This Week in IP

Image credits: via Magnific

Drafting credit: Divya Telang, Research Associate

Weekly IPR Update | 03 August 2026 – 09 August 2026

Mind Over Matter: Delhi High Court Frames 7-Step Rules to Separate Thought Exercises from Patentable Inventions

The Delhi High Court established a structured seven-step framework to help patent examiners determine whether an invention should be rejected under Section 3(m) of the Patents Act, 1970, that is the rule that bars pure mental acts, schemes, and rules from receiving patents. The decision arose from an appeal by T-Mobile International AG against the Indian Patent Office, where Justice Tushar Rao Gedela highlighted that the patent office lacked clear administrative guidelines for evaluating Section 3(m) objections. With the help of Amicus Curiae Adarsh Ramanujan, the court framed new guidelines, clarifying that Section 3(m) must be tested as an independent legal bar and not mixed up with tests for novelty, inventive steps, or software patent rules under Section 3(k). It begins by requiring examiners to construe the claim based on how a skilled expert would understand it, without adding unwritten limits. Next, it establishes that product claims with real physical features automatically bypass Section 3(m), as they are physical devices rather than abstract rules. For process claims, examiners must identify it as a whole, assessing the complete process rather than dissecting it to isolate a single mental step. Examiners then apply the exclusion test to ask if the monopoly is strictly a mental act, meaning someone could infringe on the patent simply by thinking or calculating, while confirming that processes using essential physical parts, hardware-software integration, or tangible outputs are safe from rejection. To prevent loopholes, the framework weeds out token physical additions, clarifying that minor post-solution steps like printing or displaying results cannot save a process that is purely mental at its core. Finally, the guidelines ensure that Section 3(m) is kept strictly separate from novelty and inventive step tests, preventing examiners from rejecting simple claims as mental acts just because they seem obvious, while ensuring that computer-implemented methods are evaluated separately under Section 3(k) instead.1 Read more here.

Court Blocks TV19 Network from Using Branding Similar to TV9

A commercial court in Kolkata temporarily banned TV19 Network from using the names “TV19”, “TV19 Network”, and “TV19 Network Bangla”, as well as its existing logo, trade dress, and red-and-blue visual layout. 2 Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt Ltd (ABCPL), which has operated news channels under the “TV9” brand since 2004, filed the lawsuit claiming trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. Judge Ishani Chakravarty Banerjee ruled that TV19’s branding closely mirrored TV9’s registered marks, creating a strong potential for viewer confusion, brand dilution, and irreparable damage to ABCPL’s market reputation. The court issued an ex parte temporary injunction effective through September 5, 2026, barring TV19 from using the misleading branding while allowing the network to continue operations under a distinct, non-infringing identity. The court scheduled the next hearing for October 8, 2026. 3 Read more here.

Hotel Rooms Are Not Private Homes: Playing Music on Room TVs Without a License Infringes Copyright

The Calcutta High Court ruled that hotels broadcasting copyrighted music and literary works to guests through cable televisions in guest rooms commit copyright infringement unless they secure a valid license from the Indian Performing Right Society Limited (“IPRS”). 4 Overturning a District Court order, the High Court held that routing cable networks into commercial hotel rooms constitutes “communication to the public” under Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court rejected Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited’s argument that its standard cable operator setup covered room viewing, clarifying that hotel guests are not ordinary residential subscribers and that providing television access forms part of the hotel’s commercial exploitation. Applying Section 51 and highlighting the distinction between private residences and commercial establishments under Section 52(1)(k), the High Court issued an interim injunction restraining the hotel from broadcasting IPRS-owned works without acquiring a separate license. 5 Read more here.

Supreme Court Upholds Restriction on Kent RO Selling Fans Under “KENT” Name

The Supreme Court of India refused to overturn a Delhi High Court interim order that barred Kent RO Systems Limited from manufacturing and selling electric fans using the “KENT” trademark. 6 The legal dispute arose from cross-suits between Kent RO and Kent Cables Private Limited over trademark rights in the fan market. The High Court had previously ruled in favour of Kent Cables, finding that it was the prior adopter of the “KENT” brand for electrical goods and had continuously used the mark for fans since 2009, whereas Kent RO had no history of selling fans. Challenging the restriction Kent RO argued that as a well-known brand making over 100 products, its rights should not be limited to water purifiers, nor should trademark law require separate registrations for every product line. While Kent Cables, maintained that Kent RO held no Class 11 trademark registration specifically for fans and was attempting to enter a segment already dominated by a prior user. The Supreme Court bench agreed, highlighting that Kent RO’s existing registrations were strictly for water purifiers and allied items, and concluded that an established business of over two decades like Kent Cables was rightly protected against a late-entering competitor. 7

