This Week in IP

Image credits: via Magnific

Drafting credit: Divya Telang, Research Associate

Weekly IPR Update | 29 June 2026 – 05 July 2026

Interim Protection Granted to Bombay Group for “Vadilal” Trademark Usage

In an interim ruling, the Bombay High Court granted protective relief to the Bombay Group branch of the Gandhi family, safeguarding its long-term commercial operations under the “Vadilal” trademark.1 The dispute erupted after the Ahmedabad Group entities issued a termination notice attempting to cancel a Registered User Agreement and revoke an Irrevocable Power of Attorney, citing alleged product quality violations. The court found that the Bombay Group established a strong prima facie case that the initial 1993 business division and settlement, comprising a Memorandum of Agreement, Branding Agreement, and User Agreement, was structured to function as a singular, connected family settlement rather than isolated contracts. Recognizing that the Bombay Group has uninterruptedly built its regional business under the “Vadilal” name for over three decades, the court noted that halting operations mid-dispute would cause irreparable commercial harm impossible to quantify in monetary terms. Consequently, the High Court barred the Ahmedabad entities from enforcing the termination or disrupting sales across Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana throughout the upcoming arbitral proceedings. To balance equities, the court conditioned this protection on the Bombay Group maintaining strict compliance with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and permitting facility inspections upon 24 hours’ notice.2 Read more here.

Court Refers Newgen Trademark Dispute to Arbitrators Regardless of Company Name Change

The Delhi High Court clarified that a company cannot escape its contractual liabilities or nullify an agreed-upon dispute resolution path simply by changing its corporate name.3 A Division Bench consisting of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla overturned a lower commercial court’s decision in a trademark infringement case between Newgen Software Technologies Ltd and Newgen IT Technologies Ltd (formerly Vcare Infotech). The dispute originally broke out when Newgen Software discovered that its partner, Vcare Infotech, changed its name to incorporate “Newgen” without permission, leading to a contract termination and an infringement lawsuit. While the lower court believed the contract died a “natural death” due to the identity shift, the High Court called that logic legally unsustainable. The Bench emphasized that because the trademark dispute directly breached the terms of their active partner agreement, the arbitration clause remained perfectly intact. Furthermore, invoking the negative aspect of the kompetenz-kompetenz doctrine, the court ruled that any lingering questions about whether the case can be arbitrated must be handled by the arbitral tribunal itself in the first instance.4 Read more here.

Court Confirms Saregama Holds Exclusive Rights to 134 Film Soundtracks Pending Final Verdict

The Delhi High Court made absolute an ad-interim injunction preventing legendary music composer Ilaiyaraaja from licensing or commercially exploiting music he created for 134 films.5 The ruling comes as part of a copyright lawsuit initiated by Saregama India Limited, which claims exclusive ownership over the sound recordings, literary pieces, and musical compositions from these specific films produced between 1976 and 2007. Saregama approached the court after discovering that Ilaiyaraaja had uploaded the tracks to streaming services like iTunes, Amazon Music, and JioSaavan while issuing a broad legal notice asserting personal ownership over his entire career’s discography. The court upheld the commercial restriction by leaning on Section 17(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957, alongside landmark Supreme Court precedent, which establishes that a producer becomes the first owner of commissioned music made for valuable consideration unless a clear contract states otherwise. Because the original movie producers subsequently assigned those rights to Saregama, the court barred the composer from independently allocating licenses during the litigation.6 Read more here.

Delhi High Court Draws Line Between Political Satire and Vulgar Deepfakes in Raghav Chadha Case

The Delhi High Court balanced the constitutional right to free speech against individual dignity by ordering Meta and another platform to take down six out of fifty-two contested social media links targeting politician Raghav Chadha.7 Justice Subramonium Prasad ruled that while public figures must maintain a higher tolerance for satirical humour and public criticism regarding political choices such as party alliances or shifting loyalties, the court will not endorse the use of artificial intelligence to generate profane or vulgar deepfake videos that assault an individual’s dignity. Although the lawsuit initially raised personality rights arguments, the plaintiff’s counsel narrowed the focus exclusively to defamation after the court clarified that personality rights prevent unauthorized commercial exploitation of likeness rather than reputational harm. Ultimately, the court found the vast majority of the posts to be permissible political satire, but ordered the immediate removal of the six explicitly vulgar URLs along with a directive for platforms to turn over the associated user IP logs and account information within two weeks.8 Read more here.

