Insights in IP – P&A Exclusive (2025-2026 Updates)
As part of our commitment to knowledge-sharing and industry collaboration, we present key developments in Indian Intellectual Property Law covering the proposed Design Act amendments, landmark GUI rulings, Olfactory trademarks, and the evolving landscape of personality rights in the age of AI.
đ Table of Contents
Sweeping Changes to the Designs Act
DPIIT proposes sweeping changes to the Designs Act, extending protection to virtual designs like GUIs, introducing deferred publication, and Indiaâs alignment with the Hague Agreement.
The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, published a concept note in January 2026 outlining the proposed amendments to the Design Act, 2000. With the progress of innovation and technology, the scope of protection now extends beyond physical form to virtual and immersive designs, which are not covered under the current Act. Accordingly, the DPIIT has proposed amendments to the Designs Act, 2000. These proposed amendments introduce key changes aimed at extending protection to virtual designs and aligning the Indian design regime with international treaties.
Key Proposed amendments: –
Virtual Designs Protection
The current Act focuses on tangible articles and their visual features, inadvertently excluding virtual designs like GUIs. The proposed amendments address this gap by revising the definitions of âarticleâ and âdesignâ to explicitly include such elements. This would allow protection of the digital aesthetics of a product while satisfying the inherent requirements of design protection.
Design-Copyright Interface
Ambiguity often arises in relation to works capable of being registered as designs but which have not been so registered and are applied to articles through an industrial process. Hence it is proposed to amend Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 in a manner that continues to permit copyright protection for designs that are registrable under the Designs Act but remain unregistered, while limiting the duration of such copyright protection to 15 years.
Deferment of Publication
The Designs Act currently does not provide applicants with an option for deferred publication, as designs are published immediately upon registration. Applicants often wish to keep their designs confidential until their products are ready for launch. It is therefore proposed to introduce a mechanism for deferred publication of registered designs at the request of the Applicant, which would allow them to maintain confidentiality during the critical preâlaunch phase of a product.
The availability of deferred publication would be particularly beneficial for businesses with long or capitalâintensive development cycles. It would also serve as a riskâmitigation tool by reducing the likelihood of design piracy before launch and enabling businesses to avoid premature enforcement actions.
Term of Protection
Currently, the design protection is granted for 10 years initially, which can be renewed for a further period of 5 years upon filing a renewal request. It is proposed to adopt a â5+5+5â term of protection in order to align Indian law with Article 17 of the Hague Agreement.
Multiple Designs in a single application
It is proposed to allow the filing of multiple designs falling in the same class under a single design application, as this would simplify filing and examination, make the system more accessible and also reduce filing costs.
Division of Applications
No provision regarding the division of applications exists in the earlier framework, but the proposed system allows applicants to split a pending application into separate ones, ensuring that a single design does not jeopardize other designs and provide a greater flexibility for applicants. This flexibility would ensure that objections to one design do not adversely affect others, in line with global best practices.
Introduction of a Chapter on International registrations under Hague
It proposes Indiaâs accession to the Hague System of designs and introduction of a dedicated Chapter in the Designs Act to implement the provisions of the Hague Agreement.
NEC Corporation v. Controller â GUI Victory
A landmark Calcutta High Court ruling confirms GUIs qualify as âdesignsâ under the Act, rejecting narrow interpretations and paving the way for digital design protection.
The Calcutta High Court held that a GUI essentially comprises of layout, icons, colour schemes, composition of lines and ornamentation, which fall within the provisions of the Designs Act, 2000. The matter arose from the statutory appeals filed by different Appellants, including NEC Corporation, ERBE Elektromedizin GmBH, Abiomed Inc., and TVS Motor Company Limited, and the question before the Honâble Court was âWhether Graphic User Interface (GUI) satisfies the criteria of a design making it eligible for registration under the Act?â The judgment strengthens the order passed in UST Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. the Controller of Patents and Designs, wherein it was held that the in-built GUIs are capable of design registration under the Act. Before the UST Global ruling, the Designs Office rejected GUI applications by interpreting that a GUI was not an âarticleâ as per Section 2(a) of the Act and that they served a functional purpose rather than appealing solely in the aesthetic sense under Section 2(d). The said rejection orders were also based on the interpretation that GUIs are not âapplied by any industrial means or processâ and hence do not fall within the definition of âdesignâ.
