Indian IP Law: Recent Judgments & Key Developments in 2026

Introduction : Imagine that there is a theft of your watch which cost you a fortune, so what will one do, he can go to police to register an FIR. Here the word theft is only used for tangible assets. So what will happen to the assets which are intangible? Suppose you made a very beautiful painting using your thought process, investing your time and money and someone took out a photo of that painting and recreated it in the same way and sold it without your consent. Basically, someone is misappropriating it and selling it, but you cannot report it as stolen, then what will be the remedy. There is nowhere written in BNS about the theft of tangible assets. Here, Intellectual Property Laws  come into play. Here the property was created out of your thought process or you can say one’s intellect. This is what intellectual property is. It is basically the creation of the human mind. These intangible properties are dealt under the Intellectual Property Rights. It gives rights to the inventor or creator to protect the invention or creation for a certain period of time.

With changing time, which automatically increases the need to amend or develop the existing laws which also includes IPR (INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS). The year 2023-2025 has been important phase for IP law in India as there was a waterfall of judgments. With the development of AI generative tools and digital commerce, it becomes more challenging for the Indian courts like the Bombay, Delhi and Madras High Court. These cases include several new kinds of disputes that rarely anyone has imagined or dispute from the trademark or copyright that is running through decades of litigation and has finally reached to its conclusion.

The reason that Judiciary is tending or catching up to developments is because of the sudden advancement in technology and commerce. AI can now clone the voice of anyone within minutes; it can generate sexually explicit images of anyone without their knowledge or consent, many rouge streaming websites are also emerging like NETMIRROR, TELEGRAM, etc. which reproduce and  distribute the copyrighted and  private contents. Many patents claim to have software- based innovation, but when examined critically it reveals as mere algorithms or computer program that is just designed to claim the patents; not any serious innovation. Earlier these issues were only theoretical but as the time is changing it has now become the real time issue.  These issues arising are of great concern.

This article mainly deals with the recent (2023-2026) legislative developments and judgments in IP Law in India which will include trademark, copyright, patents and many more along with its legal reasoning and impact of it in the future.

Intellectual Property Law- recent Advancements and Judgments

• RECENT JUDGMENTS(2023-2025) : Intellectual Property is something that is not created to be touched but is an expression of one’s ideas. The creation of the human mind is not limited, it has a wider scope and it needs to be protected as we humans create a lot of things using our mind. Depending upon the nature and creation of the inventions Intellectual property can be divided into many types like- copyright, trademark, patents, geographical indication, etc.

There are several judgments or developments that have occurred in the recent time that are:

TRADEMARK- Protection of Famous Brand: It is a special symbol, design or name that a company puts on its products and that cannot be used by any other company.

The recent cases are:

Lacoste v. Crocodile International Pte Limited and Crocodile Products Private Limited (Delhi High Court, 14 August 2024)

This case lasted for 23 years. In this case Lactose claimed that Crocodile International of Singapore was using a logo that was similar to its crocodile trademark.

This case was not a case of simple copying of logo. Crocodile International came to India in 1997 for doing business and possessed valid trademark registration and an agreement with Lactose which it used to argue that it was legally entitles to use its mark. Originally, the Crocodile mark was accompanied by the word ‘crocodile’ which was used to distinguish between Lactose’s crocodile trademark. However, later Crocodile International removed the word and uses only the symbol of crocodile which created resemblance between the two companies. It created confusion among the customers that both companies are somewhat connected. The court’s decision was influenced by the creation of customer’s confusion (consumer perception) that J. Sanjeev Narula granted a permanent injunction which prohibited Crocodile International from selling, manufacturing or in any manner using the Lactose’s trademark deceptively (trademark infringement). It also directed to pay back the profits earned by using the Lactose’s trademark deceptively. Thus one cannot use a mark to confuse the customers.

Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. v. Berachah Sales Corporation and Ors. (2024)

The significance of this case is that it gave Indian Courts an idea to use ‘The Doctrine of Dilution of Trademark’ under Section 11 of the Trademark’s Act, 1999. The case arose when the defendants operated under the name ‘Haldiram Restro’ to sell food products like mustard oil, salt, ghee, etc. on an online platform and used a trademark which closely resembled the Haldiram brand.

The court granted a permanent injunction against defendants by applying the triple identity test of finding the identical or very similar marks, similar goods and services, and overlapping trade channels. These factors strongly imply infringement of trademark.