Chandannagar’s Jalbhara Sandesh Earns GI Tag Among 21 West Bengal Products

West Bengal secured a major cultural milestone as 21 of its native products were officially granted Geographical Indication (“GI”) tags.9 Leading the culinary honours is Chandannagar’s famous Jalbhara Sandesh, a signature sweet with historical roots spanning more than 200 years in the former French colony. Invented in the early 19th century by sweet maker Surjya Kumar Modak as a playful prank for a zamindar’s new son-in-law, the sweet is renowned for its delicate cottage cheese (chhana) shell that conceals a burst of liquid date palm jaggery (nolen gur) syrup.10 The application for legal protection was spearheaded by the Hooghly District Industries Centre alongside fourth-generation sweet shop owner Saibal Kumar Modak. While the GI tag successfully solidifies the sweet’s provenance and establishes a foundation for international trade, exporters face a notable challenge: the product’s short shelf life of only five to six days. Sweet makers are currently calling for government and university-led scientific research to help extend its preservation window without compromising its authentic, spill-prone structure.11

Online Product Listing Establishes Court Jurisdiction in Incense Stick Trademark Dispute

The Delhi High Court restored a trademark infringement suit concerning the “RADHEY KRISHNA” agarbatti (incense stick) mark, ruling that a trial court incorrectly dismissed the case over a lack of territorial jurisdiction.12 The High Court clarified that any digital space or online marketplace where a business lists its items for a commercial transaction effectively counts as a localized place of business. Because the defendant’s products were actively listed for purchase on IndiaMart with accessibility in Delhi, and the plaintiff demonstrated commercial deliveries within the capital, a sufficient territorial nexus was established. The Bench emphasized that once items are available for purchase in a specific region via an interactive e-commerce platform, it is immaterial who created or maintained the online listing for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction.13 Read more here.

Bombay High Court Permits Transfer of Trademark Rectification Claims from Registrar

The Bombay High Court ruled that the Registrar of Trade Marks functions as a court subordinate to the High Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of transferring and consolidating pending trademark rectification proceedings.14 The court allowed an application by the Institute for Technology and Management Trust (“ITM”) to transfer three rectification claims from the Registrar to the High Court, where a primary trademark suit and 17 connected rectification proceedings involving Samata Lok Sansthan Trust were already pending. The court determined that the Registrar possesses the “trappings of a court” because it holds statutory powers to receive evidence, administer oaths, compel witness attendance, and enforce document production. Furthermore, because the Registrar shares concurrent rectification jurisdiction with the High Court and the High Court serves as its statutory appellate venue, consolidating these overlapping matters promotes judicial efficiency and avoids conflicting legal outcomes. The court also rejected the procedural objection that ITM was required to approach the Registrar first under Section 125(2) of the Trade Marks Act, clarifying that a litigant is free to choose between multiple legitimate legal avenues. Accordingly, the Registrar was directed to transmit the records to the High Court Registry within six weeks to be heard collectively.15 Read more here.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Swiss Firm’s Appeal Over Plastic Mixer Patent

The Delhi High Court rejected an appeal by Swiss company Sulzer Mixpac AG, affirming the denial of its 2012 patent application for a plastic static mixer used in polymer processing.16 The court determined that the design which connected more than five installation bodies using a single common bar element to improve stability and fluid mixing amounted to a mere modification of existing state-of-the-art technology. Crucially, the closest prior art document examined by the bench was one of Sulzer Mixpac’s own earlier patents, which already disclosed mechanical equivalents like reinforced walls and connection systems handling up to 12 installation bodies. The bench emphasized that because the inventor behind the prior art and the new application was identical, moving from the old design to the new modification would have been completely obvious to any person skilled in the art. Furthermore, the court refused to consider a new technical argument regarding the division of fluid streams, noting that the company had failed to raise the point before the Controller and had omitted it from the principal patent specifications.17 Read more here.