In NEC Corporation, the Court held that GUIs are a key asset in modern technology, commerce and digital services and that the term article under Section 2(a) includes manufactured items or separable parts that can be sold independently, such as a phone or tablet screen. This rejected the earlier view that GUIs lack independent existence, since the relevant article can be the display, hardware or finished product like a mobile phone or dashboard. The Court also clarified that Section 2(d) only requires a design to be applied to an article by an industrial process and that the design itself need not be an article. It criticised the Design Officeâs narrow stance that only physical, tangible embodiments can be articles, explaining that this wrongly excludes GUIs and screenâbased designs just because they are digital. The key test is visual appeal judged solely by the eye in the finished state, even if the screen is off. The Court also stressed that protecting a GUI as a design does not amount to dual protection, since its legal character differs from that of an artistic work or computer program protected under copyright.
It concluded that GUIs inherently consist of iconography, layout, colour schemes, lines, and ornamentation, the exact kinds of visual features the Designs Act protects. The creative choices in a GUIâs arrangement, spacing, colours, and icon design are aesthetic decisions that create a visual impression perceivable by the eye, and therefore satisfy the requirements for design protection. In short, there is no blanket exclusion for GUIs under Section 2(d) and the Court rejected the Controllerâs argument that the Act lacks any provision for GUI protection as legally untenable. The Court further directed all the impugned orders passed by the Design Office against the Appellants be set aside and the applications be remanded for rehearing.
The NEC judgement is a significant ruling as it gives a fresh judicial perspective to the definition of a âDesignâ under the Designs Act. The judgment acknowledges that IP laws must evolve with innovation, and their interpretation should be flexible enough to cover emerging digital realities. It also paves the way for India to align with international practices rather than lagging behind.
The Fragrant Future: India’s First Smell Mark
India Approves Its First Smell Mark: Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd secures acceptance for a floral-scented tyre trademark, blending science and law to break new ground in olfactory marks.
In a landmark move, TM No. 5860303 filed in class 12 became the first Indian trademark application to be accepted as an olfactory mark for the potent floral scent of roses incorporated in tyres produced by the Japanese company The Examination Report issued stated that the Registry did not have an appropriate mechanism to examine smell marks. The Registry emphasised that Section 2(1)(zb) requires a trademark to be capable of being graphically represented and since there is no module to assess distinctiveness, the application would have to be filed as a word mark. The matter underwent multiple rounds of hearings.
Regarding distinctiveness, it was argued by the Applicant that the smell of a rose is entirely arbitrary in relation to tyres and that the unique innovation of infusing a floral fragrance of roses into tyres renders the subject mark inherently distinctive. It was also submitted that the subject olfactory mark had already been granted registration in the UK under No. 00002001416 in 1996.
Further, with the assistance of a team of scientists from IIT Allahabad, a technology was developed to graphically represent the smell of roses as a vector in 7-dimensional space. Each dimension defined 7 fundamental smells, namely, floral, fruity, woody, nutty, pungent, sweet and minty. In addition, international precedents from countries like the USA, Australia and the European Union that provided registration of olfactory marks were also relied upon. The Registry had also appointed an amicus-curiae in the matter, whose submissions offered comparative jurisprudence from various jurisdictions, and provided a supporting scientific report aimed at establishing the distinctiveness of the applied-for mark through objective and scientific means.
The Controller General recognized the mark as inherently distinctive, arbitrary for tyres, and capable of distinguishing goods, thereby satisfying the statutory requirements for trademark registration. The application was accepted and subsequently advertised in the Trademarks Journal for opposition. The matter however now stands âOpposedâ by several parties.
TikTok v. Registrar â Well-Known Status Denied
The Bombay High Court rejected TikTokâs claim for well-known status for its registered trademark in India ruling that national security concerns outweigh global recognition.
TikTok, a globally recognised social media giant, filed an application before the Trademarks Registry of Mumbai under Section 124 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017, seeking recognition of its registered mark as a âwell-knownâ trademark. However, the Registry refused the application on the grounds that the platform had been banned by the Government of India, as it was deemed prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.
TikTok challenged this decision before the High Court of Bombay, asserting that the order was made without proper consideration by merely quoting several news articles and press releases regarding the ban of the TikTok application in India. They argued that the Registry erred in law and failed to apply the correct statutory criteria, particularly by referencing Section 9 instead of Section 11. They also contended that, according to Section 11(9) of the Act, the use or registration of a trademark in India is not mandatory, and thus, the fact that the App is banned and no longer in use in India should not influence the decision.
