Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) March 2026 Roundup brings together some of the most significant High Court rulings on graphic user interface, copyright infringement, trade mark disputes, and restriction of domain name fraud in intellectual property law.
This month’s IP law roundup brings together a diverse set of decisions across copyright, trade marks, designs, and pharmaceutical litigation, reflecting the courts’ continued focus on balancing rights protection with fair competition. Key rulings address unauthorised use of sound recordings in sporting events, groundless copyright strike notices, regulatory gaps in domain name fraud and GUI design registrability. The roundup also covers important developments in drug patent enforcement, misleading advertising practices, and core trade mark principles governing surnames and brand identity.
COPYRIGHT
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bars Legends League Cricket from unauthorised use of PPL’s sound recordings in upcoming cricket matches
In a commercial IP suit concerning infringement of copyright in sound recordings, a Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) had established a prima facie case of apprehension that its copyrighted sound recordings would be publicly performed without authorisation during scheduled matches. The Court noted that past procurement of licences and an undertaking dated 23 December 2023 acknowledged PPL’s exclusive rights and therefore granted ad interim relief restraining unauthorised use until the next hearing date.
[Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Absolute Legends Sports (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1938, decided on 12-3-2026]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Examines how Section 45 proviso of Copyright Act protects original artistic work when marks overlap in the Tiger Logo Dispute
In a petition filed under Section 50, Copyright Act, 1957, where the Court was called upon to examine the overlap between copyright and trademark in a dispute over the TIGER artwork, the the Single Judge Bench of Tushar Rao Gadela, J., found the artistic work used in the SHREE SAKSHAT label to be copied in its totality from Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd’s well-known TIGER artistic work. The Court, hence, directed the removal of the deceptively similar artistic work from the Register of Copyrights.
[Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Vijay Keshav Wagh, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1154, decided on 10-03-2026]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Ticketed event not “religious ceremony”; S. 52(1)(za), Copyright Act inapplicable if exclusive licensee’s rights in sound recordings established
In a suit concerning unauthorised use of copyrighted sound recordings at a ticketed Diwali event, a Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that the defendant could not claim exemption under Section 52(1)(za), Copyright Act, 1957 (Copyright Act) as ticketed event are not religious ceremonies. The Court found that the plaintiff had prima facie established its rights in the sound recordings through assignment deeds and exclusive licensing arrangements, and therefore, as an exclusive licensee, was entitled to restrain unauthorised public performance. Since the defendant publicly played copyrighted sound recordings without securing a licence, the Court continued the ad interim injunction against such unlicensed public performance.
[Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Yashraj Satwara, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1599, decided on 27-2-2026]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Copyright strike notices on digital platforms, without follow-up legal action, attract groundless threats remedy
In a suit seeking to restrain the alleged copyright owners from issuing any groundless threat of copyright infringement and declare that there was no infringement, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J., held that the extent of use of the copyrighted material fell within “fair use” and does not amount to infringement. The Court explained that Section 60, Copyright Act, 1957, allows any person aggrieved of groundless threats of legal action by the copyright owner, to institute a declaratory suit, however, the remedy is only available if the alleged copyright owner did not take proper legal action to settle the dispute between the parties.
[Associated Broadcasting Co. Ltd. v. Google LLC, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 815, decided on 28-2-2026]
Read more HERE
Also read: Groundless Threats of Legal Proceedings: An Analysis under the Trade Marks Act, 1999
DOMAIN NAME
DELHI HIGH COURT | Registrar Responsibilities 101: What They Should Be Doing to Stop Domain Name Fraud
While hearing a batch of commercial suits, including the present suit instituted by Dabur India, arising from the widespread misuse of well-known trade marks through the registration of fraudulent domain names by unknown entities for impersonation, phishing, sale of counterfeit goods, and other deceptive practices aimed at defrauding consumers, the Single Judge Bench of Prathiba M. Singh, J., examined the obligations and liabilities of DNRs in relation to infringing domain names, the adequacy of existing safeguards for protection of trade mark rights, the enforcement of court orders against non-compliant DNRs, and the formulation of appropriate directions, including grant of dynamic+ injunction, to curb such systemic abuse. The Court observed that
“By registering domain names using a well-known mark or a registered trade mark, a whole network is built only to deceive innocent and gullible consumers and members of the public. The bank account is operated for a temporary period and after the money is collected the same is withdrawn and even before the trade mark owner is able to take action, the bank account is almost empty. Thereafter, even after the Court grants an interim injunction against the infringing domain names, there are further domain names/websites registered and opened which follow the same pattern as described above.”
[Dabur India Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9651, decided on 24-12-2025]
Read more HERE
Also Read: Explained | Delhi HC ordered to Curb Domain Name Fraud and Protect Trade Marks
GRAPHIC USER INTERFACE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Allows Registration of Graphics on Display Screens under the Designs Act; Flags Lack of Clarity in Designs Office on GUI Registrability
In a batch of appeals, wherein the legal position pertaining to registration of the graphic user interface (GUI) as a “design” under the Designs Act, 2000, the Single Judge Bench of Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. flagged the need for clarificatory guidance either by Legislature or by the Controller issuing appropriate directions expanding the scope of protectable designs. However, till issuance of such clarification, the Court held that GUIs are registrable if the essential ingredients laid under Section 2(a) and 2(d) of the Act are satisfied when properly identified with an article and keeping in mind that the design elements are not purely function driven. A GUI is a form of user interface which allows users to interact with electronic devices through graphical icons and visuals on a display screen.
