What’s New in IP?

Drafting Credit: Sidratul Muntaha, Research Associate

Image credits: via Magnific

Weekly IPR Update | 17 May 2026 – 24 May 2026

Decades of Recognition Earn Calpol Well-Known Trademark Status

In a significant trademark law development, the Delhi High Court declared GlaxoSmithKline’s Calpol a “well-known trademark” for medicinal and pharmaceutical products under the Trade Marks Act.1 The ruling came in a dispute against Walter Healthcare, which had been using the mark Walpol, a closely similar name differing only in its first letter. While the dispute was later settled with Walter agreeing to stop using the mark, withdraw its trademark application, and pay damages, the Court separately considered GSK’s request for recognition of Calpol as a well-known trademark. The Court noted Calpol’s long-standing use in India, extensive market presence, substantial sales figures and strong consumer recognition over several decades. The judgment reinforces the importance of protecting highly recognized brands from confusingly similar marks, especially in the pharmaceutical sector where consumer confusion can have serious consequences.2 Read more here.

“Cockroach Janata Party” Name Reaches Trademark Registry

In an unusual trademark development, multiple applications have been filed across India seeking registration of the name “Cockroach Janata Party” following the rapid rise of the satirical online movement. The phrase gained significant online attention after social media discussions and political satire surrounding remarks made during a Supreme Court hearing. Reports indicate that several individuals filed applications under different trademark classes, including Class 45,3 which generally covers legal and certain social services, while others sought registration for potential commercial use such as merchandise and branding opportunities.4 However, filing a trademark application does not automatically grant exclusive rights or political recognition. Official records indicate that the applications are currently at the “Formalities Check Pass” stage, meaning they have crossed the initial procedural review but are still subject to further examination by the Trade Marks Registry. The applications remain subject to examination by the Trade Marks Registry, which may assess issues such as distinctiveness, public policy concerns, and the likelihood of confusion. This development highlights how viral online trends and digital movements are increasingly intersecting with intellectual property law and trademark protection.5 Read more here.

Philips Loses Royalty Battle in Delhi HC

In a significant development in Indian patent law, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla delivered an important judgment on 18 May 2026 in KK Bansal & Rajesh Bansal v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV.6 The Court overturned a 2018 single-judge order that had directed DVD manufacturers Bhagirathi Electronics and Mangalam Technology, owned by the Bansal family, to pay royalties to Philips for allegedly infringing Indian Patent IN-184753 relating to EFM+ decoding technology used in DVD players. The Court held that Philips failed to prove either direct or indirect patent infringement. It observed that when a company claims infringement of a Standard Essential Patent (SEP), it must provide proper claim charts showing how the patent matches the technical standards involved. Philips mainly relied on foreign essentiality certificates and declarations but the Court found these insufficient because they were not supported by direct evidence or witness testimony explaining the connection between the patent and DVD Forum standards. The Court strongly disapproved of relying solely on such foreign certifications. Further, the Court removed the punitive damages imposed on one of the defendants and clarified that merely being a former employee of Philips was not enough to impose such liability. The judgment is considered significant because it strengthens standards for SEP litigation, highlights the need for stronger evidence in patent disputes, and reinforces the principle of patent exhaustion in India.7 Read more here.

No Objection Doesn’t Mean Automatic Registration: Calcutta HC

Calcutta High Court held that copyright registration cannot be granted automatically simply because no objection is filed within the prescribed time period. The case arose when Rajkumar Aggarwal challenged a copyright registration granted to another party, claiming that he already held rights over the same artistic work and was not informed about the later application.8 Justice Arindam Mukherjee clarified that even when no objections are received, the Registrar of Copyright still has a duty to independently verify whether the details in the application are correct before granting registration. The Court observed that proper scrutiny by the Registrar acts as an important safeguard and helps prevent unnecessary disputes. Since the required procedures were not properly followed, the Court cancelled the registration and directed its removal from the copyright register. The ruling highlights that copyright registration is not an automatic process and emphasizes the importance of proper verification before granting legal protection.9 Read more here.

