Supreme Court IPR Judgments 2026: Key Rulings Jan–Jun

INTRODUCTION

Between January and June 2026, the Supreme Court of India decided several intellectual property disputes. They covered trademark ownership in insolvency, criminal copyright complaints, trade dress, and disclaimers for confusing college names. This guide summarises each ruling with its facts, the issue before the Court, and the outcome. Where a case ended at the Special Leave Petition (SLP) stage, the guide says so.

Quick answer: The main Supreme Court IPR rulings of January–June 2026 are Gloster (IBC and trademark title), Sujoy Ghosh (criminal copyright complaint quashed), Flipkart v. Marc Enterprises (MARQ/MARC), Amara Raja v. Exide (trade dress) and Princeton University v. Vagdevi Educational Society (mandatory disclaimers). The Court also dealt with patent, trademark and trade dress matters at the SLP stage.

Why These Supreme Court IPR Decisions Matter

Indian IP litigation is largely decided in the High Courts. When the Supreme Court steps in, its orders show how far trademark, copyright and patent rights extend and how courts balance them against commercial reality. The 2026 rulings below affect brand owners, insolvency professionals, filmmakers, e-commerce platforms, educational institutions and pharmaceutical companies.

1. Gloster Ltd. v. Gloster Cables Ltd. & Ors. — Trademark Title in Insolvency

Decided: 22 January 2026
Citation: (2026) 264 Comp Cas 607; 2026 SCC OnLine SC 105; 2026 INSC 81

Facts

Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. (FGIL) entered the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in 2018. Gloster Ltd. became the successful resolution applicant. FGIL had earlier executed a 2008 supplemental trademark agreement and a 2017 assignment deed transferring the trademark “Gloster” to Gloster Cables Ltd. (GCL).

Gloster Ltd. argued the assignment was illegal and the trademark remained FGIL’s asset, and it built this position into its approved resolution plan. GCL then applied under Section 60(5) of the IBC for the trademark to be excluded from FGIL’s assets. The NCLT approved the plan and invalidated the assignment under Sections 43 and 45 of the IBC, declaring the trademark an asset of FGIL vested in Gloster Ltd. The NCLAT set that declaration aside, and both sides approached the Supreme Court.

Issue

Could the Adjudicating Authority, under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC, declare title to the “Gloster” trademark as an asset of the corporate debtor in favour of the successful resolution applicant, when the dispute did not arise solely from or relate to the insolvency resolution proceedings?

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) to declare trademark title, because the ownership dispute was not “in relation to the insolvency proceedings.” It stressed that an approved resolution plan is the binding charter for stakeholders, and that conferring rights beyond it alters the plan impermissibly.

The Court also held that the NCLT erred in applying Sections 43 and 45 without a specific application from the Resolution Professional or proper notice. It set aside the finding on trademark ownership and clarified that competent civil courts remain free to decide title on merits.

Takeaway: Insolvency tribunals cannot settle independent trademark ownership disputes. Those belong before civil courts.

2. E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC v. Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. — Nivolumab Patent Dispute

Decided: 11 February 2026
Citation: SLP (C) No. 3267/2026; 2026 LLBiz SC 58

Facts

The dispute concerned patents over the anti-cancer immunotherapy drug Nivolumab. It reached the Supreme Court from a 12 January 2026 judgment of a Delhi High Court Division Bench.

Judgment

A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the SLP. Since Zydus had already marketed its product, the Court gave E.R. Squibb liberty to carry out a direct product-to-claim mapping. Depending on the result, it could approach the Division Bench for appropriate interim relief.

Takeaway: Product-to-claim mapping means comparing the accused product directly against the patent claims. The Court pointed to it as the way to test infringement once the product is on the market.

3. Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. — Criminal Copyright Complaint Quashed

Decided: 20 March 2026
Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 454; SLP (Crl.) No. 9452/2025

Facts

Director Sujoy Ghosh began writing the screenplay for Kahaani 2 in 2012 and registered it with the Screen Writers Association (SWA) in 2013. The complainant’s script, Sabak, did not yet exist at that point. It was registered only in July 2015, after the complainant met Ghosh in Mumbai in June 2015.

