IP Verse: Create. Claim. Control. (October – December 2025)

We are happy to present this edition of our IP Newsletter, which includes some of the most significant developments in the realm of intellectual property from the final quarter of 2025. This period saw courts in India and abroad continuing to engage with questions at the cutting edge of intellectual property law, particularly the growing tensions between traditional IP frameworks and rapidly evolving digital and Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) driven technologies. Trade mark jurisprudence continued to grow, with courts reinforcing protection for well-known brands, trade dress, and even non-conventional marks, while ensuring that trade mark rights are not stretched beyond their legitimate limits in cases involving usage of descriptive marks, delayed enforcement, or non-commercial online expression. Copyright law also witnessed developments, ranging from robust remedies against online piracy and dishonest copying to judicial restraint in criminal enforcement and claims over generic expression. Patent law also witnessed important developments, with courts closely scrutinising patentability, inventive step, technical contribution, and reaffirming the need for reasoned decision‑making. On the global front, copyright and AI training emerged as a significant development, with landmark rulings and high-profile industry settlements.

Together, these developments reflect greater attention being paid to commercial realities, technological changes, as well as broader public interest considerations. 

We hope you find this edition both informative and engaging. Happy reading!

1.Delhi High Court Reaffirms Bata’s Dominance Over the “POWER” Trade Mark

On 15 December 2025, a division bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Delhi High Court”) upheld an interim injunction restraining Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd. (“Leayan”) from using the mark “POWER FLEX” for footwear, holding it to be deceptively similar to Bata India Ltd.’s (“Bata”) registered and well-established “POWER” trade mark [1] . Bata, a leading footwear manufacturer, adopted the mark “POWER” in the early 1970s for sports and canvas footwear and demonstrated decades of uninterrupted use, significant sales, and extensive promotional efforts, resulting in the mark acquiring strong goodwill and source-identifying significance in India.

Leayan, engaged in the manufacture and sale of footwear, allegedly launched leather shoes under the mark “POWER FLEX” in the year 2010-11 and had sought registration of the mark in Class 25, which was opposed by Bata. Bata instituted a suit alleging trade mark infringement and passing off, pursuant to which the single bench of the Delhi High Court had granted an interim injunction restraining the use of “POWER FLEX” as a trade mark, while permitting limited descriptive use of the phrase “THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER” by Leayan as its tagline. Both parties preferred appeals against this order.

Dismissing the appeal filed by Leayan, the division bench held that Bata was the registered proprietor of the word mark “POWER” in Class 25 (the relevant class for footwear) since March 1975 and hence, Leayan could not claim any rights in the mark POWER FLEX for footwear. The Delhi High Court noted that the addition of the word “FLEX” was descriptive and did not sufficiently distinguish Leayan’s mark. Applying the test of the average consumer of imperfect recollection, the Delhi High Court found a clear likelihood of confusion and association. Importantly, it rejected Leayan’s argument that “POWER” was merely descriptive, holding that Leayan was estopped from taking such a plea after seeking statutory protection for “POWER FLEX” itself. The injunction against “POWER FLEX” was accordingly affirmed.

The Delhi High Court further clarified the scope of Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Trade Marks Act”) [2],  holding that descriptive use of common words in advertising taglines is permissible provided such use does not assume a trade mark function or receive undue visual prominence. Accordingly, the division bench also did not interfere with the single bench’s decision on use of the impugned tagline.

2.Hashtags and Free Speech: Madras High Court Protects Non-Commercial Online Expression

On 25 November 2025, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras (“Madras High Court”) passed an order, declining to grant an interim injunction restraining Joy Crizildaa (“Crizildaa”) from using the expression “Madhampatty Pakashala” as a hashtag on social media platforms. [3]

Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (“Madhampatty Hospitality”), which operates a well-known catering business under the name “Madhampatty Pakashala”, instituted the suit alleging that Crizildaa, a celebrity stylist, had made social media posts disparaging the goodwill and reputation of the company. It was alleged that Crizildaa had maliciously propagated false and scandalous allegations by tagging the company and its associated brands in posts relating to her personal dispute with Madhampatty Rangaraj, a director of the company. Madhampatty Hospitality contended that these posts wrongfully linked the private affairs of an individual director with the company and resulted in significant reputational harm and financial loss.

Crizildaa opposed the plea, arguing that the suit was not maintainable and that her posts constituted non-commercial, nominative use of the trade mark in the course of criticism, which was permissible in law.

