TRADEMARK
EXCLUSIVITY OVER “ORIGIN” DENIED – MADRAS HC
Origin Nutrition Private Limited (Plaintiff) filed a trademark infringement suit before the Madras HC against M/s Tech7 Phyll Private Limited & ors. (Defendant) for the use of the marks “ORIGIN” and “ORIGIN FRESH”. The Plaintiff, engaged in the business of nutritional goods, claimed that it holds trademark registration of “ORIGIN” and “ORIGIN NUTRITION” in class 5 and alleged that the Defendant had infringed its registered marks, resulting in the passing off and dilution of its goodwill. The Defendant argued that it holds a trademark registration of “ORIGIN” device mark in class 31, and further contended that “ORIGIN” is a common dictionary word over which no exclusivity can be claimed. The Defendant also submitted that it deals in agricultural products, whereas the Plaintiff deals in nutritional supplements, and therefore there is no overlap in goods, trade channels or customer base.
The Madras HC refused to grant interim relief and upheld the Defendant’s view that “ORIGIN” is a generic word and therefore, no exclusivity can be granted to it. The Court further noted that there was no likelihood of confusion as the businesses of the parties were distinct. The Court reiterated that trademarks must be considered as a whole and not in parts. Hence, the application was dismissed.
1.Origin Nutrition Private Limited v. Ms Tech7 Phyll Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 3
TRADEMARK
“BLUE JAY” TM CANCELLATION SET ASIDE
Sumit Vijay & Anr. (Appellant) filed an appeal before the Delhi HC against Major League Baseball Properties Inc. & Anr. (Respondent) challenging the cancellation of their trademark “BLUE-JAY”. The Appellants contended that their registered trademark “BLUE-JAY” had been cancelled by a single Judge upon an infringement suit filed by the Respondents, an IP-holding company of the Canadian baseball team, known as the “Blue Jays,”. The Respondents argued on the basis of their alleged international reputation and the Appellants’ purported bad faith, while the Appellants argued that the Respondents’ goodwill was limited exclusively to the USA and Canada and did not extend to India, as baseball does not enjoy significant popularity in India. The Single Judge had held that the Respondents’ website contained the stated trademark and had been accessible in India since 1996, and further held that the Appellants’ adoption of the mark was in bad faith. Accordingly, a cancellation order was passed.
The Delhi HC set aside the cancellation order of the Single Bench and held that trans-border reputation cannot be presumed merely because a mark is known internationally; proof of goodwill is required to establish such reputation in the relevant jurisdiction, and without it cancellation of the registered Indian trademark is unjustified. The Court further observed that bad faith cannot be inferred lightly and must be supported by material evidence demonstrating dishonest adoption.
1. Sumit Vijay & Anr. v. Major League Baseball Properties Inc. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 11
COPYRIGHT
WARNER BROS GRANTED RELIEF IN ONLINE PIRACY CASE
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. & Ors. (Plaintiffs) filed a copyright infringement suit before the Delhi HC against Animesuges.to & Ors. (Defendants) alleging that the Defendants were illegally streaming and sharing the Plaintiff’s copyrighted movies and TV shows including Friends, Stranger Things and Game of Thrones without authorization. The Plaintiffs contended that they hold exclusive copyright and streaming rights over their content in India and such unauthorized streaming of their copyrighted content on more than 160 piracy websites causes harm to their business, and results in huge financial losses.
The Delhi HC accepted the Plaintiff’s contentions and issued an injunction against the Defendants. It ordered more than 160 identified piracy websites to be blocked and restrained them from hosting, streaming, distributing its copyrighted content. The Court further directed the domain registrars and internet service providers to lock, suspend and block access to these websites to prevent any further unauthorized streaming of the Plaintiff’s content.
