Latest IP Insights
When the Wall Speaks No More Moral Rights, the Whale Mural, and the Amar Nath Sehgal Case
In the spring of 2026, workers engaged by the local organizing committee of the FIFA World Cup arrived at a building in downtown Dallas, Texas, armed with industrial paint rollers and a commercial directive: cover the whale. The mural they proceeded to obliterate, a 17,000-square-foot testament to ocean life titled Whaling Wall 82, hand-painted by celebrated marine artist Wyland over two painstaking weeks in 1999, had graced the building for nearly three decades. It was a beloved fixture of Dallas’s cultural fabric. Within days, it was gone, replaced by promotional artwork for the upcoming football tournament.
Can a Search Engine Sell Your Trademark? Delhi High Court Rules on Keyword Advertising and Platform Liability
The intersection of trademark law and digital advertising has long been a contested frontier. One of its most persistent flashpoints concerns the practice of keyword advertising, where a business pays a search engine to display its advertisement when a user searches for a competitor’s brand name. In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, in Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., has provided what is, to date, India’s most definitive judicial answer to the question: does selling a registered trademark as a search keyword amount to trademark infringement, and can the search engine itself be held liable?
The Court answered both questions in the affirmative. It permanently restrained Google LLC and Google India Private Limited from using the plaintiff’s registered trademarks as advertising keywords, awarded nominal damages of Rs. 30 lakh, and held that Google could not avail itself of the intermediary safe harbour under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
FIFA World Cup 2026 Piracy Crackdown: Delhi High Court Grants Dynamic Injunction to Zee
The 2026 FIFA World Cup, co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, is scheduled to be held from June 11 to July 19, 2026, and with the advent of any major sporting event, the online piracy sites also mushroom around the same time.
In India, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (“Zee”) secured exclusive media rights to broadcast and stream the 2026 FIFA World Cup, through a rights confirmation agreement entered into on June 1, 2026. Within days of this acquisition, rogue websites had already begun advertising unauthorized live streams of the tournament, a brazen, pre-emptive strike at Zee’s intellectual property even before the first whistle was blown.
There Is No World Patent: Choosing Between the PCT and Convention Routes from India
One of the most common beliefs among founders and first-time inventors is that there is something called an “international patent,” a single filing that protects an invention across the world.
It sounds simple: file once, get global protection, and focus on building the business. But patent law does not work that way.
It is territorial by design. Rights do not travel across borders, and there is no world patent. Instead, every patent is granted country by country. What the international system offers is not a global right, but two routes that help you reach multiple national patents: the Paris Convention route and the PCT route.
Both start with a first filing, usually in India, that fixes a priority date. Both end with patents being granted, refused, or abandoned in individual countries. The difference lies in what happens in between.
For Indian applicants, this is not a routine filing step. It is a strategic decision that affects cost, timing, and business direction.
Bangladesh Trademarks: The Opportunity Hidden in the Numbers
Bangladesh has emerged as a compelling trademark jurisdiction for both domestic entrepreneurs and multinational corporations. With over 170 million consumers, a booming garment and manufacturing sector, and a rapidly digitising economy, the country’s intellectual property landscape is at a pivotal moment and the 2024 WIPO data tells a story that every business owner and legal counsel should read carefully.
The Bangladesh IP Office recorded 12,010 total filings in the reporting period placing it 72nd globally while resident filings stood at 7,966. A dip of 7.2% in overall filings might, at first glance, appear discouraging. In reality, it signals something else entirely: a window of competitive advantage for brands that act now, before the market corrects upward.
UKIPO 2026: Higher Fees, Stricter Rules, and a Hard Deadline for EU Trade Mark Holders
The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has announced a series of significant changes that will reshape trade mark protection in the United Kingdom. These updates — spanning fee increases, procedural reforms, and policy clarifications — will directly affect how trade marks are filed, managed, and enforced. Some measures are already in effect; others will be phased in over the coming months.
IBC is not an IP Court: Supreme Court restricts NCLT from deciding trademark title
The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gloster Limited v. Gloster Cables Limited, is a significant exposition on the limits of the adjudicatory powers of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Although the immediate controversy concerned proprietary rights over the trademark “GLOSTER”, the real issue before the Court was far more fundamental: whether insolvency forums can assume jurisdiction to determine complex questions of title to intellectual property merely because one of the parties is undergoing corporate insolvency resolution.