Rajasthan HC Orders Fresh Trial in “METRO ENGINE” Dispute

Rajasthan High Court set aside a 2016 trial court judgment that had restrained Dhanvarsha Oil Mills from using the “METRO ENGINE” mark for its mustard oil products and ordered a fresh trial in the matter.10 The Court held that trademark registration under Section 31 of the Trade Marks Act creates only a rebuttable presumption of validity and cannot alone justify an infringement decree without proper examination of disputed facts and evidence. It observed that the plaintiff had failed to produce important documents to establish continuous prior use and reputation of the mark. The ruling highlights that while trademark registration provides legal protection, proving actual and continuous use remains equally important in infringement disputes.11 Read more here.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief in ‘Bachpan Ka Pyar’ Copyright Case

In an important copyright development, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court granted temporary relief to Ivy Entertainment Private Limited in a copyright infringement case concerning the popular song Bachpan Ka Pyar.12 The suit was filed after Ivy Entertainment claimed ownership of the song through an Intellectual Property Rights Acquisition Agreement dated November 2025. The company stated that it had acquired rights over a portfolio of approximately 1,250 songs, including Bachpan Ka Pyar. The song was originally created in 2017 and later gained nationwide popularity after its adapted version featuring Sahdev Dirdo and rapper Badshah went viral in 2021. Ivy Entertainment alleged that several YouTube channels were using the song’s famous hook line, “Jaane Meri Janeman Bachpan Ka Pyar Bhool Nahi Jaana Re”, along with its rhythm and other elements without authorization. According to the company, some allegedly infringing videos had gathered millions of views, with one upload reportedly crossing 17 million views. The Court found that Ivy Entertainment had established a prima facie case based on the chain of ownership agreements and observed that such unauthorized use could lead to unlawful financial gain for the alleged infringers while affecting the company’s own revenue. As a result, the Court restrained certain YouTube channel operators and unidentified infringers from using or distributing the song without permission and directed some operators to disclose the revenue earned from such use. The case highlights the growing importance of copyright protection in the digital era and demonstrates the judiciary’s increasing focus on safeguarding music rights on online platforms.13 Read more here.

Delhi HC Orders Takedown of Pirated Copies of Aakhri Sawal

In another significant copyright development, the Delhi High Court granted protection to the Sanjay Dutt-starrer Aakhri Sawal against online piracy just one day after its theatrical release. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed an ex parte ad interim order on a suit filed by Nikhil Nanda Motion Pictures LLP, the film’s production house, after it alleged that pirated copies and infringing content were being circulated across YouTube channels, Telegram groups, and file-sharing platforms such as TeraBox.14 The production house also claimed that promotional materials including posters, teasers and trailers had been used without authorization even before the film’s release. The Court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case and observed that unauthorized circulation of the film could cause irreparable harm that could not be compensated merely through monetary damages. It directed Google and Telegram to remove identified infringing content within 72 hours and also granted a dynamic injunction, allowing the production house to report newly discovered infringing links during the course of the case for immediate removal. The ruling reflects the judiciary’s increasing focus on combating digital piracy and strengthening copyright protection for creative works in online spaces.15 Read more here.

Trademark Battle Ends in Favour of Dr. Reddy’s

In a significant trademark law development, the Delhi High Court upheld the rights of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) over the “REDDY” trademark and dismissed challenges filed by Reddy Pharmaceuticals in a long-running dispute. A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla upheld both the permanent injunction against Reddy Pharmaceuticals and the order directing removal of its registered trademark.16 The Court held that the use of the “REDDY” mark by Reddy Pharmaceuticals was likely to create confusion in the market and could mislead consumers. It also rejected the company’s defence of acquiescence, clarifying that merely tolerating use in a non-competing business area cannot amount to acceptance of its later use in a directly competing field. The Court further observed that goodwill in a passing-off action does not have to be proved only through financial records and may be established through evidence of reputation, commercial presence and public recognition. Additionally, the Court upheld findings that Reddy Pharmaceuticals had copied the trade dress of DRL’s “OMEZ” product packaging. The judgment reinforces the importance of brand identity and demonstrates the judiciary’s continued protection of trademarks against deceptive and confusing use in the marketplace.17 Read more here.

Delhi HC Orders Removal of Morphed Religious Content on YouTube

Delhi High Court directed YouTube to remove a video that allegedly used morphed content from Hindu preacher Sadhvi Deepika Bharti’s original religious discourse without authorization. Justice Mini Pushkarna granted interim relief after observing that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and could suffer irreparable harm if the content remained online. According to the allegations, the original video was manipulated by adding images of Sant Rampal Singh, creating a misleading impression that Sadhvi Deepika Bharti was endorsing him and the Satlok Ashram Foundation. The Court noted that such altered content could deceive the public and directed YouTube not only to remove the specific video but also to disclose basic account details of the uploader. The case highlights the increasing concerns surrounding unauthorized use and manipulation of online content and reflects the judiciary’s growing focus on protecting creators and preventing misleading digital content.18 Read more here.

