GUI Registration under Design Laws in India: Calcutta High Court Settles the Debate
Nearly three years ago, we wrote about the “hope” for GUI registration under Indian design laws, drawing upon the then-nascent jurisprudence emerging from the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in UST Global (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. vs. The Controller of Patents and Designs .
In this judgment, Hon’ble Kolkata High Court had remanded the matter back to Controller for fresh consideration, and the question of GUI registrability remained legally unsettled.
In a recent case, on March 9, 2026, Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur of Calcutta High Court (IPD) delivered a landmark judgment in a batch of five consolidated appeals- NEC Corporation vs. The Controller of Patents and Designs, ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH vs. The Controller of Patents and Designs, Abiomed Inc. vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, and TVS Motor Company Limited vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs- holding unequivocally that “GUIs are eligible for design registration under the Act”, subject to satisfaction of the criteria as enumerated under Sections 2(a) and 2(d) on a case-by-case basis.
Postscript: The Division Bench Clarifies the Scope of Informed Consumer Test
Since the publication of an earlier article examining the evolving contours of the “average consumer test in an informed society” [Read here: https://ssrana.in/articles/the-average-consumer-test-in-an-informed-society/], the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has now delivered its judgment in Mountain Valley Springs India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Baby Forest Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd. FAO (OS) (COMM) 111/2024, decided on February 27, 2026. The decision provides important clarification on the relationship between modern consumer behavior and traditional trademark confusion tests.
The appeal arose from the order of the Single Judge refusing interim injunction against the use of the mark “BABY FOREST” by the Defendant for their baby care products, which was alleged by the Plaintiff to be deceptively similar to its trademark FOREST ESSENTIALS. The Ld. Single Judge had reasoned that in contemporary markets, particularly in the context of premium products, consumers are more informed and capable of verifying the origin of goods. Consequently, even if a consumer initially experiences a “state of wonderment,” they may verify the brand before making a purchase.
Delhi High Court Rules Against Peru’s Exclusive Claim Over ‘Pisco’ GI: A Landmark Ruling in Indian IP History
In a significant ruling concerning the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 the Delhi High Court has dismissed the Embassy of Peru’s appeal (In the Matter of Embassy of Peru v. Union of India and Ors 2026:DHC:2259-DB) seeking an exclusive Geographical Indication (GI), “GI PISCO”, over the alcoholic beverage known as Pisco, holding that both Peru and Chile possess legitimate and long-standing claims to the name.
Assessing Trademark Infringement: The Enduring Benchmark of the Triple Identity Test
Indian Courts have consistently applied the triple-identity test while assessing similarity between marks and the potential likelihood of confusion. On December 08, 2025, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in Delhi Public School Society v. Delhi Public School International Bhiwadi & Ors. [CS(COMM) 1247/2025] restraining a Rajasthan-based educational institution from using the name ‘Delhi Public School International’ and the abbreviation ‘DPS’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that the Defendant’s conduct clearly and unequivocally satisfied the requirements of the triple-identity test and a prima facie case of trade mark infringement and passing off was made out.
Software Patents in India: Takeaways from the RxPrism v. Canva Decision
In today’s digital economy, innovation no longer resides solely in tangible machines or physical products, it increasingly lies in lines of code, layered interfaces, and seamless user experiences. As global platforms race to roll out new features at scale, a crucial question emerges: where does innovation end and infringement begin?
The recent decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in RxPrism Health Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Canva Pty Ltd. & Ors., brings this question sharply into focus. At the heart of the dispute was Canva’s popular “Present and Record” feature, which was alleged to infringe an Indian patent held by RxPrism, a domestic technology start‑up.
The case, presided over at different stages by the learned Single Judge and later examined by the Division Bench, raised complex and timely questions:
Can software‑driven innovations be protected under Indian patent law despite the exclusion of “computer programs per se” under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970?
How should courts balance the presumption of patent validity against aggressive invalidity challenges based on prior art?
More than a conventional patent dispute, the case reflects the growing role of Indian courts as arbiters in the fast‑evolving world of digital tools, software architectures, and platform‑based innovation. It also highlights the tension between local innovators and multinational technology companies operating in the Indian market.
A Classic Case of Suppression: Bombay High Court Vacates Ex Parte Injunction in Elder Projects v. Elder Nutraceuticals
The Bombay High Court’s recent judgment in Elder Projects Ltd. v. Elder Nutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd. serves as a stark reminder that ex-parte injunctions being extraordinary remedies demand the highest standard of candour from plaintiffs. Justice Sandeep V. Marne, by an order dated 9 March 2026, vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction previously granted to Elder Projects Ltd., finding that the plaintiff had secured the order by grossly suppressing material facts across four distinct categories. Resultantly, Hon’ble Court also imposed on the Defendant, a cost of rupees one lakh.
The case underscores a fundamental principle: a litigant who approaches the court with unclean hands forfeits all entitlement to equitable relief, irrespective of the underlying merits of the claim.
Can Third Parties Challenge Trade Marks Before Advertisement? Madras High Court Weighs In
In India, as in many other jurisdictions, the trade marks registration process has clearly been demarcated into specific stages, uniquely balancing the rights and interests of third-parties and the applicants. A trade mark application, as per both statute and convention, first undergoes the administrative stage of formalities check for any irregularities, passing which, it reaches the stage of thorough examination by the trade marks examiner, who scrutinizes the application for possible contraventions with the provisions of Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Trade Marks Rules 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” and “the Rules”). It is only following this stage, once an application is advertised in the Trade Marks Journal, does it become open to oppositions by third-party actors. Section 21 of the Act allows “any person” to challenge a trade mark application, post its journal advertisement by way of a formal opposition.