Theme: Patent law (and trade secrets)
Calcutta High Court tells market entrants to “clear the way” before launching a possibly patented process
On October 7, 2026, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur of the Calcutta High Court granted NOCIL Ltd, an Indian rubber chemicals maker, interim relief in a suit against Finorchem Ltd and a former NOCIL employee. The suit alleged infringement of three process patents for a rubber chemical called 4-ADPA, and misuse of confidential information covered by a non-disclosure agreement.
The Court held that a company planning a process that may be covered by an existing patent should remove the obstacle before starting, through a revocation petition or a non-infringement declaration, rather than wait to be sued. It found that Finorchem had not done so, even after being put on notice. The patents were not presumed valid, but deserved due weight after years of working and examination, and a defendant had to raise a credible challenge, not one that was “fanciful, illusory or moonshine.” The Court also held that the NDA specifically covered the 4-ADPA processes and was not a general agreement.
Theme: Trademark law (rogue websites)
Delhi High Court orders suspension of over 120 “JIO LOTTERY” websites in Reliance’s trademark suit
On October 7, 2026, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the Delhi High Court passed an ad interim order in a trademark suit by Reliance Industries Ltd, directing domain name registrars to suspend more than 120 websites that allegedly used the “JIO” mark to offer lottery and gaming services. Reports put the number at 125 or 126, depending on the count.
The Court found that the websites prima facie met the test for “rogue websites” set out in the Delhi High Court’s 2019 judgment in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to. It restrained the operator from registering, running, or promoting “JIO,” “JIO LOTTERY,” “JIO LOTTERY GAME,” or any deceptively similar mark, and directed Google to remove a page hosted on its Blogger platform. The defendants have four weeks to reply, and the matter is next listed on November 30.
Theme: Trademark law (practice and procedure)
Kerala High Court: a trade mark agent’s authorisation must be stamped like a power of attorney
The Kerala High Court has ruled that an authorisation allowing a trade mark agent to represent an applicant before the Trade Marks Registry must be stamped under the applicable Stamp Act. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the document has “all the trappings of a power of attorney.”
The ruling came on a writ petition by an advocate and trade mark attorney, who appeared in person and challenged the Registry’s practice of requiring authorisations stamped as a power of attorney. He argued that the authorisation contemplated by the Trade Marks Act and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is not an “instrument” and need not be stamped. The Court did not accept that, holding that the stamp duty applies under the Stamp Act of the place where the document is executed. The decision is directly relevant to anyone who files trademark applications through an agent.
Theme: Copyright law (ownership and assignment)
Delhi High Court refuses to restrain sale of 47 law books where chain of copyright ownership was not shown
The Delhi High Court has refused an interim injunction in a suit by Shakti Sagar, the widow of a publisher, who claimed copyright in 47 law titles sold by The Delhi Law House and others. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held she had not shown a prima facie right.
The Court noted that under Section 17 of the Copyright Act the author is the first owner, and that anyone else derives title through a written assignment under Sections 18 and 19. The plaintiff’s claim rested on two disputed Wills from a publisher, not an author, and no assignment from the authors had been produced. “A legatee takes only what the testator held,” the Court observed. The questions of who owns the copyright, and whether the Wills are valid, were left for trial.