The Madras High Court held that Madhampatty Hospitality had not prima facie established that Crizildaa’s posts were made with the intent to injure the company’s trade mark or business, nor that the alleged remarks had caused actual loss of revenue. It further noted that a separate suit had been filed by the director seeking protection of his personality rights and decided to hear both matters together as they involved overlapping issues. Accordingly, the Madras High Court declined interim relief and adjourned the matter for joint consideration.

3.The Shape of Luxury: Delhi High Court Declares the Hermès Birkin Bag a Well-Known Trade Mark

The Delhi High Court, by way of a judgement dated 24 November 2025 declared the three-dimensional shape of Hermès International’s (“Hermès”) Birkin bag a “well-known trade mark” under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act. [4]  The decision represents a rare judicial recognition of product shape as a well-known mark and significantly strengthens protection for iconic luxury designs in India.

Hermès instituted proceedings against Macky Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. (“Macky”) for manufacturing and selling handbags that slavishly copied the distinctive shape of the Birkin bag, including its rectangular structure, flap design, strap configuration, and lock mechanism. Macky also used the “Hermès” word mark and ultimately conceded infringement, consenting to a permanent injunction. Hermès, however, sought a declaration of well-known status to prevent future dilution by third parties.

The Delhi High Court assessed the claim under Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act. It noted the Birkin bag’s extensive global reputation, continuous use since 1984, presence in popular culture, and recognition among the relevant Indian consumer base as a symbol of luxury. The Delhi High Court emphasised that the bag’s shape itself functions as a source identifier, even in the absence of any logo or branding. In view thereof, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction and declared four marks as well-known, including the three-dimensional shape of the Birkin bag. The ruling affirms that product configurations, if sufficiently distinctive and famous, can enjoy trade mark protection across all classes, offering enduring protection beyond the limited term of design rights.

4. Delhi High Court Upholds ITC’s Rights in “GOLD FLAKE” Trade Dress

The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling cigarettes under the marks “GOLD FLAME” and “GOLD FIGHTER”, holding that such use infringed and passed off ITC Limited’s (“ITC”) well-established trade marks and trade dress. [ 5 ] 

ITC, a leading manufacturer of cigarettes, has been using the “GOLD FLAKE” mark and its distinctive gold-and-red packaging since several decades. The defendants were engaged in the sale of cigarettes bearing the marks “GOLD FLAME” and “GOLD FIGHTER”, along with packaging closely resembling ITC’s trade dress. An ad interim injunction had earlier been granted restraining such use. The present proceedings arose from an application filed by the defendants seeking vacation of that injunction.

The Delhi High Court found that ITC’s marks had acquired a strong source-identifying character through extensive and continuous use, and that the “GOLD FLAKE” brand was widely associated with ITC in the market. It further held that the competing marks were visually and phonetically similar, were used for identical goods, and targeted the same class of consumers. The Delhi High Court also noted that the defendants’ packaging closely replicated ITC’s trade dress, which, when applied to the same category of products, amounted to passing off.

The Delhi High Court took into account the regulatory framework governing cigarette packaging, under which a substantial portion of the pack is mandatorily occupied by statutory health warnings. In this limited space, similarities in branding and trade dress were found to assume greater significance and materially increase the likelihood of consumer confusion, particularly in a market where cigarettes are frequently sold as loose sticks.

The Delhi High Court further observed that the word “GOLD” bore no descriptive connection to cigarettes and that ITC’s long-standing use had resulted in substantial goodwill and reputation in the composite mark “GOLD FLAKE”. In view of the identity of goods, consumer base, and trade channels, the Delhi High Court found no grounds to interfere with the interim relief already granted.

Accordingly, the injunction restraining use of the impugned marks was confirmed and made absolute.

5. Trade Mark Evolution: India Accepts Its First Olfactory Trade Mark

The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks of India (“CGPDTM”) has accepted an application for an olfactory trade mark for the first time, marking a significant expansion of non-conventional trade mark protection in the country. The application bearing no. 5860303, filed by Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited (“Sumitomo”), sought registration of a “floral fragrance / smell reminiscent of roses as applied to tyres” in relation to “tyres for vehicles” falling in class 12, on a proposed to be used basis. [6]

Historically, smell marks have faced challenges across the globe particularly due to the requirement of graphical representation under the trade marks law. Internationally, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) in Ralf Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent und Markenamt, [7]  laid down an important standard by rejecting a smell mark application and holding that olfactory trade marks are registrable only if they can be represented in a manner that is clear, complete, precise, and intelligible to both manufacturers and consumers. The ECJ also observed that graphical representation of olfactory trade marks was particularly difficult. 

