This Week in IP

Image credits: via Pixabay

Drafting credit: Divya Telang, Research Associate

Weekly IPR Update | 20 July 2026 – 26 July 2026

Green Light for AI Training: High Court Refuses Interim Injunction in Landmark Copyright Battle

The Delhi High Court rejected an interim injunction plea filed by news agency Asian News International (“ANI”) against OpenAI, holding that using published news content to train Large Language Models like ChatGPT does not constitute copyright infringement.1 In a landmark ruling for artificial intelligence development in India, Justice Amit Bansal held that storing published news material for internal AI training falls under the “fair dealing” provisions of Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act which protects private use, including research. The Court observed that responses generated through Retrieval-Augmented Generation were not substantially similar to ANI’s original reporting, noting that the news agency failed to prove any verbatim memorisation or regurgitation of its articles. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that ANI had previously offered OpenAI a content license, proving that any potential loss could be fully compensated with money, which eliminated the need for an interim injunction. The Court stated that OpenAI’s commercial outputs do not act as direct market substitutes for ANI’s news feeds, the High Court emphasized that stalling AI development at this stage would harm public interest and millions of Indian ChatGPT users. While OpenAI secured an interim defence for its training practices, the Court affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the underlying lawsuit, allowing the main trial to proceed on its merits.2 Read more here.

Quick-Commerce Giant Zepto Blocks NBFC from Misusing Brand Name

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining NBFC Naman Finlease and its directors from using the names “Zepto” and “Zepto Finance” for their loan business.3 Quick-commerce platform Zepto took legal action after it started receiving court summons, legal notices, and consumer complaints meant for the NBFC. Zepto pointed out that “ZEPTO” is an invented, highly distinctive word and noted that it already provides financial services through its “ZeptoCash” digital wallet, launched in June 2025. Invoking the “zone of legitimate expansion” doctrine, Zepto argued that its strong brand reputation deserves protection across other business areas, even if those specific service categories are not registered under its trademark. To prove actual confusion, Zepto presented a lawsuit filed by a borrower in Chennai who was trying to sue “Zepto Finance” the mark used by the NBFC, but had mistakenly listed Zepto’s official address. Agreeing that public confusion was happening, Justice Jyoti Singh issued a temporary order preventing the defendants from using the name or transferring their website domain while the case is being heard.4

Trademark Law Demands Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness: Delhi High Court Orders Re-evaluation of “OFFER” Mark

The Delhi High Court set aside an order by the Registrar of Trade Marks that denied registration to the brand name “OFFER” for alcoholic beverages in Class 33.5 The Registrar had turned down the application after reasoning that the word was not “unique” and was commonly used when providing discounts. Overturning this, Justice Jyoti Singh held that the governing law under Section 9(1)(a) only tests if a name is “distinctive” enough to point to a specific seller, not whether it is completely unique. The Court highlighted that “OFFER” does not directly describe liquor, clarified that an “offer” is a business proposal rather than a price discount, and criticized the Registrar for issuing a generic, pre-drafted rejection without considering the company’s legal arguments. Consequently, the High Court cancelled the rejection and ordered the Registrar to give the company a proper hearing and re-assess the request under the correct principles within four months.6 Read more here.

Shielding Proprietary Data: Court Restrains Ex-Employees from Misusing Internal Business Report

The Delhi High Court temporarily barred former IT department employees of JK Paper Limited from using or sharing the company’s proprietary “Purta/Purtha” report for their newly formed venture, Intelvations LLP.7 The paper manufacturer filed a lawsuit seeking permanent injunctions and damages after the group resigned together, allegedly took confidential data and company-owned devices, and breached non-disclosure contracts covering technical and organizational information. While JK Paper presented a forensic audit by Grant Thornton Bharat LLP to prove unlawful data retention, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani noted that the expert report requires further scrutiny and cannot be accepted at face value yet. However, finding that the company established a primary case for urgency, the Court granted interim protection over the confidential report until the next hearing, while explicitly clarifying that the former staff remain free to use the general skill, knowledge, and experience gained during their employment.8 Read more here.

