This Week in IP

Image credits: via Pixabay

Drafting credit: Avani Marudwar, Research Associate

Weekly IPR Update | 24 August 2026 – 30 August 2026

Delhi High Court Reserves Jurisdiction Ruling in HUL-Kwick Living Dispute

The Delhi High Court reserved its order on whether it has territorial jurisdiction to hear a disparagement suit filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) against Kwick Living, the company behind cleaning brand Beco. Kwick Living contested Delhi’s jurisdiction, arguing there was no substantive connection to the city. HUL countered that jurisdiction arose from the online accessibility of Beco’s advertisements to Delhi-based viewers, and that Beco’s website accepted orders from Delhi, amounting to actual commercial engagement rather than mere accessibility. HUL relied on precedents distinguishing passive website access from interactive commercial activity. Kwick Living argued that disparagement claims should follow the same jurisdictional test as defamation under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which confines such suits to where the wrong occurred or where the defendant resides. HUL disputed this, submitting that Section 19 CPC applies only to suits seeking damages, whereas its suit sought an injunction, not compensation. It further argued disparagement and defamation are governed by distinct lines of precedent. The Court declined to grant interim relief pending the jurisdiction ruling, including HUL’s request to halt Beco’s advertising campaign. 1 Read more

Delhi High Court Restrains Use of “Anantara” Mark By Rival Spa

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Hospitality chain Minor Hotel Group. They filed the suit against a wellness business operating under the name “Anantara Spa.” The defendant was restrained from using “Anantara.” This includes “Anantara Spa” and similar marks. The restriction covers spa, wellness services, hospitality, and allied services. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the “Anantara” trademark. It is registered across several jurisdictions, including India. The mark is used for hospitality and hotel services. The plaintiffs argued “Anantara” was the dominant feature used. Adding “Spa” did not distinguish the infringing mark.2

A domain dispute arbitrator had earlier examined the matter. It found the defendant’s domain registration was not bona fide. The domain appeared to deceive the public. It also appeared to trade on the plaintiffs’ reputation. The arbitrator ordered the domain to be transferred to the plaintiffs. This transfer had already been carried out. The Court held plaintiffs had made a case for grant of interim injunction. The defendant was also restrained from using similar domains. The defendant is ordered to disclose all related websites and materials. Read More

Delhi High Court Vacates Injunction, Cites Wilful Suppression

The Delhi High Court vacated an interim injunction. The dispute concerns two nutraceutical companies. Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals sold products under “RewireX.” Rival firm Celagenex had earlier obtained an ex-parte injunction. Celagenex claimed learning of the launch only in May 2026. Nugenesys appealed, contesting this timeline. The Court found evidence contradicting Celagenex’s claim. A cease-and-desist notice predated the stated timeline. This notice existed since October 2025. Celagenex had also filed a trademark opposition earlier, in January 2026. Neither document was disclosed in the plaint. 3

The Court held disclosure was mandatory under the Statement of Truth. The documents existed in the record technically. But they were placed under an obscure heading. The Court held this failed proper disclosure standards. It found the omission was not accidental. The suppression directly influenced the earlier injunction. The original judge lacked knowledge of these documents. The Court noted a repeated pattern by counsel. Similar suppression appeared in two other suits. It held this reflected deliberate, not incidental, conduct. Celagenex was held equally responsible as counsel. The Bench ruled suppression outweighed any commercial harm. It vacated the injunction entirely on this ground. Seized products were ordered released. Costs of Rs. 2 lakh were imposed on Celagenex. Read More.

Calcutta High Court Refuses Injunction Over Grammar Textbooks

The Calcutta High Court dismissed an interim injunction application. The dispute concerns two English grammar textbooks. An author and his son filed the suit. They sued their long-time publisher. Two publication agreements existed, from 2001 and 2002. Neither agreement specified a fixed term. The plaintiffs invoked Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act. This deems undefined assignments to last five years. The Plaintiffs argued the licences expired in 2006 and 2007. Continued publication after this was called infringement. They also cited a 2020 co-publishing agreement. This agreement involved a separate publishing entity. They claimed it lapsed in 2023.4

The Court found no action was taken for years. The publisher continued publishing without objection. This continued from 2007 until 2020. The Court held this defeated the injunction claim. It examined whether novation had occurred. Novation requires complete substitution of contracts. The 2020 agreement preserved royalty obligations. This suggested no true substitution occurred. The Court also noted a possible non-joinder issue. A claimed copyright holder was never impleaded. Finally, It found no prima facie case established or irreparable harm shown. The application was accordingly dismissed. Publication may continue pending trial. Read More.