Madras HC Takes Up Drishyam 3 Telugu Rights Dispute

In copyright development in the entertainment industry, the Madras High Court issued notice on a plea seeking to stop the release of the Telugu dubbed version of Drishyam 3, the upcoming Mohanlal-starrer Malayalam film. The petition was filed by Rajkumar Theatre Pvt. Ltd., which claimed exclusive rights to remake and commercially exploit the film in the Telugu language.19 The company argued that releasing a Telugu dubbed version of the film would violate its copyright and affect its exclusive rights. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan admitted the plea and issued notices to the film’s producer Aashirvad Cinemas, director Jeethu Joseph, and Panorama Studios, which holds worldwide theatrical and digital rights for the film. The petitioner has also sought an interim injunction to prevent the release of the Telugu dubbed version while the case is pending before the Court. The dispute highlights the growing importance of remake, dubbing and regional language rights in the film industry, where such rights carry significant commercial value.20 Read more here.

Delhi Court Grants Relief to YouTuber Karl Rock in Copyright Infringement Case

Delhi commercial court granted permanent relief to YouTuber Karl Rock in a copyright infringement suit against a UK-based YouTube creator.21 The Court found that the defendant had repeatedly copied and republished substantial portions of Karl Rock’s original videos as YouTube Shorts without authorization or meaningful transformation. The allegedly infringing content had collectively received millions of views, diverting audience attention and potentially affecting the creator’s revenue and online presence. The Court observed that the defendant appeared to follow a pattern of infringement by continuing similar activities through different channels and even offering content-creation methods based on “repurposing” existing videos. Holding that such conduct amounted to deliberate copyright infringement, the Court permanently restrained the defendants from reproducing, uploading, sharing, distributing or monetizing unauthorized copies of Karl Rock’s content. It also awarded ₹5 lakh as compensatory damages and ₹2 lakh towards litigation costs. The ruling highlights the growing judicial recognition of copyright protection for digital creators and reinforces that unauthorized reuse of online content for commercial gain can attract legal consequences.22 Read more here.

Delhi Court Emphasises Need for Proper Evidence in Copyright Cases

Delhi commercial court dismissed a copyright infringement suit filed by film producer Rishi Raj over alleged unauthorized streaming of films including Main Nashe Main Hoon, Vairi, Kanch Ki Diwaar, and other movies on YouTube channels.23 Although the Court accepted the producer’s ownership claims over certain films, it held that he failed to prove actual infringement with admissible evidence. The producer had mainly relied on screenshots allegedly showing the films being streamed on the defendants’ YouTube channels, but the Court found these screenshots inadmissible because they were not supported by the required authentication certificate for electronic evidence. The Court clarified that even if defendants do not contest a case, the burden still remains on the plaintiff to prove infringement through proper evidence. The ruling highlights the importance of producing valid and authenticated electronic evidence in digital copyright disputes.24 Read more here.

Delhi Court Cracks Down on Counterfeit Polo Ralph Lauren Products

Delhi district court permanently restrained nine traders from selling counterfeit Polo Ralph Lauren products and awarded ₹5 lakh in damages to The Polo/Lauren Company L.P.25 The case arose after the company alleged that the traders were manufacturing and selling counterfeit goods using its registered trademarks, including the POLO and POLO player device marks, without authorization. The Court found strong evidence showing that the defendants had used nearly identical trademarks, typography and trade dress to imitate the plaintiff’s products and mislead consumers. It observed that the defendants had intentionally attempted to take advantage of the brand’s reputation and goodwill in the market. The Court also directed that the seized counterfeit products be handed over to the company for destruction. The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s strict approach towards counterfeiting and highlights the importance of protecting well-known brands from misuse and consumer deception.26 Read more here.

Delhi High Court Protects IKEA’s Trademarks and Digital Assets

Delhi High Court granted interim protection to IKEA and restrained the operator of the domain name “keiekae.store” from using IKEA’s registered trademarks and copying the layout and user interface of its official website.27 The Court directed that the defendant should not use the IKEA name, logo or any similar variations across domain names, websites, social media handles, business activities or related communications. It also restrained the use of website designs and interfaces that allegedly copied IKEA’s official platform. The ruling highlights the judiciary’s growing recognition that intellectual property protection extends not only to trademarks but also to distinctive digital elements such as website design and user interfaces, especially in an increasingly online marketplace.28 Read more here.

