INTRODUCTION The last few years has seen a sudden rise in the enforcement of a ‘newly discovered’ phenomenon of personality rights. Celebrities, one after the other, have been approaching the Courts to enforce their rights against deepfakes and unauthorized use of certain aspects of their personality. While earlier the trend of enforcing personality rights was limited to the celebrities alone, but recently, people from distinct spheres of lives have begun to approach the Cour

Introduction For the better part of a year and a half, a good chunk of India's copyright bar and most of its nascent AI industry sat through hearing after hearing in a single Delhi High Court courtroom, waiting to find out whether the country's news agencies could stop OpenAI from reading their websites. On 24 July 2026, the Judge gave them an answer and, more importantly, gave Indian law its first sustained judicial engagement with what generative AI actually does to a copyr

The Indian Patent Office (“IPO”) has published the Draft Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the Field of Biotechnology, 2026 (“Draft Guidelines”), updating the legacy 2013 Guidelines. The 2026 Draft Guidelines serve as an operational guide for examiners and practitioners, consolidating statutory amendments, administrative directives, and extensive judicial precedent from the past 13 years into daily prosecution practice. Key Administrative, Digital & Complia

INTRODUCTION As their name suggests, a “well-known trade mark” of a proprietor is that mark which has gained a reputation of such a stature in the market, that even though it relates to a particular goods or service, a usage of a similar or identical mark by anyone else for a different goods or service would give the public the impression that the latter goods or service belong to the proprietor and not anyone else. The recognition of the “well-known” status of any trade ma

Introduction Trademark conflict in the pharmaceutical sector is a unique situation in Indian trademark law. Medicinal products have the potential to cause actual harm to the patient receiving the product if there is any doubt about the correct product, rather than just commercial loss, due to the possibility of someone thinking that two competing marks are the same. This has led to a more demanding approach by courts to pharmaceutical marks, which now require a question to

In the case of Capital Foods Private Limited v. Kishan Rameshbhai Kaswala Trading as K3 Masala[1], the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Capital Foods Private Limited (Plaintiff), restraining the Defendant from using the trade marks “SCHEZWAN DIPPING CHUTNEY” and other deceptively similar variations. Background of the Dispute Capital Foods Private Limited, the company behind the iconic Ching's Secret brand, conceived the mark "SCHEZWAN

Introduction When a statutory intellectual property right gets wiped off the register mid-litigation, who bears the burden of the legal fees incurred along the way? Recently in the case of Crocs Inc. USA v. M/s Bata India Ltd. & Ors.[1], the Delhi High Court examined whether a defendant can recover actual litigation costs under Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, after a design infringement suit becomes infruct

In a significant ruling on the patentability of pharmaceutical combination inventions, the Delhi High Court set aside an order from the Indian Patent Office refusing the grant of a patent for a triple-drug combination used in cancer treatment, under Indian Patent Application No. 450/DELNP/2015, titled "Pharmaceutical Combination Comprising a BRAF Inhibitor, an EGFR Inhibitor and Optionally a PI3K Alpha Inhibitor. Aggrieved by the rejection from the Indian Patent Office, th

Introduction Trademark registrations rarely lapse due to deliberate abandonment. More often they are lost quietly, because a renewal notice went to the wrong desk and nobody was left to answer it. That is essentially what happened to the mark “B.P.R.”, used since 1979 and registered in 1999, and it eventually brought Rajinder Singh to the Delhi High Court, more than six years after his registration lapsed for want of a notice that never reached him. The judgment is barely a d

Deliberating and dissecting the provision of Section 107- A, the Madras High Court has delved much deeper in explaining the Bolar exemptions in a post-trial judgement in the case of Novartis Ag. v Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Pvt. Ltd. The Court decreed patent infringement holding that the defendant Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Pvt. Ltd's manufacture and export of Vildagliptin API used for treating type-2 diabetes infringed Novartis's Indian Patent No. 212