IPR Amicus, April 2026

Please use the pdf above to read the full newsletter.

Articles

‘Pisco’ and Geographical Indications – A recent judicial determination

By Chhavi Dhawan

The first article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses at length a recent Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court which brings clarity to the scope and limitation of GI registration under the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1992. It is observed that the High Court emphasized that geographical linkage cannot override the absolute grounds of refusal; prior use, which is central to trademark jurisprudence, has limited relevance under the GI ambit; GI protection is fundamentally consumer-centric rather than product-centric; and that GI protection is not automatic and can only be claimed through a specific application where an existing registered GI already exists. According to the author, this judgement sets a precedent for future disputes involving GIs particularly where multiple jurisdictions assert competing claims over a shared or contested indication. 

Close enough to misrepresent, but not enough to infringe? 

By Divya Vishvapriya

The second article in this issue of the newsletter discusses a recent decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Rasnam Foods Pvt Ltd and Ors., which according to the author represents a watershed moment in Indian intellectual property jurisprudence with respect to the interplay between infringement and passing off in trademark law. Even though the Court rejected the statutory trademark infringement claim by finding that the mark ‘Geetham’ was sufficiently distinct from Sangeetha’s composite registration, it upheld the common law claim of passing off, as the defendant (the franchisee) had created a visual continuity by maintaining the same trade dress. Elaborately discussing the decision, the author also covers key takeaways for businesses, even from contractual standpoint. 

Statute Update
 

• Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 notified – Patents Act and Copyright Act to be amended

Ratio decidendi
 

• Designs – Graphic User Interface satisfies criteria of a design and is eligible for registration under Designs Act – Calcutta High Court
• IP litigation – Commercial suits can include non-commercial claims as well – Delhi High Court
• Patents – Absence of discussion on economic significance or PSITA combining features of prior arts to arrive at the invention, is fatal – Madras High Court
• Patents – Method of selecting individual who will benefit from specified treatment is covered as ‘diagnostic process’, thus not patentable – Delhi High Court
• Trademarks – International exhaustion – Only trademark registered in India is ‘registered trademark’ for Section 30(3) – Delhi High Court
   

News Nuggets
 

• Artificial Neural Network, a model engaging in machine learning, is a ‘program for a computer’ but patentable since can only be implemented on some form of computer hardware: UK SC
• Trademark (used for luxury goods) having a number, which is likely to be wrongly perceived as year of establishment, is deceptive and cannot be registered: CJEU
• Copyright in a song musically composed by an AI tool – Delhi HC impleads Registrar of Copyright
• Patents – Data on efficacy under Section 3(d) – Delhi HC remands dispute back to Controller for consideration of data submitted before the Court