The court further added that a trademark carries uniqueness and reputation (goodwill) and using it without consenting can cause harm by exploiting its goodwill and weakening its public opinion. This harm may occur even if the customers are not encouraged to believe that the products are from a particular brand. This harm in legal language is called ‘blurring’ where a company's reputation is gradually tarnished through association with another product or business. This case became an important precedent for future scenarios and cases.

COPYRIGHT- Protection of Literary, Dramatic, Musical and Artistic Works, Cinematograph Films and Sound Recordings:

It ensures that the creator controls how their work is used reproduced or distributed. Anyone else needs permission or license. There are many cases under copyright but the most recent one that is marked as a precedent is

Novex Communications Pvt Ltd vs Trade Wings Hotesl Limited in (Supreme Court, July 2024)

This case addressed the rights of copyright assignee in the public performance of sound recordings. The dispute arose when Trade Wings hotels Ltd. were accused of playing copyrighted music without licensing from Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. the defendants argued on the question that whether Novex had legal authority to provide license since it is not registered as a copyright society under Copyright Act, 1957.

Supreme Court rejected this argument by saying that a copyright owner can transfer or assign its rights to another person or entity and that assignee can grant the license if the agreement says so. Therefore, company like Novex Pvt. Ltd does not need to be registered in order to grant license.

Thus, this decision becomes an important precedent in the field of copyright licensing in India.

Personality Rights- Prevent unauthorized commercial exploitation or misuse of an individual’s identity:

It is a right of a person to protect his/her personality under right to privacy and property.

There is one such case related to personality rights that is ‘Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India and ors. (2023)’. In this case the petitioner’s name, photographs, dialogues, voice, and other personality related elements were used for commercial gain without his authorization by Simple Life India and various other parties. These included merchandising, fan product and online content which could mislead the public into believing that there is some kind of association by him.

The Delhi High Court provided interim relief in favor of Anil Kapoor, the petitioner by restraining the defendants from using his name, image, voice, signature or any other attributes without permission. It also included prohibition on creating deep fakes.

This is not the only case under personality right and AI, there are other cases such as ‘Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP and Ors.’ and ‘Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store and Ors.’

PATENTS: Section 3(k) and Software Patents:

It protects new inventions or technical solutions to a problem which must be novel, inventive and industrially applicable.

In 2024, one of the most important case was decided by Delhi High Court on Patents which is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International Limited, CS(COMM) 65/2016 (Delhi High Court, 28 March 2024). The dispute was about patents involved in 2G and 3G mobile technologies, essential for mobile phones to function properly. The dispute involved SEPs (Standard Essential Patents), which protect technologies essential for complying with industrial standards.

The court held that Lava had used Ericsson’s patent technology without proper license. The court also emphasized on FRAND licensing (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms) which is required by the companies using standard technologies to negotiate licenses fairly. It further criticized Lava by saying that companies cannot simply refuse to obtain licensing and then ask the court to decide the royalty amount. Thus, this judgment tells us that businesses or companies must negotiate license in good faith.

Digital Piracy And Dynamic Injuction

Using dynamic injunction to combat online piracy is one of the most important developments in Indian Law for Intellectual Property. A dynamic injunction is an order of court that not only blocks the rouge websites identified by the rights holder but also involves new websites, mirror sites or duplicate platforms that appear later. Thus there is no need to file a new case every time to block the new emerging rouge websites by right holders.

This was widely used by the companies such as Star India and Disney+ Hotstar especially during events like IPL and ICC tournaments. To make this order more effective, the court directs the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and government authorities to block access to infringing websites as soon as they are identified.

Recent Developments

Trade Secrets Bill, 2024: Unlike patents, trademarks and copyright, India does not have a separate law for specially protecting trade secrets. Businesses rely on confidentiality agreements under Indian Contract Act, 1872 and general legal principles relating to breach of confidential information. It is very much criticized as it does not provide a clear and complete protection.

To bridge this gap, a major reform was proposed by the Law Commission of India in its 289th Report (2024). It recommended introduction of Protection of Trade Secrets Bill.

This bill clearly defines – what constitutes a trade secret and the remedies for unauthorized use or disclosure of trade secrets. These remedies include compensation, court injunction, recovery of profits earned through misuse of trade secrets.

An important feature of this bill is that disputes related to trade secrets are heard by Commercial Courts, which have experience in dealing with complex related matters. The confidential information remains protected during court proceedings, no leakage of trade secrets during trials.

