This Week in IP

Image credits: via Pixabay

Drafting credit: Avani Marudwar, Research Associate

Weekly IPR Update | 7 September 2026 -13 September 2026

Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR Over Counterfeit Apple Accessories

The Gujarat High Court quashed a copyright infringement FIR against a shopkeeper accused of selling counterfeit Apple accessories, holding that the allegations were in substance a trademark dispute wrongly dressed up as a copyright case.1 The court was ruling on a plea by Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Kiplani, who ran Raj Cover House in Ahmedabad. Police had raided the shop in October 2022 after a complaint from Griffin Intellectual Property Service, Apple Inc.’s authorised representative, and seized AirPods, cables, adapters, smartwatches and Apple stickers worth about Rs 15.11 lakh. The FIR invoked Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act. Kiplani argued that the seized hardware was not copyrightable subject matter under Section 13 of the Act, and that the real complaint was trademark misuse. The Court found that the FIR did not identify any specific literary or artistic work copied from Apple, and that commercial hardware such as AirPods could not sustain a copyright prosecution on these facts. It also noted that no instruction manuals or packaging literature were recovered to support the complainant’s copyright claim. The Court further held that the search had violated Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, since it was conducted without the Registrar’s prior opinion and by an officer below the rank required by law. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings. Read More

ANI Appeals Delhi High Court Order in OpenAI Copyright Case

Asian News International (ANI) has filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging a single-judge’s decision denying interim relief in its copyright infringement case against OpenAI.2 ANI had sued OpenAI over the use of its news content in training ChatGPT. On July 24, 2026, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant interim relief to ANI, holding that OpenAI’s storage of ANI’s news material for training ChatGPT did not amount to copyright infringement at the interim stage. ANI has now challenged that order before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The appeal seeks reconsideration of the single-judge’s decision denying interim protection to ANI while its copyright claims against OpenAI continue. The appeal is the latest development in ANI’s copyright dispute with OpenAI. The Division Bench has been approached against the earlier order, but the present report does not record any decision on the appeal. Read More

Bombay High Court Restrains Sale of Counterfeit ‘CLEAR’ Drinking Water

The Bombay High Court has restrained Sabran Enterprises and others from using the “CLEAR/CLEAR AQUA IND” mark and selling packaged drinking water bearing the disputed mark, label and bottle shape. Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd., which sells packaged drinking water under the “CLEAR” mark, approached the Court alleging trademark and copyright infringement and passing off. It also claimed rights in the shape of its bottles and its “CLEAR” label artwork. The Court compared the rival products and found that they had identical bottle shapes, label marks, colour schemes and placement of features. It also noted that “AQUA IND” appeared in a negligible font, while “CLEAR” was given prominence. The Court found, prima facie, that the products were counterfeit and likely to cause consumer confusion. The Court had earlier granted ex parte interim relief and appointed a Court Receiver to search the relevant premises and seize and seal infringing goods. The defendants were served but did not appear or file a reply. The Court subsequently allowed Energy Beverages’ interim application and continued the injunction against use of the disputed mark, label artwork and bottle shape. The receiver-related directions for seizure and sealing of infringing goods were also continued.3 Read More

Bombay High Court Orders Possession of Paint Factory in Asian Paints Trademark Suit

The Bombay High Court directed its Court Receiver to take forcible possession of a paint manufacturing premises in Ghaziabad in a trademark dispute between Asian Paints Limited and Deepak Kumar Panwar, who operates Akshay Paints Industries. The dispute concerns paint packaging and trade dress allegedly copying Asian Paints’ products, including the colour scheme, layout and overall appearance. The Court had earlier found a strong prima facie case and restrained the defendants from using the disputed packaging and marks, including “ULTIMATE” and “AFEX”. An Additional Special Receiver was appointed to execute the order and visited the Ghaziabad premises with police officials. However, according to his report, the defendant and around ten others allegedly obstructed the search. They questioned the validity of the Court’s order and allegedly prevented the Receiver from seizing the disputed material. The Receiver’s report recorded the presence of packaging bearing marks including “ULTIMATE”, “ULTIMATE INTERIOR EMULSION”, “ULTIMATE ACRYLIC DISTEMPER” and “AFEX”. The Court held that the conduct prima facie interfered with the administration of justice. It therefore directed the Court Receiver to take forcible possession of the entire premises, including by breaking open the locks if necessary. The Court also issued contempt notice to Amit Panwar and the others.4 Read More