Crackdown on Courtroom Clips: Supreme Court Bans Unauthorised Sharing of Hearing Videos

The Supreme Court issued an interim order prohibiting the recording, editing, reposting, or monetising of live-streamed court proceedings across social media and digital channels without prior permission from court registrars. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, passed the order while hearing a public interest litigation filed by journalist Harshita Grover. The petition highlighted how out-of-context clips, clickbait titles, and selective editing were misrepresenting courtroom exchanges, leading to online trolling of judges and lawyers and harming public faith in the justice system. During discussions, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta warned about AI tools altering courtroom audio while matching lip movements, while Justice Bagchi cautioned against turning judicial proceedings into “24×7 entertainment”. The Court clarified that the ban does not apply to regular news reporting, asked High Courts for reports on their live-streaming practices, and sought the Union Government’s inputs on implementing regulatory guardrails.9

Court Blocks Baseless Copyright Demands Against TVS Motor

The Delhi High Court temporarily stopped copyright holders Ram Chandra Maurya and five associates from sending groundless legal threats to TVS Motor Company over its engine designs.10 Maurya had repeatedly demanded that TVS halt manufacturing two-wheelers and three-wheelers and pay royalties, claiming the vehicles infringed on his registered literary works titled “Motion’s Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Law”. The court noted that Maurya’s legal notices lacked specific details showing how TVS had copied his written works. The Court highlighted that Maurya had already lost previous complaints against TVS across multiple forums, from the Copyright Authority up to the Supreme Court, and had abandoned his patent applications after the Patent Office raised objections. Ruling that the baseless cease-and-desist notices posed a severe risk to TVS’s reputation, the High Court barred the group from issuing further threats and ordered them to provide TVS with at least seven days’ advance written notice before starting any fresh legal action.11 Read more here.

No Stay for “BOSS”: Court Rejects Actor’s Attempt to Halt Film

The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal by jailed actor Darshan Srinivas and his wife seeking to block the release of the Kannada movie BOSS.12 The actor, who is currently facing trial in the Renukaswamy murder case, argued that the filmmakers infringed on his personality rights by using his well-known moniker “BOSS” and featuring thirteen narrative elements that mirrored the criminal case against him. Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur rejected these arguments, upholding the lower court’s decision and explaining that any alleged plot similarities were merely drawn from information already in the public domain due to extensive media coverage. The Court observed that the film revolves around a cricketer rather than an actor, carries a standard fiction disclaimer, and will not sway judges presiding over his actual criminal trial. Noting that halting a release causes massive financial loss to filmmakers, the High Court held that the trial court acted reasonably and refused to stall the movie’s launch.13 Read more here.

End of an 18-Year Toothpaste War: FMCG Giants Settle Advertising Dispute

The Calcutta High Court brought an 18-year-old lawsuit between Hindustan Unilever Limited (“HUL”) and Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Ltd. to a close after accepting a mutually agreed-upon settlement.14 The legal battle began in 2008 when HUL filed a suit against Anchor over an aggressive advertising campaign across television, internet, and public hoardings. HUL claimed that Anchor crossed permissible limits of comparative advertising into commercial disparagement by projecting its product as India’s “First All-Round Protection Toothpaste” and the “first and only (Sirf)” brand containing Triclosan, Fluoride, and Calcium. This representation, HUL argued, hurt the commercial reputation of its well-known “Pepsodent” brand. Early in the suit, the court passed interim orders in May 2008 and August 2010 restraining Anchor from using the “first and only (Sirf)” claim and requiring the removal of offending hoardings. Under the final settlement terms, Anchor voluntarily accepted a permanent ban on running these specific campaigns or issuing any similar advertisements that could disparage HUL’s products or brands. Satisfied that the voluntary compromise preserved commercial discipline without violating any public policy or third-party rights, the High Court formally decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, bringing a definitive end to the long-standing dispute without any order as to costs.15 Read more here.

No Second Chances: Court Rejects “SUNDAY” Trademark Renewal Over Postal Dispatch Record

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by original proprietor Raju Patel and assignee Matra Mobili Private Limited seeking to renew the “SUNDAY” trademark seven years after its expiration.16 The petitioners claimed that the Trade Marks Registry failed in its legal duty because they never actually received the mandatory pre-expiry renewal notice. However, a division bench held that the Registry adequately fulfilled its statutory requirement by producing official dispatch logs and postal consignment numbers showing the notice was mailed to Patel’s registered agent in March 2019. The Court explained that under the law, once official records show a notice was correctly mailed, it is legally presumed to have been delivered, and the fact that online postal tracking logs expired after six years does not change that reality. Pointing to the five-year delay in taking action and the lack of an affidavit from the trademark agent denying receipt, the High Court held that the trademark’s removal was fully valid.17 Read more here.

International Update

Rehearing Ordered in Siri Tech Dispute: Federal Circuit Sides with Apple Over PTAB

The court overturned a patent tribunal decision that had shielded Zentian Ltd.’s voice-recognition technology (U.S. Patent No. 10,839,789) from being invalidated. The litigation related to single-chip designs housing both a processor and speech-data memory. In a favourable ruling for Apple, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) wrongly read unwritten requirements into the patent claims by forcing Apple to prove older microchips could hold massive language databases, ignoring that the patent’s broad text covers compact, scaled-down models, while also improperly dismissing Apple’s technical rebuttals on chip memory capacity and imposing an unrealistic standard that a skilled engineer must be able to fabricate the circuit single-handedly. Consequently, the Federal Circuit rejected the tribunal’s findings and remanded the case for a complete re-evaluation.18 Read more here.