Sumitomo overcame this barrier by submitting a scientifically developed seven-dimensional vector model, created in collaboration with researchers at the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad. The model translates the sensory perception of the rose fragrance into objective, verifiable data, enabling consistent identification and comparison. This representation was accepted by the CGPDTM as satisfactory of the graphical representation requirement under the Trade Marks Act.

The CGPDTM further held that the scent was inherently distinctive and arbitrary for tyres, serving no functional purpose. This arbitrariness allowed the scent to function as a badge of origin rather than a product characteristic.

This decision aligns India with jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, where Sumitomo already enjoys protection for the same mark, and signals a growing judicial and administrative openness to sensory branding. This development opens the door for protection of non-visual brand elements in India, particularly for companies seeking differentiation in saturated markets, while also raising future enforcement and evidentiary challenges in relation to proof of infringement.

6.Pharmaceutical Trade Marks and Public Interest: Bombay High Court Applies Stricter Scrutiny to “GLIMET” Dispute

In a recent judgement, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay (“Bombay High Court”) granted an interim injunction restraining Adwin Pharma (“Adwin”) from using the mark “ELGIMET” for its anti-diabetic medication. The order was passed in a suit instituted by Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd. (“Griffon”), the registered proprietor of the mark “GLIMET,” used for medicines containing combinations of Gliclazide and Metformin. [8]

Griffon contended that Adwin’s mark “ELGIMET” was deceptively similar to “GLIMET” and was likely to cause confusion in the market, particularly given that both products were prescribed for diabetes. Adwin argued that the marks were distinguishable and that the medicines were Schedule H drugs, dispensed only on prescription, thereby reducing the likelihood of confusion. Rejecting Adwin’s submissions, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed the settled principle that pharmaceutical trade marks are subject to a stricter test of deceptive similarity due to the serious public health consequences that may arise from confusion. The Bombay High Court found that “ELGIMET” could easily be pronounced as “GI-MET” by dropping the silent ‘E,’ rendering it phonetically almost identical to “GLI-MET.” Structurally, both marks were derived from the same active ingredients, and while such derivations may generally be considered weak, the Bombay High Court held that Griffon’s prior registration and use entitled it to protection against deceptively similar variants.

The Bombay High Court further acknowledged the realities of the Indian healthcare market, observing that medicines are often dispensed by pharmacists or purchased by caregivers, increasing the risk of error by consumers with imperfect recollection. In view of the likelihood of confusion and the overriding public interest in preventing medication errors, the Bombay High Court granted interim relief restraining Adwin from using the impugned mark.

7.Bombay High Court Restrains Unauthorized Use of “The New Indian Express”

The Bombay High Court restrained Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. (“Express Publications”) from using the title “The New Indian Express” outside the territories and purposes contractually permitted under a long-standing family settlement governing the Indian Express Group. [9]

The dispute arose from a settlement executed in 1995 following a family and business division within the Indian Express Group, the terms of which were recorded as a consent decree in 1997 and supplemented in 2005. Under the settlement, Indian Express (P) Ltd. (“IEPL”) retained ownership of the title and trade mark “Indian Express”, while Express Publications was permitted limited use of the derivative title “The New Indian Express” solely for publishing an English-language daily newspaper in specified southern states and Union Territories. No broader territorial or commercial use was permitted.

In 2024, Express Publications organised an event in Mumbai under the banner “The New Indian Express” and used the title in promotional material. IEPL instituted proceedings alleging breach of the settlement and unauthorised use of its trade mark and sought interim relief.

The Bombay High Court held that the consent decree and supplemental agreement were binding and governed the parties’ rights exhaustively. It found that Express Publications, as a permitted user, could not assert rights beyond those expressly granted under the settlement, nor claim independent goodwill in the title. The Bombay High Court rejected arguments based on alleged acquiescence or past conduct, holding that contractual trade mark rights could not be expanded informally.

Finding a prima facie breach of the settlement, the Bombay High Court granted interim relief restraining Express Publications from using “The New Indian Express” outside the permitted territories or for any unauthorised purpose.