[NEC Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 1652, decided on 9-3-2026]
Read more HERE
Also Read: DPIIT Proposes Amendments to the Designs Act, 2000: Key Reforms
PATENT RIGHTS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Upholds rejection of Novo Nordisk’s injunction plea; Allows Dr. Reddy’s to manufacture and import ‘Semaglutide’
While hearing a challenge against the judgment dated 2 December 2025 (impugned judgment), wherein the Single Judge had rejected the application for an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents Dr. Reddy’s from manufacturing or selling Semaglutide, an anti-diabetic, the Division Bench of *C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ, held that the respondents had raised a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent under Section 64(1)(e) and (f), Patents Act, 1970 (Patents Act) and hence, allowed Dr. Reddy’s to manufacture and import ‘Semaglutide’.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned judgment and dismissed the present appeal.
[Novo Nordisk v. Dr Reddys Laboratories Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 898, decided on 9-3-2026]
Read more HERE
PERSONALITY RIGHTS IN INDIA
DELHI HIGH COURT | Protects Sonakshi Sinha’s Personality Rights; directs take down of AI- generated deepfakes
While hearing a plaint filed by the famous actress Sonakshi Sinha seeking protection of her personality rights, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J., held that the voice, name, likeness, etc. of Sonakshi Sinha were exclusively attributable to her. Thus, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Sonakshi Sinha, restraining the defendants from creating or disseminating any AI-generated pictures, videos or merchandise that misuses and infringes upon the personality rights of Sonakshi Sinha.
[Sonakshi Sinha v. Character Technologies Inc., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1177, decided on 20-3-2026]
Read more HERE
SURROGATE ADVERTISING
DELHI HIGH COURT | Injuncted Smotect’s misleading surrogate ads targeting “Vimal Elaichi”
In an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from falsely portraying the plaintiff’s product “VIMAL ELAICHI” as harmful and containing tobacco, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora J., held that the defendants have wrongfully portrayed the plaintiff’s product as containing tobacco and have infringed upon the copyright of the plaintiff’s label.
[Vishnu and Co. Trademarks (P) Ltd. v. Smotect (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 11011, decided on 12-12-2025]
Read more HERE
TRADEMARK
DELHI HIGH COURT | Grants interim protection to well-known trade mark “CROMPTON”
While hearing a petition filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, filed by the plaintiff, Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd., seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction alleging unauthorised use of its well-known trade mark “CROMPTON” by the defendants in respect of identical electrical goods, the Single Judge Bench of Tushar Rao Gedela, J., held that the impugned mark used by the defendants was identical and likely to cause confusion among consumers. Accordingly, the Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark and directing removal of infringing listings from online platforms.
[Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd. v. S.D. Electronics, CS (COMM) No. 274 of 2026, decided on 19-3-2026]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | CAPITAL being English translation of registered mark RAJDHANI constitutes trade mark infringement
While hearing an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking an ad interim injunction, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J., held that the mark CAPITAL was the English translation of the registered mark RAJDHANI and constituted passing off and trade mark infringement. Thus, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from using the marks CAPITAL and TAJDHANI.
[Victoria Foods (P) Ltd. v. Ashad Trading Co., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 862, decided on 12-2-2026]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | “Kataria” surname protected under S. 35, Trade Marks Act; Injunction restraining Kataria Insurance Brokers set aside
In a trade mark dispute between Kataria Insurance Brokers (P) Ltd. (appellant) and Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy (respondent), the Division Bench of Bharati Dangre* and R.N. Laddha, JJ., held that the appellant’s use of the surname “Kataria” was bona fide, continuous, and rooted in family identity. It was, hence, held that “Kataria” surname was protected under Section 35, Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Trade Marks Act). The Court clarified that Section 35, Trade Marks Act, applies to companies as well, since “person” under the General Clauses Act, 1897 (General Clauses Act), includes corporate entities.
Finding that the respondent operated in jewellery insurance while the appellant dealt in automobile insurance, the Court observed there was no deceptive similarity or overlap. Accordingly, the Court quashed the injunction restraining the appellant from using “Kataria” in its trade name, domain, and corporate identity, leaving questions of bona fide and prior use to be determined at trial.
[Kataria Insurance Brokers (P) Ltd. v. Bhavesh Suresh Kataria, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1771, decided on 23-2-2026]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | ‘Minor alterations do not affect trade mark’s identity’; Rejects rectification plea against “Ayyappan Brand” trade mark
In a rectification petition filed under Sections 47 and 57, Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Trade Marks Act), seeking removal of the registered trade mark “Ayyappan Brand” on the grounds of misrepresentation of user date and non-use, a Single Judge Bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J., while dismissing the petition held that the discrepancy in user date could not conclusively establish fraud and emphasised that invoices from 1993 onwards evidenced bona fide use. The Court further observed that minor alterations do not affect trade mark’s identity’ and, under Section 55, Trade Marks Act such use qualified as valid use. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for rectification under Section 47 or Section 57, Trade Marks Act.
[Sree Lakshmi Balaji Industries v. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Industries, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 2713, decided on 11-3-2026]
Read more HERE
CONCLUSION
These rulings reflect a careful and pragmatic approach to intellectual property enforcement. Courts have reinforced the need for rights to be exercised with restraint, while preserving protection for genuine commercial interests and established legal principles. Taken together, the decisions offer useful guidance on how Indian IP law continues to develop in response to both traditional disputes and emerging enforcement challenges.