However, the Court maintained the Registryâs order and dismissed the arguments made by TikTok. Although the Court agreed that the Registryâs refusal order did not refer to Sections 11(6) to 11 (9), and relied on Section 9, which has no relevance to the present matter, it observed that the same cannot be a ground to set aside the order. The Court also observed that the factors mentioned under Section 11(6) of the Act for determining a trademark as a well-known trademark are not exhaustive.
The ongoing ban on the TikTok App by the Government of India, enacted under the Information Technology Act and its associated rules, remains a significant factor, especially given its implications for the nationâs sovereignty, integrity, defence, and public order. The Court also noted that the Petitionersâ evidence for substantial recognition was inadequate, particularly since the App has not been operational in India since 2020. The Court concluded that since the mark is already registered in India, it enjoys all statutory protection under the Act, and the status of being a well-known mark is merely a bonus. As no competent court or authority has overturned the ban, the Court found no grounds to grant the Petitionerâs request.
The judgment in the present case sheds new light on the requirements for a mark to be identified as a well-known mark in India by observing that national security concerns may also be grounds for denying well-known status to a trademark, even if it enjoys global recognition. The Trade Marks Act primarily focuses on consumer perception and brand recognition, yet the Court upheld the Registrarâs reliance on TikTokâs ban as a decisive factor. The ruling also implies that a brandâs presence in India is important for obtaining well-known status, even though Section 11(9) explicitly states that use or registration in India is not mandatory. This interpretation could be to the disadvantage of foreign brands with significant global recognition but limited or no Indian operations.
Cultural Appropriation: Prada & Kolhapuri GI
Luxury fashion brand Prada sparked a debate after it showcased sandals closely resembling the traditional Indian footwear âKolhapuri Chappalâ in its Spring/Summer 2026 menswear show in Milan recently, with no tribute or acknowledgement to the local artisans of the Kolhapuri chappals, which have a history dating back to the 12th -13th century.
In the year 2019, a Geographical Indication (GI) registration was granted for Kolhapuris to 4 districts each in Maharashtra and Karnataka. The GI is owned by Sant Rohidas Leather Industries, Â Charmakar Development Corporation Limited of Maharashtra (LIDCOM) and the Dr. Babu Jagjeevan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation of Karnataka (LIDKAR).
The Bombay HC on 16.07.2025 dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed (Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire and Ors. vs. Prada Group and Ors., PIL No. 72/2025) holding that the Petitioners had no locus standi to seek the reliefs of injunction and compensation as Section 21 of the G.I. Act indicates that the right to obtain relief in respect of infringement of GI vests with the registered proprietor. The Court held that it is not the case of the Petitioners that, on account of social or economic background, the registered proprietors are incapable of agitating their own rights by exercising statutory remedies and hence a PIL is not maintainable. It further held that since the registered proprietors are government organisations, they are established to look after the welfare of artisans involved in the leather footwear industry and the appropriate remedy is filing a suit. The dismissal of the PIL reiterates the importance of following statutory procedure and the need for registered proprietors to actively defend and promote their rights.
Interestingly, the Prada team visited Kolhapur in July 2025 and met local artisans and the local administration to review the entire process of manufacturing of the chappal up to its retail. There were discussions around the formation of a joint working group of Prada, Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (MACCIA) and artisan bodies to ideate and drive long-term engagement models. This could possibly mean many opportunities for collaboration for the local artisans who deserve recognition and monetary benefits for the craft they have been perfecting for years.
Veera Raja Veera vs. Shiva Stuti
A copyright dispute between the Dagar family and composer A.R. Rahman highlights the intersection of intellectual property law, Indian classical music and modern adaptations
The case revolves around the song Veera Raja Veera from Mani Ratnamâs Ponniyin Selvan 2, which Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar alleges is an unauthorized copy of Shiva Stuti, a Dhrupad composition performed by the Junior Dagar Brothers in the 1970s. According to Dagar, the beat, taal, and overall musical structure of the film song are identical to Shiva Stuti, and the use of the composition without proper attribution infringes both economic and moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957. On April 18, 2024, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order in favor of the plaintiff. Justice Pratibha M. Singh, acknowledging prima facie infringement, directed the defendants – A.R. Rahman, Madras Talkies, and others to credit the Dagarvani tradition in the song and deposit âč2 crore as security. The Court noted that both compositions shared identical swaras, emotion (bhava), and aural effect from the standpoint of a lay listener. It dismissed the defendantsâ argument that Shiva Stuti was based on a 13th-century Amir Khusro composition and hence belonged to the public domain, finding no identity between the two.