8. Invisible Infringement: Delhi High Court Condemns Trade Mark Use in Meta Tags

The Delhi High Court has restrained Amar Ujala Limited and others (“AUL and Ors.”) from using the brand name and trade mark “AAJ TAK” in third-party websites. The proceedings were initiated by Living Media India Ltd. (“Living Media”), proprietor of the news channel AAJ TAK. [10]

Living Media alleged that several news websites had embedded the “AAJ TAK” trade mark within their meta tags and source code, despite operating under different domain names. It was contended that this practice amounted to trade mark infringement. AUL and Ors. argued that their use of the AAJ TAK mark amounted to fair use, as they had only done so with the intention to name Living Media as the source of the story, and was therefore covered under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyrights Act, 1957 (“Copyright Act”), which allows limited use of copyright protected works under the fair dealing exception. [11]  However, AUL and Ors. undertook to remove the infringing links, and tendered statements to the effect that Living Media’s registered trade mark “AAJ TAK” would not be used in their meta tags or as part of the source code. The Delhi High Court recorded the undertaking given by AUL and others and, upon satisfaction of its compliance, disposed of the suit.

9.Geo-Blocking and Cross-Border Infringement: Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Dream11

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favour of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (“Sporta”), operator of the fantasy sports platform “Dream11”, in a trade mark infringement action against American Dream 11 (“AD11”), a US-based fantasy gaming entity. [12]  The proceedings arose from Sporta’s allegations that AD11 had adopted the mark “Dream11”, along with a closely resembling logo, user interface, and website layout, in a manner calculated to mislead Indian consumers and unfairly trade upon Sporta’s goodwill and reputation in the Indian market.

AD11 argued that it operated exclusively in the United States and Canada and did not target Indian consumers. Nevertheless, AD11 stated that it would undertake geo‑blocking of its website, discontinue the offering of its mobile application under the “Dream11” name, and cease targeting users in the Indian market. However, Sporta argued that AD11 already had incorporated a company in India. The Delhi High Court directed that AD11 would be bound by its undertaking. Additionally, it also directed that AD11’s social media pages on platforms such as Facebook, X, LinkedIn, and Instagram which were accessible in India, to be taken down until the next date of hearing.

AD11 agreed to discontinue the use of the “Dream11” mark in India, following which the Delhi High Court referred the parties to mediation. However, the mediation proceedings did not culminate in a settlement. The matter remains pending before the Delhi High Court.

10.Trade Dress Must Be Judged Holistically: Bombay High Court Remands “SNT” Popcorn Dispute

The Bombay High Court set aside an interim injunction restraining SNT and Co. (“SNT”) from using the mark “SNT” for popcorn maize products and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. The Bombay High Court held that deceptive similarity in trade dress disputes must be assessed holistically and that the Trial Court had failed to apply this standard. [13]

The dispute arose from a suit instituted by Shah Nanji Nagis Exports (P) Ltd. (“SNN Exports”), which claimed rights in the registered word mark “SNN” in Class 31 and alleged that SNT’s use of the mark “SNT” along with similar packaging amounted to infringement and passing off. The Trial Court granted an interim injunction restraining SNT from using its mark, despite SNT’s objections that SNN’s registration was limited to a word mark and did not extend to trade dress.

On appeal, the Bombay High Court noted that the Trial Court had not adequately analysed the rival packaging. While the Trial Court recorded a conclusion that the packets were deceptively similar, it did not demonstrate how this conclusion was reached. The Bombay High Court observed that several visual and design elements highlighted by SNT, including colour schemes, imagery, layout, and descriptive features, were not meaningfully examined.

The Bombay High Court emphasised that in trade dress disputes, courts must assess the overall visual impression of the competing packages as perceived by an end consumer, rather than focusing selectively on individual elements. While distinctive features may be discussed, the ultimate inquiry must be whether the trade dress, viewed as a whole, is likely to cause confusion.

In view of the absence of a reasoned comparison, the Bombay High Court set aside the injunction and directed the Trial Court to reconsider the application for interim relief afresh.

11. Kerala High Court Dismisses Rectification Plea Against “INDIA GATE” Trade Mark

The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala (“Kerala High Court”) dismissed a Special Jurisdiction case filed by Pas Agro Foods (“PAF”) seeking cancellation of the registered trade mark “INDIA GATE” owned by KRBL Ltd. (“KRBL”) under the Trade Marks Act. [14]  The dispute arose after KRBL, the registered proprietor of the “INDIA GATE” mark, instituted an nfringement suit in the District Court at Delhi (“Delhi District Court”), which granted an interim injunction and ordered seizure of allegedly infringing goods belonging to PAF. Subsequently, PAF filed a rectification petition before the Kerala High Court to remove “INDIA GATE”, which was registered at the Trade Marks Registry in New Delhi (“Delhi Registry”), from the Register.

