Theme: Copyright law (ownership of songs)
Supreme Court declines to interfere in Ilaiyaraaja’s copyright dispute over “En Iniya Pon Nilave”
On October 1, 2026, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s ruling in composer Ilaiyaraaja’s dispute with Saregama India over the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave,” from the 1980 film Moodu Pani. The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran asked why the parties were litigating unnecessarily.
The dispute arose after Ilaiyaraaja licensed a recreated version of the song to Vels Film International for the film Aghathiyaa. The Delhi High Court held that while he retains copyright in the song’s musical work, he holds none in the sound recording or lyrics, because under Section 2(p) of the Copyright Act a “musical work” does not include either. It also rejected the argument that the 2012 amendment to the Act applied retrospectively. His counsel clarified that Ilaiyaraaja was not contesting the ₹30 lakh deposit ordered as a condition of using the song, only the finding of infringement.
Theme: Copyright law (anti-piracy enforcement)
Delhi High Court blocks nine piracy websites a day before “Drishyam: The Conclusion” releases
In an order dated October 1, 2026, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining nine websites from hosting, streaming, or making available Drishyam: The Conclusion, a day before the film’s October 2 theatrical release. The suit was filed by Digital18 Media Private Limited, which holds exclusive rights in the film.
The Court found that the harm likely to be suffered could not adequately be remedied in money and directed domain name registrars to suspend or block the infringing domains within 72 hours of notice. It also allowed Digital18 to approach registrars, internet service providers, and the relevant government department if further infringing sites appeared, without filing a fresh suit. This is a form of “dynamic injunction,” an approach Indian courts have used against rogue websites since a 2019 Delhi High Court ruling in a case involving 1337x.to.
Theme: Trademark law (well-known marks across classes)
Karnataka High Court upholds injunction against “ACC Steel” using the “ACC” mark
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal by ACC Steel Pvt. Ltd. against a commercial court decree restraining it from using “ACC” as a trademark or as part of its company name, in a suit brought by ACC Limited, which makes cement and ready-mix concrete and has used the mark since 1938.
ACC Steel argued that steel and cement fall under different trademark classifications, so the two businesses did not conflict. The High Court rejected that argument, holding that the dispute could not be resolved by comparing classes alone, particularly after “ACC” had been recognised as a well-known trademark. It also held that ACC Steel’s own trademark registration was not an independent defence, and noted that the commercial court had considered actual inquiries from people who believed ACC Steel’s products were associated with ACC Limited.
Theme: Patent law (pre-expiry pharma enforcement)
Delhi High Court restrains Melody Healthcare from stockpiling or selling Ruxolitinib before patent expiry
On September 24, 2026, Justice Vikas Mahajan of the Delhi High Court granted Incyte Holdings Corporation and co-plaintiffs an ex parte ad interim injunction against Melody Healthcare over Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers Ruxolitinib, used to treat myelofibrosis, a bone marrow cancer. The patent remains valid until December 12, 2026.
The Court held that listing the product and soliciting enquiries on a commercial platform amounted to an “offer for sale” under Section 48 of the Patents Act, even though Melody had not yet launched its product. It restrained Melody from manufacturing, stockpiling, importing, selling, or exporting Ruxolitinib formulations until the next hearing on January 20, 2027. The order is one of several recent Delhi High Court injunctions in the same patent family, reflecting how patent holders are acting before expiry to prevent generic competitors building inventory in advance.