Minor Cosmetic Tweaks Do Not Bypass Court Injunctions: Bombay High Court Penalizes Spice Maker

The Bombay High Court ruled that making minor changes to a brand name does not count as following a court order, warning that making surface-level edits makes judicial decisions meaningless. 8 The Court ruled against Abaad Masala & Co., which was banned in 2020 from using the names “White Chinese Pepper Masala” and “Black Chinese Pepper Masala” after a trademark battle with family-owned rival Sky Enterprise Private Limited. To get around the ban, Abaad swapped the name “Star King” for “Frize” and changed the word “Chinese” to “Spicy”, selling the items as “Frize White Spicy Pepper Masala” and “Frize Black Spicy Pepper Masala”. The Court rejected these tiny changes as superficial fixes, explaining that an average shopper with imperfect memory still reads the words they expect to see when the surrounding text stays the same. The Court stressed that the updated packaging was far too close to the original registered brand and broke the spirit of the court’s order. The Court used its powers under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC to force compliance, banning the “Frize” spicy names while letting the Defendant clear out remaining stock under completely different branding. 9 Read more here.

Luxury Hospitality Group Wins Temporary Injunction Against Ahmedabad Real Estate Project Over “ANANTARA” Brand Infringement

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd and affiliated entities under the Minor Hotel Group, restraining an Ahmedabad-based real estate developer from using the trademark “ANANTARA” for its residential and commercial projects. The plaintiffs, operate over 60 luxury hotels, resorts, and spas globally under the “ANANTARA” name and hold registered trademarks dating back to 2000. They filed a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against the defendants behind projects like “Anantara Galleria and Anantara”. The plaintiffs pointed out that after participating in pre-institution mediation in early 2026, the defendants deceptively applied for Class 37 trademark registrations, launched the domain name www.anantara.life, and promoted 3–4 BHK home developments across major property portals using identical branding. The Court observed that the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case, noting that real estate development constitutes an allied service to hospitality, and the defendants’ unauthorized adoption of “ANANTARA” was designed to exploit the plaintiffs’ global goodwill, causing brand dilution and public confusion. Thus, the court restrained the defendants from using “ANANTARA” across all media platforms, real estate developments, domain names, and social media handles pending further hearings scheduled for late 2026. 10 Read more here.

Gaming Giant Nintendo Wins Court Order Blocking Patna Real Estate Firm from Using Its Name

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte temporary injunction in favour of Japanese gaming giant Nintendo Co. Ltd., barring a Patna-based real estate company and its directors from using the corporate name “Nintendo India Private Limited”. 11 Nintendo, which created famous gaming franchises like Super Mario Bros. and Pokémon and holds trademark registrations in India dating back to 1983, filed a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement after discovering that the real estate firm had incorporated under a deceptively similar name without authorization. Although the defendants operated in real estate rather than video games, Justice Jyoti Singh ruled that under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a brand with a strong reputation in India can stop others from using its name even for completely unrelated businesses. The court pointed out that the adoption of the unique, invented word “Nintendo” was dishonest and intended to mislead the public into believing the real estate company was connected to the Japanese developer. Taking note that one director conceded in writing to the injunction, the High Court restrained all defendants and unknown entities from using “Nintendo” or “Nintendo India Private Limited” across any business operations pending further court hearings scheduled for late 2026. 12 Read more here.

Crispy Win in Court: Supreme Court Upholds PepsiCo’s Rights to Its Lay’s Potato Variety

The Supreme Court of India upheld a Delhi High Court decision restoring PepsiCo India’s plant variety registration for the FL 2027 (FC-5) potato, the proprietary crop used to make Lay’s potato chips. 13 Social activist Kavitha Kuruganti had petitioned to revoke the registration under Section 34(h) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (“PPVFR”) Act, 2001 claiming PepsiCo’s past infringement lawsuits against local potato farmers harmed public interest. Rejecting that argument, both courts ruled that simply filing a lawsuit to protect a legally registered product does not count as predatory behaviour or violating public interest. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, affirmed PepsiCo’s right to seek legal remedies while emphasizing that individual farmers retain full statutory protections under Section 39(1)(iv) of the PPVFR Act to defend themselves if sued by the company. 14 Read more here.

