Search Indian IP Case Law
Judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts on patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and geographical indications — organised by Act and section, each with a link to the judgment on the court’s website.
Recently added judgments
Case notes prepared by the Ragulika IP team, each linked to the judgment on the court’s website.
Preity G. Zinta v. Google LLC & Ors.
When someone uses AI to create deepfakes or morphed content that distorts or alters how a performer's actual performance looks or sounds, without her consent, this violates her moral rights under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act.…
AI DeepfakesIntermediary LiabilityMoral Rights of PerformersPersonality RightsCopyrightR.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films & Ors.
Copyright protects only the particular form of expression of an idea, theme, subject matter or plot, and never the idea itself. Substantial similarity of theme between two works is not infringement if the treatment, incidents and …
Copyright InfringementDramatic WorkIdea-Expression DichotomyOriginalityPatentsRaytheon Company v. Controller General of Patents and Designs
Novel hardware is not a prerequisite for the patentability of a computer-related invention under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act; the applicable test is whether the claimed invention involves a technical advancement and provides a…
Computer Related InventionsPatent ProsecutionSection 3(k)Software PatentDesignsReckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd.
Prior publication of a design under Section 4(b) of the Designs Act, 2000 requires that the design, as applied to a specific article, be disclosed to the public with sufficient visual clarity to enable a person to perceive its sha…
CancellationDesign RegistrationNoveltyPrior PublicationTrade MarksReliance Industries Limited v. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors.
In assessing the likelihood of confusion for interim relief, courts must apply a more stringent standard where the infringing goods are edible products sold through online marketplaces to unsophisticated consumers, since even mino…
Dynamic InjunctionOnline InfringementPassing OffTrade DressTrade MarksRenaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai & Ors.
Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act applies only to marks used on dissimilar goods or services and cannot be invoked where the defendant's goods or services are identical to those of the registered proprietor, which instead falls…
Deceptive SimilarityDilutionSection 29(4)Trademark InfringementTrade MarksRuston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co.
Where the essential or dominant feature of a defendant's mark is deceptively similar to a registered trade mark, the addition of a descriptive, geographical or laudatory word does not by itself cure the infringement; for marks tha…
Composite MarksDeceptive SimilarityDominant MarkInfringementTrade MarksS. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai
Under the scheme of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the rights of a prior user of a trade mark are superior to the rights flowing from registration, and the statutory remedy of passing off under Section 27(2) remains available to a pri…
Deceptive SimilarityGoodwillPassing OffPrior UserCopyrightSanjay Soya Pvt. Ltd. v. Narayani Trading Company
Copyright registration under the Copyright Act, 1957 is not mandatory to institute or maintain a suit for infringement; copyright subsists automatically in an original work upon its creation, and Sections 44, 45 and 48 merely crea…
Artistic WorkCopyright InfringementCopyright RegistrationEvidentiary PresumptionCopyrightSaregama India Ltd. v. Black Madras Films & Ors.
Copyright in a musical composition is distinct from copyright in the sound recording and cinematograph film in which the composition is incorporated. The composer, as author of the musical work, retains copyright in the musical co…
Assignment of RightsCinematograph FilmComposerLiterary and Musical WorksBrowse by Act and section
Every case is linked to the statutory provisions it interprets.