Published On: March 12th 2026
Authored By: Anushka Singh
Faculty of Law, University of Allahabad
ABSTRACT
This article explores recent legal developments in Indian intellectual property law, examining reforms and judicial interpretations across patents, copyright, trademarks, geographical indications and enforcement mechanisms. It highlights administrative measures such as the decriminalisation of procedural offences, revised examination guidelines for AI-related inventions, and the registration of non-traditional marks. It also discusses court rulings addressing copyright in the context of generative AI and dynamic injunctions against online infringement. Drawing on legislative texts, case law and official policy documents, the article analyses how India’s IP regime is adapting to emerging technologies, commercial realities, and the balance between rights protection and public interest.
INTRODUCTION
The intellectual property regime in India has witnessed quite an evolution in legal and administrative terms in keeping with changing technology, economic, and global trade patterns. Although basic laws pertaining to patents, copyrights, trademarks, and geographical Indications are in existence, they have developed over time through judicial pronouncements, legislative actions, and policy formulations.
Current trends cover a two-fold approach that encompasses optimizing procedural effectiveness by digitalization and decriminalization and dealing with substantive issues related to artificial intelligence, digital trade, and international enforcement. The courts have clarified fundamental principles such as the criterion of patentability, originality in copyright, and consumer perception in trade mark, whereas policy-making institutions have launched initiatives on how to manage artificial intelligence-produced works and improve engagement with IP frameworks.
OVERVIEW OF CORE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CATEGORIES
PATENTS
They grant exclusive rights to the inventors to make, use, or sell their inventions for 20 years. Indian law exemptions have been specified in Section 3, which includes abstract ideas, algorithms, and traditional knowledge and other provisions like compulsory licensing and evergreening have been included.
The year 2025 was a major regulatory development year for the patent laws in India. In July 2025, the DPIIT published the Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2025, implementing the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023’s reforms. This draft introduces an adjudication framework (Rules 107A–107L) to handle violations of the Patents Act by government examiners and agents, and prescribes higher fines for professional misconduct. For example, the draft rules add new rules (107J–107L) for fines of up to ₹10 lakh for individuals or ₹50 lakh for firms where examiners knowingly or recklessly grant an undeserving patent. These changes follow the Jan Vishwas Act’s decriminalization of Patent Act penalties and create e-forms for adjudication proceedings[1]. Notably, the Patents Act, 1970 itself was amended by the Jan Vishwas Act to add Sections 124A and 124B, which facilitates appeals to an Adjudicating Officer and to raise max fines in Sections 123 and 124. These rules are expected to come into force after stakeholder comments.
On substantive patentability, the Indian Patent Office updated its Computer-Related Inventions (CRI) guidelines. In March 2025 the IPO released draft CRI Guidelines, 2025 (finalized July 2025) to clarify examination of software and emerging technologies such as AI, blockchain and quantum under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The new guidelines reaffirm that computer programs per se and business methods are excluded, but permit computer-implemented inventions demonstrating a technical effect. Crucially, they require a clear “technical effect”, e.g. improved processing speed, enhanced security or control of an industrial process in any AI/ML patent. AI-related applications must now explicitly disclose model architecture, data flow, training methods, parameters and test results[2]. This reflects recent case of Microsoft v. IPO, 2024[3] emphasizing technical contribution and aligns India with global trends while maintaining Section 3(k) exclusions.
The courts and authorities provided further clarity on key patent law issues. In a significant case, Roche v. Zydus (Delhi High Court, March 2025)[4] Justice Amit Bansal explained how the burden of proof works in process-patent cases under Section 104A of the Patents Act. The court ruled that before shifting the burden to the defendant, the patent holder must first prove that the defendant’s product is the same as the one made using the patented process. The Patent Office also actively handled post-grant opposition proceedings. On September 12, 2025, it revoked Novartis’s patent for the heart drug Entresto, applying Section 3(d) to reject the claim on the grounds that the compound was not significantly more effective than known substances. The decision also relied on estoppel, since Novartis had made earlier admissions during prosecution.
