Bulletin 37 | May 2026
Snapshots
DELHI DISTRICT COURT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
In a copyright dispute between singer Anamika Sood and music label Saregama, the Court awarded compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the plaintiff against the takedown of her song ‘Ferrareee’ from YouTube. The Court stated that copyright in a sound recording lasts for 60 years, and since the song relied on by Saregama was released in 1957, the copyright in that song expired in 2017.
The court, relying on the lay observer test, noted clear differences in the lyrics, structure, rhythm, and overall composition, and held that the Plaintiff’s song drew on a traditional Punjabi folk composition, which remains part of the public domain. Suit was decreed in the Plaintiff’s favour.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court granted an interim injunction restraining Nippon Paint from using the ‘INFINITY Timeless Appeal’ mark, finding a prima facie case of infringement and passing off of Plaintiff/s registered ‘INFINITY’ mark. The Court simultaneously dismissed Nippon’s Rectification Petition.
The Court held that, having applied to register the identical Impugned Mark, Nippon was estopped from claiming that the Plaintiff’s Mark is descriptive. The invalidity plea was also rejected as an afterthought following failed mediation.
Noting the Impugned Mark completely subsumed the Plaintiff’s Mark and its symbol ‘∞’ is phonetically idenctial, the Court restrained Nippon from dealing in paints under the deceptively similar mark.
DELHI HIGH COURT
In a suit filed by Bhuvan Bam, popular Youtuber known for the comedy series ‘BB Ki Vines’, against the infringement of his personality and publicity rights through unauthorized digital exploitation, including deepfakes, merchandise infringing upon registered trademark, and online content.
Court upon finding prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the Plaintiff, directed platforms including YouTube, Flipkart, Spotify, Meta, BeeTrendy, and Swag Shirts to remove infringing listings/URLs within 36 hours, while observing that parody and caricature related objections would be considered separately on the next date of hearing.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of Special Leave Petitions filed by an association representing South Indian music labels and rights owners, thereby declining to interfere with the Madras High Court’s judgment setting aside contempt directions against FM radio broadcasters.
The High Court had held that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked for enforcement of unquantified monetary liabilities, particularly where the underlying royalty determination remains under challenge. The Bench further observed that the proper course was to seek quantification and execution under Section 75 of the Copyright Act, 1957, rather than pursue contempt proceedings for recovery of disputed royalty amounts.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs, a company operating under the brand names ‘AI’/’AI+ Smartphones’, along with its CEO/Founder. While granting such relief, the court observed that the impugned YouTube videos titled ‘This Indian Phone Is A marketing disaster” and “FAKE Indian Company – Needs to STOP” uploaded by the defendants prima facie tended to bring disrepute not only to the Plaintiffs’ products, but also to Plaintiff No.2 personally.
The Court observed that the transcript of the impugned videos did not appear to be supported by any actual or real data and may potentially deter viewers from purchasing the Plaintiff’s products. Court held that the content maliciously targeted the goodwill of the Plaintiffs and amounted to disparagement. A vacation application has been filed on the ground of suppression.
Significant Judgments
The Court examined the scope of interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the context of claims over the OTT and non-linear rights in the proposed film ‘Drishyam 3’. Amazon contended that under a “Master Video Licence Agreement” for the prequel (i.e., ‘Drishyam 2’), it possessed contractual rights to negotiate and match third-party offers concerning future Drishyam titles. Amazon showcased that it validly exercised such rights and matched a third-party offer (thereby creating a binding agreement) for ‘Drishyam 3’, despite which the Respondents attempted to dilute/whittle away these rights and terminate negotiations with Amazon and create third party interest to frustrate Amazon’s contractual claim
The Court reiterated that Section 9 jurisdiction is confined to preserving the subject matter of arbitration (Amazon’s rights and interests in non-linear exploitation of ‘Drishyam 3’) and not adjudicating underlying contractual disputes. It was observed that Amazon had made out a prima facie case for grant of ad interim protection and applying the settled triple test in this regard, the Court restrained the respondents from creating third-party rights in the said film’s non-linear internet-based rights pending further hearing.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court upheld the validity of the Plaintiff’s Patent, which covers split-sector antenna technology used to enhance cellular network capacity. Accordingly, a permanent injunction was granted against the Defendant and an award of INR 152.32 crore, in damages, was granted to the Plaintiff, as calculated using a 20% royalty rate on the sales of the infringing antennas.
The Court noted that, in several cases, patents are challenged using a methodology that the Court termed as “Dartboard Model”, whereupon a party challenges a patent by citing unrelated prior arts, in an attempt that atleast one such prior art would hit the “Bulls-Eye”. Condemning such an approach, the Court observed that the same results in enormous consumption of resources of the parties, courts, and patent offices and therefore, is liable to be dealt with the imposition of heavy costs.
Addressing infringement, the Court accepted MATLAB computational simulations as valid evidence. It concluded that the Defendants’ multi-beam antennas directly infringed the patent because they emitted asymmetrical beams falling within the patent’s protected scope. Furthermore, a Certificate of Validity was granted, vis-à-vis, the subject patent, in terms of Section 113 of the Patent Act, 1970.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 22100 of 2025; 2026 INSC 436)
The Apex Court allowed an appeal against the Delhi High Court’s order refusing to grant summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in a suit seeking recovery of the sale consideration paid by the appellant for a commercial plot purchased from the Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”) through public auction in 2007. The underlying land acquisition in respect of the plot had subsequently been declared lapsed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, a position that attained finality upon dismissal of DDA’s Review and Curative Petitions.
The Court laid down non-exhaustive guidelines governing applications under Order XIII-A, observing that courts must determine whether the defendant has a real (as opposed to fanciful) prospect of defending the claim without undertaking a mini-trial. The court further held that courts must be prepared to “grasp the nettle” and decide a short question of law, including limitation, where foundational facts remain undisputed.
Rejecting DDA’s defence that return of physical possession was a precondition to refund, the Court held that lapse of acquisition extinguished all of DDA’s title, rendering the doctrine of counter-restitution inapplicable. Exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, a refund of Rs. 164.91 crores at 7.5% interest per annum was granted, and suit was decreed.
Meet the Picklers
Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari, Srishti Dhoundiyal, Ishi Singh, Pushpit Ghosh, Sankalp Arya, Harsshita Pothiraj, Devika Tiwari, Affan Moin and Aditya Singh Thakur.