Delhi High Court Restrains Sale of Counterfeit SKF Bearings

TThe Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction. The dispute involves counterfeit ball bearings. Swedish manufacturer AB SKF sued two Delhi-based traders. It alleged sale of counterfeit products under its mark. The mark has been used in India since 1923. Multiple registrations existed, dating back to 1942. AB SKF alleged identical packaging was copied. It called this a mirror image of its own. The Court agreed after comparing the trade dress. It found a strong prima facie infringement case. This fell under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. It also found prima facie copyright violation. The artistic packaging was held to be copied. The Court found the adoption was dishonest. It noted intent to exploit AB SKF’s goodwill. It further noted safety concerns for consumers. Inferior bearings were called a road safety hazard. This went beyond ordinary commercial harm. The Court restrained the defendants from further use of the mark. This included domains, emails and social handles. It also restrained use of similar packaging. Bank of Baroda was directed to freeze specific funds. This guards against dissipation of illicit proceeds. 5 Read More

Calcutta High Court Restrains Rival Use of “Fox & Mandal” Name

The Calcutta High Court granted summary judgment. The dispute concerns a the law firm name Fox & Mandal. It was founded in 1896. Defendant Somabrata Mandal used a similar name. He claimed a familial link to a former partner. He asserted this justified using the mark. The Court rejected this argument entirely. It held partnership goodwill belongs to the firm. It does not pass to individual partners or heirs. It found only one legitimate source and proprietor exists. The defendant showed no legal right to the mark. The Court found all elements of passing off met. This included reputation, misrepresentation and likely damage. It found that no triable issues existed. Summary judgment was granted without full trial. This followed under Order XIII-A of the CPC. The defendant had also failed to file a defence. The Court passed a permanent injunction. It restrained use of “Fox & Mandal” and similar marks. It also barred claims of association with the firm. It barred claims to the firm’s 1896 legacy. 6

Delhi High Court Limits Personality Rights Claim, Cites Parody Concerns

The Delhi High Court cautioned against overbroad personality rights claims. The dispute involved educator Alakh Pandey, founder of Physics Wallah. Pandey sued John Doe and other online platforms. He alleged infringement of his personality and publicity rights. Multiple unidentified defendants were named in the suit. The Court warned personality rights could be misapplied. It should not suppress caricature or parody. Such expression is protected as long as there is no commercial exploitation. 7 The Court granted relief in three specific categories only. This included sexually vulgar misrepresentation of Pandey. It included unauthorized commercial use of his identity. It also included impersonation of him online. Other broader claims were not granted interim protection. The Court found a prima facie case on these categories. It ordered takedown of the identified infringing content. It directed disclosure of details behind infringing accounts. It also addressed intermediary obligations under Section 79 of the IT Act. Intermediaries were told to remain strictly neutral. They must verify, not independently judge, mirror websites. Read More

International Update

WikiHow Sues OpenAI Over Alleged Copyright Infringement

WikiHow has filed suit against OpenAI. 8 The case was filed in Manhattan federal court. It alleges violations of copyright law. It also alleges violations of the DMCA. The dispute concerns training of ChatGPT. WikiHow claims over 11,000 articles were scraped. It alleges infringement of at least 1,200 registered copyrights. It cites extensive crawler activity as evidence. Website logs allegedly show hundreds of thousands of visits. This activity is attributed to OpenAI’s published IP addresses. WikiHow claims some crawling used obfuscated identifiers. The complaint alleges direct copying of full articles. It argues this exceeds permissible excerpting. It claims ChatGPT’s outputs directly substitute for WikiHow’s content. This substitution is said to undermine fair use defences. WikiHow argues the use is commercial in nature. The complaint also alleges removal of copyright management information. This includes bylines, titles, and usage terms. WikiHow attributes this to deliberate stripping during training. WikiHow states it sought a licensing deal earlier. It claims OpenAI did not seriously pursue this. It notes OpenAI has signed licences with other publishers. WikiHow seeks monetary damages for the alleged infringement. It also seeks an injunction against continued use. Read More

EU Reforms Pharma Regulatory Exclusivity Rules

The EU has agreed to major pharmaceutical reforms. The Existing rules will be fully replaced and substantive changes will take effect around 2028. Data exclusivity remains fixed at eight years. Market exclusivity faces significant restructuring. The automatic baseline drops from 2 years to 1. Extensions must now be actively earned. Two possible 1 -year extensions exist. One route covers unmet medical needs. The other depends on specific clinical trial criteria. A further extension applies for new therapeutic indications. Maximum total protection stays at 11 years. Reaching it now demands more clinical work. A new voucher scheme targets antimicrobial development. It extends exclusivity by 12 months. Repurposed medicines gain new incentives as they are protected for 4 years now. Member states gain will gain new enforcement tools. The UK will retain its current ten-year system. This creates clear regulatory divergence from the EU. 9 Read More