Generative AI Drives EU Copyright Review

The European Commission has launched a call for evidence to gather feedback on possible changes to modernise the European Union’s copyright framework and review the effectiveness of the rules introduced under the 2019 Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. The Commission aims to assess whether the existing framework has improved the use and licensing of copyrighted content in digital environments and created a fairer marketplace for creators and rights holders. The review also focuses on emerging challenges caused by rapid technological developments, particularly issues relating to generative AI, online piracy of live events, fair remuneration for performers and producers, and access to copyrighted works for research purposes. Stakeholders have been invited to provide comments until 25 June 2026. This development reflects the growing global effort to adapt copyright systems to changing technologies and the increasing impact of AI on intellectual property rights.29 Read more here.

U.S. Patent Litigation Sees Shift in Obviousness Analysis

In an important development in U.S. patent law, the Federal Circuit in Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. v. Lupin Ltd. upheld a district court decision that invalidated certain patent claims relating to the drug Tolvaptan on grounds of obviousness.30 The dispute involved patents covering highly pure Tolvaptan and methods of manufacturing the compound. The court agreed that a person skilled in the field could reasonably have been motivated to modify earlier existing research and would have expected successful results from such modifications. Beyond the specific case, the decision has attracted attention because it reflects a broader shift in patent litigation. With inter partes review (IPR) proceedings becoming less accessible for many patent challengers, district courts may now play a much larger role in deciding issues relating to patent validity and obviousness. Legal commentators suggest that district courts may increasingly rely on the reasoning and analytical framework developed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) over the years when dealing with complex patent disputes. The development signals a possible change in how patent invalidity challenges may be handled in the future, especially in pharmaceutical and technology-related litigation.31 Read more here.

IPR and Innovation: New Study Highlights Growth Potential in Latin America

A recent joint study released by the European Patent Office (EPO) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) highlighted the important role of intellectual property rights in driving economic growth and innovation across the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region. According to the study, industries that heavily rely on intellectual property rights, such as pharmaceuticals, automotive manufacturing and electronics, contribute approximately 13.6% of the region’s GDP and support nearly 1.6 million jobs. These industries were also found to be more productive and offered significantly higher wages compared to other sectors. However, the report also pointed out major challenges. More than 85% of patent applications filed within the region originate from foreign applicants, indicating that the region imports far more technology than it exports. Despite this, the study identified significant untapped domestic innovation potential, particularly within universities and research institutions. The report stressed that stronger technology transfer systems, greater collaboration between industry and academia, and improved policy frameworks could help convert local innovation into long-term economic value and reduce reliance on imported technologies. This development reflects the increasing recognition of intellectual property as an important tool for economic and technological development worldwide.32 Read more here.