The Courtâs analysis emphasized that while ragas like Adana are part of the public domain, an original selection and arrangement of musical elements within that raga can still enjoy copyright protection. It relied on the âsubstantial similarityâ test as laid out in Ram Sampat v. Rajesh Roshan, assessing whether the essential elements of Shiva Stuti had been reproduced in Veera Raja Veera. Although the Court used the lay listener test, its reliance on an untrained ear in the context of complex classical compositions was questioned by many, who argued that expert evaluation should have been given more weight, especially considering the nuances of Dhrupad music.
Interestingly, while the Court initially recognized copyright in the selection and arrangement of elements in Shiva Stuti, it appeared to shift focus during infringement analysis, giving importance to similarities in individual musical components. This raised concerns about protecting elements that may belong to Indiaâs rich musical commons such as taals, ragas, and styles that have evolved over centuries through oral transmission. The Court further touched on important issues such as fixation, observing that musical works in Indian classical tradition do not necessarily need to be notated or recorded to be protected, though this creates practical challenges in proving authorship and originality.
An additional layer of complexity arose from the defendantsâ conduct. Two of the singers involved had been students of the plaintiff and were familiar with the composition. The defendants had also publicly acknowledged inspiration from the Dagarvani tradition but did not seek permission to use the work, and notably, changed their stance on the raga used in their composition from Adana to Darbari Kanada during the proceedings. The Court distinguished between acknowledging influence from a gharana or stylistic tradition and copying a specific work, emphasizing that copyright protects specific expressions rather than general styles or genres.
However, the legal landscape shifted again on May 6, 2025, when a division bench of the Delhi High Court stayed the interim order. This allowed Veera Raja Veera to remain online without any mandatory credit change or financial deposit, pending a full trial. The appellate court noted that while similarities existed, they were not sufficient at this stage to justify the interim relief granted, particularly given the need for more detailed musicological analysis and further evidence. The stay signalled the courtâs intent to avoid premature conclusions in cases involving traditional art forms where the lines between inspiration, homage, and infringement are not always clear.
Ultimately, this case underscores the evolving challenge of applying copyright law to classical and traditional music. As Indian courts confront disputes involving oral traditions, shared musical vocabularies, and cultural inheritance, they must strike a balance between protecting original contributions and preserving the public domain. Whether this dispute results in a new precedent or simply draws attention to the limitations of existing frameworks, it has already begun reshaping how we think about ownership and creativity in classical Indian music.
SHANTI Act 2025: Rewiring Nuclear IP
The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025 restructures India’s nuclear governance and the treatment of nuclear-related inventions under the Patents Act, 1970.
The SHANTI Act repeals and subsumes the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, consolidating previously fragmented, outdated, and overlapping regulations into a single, unified legal framework. Historically, Section 4 of the Patents Act imposed a categorical bar on patents for inventions ârelating to atomic energy,â routing many nuclear-adjacent applications to the Department of Atomic Energy, often resulting in non-patentability or significant delay. Under SHANTI, patents may now be granted for such inventions, subject to Section 38 of the Act, which serves as the new substantive filter. This shift is underpinned by Indiaâs ambition to scale nuclear capacity from 8.78 GW to 100 GW by 2047, requiring private capital, technology transfer, and a more predictable IP environment.
Section 3(5) reserves core fuel-cycle activities including enrichment, spent fuel reprocessing, heavy water production, and high-level waste management exclusively to the Central Government. Section 38 creates a three-pronged IP-control mechanism: patents may be granted for peaceful uses of nuclear energy; inventions relating to reserved or security-sensitive activities are not patentable; and such sensitive inventions are deemed âmade or conceivedâ by the Central Government, effectively vesting rights in the State.
Amendments to the Patents Act: The Third Schedule to the SHANTI Act contains consequential amendments to the Patents Act. Section 4 is fully substituted to permit patents for nuclear inventions subject to section 38 of SHANTI. Section 65(1) is amended to update the post-grant revocation trigger, replacing the reference to the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 with section 38 of the SHANTI Act. This creates a two-stage filter: an ex-ante screening during examination, and an ex-post revocation risk under section 65 if security or policy assessments evolve.
