INDIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Mohit Goel, Sidhant Goel, Deepankar Mishra and Mehr Bajaj, Sim and San, Attorneys at Law
cumbersome Locarno-based classification searches that were limited in their practical efficiency. Increas- ingly, image recognition and AI-assisted search tools are making visual similarity searches significantly more effective, helping examiners identify deceptive- ly similar logos, packaging elements and graphical branding that traditional classification-driven searches frequently struggled to capture comprehensively. India’s design regime is simultaneously evolving to reflect digital products and interface-driven business- es. Amendments to the Designs Rules now recognise graphical user interfaces, icons and screen displays within design classification systems, reflecting grow- ing acknowledgement that businesses increasingly compete through digital interfaces and user experi- ence rather than purely physical product design. The result is that India’s filing ecosystem is becoming more aligned with the speed and realities of modern digital commerce itself. Indian courts are becoming commercially sensitive A parallel transformation is visible within India’s courts. Historically, IP disputes in India often became heavily procedural, with questions surrounding territorial juris- diction, maintainability and evidentiary technicalities frequently dominating litigation strategy. Increasingly, however, courts are engaging more directly with com- mercial realities and the practical operation of digital markets. Courts today have begun to recognise the dynamic effect of trade mark registrations and the commercial realities created by online presence while assessing jurisdiction in digital markets. Traditional territorial concepts become increasingly artificial in an environ- ment where advertisements, consumers and transac- tions move simultaneously across jurisdictions. Similarly, Indian courts are increasingly recognising that intellectual property infringement constitutes a continuing cause of action, and that technical objec- tions – including arguments relating to lack of urgency – cannot be permitted to defeat substantive enforce- ment where ongoing commercial harm continues to operate in the market.
These developments reflect a broader judicial evolu- tion. Indian courts increasingly recognise that modern infringement rarely occurs solely through convention- al physical imitation. Today, infringement frequently operates through search algorithms, sponsored advertising systems, social media amplification, influ- encer ecosystems, online marketplaces and platform- generated visibility mechanisms. The creation of specialised Intellectual Property Divi- sions and commercial benches has further strength- ened institutional familiarity with technologically com- plex disputes. Courts today are considerably more comfortable engaging with sophisticated licensing structures, royalty methodologies, digital platform architecture and economically intensive evidence than they were even a decade ago. India is no longer an injunction-only jurisdiction One of the most consequential developments within India’s enforcement landscape concerns monetary remedies. For many years, India was perceived inter- nationally as a jurisdiction where IP litigation primar- ily resulted in injunctive relief, while damages awards remained comparatively conservative. That perception is changing materially. Indian courts are increasingly treating intellectual property infringe- ment as measurable commercial harm capable of generating substantial financial exposure. This shift became particularly visible in Commu- nication Components Antenna Inc v Rosenberg- er Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH & Co . KG , & Ors . (2026:DHC:2665), where on 30 March 2026 the Delhi High Court awarded damages exceeding approxi- mately USD17 million in a patent infringement dispute involving antenna technology. This was also the first matter in which the Delhi High Court conducted the trial by using live transcription technology by calling an expert agency from Singapore. Similarly, in Life- style Equities CV v Amazon Technologies , Inc .& Ors . (2025:DHC:1231), involving the Beverly Hills Polo Club marks, in February 2025 the Delhi High Court awarded roughly USD39 million in damages linked to marketplace-enabled trade mark infringement associ- ated with Amazon’s platform infrastructure.
131 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook