E-Filing Of Copyright Applications

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.

One of the objectives in the implementation of Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’) was to eliminate the cascading effect of taxes and create a seamless flow of credit across the supply chain. The Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) mechanism under the GST framework ensures that tax is levied only on the value added at each stage of a transaction, thereby reducing the overall tax burden on businesses and enhancing economic efficiency

The interplay between the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the statutory appellate remedy under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) has for long been a contentious issue before Indian Courts.

Latin maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium is a foundational stone of any judicial system, which means the litigation must come to an end. This is the principle based on which doctrine of Res Judicata is developed and incorporated as Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

“Commercial disputes being given a criminal colour” is a routine issue faced by criminal courts across the country, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also quashed several criminal complaints pertaining to commercial/civil claims for that reason. It is important to note that, in such criminal complaints, the usual allegations involve offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and the use of forged documents.

Artificial Intelligence has moved from the periphery to the centre of legal practice. In legal research, document review, case summarisation and translation, AI now promises efficiencies which were unimaginable a decade ago. The Indian judiciary has been quick to effectively utilise them through e-filing, virtual hearings, digital case management etc.

The Electricity Act, 2003, vests tariff determination authority exclusively in State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs), while the Central Government retains policy-making power at the central level which provides benefit to both i.e., state and central power utilities. This includes the authority to design financial incentives aimed at promoting specific generation technologies.

In the recent case of Gloster Limited vs Gloster Cables Limited, the intersection between insolvency law and intellectual property rights was discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein it decided the jurisdictional scope of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The courts are vested with powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) to grant interim measure of protection before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of an arbitration award but before it is enforced.

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi recently in the matter of Himanshu Shekhar v. Prabhat Shekhar1 revisited provisions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred as ‘Act”) governing the independence and impartiality of the arbitrators.

The present Article analyses how the Supreme Court held that the meaning of "a party" under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) cannot be contextually modulated depending on the outcome of the Arbitral Proceedings, effectively overruling the Bombay High Court's restrictive interpretation in Dirk India.