This Week in IP

Image credits: via Pixabay

Drafting credit: Avani Marudwar, Research Associate

Weekly IPR Update | 20 September 2026 -27 September 2026

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Copyright Registration for ‘Radhey Radhey Barsane Wali Radhey

The Delhi High Court set aside a 2020 copyright registration for the sound recording “Radhey Radhey Barsane Wali Radhey” after finding that the registration had been granted without giving a rival claimant an opportunity to object. The order was passed by Justice Jyoti Singh on September 8, 2026, on a rectification petition filed by Vipul Music Company, a proprietorship firm of Santosh Goswami. The dispute concerned competing claims over the copyright in the sound recording. The respondent had obtained registration for the song in 2020. Vipul Music Company challenged the registration before the Court, claiming rights in the same work. The Court found that the Registrar of Copyrights had granted the registration without issuing prior notice to Vipul Music Company, despite its claim concerning the same work. The Court therefore set aside the registration and directed the Registrar to reconsider the respondent’s application. The Court also directed that Vipul Music Company be given an opportunity to file its objections before any fresh decision is taken on the copyright registration. The Court did not finally determine which party owns the copyright in the sound recording. The matter was accordingly sent back for fresh consideration by the Registrar.1 Read More

Delhi High Court Allows Copyright Suit Over Rajasthan Temple to Continue

The Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge by P.J. Sikand to a copyright and passing-off suit filed by Guruji Ka Ashram Trust over a temple-like structure in Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. The Trust alleged that the structure imitated its Bade Mandir in Delhi, including its Shivalinga-shaped structure, staircase, colour scheme, fountain and arrangement of idols and photographs. It also alleged that the Rajasthan premises was being promoted as “Guruji Ka Darbar”, creating an association with the Trust. The Trust further claimed copyright in photographs of Guruji displayed at the Rajasthan premises, relying on a 2024 copyright assignment deed executed by photographer Raghu Rai. A Local Commissioner appointed by the Saket Commercial Court inspected both premises and reported similarities in the arrangement and placement of idols, deities, photographs and other material. The Saket Court subsequently granted interim protection to the Trust. Sikand challenged the suit, questioning the validity of the copyright assignment, the Trust’s authority to bring the proceedings and its claims over the photographs, the name “Guruji” and common religious and architectural features. The Saket Court held that these issues required examination of evidence and refused to reject the suit at the preliminary stage. The Delhi High Court agreed and dismissed Sikand’s challenge, leaving these issues to be decided in the pending suit.2 Read More

Delhi High Court Clarifies FabIndia Injunction Covers Social Media

The Delhi High Court clarified that its December 2023 order restraining infringement of FabIndia’s trademark, copyright and other intellectual property rights also applies to content posted on social media and other digital platforms. The clarification was issued after the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) declined to enforce the order against platforms such as Instagram and Facebook on the ground that they were not specifically named in the original order.  FabIndia sought clarification that the restraint covered online platforms and digital channels. Its counsel argued that the purpose of the 2023 order would be defeated if infringing content could continue to be published on social media merely because individual platforms were not named. The Court clarified that the scope of the December 4, 2023 order extended to the use of FabIndia’s trademarks and other protected material on any digital medium, including social media platforms. It specifically stated that the order applied to Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Twitter/X and other similar digital channels or handle. The Court therefore clarified that the existing restraint was not limited to the defendants or platforms expressly identified in the original order.3

Delhi High Court Declines Blanket Protection Against Future Copyright Strikes

The Delhi High Court declined to grant a blanket order protecting content creator Jitender Singh’s Instagram account from future copyright strikes by Meta. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that each copyright complaint would have to be assessed separately to determine whether it was genuine. Singh, who runs a technology-focused Instagram account with around 3.3 lakh followers, told the Court that his account had received several copyright strikes between April and August 2026. He stated that he initially did not know how to use Meta’s grievance mechanisms and had to seek assistance to address the strikes. Meta informed the Court that Singh’s account had been restored and that the copyright strikes had been removed following an internal review. Singh disputed this and stated that his account was still showing restrictions on posting. Meta also pointed out that Singh had used its in-app appeal mechanism but had not approached the Grievance Officer mechanism under the Information Technology Rules. Singh sought a direction that any future adverse action against his account be presumed unwarranted. The Court declined, stating that it could not prevent Meta from acting on a genuine future copyright complaint without examining it. The Court granted Singh’s counsel ten days to obtain updated instructions on the status of the account.4 Read More