Luxury Meets Pop Art: French Court Rejects “Artistic Expression” Defence in Hermès Trademark Suit

The Paris Judicial Court (Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris) ruled that art gallery Le Bidon français infringed Hermès’s registered trademarks by selling and displaying unauthorized items such as dented cans and wooden trays bearing the luxury house’s iconic logo and “H” mark. The gallery argued that its repurposed objects were protected works of art, claiming that using Hermès’s branding on every day, “antithetical” items constituted a parody exempt from trademark law. Rejecting these arguments, the Court applied a “double identity” test, finding that identical signs were used on identical product categories without permission. Furthermore, the Court denied the gallery’s “artistic expression” defence, noting that Le Bidon used Hermès’s brand name in titles, descriptions, and social media hashtags, which misled consumers into assuming an official collaboration and improperly profited from the luxury brand’s reputation.19 Read more here.

Trade Dress Lawsuit: Van Leeuwen Awarded 23.8 Million Dollars Over Copycat Pint Designs

A New York federal court issued a permanent injunction against Rebel Creamery and ordered the them to surrender 23.785 million dollars in profit for infringing Van Leeuwen Ice Cream’s distinctive packaging. Van Leeuwen filed the lawsuit in 2023, accusing Rebel of copying its signature pint design which is characterized by a minimalist layout, monochromatic pastel colour palette, negative space, and black script typography with an oversized first letter. In a detailed order following a bench trial, Judge Eric Komitee of the Eastern District of New York ruled that while broad aesthetic concepts like “minimalism” or “pastel colours” are not protectable on their own, they become enforceable when combined with specific, objectively identifiable design features to create a distinct commercial impression. Supported by survey evidence demonstrating a 34.3 percent net confusion rate alongside real-world marketplace confusion, the Court concluded that Rebel’s packaging unfairly misled consumers into assuming both brands shared the same source, handing Van Leeuwen a total victory across all major claims.20

Landmark 1.5 billion dollars Settlement: Anthropic Resolves Historic Class Action AI Copyright Dispute

A federal judge in San Francisco approved Anthropic’s 1.5 billion dollars settlement, the largest known payout in U.S. copyright history, resolving a class action lawsuit brought by authors who accused the AI company of using pirated copies of their books to train its Claude chatbot. The dispute stems from a 2024 lawsuit where, despite finding that training AI models on books constitutes fair use under copyright law, the court ruled that Anthropic infringed authors’ rights by downloading and storing over 7 million pirated titles in a central internal library. Facing a potential trial with damages running into hundreds of billions, Anthropic reached a settlement which covers over 91% of eligible authors and publishers and awards over $101 million in attorney fees. However, a small group of rights holders opted out to pursue separate lawsuits.21

The Price of a Super fake: UK High Court heavily fines Influencer in LVMH counterfeits Ruling

The UK High Court ordered influencer Georgia Aldridge and her company to pay 213,000 euros to LVMH and its luxury brands: Fendi, Loewe, Christian Dior, and Celine for selling counterfeit goods sourced through platforms like AliExpress. Judge Richard Hacon established a distinction between high-quality “super fakes” and ordinary knockoffs, finding that 713 transactions involving higher-grade replicas directly displaced authentic purchases, which warranted roughly 200,000 euros in lost profits. Conversely, the Court held that 4,039 lower-quality transactions did not replace genuine sales but rather fed a distinct market, assessing a further 13,000 euros based on hypothetical licensing fees. Finally, the judge rejected LVMH’s claims for reputational harm as speculative, ruling that because consumers knowingly bought counterfeit items from an unauthorized seller, they did not attribute the product quality or misconduct to the luxury houses themselves.22

Time Expired: U.S. Appeals Court Rejects Decades-Late Copyright Lawsuit Against Jeff Koons

A U.S. federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of a copyright infringement lawsuit against artist Jeff Koons regarding his famous 1989–1990 “Made in Heaven” series. Sculptor and prop designer Michael Hayden sued Koons in 2021, claiming three works in the series featured a 1988 serpent sculpture he designed without credit or compensation. Though Hayden claimed he only discovered the unauthorized use in 2019, the court applied the “discovery rule” statute of limitations, ruling that a reasonably diligent copyright owner would have uncovered the alleged infringement decades earlier. The judges noted that Hayden was living in Italy and consuming local media in 1990 when the series debuted at the Venice Biennale amidst global media coverage, holding that plaintiffs cannot ignore widespread public coverage and file claims 30 years later.23

