Can Designs Law Protect Graphical User Interface?

The Delhi High Court's recent ruling in Kohinoor Seed Fields has dramatically expanded territorial jurisdiction for online intellectual property disputes, holding that mere website accessibility is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. This decision conflicts with earlier precedents requiring purposeful targeting of customers, creating uncertainty about where IP infringement cases can be filed in India's internet era.

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957

Indian courts have, in recent times, increasingly been confronted with novel legal questions arising from the intersection of AI-generated outputs and the rights that may subsist in, or be affected by, such outputs.

The fashion industry is one of the world’s biggest polluters, responsible for nearly 10% of the global greenhouse gas emissions, second only to the oil industry. Fast fashion, overproduction and quick waste disposal contribute significantly to environmental crises. In response, consumers, especially Gen Z, are demanding sustainable alternatives and encouraging brands to take action.

India’s semiconductor ambitions are usually discussed in terms of fabs, packaging units, and PLI-linked investment. Less visible, but equally important for companies actually designing chips, is the legal regime that protects the layout itself — the specific arrangement of transistors, interconnects, and circuit elements that makes a chip work and that took months (or years) of design effort to create.

In a significant ruling clarifying the contours of well-known trademark protection, the Delhi High Court has held that a proprietor need not obtain a prior formal declaration of “well-known” status before invoking Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Setting aside an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, the Court cancelled the registration of the mark ZORA in Class 24, holding it deceptively similar to the well-known mark ZARA and detrimental to its distinctive character and repute.

In a significant ruling delivered on June 17, 2026, the Bombay High Court in Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. (Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 23 of 2026) has held that the 2-month deadline under Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (“2017 Rules”) for filing an evidence affidavit in support of an opposition or rectification application is directory and not mandatory. Hon’ble Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan upheld the Registrar’s power under Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“TM Act”) to condone delays in filing such evidence, even where the application seeking extension is filed long after the deadline has expired.

The Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) is a copyright society registered under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It administers and collects royalties on behalf of authors, composers, and music publishers for the public communication of musical and literary works. Under Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, 1957, ‘communication to the public’ includes any transmission of a work, by wire or wireless diffusion, broadcast, cable, satellite, or any other means, that makes the work accessible to the public. Digital platforms, apps, and online services that incorporate music into their product therefore fall squarely within this definition.

Any business that uses copyrighted music in India, whether in a mobile application, digital platform, live event, broadcast, or commercial production, must obtain authorisation from the relevant copyright holders. In India, there are two primary routes through which this authorisation can be obtained: (i) a direct licence negotiated with and granted by the rights holder (or its authorised representative), or (ii) a licence obtained through a registered copyright society that administers the rights of multiple owners on a collective basis.

The Bombay High Court has restrained Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited (“Defendant No. 1”) from using the mark HAMON, holding that John Cockerill Hamon SA (the “Plaintiff”) had made out a strong prima facie case that it is the proprietor of the HAMON trade marks in India, and that Defendant No. 1’s use of the marks — traceable to a now-expired “Brand Usage Right” granted following a cross-border insolvency-driven transfer of the Hamon group’s global IP portfolio — amounted to infringement and passing off. The Order was passed by Justice Arif S. Doctor on 6th July 2026, allowing the Plaintiff’s Interim Application seeking to restrain Defendant No. 1 from using “HAMON COOLING” and “HCS HAMON COOLING” as trade marks and as part of its corporate name.

The appellant submitted that the respondent refused their patent application on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patent Act, 1970, without giving adequate reasons.

While enforcing copyright in sound recordings, legal boundaries are often examined when commercial establishments question the authority of copyright owners and exclusive licensees to control public performances.

Soon after dismissal of an appeal against the rejection of a patent application on a diagnostic method in the ‘Natera Inc' case [2025:DHC:8937], the Delhi High Court once again got an opportunity to relook at the reach of Section 3(i) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970.

The main question before the Court was whether the respondent's mark "ACTIVEPUSHPA" was deceptively similar to the petitioner's earlier registered mark "HEMPUSHPA" under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trademarks Act. Indian courts treat trademark protection in the pharmaceutical and ayurvedic sectors with special care because it affects consumer health and safety. The Delhi High Court's decision in Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons vs Karna Goomar & Anr. adds to this area of law by examining deceptive similarity..

This case joins a long list of similar cases in which the applicant seeks a review of the refusal order by filing a petition under Section 77(1)(f) of the Patents Act, 1970, before the Controller.

Resolving the conflicting opinions of different Controllers on the acceptance of Employer-Employee (EE) Agreement as a valid ‘proof of right' to file a patent application, the Delhi High Court quipped that procedural laws are intended to subserve and not to subvert the cause of justice.

The exponential growth of the digital economy has fundamentally transformed how businesses, consumers, and service providers interact.

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Trident Limited vs Controller of Patents [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022] addresses a recurring issue in Indian patent cases, as to how inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 is to be assessed...

On July 24, 2025, India and the UK entered into an international agreement, the "Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and India", commonly referred to as the India-UK CETA.

The jurisprudence regarding the interpretation of exclusions defined under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which was amended in 2002, is currently evolving and developing, paralleling trends observed in other patent jurisdictions.