This Week in IP

Image credits: via Pixabay

Drafting credit: Tapasya Bhatia, Trademark & Research Associate

Weekly IPR Update | 26 October 2026 – 1 November 2026

Indian Scientist Secures Patent for In Vivo Power Generator Following Bombay High Court Order

Dr Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil has been granted exclusive ownership by the Indian Patent Office of an innovation intended to power medical implants and produce electricity inside the human body. The development comes after the Bombay High Court’s September 8, 2026, ruling in his protracted legal battle with IIT Bombay. The invention may lessen the need for frequent surgeries to replace medical implant batteries by converting glucose in cerebrospinal fluid into fuel that powers a nanoscale biofuel cell implanted in the body. IIT Bombay continued to contest Patil’s rights in India even after transferring the intellectual property rights to him through an assignment deed in 2017. The Patent Office was instructed to replace Patil as the only applicant and inventor after the High Court acknowledged him as the original inventor. The Patent Office followed the directive on October 30, 2026, dismissing pending inventive-step objections and setting aside the 2025 denial. 1

Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Jabsons Foods Over ‘HOT MIX’ Trademark

In a trademark infringement and passing-off lawsuit filed by Shah Namkeen owner Sunit Shah, the Delhi High Court on October 28, 2026, affirmed an interim injunction prohibiting Jabsons Foods Pvt. Ltd. from using the mark “HOT MIX” for namkeen and related products. According to Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, “HOT MIX” was being utilised as the product name rather than only as a descriptive term. The court observed that whereas Jabsons only started using the mark in October 2023, Shah Namkeen had used it since 1977. It rejected Jabsons’ argument that the expression was descriptive and commonly used in the trade, observing that the words appeared prominently on its packaging. The Court also held that the addition of the house mark “JABSONS” and differences in packaging did not overcome the copying of the dominant feature of Shah Namkeen’s registered label. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Jabsons’ application to vacate the injunction and continued the restraint until final adjudication of the suit, while clarifying that its findings were only prima facie. 2 Read More

Bombay High Court Orders Removal of Shreya Life Sciences’ ‘LEFOXIN BIOX’ Trademark

In response to a petition by Glaxo Group under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Bombay High Court on October 28, 2026, ordered the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove Shreya Life Sciences’ “LEFOXIN BIOX” mark from the register with effect from December 31, 2026. According to Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, variations in the drugs’ constituents and therapeutic purposes do not always eliminate the possibility of confusion between rival pharmaceutical marks. The Court noted that while “BIOX” provided minimal differentiation from Glaxo’s registered “LANOXIN” mark, “LEFOXIN” was the predominant component of Shreya’s mark. It further concluded that, in accordance with Section 56(1) of the Act, producing goods in India only for export qualifies as trademark usage in India. To notify stakeholders and secure the required regulatory clearances, Shreya was given time to rebrand its product and adopt a new mark starting from January 1, 2027. 3 Read More

Madras High Court Restrains Thanjavur Restaurant from Using ‘Sangethas’ Name, Cites Avvaiyar’s Proverb

In a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP, which runs the Sangeetha Veg Restaurant chain, the Madras High Court on October 30, 2026, prohibited Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg, a restaurant in Thanjavur, from operating under the name “Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg Restaurant.” According to Justice P.B. Balaji, the names’ resemblance could trick customers into thinking the two businesses were connected. The Court noted that hungry customers might be swayed by the restaurant’s name rather than noticing variations in spelling, logos, or colour schemes, citing the Tamil poet Avvaiyar’s saying, “Pasi vandhaal pathum parandhu pohum” (when hunger strikes, even the ten virtues leave). It stated that the Thanjavur eatery had only lately adopted the same logo and had copied the chain’s name exactly in Tamil. The court granted an interim injunction prohibiting the restaurant from using the contested name or any mark that is deceptively similar while the lawsuit is being resolved, finding a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, along with a balance of convenience and the possibility of irreparable injury. 4 Read More

Bombay High Court Orders Takedown of Video Alleging Bisleri Uses Contaminated Water

On October 30, 2026, the Bombay High Court granted Bisleri International temporary protection against social media posts claiming that filtered drain and toilet wastewater was used in the production of its packaged drinking water. The video is “prima facie disparaging and denigrating” and “plainly malicious”, according to Justice Arif S. Doctor, who noted that the accusations might gravely harm the company’s reputation and goodwill. Bisleri said that the production facility in the video had a current FSSAI licence and was not connected to the company or its approved partners. The court ordered the involved defendants to remove or disable access to the posts and prohibited further distribution of the video and similar charges after concluding that the video gave the impression that Bisleri was selling contaminated drinking water. Additionally, a dynamic injunction covering almost identical versions distributed via new accounts or URLs was issued. 5 Read More

