This Week in IP

Image credits: via Pixabay

Drafting credit: Tapasya Bhatia, Trademark & Research Associate

Weekly IPR Update | 12 October 2026 – 18 October 2026

Madras High Court Restrains Online Piracy of Rajinikanth’s ‘Jailer 2’ Ahead of Release

In a copyright protection lawsuit brought by producer Sun TV Network Limited, the Madras High Court issued an interim order against illegal copying, uploading, and streaming of the Rajinikanth film Jailer 2, which was slated for release on October 15, 2026. Additionally, internet service providers and other relevant service providers were instructed by Justice P.B. Balaji to prohibit websites that were identified as being involved in piracy, including mirror, redirect, and other URL variations that were reported by Sun TV or its authorised representatives. The Court determined that there was a prima facie case of copyright infringement and that the producer would suffer irreversible harm from unapproved dissemination. 1 Read More

Delhi High Court Restrains FSSAI from Taking Action Against Emami Over ‘Healthy & Tasty’ Mark

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is barred from using coercion against Emami Agrotech over its edible oil brand “Emami Healthy & Tasty” until the next hearing in the Delhi High Court. Emami contested a show-cause notice dated June 5, 2026, alleging the brand name would mislead consumers, as well as a July 17 letter instructing state officials to take enforcement action. The company claimed that its mark was registered as a trademark and that the notice did not clarify how the terms “healthy” and “tasty” were deceptive. While stating that this was merely a preliminary opinion, Justice Amit Mahajan noted that the notice seemed to lack justifications for the purportedly deceptive nature of the mark. 2 Read More

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction to ALOMAX Against Similar ‘ALUMAC’ Trademark

The Imperia Decor Industries and another defendant are prohibited by the Delhi High Court from using the trademark “ALUMAC” or any mark that is confusingly similar to “ALOMAX” for aluminium composite panels and other building and construction products. Given that one of the defendant company’s directors had previously been related to the plaintiff, Justice Vikas Mahajan noted that the marks were phonetically and visually similar and that the adoption of “ALUMAC” appeared to be prima facie and not bona fide. The Court determined that Alucopanel Industries was entitled to an interim ex parte injunction because it had proven a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. 3 Read More

Madras High Court Dismisses Aamir Khan Productions’ Copyright Suit Over ‘Batwara 1947’ After Withdrawal

Aamir Khan Productions Pvt. Ltd. had filed a copyright infringement case to stop any piracy of its film ‘Batwara 1947’, which has been dismissed as withdrawn by the Madras High Court. Justice P.B. Balaji recorded the withdrawal on October 13, 2026, when the production house’s attorney stated that he had received instructions to drop the case. The suit names 33 defendants, including telecommunications carriers, Internet service providers and cable companies. The production house had asked for bans on unauthorised distribution, camcording, streaming and hosting of the movie, as well as blocking websites that distribute the movie. The suit was dismissed by the court without any costs, and the two joined interim applications were also dismissed. The Court has not ruled on the merits of the copyright claims. 4 Read More

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains ‘Domin’d Pizza’ and ‘Domzz Pizza’ Over Domino’s Trademark Infringement

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained three pizza companies from using the names “Domin’d Pizza”, “Domind’s Pizza” and “Domzz Pizza”, holding that these names were deceptively similar to Domino’s registered trademarks. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that when users typed in search terms such as “DOM”, “DOMI” and “DOMIN” on food-delivery platforms like Zomato and Swiggy, the listings of the businesses came up in the suggestions, which could mislead consumers into thinking they were related to Domino’s. The Court also observed that the outlets were part of shared kitchen operations and had the same proprietor, as evidenced by FSSAI registration records. The ruling was issued in a suit filed by Domino’s IP Holder LLC and Jubilant FoodWorks Ltd. While some of the defendants settled the dispute, the remaining defendants did not appear, and the Court granted summary judgement against them permanently restraining the unauthorised use of the impugned marks. 5 Read More

Madras High Court Sets Aside Refusal of ‘EXPONENT’ Trademark Application

The Madras High Court has quashed the Trade Marks Registry’s order refusing registration of “EXPONENT” as a word mark for Exponent Energy Private Limited, in Class 42, for services in relation to technology. Justice A.D. Maria Clete stated that the Registrar had not conducted his own investigation into the cited marks, nor had he explained how such marks were likely to confuse. The court also observed that the order failed to consider Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, relating to honest concurrent use and other special circumstances. But the Court did not order immediate registration, saying the broad description of services and evidence of use required further examination. It directed the Registrar to consider the cited marks separately, ascertain their status and pass a reasoned order within three months of the first hearing. 6 Read More