Delhi High Court Directs Meta, WhatsApp to Disclose Details in Copyright Strike Case

The Delhi High Court directed Meta and WhatsApp to disclose basic subscriber information relating to parties behind copyright strikes issued against comedian Pulkit Mani’s Instagram content.5 Mani has sued Meta, WhatsApp and other parties after content on his Instagram account was taken down following copyright complaints. He alleged that the complaints were false and that an individual had attempted to obtain money from him in exchange for withdrawing the copyright strikes. During the hearing, Meta informed the Court that two URLs mentioned in Mani’s plaint had already been restored. Meta also agreed to provide subscriber information and IP logs relating to the John Doe defendants. WhatsApp agreed to disclose subscriber information linked to a phone number identified in the plaint and preserve the related data. The Court directed Meta to address Mani’s broader allegations concerning other account restrictions in its reply rather than dealing with the two restored URLs separately. It also directed notices to be issued to all defendants, with replies to be filed within three weeks. The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 18, 2027. Justice Jyoti Singh also orally observed that copyright strike disputes were increasingly coming before the Court in personality-rights matters. Read More

Delhi High Court Injuncts Beco Advertisement Against Surf Excel, Vim

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) against an advertising campaign by Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, which operates the cleaning brand Beco. The campaign claimed that HUL’s Surf Excel and Vim products contained chemicals that could cause skin irritation and allergic reactions, and encouraged consumers to switch to Beco. HUL challenged the advertisements, arguing that they went beyond permissible comparative advertising by portraying its products as harmful. Beco argued that its advertisements were based on information about the ingredients used in the products. The Court found, at the interim stage, that the advertisements made claims about the safety of HUL’s finished products without sufficient basis. It also considered the distinction between testing individual ingredients and establishing that the finished products themselves cause skin irritation or allergies. The Court therefore restrained Beco from continuing the impugned advertising campaign. The order followed hearings on HUL’s application for interim relief in the disparagement suit.6 Read More

Madras High Court Rejects Acer’s Request to Skip Section 80 CPC Notice

The Madras High Court dismissed an application filed by Acer Incorporated seeking permission to institute a trademark infringement and passing off suit without first serving notice on the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Acer had made the two government authorities defendants in the suit and sought directions requiring them to implement any interim injunction or blocking order passed against the private defendants. Acer argued that the authorities were only formal or compliance parties and that notice could therefore be dispensed with. The Court held that any direction requiring the authorities to implement an injunction would amount to operative relief against them. It therefore held that Section 80 applied. The Court also found that no wrongful act or omission had been alleged against the authorities and that no urgent or immediate relief had been independently established against them. The Court held that the urgency of the claims against the private defendants could not automatically extend to the government authorities. It therefore refused to grant leave under Section 80(2) CPC and dismissed the application. The plaint was directed to be returned for presentation after Acer complied with the notice requirement. 7

IP India Launches IP LEX to Compile Indian IP Judgments

The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) has launched “IP LEX”, a digital repository containing concise summaries of judicial decisions concerning intellectual property in India. The platform covers judgments relating to patents, trademarks, copyright, designs and geographical indications. According to CGPDTM, IP LEX brings IP judgments from different courts together on a single platform, allowing lawyers, IP professionals, startups and researchers to access summaries without having to search across multiple court and legal databases. The summaries are available in both Hindi and English. The IP LEX section is available on the official IP India website under the “IP Judgements” section. The platform currently includes summaries of judgments from July and August 2026.8 You can access it here.

Delhi High Court Refuses Injunction Against Xiaomi’s ‘Find Device’ Feature

The Delhi High Court refused to restrain Xiaomi Technology India from using its “Find Device” feature in a patent dispute with Conqueror Innovations Private Limited. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s refusal to grant an interim injunction, finding that Conqueror had not established a prima facie case of patent infringement. Conqueror’s patent covers a system for locating and communicating with a lost or stolen mobile device. It requires certain data, including the message centre number, to be stored in a non-erasable form and also includes an “auto-answer mode” that allows an authorised person to listen to the surroundings of the lost device. Conqueror argued that Xiaomi’s “Find Device” feature satisfied these requirements because it was stored in the phone’s ROM. The Court disagreed, finding that storage in ROM alone did not meet the patent requirement. It also held that Xiaomi’s feature, which can remotely ring, lock or erase a phone, did not provide the claimed silent auto-answer function. The Court also noted that Conqueror had approached it nearly nine years after becoming aware of the alleged infringement. It held that this prolonged delay was an additional reason to refuse interim relief. The appeal was dismissed, while the question of infringement was left open for trial.9 Read More