KRBL challenged the maintainability of the petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. PAF argued that as its goods were seized in Kerala, the cause of action had arisen here, conferring jurisdiction on the Kerala High Court. It further contended that Section 57, Trade Marks Act referred only to “High Court”, and not to a court exercising appellate jurisdiction. KRBL further contended the suit was prematurely instituted.

The Kerala High Court ruled in favour of KRBL. Regarding jurisdiction, it held that a rectification petition is maintainable only before the High Court that has appellate jurisdiction over the Trade Marks Registry where the mark is registered. It found that the use of the phrase “the High Court” in Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act indicates a specific High Court, not any High Court where a cause of action may arise. On prematurity, the Kerala High Court held that where no rectification petition is pending at the time of filing an infringement suit, Section 124, Trade Marks Act requires the trial court to first be prima facie satisfied about the plea of invalidity and to frame an issue before a rectification petition can be pursued.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

12. Trade Mark Infringement: Distinctiveness of Non-Descriptive Marks

The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by WOW! Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. (“WOW! MOMO”) and restrained the respondents, Wow Burger and another, from using device marks containing the words “WOW BURGER”, holding it to be deceptively similar to WOW! MOMO’s registered trade marks.[ 14 ] 

WOW! MOMO asserted that it had coined and adopted the marks “WOW!”, and “WOW! MOMO” in 2008 and had since built a substantial presence across India through extensive use of the marks for quick service restaurant, delivery, and take-away services. The respondents were engaged in the sale of vegetarian burgers under the mark “WOW BURGER”. WOW! MOMO instituted proceedings seeking interim relief, which had been declined by the Single Judge, leading to the present appeal.

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court found that the dominant feature of both marks was the prefix “WOW”, while the suffixes “MOMO” and “BURGER” merely described the respective food items. Given the identity of the dominant element and the overlap in the nature of services, the Delhi High Court held that a consumer was likely to assume an association between the two marks, including an extension of WOW! MOMO’s business into burgers.

The Delhi High Court rejected the contention that “WOW” was descriptive or incapable of protection. It held that the use of “WOW” as an exclamatory prefix with food items was inventive and had acquired distinctiveness through sustained use. The Delhi High Court further noted that WOW! MOMO had developed a family of marks centred around the common “WOW” element, entitling it to protection against third-party use of the same dominant feature.

In view of the likelihood of confusion and association, the Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order and restrained the respondents from using the mark “WOW BURGER” or any other deceptively similar mark.

13. Descriptive Marks: Absence of Acquired Secondary Meaning

The Kerala High Court has set aside an injunction granted in favour of Metal Industries Ltd. ("MIL"), holding that the words "metal" and "industries" are generic or descriptive in nature, with no subsidiary meaning. Thus, holding that MIL is not entitled to exclusive protection under the Trade Marks Act.

MIL had sought to restrain Shoranur Metal Industries LLP ("SMI") from using the trade mark "METAL INDUSTRIES", for which MIL had secured a registered trade mark, alleging infringement and passing off.  [16]  SMI argued that the words “metal” and “industries” were generic and descriptive under Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, and therefore could not be monopolised.

The Kerala High Court agreed and held that MIL failed to establish secondary meaning in the disputed trade mark or demonstrate a likelihood of confusion between the parties' respective trade marks, as the parties' brand names and trading styles were distinct. The Kerala High Court further observed that the combination of generic terms does not automatically create a protectable trade mark without substantial evidence establishing secondary meaning or acquired distinctiveness through prolonged, continuous and exclusive use in the marketplace. The Kerala High Court noted that ordinary consumers would understand "METAL INDUSTRIES" as a descriptive designation of the nature of the business, rather than as a distinctive identifier of a particular commercial source. Consequently, the trial court's order granting the injunction was set aside.