Another pending case between the Patent Office and the Competition Commission of India (CCI), relating to the alleged misuse of patents as an anti-competitive practice, remained pending as the case was settled before the final verdict of the Supreme Court was given. In Swapan Dey v. CCI[5], the NCLAT held that the matters that fall exclusively under the realm of patent laws shall not be interfered with by the CCI[6].
On a broad level, there has been a trend to enhance the administration procedures in the Indian patenting system like e-forms and timelines, while the courts began to develop significant judicial standards on matters such as process patents and post-grant validity.
COPYRIGHT
Under the Copyright Act of 1957, protection of original literary, artistic, musical, and cinematographic works falls under “Copyright.” The Copyright Act gives exclusive rights to authors to reproduce, distribute, or make any adaptation of their work. Important concepts in Copyright Law are “Originality,” “Fair Dealing,” and “Moral Rights.” However, Copyright Law faces new interpretation hurdles because of digital media and “AI content.”
The major provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957, in relation to intellectual property law in recent years would be in respect of rights on digital media and emerging technology. In enforcement, Indian courts actively protected exclusive media content. In JioStar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Cricfy TV (Delhi H.C.)[7], the court granted an interim injunction against unauthorized streaming of international cricket matches, recognizing JioStar’s statutory copyright in the broadcast footage. The judgment ordered web-domain and ISP blocking of “rogue” streaming apps to safeguard the broadcaster’s exclusive rights under Sections 14 to 19 (broadcast and cinematograph rights) of the Act. Another notable case involved copyright societies, in Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality (Delhi H.C.)[8], the court wrestled with whether an unregistered PPL could license sound recordings. Ultimately, the Division Bench allowed Azure to play music on payment of alternate tariffs while PPL’s Single-Judge injunction was vacated pending PPL’s compliance with the Act’s society registration requirements.[9]
In policy and legislation, India began addressing copyright in the era of generative AI. On Dec. 8, 2025 the DPIIT released Part I of its Working Paper on Generative AI and Copyright. The paper ambitiously proposed, among other things, statutory licensing for AI training and centralized royalty collection for machine-generated uses. It highlighted the asymmetry in current law, that is, machine “reading” of works (for AI) is privileged while human reading is restricted, and suggests a copyright overhaul. Though critics warned of impractical schemes and threats to the public domain. This marks a major government effort to reckon with AI under the Copyright Act, even though no actual rule changes occurred yet.
TRADEMARKS
The Trade Marks Act, 1999 regulates the registration and protection of marks that distinguish goods or services. Trademarks can be words, logos, sounds, or even smells, provided they are distinctive. The Act protects against passing off, dilution, and cyber-squatting, and provides remedies including injunctions and damages.
Trademark jurisprudence has matured with growing emphasis on digital enforcement and brand dilution. In Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra[10], the Supreme Court held that marks must be viewed holistically from the average consumer’s perspective. Even shared elements like the word “PRIDE” were deemed non-distinctive without secondary meaning.
Courts also imposed obligations on e-commerce platforms, reaffirming the precedent in Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj[11], where online sellers could be held liable for active infringement if they do not implement adequate verification and takedown processes.
Notably, India registered its first olfactory trademark, a rose scent applied to tyres which signals openness to non-traditional marks. The Registry’s acceptance depended on graphical representation and proof of distinctiveness, consistent with Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trade Marks Act.[12]
The Trade Marks Registry proposed a Code of Conduct for agents and launched institutional reforms to reduce backlog. High Courts also tackled jurisdictional and packaging disputes, reaffirming principles of distinctiveness and trade dress protection.
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS (GIs)
Under the GI Act, 1999, geographical indications protect products that originate from a specific region and derive their qualities or reputation from that origin. Examples include Darjeeling Tea and Banarasi Sarees. GIs are collectively owned and aim to promote traditional knowledge and rural economies.
