The April 2026 Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Roundup, coinciding with the celebration of World Intellectual Property Day on 26 April, brings together some of the most significant rulings across copyright, trade marks, deepfakes and personality rights, reflecting the court’s continued focus on balancing rights protection with fair competition. Key rulings address important developments in mandatory compliance with legislative framework governing unlawful content, damages in patent disputes, misuse of trade marks and protection of personality rights.
HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH: World IP Day — Understanding Trade Dress: The Visual Identity of Products
DEEPFAKE
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | Calls for Strict Compliance with IT Rules, 2026, issues Notice to Intermediaries in dispute concerning AI Deepfakes and Digital Platforms
In a public interest litigation (PIL) highlighting the menace of widespread creation and circulation of AI-generated videos on digital platforms, the Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal and D.N. Ray, JJ., issued notice to the intermediary platforms and directed them to respond on the practical implementation of the existing legislative framework governing unlawful online content.
[Vikas Vijay Nair v. State of Gujarat, 2026 SCC OnLine Guj 2082, decided on 10-4-2026]
Read more HERE
Also Read: Me, Myself and AI: Chasing Deepfakes Across Borders Without Losing Your Rights
PATENT RIGHTS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Why were Rs 150+ Cr. awarded in damages for patent infringement, while actual costs yet to be determined by Taxation Officer?
In a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of Split Sector Antenna patent along with damages/rendition of accounts of profits, delivery up, etc., the Single Judge Bench of Prathiba M. Singh, J., held that the suit patent was valid; granted a permanent injunction; directed the Registry to issue a certificate of validity and passed a decree for a sum of Rs 152,32,36,783.90 in favour of the plaintiff, for the period during which the sales figures had been furnished before the Court, The Court further directed the defendants to bear the complete actual costs incurred by the plaintiff in the present litigation, after the further assessment by the Taxation Officer.
[Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. KG, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1357, decided on 30-3-2026]
Read more HERE
PERSONALITY RIGHTS IN INDIA
DELHI HIGH COURT | Does a Single Top Rank Give Rise to Personality Rights?
While examining the grievance of Plaintiff 3, CLAT 2026 AIR 1 candidate, regarding misuse of her personality rights over single academic achievement, in the application filed by the plaintiffs, Toprankers Edtech Solutions (P) Ltd., seeking ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendants for launching blatant and malicious campaign thereby tarnishing their goodwill and reputation, the Single Judge Bench of Tushar Rao Gedela, J., declined to protect plaintiff’s personality rights, holding that a single achievement, such as securing a top rank, does not automatically confer enforceable personality rights.
However, the Court opined that it was not appropriate for the defendants to carry out any campaign, whether defamatory or otherwise, in Plaintiff 3’s name and therefore, restrained the defendants from using the name, image, or likeness of Plaintiff 3, including any AI-generated or manipulated content.
[Toprankers Edtech Solutions (P) Ltd. v. LPT Edtech (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1772, decided on 13-4-2026]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Protects Kartik Aaryan’s Personality Rights and Trademark; Directs Removal of Infringing Content Upon Intimation
In an application filed by Kartik Aaryan, seeking to protect his personality rights, against unauthorised use of his registered trade mark “Kartik Aaryan” and AI-generated content, the Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that the plaintiff was entitled to an ad interim injunction and further directed the removal of infringing content within 36 hours.
[Kartik Aaryan v. Vinsm Globe (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2648, decided on 15-4-2026]
Read more HERE
TRADEMARK
DELHI HIGH COURT | Affirms interim injunction in Trade mark dispute involving Flipkart in “MARQ” v. “MARC”
While hearing the present appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) in MARQ v MARC trademark dispute, seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of the trade mark “MARC”, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J., held that the respondent was the prior user of the inherently distinctive mark “MARC” and that Flipkart’s mark “MARQ” was deceptively similar, giving rise to a likelihood of confusion and that the addition of Flipkart’s house mark was insufficient to distinguish the competing marks.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.
[Flipkart India (P) Ltd. v. Marc Enterprises (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1663, decided on 10-4-2026]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Cracks Down on Unauthorised “The Pioneer” Publication, grants ad interim injunction for Trade mark and Copyright Infringement
In an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, 1908 seeking ex parte ad interim injunction, a Single Judge Bench of Tushar Rao Gedela, J., restrained the defendant from using the trade mark “The Pioneer” and from reproducing or publishing the plaintiff’s newspaper content, holding that post-termination of the memorandum of understanding (MoU), such use amounted to prima facie infringement of trade mark and copyright as well as passing off.
The Court observed that newspaper publication is a coordinated and layered process involving intellectual effort in editing, designing, and presentation, and the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case. Considering that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and that irreparable injury would be caused in the absence of interim relief, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction and directed the defendant to cease all unauthorised use of the mark and content pending further proceedings.
[CMYK Printech Ltd. v. Ideal Multi Media Network (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1585, decided on 1-4-2026]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Grants interim relief to NSE; restrains misuse of its trade mark on social media platforms
In a case related to infringement of the NSE’s trade mark and passing off through impersonation on social media platforms using the registered mark “NSE”, Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., stated that the Court’s order of 8 May 2025 already provides sufficient safeguards for intermediaries. The interim reliefs requested in this case are consistent with earlier orders that protect against infringing accounts. Accordingly, the Court granted interim relief to NSE, restraining Defendant 1 and others from misusing the mark “NSE” and directed social media platforms and YouTube to remove infringing accounts or channels within 36 hours, once NSE provides evidence.
[National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. John Doe S. Ashok Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2516, decided on 10-4-2026]
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.