Delhi High Court Grants Universal City Studios and Other Studios Permanent Anti-Piracy Injunction

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained the rogue websites operating in the name of 123MoviesHub. TC from the unauthorised hosting, streaming, reproduction, or distribution of copyrighted films and other audiovisual content owned by Universal City Studios, Warner Bros., Columbia Pictures, Netflix, Paramount Pictures, and Disney. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav also ordered Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to the infringing websites. The Court allowed the plaintiffs to search for mirror, redirect, and alphanumeric websites that offer an alternative way to access the blocked platforms. The Court held that under Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, a summary judgement could be passed without a specific application for the same. It depended on the investigator’s affidavit and documentary evidence and found the websites to be rogue platforms mainly involved in enabling copyright infringement. 7 Read More

Delhi High Court Restrains Menarini and Alaina Healthcare From Using ‘ACNE SCAR’ Mark in Mankind’s ACNESTAR Dispute

A. Menarini India Pvt. Ltd. and Alaina Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. have been banned by the Delhi High Court from using the Trademark “ACNE SCAR”, “ACNE + SCAR” or “ACNESCAR” for scar serum products and allied products after coming up with a prima facie case of infringement in favour of Mankind Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted that phonetically “ACNESTAR” and “ACNE SCAR” were almost close to being identical, making them likely to be confused. The court disagreed with the defendants’ assertion that the expression was descriptive, explaining that the expression was not descriptive of the product but used to identify the product. It also noted the increase in the likelihood of confusion with medicinal products. The injunction does not bar the defendants from selling their product under the “HEXILAK” or “MENARINI” trademarks or any other trademark. 8 Read More

Delhi High Court Seeks to Define Scope of Personality and Publicity Rights in Actor Rakesh Bedi’s Suit

Drawing the line between personality rights and publicity rights has become more complicated, and the Delhi High Court states in the matter that there must be clear demarcations between the two. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav stated that the complaint of the actor, Rakesh Bedi, seeking protection against the unauthorised use of his name on online merchandise and caricatures is of the utmost gravity. The three central questions the Court highlighted were what personality rights protect, what publicity rights are, and who can claim these rights? Advocate Varun Pathak, representing Meta, contended that publicity rights belong to the category of property rights which can be transferred, while privacy rights are personal rights which cannot be transferred. He stated that the use of the information for commercial purposes, infringements upon privacy rights and damage to reputation ought to be analysed within the different legal schemes applicable to them. The court requested the lawyers to send in the relevant judgements and written submissions and asked for them to be compiled. 9

Bombay High Court Restrains Ampra Biobact From Using ‘PK-BOR’ Mark in Fertilizer Trademark Dispute

The Bombay High Court has issued an injunction against Ampra Biobact Private Limited for using the trademark ‘PK-BOR’ in relation to its product range of ‘fertilizers and allied products’ in the absence of any convincing evidence to show that it has changed its name or has made any effort to distinguish itself from PK MOR. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar noted that the similarity of the two marks, both visually, structurally and phonetically, was almost complete, with the difference being in respect of one letter. In both marks, the Court observed, the products were sold to farmers and consumers, who are often illiterate or semi-literate, and both were water-soluble fertilizers, meaning that they are applied by pouring over the soil. It denied the defendant’s claim that “PK-BOR” was an indication of the chemical ingredients of the product, as it was used prominently on the packaging. Defendant did not appear, and the plaintiff’s allegations were unchallenged due to failure to appear. The court gave ad interim relief stopping use of the impugned mark. 9 Read More

Delhi High Court Cancels ‘THE BREW BUKHARA’ Trademark Registration on ITC’s Plea

A rectification petition was filed by ITC Limited and ITC Hotels Limited before the Delhi HC regarding the cancellation of the registration of a Class 43 device mark “THE BREW BUKHARA” registered by a resident of Gurugram, Umesh Arora. In response, the petitioners stated that the mark was confusingly similar to their already existing “BUKHARA” brand because it was for the same services. Arora failed to submit a reply, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said, his own trademark agent also submitted to the Court that use of the mark had been discontinued and that Arora was willing to waive the trademark. The Court noted that no objection was raised against the allegations in the rectification petition. The Court accepted that “BUKHARA” was a well-known trade mark and granted the petition and ordered cancellation to be effected within 6 weeks of the date of the judgment by the Trade Marks Registry. 10 Read More