Violation of the bill does not create criminal offences but result into civil remedies like damages and injunction.

If this bill is enacted it would strengthen the protection of confidential business information in India. It will be beneficial for startups, small businesses, tech- driven companies, which is heavily based on trade secrets and that could not afford any legal claims.

Legislative Developments Reshaping the IP Ecosystem:

Jan Vishwas Act, 2023-

This Act decriminalizes a certain number of offences across 42 statutes including Patents Act, 1970. Several offences under Patents Act including unauthorized claims of patent rights under Section 120, earlier carried penalties of imprisonment but now are purely civil matters which have increased the maximum penalty from ₹ 1Lakh to ₹10Lakh. The Act introduced a new and easy system for handling patent related disputes where Adjudicating Officer has the authority to decide the case. Earlier, for false claims of patent rights the parties have to approach High Court which was expensive as well as time consuming. The new system handling such disputed reduces the burden on courts and is faster and less expensive.

Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024-

These rules introduced several amendments that made the patent system more efficient and transparent. It introduced Adjudicating Officers under Section 120, 122 and 123 of Patents Act (false claims of patent rights) for decision making. It also establishes the Appellant Authority to hear appeals for resolving such disputes. This ensures that the complaints are dealt in a quicker way.

These amendments are particularly beneficial for businesses that face any such uncertain disputes. Instead of having a lengthy and expensive process, this new amendment provides a more accessible and cost effective procedure.

Growth of Specialist IP Divisions-

After Delhi, the IP Division was established at Madras High Court in April 2023, followed by Calcutta High Court. It is one of the structurally important developments under IP Law in India. These divisions are designed to handle intellectual property disputes such as trademark, copyright, patents, geographical indication, etc. The establishment of these IP benches reduces the chance of conflicting judgments across the courts and improves the efficiency of deciding such cases. Now, the IP disputes can be settled in cities such as Chennai and Kolkata, rather than being concentrated only in Delhi. It reflects that India is now shifting and strengthening its focus on intellectual property framework.

Recent Developments In 2026

The year 2026 also has some IP related cases. Some of them are as follows:

HINDWARE v. Google Ads Keyword Advertising (Delhi High Court, 2026)

In this case, the Delhi High Court restrained Google from auctioning or selling the registered trademarks like ‘HINDWARE’ to competing businesses as advertising keywords.

Hindware is a famous brand that sells sanitary ware like toilets, wash basins, etc. The company noticed that whenever people are searching for ‘Hindware’ on Google, it is showing the advertisements of the competitor brands at the top of the search list. This was happening because the competitor brands were paying Google to use the word ‘Hindware’ as a keyword in Google Ads. Hindware argued that this was unfair as this is hampering its customer retention as they could get diverted towards other brands and Google for its benefit of earning money is allowing others to use Hindware’s trademark.

Google defended by saying that it was only providing an advertising platform and the keyword is not visible to its users.

The Delhi High Court disagreed with Google and restrained it from using the trademark ‘Hindware’ as keyword in Google Ads. It also ordered Google to pay ₹30Lakh as damages to Hindware.

Philips v. Rajesh Bansal (Delhi High Court Division Bench, 2026)

The decision is considered a major development as it clarified that mere claiming of a patent is not enough, the patentee must provide strong technical proof.

In this case the Delhi High Court Division Bench overturned a judgment of 2018 of Single Bench that had awarded royalties to Philips for claimed infringement of its DVD technology patent.

The court held that Philips failed to prove that its patent was a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) or that the defendant's DVD had infringed the patent as the materials used were not similar, it used every element of the patented version. The court further held that, since the components were bought from the authorized sources, the patent’s owner rights over the sold items are exhausted. Therefore, the defendant was not liable for patent infringement.

Thus, the Division Bench reversed the earlier judgment and set free Bansal from liability of royalty imposed by Single Bench.

Gloster Cables Ltd. v. Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court, 2026)

This case was about who really owned the trademark ‘GLOSTER’ during insolvency involving Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. The dispute arose because Gloster Cables Ltd. claimed that the trademark has already been assigned to it through earlier agreements while the other party claimed it to be still an asset of an insolvent company. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) held that the trademark belongs to the Fort Gloster and formed a part of the company's assets. But, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) disagreed. Thus, the case went to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that NCLT does not have the authority to decide the complicated trademark ownership dispute because the company is undergoing insolvency proceedings. Questions about who owns the trademark are matters of civil and intellectual property law and should be decided by the appropriate authority. A pre-existing issue regarding trademark ownership does not become an insolvency issue.

