SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 2 – February 8)
Md Sabeeh Ahmad
Into the second week of February, with formal comments from our bloggers on the DPIIT’s proposed “One Nation One License One Payment” framework for GenAI and Copyright. A post on an industrial drama written in 1847 bursting the myth of the free-market society, and another post on the recent concept note by the DPIIT proposing reforms to India’s design law. Case summaries and IP developments from the country and the globe in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
From the Archives: The Giant, the Dwarf and the Lawyer – An 1847 Trilogue!
Image from here.A fun read for the weekend! Lokesh Vyas shares an ‘industrial drama’ written in 1847 by the Belgian lithographer and inventor, Marcellin Jobard. Part satire, part social critique, the play takes a dig at the industrial revolution, capitalism, and law, bursting the myth of the free-market society.
Comments to the DPIIT on their GenAI – Copyright Working Paper 1
Four of our bloggers (Swaraj, Akshat, Ambika, and Bharathwaj) submitted their formal comments on the DPIIT’s proposed “One Nation One License One Payment” framework for GenAI and Copyright. As Swaraj Barooah describes in this post, their concerns span three levels: the working paper’s foundational premise, its treatment of copyright law, and the practical implications of implementation. Conceptual, legal and practical problems aside, the mandatory licensing scheme, if borne, seems to create a scenario where most creators receive a pittance while the industry consolidates around a few large players. They’ve shared their comments here along with links to earlier posts on this issue.
Design Law Reforms: Searching for Justifications
In a recent concept note, the DPIIT has proposed a series of reforms to India’s design law, ranging from expanded subject matter to changes in statutory terms and publication deferment. Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan examines whether these proposals are backed by clear policy justifications or whether they simply reflect largely unexamined assumptions about innovation incentives and the expansion of exclusionary rights.
Case Summaries
Allied Blenders and Distillers have sought a summary judgment against Batra Breweries and Distilleries & Ors. for trademark infringement and passing off of its “Officer’s Choice”, “Officer’s Choice Blue” and “Choice” marks. The defendants used deceptively similar “Principal Choice”/”Principal Choice Premium Whisky”. A partial interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff, and the defendants were only permitted to sell/dispose of the existing stock in December 2023. The Court granted a permanent injunction since the plaintiff has been a continuous user of the mark “Officers Choice” since the year 1988, with almost 160 trademark registration of various marks and labels and their variants.
Glaxo Group Limited And Anr. vs Indkus Biotech India And Ors on 4 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Image from here.Glaxo Group instituted a suit for permanent injunction against Indkus Biotech and Ors. for trademark infringement, passing off and copyright violation over deceptively similar marks (BETASOL, TEEBACT, CEFTOL) imitating BETNESOL, T-BAC, CEFTUM on pharmaceutical products. An ex-parte ad interim order was passed by the court restraining the defendant on 23rd April 2023, which has since continued. During the pendency, the parties reached an amicable decision whereby the defendants will cease their impugned activities and are willing to suffer an injunction. Furthermore, the defendants have agreed to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to the plaintiff within four weeks as final settlement of all claims.
M/S Vajirao and Reddy Institute were granted an urgent interim relief to seek an ex-parte injunction against Bajirao Education Circle Ors. for trademark infringement of their registered trademark “VAJIRAO”. The Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction order and found that the use of “BAJIRAO IAS ACADEMY” is deceptively similar and risks confusion and deception amongst the customers and general public. Furthermore, the plaintiffs’ trademark “VAJIRAO & REDDY INSTITUTE” has been registered in India and has been in use for a long time, prima facie, it appears that the defendants are infringing the registered trademark of the plaintiffs. The defendants were ordered to remove all online infringing content and coaching materials.
JFC Steel Corporation challenged the Controller of Patents & Design’s order of 11th January 2023 refusing its patent application under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The plaintiff claims that the defendant rejected the application solely on the basis of non-compliance with Section 10(4), insufficient disclosure requirement, of the Patents Act, 190, without examining novelty or inventive step. The Court agreed with the plaintiff and set aside the order, as rejections can’t solely rely on the alleged insufficiency of disclosure. The Court also found it relevant that the same invention has been patented in foreign jurisdictions.
Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. 1Xbetcom & Ors. on 15 January 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court passed a permanent injunction in favour of Star India, preventing various rogue websites from illicit streaming and distribution of the ICC Champions Trophy 2025. The Court observed that despite being served, the defendants failed to challenge the claim, resulting in Star India’s exclusive broadcasting rights being presumed admitted. Previously, domain registrars and ISPs have blocked various rogue websites in reaction to an ex-parte interim ruling.