The SHANTI Act is fundamentally an economic enabler. By opening nuclear technology to licensed private investment and creating a predictable IP environment, it positions nuclear power as a long-term industrial competitiveness strategy. The removal of the blanket section 4 bar incentivises domestic R&D and IP filing in nuclear and radiation technologies for the first time, giving India the legal architecture to convert its considerable technical expertise into commercialisable, exportable intellectual property. If implemented with clear regulations and consistent practice, these changes could meaningfully accelerate Indiaâs path to energy security while building a durable indigenous nuclear IP ecosystem over the next two decades.
Personality Rights in the Age of Generative AI
A series of recent cases and rulings show how Indian courts are increasingly recognizing the importance of protecting identity against misuse in the digital age. From dynamic injunctions to John Doe orders, the judiciary has shown clear intent to safeguard dignity and prevent exploitation.
In an era where artificial intelligence can clone a voice, deepfake technology can transplant a face, and e-commerce platforms can monetise a celebrityâs image without a single conversation with them, the question of who owns a personâs identity has moved from philosophical abstraction to urgent legal necessity. Personality rights, the bundle of protections that prevent the unauthorised commercial exploitation of an individualâs name, likeness, voice, and other distinguishing attributes have emerged as one of the most contested frontiers of Indian intellectual property law.
Rights of Identity v. Rights of Fame. It is worth distinguishing two related but distinct concepts. Personality rights protect every individualâs dignity and identity, rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution. Celebrity rights emerge only after personality rights, when fame confers commercial value on an identity shifting the legal basis from privacy to publicity, and the remedy from dignity to economic protection. Both guard against misappropriation, but the legal reasoning diverges: personality rights are about who you are; celebrity rights are about what your identity is worth.
The Legal Landscape. India does not yet have a standalone statute governing personality or publicity rights. Protection has instead been assembled piecemeal: the right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 (reinforced by K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017), the tort of passing off, performerâs rights and moral rights under the Copyright Act, the IT Act and DPDP Act for digital misuse, and the Trade Marks Act for false endorsements. Indian courts have further developed three procedural tools uniquely suited to the online enforcement challenge: John Doe (Ashok Kumar) orders against anonymous infringers, dynamic injunctions capable of blocking new URLs and reuploads as they appear, and immediate ex-parte injunctions for urgent digital harm.
Mohanlal Viswanathan Nair v. John Doe & Ors. In March 2026, movie legend Mohanlal approached the Delhi High Court seeking comprehensive protection of his personality rights. The suit targeted social media platforms, e-commerce websites, and unidentified âJohn Doeâ actors exploiting his name, image, voice, and likeness without consent including through AI-generated content and deepfakes. The Court directed platforms to furnish details of users responsible for infringing uploads and questioned e-commerce operators on how unauthorised product listings bearing the actorâs photographs had been permitted.
A Growing Docket, A Pressing Gap.
This case is part of a rapidly expanding docket. In 2026 alone, the Delhi High Court has granted or indicated relief to Gautam Gambhir (deepfakes falsely attributing his resignation), Sonakshi Sinha (AI chatbot misuse), and Baba Ramdev, joining a list that also includes Anil Kapoor, Amitabh Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan (whose case involved an AI chatbot generating obscene conversations in her name), Hrithik Roshan (dynamic and John Doe injunction against future deepfakes), Arijit Singh (AI voice cloning restrained as a violation of both personality rights and performerâs moral rights under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act), Asha Bhosle (Bombay High Court, 2025 where AI voice-cloning was explicitly treated as a violation of performerâs moral rights), and Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev (dynamic injunction against AI-generated deepfakes by anonymous foreign actors). The Raj Shamani case added a useful doctrinal note: the Court drew a clear line between protected parody and satirical content on one hand, and AI impersonation that generates fake endorsements or chatbots pretending to be the individual on the other only the latter constitutes a violation.
What unites all these cases is the same underlying anxiety: that technological tools have democratised misuse while the law has not yet democratised protection. These cases are more than a celebrity seeking to protect his brand. It is a stress test for Indiaâs legal infrastructure in the age of generative AI and the outcome will have consequences well beyond the film industry. A dedicated legislation that defines the scope of personality rights, addresses digital replicas and AI training data, establishes clear defences for parody and criticism, and provides accessible remedies, is the logical next step for a jurisdiction that has repeatedly demonstrated judicial willingness to protect these rights in principle.