This judgment draws a fine line between insolvency law and intellectual property law.

Conclusion

Intellectual property in India has seen significant changes in the last 3-4 years i.e. from 2023-2026. This pace of change does not seem slow, as it is combating the challenges related to advancement of technologies and AI, digital commerce and societal changes. As technology continues to reshape, the individuals are also creating, communicating and conducting business out of their intellect. Thus it is creating the need and importance of intellectual property law and its development.

The decisions made during this period reflect that the judiciary is actively trying to adjust to the established legal principles and emerging challenges. Decisions such as in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India and ors. have expanded the scope of personality rights in response to AI generated content or voice cloning, etc. Similarly, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International Limited helped to strengthen the obligation regarding SEP and FRAND licensing while the Supreme Court decision in Gloster Cables Ltd. v. Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. clarifies about trademark protection and consumer confusion. These decisions by the judiciary imply that it is willing to engage with the sophisticated legal and technical issues, ensuring innovation, growth and development.

There are also some significant legislative and institutional reforms that are introduced during this period. These include- Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, the proposed Trade Secrets Bill, the Patents (Amendment) Rules, and the establishment of Specialized Intellectual Property Divisions in additional High Courts reflects the greater efforts to reform India’s IP ecosystem. These developments create an understanding that intellectual property protection depends not only on sound laws but also on efficient institutions that are capable of resolving disputes in a timely and specialized manner.

Issues relating to trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and digital content now affect creators, entrepreneurs, startups, tech- companies, artists and consumers on a daily basis.

Intellectual property has now played a crucial role in India's digital economy and innovation ecosystem.

Thus, the laws are dynamic in nature and will keep on evolving in response to the emerging technologies and changing economic forces. But the foundation laid by these judgments and reforms will safeguard intellectual property rights of the creators, innovators and the entrepreneurs in India and provide them with immense power and a strong platform to showcase and protect their innovations.

Author: Muskan Vadhan in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to content@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

1. Lacoste S.A. v. Crocodile International Pte Limited and Crocodile Products Private Limited, Delhi High Court, Judgment dated 14 August 2024.

2. Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. v. Berachah Sales Corporation and Ors., 2024 (Delhi High Court, permanent injunction).

3. Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP and Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 23560 of 2024 in COM IPR Suit (L) No. 23443 of 2024, SCC OnLine Bom 2445, Bombay High Court, 26 July 2024.

4. Jaikishsan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store and Ors., Delhi High Court, 2024 (ad interim order).

5. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International Limited, CS(COMM) 65/2016, Delhi High Court, Judgment dated 28 March 2024.

6. Law Commission of India, Report No. 289 on Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage, 2024, with draft Protection of Trade Secrets Bill.

7. Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, notified August 2023.

8. Draft Patent (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024, Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Notification dated 2 January 2024.

9. Madras High Court IPR Division inauguration, April 2023 (Press Release, High Court of Judicature at Madras).

10. S.S. Rana & Co., "Personality Rights Infringement of Arijit Singh Shocks the Conscience of Court!", available at: https://ssrana.in/.

11. Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. CS(COMM) 591/2017 & 592/2017, Delhi High Court (Justice Mini Pushkarna), decided on 22 May 2026. Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 541. Available at: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59222052026SC5912017_203444.pdf Intepat

12. K.K. Bansal & Rajesh Bansal v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV FAO(OS)(COMM) (Appeal arising out of CS(COMM) suits filed in 2009), Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla), pronounced on 18 May 2026. Available at: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/here-is-why-delhi-high-court-rejected-philips-royalty-claim-in-the-dvd-patent-case

13. Gloster Cables Ltd. v. Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. & Ors. Citation: 2026 INSC 81; also reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 80. Supreme Court of India, decided on 22 January 2026. Bench led by Justice K.V. Viswanathan. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/sc-judgments/2026-livelaw-sc-80-gloster-cables-ltd-through-its-authorised-representative-mr-shyam-sunder-kalya-vs-fort-gloster-industries-ltd-520151 Privacy International

14. LexOrbis, IP Case Law Updates 2024, available at: https://www.lexorbis.com/ip-case-law-updates-2024/.