‘Shoorveer’ Song Use in Mirzapur Leads to Copyright Dispute and PIL

The use of the song “Shoorveer” in Mirzapur: The Movie has led to a copyright dispute and a Public Interest Litigation before the Delhi High Court. Rajasthani singer and composer Rapperiya Baalam has alleged that the song was used in the film without his permission or credit. He has claimed that he owns the copyright in the song, which was composed as a tribute to Maharana Pratap. Baalam has also objected to the song being used alongside scenes featuring fictional gangsters. He subsequently issued a legal notice to Excel Entertainment seeking removal of the song and an apology. Trouper Records, however, stated that it had licensed the song to Excel Entertainment for use in the film. Baalam has disputed the validity of this licensing arrangement.10 Separately, a PIL filed by Prashant Kumar Singh before the Delhi High Court seeks removal or replacement of the song from the film’s climax. The petition claims that using a song dedicated to Maharana Pratap alongside fictional gangsters could distort its cultural context and create a misleading association. It also seeks guidelines on the use of songs associated with historically or culturally significant personalities in films.11 Read More

Bombay High Court Recognises Scientist as Owner of Patent Application

The Bombay High Court recognised Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil as the owner and original inventor of an invention developed during his research at IIT Bombay and directed that he be treated as the applicant for the related patent application. The invention, titled “An Apparatus and a Method for In-Vivo Power Generation”, concerns technology for generating power to keep medical implants active. IIT Bombay had filed the patent application in 2013, naming Patil as the prime inventor. After disputes arose between Patil and his PhD guide, IIT Bombay executed a worldwide deed of assignment in July 2017 transferring its rights in the invention to Patil. Despite the assignment, IIT Bombay continued pursuing the Indian patent application. The Patent Office rejected the application in 2025. Patil challenged the decision before the High Court. The Court held that the assignment transferred IIT Bombay’s rights in the invention to Patil and that IIT Bombay could not continue pursuing the application in its own name after the transfer. It set aside the Patent Office’s order, allowed Patil’s pre-grant opposition and restored the application with Patil as the applicant. The Court directed the Controller to examine the application on its merits and issue a reasoned decision within eight weeks.12 Read More

Saregama Seeks Contempt Action Against Ilaiyaraaja

Saregama India has approached the Delhi High Court seeking contempt action against composer Ilaiyaraaja, alleging that he violated an interim injunction concerning songs claimed by Saregama. The court issued notice to Ilaiyaraaja and sought his response. In February 2026, the Delhi High Court had restrained Ilaiyaraaja and persons acting on his behalf from exploiting, using or licensing certain copyrighted works claimed by Saregama. The Court also restrained him from asserting ownership over these works before third parties. His application seeking removal of the injunction was dismissed on July 1. Saregama now alleges that Ilaiyaraaja continued to exploit the disputed songs on platforms including Spotify and YouTube and continued to claim ownership over them. One allegation concerns the song Podhuvaga Emmanasu Thangam. Saregama claims that Ilaiyaraaja issued a legal notice to Beyond Pictures asserting ownership of the song and later filed proceedings before the Madras High Court without disclosing the Delhi proceedings. The Madras High Court had initially granted an injunction against Beyond Pictures, which was later vacated after the Delhi proceedings were brought to its notice. Saregama has sought Ilaiyaraaja’s detention in civil prison and attachment of his movable and immovable properties. The contempt proceedings are pending before the Delhi High Court. 13

International Update

In-House Counsel Group Sues Rival Over AI Training Materials

The Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), a nonprofit organisation representing in-house lawyers, has sued its competitor The L Suite in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that The L Suite used ACC’s copyrighted and trademarked material to train and promote its AI chatbot, Lloyd. According to the lawsuit, The L Suite trained Lloyd using copyrighted ACC materials, including at least one ACC report. The ACC also alleged that promotional material for Lloyd displayed the cover of its report. It claimed that this showed The L Suite was aware that ACC materials were being used by the chatbot. The ACC further alleged trademark infringement over The L Suite’s use of the phrase “Built By In-House Counsel, For In-House Counsel,” which it said was similar to the ACC’s trademarked phrase “By In-House Counsel, For In-House Counsel.” The ACC is seeking monetary damages and an order preventing The L Suite from using its copyrighted materials and trademarks. The L Suite had not responded to the lawsuit at the time of the Reuters report. The case is Association of Corporate Counsel v. The L Suite Inc., No. 1:26-cv-01138.14 Read More