1.Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc & Ors Vs Animesugez.to & Ors., CS (COMM) 1361/2025
COPYRIGHT
STABILITY AI HIT WITH ANOTHER COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT
Jerry Anders, also famously known as Anders Manga (Plaintiff) filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of North Carolina against Stability AI and Navarr Enterprises (trading as AudioSparx), (Defendants) alleging that his copyrighted music was used without permission to train Defendant’s generative music tool “Stable Audio”. The Plaintiff claimed that AudioSparx, a music licensing platform with which he had a prior agreement, wrongfully provided the Defendant access to his works for AI training purposes. He further argued that such use was not covered under his licensing agreement with AudioSparx and that despite his objections and seeking to opt out from the agreement, his music continued to be exploited. The Plaintiff has sought statutory damages, legal costs and injunctive relief to prevent any further unauthorized use of his copyrighted works.
COPYRIGHT
MASTIII 4 ACCUSED OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Ashish Sharma (Plaintiff) filed a copyright infringement suit before the Delhi HC against M/S Maruti International and Ors. (Defendants) alleging that a key comedy sequence in the movie “Mastiii 4” was copied from his popular Instagram skit titled “Shaq Karne Ka Nateeja” and which has received more than 11 million views online. The Plaintiff claimed that he is the original creator and copyright owner of the skit and that the contested scene in “Mastiii 4” replicates the central idea, storyline, character interactions and even the comic punchline of his work, without his permission or any credit, amounting to violation of his copyright and moral rights.
The Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining use of the copied material, financial damages, and a detailed statement of profits from the film’s exploitation. The court noted the Plaintiff’s contentions and film’s upcoming OTT release timeline and issued a notice to the producers of the film, giving them an opportunity to be heard. The case is now listed for hearing on 13th January, 2026.
1.Asish Sharma v. M/S Maruti International & Ors., CS(COMM) – 4/2026
PATENT
THE SHANTI ACT, 2025 REDEFINES SECTION 4 PATENT EXCLUSION
The enactment of the Sustainable Harnessing Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025 seeks to recalibrate India’s long-standing blanket prohibition on patenting nuclear-related inventions under Section 4 of the Patents Act, 1970. Earlier, Section 4, read with the Section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 operated as an absolute exclusion, denying patents to any invention connected with atomic energy, regardless of whether the technology was strategically sensitive or purely civilian. This framework placed all nuclear-adjacent inventions outside the patent system, drawing no distinction between national security concerns and routine commercial innovation.
The SHANTI Act alters this position by relinking Section 4 to a conditional regime. While strategic fuel-cycle activities and security-sensitive inventions continue to remain excluded and vest in the State, patents may now be granted for peaceful, civilian uses of nuclear energy and radiation, subject to government screening. Consequently, Section 4 no longer functions as an automatic bar but as a filtering provision, separating reserved and sensitive technologies from non-strategic civilian innovation. This shift opens avenues for patent protection in areas such as radiation monitoring, medical applications, safety systems and nuclear-facility software, signaling a structural change in India’s nuclear patent regime.
PATENT
NATCO PHARMA MOVES DELHI HC AGAINST WEGOVY PATENT
Natco Pharma Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a petition before the Delhi High Court against Novo Nordisk A/S (Respondent) seeking revocation of the Respondent’s patent for the weight-loss drug semaglutide, marketed under the brand name “Wegovy.” The Petitioner moved the Court challenging the continued validity of the Respondent’s patent after certain pharmaceutical companies were permitted to sell their versions of semaglutide outside India. The Petitioner further contended that the Respondent’s patent lacked novelty and inventive step and that the continued monopoly was unjustified, and it is due to expire in March 2026. This petition follows an earlier application filed by the Petitioner seeking a declaration that its version of semaglutide did not infringe the Respondent’s device- or process-related patents, pursuant to which the Court directed the parties to attempt pre-litigation mediation. The Petitioner submitted that it intended to manufacture and market semaglutide and that the impugned patent unlawfully restrained generic entry. The Delhi HC issued notice to the Respondent and granted two weeks’ time to file its response, with the next hearing scheduled for February.