Madhya Pradesh High Court Holds Urgent Interim Relief Exempts Trademark Suit from Pre-Institution Mediation

According to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not require pre-institution mediation in a trademark infringement lawsuit seeking immediate interim relief. The decision was made in a dispute involving the marks “KRITI”, “KIRTI”, and “NAV KIRTI” between Kriti Nutrients and Naivedya Associates. The Court noted that whether the lawsuit considers or requests immediate interim relief is a pertinent factor. It stated that when Kriti Nutrients first filed the lawsuit in Delhi, they wanted immediate protection against the alleged infringement, and they persisted in doing so after refiling it before the Indore Commercial Court. The Bench dismissed Naivedya Associates’ petition contesting the suit’s maintainability and maintained the denial of its application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, ruling that the case fell under the statutory exception under Section 12-A. 6 Read More

Delhi High Court Rejects Cafe Brown Sugar’s Plea to Submit Additional Documents, Calls Diwali Cleaning Explanation Illogical

On October 29, 2026, the Delhi High Court denied Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt. Ltd.’s request to provide additional documentation in its trademark dispute with Richa Jalani and Vyom Foodcraft Pvt. Ltd. The records were previously in the company’s possession, according to Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, and their discovery during the Diwali cleaning exercise did not qualify them as newly discovered. The “BROWN SUGAR” family of trademarks owned by Cafe Brown Sugar is allegedly being violated. Claiming to have found them during a cleaning exercise in 2025, the corporation attempted to introduce old invoices, ledgers, purchase bills, and promotional records. The Court rejected this justification, noting that a party cannot postpone looking through its own archives and then assert that the documents were found later. It underlined that business suits must strictly adhere to the disclosure obligations outlined in Order XI Rule 1(5) of the 1908 Code of Civil Procedure. The court dismissed the application and ordered that the extra papers not be included in the action record after finding no justification for the delay in disclosure. 7 Read More

Delhi High Court Asks Sourav Ganguly to Identify Objectionable Scenes in Film ‘Doosra’ Before Granting Interim Relief

Before contemplating temporary relief, the Delhi High Court has ordered former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly to identify moments in the movie Doosra that he claims breach his personality rights, along with their timestamps and reasons for complaint. The entire movie could not be stopped, according to Justice Tejas Karia, unless the contentious parts were examined and both sides were heard on their merits. Ganguly claimed that the movie made use of his personality, career accomplishments, and life narrative without his permission, especially because of his connection to the venerable NatWest series. The film is about a young woman who was inspired by Ganguly, according to the creators, who disputed that it was a biography. The Court proposed a licence agreement, a disclaimer, or the removal or muting of scenes as potential substitutes for the film’s blocking. It will examine the film and hear the matter again on Monday, after Ganguly’s side submits details of the objectionable portions. 8 Read More

Bombay High Court Directs Facebook to Remove Fake Accounts Impersonating USV Chairperson Leena Gandhi Tewari

The Bombay High Court ordered Facebook to delete fraudulent profiles that purported to be USV Chairperson Leena Gandhi Tewari. The court noted that these accounts were taking advantage of her charitable image to mislead the public. In Tewari’s lawsuit, Justice Arif S. Doctor granted ad interim protection, noting that the accounts’ continued operation endangered both her reputation and gullible people. The court was told that Tewari’s name, description, and altered photos were used in fictitious profiles to solicit money from people in need of financial support. After being promised financial assistance by a phoney account, one complainant allegedly transferred Rs. 5,000 using Google Pay. The court ordered Facebook to disable the identified accounts, maintain related records, and reveal basic subscriber information of their founders after finding a prima facie cause for protection. Additionally, it prevented the imposters from exploiting Tewari’s identity without permission. 9 Read More

Supreme Court Hears New Indian Express Challenge Against Territorial Restrictions on Trademark Use

The publisher of The New Indian Express, Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd., challenged a Bombay High Court ruling limiting its use of the trademark for promotional purposes outside of five southern states and designated Union Territories before the Supreme Court on November 2, 2026. Given that the High Court had issued a comprehensive ruling, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manmohan seemed hesitant to step in. The conflict arises from a 1995 settlement that allowed the Madurai-based publisher to publish an English-language daily in certain areas under the banner “The New Indian Express.” It organised an event called Mumbai Dialogues in September 2024, which triggered the underlying litigation. On June 15, 2026, the Bombay High Court Division Bench upheld the interim injunction, ruling that the publisher’s rights under the settlement were restricted to certain areas and did not cover advertising actions outside of such areas. The Supreme Court adjourned the matter, allowing the publisher to submit additional documents supporting its challenge. 10

