Indian courts have accelerated a series of enforcement changes that now reshape how international businesses protect intellectual property in the country. High courts in Delhi and Mumbai have tightened procedural standards for interim injunctions in trademark and copyright disputes. These shifts are effective for proceedings filed from early 2026 onward and apply to both domestic and foreign rights holders.
India's IP enforcement regime has undergone a notable tightening: courts now require stronger prima facie evidence and clearer proof of commercial harm before granting interim relief in an infringement claim. Foreign companies must ensure their trademark application filings and IP registration records are current and correctly classified under the Nice classification system before initiating proceedings. Businesses that have not audited their Indian IP portfolio face real risk of losing injunctive protection at the critical early stage of litigation.
This alert identifies the businesses most exposed to these changes, sets out the applicable compliance timelines, and lists five immediate actions international companies should take now.
What has changed and when it takes effect
Indian intellectual property legislation and civil procedure rules have always permitted interim injunctive relief on an ex parte basis. Courts have recently applied stricter scrutiny to such applications. Judges now examine the quality of underlying IP registration records more carefully before granting relief.
Three specific developments define the current shift. First, courts expect applicants to demonstrate that their IP registration is current and covers the correct goods or services under the applicable Nice classification class. A gap between the registered class and the actual commercial activity weakens the application significantly.
Second, opposition proceedings records are now reviewed as part of the background inquiry. A history of unresolved oppositions or pending cancellation actions reduces the court's confidence in the rights holder's standing. This creates urgency for companies that have deferred resolving administrative challenges to their marks.
Third, courts are more willing to require cross-undertakings in damages from foreign applicants. This reflects a broader concern about cost asymmetry in disputes where the respondent is a smaller domestic entity. The practical effect is that pursuing interim relief now carries a financial exposure that did not exist in the same form before.
These changes are observable in proceedings initiated from January 2026 onward. Matters filed before that date under existing interim orders are largely unaffected until the order comes up for review.
Who is affected – threshold criteria and business categories
The businesses most exposed are those that hold IP rights in India but have not actively managed their registration portfolio in recent years. Foreign technology companies, consumer goods brands, and pharmaceutical manufacturers fall into this category most frequently.
A company is particularly at risk if any of the following conditions apply:
- Its trademark application or registration covers a class that no longer matches current product lines.
- Opposition proceedings have been filed against one or more of its marks and remain unresolved.
- Its IP registration lapses are pending renewal within the next twelve months.
- It has not filed a localised enforcement strategy under India's IP legislation.
- Its corporate structure relies on a holding entity that does not appear as the registered IP owner in India.
Companies operating in the technology and AI sectors face an additional layer of exposure. India's approach to software and algorithm-related IP remains unsettled. Practitioners advising on AI law matters in India note that courts treat unregistered rights in digital products with less deference than registered marks or patents. The risk of losing interim protection is highest where the IP asset is not formally registered.
Businesses that use arbitration to resolve commercial disputes should also note that India's Arbitration and Conciliation Act framework does not replace court-based interim relief in IP matters. Interim measures in IP disputes must still be sought through the civil court system, regardless of whether the underlying contract contains an arbitration clause. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and securities-related bodies such as SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) and RBI (Reserve Bank of India) do not have jurisdiction over IP enforcement disputes directly. Though corporate restructuring transactions that affect IP ownership may require filings with those bodies under corporate legislation derived from the Companies Act 2013.
To assess how these developments affect your company's IP portfolio in India, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Immediate actions for international companies
Companies with active or planned IP enforcement strategies in India should take the following steps without delay.
First, conduct a full audit of all Indian trademark and patent registrations. Verify that each registration is correctly classified under the Nice classification system and that the goods or services covered match current commercial activity. Reclassification or supplementary filings may be required.
Second, resolve any pending opposition proceedings. Unresolved oppositions are now a material weakness in interim injunction applications. Engaging local counsel to close out or formally respond to all outstanding oppositions is a necessary precondition to effective enforcement.
Third, confirm that the entity named as rights holder in Indian registrations matches the current corporate structure. Assignments and recordals required after M&A transactions are frequently overlooked. Courts will question standing if the registered owner is a dissolved or renamed entity.
Fourth, prepare a cross-undertaking reserve. If pursuing interim relief, budget for the possibility that the court will require a financial undertaking in damages. The quantum varies by matter, but companies that have not planned for this exposure are sometimes forced to withdraw applications at a late stage.
Fifth, review enforcement options under India's comparable IP enforcement developments in the UAE if your business operates across both markets. A coordinated multi-jurisdictional strategy often produces better results than sequential enforcement actions in each country independently.
For a full assessment of your company's IP enforcement position in India, our team is available at intellectual property services in India – reach out at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our team combines Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition to deliver cross-border legal solutions in intellectual property protection and enforcement. We advise technology companies, consumer brands, and institutional investors on IP registration, infringement claims, and multi-jurisdictional enforcement strategies across Asia-Pacific markets, including India. Engaging a lawyer in India with cross-border experience is essential when enforcement strategy must account for both local procedural rules and international portfolio management. As an international law firm advising on IP matters in India and across 15 practice areas, Ferraz & Whitmore provides results-oriented counsel that connects local enforcement realities with global brand protection strategy. To discuss your IP enforcement position in India, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.