Parul Ruparella And Anr. vs Camme Wang And Anr on 4 February, 2026 (Calcutta High Court)
Image from here.Parul Ruparella and Anr. filed an appeal against a Single Judge order passed on 5th December 2025, dismissing their applications for an injunction and appointment of a Receiver in a trademark suit over the “PL SUPREME” mark registered in India. The Division Bench upheld the dismissal by the Single Judge. The defendants of Chinese origin were able to prove prior use and registration of the trademark prior to the Plaintiff in China. The Division Bench agreed with the Single judge that the plaintiff was unable to prove a balance of inconvenience and/or irreparable harm. The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed.
M/S Esme Consumer and Revolution Beauty India & Ors. jointly filed an application seeking the disposal of the lis in terms of a Settlement Agreement. The Court approved and decreed the suit accordingly. The suit was with respect to the “BLUE HEAVEN” trademark. The defendants admitted the plaintiff’s superior rights in the trademark “BLUE HEAVEN” and affirm that it will not infringe the marks of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the defendants have agreed to pay Rs. 2 lakh as damages and costs, along with removing all infringing content online on Amazon, Nykaa, Instagram, etc. within 15 days of disposal.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected a petition under Article 227 against an order of the commercial court, which had refused to direct the production of embossed liquor bottles under Section 151 CPC in a suit for trademark infringement. The high court noted that there was no perversity, especially in light of the fact that the inspection of the bottles had already taken place in the pre-litigation mediation proceedings and in the writ petition. The application for interference at the interim injunction stage was also dismissed.
State vs Harish on 31 January, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
The Delhi trial court acquitted the accused of selling counterfeit goods under the copyright and trademark Act. The trial court observed that no public witnesses were called during the raid, that the complainant and important witnesses became hostile, and that no expert testimony was presented to demonstrate that the commodities were counterfeit.
Image from here.Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. GHD Sports & Ors. on 30 January 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court issued an ex-parte ad interim order preventing rogue websites and applications from illegally broadcasting the ICC Under-19 Men’s World Cup and ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026. The Court held that Jiostar had established the exclusive right to reproduce the broadcasts, the Court ordered domain registrars and ISPs to prohibit infringing sites and approved the dynamic extension of the injunction to newly detected mirror sites.
Less Than Equals Three Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Paras Mehra & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 2 February 2026)
This order arises from a contempt application filed against a service provider for allegedly not complying with earlier directions to preserve website data and source code. The plaintiff argued that the failure resulted in the loss of evidence. The service provider denied any wilful breach. The Court recorded the competing versions and examined whether its earlier orders had in fact been violated.
Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v. Nitish Kumar & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 4 February 2026)
Hero Electric complained that its trademarks were being misused through a fake website and domain claiming to offer dealerships. The defendants did not appear despite service. The Court proceeded ex parte, restrained use of the “HERO ELECTRIC” marks and the impugned domain, and directed that the infringing domain be transferred to the plaintiff.
The appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application on the grounds of a lack of inventive step. During the hearing, the appellant agreed to amend its claims to meet the Patent Office’s objections. Since the respondents had no objection, the Court accepted the amended claims and sent the matter back for fresh consideration.
Samsonite IP Holding Sàrl & Anr. v. Ijaz (Delhi District Court, 3 February 2026)
Samsonite sued, alleging the sale of luggage using marks like “SAMSONITE” and “AMERICAN TOURISTER” and close variants. The Court found that the defendant’s goods used marks and trade dress that were deceptively similar. It granted a permanent injunction restraining the manufacture and sale of the infringing products.
State v. Amit Anand (Delhi District Court, 3 February 2026)
The prosecution alleged that the accused was found with counterfeit goods and charged him under the Copyright Act. The complainant died during the trial, and no other witness could establish either the recovery or counterfeit nature of the goods. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case and acquitted the accused.
Dilip Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court, 3 February 2026)
The case concerned a bail application in an FIR alleging misbranding and copyright violations relating to bidi packets. The Court noted that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, the offences were triable by a Magistrate, and the trial would take time. Bail was granted subject to conditions.
Other IP Developments
- Delhi HC Refers To Mediation Voicemonk’s Patent Infringement Suit Against Google
- No Individual Can Claim Copyright Over Historical Events, Producer Of Tamil Film Parasakthi Tells Madras High Court In Case Alleging Plagiarism
International IP Development
- EUIPO Launches New Sme Fund Scheme In 2026, To Support SMEs In Protecting And Using Their IP Rights
- U.S. District Judge Of Kansas Fines Counsel Of Record Representing Lexos Media IP For Submitting Briefs Including Fake Court Citations Hallucinated By GenAI
- Novartis Predicts First Annual Drop In Operating Profit Since 2016 In Large Part To Loss Of Patent Protections For Drugs Like Entresto And Xolair
(Thanks to Fazal and Garvit for the case summaries.)
(Please click here to view the post on SpicyIP and leave a comment)
--
