SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 23 – March 1)
Md Sabeeh Ahmad
Entering March with a post on whether unjust enrichment can act as a residual measure for claiming compensation for the use of biological resources? Another post on the working of the National IP Pendency Elimination Karma-Mission (NIPEKM). 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
Unjust Enrichment as a Residual Remedy for Biopiracy? Rethinking ABS Failures Beyond MAT
Can unjust enrichment act as a residual measure for claiming compensation for the use of biological resources when contractual arrangements don’t work? Examining this legal doctrine and its relevance to access and benefit-sharing, Achyuth B. Nandan argues that, in light of varying state capacity to implement the ABS mechanism and weak user-side enforcement, unjust enrichment can act as a residual measure within the ABS framework and aid in furthering the purpose of ABS.
The Bad “Karma” of Interim Measures- Analysing NIPEKM’s Potential Long-term Impacts
As part of the continuing saga of the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) trying to clear the huge pendency of applications, the National IP Pendency Elimination Karma-Mission (NIPEKM) was launched through an office circular on February 17, 2026. Priyam Mitra argues that the circular, though rather ambitious, falls into the same pitfalls as earlier (failed) attempts at reducing pendency.
Case Summaries
Swami Ramdev vs. John Doe(s) and Ors. on 18 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and issued summons in a commercial suit concerning alleged unauthorized use of Swami Ramdev’s name, image, and persona. The Court entertained an application for ex parte ad interim injunction to protect his personality and publicity rights against digital misuse.
Kajol Vishal Devgan vs. Kash Collective & Ors. on 20 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction protecting the plaintiff’s personality and trademark rights against unauthorized merchandise, AI-generated content, deep fakes, and chatbots misusing her name and likeness. The Court directed takedown of infringing URLs, disclosure of subscriber information, and blocking of objectionable content.
Ipca Laboratories Ltd. vs. Rikon Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. on 23 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Image from here.The Bombay High Court decreed an undefended trademark infringement suit in favour of Ipca Laboratories, holding that the defendant’s mark “ZEKODOL-P” was deceptively similar to the registered mark “ZERODOL” used for pharmaceutical products. Considering phonetic and visual similarity and the risk of confusion in medicinal goods, the Court granted permanent injunction and consequential reliefs.
Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar vs. A.R. Rahman on 20 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Supreme Court considered the reversal of an ad-interim injunction in a copyright dispute concerning authorship of the composition “Shiva Stuti.” The Division Bench had held that prima facie authorship was not established. The Supreme Court, without deciding merits, encouraged parties to explore an interim arrangement wherein Respondent No.1 shall modify and display revised credits including appellants name.
Levi Strauss and Company vs. Beyoung Folks Private Limited on 23 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation due to urgency and permitted filing of additional documents. In a trademark suit concerning the iconic “Tab Device” mark, the Court entertained an application for ex parte ad interim injunction, recognizing the plaintiff’s longstanding global goodwill, distinctiveness, and substantial commercial presence in apparel branding.
Image from here.The Delhi High Court examined whether a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act survives after expiry of the patent and after invalidity is raised as a Section 107 defence in an infringement suit. The Court held that revocation proceedings are independent and maintainable even after patent expiry and despite parallel invalidity pleas in a suit.
Other IP Developments
- Why Private Universities File More Patents Than IITs Combined
- Supreme Court Stays Copyright Case Over Music In Seven Films Against Saregama India
International IP Development
- CJEU: UK Trademark Rights No Longer Within Scope of EU Trademark Law Following Conclusion Of Brexit Transition Period
- USPTO Patent Examiner Agrees To $500,000 In A Settlement Concerning Allegations That Examiner Violated Conflict Of Interest Rules
(Thanks to Drishti for the case summaries.)