Bombay High Court Orders Meta to Take Down Fake Deepfake Ads and Impostor Pages Targeting Delta Corp

The Bombay High Court directed Meta Platforms Inc. to immediately remove and disable fake accounts, impersonating pages, and a deepfake video targeting casino operator Delta Corp Limited. Delta Corp, which operates licensed physical casinos, went to court after Meta disabled its official handles while allowing fake accounts and an AI-generated video to spread on Facebook and Instagram. The fake video showed Delta Corp’s promoter, Jaydev Mody, alongside sports and film stars, fraudulently claiming the launch of an online gambling app. Justice Abhay Ahuja noted that the deepfake video looked convincingly real and held that Meta must take down the offending links and fake pages since online gaming is banned in India and Delta Corp does not run online casinos. The court gave Delta Corp permission to report any future fake pages or videos directly to Meta for quick removal, while giving Meta until August 17, 2026, to submit its official response in the case.15 Read more here.

International Update

Barking Up the Wrong Tree: Ninth Circuit Rules “Bad Spaniels” Dog Toy Parody Does Not Harm Jack Daniel’s Brand

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favour of VIP Products, overturning a lower court order that banned the company from selling its “Bad Spaniels” dog toy. The long-running court fight centered on a rubber dog toy shaped like a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle, which swapped the famous “Old No. 7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” label for “Old No. 2 Tennessee Carpet”. After the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back for re-examination in 2023, the trial court initially sided with Jack Daniel’s, agreeing that linking a drink brand to dog poop damaged its reputation. However, the Ninth Circuit rejected that finding, ruling that Jack Daniel’s failed to prove real brand damage. The appeals court pointed out that Jack Daniel’s expert witness relied on general psychology theories about food and waste instead of proving that a toy for pets which nobody eats or drinks would actually make people dislike the whiskey. The court explained that because average consumers clearly see the toy as a harmless joke, Jack Daniel’s had a much higher burden to prove brand harm, and ordered the trial court to officially end the ten-year dispute in favour of the toy maker. 16  Read more here.

Samsung and Netlist End Patent War with Five-Year Deal

Samsung Electronics and Netlist agreed to a comprehensive five-year licensing deal, ending years of global patent litigation between the two companies. Under the agreement, Samsung gains rights to Netlist’s memory chip patents, including high-bandwidth memory and server memory modules essential for AI servers and high-performance computing. In return, Samsung agreed to supply Netlist with crucial DRAM and NAND flash memory chips, buy 10 million shares of Netlist stock, and resolve all pending legal battles. The settlement comes shortly after U.S. trade regulators launched a patent infringement investigation into Samsung memory chips used in products by major tech companies like Nvidia, Google, Broadcom, and Super Micro Computer. 17

No Legal Duty to Innovate: California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gilead Against 24,000 HIV Patients

The California Supreme Court ruled that pharmaceutical companies do not have a legal “duty to innovate” or develop safer versions of medications that are already considered safe. In a 6–1 decision, the court threw out negligence claims brought by around 24,000 HIV patients against Gilead Sciences. The patients argued that Gilead intentionally paused the development of a safer alternative drug in 2004 to maximize profits from its existing medication, which caused kidney and bone side effects before their patent expired in 2017. Reversing a lower court ruling, Justice Joshua Groban wrote for the majority that forcing drugmakers to face liability for not releasing newer drugs faster would heavily burden scientific innovation, public health, and patient safety by forcing juries to second-guess complex commercial and medical decisions. While a dissenting judge criticized Gilead’s conduct as morally blameworthy, the Court’s landmark ruling protects pharmaceutical manufacturers from “duty to innovate” lawsuits as long as the original drug on the market is not defective. 18 Read more here.

Lululemon Knocks Out Nike’s Fitness Watch Patent

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against Nike, backing a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision that cancelled key parts of Nike’s smart fitness watch patent. The fight was over Nike’s U.S. Patent No. 8,620,413, which covers a watch that guides users through workouts based on their personal fitness levels. Lululemon challenged the patent, showing that the technology was not original and was already obvious based on earlier inventions. When Nike tried to save its patent by arguing over the exact wording of its claims, the court dismissed the effort as “linguistic gymnastics” that only caused confusion. Pointing to convincing expert testimony provided by Lululemon, the appeals court agreed that older patents had already covered the technology, officially striking down Nike’s contested claims. 19 Read more here.