After the film’s release in December 2016, the complainant alleged copyright infringement under Sections 63, 65 and 65A of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 387 of the IPC. The complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Hazaribagh. In February 2018 the SWA’s Dispute Settlement Committee dismissed the allegation after finding no similarity between the works. The complainant did not disclose this finding to the court. The CJM issued a summoning order in June 2018, and the Jharkhand High Court refused to quash it under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Issue

Should criminal proceedings and a summoning order for alleged copyright infringement be quashed as an abuse of process, where the accused’s registered work preceded the complainant’s script and no prima facie similarity existed?

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that infringement was impossible because Ghosh’s screenplay came first in time. It found the complaint contained bald, unsubstantiated allegations without identifying any copied elements. It also criticised the CJM and the High Court for missing the suppression of the SWA order and for issuing summons mechanically. Finding the prosecution manifestly frivolous and vexatious, the Court set aside both orders and quashed all proceedings against Ghosh.

Takeaway: Priority in time and the absence of any identified copying are strong grounds to end a criminal copyright prosecution at the threshold.

4. Anannya Agro Products v. Dr. Bawaskar Technology (Agro) Pvt. Ltd. — “GERMINATOR” Trade Dress

Decided: 4 May 2026
Citation: SLP (C) No. 15386/2026; 2026 LLBiz SC 177

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a Special Leave Petition against a Bombay High Court order of 16 March 2026. That order had granted an interim injunction in a trademark and trade dress dispute over the mark “GERMINATOR.” The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court’s order.

5. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. v. Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. — “MARQ” vs. “MARC”

Decided: 15 May 2026
Citation: Delhi High Court: FAO-IPD 46/2021, CM APPL. 46817/2018 & CM APPL. 54484/2018; Supreme Court: SLP (C) No. 16438/2026; 2026 LLBiz SC 192

Facts

In July 2017, Flipkart adopted the marks “MARQ” and “marQ” for large electronic appliances such as televisions, air conditioners, washing machines and microwave ovens. Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. had registered and used the mark “MARC” since the 1980s for electrical accessories and appliances. It sued for trademark infringement and passing off, and the Trial Court granted an ad-interim injunction against Flipkart.

Issues

Flipkart appealed to the Delhi High Court. The questions were whether the trial court’s order was perverse, and whether “marQ,” used with Flipkart’s house mark on an e-commerce platform, would deceive average consumers buying allied electrical goods.

Judgment

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal on 10 April 2026. It held that “MARC” and “MARQ” are deceptively similar and that adding the house mark “Flipkart” does not remove the likelihood of confusion across shared online trade channels.

Flipkart then filed an SLP. The Supreme Court dismissed it on 15 May 2026, affirming the High Court and Trial Court. It gave Flipkart eight weeks to sell existing stock bearing the mark and to file a compliance report before the Trial Court.

Takeaway: A house mark may not cure a phonetically and visually similar product mark, especially where goods and trade channels overlap.

6. Saboo Tor Pvt. Ltd. v. Grasim Industries Ltd. — “BIRLA” Mark and Additional Evidence

Decided: May 2026
Citation: SLP (C) No. 14099/2026; 2026 LLBiz SC 175

A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and S.V.N. Bhatti refused to interfere with a Bombay High Court order of 6 April 2026. That order let Grasim Industries place additional documents on record in its trademark dispute over the “BIRLA” mark. The Supreme Court held the High Court had rightly exercised its discretion under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits additional evidence at the appellate stage in certain circumstances.

7. Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Hansraj Dugar — Refurbished Hard Drives

Decided: May 2026
Citation: SLP (C) No. 17783/2026; 2026 LLBiz SC 204

A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed Western Digital’s SLP against a Delhi High Court judgment of 9 March 2026. That judgment allowed the sale of refurbished hard disk drives bearing Western Digital’s trademarks. As reported, it held that removing the original marks before resale does not amount to trademark “use” under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Note: An SLP dismissed at the threshold does not by itself lay down law under Article 141 of the Constitution. The Delhi High Court judgment remains the principal authority on the point.

8. Amara Raja Energy & Mobility Ltd. v. Exide Industries Ltd. — Red Trade Dress

Decided: 27 May 2026
Citation: Calcutta High Court: TEMPAPO-IPD/7/2025, IA No. GA-COM/1/2025, GA-COM/2/2025; Supreme Court: SLP (C) No. 18549/2026; 2026 LLBiz SC 225

Facts

Amara Raja launched “ELITO” automotive batteries in India in a red and white trade dress featuring the “EL” mark and a shattered “O” device. Exide Industries owned prior registrations and use of the “EL” mark (since 1987), the shattered “O” device (since 1996) and a prominent red trade dress. It sued in the Calcutta High Court for trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off. A Single Judge granted an interim injunction, and the Division Bench affirmed it.

