found it to be well-known under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and allowed the earlier interim order to stand. 11 Read More

Delhi High Court Permits Revival of “HMP” Trademark Registry Fails to Prove Renewal Notice

The Delhi High Court has heard a petition for revival of “HMP” trademark filed by the petitioner as the Delhi Trade Marks Registry had not confirmed that the appropriate notice of expiry and renewal was sent to the proprietor of the trademark. The mark is registered since 2003 and renewed until 2015, and was made liable for removal from the Register on expiry. The proprietor, Punam Chand Kedia, submitted that he had not been served with the statutory notice as provided under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, along with the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, Rule 64(1). The Registry provided a notice dated September 17, 2015 and a dispatch log that the Registry generated as evidence. But Justice Vikas Mahajan noted that there was not enough evidence to establish that the notice was actually sent and received by Kedia. The Court found that the Registry had not established compliance with the notice requirement under the law. Hence, allowed Kedia to submit a new notice of renewal within two weeks after payment of fees, for processing by the Registry in accordance with the law. 12 Read More

Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction to Medanta in Trademark Infringement Case

In a trademark infringement case, the Delhi High Court has granted relief to Global Health Limited, the owner of the Medanta hospitals, against a company selling an Ayurvedic weight management product as Medanta Capsule. In the absence of the defendant filing a written statement or challenging the relief sought, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav allowed the application filed by the hospital operator under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC. The Court had already quashed the seller’s intention to manufacture and sell goods under the “MEDANTA” mark. Noting that this is likely to mislead consumers as to the association with the hospital and medicinal products deserve a higher standard of scrutiny because of public health concerns. The Court also ordered the seller to remove a reference to “Vedanta Capsule” from its website which existed even after the injunction. Once compliance was achieved with the directions and no further infringement was found, the Court declared the suit to be in favour of the Global Health Limited and granted the reliefs prayed for. 13 Read More

International Update

US Appeals Court Upholds Thomson Reuters Copyright Win in AI Training Case

A U.S. appeals court today affirmed the decision in favor of Thomson Reuters in its copyright battle with legal-research rival Ross Intelligence, who was accused of stealing copyrighted material to create a legal-research tool powered by artificial intelligence. The 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Ross Intelligence’s claim that its access to material from Thomson Reuters’ Westlaw platform used it was allowed under the doctrine of fair use. In 2020, Thomson Reuters had already filed a lawsuit against Ross, claiming that Ross had employed thousands of “headnotes” points of law distilled from judicial opinions to help build its own legal research system. A federal judge had previously denied Ross’ fair use defence, ruling that it was not transformative because the material was used to help create a rival legal research tool. Ross subsequently shut down its platform in 2021. The appellate decision is notable because it is the first ruling from a US appeals court on copyright and AI training, albeit in the context of an AI search tool rather than generative AI. The ruling may also impact the ongoing debate about whether copyrighted content can be used to train AI models without the copyright owner’s consent.14

Louis Vuitton Wins €920,000 in Trademark Infringement Case Against Kamad Reworked

In a trademark infringement case, the Paris Judicial Court has found in favour of Louis Vuitton, ruling that Kamad Reworked was guilty of cutting-up genuine Louis Vuitton goods and using their materials in new clothing, jewellery and accessories that use Louis Vuitton trademarks. The Court found that Kamad’s use of Louis Vuitton’s word mark, Toile Monogram and Damier pattern infringed the brand’s trademark rights. Kamad’s defense of trademark exhaustion was dismissed, because the Court deemed that the company was not reselling or distributing but producing new products. The Court also stated that the practice was not justified on sustainability grounds as the original Louis Vuitton products still had a resale value. Louis Vuitton received a total of €920,000 in damages, to include €750,000 for the infringement of its registered trademarks, €10,000 for infringement on another French figurative mark and €160,000 for unfair use and parasitism. The Court also issued an injunction and ordered the destruction of the identified products that infringe. The ruling underscores trademark issues that can arise for companies involved in upcycling luxury products and the boundaries of the exhaustion defence when the original branded products have been significantly modified into new products.15

EU General Court Rejects Olymp’s Colour Combination Trademark Appeals

The General Court of the European Union has rejected two appeals by Olymp Bezner KG about the registration of colour combination trademarks for clothing and clothing-related products. The EUIPO had previously rejected the marks under Article 7(1)(b) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation on the grounds that they did not have a distinctive character. The Court explained that the rules that govern single colour marks also apply to combinations of colours, and stated that “combination of colours alone does not, by itself, make a mark inherently distinctive”. In the fashion industry where stripes and colour combinations are used extensively, consumers are likely to consider stripes and colour combinations decorative, not as cues to commercial origin. The Court also dismissed Olymp’s argument that the colour combination could have a specific placement on clothing that would make the marks distinctive. It reiterated that most basic geometric forms, like rectangles and stripes, don’t provide enough distinctiveness. The decision restates the high standard required to establish a distinctiveness for a colour combination for EU trademark protection, but also acknowledges that this mark may become distinctively for the use under Article 7(3) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation.16

Bill Withers’ Music Publisher Sues Universal Music Over Alleged Copyright Infringement

Late R&B singer Bill Withers’ publisher Bleunig Music has filed a lawsuit in the United States against Universal Music Group, claiming that Olivia Dean’s song “I’ve Seen It” unlawfully copied elements of Withers’ classic song “Just the Two of Us.” The complaint says Dean’s song uses the “distinctively protectable melody” of the 1981 hit, which Withers co-wrote while he was under contract with Bleunig Music. “Just the Two of Us” reached No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100, and “I’ve Seen It” is the closing track on Dean’s 2025 album, The Art of Loving. The lawsuit names Universal Music Group, but Dean is not listed as a defendant. UMG declined to comment on the allegations immediately. The case raises questions about the extent of copyright protection for musical elements and whether similarities in melody constitute unlawful copying of a protectable expression.17