Delhi High Court Issues Notice to JioStar Over Continued Use of Zee’s Music

The Delhi High Court issued notice to JioStar India on a contempt application filed by Zee Entertainment, alleging continued use of Zee’s copyrighted music despite an injunction order. The dispute arose after Zee’s music licensing agreements with JioStar, entered into in 2017 and 2020, expired on October 31, 2025. On May 5, 2026, the Delhi High Court had restrained JioStar from using, broadcasting or streaming Zee’s copyrighted works. The Court had rejected JioStar’s argument that Zee was required to identify each infringing use before JioStar was required to remove it. Zee subsequently alleged that JioStar continued to use its music and placed six instances of alleged infringement from May and June 2026 before the Court. JioStar argued that its catalogue contained a very large number of works and that some uses could continue despite efforts to remove them. It also requested Zee to provide metadata for its works to help identify and remove them. The Court asked Zee to provide JioStar with a specific list of recordings it claimed were still being used without authorisation so that JioStar could verify and remove them. The Court also cautioned JioStar against further non-compliance with the May 5 order. JioStar was permitted to file a reply and supporting affidavit. The contempt application remains pending.5 Read More

Delhi High Court Restrains Use of ‘DURA’ Mark by Former Doora General Manager

The Delhi High Court restrained a former General Manager of Doora Express Services and his logistics company from using the mark “DURA” for logistics and transportation services. Justice A.J. Bhambhani found that Doora had made out a strong prima facie case that “DURA” was similar to its registered “DOORA” marks. Doora Express Services is the registered proprietor of “DOORA”, “DOORA EXPRESS SERVICES” and “DOORA LOGISTICS”, as well as an associated device mark in Class 39. The company told the Court that its former General Manager had incorporated Dura Logistics India Private Limited on October 31, 2023, while still working in a fiduciary capacity with Doora, and had adopted the “DURA” mark for the same logistics and transportation services. Doora argued that “DURA” was phonetically, visually, structurally and commercially similar to its registered marks. The Court found these submissions prima facie supported by the record and held that Doora had also established a balance of convenience in its favour and a likelihood of irreparable harm. The Court therefore restrained the defendants from using “DURA” or any deceptively similar mark, including in logos, trade dress, domain names and marketing material likely to cause confusion with Doora’s business.6

Supreme Court Declines to Interfere in ‘DAKSHIN’ Trademark Dispute

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order refusing to restrain Adyar Gate Hotels Limited from using the “DAKSHIN” trademark for its standalone restaurant in Chennai. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan dismissed ITC Limited’s Special Leave Petition, noting that the underlying suit was still pending and the High Court order concerned only interim relief. The dispute concerns the use of “DAKSHIN”, which was originally used at the Welcomgroup Park Sheraton under an agreement between ITC and Adyar Gate Hotels. The agreement ended in 2015, after which Adyar Gate continued using the mark and later operated a standalone restaurant in Chennai. ITC alleged trademark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement. The Delhi High Court had earlier found that Adyar Gate had used the mark since 1989 and had developed its own reputation through long-standing use. It also held that ITC had not established prior goodwill in the mark and found no prima facie case of infringement or passing off. The Supreme Court therefore found no reason to interfere at the interim stage and dismissed ITC’s petition. The underlying trademark dispute remains pending before the Delhi High Court. 7 Read More

Delhi High Court Restrains Bombay Shaving Company From Running Revised Gillette Ad

The Delhi High Court restrained Bombay Shaving Company from running a revised advertisement in an ongoing dispute with Gillette India, observing that there was, at first glance, “no perceptible difference in the impact” between the revised advertisement and the original advertisement. The Court issued notice on Gillette’s contempt application alleging that the company had breached its earlier undertaking to take down the original advertisement. Gillette argued that although Bombay Shaving Company had undertaken to remove the original advertisement, the revised version continued to contain essentially the same material that Gillette had objected to. Bombay Shaving Company argued that the advertisement had been substantially reworked, with the objectionable portions removed, and did not disparage Gillette. The Court, on a prima facie viewing of the revised advertisement, found that its impact appeared to be the same as that of the original advertisement. It therefore directed Bombay Shaving Company not to run the revised advertisement until the next hearing. The Court also directed the company to file its response to the contempt application and Gillette’s interim injunction application within a week. The dispute arises from advertisements by Bombay Shaving Company which Gillette alleges mock and disparage its razors.8 Read More