  1. ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OPCO LLC, I.A. 45300/2024 in CS(COMM) 1028/2024, I.A. 45301/2024 & I.A. 26192/2025. ↩︎
  2. Bhavini Srivastava, OpenAI did not violate copyright laws by using ANI news to train ChatGPT: Delhi High Court declines interim relief, Bar and Bench (July 24, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/openai-did-not-violate-copyright-laws-by-using-ani-news-to-train-chatgpt-delhi-high-court-declines-interim-relief. ↩︎
  3. Zepto Limited & Anr. v. Sailendra Kashyap & Ors., CS(COMM) – 752/2026. ↩︎
  4. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains NBFC From Using ‘Zepto’ And ‘Zepto Finance’ Marks, LiveLaw Biz (July 22, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-temporarily-restrains-nbfc-from-using-zepto-and-zepto-finance-marks-542326. ↩︎
  5. ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 8/2026 and I.A. 3697/2026. ↩︎
  6. Ritu, Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Governs Registrability Under Section 9(1)(a); Delhi HC Directs Registrar to Reconsider “OFFER” Mark Registration Application, SCC Online (July 24, 2026), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/07/24/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act/. ↩︎
  7. K Paper Limited v. Mr. Subhendu Kesh & Ors., CS(COMM) 719/2026. ↩︎
  8. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Restrains Former JK Paper Employees From Using Company’s Confidential Report, LiveLaw Biz (July 23, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/ipr/delhi-high-court-restrains-former-jk-paper-employees-from-using-companys-confidential-report-542534. ↩︎
  9. Debayan Roy, Supreme Court restrains posting, circulating clips of live-streamed court hearings without permission, Bar and Bench (July 24, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-restrains-posting-circulating-clips-of-live-streamed-court-hearings-without-permission. ↩︎
  10. TVS Motor Company Limited v. Ram Chandra Maurya & Ors., CS(COMM) 767/2026. ↩︎
  11. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Restrains Copyright Holders From Issuing Groundless Infringement Threats Against TVS, LiveLaw Biz (July 24, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/delhi-high-court-restrains-man-from-issuing-copyright-threats-to-tvs-motor-over-engine-technology-542798. ↩︎
  12. Darshan Srinivas & Anr. v. Siri Productions & Ors., MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4257 OF 2026. ↩︎
  13. The Hindu Bureau, Karnataka High Court dismisses actor Darshan’s plea against release of Kannada movie BOSS, The Hindu (July 23, 2026), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/karnataka-high-court-dismisses-actor-darshans-plea-against-release-of-kannada-movie-boss/article71258263.ece. ↩︎
  14. Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Ltd., CS/96/2008. ↩︎
  15. Riya Rathore, Anchor Agrees Before Calcutta High Court To Drop ‘First and Only’ Toothpaste Claims In 18-Year Dispute With HUL, LiveLaw Biz (July 20, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/anchor-agrees-before-calcutta-high-court-to-drop-first-and-only-toothpaste-claims-in-18-year-dispute-with-hul-542072. ↩︎
  16. Raju Patel & Anr. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, W.P. NO.4868 OF 2025. ↩︎
  17. Riya Rathore, Bombay High Court Dismisses ‘SUNDAY’ Trademark Renewal Plea, Finds Notice Properly Dispatched, LiveLaw Biz (July 23, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/bombay-high-court-dismisses-sunday-trademark-renewal-plea-finds-notice-properly-dispatched-542529. ↩︎
  18. Eileen McDermott, Apple Wins at CAFC Due to PTAB’s Erroneous Reading of Speech Recognition Patent Claims, IP Watchdog (July 21, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/07/21/apple-wins-cafc-due-ptabs-erroneous-reading-apeech-recognition-claims/. ↩︎
  19. Söğüt Atilla-Aydın, Hermès on a dented can: French court rejects artistic expression defence, IPKat (July 23, 2026), https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2026/07/hermes-on-dented-can-french-court.html. ↩︎
  20. When Does Packaging Become Protectable? Van Leeuwen’s Win Offers a Roadmap, The Fashion Law (July 20, 2026), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/when-does-packaging-become-protectable-van-leeuwens-win-offers-a-roadmap/. ↩︎
  21. Michael Gennaro, Judge approves $1.5b Anthropic copyright settlement, cuts requested attorneys’ fee award by $86m, World Trademark Review (July 21, 2026), https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/article/judge-approves-15b-anthropic-copyright-settlement-cuts-requested-attorneys-fee-award-86m. ↩︎
  22. Lee Curtis, What the LVMH influencer ruling means for ‘super fakes’ enforcement, World Trademark Review (July 20, 2026), https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/article/what-the-lvmh-influencer-ruling-means-super-fakes-enforcement. ↩︎
  23. Blake Brittain, US appeals court upholds win for artist Jeff Koons in copyright case, Reuters (July 21, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-appeals-court-upholds-win-artist-jeff-koons-copyright-case-2026-07-21/. ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

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

Related Articles