SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 3- August 9)
SpicyIP
[The Weekly Review is authored by Vishwas Kumar Tripathi. Vishwas is a 4th year law student at RGNUL, Patiala.]
Posts on MeitY’s stricter compliance rules for takedowns, Delhi High Court’ decision in HBO v. Streamzy[dot]to, Madras High Court’s Bolar judgement in Novartis v. Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients, and Delhi High Court’s Alphard decision. This and much more in the second SpicyIP weekly review for August. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Old Rule New Amnesia: A 6 Month Old Takedown Rule Rebranded as “Breaking News”
Three hours to take down “unlawful” content, and two hours for sensitive content! MeitY’s latest move has been reported as a significant new tightening of intermediary obligations. Except, these timelines were already introduced six months ago. Sonisha Srinivasan unpacks the déjà vu, the political pressures surrounding content moderation, and what happens when speed takes precedence over scrutiny.
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Home Box Office Inc. v. Streamzy.To attempts to strike a balance between the need to effectively combat online piracy and the concerns raised by increasingly expansive website-blocking orders. Explaining the order, Vikram Raj Nanda examines whether the Court’s approach marks a meaningful course correction in the law on dynamic injunctions, and whether its framework for involving ISPs and domain name registrars truly preserves their role as neutral intermediaries.
Other Posts
The Madras High Court’s decision in Novartis AG v. Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients offers the first post-trial examination of the evidence required to invoke Section 107A for exports to get regulatory approval. While the Court’s attempt to bring greater evidentiary clarity to the Bolar exemption is welcome, Arnav Kaman argues that its approach risks placing burdens on manufacturers that may undermine the provision’s underlying purpose.
Beyond Prius? The DHC’s ALPHARD Decision on Trans-Border Reputation
Can a brand establish substantial reputation in India even without having a significant direct market presence here? The Delhi High Court’s ALPHARD decision answers this question in a way that could significantly influence India’s trans-border reputation jurisprudence. Devising a new test, the Court held that luxury and niche brands can establish reputation through global visibility, advertising, consumer awareness, and spill-over reputation. Vishno Sudheendra analyzes the Court’s newly articulated test, its reading of Prius, and whether the judgment marks a subtle return to pre-Prius principles.
Case Summaries
N. Ranga Rao And Sons Private Ltd vs Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods on 28 July, 2026
Image from hereA division bench of the Madras High Court has recently set aside a single judge order and has held in its judgement that Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods adoption of the Identical mark “CYCLE” for its edible vegetable oils constituted trade mark Infringement u/s 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The division bench also reversed the finding of the single judge bench that “CYCLE” is merely a common dictionary word, and held that through its extensive use since 1954 and promotion through commercials, advertisements, etc it has acquired a secondary and substantial meaning and goodwill upon the work. Thus, the Court held that respondent’s adoption of the trademark was without due cause or explanation, and is likely to take unfair advantage of the distinctive character of the appellant’s registered trademark.
M/S Nava Healthcare Pvt Ltd vs M/S Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd and Anr on 24 July, 2026
A single judge bench of Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in the favour of the appellants by restraining the Defendants from using the marks “FULLHAIR”, “UDIS”, and deceptively similar green and white trade dresses incorporating the plaintiff’s copyright three arrow device. The Court relied on the precedent set in Cadila Health Care case, the Court emphasized that a lower threshold for proving confusion applies to pharmaceutical products given public safety risks. The Court also found the marks to be visually and phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s registered “HAIRFUL” and “UDIVIN” marks, and thus, the Court finally held that the defendants are infringing the registered trademarks of the plaintiff.