The present case provided the Supreme Court an opportunity to delineate the boundary between matters that truly “arise out of or relate to” insolvency proceedings and those which remain independent causes of action requiring adjudication by civil courts or specialized forums. In doing so, the Court not only set aside the findings of the NCLT but also disapproved the approach of the NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal), holding that both forums had travelled beyond their jurisdiction in declaring ownership of the trademark. The judgment thus highlights a crucial principle: the IBC is not a substitute for civil adjudication, and insolvency tribunals cannot be converted into courts of general jurisdiction.
Cool Heads, Hot Dispute: Delhi HC Weighs Trade Dress and House-Mark Defence in Dabur Cool King vs. Emami Navratna
A decision of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Dabur India Limited v. Emami Limited, pronounced on May 22, 2026, is a significant addition to Indian passing off jurisprudence concerning trade dress protection. The dispute arose from Dabur’s launch of Cool King Thanda Tael and Emami’s allegation that the packaging and overall get-up of Dabur’s product is deceptively similar to the long-established trade dress of Navratna Ayurvedic Oil that is sold by Emami.
Having expressly confined its claim to passing off, the Plaintiff, Emami, succeeded before a Single Judge of the High Court, who restrained Dabur (Defendant) from selling its Cool King hair oil in a packaging that was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s.
On appeal, the Division Bench while upholding the Single Judge’s decision, passed certain relevant guidance on trade dress protection.
From Absolute Prohibition to Conditional Innovation – Section 4 of the Indian Patents Act and the Transformative Impact of the Shanti Act 2025
National security has been a cornerstone of India’s patent legislation since its inception. Section 4 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, exemplifies this priority by imposing an absolute bar on patenting inventions related to atomic energy. This prohibition has historically reflected the government’s exclusive control over nuclear technology and the strategic sensitivity associated with atomic energy. However, India’s evolving clean-energy objectives are driving a significant policy transformation.
Emerging policy discussions and proposed legislative frameworks—commonly referred to as the “Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, 2025” (SHANTI Act)—signal a potential departure from absolute prohibition toward conditional patenting. This transition represents an effort to harmonise innovation incentives with sovereign control over sensitive technologies.
USPTO Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Program: A Strategic Pathway to Accelerated Patent Examination
Patent pendency remains one of the most significant challenges in U.S. patent prosecution. Average first-action wait times range from approximately 20 to 29 months across Technology Centers, creating real costs for startups seeking investor credibility, life sciences companies racing toward product launches, and technology firms defending competitive market position.
In response, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) launched the Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Program on October 27, 2025. This time-limited initiative advances qualifying applications ahead of the standard examination queue for first Office action (OA) consideration. The program is the USPTO’s most cost-accessible acceleration mechanism to date, offered at a fraction of Track One’s cost, and simultaneously functions as a policy study to assess whether streamlined claim architectures reduce pendency and examination burden. This article explains the program’s eligibility requirements, claim set constraints, strategic trade-offs, and practical implications for patent practitioners and applicants.
ARIPO’s 2026 Banjul Protocol Amendments: A Practical Guide for Brand Owners Expanding into Africa
Africa is becoming an increasingly important market for global brands. With a combined GDP of more than USD 3 trillion, a fast-growing urban middle class, and stronger regional trade driven by the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), the continent offers significant opportunities for business expansion.
However, trademark protection has not always kept pace with this growth. Until recently, securing and managing trademark rights across Africa could be complex, creating challenges for businesses looking to protect their brands as they expand into new markets.
That is now changing rapidly. On March 01, 2026, the amended Banjul Protocol on Marks under the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) came into force, introducing the most significant reforms to ARIPO’s trademark system in decades. For businesses, brand owners, and advisors with interests in the ARIPO region, these changes are more than just a regulatory update. They mark an important shift in how trademarks can be protected and managed across multiple African markets, creating new opportunities for more effective brand protection.
Latest Corporate Insights
A New Route for CSR Deployment: ZCZP Instruments on the Social Stock Exchange
If your company is required to spend on Corporate Social Responsibility (“CSR”) under the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”), a new and structured route is now available, effective from May 27, 2026. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) has amended the Companies (Corporate Social Responsibility Policy) Rules, 2014 (“CSR Rules”) to permit companies to direct a portion of their CSR budget through the Social Stock Exchange (“SSE”) via Zero Coupon Zero Principal (“ZCZP”) instruments. This update is of direct relevance to compliance teams, CSR committees, company secretaries, and in-house counsel.