  1. T-Mobile International Ag And Co. Kg. v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr., C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 149/2022 dated August 4, 2026. ↩︎
  2. Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt Ltd v. TV 19 Network & Ors., TS (Com) – 33/2026. ↩︎
  3. Srinjoy Das, TV9 vs TV19: Kolkata Court Restrains Use Of ‘TV19’ Marks, Says Prima Facie Similarity May Cause Viewer Confusion, LiveLaw (August 5, 2026), https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/tv9-vs-tv19-kolkata-court-restrains-use-of-tv19-marks-says-prima-facie-similarity-may-cause-viewer-confusion-544500. ↩︎
  4. The Indian Performing Right Society Limited v. Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited, FMA 322 of 2025. ↩︎
  5. S N Thyagarajan, Hotels should obtain copyright licence for music played through cable TV in rooms: Calcutta High Court, Bar and Bench (August 8, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/news/hotels-should-obtain-copyright-licence-for-music-played-through-cable-tv-in-rooms-calcutta-high-court. ↩︎
  6. KENT RO SYSTEMS Limited VS. KENT CABLES Private Limited, Diary No. – 27701/2026 ↩︎
  7. S N Thyagarajan, Supreme Court refuses to let Kent RO sell fans under KENT trademark, Bar and Bench (August 7, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-refuses-to-let-kent-ro-sell-fans-under-kent-trademark. ↩︎
  8. Sky Enterprise Private Limited v. Abaad Masala & Co., I.A. (L) No. 2372 of 2025 in COMM. IP SUIT No. 279 of 2020. ↩︎
  9. Riya Rathore, Bombay High Court Pulls Up Masala Maker For Only Paying ‘Lip Service’ To Trademark Injunction, LiveLaw Biz (August 5, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/bombay-high-court-pulls-up-masala-maker-for-only-paying-lip-service-to-trademark-injunction-544476. ↩︎
  10. MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors v. Anantara Galleria and Anantara & Anr., CS(COMM) 834/2026 dated August 3, 2026. ↩︎
  11. Nintendo Co. Ltd. v. Nintendo India Private Limited & Ors., CS(COMM) 747/2026. ↩︎
  12. S N Thyagarajan, Nintendo gets relief from Delhi High Court against Bihar company ‘Nintendo India’, Bar and Bench (August 4, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/nintendo-gets-relief-from-delhi-high-court-against-bihar-company-nintendo-india. ↩︎
  13. Kavitha Kuruganti Versus PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., SLP (C) Nos.10320-10321 of 2024. ↩︎
  14. Kirit Singhania, Supreme Court Upholds PepsiCo’s Lay’s Potato Variety Registration, LiveLaw Biz (August 7, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/top-stories/supreme-court-upholds-delhi-hc-order-on-pepsicos-lays-potato-variety-registration-544837. ↩︎
  15. Delta Corp Limited v. Meta Platforms Inc., I.A. No. 3875/2026 in Suit No. 167/2026 dated August 6, 2026. ↩︎
  16. Steve Brachmann, Ninth Circuit Again Reverses Jack Daniel’s Trademark Win Due to Bad Spaniels’ Successful Parody, IP Watchdog (August 5, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/08/05/ninth-circuit-again-reverses-jack-daniels-trademark-win-due-to-bad-spaniels-successful-parody/. ↩︎
  17. Anzar Mehraj, Netlist, Samsung settle patent disputes in new five-year memory deal, Economic Times (August 5, 2026), https://electronics.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/semiconductors/netlist-samsung-settle-patent-disputes-in-new-five-year-memory-deal/132924288?utm_source=top_news&utm_medium=homepage. ↩︎
  18. Jonathan Stempel, California’s highest court rules for Gilead, says drugmakers don’t have ‘duty to innovate’, Reuters (August 4, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/californias-highest-court-rules-gilead-says-drugmakers-dont-have-duty-innovate-2026-08-03/. ↩︎
  19. Eileen McDermott, Nike Loses to Lululemon in CAFC Appeal of PTAB Decision Invalidating Adaptive Watch Patent Claims, IP Watchdog (August 5, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/08/05/nike-loses-to-lululemon-at-cafc-in-appeal-of-ptab-decision-invalidating-adaptive-watch-patent-claims/. ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

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

Related Articles