Tv Today Network vs Saurashtra Aaj Tak and Anr on 30 July, 2026
Image from hereThe Delhi High Court has allowed the TV Today Network appeal against a 2012 judgement that had allowed the “Saurashtra Aaj Tak” to continue to publish under the name with a disclaimer based on the finding that the respondents may have independently developed goodwill and the usage of the same wasn’t dishonest, per se. The Court has held this to be erroneous in nature as the respondent provided no evidence and have not pleaded any bona fide use of the same. The Court recognized the appellant’s prior and continuous use of the mark “Aaj Tak” since 1995 and all the essential elements of passing-off, and thus established. Thus, the Court set aside the “disclaimer-based relief” which was previously allowed, and a permanent injunction was granted in favor of the appellant which restrained the use of “Sauranshtra Aaj Tak” by the respondent.
Matrimony.Com Limited vs Dinesh Mehta on 28 July, 2026
The Madras High Court granted an ad interim injunction by restraining the respondent from operating websites, domain names, social media handles, and mobile applications under the names of “VIP ELITE MATRIMONY INDIA”, “VIP ELITE MATRIMONY”, and “DOCTORTS MATROMONY”. The applicant in this case was already the proprietor of registered trademarks such as “ELITE MATRIMONY” and “DOCTORS MATRIMONY” for online matchmaking services provided. The Court held that the respondent infringed upon the plaintiff’s registered trademarks by simply adding prefixes and suffixes behind their names to create visually, phonetically, and deceptively similar marks. The Court finally established a prima facie case and granted an interim relief to the plaintiff.
Mrs. Aradhana Sharma vs M/S Equal Identity Private Limited, on 24 July, 2026
A division bench of the Rajasthan High Court disposed of an appeal by challenging the Commercial Court’s dismissal of a temporary injunction application filed, which concerned the trademark Infringement of the mark “EQUAL”. Thus, after the parties reached a consensus to expedite the trial of the case, the Court directed that the suit shall be decided on final arguments instead of recording oral evidence. Therefore, the parties were then granted an opportunity to complete the admission and denial of documentary evidence, and the interim order would continue on merits. Finally, the High Court directed the Commercial Court to hear the final arguments in the case.
Tamil Naadu Edible Oils Private Limited vs Whatsapp LLC And 4 Others on 29 July, 2026
Image from hereThe Madras High Court granted interim directions by ordering Google, Whatsapp and Bharti Airtel to block, disable and remove a few infringing Email IDs, Whatsapp Accounts and Phone Numbers that were being used to promote and sell products that were deceptively similar to the plaintiffs. The Court further ordered the immediate takedown of all the current and future IDs connected to the trademark Infringement and passing off activities that may take place pending the final disposal of the suit. The matter will be listed before the Court again after 4 weeks.
Novartis Ag & Anr vs Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited on 29 July, 2026
The Delhi High Court resolved a patent infringement suit after Torrent Pharmaceuticals undertook not to commercially manufacture, launch or deal in products containing Novartis patented drug compound known as “Dabrafenib”. Similarly, in exchange of the undertaking, the plaintiffs waived their claim for monetary compensation. The Court in this case clarified that Torrent Pharmaceuticals rights to legally use the compound solely for non-commercial purposes and research and approval testing are still in force. The Court further granted an exemption from pre-institution mediation u/s 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in view of the urgent relief sought.
Asian Paints Limited vs Saroj Arora and Ors on 23 July, 2026
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction and has restrained the defendants in the case from using “ASIA PAINTS” as a trademark, business name or marketing entity for selling wall paints and allied products in the market. The Court has further made an observation that the defendants way of placing of the mark “ASIA PAINTS” on products, despite being marketed under the brand name of “MURGA” has constituted deceptive similarity to the plaintiff’s well-known trademark “ASIA PAINTS”. The Court held that such actions constitute trademark infringement u/s 29(5) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 and the Court has also exempted the plaintiff from mediation u/s 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Arun Kumar Gupta vs Registrar of Trademarks on 17 July, 2026
The Delhi High Court passed an order directing the Registrar of Trademarks to restore the Petitioner’s trademark “ODEON” by holding that sending a Form O3 under notice u/s 25(3) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 is a mandatory and compulsory statutory condition before removing a mark for non-renewal. Thereby, it reversed the mark’s removal and rejected the Registrar’s arguments by ruling that a registered proprietor cannot be penalized for failure to renew in the absence of mandatory statutory notice. Finally, the Court allowed the Petitioner to file a renewal application with the appropriate authority within 6 weeks from the order of the Court.