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 continued to evolve. In late 2025 the DPIIT notified major Amendments to the GI Rules, 2025. These substituted the First Schedule with a unified fee structure and substantially reduced fees, cutting the GI application fee from ₹5,000 to ₹1,000 per class to encourage grassroots GI registration. Soon after, DPIIT released draft Guidelines on Use of GIs to standardize authorized use of GI names and logos. The draft guidelines notably expand eligible users beyond producers to include intermediaries, for instance, dealers, packagers and traders acting with consent[13]. Some commentators worry this “commercialization” shifts away from the GI Act’s purpose of protecting actual producers’ collective reputation, but the rules-as-notified do allow third-party packs with signatory consent.
On the judicial front, India addressed international GI disputes. In a highly publicized case, Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G. v. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi H.C.)[14] the court reversed an IPAB award and upheld homonymous GI registrations. Justice Mini Pushkarna held that India’s GI Act permits multiple countries to register the same product name with qualifiers, accordingly “Peruvian PISCO” and “Chilean PISCO” can co-exist. The Delhi bench declined to freeze Chile’s pending GI application, signaling that identical geographical names may be used in India if geographically qualified, consistent with Sections 9(g) and 10 of the GI Act. This was a first clarification of homonymous GIs under Indian law
KEY CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN INDIAN IP LAW AND LEGAL RESPONSES
India’s intellectual property system is confronting a range of emerging challenges with targeted legal and policy responses. To curb pharmaceutical evergreening, courts and the Patent Office have actively applied Section 3(d), as seen in the revocation of weak secondary patents. In response to copyright concerns raised by AI-generated content, the judiciary has reaffirmed the requirement of human authorship, while the DPIIT has initiated policy consultations on licensing frameworks for AI training data. The misuse of Section 107A’s safe harbor clause is being addressed through tighter judicial scrutiny of its scope. For trademark violations on digital platforms, courts have denied safe-harbor protection to intermediaries that play an active role in counterfeit sales. To tackle misuse of personality through deepfakes and AI tools, courts are granting interim relief under privacy and publicity rights, though a formal legal framework is still awaited[15]. On the GI front, the government has proposed expanding usage rights to intermediaries, though this has prompted objections from producer groups. Finally, jurisdictional tensions between IP and competition law are being examined in ongoing litigation, with tribunals currently limiting the Competition Commission’s role in pure patent disputes.
CONCLUSION
The IP regime in India is going through a gradual process of modernization with the simplification of regulatory procedures and the use of digital approaches for the enforcement of IP rights. Even as the legislative frameworks are left unchanged, they are increasingly subjected to the influence of new paradigms such as AI and global trade.
REFERENCES
[1] Lall & Sethi, Publication of Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2025, India IP (July 22, 2025), https://www.indiaip.com/news/dtl/77
[2] Draft CRI Guidelines, https://depenning.com/blog/draft-cri-guidelines
[3] CA(COMM.IPD-PAT
[4] 2025 DHC 592
[5] Competition Appeal (AT) No. 5 of 2023
[6] Another One Bites the Dust – NCLAT Ousts CCI’s Jurisdiction in Patent Matters, https://spicyip.com
[7] CS(COMM) 1203/2025
[8] 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1239
[9] Eshwars, Supreme Court Settles the Law on Interplay Between Copyright and Design Law in Landmark IP Dispute, India IP, https://www.indiaip.com
[10] (2025) INSC 981
[11] AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 1962
[12] Apoorva B.N., Legal Status of Olfactory Marks Under the Trademark Law Regime, 1 NLUA J. Intell. Prop. Rts. 45 (2) (2024).
[13] DPIIT Draft Guidelines on Use of GI Tags by Authorised Users and Intermediaries, 2025
[14] W.P.(C)-IPD 17/2021
[15] Dibyashree Roy, Challenges to IP Laws in India in the Age of E-Commerce, III I.P. Bull. 11 (Jan.–June 2022).