Madras High Court Upholds Refusal of ‘FEDEXO’ Trademark, Protects Well-Known ‘FEDEX’ Mark

The Madras High Court upheld the refusal to register the mark “FEDEXO” even though the parties were dealing with different goods and services, for foundry chemicals on the ground that the mark was substantially similar to the well-known “FEDEX” mark of the Federal Express Corporation and could have taken unfair advantage of the reputation of the mark. Justice A.D. Maria Clete noted that “FEDEXO” literally repeated the word “FEDEX” and the letter “O” was inserted in the middle. The Court noted that the evidence showed that FEDEX was well known in India before INEXO’s application was filed on November 26, 2009. It also discredited the claim of appellant that he was using it since 2007, as his correspondence suggested that he used FEDEXO from November 2009 onwards. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that due cause could not be found, and because the filing of the misstatements as to adoption and use were unexplained, these constituted bad faith under Section 11(10)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It explained that the fact that goods are dissimilar and that there are separate trade channels does not, in itself, exclude the possibility of unfair advantage or detriment under Section 11(2). 11 Read More

International Update

US Supreme Court Rejects Music Labels’ Challenge to Global Copyright Termination Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to consider a challenge to a lower-court decision that granted songwriters the ability to recover more copyright rights in songs than the U.S. Constitution’s scope of protection permits in this instance, for songs created around the globe. The issue is the song Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love), which Cyril Vetter and Donald Smith co-wrote in 1962, and was recorded in the 1960s. Vetter transferred his copyright in the song in 1963 and issued a termination notice in 2019 claiming rights in the song on January 1, 2022 as per the U.S. copyright law. A Louisiana federal court issued a ruling in 2025 that Vetter was the sole world-wide owner of the reclaimed copyright and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling in January 2026. Music publishers appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, saying the decision would throw out of balance industry practices and billions of dollars in agreements. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court decision not to consider the change challenge maintains the validity of the ruling made by the lower court. 13

7-Eleven Drops Trademark Lawsuit Against Nike Over Shoe Colours

7-Eleven has filed a motion to dismiss its trademark infringement suit against Nike for orange, green and red stripes on its Air Max 95 sneakers, which resemble the Seven-Eleven’s signature colors. The lawsuit alleged that the design might “lead consumers to believe that the shoes are sponsored or endorsed by 7-Eleven.” The request for dismissal was made on the basis that it was filed ‘with prejudice’ and would not be refiled. Uncertainty surrounds the cause of the action, including whether a settlement was made between the parties. 13

US Supreme Court Affirms Ruling Granting Songwriter Worldwide Copyright Ownership

A US Supreme Court decision has upheld a Fifth Circuit decision that granted copyright ownership of Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love) to songwriter Cyril Vetter and his associated entities throughout the world, the song having been co-written by Donald Smith. Whether the U.S. copyright termination rules afford rights holders the right to “bolt” rights in foreign countries as well as the U.S. was at stake. Due to a lack of a quorum and the qualified justices’ determination that the matter could not be considered in the following term, the Court upheld the decision under 28 U.S.C. Section 2109. The Fifth Circuit’s decision remains in effect, but it does not address the problem on a national level. Randy McCarthy, a copyright lawyer, claims that the decision is applicable in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, but other circuits still adhere to the previous domestic-only strategy, leaving the legal situation unclear. 14

Anthropic and Music Publishers Clash Over Fair Use in AI Copyright Dispute

Anthropic has asked a California federal court to determine its use of millions of song lyrics to create its AI chatbot, Claude, is “fair use” under US copyright law. The case is Universal Music Group, Concord and ABKCO suing for copyright infringement on lyrics from hundreds of songs by stars such as the Rolling Stones, the Beach Boys and Beyonder, which was filed in 2023. In a hearing, Anthropic said that AI is used to generate transformative content, whereas the publishers said that Claude can make comparable lyrics and possibly jeopardize songwriters’ markets. Judge Eumi Lee asked questions of both sides but failed to make a ruling. 15

