Bulletin 36 | Apr 2026
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction to protect the personality and privacy rights of cricketer Gautam Gambhir, restraining the unauthorized commercial use of his name, image, voice, and likeness, including through AI, deepfakes, and face-morphing.
Previously, the Delhi High Court granted a similar relief to the veteran cricketer Sunil Gavaskar.
Noting the dilution of his iconic stature, the Court directed the e-commerce and intermediary platforms (Amazon, Flipkart, Meta, and Google) to take down infringing content within 36 hours and disclose the basic subscriber and IP details of the infringers.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Dismissing the appeal filed by the Embassy of Peru against the Single Judge order which allowed Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G’s writ petition and modified Geographical Indication (GI) ‘PISCO’ to ‘PERUVIAN PISCO’, the Court observed that, under Section 9(a) of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (“GI Act”), a GI likely to result in confusion or deception cannot be registered and prior use is not determinative.
The Court rejected argument that ‘GI PISCO’ can be registered as ‘homonymous GI’, noting no existing PISCO GI at the relevant time.
In this first inter-country GI dispute, the Court held that both Peru and Chile have long-standing claims of using the mark “PISCO” for an alcoholic beverage, and thus, Peru cannot be allowed exclusive registration of ‘PISCO’ as a standalone GI.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Court dismissed a miscellaneous application seeking recall of its earlier order dismissing an SLP arising from a suit for specific performance. The applicant relied on subsequent developments in parallel insolvency proceedings, alleging suppression of material facts. The Court held it was functus officio (having performed its duty) and such applications are not maintainable. While noting the Committee of Creditor’s commercial wisdom is paramount, limited judicial scrutiny may arise
It was clarified that the doctrine of merger does not apply to orders refusing special leave.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court held that once the 120-day statutory period for filing a written statement in a commercial suit expires, the right stands forfeited and cannot be revived by subsequently filing an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application. Relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement in R.K. Roja v. US Rayudu [2016 14 (SCC) 275], the Court clarified that while such applications may be filed before filing a written statement, they cannot be used as a device to retrieve a lost opportunity.
The Court reaffirmed the mandatory nature of procedural timelines under the Commercial Courts Act.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court granted an ex parte ad interim “dynamic+” injunction in favour of JioStar, recognizing its exclusive broadcast rights over TATA IPL 2026.
The Court restrained rogue apps and associated websites from unauthorized streaming and directed domain registrars, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and government authorities (DOT/MEITY) to block infringing platforms. It also allowed real-time blocking (i.e. blocking the domains as soon as they are intimated by the Plaintiff) of newly discovered infringing sites.
The Court observed that piracy poses irreparable harm, and urgent protection of copyright and broadcast rights is necessary.
Significant Judgments
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT (IPDAID/21/2024, IPDAID/22/2024, IPDAID/1/2025, IPDAID/2/2025, IPDAID/3/2025)
NEC CORPORATIONS V. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ANR.
The Court heard a batch of appeals challenging decisions of the Controller of Patents and Designs denying registration of applications seeking protection for a Graphic User Interface (“GUI”) as design under the Designs Act, 2000.
The Court held that GUIs are capable of being protected under the framework of the Act, holding that while GUIs might have certain functional elements, there are aesthetic considerations to the configuration/pattern aiming to produce a visual impression capable of being judged by the eye, therefore being entitled to design protection.
Applying the test of noticeability, the Court held that GUIs are entitled to design protection as an internal process and are not excluded for lacking permanence. The bench noted that the scope of design is not constrained to works in physical forms, with the digital and physical processes involved in displaying GUIs amounting to an industrial process reproducing the design.
DELHI HIGH COURT [C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 49/2025]
The Court dismissed Parle’s appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks’s order allowing Respondent No. 2’s application for the mark “20-20” in Class 30. Parle argued that although Respondent No. 2 had filed earlier on a “proposed to be used” basis, Parle was the first actual user of the mark and had built substantial goodwill.
The Court held that Respondent No. 2 was the prior adopter and prior applicant, having applied for the identical mark on 27 September 2007, before Parle’s application on 4 October 2007. The Court found that both applications were filed on a “proposed to be used” basis and that later use by Parle could not defeat the earlier application.
The Court further held that the “first in the market” principle in Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. applies to passing off actions, not to the present registration dispute.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed without costs.
DELHI HIGH COURT [I.A. 31839/2025 in CS(COMM) 575/2023]
The Court adjudicated an application for enhanced pro-tem security in a Standard Essential Patent infringement suit concerning Wi-Fi 6 technology. The plaintiff sought INR 9.29 crores, alleging willful misrepresentation based on variances in an independent Auditor’s Report.
The Court formed a prima facie opinion that there did not appear to be a wilful misrepresentation. It observed that the Auditor’s inability to adjust freight charges and trade discounts due to the “absence of split between Wi-Fi 6 and non-Wi-Fi 6 categories” could not be construed as a misrepresentation at this stage.
To balance equity, the Court noted a prior INR 50 lakh deposit was ostensibly based on the admitted sales of 1,94,977 devices. Because the defendants declared selling approximately INR 2 lakh additional devices from August 2023 to December 2024, the Court directed them to deposit an enhanced pro-tem security of INR 50 lakhs, attaching finality to the issue.
Meet the Picklers
Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari, Srishti Dhoundiyal, Ishi Singh, Mehr Sidhu, Abhinav Bhalla, Pushpit Ghosh, Sankalp Arya, Harsshita Pothiraj, Devika Tiwari, Affan Moin and Aditya Singh Thakur.