Delhi High Court Allows Adyar Gate Hotels to Continue Using ‘Dakshin’ Trademark Against ITC’s Objections

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by ITC Limited seeking an interim injunction to block Adyar Gate Hotels Limited (“AGH”) from using the “DAKSHIN” trademark for its standalone restaurant in Chennai, ruling that ITC failed to establish a prima facie case for trademark infringement, passing off, or copyright violation.18 Though AGH’s interactive presence on Zomato established territorial jurisdiction in Delhi by enabling local commercial transactions, the claim failed on its merits. Interpreting the parties’ historical 1985 Operating Service Agreement, the court determined that AGH was the prime financier of the hotel where the restaurant opened in 1989, making AGH the rightful beneficiary of the commercial goodwill generated over decades of continuous regional operation. Furthermore, the bench emphasized that ITC failed to prove it held pre-existing goodwill in the mark prior to 1989, and its prolonged silence, failing to object when AGH continued using the name after the agreement expired in 2015 or to challenge AGH’s trademark registration amounted to tacit consent that disentitled it to equitable interim relief.19 Read more here.

International Update

Accent Mark and French Translation Fail to Save ‘MON AMI’ Trademark Appeal

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a ruling by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) rejecting the application to register the trademark “MON AMI” for edible pet treats, concluding it is confusingly similar to the pre-existing registered mark “AMÌ” used for animal foodstuffs. In their defence they argued that the board failed to properly distinguish between the marks, pointing to the grave accent mark over the “I” in “AMÌ” and the addition of the prefix “MON” translating to “my friend” in English. The CAFC rejected these arguments, upholding the TTAB’s application of the DuPont factors and clarifying that consumers frequently pronounce marks differently than a brand owner intends. Furthermore, the court determined that giving less weight to the word “MON” was legally sound, as it merely reinforces a meaning highly similar to the core registered word “AMI”, meaning the visual and conceptual differences were insufficient to eliminate the likelihood of consumer confusion.20

US Supreme Court to Decide if Juries or Judges Rule on Trademark Brand Strength

The US Supreme Court agreed to review a trademark infringement lawsuit between RiseandShine Corporation and PepsiCo to settle a major procedural question of whether the commercial “strength” of a brand name should be decided by a jury or a judge. RiseandShine originally sued PepsiCo, claiming that the “Mtn DEW Rise Energy” drink line copied its all-uppercase “RISE” coffee branding and caused real consumer confusion. A regional appeals court dismissed the lawsuit by ruling that evaluating a brand’s distinctiveness is a legal question meant solely for a judge. However, RiseandShine appealed to the Supreme Court with a petition for writ of Certiorari, arguing that because brand strength depends entirely on how an ordinary shopper perceives a product, it is a factual question that belongs in front of a regular jury. They pointed out that almost every other regional court in the country leaves this choice to juries, creating an unfair split in how laws are applied. The Supreme Court’s upcoming final ruling will officially determine whether everyday consumer perspectives will be evaluated by regular citizens or decided behind a judge’s bench.21 Read more here.

Significant Reforms to China’s Trademark Regime

China is implementing a massive restructuring of its intellectual property framework, officially set to take effect on January 1, 2027, which moves the country away from a system of high filing volumes toward one centered on genuine commercial utility. Under the new regime, the fundamental principle of good faith has been significantly expanded by establishing a standalone administrative penalty system that targets bad-faith applicants directly with warnings and fines up to RMB 100,000. To modernize protections for the digital economy, the law now recognizes internet, social media, and e-commerce platform activity as valid proof to defend against non-use cancellations, while simultaneously opening the door for the registration of animated motion marks.  The statutory timeframe to file an opposition against a conflicting trademark has been shortened from three months to two months. On the enforcement and litigation front, the law has extended traditional functionality exclusions, which prevent companies from monopolizing functional traits, beyond three-dimensional shapes to cover all non-traditional identifiers, including sound, colour combinations, and motion marks. It has also removed registration requirements for cross-class anti-dilution protection, meaning even unregistered well-known marks can block conflicting filings on unrelated goods. Finally, the updated framework introduces severe financial penalties for registered marks that mislead the public regarding a product’s quality or origin, creates new inter-agency coordination channels to streamline criminal and administrative investigations, and empowers authorities to cancel unused or generic marks on their own initiative.22 Read more here.

