Theme: Trademark law (procedure)
India’s Patent Office launches a structured drive to clear its trademark opposition backlog
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) has launched a Special Disposal Drive targeting long-pending trademark opposition and rectification cases, running as a standing weekly hearing slot from August through December 2026, under Public Notice TMR/2026/4546.
Unlike a fresh contest on the merits, the drive is specifically aimed at cases both parties are already willing to resolve, either through settlement or by withdrawing the application or the opposition entirely. Matters are being listed by the filing year of the underlying trademark application, grouped in ten-year blocks, with the oldest pending cases scheduled first. All hearings are being held in hybrid format, allowing parties to appear either in person at the Registry or virtually through a link published on the IP India portal.
Similar disposal drives were attempted in 2022 and 2023, but this is described as the most structured version to date, with a fixed weekly cadence rather than a short, one-time push.
Theme: Patent law
Delhi High Court upholds refusal to injunct Xiaomi, holds a nine-year delay alone was enough to deny relief
On September 7, 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Conqueror Innovations, upholding an earlier single-judge order that refused to injunct Xiaomi Technology India from using its “Find Device” smartphone feature over alleged patent infringement.
Conqueror, an Indian startup holding a patent for a “Communication Device Finder System” granted in 2010, argued Xiaomi’s feature copied its patented technology. The Court found Conqueror’s claim mapping fundamentally flawed, holding that Xiaomi’s feature is designed to protect data by locking or erasing a lost device remotely, rather than the silent, non-erasable monitoring functionality the patent actually claims. Separately, and just as significantly, the Court held that Conqueror’s roughly nine-year delay in filing suit, despite acknowledging awareness of similar alleged infringement by global smartphone makers years earlier, was by itself sufficient grounds to deny interim relief. The underlying infringement question remains open for trial.
Theme: Personality rights and trademark law
Delhi High Court permanently restrains deepfake accounts impersonating journalist Rajat Sharma
In a decree dated August 24, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh of the Delhi High Court permanently restrained several Facebook pages and YouTube channels from using AI-generated deepfake videos of India TV Chairman Rajat Sharma, and from misusing India TV’s registered trademarks, copyright, and broadcasting rights.
The suit, filed by Sharma and India TV’s parent company, alleged that the defendants circulated doctored videos featuring distorted and modulated versions of Sharma’s image and voice. An ex parte interim order had first been granted in December 2024, with Meta and Google earlier directed to disclose identifying details of the accounts involved; most defendants were eventually served but failed to respond, and their right to contest the suit was closed in July 2026. The final decree also set up an ongoing mechanism letting the plaintiffs report newly discovered infringing content directly to Meta and Google, which must acknowledge within 24 hours and act within 36. The Court separately allowed Sharma and India TV to seek formal recognition of India TV’s trademarks as “well-known” in a future proceeding.
Theme: Copyright law
“Copyright strikes have taken a front seat over personality rights”: Delhi High Court on comedian’s suit against Meta
On September 9, 2026, the Delhi High Court issued summons to Meta, Google, WhatsApp, Microsoft, and several unidentified defendants in a suit filed by stand-up comedian Pulkit Mani, who alleges his original Instagram content was repeatedly hit with copyright strikes based on complaints from unknown third parties.
Mani claims he holds material proving authorship and prior publication of the disputed Reels, used Meta’s own appeal mechanism, and never received a substantive or reasoned response, while facing further threats demanding payment to have the strikes lifted. During the hearing, Meta confirmed it had already restored two of the disputed Reels. Justice Jyoti Singh remarked that “personality rights have taken a back seat, copyright strikes have taken a front seat, every day one matter,” reflecting a broader pattern the Court has observed of copyright strike mechanisms increasingly being used as a tool for harassment or extortion rather than genuine rights enforcement. Meta, Google, and WhatsApp were directed to disclose subscriber information for the anonymous accounts involved.