Delhi High Court Allows Renewal of ‘APEXSEALS’ Trademark, Cites Failure to Issue Mandatory Notice

On October 28, 2026, the Delhi High Court allowed businessman Parveen Kumar Gulati to request the renewal of his registered trademark “APEXSEALS,” which had been removed from by the Trade Marks Register due to non-renewal. In accordance with Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with Rule 64 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, Justice Vikas Mahajan ruled that the Registrar may not delete the mark without providing the required Form O-3 notice. The Court noted that simply because the registration certificate was issued after the first validity period had passed, the notification requirement could not be circumvented. As a result, it gave Gulati two weeks to submit a new Form TM-R application with the required fee and instructed the Registrar to process it in compliance with the Rules. 11 Read More

Delhi High Court Holds Trademark Licensing Dispute Between Utracon and Former Subsidiary Arbitrable

The Delhi High Court has ruled that disputes about the continued use of a brand after a license agreement expires may be arbitrated, even in cases involving accusations of passing off and trademark infringement. According to Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, a party cannot avoid an arbitration agreement by just adding a claim for relief that might not be arbitrable on its own. The dispute began when Singapore-based Utracon Corporation alleged that its former Indian subsidiary, Ucon PT Structural System Pvt. Ltd., had been using the “UTRACON” trademark after the license had expired in March. The Court determined that contractual disputes pertaining to trademark usage are arbitrable in contrast to disputes pertaining to registration or cancellation. As a result, in compliance with the Singapore International Arbitration Center Rules, it submitted the issue to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court made it clear that it had not considered the merits of the claims of trademark infringement. 12 Read More

International Update

Hasbro Wins Copyright Infringement Case Against ‘Wolfoo’ Creators Over Use of ‘Peppa Pig’ Audio

The High Court in London has ruled in favour of Hasbro, the owner of Peppa Pig, in a copyright infringement lawsuit against SConnect, the Vietnamese company responsible for the animated series Wolfoo. Unauthorised usage of Peppa Pig audio snippets, including phrases like “Hooray!” in Wolfoo videos, was the subject of the dispute. The Court determined that the clips were present in all Wolfoo films in English and more than 70% of movies in other languages, rejecting SConnect’s argument that the audio had been added by an independent contractor without its knowledge. It ruled that the company’s participation with third parties did not release it from obligation and mandated that infringing recordings be taken down from websites like YouTube. The decision reaffirms that exploiting sounds protected by copyright without permission may result in legal repercussions. 13

US Federal Circuit Affirms Non-Infringement Ruling in Google-Sonos Patent Dispute

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit maintained a summary judgment in favour of Sonos, concluding that Google’s Patent No. 7,899,187, which relates to a domain-based digital rights management system, is not violated by Sonos’ smart speaker technology. When only one Sonos device decrypted encrypted audio before sending it to other speakers, the main point of contention was whether Sonos ’ devices used a private cryptographic key. The Court concurred that “utilising” the private key does not mean just getting encrypted content. Additionally, it made clear that a private key cannot just be used as data input; it must also serve as a key input to a cryptographic method. The Federal Circuit upheld Sonos’s judgment of non-infringement, rejecting both of Google’s infringement arguments. 14

US Federal Circuit Reverses $9.1 Million Attorneys’ Fee Award in ChromaDex–Elysium Patent Dispute

A $9.1 million lawyers’ fee award given to Elysium Health in its patent battle with ChromaDex over a patent for nicotinamide riboside (NR), a kind of vitamin B3, has been overturned by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The underlying dispute was whether isolated NR formulations may be patented under Section 101 of the US Patent Act. The courts had previously determined that the claimed invention was a natural product. The district court erred, according to the Federal Circuit, in considering the Supreme Court’s ruling in Myriad Genetics as final and neglecting to consider ChromaDex’s new arguments about the composition’s properties, usefulness, and function in boosting NAD+ production. The Court determined that ChromaDex’s patentability arguments were not extremely irrational nor meritless to support the fee judgement, even though they eventually failed. 15

New York Times and Other Publishers Sue Brave Software Over Alleged Copyright Infringement in AI Training

Before a federal court in Manhattan, the New York Times and several other newspaper publishers, including the New York Daily News, have filed complaints against Brave Software, claiming that the firm allowed users to get over internet paywalls and harvested copyrighted articles for AI training. Additionally, the publishers claimed that Brave unlawfully commercially distributes their content to AI firms like Anthropic, Perplexity, and xAI. Despite numerous efforts to halt the alleged infringement, Brave was accused of breaking copyright law by the New York Times. Both the unapproved use of journalistic material and the evasion of publishers’ subscription limitations are the targets of the lawsuits. These instances contribute to the increasing number of court cases involving media businesses and tech firms about the use of copyrighted content for AI system training. 16