German Court Rules that Businesses are Liable for AI Chatbot Hallucinations

The Higher Regional Court of Hamm in Germany has ruled that corporations are legally accountable for misleading advertising when their website chatbots convey false information to the public. The dispute arose after an AI-powered chatbot deployed on a medical practice’s website repeatedly and incorrectly informed users that two practicing physicians held specialized medical titles in plastic and aesthetic surgery. In response to a misleading advertising lawsuit brought by a consumer protection association, the defendant argued that the automated answers were unpreventable, non-transparent “black box” technical errors that occurred entirely without human intervention. The court rejected this defence, determining that a chatbot functions as a technical communication tool over which the operating business maintains decisive control. The judges ultimately concluded that deploying an automated tool without verifying the accuracy of its output constitutes a distinct breach of a company’s legal duty of care, particularly regarding vital health-related qualifications where consumers naturally expect digital systems to be highly reliable.23 Read more here.

Federal Circuit Upholds Injunction Against Generic Neurological Drug

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a preliminary injunction blocking Hetero Labs Limited from launching a generic version of the neurological drug Nuedexta. The case centered on a claim construction dispute regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,659,282, owned by Otsuka America Pharmaceutical and its subsidiary Avanir Pharmaceuticals, which protects a method for treating pseudobulbar affect by administering a specific weight-to-weight ratio of dextromethorphan to quinidine. Hetero argued the ratio should be calculated using the weight of the active free base equivalents, which would place its generic outside the patent’s scope, while Otsuka countered that the calculation must include the full weight of the salt forms as actually administered. The CAFC majority adopted Otsuka’s interpretation, noting that Hetero’s construction would absurdly exclude Nuedexta itself from the patent’s protection.24 Read more here.