  1. Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Walter Healthcare Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 505. ↩︎
  2. Indu Bhan, In a Relief to GSK, HC Declares Calpol a Well-known Trademark, ET Pharma (May 19, 2026), https://pharma.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/policy-and-regulations/in-a-relief-to-gsk-hc-declares-calpol-a-well-known-trademark/131188492. ↩︎
  3. Trademark Application Number: 7741481. ↩︎
  4. Trademark Application Number: 7741918; Trademark Application Number: 7741481. ↩︎
  5. Danita Yadav, Cockroach vs Cockroach: Trademark fight on to register ‘Cockroach Janta Party’, 3 applications filed, Hindustan Times (May 21, 2026), https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/cockroach-vs-cockroach-trademark-fight-begins-to-register-cockroach-janta-party-3-applications-filed-101779372156372.html. ↩︎
  6. KK Bansal v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 509. ↩︎
  7. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Sets Aside Royalty Order Against DVD Makers Over Philips’ DVD Decoding Patent, LiveLaw Biz (May 18, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/patent/delhi-high-court-sets-aside-rs-5-lakh-punitive-damages-royalty-decree-against-dvd-makers-in-philips-sep-dispute-534624 ↩︎
  8. Rajkumar Aggarwal, Proprietor of M/S. Petro Product vs. Nand Kishore Bhimsariya and Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 115. ↩︎
  9. Ruchi Shukla, Copyright Registration Cannot Be Granted Automatically If No Objection Is Filed: Calcutta High Court, LiveLaw Biz (May 19, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/copyright-registration-cannot-be-granted-automatically-if-no-objection-is-filed-calcutta-high-court-534807. ↩︎
  10. M/s. Dhanvarsha Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mill), 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 20. ↩︎
  11. Riya Rathore, Rajasthan HC Sets Aside 10-Year-Old Decree Restricting Use Of ‘METRO ENGINE’ Mark, Orders Fresh Trial, LiveLaw Biz (May 22, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/rajasthan-high-court-quashes-10-year-old-trademark-injunction-in-engine-mustard-oil-dispute-remands-case-for-fresh-trial-535332. ↩︎
  12. Ivy Entertainment Private Limited v. Rahul Singh & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 508. ↩︎
  13. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Restrains Unauthorised Use Of ‘Bachpan Ka Pyar’ Hook Line, Seeks Revenue Details From YouTubers, LiveLaw Biz (May 18, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/delhi-high-court-restrains-unauthorised-use-of-bachpan-ka-pyar-song-hook-line-orders-youtube-channels-to-disclose-revenue-534597. ↩︎
  14. Nikhil Nanda Motion Pictures LLP v. Google LLC & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 507. ↩︎
  15. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Pirated Copies Of Sanjay Dutt-Starrer Aakhri Sawal, LiveLaw Biz (May 18, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/delhi-high-court-orders-take-down-of-pirated-content-of-sanjay-dutt-film-aakhri-sawal-534588 ↩︎
  16. Reddy Pharmaceuticals v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 512. ↩︎
  17. Kashish Singh, Delhi High Court Upholds Dr. Reddy’s Exclusive Rights Over “REDDY” Mark, Rejects Acquiescence Plea, Legal Era (May 19, 2026), https://www.legaleraonline.com/ip-news/delhi-high-court-upholds-dr-reddys-exclusive-rights-over-reddy-mark-rejects-acquiescence-plea-986002 ↩︎
  18. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Orders YouTube To Remove Video Allegedly Showing Hindu Preacher Endorsing Satlok Ashram, LiveLaw Biz (May 22, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/delhi-high-court-orders-youtube-to-remove-video-allegedly-showing-hindu-preacher-endorsing-sant-rampal-535256. ↩︎
  19. MS Rajkumar Theatre Pvt Ltd v Aashirvad Cinemas and Others, C.S (COMM DIV) 144 of 2026. ↩︎
  20. Upasana Sajeev, Madras High Court Issues Notice On Plea To Stop Telugu Dub Release of Mohanlal’s Drishyam 3, LiveLaw Biz (May 21, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/madras-high-court-issues-notice-on-plea-to-stop-telugu-dub-release-of-mohanlals-drishyam-3-535076. ↩︎
  21. Karl Edward Rice v. Adam El-Megrisi & Ors., CS (Comm.) No.706/2025. ↩︎
  22. Sukriti Mishra, Delhi Court Awards ₹5 Lakh To Karl Rock In YouTube Copyright Infringement Case, Law Beat (May 21, 2026), https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/delhi-court-awards-5-lakh-to-karl-rock-in-youtube-copyright-infringement-case-1593943. ↩︎
  23. Rishi Raj v. Google LLC & Ors., CS(COMM) 715/2021. ↩︎
  24. Riya Rathore, Delhi Court Dismisses Producer’s Copyright Suit Over Main Nashe Main Hoon, Other Films Against YouTube Channels, LiveLaw Biz (May 23, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/delhi-commercial-court-dismisses-producers-copyright-suit-over-main-nashe-main-hoon-other-films-535449. ↩︎
  25. The Polo/Lauren Company L.P v. M/s Buti Button & Ors., TM No. 71/2016. ↩︎
  26. Riya Rathore, Delhi Court Restrains 9 Traders From Selling Counterfeit Polo Ralph Lauren Goods, Awards ₹5 Lakh Damages, LiveLaw Biz (May 23, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-court-restrains-9-traders-from-selling-counterfeit-polo-ralph-lauren-goods-awards-5-lakh-damages-535437. ↩︎
  27. Inter Ikea Systems BV v. John Doe & Ors. Case, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 533. ↩︎
  28. Roya Rathore, Delhi High Court Restrains “keiekae.store” From Using IKEA Name, Logo And Website Interface, LiveLaw Biz (May 22, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/ipr/delhi-high-court-restrains-keiekaestore-from-using-ikea-trademarks-copying-website-interface-535322. ↩︎
  29. Commission Seeks Views on the Review of EU Copyright Rules, European Commission (May 18, 2026), https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-seeks-views-review-eu-copyright-rules. ↩︎
  30. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. v. Lupin Ltd., No. 24-2297 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2026). ↩︎
  31. Dennis Crouch, Borrowing from the Board: District Court Obviousness in the Post-IPR Era, PATENTLYO (May 21, 2026), https://patentlyo.com/patent/2026/05/borrowing-from-the-board-district-court-obviousness-in-the-post-ipr-era.html. ↩︎
  32. Unlocking innovation potential in Latin America and the Caribbean, EPO (May 19, 2026), https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/news/unlocking-innovation-potential-latin-america-and-caribbean. ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

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

Related Articles