  1. Riya Rathore, “Madras High Court Restrains Online Piracy Of Rajinikanth’s ‘Jailer 2’ Ahead Of Release,” LiveLaw Biz (October 13, 2026) https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/madras-high-court-restrains-online-piracy-of-rajinikanths-jailer-2-ahead-of-release-554502 ↩︎
  2. Prashant Jha, “Delhi High Court Stops FSSAI from Acting Against Emami for Using ‘Healthy & Tasty’ Mark for Edible Oils,” Bar & Bench, October 15, 2026. https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-stops-fssai-from-acting-against-emami-for-using-healthy-tasty-mark-for-edible-oils ↩︎
  3. Aamir Khan Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors., C.S. (COMM DIV) No. 239 of 2026, Order dated 13 October 2026, Madras High Court. ↩︎
  4. ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. RSY News & Anr., CS(COMM) 1018/2024, I.A. 45137/2024, I.A. 8733/2026, 2026:DHC:8749, Order dated 29 September 2026, Delhi High Court. ↩︎
  5. The Bar Bulletin, “Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains ‘Domind’s Pizza’ and ‘Domzz Pizza’ Businesses for Domino’s Trademark Infringement,” The Bar Bulletin (October 16, 2026), https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-high-court-pizza-business-trademark-infringement/ ↩︎
  6. Exponent Energy Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks, C.M.A. (T.M.) No. 5 of 2026 and C.M.P. No. 1615 of 2026, Order dated 15 October 2026, Madras High Court. ↩︎
  7. Universal City Studios LLC & Ors. v. 123MOVIESHUB.TC & Ors., CS(COMM) 116/2022, I.A. 2717/2022, Order dated 7 October 2026, Delhi High Court. ↩︎
  8.  Riya Rathore, “Delhi High Court Restrains Menarini And Alaina From Using ACNE SCAR Mark In Mankind’s ACNESTAR Dispute,” LiveLaw Biz (October 19, 2026) https://www.livelawbiz.com/amp/trademark/delhi-high-court-restrains-menarini-acne-scar-serum-name-in-mankind-acnestar-trade-mark-dispute-555292 ↩︎
  9.  Riya Rathore, “Have To Draw Some Line”: Delhi High Court To Examine Scope Of Personality, Publicity Rights Amid Rising Suits,” LiveLaw Biz (October 15, 2026) https://www.livelawbiz.com/personality-rights/have-to-draw-some-line-delhi-high-court-to-examine-scope-of-personality-publicity-rights-amid-rising-suits-554787 ↩︎
  10. Indian Agro Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Ampra Biobact Private Limited, Interim Application (L) No. 13030 of 2026 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 12511 of 2026, Order dated 15 October 2026, Bombay High Court. ↩︎
  11. Riya Rathore, “Delhi High Court Cancels ‘The Brew Bukhara’ Trademark On ITC’s Plea,” LiveLaw Biz (October 17, 2026) https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-cancels-the-brew-bukhara-trademark-on-itc-plea-555176 ↩︎
  12. The Bar Bulletin, “Madras High Court Upholds Refusal of ‘FEDEXO’ Registration, Protects Well-Known ‘FEDEX’ Mark From Unfair Advantage Across Dissimilar Goods,” The Bar Bulletin (October 19, 2026), https://thebarbulletin.com/madras-hc-fedexo-registration-refusal-fedex-trademark/ ↩︎
  13.  Blake Brittain, “US Supreme Court Rejects Music Labels’ Challenge to Copyright Termination Ruling,” Reuters (October 19, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-rejects-music-labels-challenge-copyright-termination-ruling-2026-10-19/. ↩︎
  14. Blake Brittain, “7-Eleven Ends Lawsuit Against Nike Over Shoes With Store’s Colors,” Reuters (October 20, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/7-eleven-ends-lawsuit-against-nike-over-shoes-with-stores-colors-2026-10-20/ ↩︎
  15. Rose Esfandiari, “SCOTUS Summarily Affirms Fifth Circuit Judgment on Worldwide Copyright Reversion,” IPWatchdog (October 21, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/10/21/scotus-summarily-affirms-fifth-circuit-judgment-on-worldwide-copyright-reversion/ ↩︎
  16. Blake Brittain, “Anthropic, Music Publishers Square Off on ‘Fair Use’ Defense in AI Copyright Case,” Reuters (October 21, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/anthropic-music-labels-make-key-arguments-ai-training-case-2026-10-21/ ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

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

Related Articles