GalaxEye Secures US Patent for Satellite Imaging Technology

Indian space technology startup GalaxEye has secured a U.S. patent for technology that combines optical and radar sensors on a satellite to capture images at the same time. The system is designed to provide imaging even in darkness and during adverse weather conditions. The patented technology synchronises data from the two types of sensors to produce more reliable images of the Earth. Optical sensors can capture detailed images but are affected by darkness and cloud cover, while radar can operate in these conditions. GalaxEye was founded by engineers from the Indian Institute of Technology Madras and has raised about $21 million. The company plans to deploy a constellation of 30 satellites over the next five years. Its satellite imaging technology is intended for uses including security, agriculture, insurance and disaster response.15 Read More.

Federal Circuit Upholds Amazon Non-Infringement Ruling

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a ruling that Amazon.com did not infringe AlterWAN Inc.’s patent relating to wide-area network technology. The Court also upheld the District Court’s construction of the patent terms “cooperating service provider” and “non-blocking bandwidth.” The patent concerns a system for routing prioritised network traffic through service providers that can provide sufficient bandwidth. The District Court had interpreted “cooperating service provider” as a service provider that agrees to provide “non-blocking bandwidth”. It interpreted “non-blocking bandwidth” as bandwidth that is always available and sufficient while the network is able to transmit data. The Federal Circuit majority agreed with these interpretations. It relied on statements made by the patent owner during the prosecution of the patent and related applications, as well as the patent specification. Based on this construction, the parties had stipulated that Amazon’s services did not infringe the patent, and the Court upheld the resulting non-infringement judgment. The dissenting Judge disagreed with the construction of “non-blocking bandwidth”, arguing that the majority had improperly relied on prosecution history to give the term a narrower meaning. He would have applied the ordinary meaning of “cooperating service provider” instead.16 Read More

Federal Circuit Upholds Non-Infringement Rulings in Spinal Implant Patent Dispute

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld rulings that Globus Medical, Inc. did not infringe three patents owned by Moskowitz Family LLC relating to spinal implant systems. The dispute involved three patents covering tools and devices used in spinal fusion surgery. Moskowitz alleged that several Globus products infringed the patents. For two patents, the dispute concerned the meaning of the term “universal” in the patent claims. The district court had interpreted it to mean a spinal implant designed for use in any region of the spine and through any surgical approach. The CAFC agreed with this interpretation and held that the term was part of the claim because the claim body relied on terms introduced in the preamble. For the third patent, the issue was whether Globus’s products satisfied a requirement that certain components be “cooperating.” After a jury found no infringement, Moskowitz challenged the verdict. The CAFC held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding and upheld the district court’s refusal to overturn it. The CAFC therefore affirmed the non-infringement rulings concerning all three patents.17

