Its IP time

Introduction On June 3, 2026, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim dynamic injunction in Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Soccerbox [CS(COMM) 657/2026] case, restraining five rogue websites from hosting, or communicating any content from the FIFA World Cup 2026. The order also directed Domain Name Registrars (DNRs), Internet Service Providers (ISPs), the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to block those platforms on a real-time basis and to extend that blocking automatically to any mirror sites, redirect URLs, and rogue mobile applications that Zee subsequently notified to them during the tournament . The facts are that Zee Entertainment acquired exclusive media and broadcasting rights for the FIFA World Cup 2026 in India through a Rights Confirmation Letter dated June 1, 2026. The tournament is scheduled from June 11 to July 19, 2026, and Zee planned to broadcast all matches across cable, satel...

  Introduction Trademark infringement is usually thought of in territorial terms. A registered mark protects its owner within the jurisdiction where it is registered. Someone who sells goods under that mark in that jurisdiction without authorisation infringes. The analysis gets complicated, though, when the goods never reach the domestic market at all. They are manufactured in India, the mark is affixed to them in India, and they leave immediately for sale in another country. Is that infringement of the Indian mark? The argument that it is not has real surface appeal. The Indian consumer never encounters the goods. The Indian market is never confused. The registered mark's function within India is arguably untouched. On this logic, a domestic manufacturer exporting goods under someone else's Indian mark should face liability in the destination country, if anywhere, not in India. The Madras High Court's Division Bench rejected that logic in its decision in M/s V.V.V....

Introduction Inside every DVD player sits a chip that takes encoded data off the disc and converts it into something a television can display. Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV, the Dutch multinational, claimed that the conversion technique this chip performs fell within the claims of its Indian patent, that every DVD player in circulation therefore used its protected technology, and that two manufacturers selling budget DVD players in Haridwar had been doing so for years without a licence. K.K. Bansal ran Bhagirathi Electronics and his son Rajesh Bansal ran Mangalam Technology. Both sourced component boards from China, assembled them in Haridwar, and sold the finished players under the brand names SOYER and PASSION. Philips filed suits against both in 2009, and the patent at the centre of the dispute, Indian Patent IN-184753, expired in February 2015 while the suits remained undecided. By the time the matter reached a Single Judge, injunctive relief had become moot and only damag...