  1. Shailesh R. Gandhi & Ors. v. Late Ramchandra R. Gandhi & Ors., Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 18386 of 2026. ↩︎
  2. Maulik Vyas, Bombay High Court grants relief to Vadilal Mumbai branch in dispute over brand rights, The Economic Times (June 30, 2026), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/food/bombay-high-court-grants-relief-to-vadilal-mumbai-branch-in-dispute-over-brand-rights/articleshow/132097173.cms?from=mdr. ↩︎
  3. Newgen IT Technologies Ltd (earlier known as Vcare Infotech Solutions and Services Private Limited) v Newgen Software Technologies Ltd, FAO (COMM) 112/2025 &CM APPL. 27327/2025. ↩︎
  4. Riya Rathore, Delhi HC Holds Name Change Doesn’t Nullify Arbitration Clause, Refers Newgen Dispute To Arbitration, Live Law Biz (July 2, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/arbitration-clause-survives-contract-termination-delhi-high-court-refers-newgen-trademark-dispute-to-arbitration-539673. ↩︎
  5. Saregama India Limited v. Mr. Ilaiyaraaja, I.A. 4116/2026 and I.A. 6361/2026 In CS(COMM)-143/2026. ↩︎
  6. S N Thyagarajan, Delhi High Court refuses to lift injunction against Ilaiyaraaja over ownership of songs from 134 films, Bar and Bench (July 1, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-refuses-to-lift-injunction-against-ilaiyaraaja-over-ownership-of-songs-from-134-films. ↩︎
  7. Raghav Chadha v. Ashok Kumar John Doe and Ors., I.A. 14417/2026 IN CS(OS) 466/2026 & I.A. 14417/2026, I.A. 14418/2026, I.A. 14419/2026, I.A. 14420/2026, I.A. 14421/2026, I.A. 14422/2026. ↩︎
  8. Riya Rathore, Politicians Must Tolerate AI Satire, But Not Vulgar Deepfakes: Delhi High Court In Raghav Chadha Case, Live Law Biz (July 1, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/personality-rights/delhi-high-court-orders-takedown-of-six-vulgar-ai-generated-posts-against-raghav-chadha-declines-to-block-rest-as-political-satire-539469 ↩︎
  9. Jaismita Alexander, Sweet surprise: Chandannagar’s Jolbhora Sandesh earns GI tag, strengthening export prospects, The Telegraph (June 28, 2026), https://www.telegraphindia.com/my-kolkata/food/chandannagars-jolbhora-sandesh-gets-gi-tag-along-with-21-other-products-from-west-bengal/cid/2167632#goog_rewarded. ↩︎
  10. Shreya Banerjee, Chandannagar’s jalbhara gets GI tag: The 220-year-old Bengali sweet that began as a wedding prank, The Hindu (July 2, 2026), https://www.thehindu.com/food/features/chandannagars-jalbhara-gets-gi-tag-the-220-year-old-bengali-sweet-that-began-as-a-wedding-prank/article71173175.ece. ↩︎
  11. Supra note 9. ↩︎
  12. Rukhmani Keshwani v. Raju Agarbatti Works & Anr., FAO (COMM) 99/2024, CM APPL. 30880/2024. ↩︎
  13. Riya Rathore, Delhi HC Holds Online Marketplace Access Creates Jurisdiction, Restores Radhey Krishna Trademark Suit, Live Law Biz (July 2, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/indiamart-listings-accessible-in-delhi-confer-territorial-jurisdiction-delhi-high-court-restores-radhey-krishna-agarbatti-trademark-suit-539688. ↩︎
  14. Institute For Technology and Management Trust and Anr. v. Putch Venkata Ramana & Ors., I.A. 3128/2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 102/2015. ↩︎
  15. Riya Rathore, Trademark Registrar Can Be Court Subordinate To HC For Rectification Proceedings Transfers: Bombay High Court, Live Law Biz (July 1, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/trademark-registrar-can-be-court-subordinate-to-high-court-for-rectification-proceedings-transfers-bombay-high-court-539491. ↩︎
  16. Sulzer Mixpac AG v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, LPA 545/2024. ↩︎
  17. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection Of Swiss Company’s Patent For Plastic Static Mixer, Live Law Biz (July 1, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/patent/delhi-high-court-upholds-rejection-of-swiss-companys-patent-for-plastic-static-mixer-over-lack-of-inventove-step-539585. ↩︎
  18. ITC Limited & Anr. v. Adyar Gate Hotels Limited, FAO(OS) (COMM) 207/2025 & CM APPL. 79554/2025. ↩︎
  19. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Refuses ITC Bid To Stop Adyar Gate Hotels’ Use Of ‘Dakshin’ Mark, Live Law Biz (July 2, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/indiamart-listings-accessible-in-delhi-confer-territorial-jurisdiction-delhi-high-court-restores-radhey-krishna-agarbatti-trademark-suit-539688. ↩︎
  20. Eileen McDermott, MON AMI Too Similar to AMÌ, Affirms CAFC, IP Watchdog (July 2, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/07/01/mon-ami-too-similar-to-ami-affirms-cafc/. ↩︎
  21. Steve Brachmann, SCOTUS Grants Cert Petition on Trademark Strength Inquiry Over SG Brief Urging Denial, IP Watchdog (June 29, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/29/scotus-grants-cert-petition-on-trademark-strength-inquiry-over-sg-brief-urging-denial/. ↩︎
  22. Stefaan Meuwissen, Helen Xia and Joyce Zheng, China adopts revised Trademark Law: What has changed, JD Supra (July 3, 2026), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/china-adopts-revised-trademark-law-what-4331072/. ↩︎
  23. Marcel Pemsel, Politicians might get away with alternative facts, AI chatbot users don’t, IP Kat (July 3, 2026), https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2026/07/politicians-might-get-away-with.html. ↩︎
  24. Rose Esfandiari, Federal Circuit Affirms Ruling Blocking Generic Nuedexta, IP Watchdog (July 1, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/07/01/federal-circuit-affirms-ruling-blocking-generic-nuedexta/. ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

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

Related Articles