  1. Riya Rathore, Gujarat High Court Rules Counterfeit Apple Accessories Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Copyright Law, LiveLaw Biz (Sep. 7, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/ipr/counterfeit-apple-accessories-cannot-be-prosecuted-as-copyright-offences-gujarat-high-court-quashes-fir-548953. ↩︎
  2. Prashant Jha, ANI files appeal before Delhi HC challenging denial of interim relief in case against OpenAI, Bar & Bench (Sep. 7, 2026).https://www.barandbench.com/news/ani-files-appeal-before-delhi-hc-challenging-denial-of-interim-relief-in-case-against-openai ↩︎
  3. Riya Rathore, Bombay High Court Restrains Sale Of Counterfeit ‘CLEAR’ Packaged Drinking Water, LiveLaw Biz (Sep. 8, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/bombay-high-court-restrains-sale-of-counterfeit-clear-packaged-drinking-water-549084?utm_source=chatgpt.com ↩︎
  4. Riya Rathore, Asian Paints Trademark Suit: Bombay High Court Orders Forcible Possession Of Entire Paint Factory In Ghaziabad, LiveLaw Biz (Sep. 8, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/asian-paints-trademark-suit-bombay-high-court-orders-forcible-takeover-of-ghaziabad-factory-after-rivals-obstruct-search-549127 ↩︎
  5. Riya Rathore, “Copyright Strikes Have Taken Front Seat Over Personality Rights Cases”: Delhi High Court On Comedian Pulkit Mani’s Plea, LiveLaw Biz (Sep. 9, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/personality-rights-have-taken-a-back-seat-copyright-strikes-have-taken-front-seat-delhi-high-court-on-comedian-pulkit-mani-suit-against-meta-549302 ↩︎
  6. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Injuncts Beco Ad Claiming Surf Excel, Vim Cause Skin Irritation, Allergies, LiveLaw Biz (Sep. 10, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-injuncts-beco-ad-claiming-surf-excel-vim-cause-skin-irritation-allergies-549531 ↩︎
  7. Acer Incorporated v. Thanka Swamy Raja @ TS Ranjith & Ors., A. No. 3893 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) SR No. 154749 of 2026, Madras High Court (Sep. 10, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/pdf_upload/2026/09/11/acer-699602.pdf ↩︎
  8. Prof. Dr. Unnat P. Pandit, बौद्धिक न्यायवृत्त (IP LEX): A new initiative of Office of The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trade Marks (O/o CGPDTM), LinkedIn (Sep. 2026). https://www.linkedin.com/posts/unnatpandit_बदधक-नययवतत-ip-lex-aug-2026-ugcPost-7504066257042923521-5FKI/?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=member_desktop_web&rcm=ACoAADmQWhoBncgAQKQZh4Ms5cjra_TB0fGwWrk ↩︎
  9. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Refuses To Restrain Xiaomi From Using ‘Find Device’ Feature In Patent Dispute, LiveLaw Biz (Sep. 11, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/patent/delhi-high-court-refuses-to-restrain-xiaomi-from-using-find-device-feature-in-patent-dispute-549765 ↩︎
  10. Nawaz Javed Kochra, Mirzapur uses song dedicated to Maharana Pratap to glorify villains: Singer claims plagiarism, The Indian Express (Sep. 7, 2026). https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/mirzapur-uses-song-dedicated-to-maharana-pratap-to-glorify-villains-singer-claims-plagiarism-10866459/ ↩︎
  11. Nupur Thapliyal, PIL In Delhi High Court Seeks Removal Of ‘Shoorveer’ Song From Mirzapur Movie, LiveLaw (Sep. 11, 2026). https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/pil-in-delhi-high-court-seeks-removal-of-shoorveer-song-from-mirzapur-movie-549775 ↩︎
  12. Neha Joshi, Mired in tragic circumstances: Bombay High Court on scientist’s 13-year patent dispute with IIT Bombay, Bar & Bench (Sep. 10, 2026)https://www.barandbench.com/news/mired-in-tragic-circumstances-bombay-high-court-on-scientists-13-year-old-patent-dispute-with-iit-bombay ↩︎
  13. S N Thyagarajan, Saregama seeks contempt of court action against Ilaiyaraaja for violating Delhi HC copyright order, Bar & Bench (Sep. 10, 2026).https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/saregama-seeks-contempt-of-court-action-against-ilaiyaraaja-for-violating-delhi-hc-copyright-order ↩︎
  14. In-house counsel group accuses rival of training AI on its materials, Reuters (Sep. 10, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/in-house-counsel-group-accuses-rival-training-ai-its-materials-2026-09-10/ ↩︎
  15. ndian space startup GalaxEye wins US patent for satellite imaging technology, Reuters (Sep. 8, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/science/indian-space-startup-galaxeye-wins-us-patent-satellite-imaging-technology-2026-09-08/ ↩︎
  16. Steve Brachmann, District Judge Dissents from CAFC Ruling for Amazon, Citing Claim Construction ‘Rabbit Hole’, IPWatchdog (Sep. 14, 2026). https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/14/district-judge-dissents-from-cafc-ruling-amazon-citing-claim-construction-rabbit-hole/ ↩︎
  17. Rose Esfandiari, “CAFC Affirms Noninfringement Rulings on Spinal Implant Patents,” IPWatchdog (September 13, 2026).https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/13/cafc-affirms-noninfringement-rulings-on-spinal-implant-patents/ ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

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

Related Articles