Supreme Court Affirms Piercing of the Corporate Veil in CIRP
In a significant ruling dated May 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India in Alpha Corp Development Private Limited v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority reinforced the legal principle that a corporate debtor’s subsidiaries may not always be treated as legally distinct entities during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The Court’s reasoning was anchored not only in established doctrine but also in a pointed evaluation of the conduct of a statutory authority that failed to engage with the CIRP process in any meaningful way. GNIDA’s conduct was one of the material factors that influenced the scope of relief ultimately granted by the Court.
The Algorithmic Trap: AI Designs and Addiction in children
In March 2026, in California, a Los Angeles jury in the case of K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., found Meta and Google liable for a young woman’s depression and suicidal thoughts after she claimed that she became addictive to social media platforms at 9-years. The jury found Meta Platforms and Google liable for the depression, anxiety, body image disorders, and suicidal ideation suffered by a young woman who had become addicted to Instagram and YouTube from the age of nine. The jury awarded USD 3 million in damages, Meta bearing 70% of responsibility, Google the remaining 30%.
The verdict marked a turning point. For the first time, a jury accepted the proposition at the heart of a growing global movement: the harm arose not from the content users posted, but from the platforms’ own engineering, from infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmic recommendation, notification architecture, and engagement optimisation systems that were designed, tested, and deployed to compel use. The product itself was the defect!
AI systems provide children with many advantages, such as personalized teaching and learning from intelligent tutoring systems or online content monitoring and filtering algorithms that proactively identify potentially harmful content or contexts before they identify potentially harmful content or contexts before they are experienced.
Misleading Dark Patterns on Digital Platform: Consent engineered through guilt
On June 01, 2026, the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) issued a significant order against Physicswallah Limited (hereinafter referred to as Party), the EdTech unicorn behind the pw.live platform, finding it guilty of deploying three distinct dark patterns. The matter taken up suo moto by CCPA culminated in a penalty of INR 5,00,000 and a binding direction to eliminate all dark patterns from the platform immediately.
Facts of the Case
The CCPA order identified three practices on Party’s official website and phone application as the subject of the suo moto proceeding:
- Basket Sneaking- the Pre-Selected INR 10 donation
The CCPA observed that the Party had pre-selected the option “Donate for PW Foundation” during the purchase process, thereby automatically adding INR 10 to the final payable amount without obtaining explicit consent from consumers.The pre-ticked donation feature remained operational from February 14. 2024 o December 24, 2025, for approximately a period of 22 months contributing to donation amount of INR 2.47 crore from 21,36,962 users.The mechanism was disabled on December 24, 2025, following receipt of first CCPA notice dated December 04, 2025.The CCPA’s Director General (Investigation), in the investigating report found this constituted Basket Sneaking that is the automatic addition of charges to a transaction without the consumer’s explicit consent, which capitalizes on expedited transactions to induce unintended financial commitments and fundamentally pressurizes consumer decision-making while compromising transactional transparency. - Confirm Shaming- the “know more” guilt trigger
When a consumer clicked “know more” in relation to the donation feature, the message displayed mention that to empower lives through supporting marriages financially of needy people, advancing education of children and promoting healthcare in underserved communities- donate to support the cause.This message was presented simultaneously with a pre-selected donation option during a moral pressure and emotional obligation upon consumer to retain the donation amount rather than exercising a free and neutral choice.The CCPA concluded this as a manipulative interface design and violating the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 and Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023 by creating a sense of fear or shame or ridicule or guilt in the mind of the user so as to nudge the user to act in a certain way.The combination of pre-selected default and guilt inducing messaging when the user sought to investigate the charge was held to fall squarely within this definition. - Forced Action-Personal Data as the Price of “Free” Course
The CCPA also found that the Party promoted educational courses as “free” while simultaneously requiring consumers to mandatorily furnish mobile numbers and email IDs before access could be granted.The CCPA independently accessed the free course through multiple test accounts and found that the educational content, including videos and study material, remained identical across accounts and no elements of personalization, customized learning pathway or differentiated academic experience was found to be associated with the collection of email addresses or mobile numbers contradicting to the Party’s stated justification for mandatory data collection.
The SIPP Scheme: What Its Expiry Means for Startups
The recent notified version of the Scheme for Facilitating Startups Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP) came to an end on 31 March 2026. As of May 2026, there has been no official announcement indicating an extension, renewal, or replacement of the scheme.
Launched in 2016 under the Startup India initiative, SIPP was created to make intellectual property protection more accessible for startups by reducing the financial burden of hiring professional IP services. Over nearly a decade, the scheme enabled thousands of patent, trademark, and design applications by allowing eligible applicants to access government-supported IP facilitation.