  1. Riya Rathore, “Delhi High Court to Hear Personality Rights Suits of Vivek Oberoi, Janhvi Kapoor and Aaradhya Bachchan Together,” LiveLaw Biz (September 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/personality-rights/delhi-high-court-to-hear-personality-rights-suits-of-vivek-oberoi-janhvi-kapoor-aaradhya-bachchan-together-over-common-issues-552119 ↩︎
  2. Shruhita Amit, “Delhi High Court Revisits Trade Marks Registry’s Cancellation Power,” LinkedIn (October 2026). https://lnkd.in/p/gR8jHcEh ↩︎
  3. Riya Rathore, “Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Ruxolitinib Patent Infringement Case,” LiveLaw Biz (September 28, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/patent/delhi-hc-temporarily-restrains-melody-healthcare-from-selling-ruxolitinib-products-in-incyte-patent-case-552133 ↩︎
  4. Riya Rathore, “Delhi High Court Restrains 70 Defendants from Using ‘Agarwal Packers & Movers’ Trademark on Google Listings,” LiveLaw Biz (September 28, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-restrains-70-businesses-from-using-agarwal-packers-movers-trademark-552137 ↩︎
  5. “Delhi HC Restrains Coskind Pharma From Using ‘KIND’ Formative Marks Infringing Mankind Pharma’s Trademarks,” The Bar Bulletin (September 29, 2026). https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-hc-restrains-infringing-kind-formative-pharma-marks/ ↩︎
  6. Riya Rathore, “Delhi High Court Restrains Pune Seller From Using ‘Max Volvo’, ‘Max Volwo’ Marks In Volvo’s Trademark Suit,” LiveLaw Biz (September 29, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-restrains-pune-seller-from-using-max-volvo-max-volwo-marks-in-volvo-trademark-suit-552330 ↩︎
  7. Riya Rathore, “Should 20-Year Patent Term Start From Filing Or Grant Despite Delay In Grant? Supreme Court To Decide,” LiveLaw Biz (September 29, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/patent/patent-revocation-can-be-sought-through-independent-petition-even-after-infringement-suit-is-filed-madras-high-court-552968 ↩︎
  8. Riya Rathore, “AI Tools Worse Than A Gun’: Delhi HC Orders Takedown Of Content Infringing Drishti IAS Founder’s Personality Rights,” LiveLaw Biz (September 29, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/personality-rights/ai-tools-worse-than-a-gun-delhi-hc-orders-takedown-of-content-infringing-drishti-ias-founders-personality-rights-552228 ↩︎
  9. Riya Rathore, “Madras High Court Dismisses RPG Enterprises’ Plea To Cancel RPG Marble Trademark, Citing 15-Year Acquiescence,” LiveLaw Biz (September 29, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/madras-high-court-dismisses-rpg-enterprises-plea-to-cancel-rpg-marble-trademark-cites-15-year-delay-in-acting-552334 ↩︎
  10. Riya Rathore, “Madras High Court Refuses To Restrain Worldwide Release Of Hindi ‘Drishyam 3,’ Finds Remake Rights Disputed,” LiveLaw Biz (October 3, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/madras-high-court-refuses-to-stay-release-of-ajay-devgn-starrer-drishyam-3-hindi-remake-pending-arbitration-552962 ↩︎
  11. Riya Rathore, “Delhi High Court Declares ‘DS Group’ And Logo Well-Known Trademarks,” LiveLaw Biz (October 5, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-declares-ds-group-a-well-known-trademark-grants-permanent-injunction-against-fake-rajnigandha-dealership-website-553104 ↩︎
  12. Riya Rathore, “Delhi High Court Permits Fresh Trademark Renewal Filing After Registry Fails To Prove Dispatch Of Expiry Notice,” LiveLaw Biz (September 30, 2026) https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-permits-fresh-trademark-renewal-filing-after-registry-fails-to-prove-dispatch-of-expiry-notice-552520 ↩︎
  13. Riya Rathore, “Delhi High Court Decrees Medanta Hospital Trademark Suit Against Seller Of ‘Medanta Capsule’ Weight Management Medicine,” LiveLaw Biz (September 30, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-decrees-medanta-hospital-trademark-suit-against-seller-of-medanta-capsule-weight-management-medicine-552467 ↩︎
  14. Blake Brittain, “US appeals court upholds Thomson Reuters’ landmark win in AI training lawsuit,” Reuters (September 29, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/us-appeals-court-upholds-thomson-reuters-landmark-win-ai-training-lawsuit-2026-09-29/ ↩︎
  15. Julie Zerbo, “Louis Vuitton Wins €920K in Latest Luxury Upcycling Case,” The Fashion Law (October 2, 2026). https://www.thefashionlaw.com/louis-vuitton-wins-e920k-in-latest-luxury-upcycling-case/ ↩︎
  16. Marcel Pemsel, “More colours, same problem: Olymp loses EU trade mark appeals,” The IPKat (October 1, 2026). https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2026/10/more-colours-same-problem-olymp-loses.html ↩︎
  17. Blake Brittain, “UMG sued by Bill Withers’ publisher over Olivia Dean song,” Reuters (October 1, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/umg-sued-by-bill-withers-publisher-over-olivia-dean-song-2026-10-01/ ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

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

Related Articles