Issues

Amara Raja appealed to the Supreme Court. The questions were whether its red trade dress and “ELITO” mark amounted to passing off and deceptive similarity against Exide’s prior use and goodwill, and whether the injunction should be modified to allow sale of unsold stock held by distributors, franchisees and retailers.

Judgment

The Calcutta High Court Division Bench held that Exide had established prior use and goodwill in the red trade dress, and that Amara Raja’s identical red packaging was calculated to cause consumer confusion.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the interim injunction. It permitted third-party distributors, franchisees and retailers to sell existing unsold inventory, manufactured before the production halt on 29 March 2026, directly to consumers. It directed that Amara Raja’s 20,789 in-hand units be marketed in non-red packaging, and that 1,44,547 empty red cartons be destroyed.

Takeaway: Commentators read the ruling as confirming that trade dress protection rests on the overall commercial impression of distinctive elements, not on a colour in isolation. The Court also tailored interim relief to limit commercial loss to innocent third parties.

9. Trustees of Princeton University v. Vagdevi Educational Society & Ors. — Mandatory Disclaimers

Decided: 29 May 2026
Citation: Delhi High Court: FAO(OS)(COMM) 239/2023 & CM APPL. 56185/2023, 56186/2023; Supreme Court: SLP (C) No. 35616/2025 and SLP (C) No. 1517/2026; 2026 LLBiz SC 217

Facts

Princeton University (founded in 1746 in New Jersey, USA) found around January 2020 that the Vagdevi Educational Society was running colleges in Telangana under the name “Princeton” and operating the website “princetonschoolofeducation.com.” After cease-and-desist notices, the University filed a commercial suit, CS(COMM) 270/2022, in the Delhi High Court for trademark infringement and passing off.

The University relied on registrations in Classes 16, 25 and 41 in India. It also relied on documentary evidence of use, reputation and presence in India dating to 1911, such as news publications, academic exchanges, prominent Indian alumni and students enrolling from India. The Society said it was registered under the Societies Registration Act in 1991 and had named its colleges “Princeton” as an ode to the Prince of Hyderabad. It claimed protection as a continuous prior user under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Single Judge initially refused the University an interim injunction. On 26 September 2025, the Division Bench set that order aside, and both sides approached the Supreme Court.

Issues

Had Princeton made out a prima facie case of infringement, passing off and trans-border reputation in India since 1911? Was the Society protected under Section 34 as a continuous prior user? Were interim directions and disclaimers needed to protect prospective students from believing the Telangana colleges were affiliated with Princeton?

Judgment

The Division Bench held that Princeton had shown a prima facie case and reputation in India since 1911, which predated the Society’s 1991 use. Balancing the equities, it barred the Society from using “Princeton” or any deceptively similar mark for any new institution while the suit is pending. It required half-yearly accounts of receipts for the existing institutions.

The Supreme Court disposed of the SLPs, left the Division Bench’s interim order in place and added protective conditions. It directed the Society to publish disclaimers stating that the colleges have no connection whatsoever with Princeton University, New Jersey, USA. The disclaimers must appear:

• on its website, in the largest font size used on the page;

• in prospectuses and admission materials;

• on student certificates; and

• on boards outside all six Telangana colleges.

It also ordered quarter-page disclaimer notices in Deccan Chronicle and Eenadu on 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 June 2026, ahead of the admission cycle. The infringement suit itself remains pending in the Delhi High Court.

Takeaway: Courts can impose corrective disclaimers at the interim stage to protect the public from misleading institutional names.

Key Themes Across the 2026 Rulings

1. Forum matters. Gloster separates insolvency jurisdiction from IP title, and the ISDS notice shows the Court examining which court may hear trademark suits.

2. Priority and goodwill decide outcomes. Sujoy Ghosh turned on the earlier work. Princeton and Amara Raja turned on proven prior use and reputation.

3. Similarity is judged on overall impression. Flipkart and Amara Raja both looked at the whole mark or dress, and a house mark did not cure similarity.