The scheme was implemented through the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM). It linked DPIIT-recognized startups and other eligible applicants with empanelled patent agents, trademark agents, and legal professionals. These facilitators supported applicants across the entire IP process, including drafting applications, filing documents, responding to examination reports, attending hearings, and completing final prosecution.
Supreme Court Set to Adjudicate Validity of India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DPDP Act’ or ‘the Act’) represents a landmark legislative development in India’s data governance landscape, being the country’s first comprehensive statute dedicated exclusively to the protection of digital personal data. Passed by Parliament in August 2023 and notified in November 2024, the Act is accompanied by the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (‘the DPDP Rules’), which prescribe a phased 18-month compliance timeline for data fiduciaries.
The legislative framework draws principally from the nine-judge constitutional bench decision of the Supreme Court of India in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, which unanimously affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The DPDP Act seeks to operationalise this right in the digital sphere through a consent-based model of data processing, accompanied by obligations on data fiduciaries and corresponding rights for data principals.
AI systems provide children with many advantages, such as personalized teaching and learning from intelligent tutoring systems or online content monitoring and filtering algorithms that proactively identify potentially harmful content or contexts before they identify potentially harmful content or contexts before they are experienced.
FSSAI Raises Turnover Limits for Food Business Registration and Licensing
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has revised the annual turnover thresholds that determine which category of registration or licence a Food Business Operator (FBO) must obtain. The change is effected through two instruments: the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Amendment Regulations, 2026, notified via gazette on 10th March, 2026 (the “Amendment Regulations”), and a subsequent implementation order dated 13th March, 2026 (the “Order”) issued by FSSAI directing all licensing authorities to apply the revised thresholds with effect from 1st April, 2026.
The revision follows recommendations of NITI Aayog’s High-Level Committee on Non-Financial Regulatory Reforms, constituted to identify and reduce the non-financial regulatory burden on Indian businesses. The Committee specifically recommended raising FSSAI thresholds to cut unnecessary compliance overhead for micro, small, and medium enterprises in the food sector and to bring the thresholds in line with current economic realities.
Latest POSH Insights
NCW’s mandatory POSH Compliance Advisory – Beyond Paper
For more than a decade, organizations across India have been legally obligated to comply with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 also known as the POSH Act. Yet, despite the law being in force since 2013, implementation has often remained superficial. Many organizations have viewed POSH Compliance as a procedural obligation- drafting a policy, constituting an Internal Committee (IC), filing an annual report and considering the requirement fulfilled.
The National Commission for Women (NCW) has now made it clear that this approach is no longer acceptable.
On June 19, 2026, the NCW issued a comprehensive advisory to all States and Union Territories recommending mandatory POSH audits and a series of institutional reforms aimed at ensuring that compliance moves beyond documentation to actual workplace safety. The advisory signals a significant shift in regulatory expectations by emphasising accountability, transparency and continuous monitoring rather than one-time compliance.
Not Every Commute is a Workplace: Bombay High Court
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) was enacted to ensure that no working woman remains without a mechanism to report sexual harassment. It is grounded in the landmark Vishaka Guidelines and the statute intentionally defines “workplace” in broad terms, extending well beyond the confines of a traditional office. For nearly a decade since, the courts across India have interpreted the Act liberally, extending its protections to official residences, employer-sponsored events, digital communications, and even offices located in different physical locations cities.
Against this evolving backdrop, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision in Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India & Ors, presents an important question: When does the workplace end?
In a judgment delivered on June 16, 2026, the Division Bench quashed a ruling of an Internal Committee (IC) which had held an employee guilty of sexual harassment following an alleged occurrence in a shared auto rickshaw. The court quashed the order on the ground that the incident did not occur at a ‘workplace’ within the meaning of the POSH Act, because the transport had not been arranged or provided by the employer of either party.
False Posh Complaints and the Law: Analysing the Shilpa Shinde Controversy
The workplace should be a space of professional dignity, free from harassment and exploitation. Recognizing this, India enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – commonly known as the POSH Act– a landmark legislation that fundamentally reshaped how organizations address sexual misconduct. The law acknowledges that sexual harassment constitutes a grave violation of a woman’s fundamental rights to equality, life, and liberty under the Constitution of India.
But what happens when this protective shield is wielded as a weapon? What recourse exists when allegations, designed to protect the vulnerable, turn out to be fabricated?
This uncomfortable question has resurfaced with striking urgency following revelations by television actor Shilpa Shinde, the Big Boss 11 winner who became a household name as the beloved Angoori Bhabhi in the hit sitcom Bhabhi Ji Ghar Par Hai.