Supreme Court Refers Trademark Jurisdiction Question to Larger Bench

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether State notifications declaring Civil Judges (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts can override the requirement under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 that trademark infringement suits be instituted before a District Court. The issue arose in I.S.D.S. Private Limited v. Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd., concerning a Commercial Court notification in Jharkhand. The appellants argued that Section 134 specifically requires such suits to be heard by a District Court. In Jharkhand, however, certain commercial disputes can be heard by a Civil Judge (Senior Division), with an appeal to the District Court. They contended that this would also limit the availability of an appeal to the High Court. The respondents relied on the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which includes intellectual property disputes within the definition of “commercial dispute”. They also relied on Section 21, which gives the Act overriding effect where its provisions are inconsistent with another law. The Supreme Court noted differing approaches in earlier decisions concerning the interaction between the Commercial Courts Act and special statutes. It observed that the conflict arises specifically when a Civil Judge, rather than a District Court, is notified as a Commercial Court. The Court referred the issue to a larger Bench and stayed the suit pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Jamshedpur.9 Read More

Madras High Court Dismisses ‘Dr. WASH’ Infringement Suit Against ‘Dr. Bright’

The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Ashique Exports against Koyenco Soaps and Detergents, holding that Koyenco’s “Dr. Bright” soap packaging was not deceptively similar to Ashique’s “Dr. WASH” packaging. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu also dismissed Koyenco’s separate petition seeking cancellation of Ashique’s “Dr. WASH” trademark. Ashique had adopted and continuously used “Dr. WASH” since September 2002, while Koyenco launched “Dr. Bright” soap in 2016. Ashique alleged that Koyenco had copied the “Dr.” prefix and its trade dress to make the product appear to be an improved version of “Dr. WASH”. Koyenco denied the allegations and argued that “Dr.” and “Wash” were common terms in the trade. The Court accepted Ashique’s evidence showing earlier use of its trade dress, including invoices, delivery challans and advertising records. However, after comparing the two products, it found that their packaging, written content and overall presentation were distinct. The Court also observed that “Dr.” and “Wash” were common to the trade. The Court nevertheless rejected Koyenco’s challenge to the trademark registration, clarifying that the disclaimer relied upon by Koyenco applied to Ashique’s label mark and not its separately registered “Dr. WASH” word mark. Both the suit and rectification petition were accordingly dismissed.10 Read More

Delhi High Court Restrains Fake ‘PURPLLE’ Franchise Operation

The Delhi High Court restrained an unidentified operator from using the “PURPLLE” trademark and other branding of beauty and personal-care platform Purplle to offer a fake franchise opportunity for ₹15 lakh. Justice Jyoti Singh held that there was a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, with a likelihood of irreparable harm to Purplle’s goodwill. Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., which operates Purplle, told the Court that it discovered a Facebook advertisement in August 2026 titled “PURPLLE – 2026 FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY”. The advertisement used Purplle’s registered logo and photographs of its stores and invited people to invest in a purported franchise programme. Purplle stated that it had never authorised any franchise or dealership scheme. A linked WhatsApp Business account also offered a “Purplle Store Franchise” for ₹15 lakh. The Court restrained the unidentified operators from using Purplle’s trademarks, logos, store photographs, branding or other proprietary material in connection with any franchise, dealership or business opportunity. It also directed Meta to remove the Facebook advertisement, WhatsApp to suspend the associated account, and Reliance Jio to block the linked mobile number, all within 36 hours. The platforms were also directed to disclose relevant account and subscriber details.11 Read More

Delhi High Court Dismisses ITC Challenge to Philip Morris Heat-Not-Burn Patent

The Delhi High Court dismissed ITC Limited’s challenge to a patent held by Philip Morris Products S.A. for a heat-not-burn tobacco product. Justice Jyoti Singh upheld the patent and dismissed both ITC’s appeal against the Controller’s decision and its writ petition concerning two applications rejected during the opposition proceedings. The patent covers a “heated aerosol generating article” that heats tobacco to produce vapour without burning it. ITC had challenged the patent on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step, relying on ten earlier patent documents relating to smoking and vaping products. The Controller had rejected ITC’s post-grant opposition in January 2026. The High Court examined the prior-art documents individually and found that none disclosed the combination claimed in Philip Morris’s patent. The Court noted that several of the earlier documents involved some form of combustion, whereas the patented invention operated by heating without combustion. It also considered the distinction between a metal foil and a metal-paper laminate in the context of controlling heat. The Court further upheld the Controller’s decision to exclude four of ITC’s prior-art documents because they were filed beyond the applicable procedural timeline. Finding that the patent satisfied the requirements of novelty and inventive step, the Court dismissed ITC’s challenges.12 Read More