4. Interim relief is tailored. Eight weeks to clear stock, sale of existing inventory and mandatory disclaimers all show the Court limiting harm while protecting rights.

5. Early-stage scrutiny of weak claims. The Court quashed a frivolous criminal copyright prosecution and tested patent infringement through product-to-claim mapping.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s January–June 2026 IPR decisions refine the boundaries between insolvency and IP law, criminal and civil remedies, and interim protection and commercial fairness. Brand owners should document prior use and goodwill carefully, and businesses should clear marks and trade dress early. Because several matters are interim or pending, follow later developments in each case.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Gloster (22 Jan 2026): the NCLT cannot declare trademark title under Section 60(5)(c) IBC when the dispute is not in relation to the insolvency proceedings. Civil courts remain free to decide.

• Sujoy Ghosh (20 Mar 2026): criminal copyright proceedings were quashed because the accused’s work came first and no copying was shown.

• Flipkart v. Marc (15 May 2026): “MARQ” and “MARC” were held deceptively similar, and a house mark did not remove the confusion.

• Amara Raja v. Exide (27 May 2026): the red trade dress injunction was largely upheld, with relief for innocent distributors.

• Princeton (29 May 2026): the Court mandated prominent disclaimers by six Telangana colleges.

• In E.R. Squibb v. Zydus, the Court pointed to product-to-claim mapping in a Nivolumab patent dispute.

• Several matters ended at the SLP stage or with interim orders, so check each decision’s procedural status.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. What are the major Supreme Court IPR judgments of January–June 2026?
The main ones are Gloster, Sujoy Ghosh, Flipkart v. Marc Enterprises, Amara Raja v. Exide and Princeton University v. Vagdevi Educational Society. The Court also handled E.R. Squibb v. Zydus (patent) and several trademark SLPs.

2. Can the NCLT decide who owns a trademark during insolvency?
In Gloster, the Supreme Court held that the Adjudicating Authority cannot declare trademark title under Section 60(5)(c) IBC where the ownership dispute is not in relation to the insolvency proceedings.

3. Did the Supreme Court decide who owns the “Gloster” trademark?
No. It set aside the finding of ownership and said competent civil courts can decide title on merits.

4. Why were the proceedings against Sujoy Ghosh quashed?
His screenplay was registered before the complainant’s script existed, the complaint had only bald allegations, and the Court found the prosecution frivolous and vexatious.

5. Can a later work claim infringement against an earlier one?
In Sujoy Ghosh, the Court held infringement was impossible because the accused’s screenplay preceded the complainant’s script in time.

6. What did the Supreme Court decide in Flipkart v. Marc Enterprises?
It dismissed Flipkart’s SLP against the injunction on the “MARQ” mark and gave eight weeks to sell existing stock and file a compliance report.

7. Does adding a house mark avoid confusion between similar marks?
Not necessarily. The Delhi High Court held that adding “Flipkart” did not remove the likelihood of confusion with “MARC,” and the Supreme Court declined to interfere.

8. What did the Supreme Court decide in Amara Raja v. Exide?
It largely upheld the injunction against the red trade dress but let distributors and retailers sell existing stock. It ordered Amara Raja’s in-hand units to be sold in non-red packaging and 1,44,547 empty red cartons destroyed.

9. What conditions did the Court impose on the Princeton-named colleges?
Disclaimers of no connection with Princeton University, USA, on websites, prospectuses, certificates and campus boards, plus quarter-page newspaper notices in June 2026.

10. Does the Princeton ruling end the trademark suit?
No. The disclaimers were directed while the infringement suit remains pending in the Delhi High Court.

11. What happened in E.R. Squibb v. Zydus?
The Supreme Court disposed of the SLP and allowed E.R. Squibb to undertake product-to-claim mapping. It could then seek interim relief from the Delhi High Court Division Bench.

12. What is product-to-claim mapping?
It is a direct comparison of an accused product against the claims of a patent to test infringement.

13. Does dismissal of an SLP create binding precedent?
A threshold dismissal without reasons does not by itself declare law under Article 141. The High Court judgment under challenge continues to govern.

14. What is an interim injunction in an IP case?
It is a temporary court order, passed before final decision, that stops alleged infringement or passing off while the suit is pending.

15. Where can I read these judgments?
Read the full text on the official Supreme Court website or in recognised law reports.

© 2025. All rights reserved.