USPTO Issues First AI-Predicated Discipline Order

The USPTO’s disciplinary body issued a final order. A California patent attorney was publicly reprimanded. He had submitted a claim construction chart. AI tools generated citations for the chart. The citations referenced the patent’s intrinsic record. Many citations were fabricated or misattributed. The case arose from separate federal district court litigation. The attorney used one tool to draft. He used a second tool to review. Errors still went undetected initially. He later found further errors himself. He circulated a corrected chart the next day. No court sanctions were ultimately imposed. The USPTO found violations regardless of intent. This included competence and diligence rules. It also included misrepresentation and prejudicial conduct rules. No finding of deceptive intent was made. Prompt correction was treated as mitigation only. The Office also issued broader practitioner guidance. It warned that AI citation errors extend beyond case law. This includes patent specifications and prosecution histories. 10 Read More

  1. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Reserves Order On Jurisdiction In HUL’s Disparagement Suit Against Beco, LiveLaw Biz (Aug. 24, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-reserves-order-on-whether-it-has-jurisdiction-to-hear-hul-disparagement-suit-against-beco-547159 ↩︎
  2. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Restrains ‘ANANTARA SPA’ From Using ‘ANANTARA’ For Spa And Wellness Services, LiveLaw Biz (Aug. 24, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-temporarily-restrains-anantara-spa-in-trademark-infringement-dispute-with-hospitality-chain-minor-hotel-group-547083. ↩︎
  3. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Vacates RewireX Injunction Against Nugenesys, Finds Celagenex Wilfully Suppressed Facts, LiveLaw Biz (Aug. 24, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-nugenesys-pharmaceuticals-rewirex-547149. ↩︎
  4. Riya Rathore, Calcutta High Court Rejects Injunction Against New Central Book Agency After Years Of Inaction, LiveLaw Biz (Aug. 31, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/calcutta-high-court-refuses-interim-injunction-against-publisher-in-copyright-dispute-over-bengali-english-grammar-textbooks-547839. ↩︎
  5. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Restrains Sale Of Counterfeit SKF Bearings, Calls Them A “Safety Hazard” For Drivers, LiveLaw Biz (Aug. 27, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-restrains-traders-from-selling-counterfeit-skf-ball-bearings-trademark-infringement-547596. ↩︎
  6. Srinjoy Das, Calcutta High Court Restrains Rival’s Use Of ‘Fox & Mandal’ Name, Says Heir Of Ex-Partner Cannot Claim Law Firm’s Goodwill, LiveLaw (Aug. 25, 2026), https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/calcutta-high-court/calcutta-high-court-restrains-rivals-use-of-fox-mandal-name-says-heir-of-ex-partner-cannot-claim-firms-goodwill-547338. ↩︎
  7. Nupur Thapliyal, Personality Rights Can’t Extinguish Caricature, Lampooning Or Parody Unless Commercial Exploitation Is Involved: Delhi High Court, LiveLaw (Aug. 22, 2026), https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/personality-rights-cant-extinguish-caricature-lampooning-parody-unless-commercial-exploitation-546926. ↩︎
  8. Rose Esfandiari, WikiHow Files Lawsuit Against OpenAI Over ChatGPT’s Use of Its How-To Library, IPWatchdog (Aug. 25, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/08/25/wikihow-files-lawsuit-against-openai-over-chatgpts-use-of-its-how-to-library/. ↩︎
  9. Duncan Curley, Amanda Easey & Georgia Morris, The EU Pharma Package: Upcoming Reform Of Regulatory Data Exclusivity And Market Protection For Approved Medicines For Human Use, Penningtons Manches Cooper (Aug. 25, 2026), https://www.penningtonslaw.com/insights/the-eu-pharma-package-upcoming-reform-of-regulatory-data-exclusivity-and-market-protection-for-approved-medicines-for-human-use/. ↩︎
  10. Alexandros Nikolaidis, USPTO Issues Its First AI-Predicated Discipline Order Involving Hallucinated Cites to Intrinsic Record, IPWatchdog (Aug. 28, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/08/28/uspto-issues-its-first-ai-predicated-discipline-order-involving-hallucinated-cites-to-intrinsic-record/. ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

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

Related Articles