  1. Neha Joshi, “Indian Scientist Secures Patent For In-Vivo Power Generator After Bombay High Court Order Against IIT,” Bar & Bench (November 2, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/news/indian-scientist-secures-patent-for-in-vivo-power-generator-after-bombay-high-court-order-against-iit ↩︎
  2. Sunit Shah v. M/s Jabsons Foods Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 641/2024, Judgment dated 28 October 2026, High Court of Delhi. ↩︎
  3. Riya Rathore, “Bombay High Court Finds ‘LEFOXIN BIOX’ Similar To Glaxo’s ‘LANOXIN’, Directs Removal By December 31,” LiveLawBiz (October 29, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/bombay-high-court-orders-removal-of-shreya-life-sciences-lefoxin-biox-mark-over-similarity-with-glaxo-lanoxin-556499. ↩︎
  4. M/s. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/s. Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg, C.S.(Comm. Div.) No. 192 of 2026, (Mad. HC). ↩︎
  5. Riya Rathore, “Bombay High Court Orders Takedown Of Video Claiming Bisleri Bottles Filtered Drain, Toilet Water,” LiveLawBiz (October 30, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/bombay-high-court-orders-takedown-of-alleged-disparaging-video-claiming-bisleri-bottled-water-uses-sewer-water-556751 ↩︎
  6. Naivedya Associates v. M/s Kriti Nutrients Pvt. Ltd., Misc. Petition No. 2934 of 2026, (MP HC). ↩︎
  7. Riya Rathore, “Delhi High Court Rejects Cafe Brown Sugar’s Plea To Add Documents, Calls Diwali Cleaning Claim Illogical,” LiveLawBiz (October 30, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/amp/trademark/diwali-cleaning-discovery-excuse-extremely-illogical-delhi-high-court-rejects-cafe-brown-sugar-plea-to-introduce-evidence-in-trademark-suit-556669 ↩︎
  8. Riya Rathore, “Delhi High Court Asks Sourav Ganguly To Identify Objectionable Scenes In ‘Doosra’ In Personality Rights Suit,” LiveLawBiz (October 29, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/personality-rights/delhi-high-court-asks-sourav-ganguly-to-identify-objectionable-scenes-in-doosra-in-personality-rights-suit-556423 ↩︎
  9. Leena Gandhi Tewari v. John Doe / Ashok Kumar & Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 36390 of 2026 in Suit (L) No. 36383 of 2026, (Bom. HC). ↩︎
  10. Neha Joshi, Bar & Bench, “The New Indian Express Moves Supreme Court Against Bombay HC Barring Its Events Outside South India,” published November 2, 2026, https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/the-new-indian-express-moves-supreme-court-against-bombay-hc-barring-its-events-outside-south-india ↩︎
  11. Parveen Kumar Gulati Trading as Apexseals v. Registrar of Trademarks, W.P.(C)-IPD 63 of 2025, (Del. HC). ↩︎
  12. Riya Rathore, “Claim Of Trademark Infringement Cannot Be Used To Avoid Arbitration In Trademark Licensing Dispute: Delhi High Court,” LiveLawBiz (October 30, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/arbitration/claim-of-trademark-infringement-cannot-be-used-to-avoid-arbitration-in-trademark-licensing-dispute-delhi-high-court-556675 ↩︎
  13. Yvonne Onomor, “Hasbro Wins Peppa Pig Copyright Case Against Wolfoo,” LinkedIn (October 2026), https://lnkd.in/p/gYdbYtKf ↩︎
  14. Rose Esfandiari, “Federal Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement for Sonos in Google Patent Case,” IPWatchdog (November 2, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/11/02/federal-circuit-affirms-summary-judgment-of-non-infringement-for-sonos-in-google-patent-case/ ↩︎
  15. Eileen McDermott, “CAFC Reverses $9.1 Million Exceptionality Award, Holding Myriad Did Not Foreclose Patent Owner’s 101 Argument,” IPWatchdog (October 30, 2026),https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/10/30/cafc-reverses-9-1-billion-exceptionality-award-holding-myriad-did-not-foreclose-patent-owners-101-argument/ ↩︎
  16. Reuters, “New York Times Sues Maker of Brave Web Browser Over Copyrights,” Reuters (November 2, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/new-york-times-sues-maker-brave-web-browser-over-copyrights-2026-11-02/ ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

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

Related Articles