International Update

Apple Ordered to Pay $5.7 Billion in Haptic Technology Patent Infringement Case

Apple was ordered by a US jury to pay Taction, a San Diego-based business, more than $5.7 billion for violating two patents pertaining to the haptic feedback technology found in Apple Watches and iPhones. The technology covered by the patents allows gadgets to generate tapping vibrations using Apple’s Taptic Engine. Taction claimed that Apple had utilized its patented technology without permission when it filed the lawsuit in 2021. Apple contended that the patents were invalid and refuted the accusations. A federal judge in San Diego ruled in 2023 that Apple had not violated the patents. But in 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived the case, permitting it to proceed to trial. On September 26, 2026, the jury ruled in favor of Taction and awarded it more than $5.7 billion in damages, the largest patent infringement verdict of its kind in the United States to date. Apple has challenged the ruling, saying its Taptic Engine is “fundamentally different” from Taction’s technology, and said it would appeal.13

DaVoice Sues Perplexity AI Over Alleged Trade Secret Misappropriation

Startup DaVoice has sued Perplexity AI in a California federal court, accusing the AI assistant firm of stealing trade secrets related to wake-word technology. Filed on September 24, 2026, the complaint alleges Perplexity stole DaVoice’s proprietary technology after the two companies collaborated. The purported trade secrets include proprietary source code, inference logic, network architecture, training methods, training data and technical know-how. DaVoice focuses on technology that enables devices to constantly listen for particular wake words to activate AI assistants and has worked with companies such as Volkswagen and Samsara. A spokesperson for Perplexity said the suit was an unfounded move to claim ownership of ordinary wake-word technology. Additionally, the company said that its agreement with DaVoice explicitly protects its right to develop similar, equivalent or competing products and services. The lawsuit challenges the protection of trade secrets, contractual rights acquired from collaborations on technology and ownership of proprietary technology integrated into AI-driven products.14

Viatris Sues Novo Nordisk Over Wegovy Generic Patent Dispute

Viatris, a generic drugmaker, has sued Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk in a Delaware federal court through its subsidiary Mylan Pharmaceuticals, asking the court to declare that its proposed generic version of Wegovy would not infringe Novo Nordisk’s patent rights. The lawsuit, filed Sept. 24, 2026, challenges a patent on the method of using single-dose Wegovy injection pens for weight loss. Viatris is asking for a decision that its planned generic drug does not violate the patent. Novo Nordisk declined to comment on the lawsuit, citing litigation. Novo Nordisk made almost $31 billion from its weight-loss medications Wegovy and Ozempic, which are based on semaglutide in 2025. But the generic versions of these drugs won’t be allowed into the US market until 2032, when the patents for the active ingredient, semaglutide, expire. Mylan and other pharmaceutical companies have settled other patent disputes with Novo Nordisk over proposed generic versions of Wegovy and Ozempic. It points to the continued patent fights in the pharmaceutical sector and the legal hurdles in marketing generic drugs before the expiration of patent protection.15

Lidl Ordered to Stop Selling Birkenstock Lookalike Sandals in the Netherlands

German retailer Lidl has been ordered by the District Court of Gelderland in the Netherlands to stop selling sandals imitating the Arizona, Madrid, Gizeh, Boston and Florida models of Birkenstock. The court ruled that Lidl’s sandals had infringed Birkenstock’s copyright, notably the footbed design. The court also ordered Lidl to furnish information on its sales and orders of the infringing goods, while the question of damages will be dealt with separately. The ruling is first instance and can be appealed. The ruling contradicts a 2025 ruling by Germany’s highest civil court that denied copyright protection for Birkenstock sandals. The Dutch court’s decision comes after a December 2025 clarification from the Court of Justice of the European Union that useful products must meet the same copyright originality standards as other creative works. The case is a reminder of the different ways European countries approach the copyright protection of industrial designs and raises significant questions on how product designs can be protected from being copied.16