Tinubhai Babubhai Bhalgama vs Alpeshbhai Ranchhodbhai Lunagariya on 28 July, 2026
A division bench of the Gujarat High Court set aside a Commercial Court’s temporary injunction order which restrained the appellants from using the mark “ADITYA JEWELLERS”. The Court further held that the Trial Court has made an error in conducting a mini trial to evaluate the reliability of the appellants’ evidence at the temporary injunction stage in the case. The Court further clarified that the interim relief shall only be granted on establishing a prima facie case and the respondent’s higher sales turnover alone cannot prove passing off or dishonest adoption against a prior user who is also a registered proprietor u/s 28 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999.
Sky Enterprise Pvt Ltd vs Abaad Masala And Company on 3 August, 2026
A Single Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court stated in its order that it found the Defendant in breach of a 2020 interim order restraining the use of Sky’s registered marks such as “WHITE/BACK CHINESE PEPPER MASALA”. The Court later found that the Defendant had retained the word structure and the changes made were de minimis and were phonetically and visually similar, which failed the “safe distance” principle. The Court noted that the Defendant secured the registration of the new marks without disclosing the interim order passed against it in 2020 to the Registrar. Thus, the Court exercised its power under Section 151 of the CPC to issue a remedial direction by passing an injunction on the new marks, barring further cosmetic changes and variations on the marks.
The Indian Performing Right Society vs Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited on 4 August, 2026
Image from hereA Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal to proceed against a trial court order by refusing ad interim injunction against Hotel Appolo & Tours for playing copyrighted literary and musical works in the hotel rooms via cable TV without a license from IPRS. The Court held that the Hotel rooms are not residential premises u/s 52 of the Copyright Act, and guests are not subscribers under the Cable Television Networks Act, thus, a license obtained by a cable operator does not extend to guests. The Court found commercial exploitation and copyright infringement under Section 51, regardless of whether a separate fee was charged or not for the service, and set aside the Trial Court’s order.
Sun Tv Network Limited vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 5 August, 2026
The Madras High Court recently granted an ad interim injunction in favor of the Sun TV Network Ltd by directing 33 other Internet Service Providers to block rogue websites and restraining cable TV operators from unauthorized broadcasting, streaming, or copying of the upcoming cinematographic film “DC”. Thus, the Court recognized the applicant’s copyright ownership and on the basis of threat of irreversible harm prior to the film’s release on 7th August 2026, the Court issued a dynamic blocking orders on the condition that the applicant will indemnify the respondents against any losses that may arise on carrying a legitimate business interest per se.
Cabcon India Limited vs Powertech Cabcon Private Limited on 5 August, 2026
The Calcutta High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or distributing electrical products using the names “CABCON” or “POWERTECH CABCON” on their products until 10th September 2026. The Court made an Observation that the plaintiff is the prior user and registered proprietor of the mark “CABCON INDIA LIMITED” since 1994 and it held that “CABCON” constitutes a dominant feature of the mark and the defendant’s adoption of the same creates likelihood of confusion and passing off. Thus, the Court clearly directed the Defendants to disclose all the details of stock dispatched to its distributor network prior to the order passed.
Aquapump Industries and Another vs Ashok Kumar Maheshwari on 4 August, 2026
The Madras High Court in this case granted an ad interim injunction by restraining the respondent from engaging in the activity of manufacturing, selling, and advertising pumps, motors, and any other related products under class 7 under the name of “TEXSUMO”. The Court in this case observed that the mark was visually and phonetically deceptively similar to the applicant’s registered trademark “TEXMO”, thus constituting infringement and passing off.