  1. Riya Rathore, “Delhi High Court Sets Aside Copyright Registration For ‘Radhey Radhey Barsane Wali Radhey’,” LiveLaw Biz (September 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/delhi-high-court-cancels-rival-copyright-registration-of-radhey-radhey-barsane-wali-radhey-on-vipul-music-company-plea-551213 ↩︎
  2. Riya Rathore, “Delhi HC Dismisses Challenge To Copyright Suit Over Rajasthan Temple Made To Look Like Guruji’s Bade Mandir,” LiveLaw Biz (September 23, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/delhi-high-court-dismisses-challenge-to-copyright-suit-over-rajasthan-temple-made-to-look-like-gurujis-bade-mandir-551393  ↩︎
  3. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Clarifies 2023 Order Restraining FabIndia Trademark Infringement Covers Social Media, LiveLaw Biz (Sep. 23, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/ipr/restraint-order-equally-to-social-media-platforms-delhi-high-court-clarifies-scope-of-injunction-in-fabindia-trademark-copyright-action-551470 ↩︎
  4. Riya Rathore, ‘There Should Be A Separate ‘META Court’: Delhi HC Judge Jests As Another Instagram Copyright Case Lands In Court, LiveLaw Biz (Sep. 24, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/delhi-high-court-declines-blanket-protection-order-for-content-creator-against-future-copyright-strikes-says-genuineness-must-be-assessed-each-time-551585 ↩︎
  5. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Issues Notice To JioStar On Zee Entertainment’s Contempt Plea Over Continued Use Of Its Music, LiveLaw Biz (Sep. 25, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/delhi-high-court-issues-notice-on-zee-entertainment-contempt-plea-against-jiostar-over-continued-use-of-its-music-551764 ↩︎
  6. Riya Rathore, “Delhi High Court Restrains Doora Express Services’ Former General Manager From Using ‘DURA’ Mark,” LiveLaw Biz (September 26, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-restrains-doora-express-services-former-general-manager-from-using-dura-mark-551941 ↩︎
  7. Kirit Singhania, “Supreme Court Declines To Interfere With HC Order Refusing ITC Interim Relief In ‘DAKSHIN’ Mark Dispute,” LiveLaw Biz (September 25, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/top-stories/supreme-court-refuses-to-interfere-with-delhi-hc-order-on-itcs-bid-to-stop-adyar-gate-hotels-use-of-dakshin-mark-551749 ↩︎
  8. Riya Rathore, “’No Perceptible Difference’: Delhi High Court Restrains Bombay Shaving Co. From Running Revised Ad In Gillette Suit,” LiveLaw Biz (September 25, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/no-perceptible-difference-delhi-high-court-restrains-bombay-shaving-company-from-running-revised-ad-in-gillette-suit-551743 ↩︎
  9. Riya Rathore, “Can a Commercial Courts Notification Override Trade Marks Act District Court Mandate? Supreme Court Refers Question to Larger Bench,” LiveLaw Biz (September 21, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/can-a-commercial-courts-notification-override-trade-marks-act-district-court-mandate-supreme-court-refers-question-to-larger-bench-551121 ↩︎
  10. Riya Rathore, “Madras High Court Dismisses ‘Dr. WASH’ Infringement Suit Over ‘Dr. Bright’ Soap, Says Packaging Distinct,” LiveLaw Biz (September 22, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/packaging-not-deceptively-similar-madras-high-court-dismisses-dr-wash-soap-infringement-suit-against-dr-bright-551223 ↩︎
  11. Riya Rathore, “Delhi High Court Orders Meta, WhatsApp To Block Fake ‘Purplle’ Franchise Seeking ₹15 Lakhs From Public,” LiveLaw Biz (September 24, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-restrains-fake-purplle-franchise-scam-soliciting-15-lakh-from-prospective-investors-551621 ↩︎
  12. Riya Rathore, “Delhi High Court Dismisses ITC Challenge To Philip Morris Heat-Not-Burn Cigarette Patent,” LiveLaw Biz (September 23, 2026). https://www.livelawbiz.com/patent/delhi-high-court-dismisses-itc-challenge-to-philip-morris-heat-not-burn-cigarette-patent-551498 ↩︎
  13. Blake Brittain, “US jury says Apple owes record $5.7 billion in haptic technology patent case,” Reuters (September 26, 2026).https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-jury-says-apple-owes-record-57-billion-haptic-technology-patent-case-2026-09-26/ ↩︎
  14. Blake Brittain, “Perplexity AI sued by startup for allegedly stealing ‘wake word’ technology,” Reuters (September 25, 2026).https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/perplexity-ai-sued-by-startup-allegedly-stealing-wake-word-technology-2026-09-25/ ↩︎
  15. Blake Brittain, “Mylan asks US court to clear Wegovy generic from Novo patent claims,” Reuters (September 25, 2026).https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/mylan-asks-us-court-clear-wegovy-generic-novo-patent-claims-2026-09-25/ ↩︎
  16. Francisco Velasquez, “Lidl banned from selling copycat Birkenstock sandals, Dutch court rules,” BBC News (September 2026)https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqrm90m2g1dzo ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

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

Related Articles