The Delhi High Court disposed of cancellation petition against the mark KAMPAI and two connected appeals, on the basis of a settlement between Wallop Brewing and the respondent. Under the settlement, the respondent agreed to stop using the mark CAMPAI and to withdraw its CAMPAI-formative trade mark applications, while Wallop Brewing agreed not to object to the respondent’s use of the mark QAMPIE for beers and beer coolers, subject to certain location restrictions, and both parties agreed not to use their marks in a similar visual style.
Astrazeneca AB and Anr. vs Ajanta Pharma Limited on 5 August, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Image from hereThe Delhi High Court decreed a patent infringement suit concerning Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625 in terms of a settlement reached between the parties, the terms of which were kept confidential. The defendant also agreed to waive the Rs. 5 lakh costs earlier awarded in its favour, and the plaintiffs were held entitled to a refund of the entire court fees.
The Delhi High Court decreed a patent infringement suit relating to Ericsson’s AMR, 3G and EDGE technology patents in terms of a confidential settlement reached with Defendant No. 2, while Defendant No. 1, who had proceeded against ex parte earlier, remained unaffected. The Court also directed the return of the mobile devices and sealed documents filed in the case, and held the plaintiff entitled to a refund of the entire court fees.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trade mark infringement and passing off suit in terms of a settlement between the parties, under which the defendant agreed to stop using the mark BIMBI’S and any mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ BIMBO marks, change its trade name within 30 days, remove online listings, and surrender the domain bimbis.in, while remaining free to adopt a different, unconnected mark in future.
Image from hereThe Delhi High Court decreed a trade mark infringement and passing off suit in favour of Glaxo Group in terms of a settlement with Defendant No. 1, under which the defendant acknowledged Glaxo’s prior rights in the mark ZENTEL, agreed to stop using the mark ZENTEQ GEL, withdraw its trade mark application for it, and exhaust and destroy existing stock, in exchange for the plaintiff giving up its claims for damages and other reliefs.
The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition and directed restoration of the trade mark BLUE CHIP to the Register, holding that removal of the mark was unjustified since the registration certificate was never sent to the petitioner and the mandatory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Form-O2/O3) was never issued before removal, relying on the settled position that such notice is a mandatory precondition for removal. The petitioner was permitted to file the renewal application within six weeks.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trade mark infringement and passing off suit concerning the mark T-BACT in favour of the plaintiff, in terms of a settlement with Defendant No. 1 (the suit having already been decreed against Defendant No. 2 earlier). Under the settlement, Defendant No. 1 acknowledged the plaintiff’s rights in T-BACT, agreed to permanently stop using the mark KBACT and related marks, withdraw its trade mark applications, exhaust and destroy existing stock, and pay liquidated damages of Rs. 10 lakhs in case of any breach.
Other IP Developments
- YouTuber can’t file writ petition to restore suspended account Due to Copyright Infringement: Uttarakhand High Court
- Delhi HC orders takedown of obscene, defamatory content in Alakh Pandey personality rights case
- TV9 vs TV19: Kolkata Court Restrains Use Of ‘TV19’ Marks, Says Prima Facie Similarity May Cause Viewer Confusion
- Shruti Haasan moves Bombay High Court against AI deepfakes, fake endorsements
- E20 Petrol Policy: Bombay High Court Orders Takedown Of ‘Defamatory’ AI Videos Against Union Minister Nitin Gadkari
- Playing IPRS-Owned Music In Hotel Rooms Without Licence Is Copyright Infringement: Calcutta High Court
- Delhi HC seeks response on Natco’s patent challenge plea
- Govt plans new drugs law to overhaul pharma, medical device regulation
International IP Developments
- Three common medicines classified as carcinogenic by WHO cancer agency
- US appeals court reverses Jack Daniel’s win in dog-toy trademark case
[Thanks to Harsh for the help with some of the Case Summaries.]
Click here to view this post on SpicyIP and leave a comment.