14. Trade Mark Acquiescence and Delayed Action: The Pharmaceutical Context

The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Alchem International Pvt. Ltd. ("AIPL") from using the trade mark "ALCHEM" or any trade mark deceptively similar to Alkem Laboratories Ltd.’s ("ALL") mark "ALKEM" in relation to pharmaceutical and medicinal products. [17]  The Delhi High Court held that ALL had not acquiesced to AIPL's unauthorized use of the mark through prolonged inaction, thereby rejecting AIPL's primary defence based on the doctrine of acquiescence, which involves a right holder’s implied consent arising from the knowledge of, and inaction towards infringing use, and the doctrine of laches, which bars relief due to unreasonable delay in enforcement. The Delhi High Court found that AIPL initially operated in the bulk drugs sector and only later, in 2018, became a direct competitor to ALL in the pharmaceutical products market.

The Delhi High Court observed that the transition from bulk drug manufacturing to formulation manufacturing represented a deliberate business decision to enter a competitive space where it knew ALL held exclusive trade mark rights. It also held that mere silence on the part of the proprietor does not automatically constitute acquiescence and that delay or laches cannot serve as grounds to refuse interim injunctions in cases involving potential consumer deception, as doing so would be fundamentally contrary to public interest.

This judgement clarified that in pharmaceutical sectors, where consumer health and safety are paramount, courts would not allow alleged infringers to benefit from extended periods of non-enforcement. The ruling emphasizes that the doctrine of acquiescence is not automatically triggered by the mere passage of time, and it requires affirmative conduct demonstrating an unequivocal intention to abandon or permit the use of the trade mark.

15. Well-Known trade mark Status: WIPRO's Extended Presence -

The Delhi High Court has held that “WIPRO” is a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act finding that Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ("Wipro") has used the trade mark continuously and uninterruptedly since 1977, thereby earning substantial goodwill and reputation in the market. [18]  The ruling came in a suit filed by Wipro against an application for registration of the trade mark "SHIVAM UDHYOG WIPRO WIRE MESH". The Delhi High Court observed that Wipro has successfully expanded across multiple diverse sectors since the 1980s, including IT services, engineering, manufacturing and consumer products and holds numerous trade mark registrations in India and abroad across different product categories. It also noted that Wipro has received several prestigious industry accolades and recognition, making the trade mark synonymous with the company and its corporate identity. The Delhi High Court found that Wipro's extensive use across diverse products and service categories, and its significant corporate presence and financial standing have created exceptionally strong consumer recognition and brand recall.

16.Trade Mark Infringement: Jurisdiction and Distinctiveness in Alcoholic Beverages

The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana ("High Court of P & H"), on 9 October 2025, stayed an injunction order passed against Radico Khaitan Limited ("Radico") in a trade mark dispute concerning the use of the trade mark "KASHMYR", until the next date of hearing. [19]  The injunction, given by a District Court in Haryana in a suit filed by Piccadily Agro Industries Limited ("Piccadily"), had restrained Radico from manufacturing, selling, promoting, or distributing vodka under the mark “KASHMYR”. The dispute concerned Picadily’s registered trade mark “Cashmere” and its claimed use of “Cashmir” for vodka, and Radico’s adoption of the mark “Kashmyr” and “The Spirit of KASHMYR” for a vodka product. Radico challenged this order before the P & H High Court, arguing that the suit itself was not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, as it neither manufactured nor sold liquor in Haryana and liquor could not be sold online. It further contended that it had prior use of its mark, that despite registration, Picadily had not used the mark "Cashmere", and that “Cashmir” was not a registered trade mark.Picadily relied on its prior registration of the mark “Cashmere” and alleged that Radico’s adoption of a phonetically identical mark was dishonest and intended to cause consumer confusion.

The P & H High Court held that the appeal raised substantial triable issues, including jurisdiction, deceptive similarity, prior use, and whether a blanket injunction was warranted. Pending adjudication, the High Court of P & H stayed the operation of the injunction and directed the Radico to maintain separate accounts of manufacture and sale of the impugned product. The matter is currently pending, with the next date of hearing on 19 February 2026.

17. Supreme Court affirms Division Bench’s opinion for stay of INR 336 crore damages against Amazon

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ("Supreme Court") has upheld a Delhi High Court order staying enforcement of an INR 336 crore damages award against Amazon Technologies Inc. ("Amazon") in a trade mark infringement dispute filed by Lifestyle Equities C.V., proprietor of the brand Beverly Hills Polo Club ("BHPC"). [20]  The dispute arose from a suit alleging unauthorized use of the BHPC logo on apparel sold under Amazon's brand ‘Symbol’ in India.

A Single Judge bench of the Delhi High Court had decreed the suit ex parte and awarded damages of INR 336 crore, along with a permanent injunction restraining Amazon from further use of the BHPC mark or any similar mark. However, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court subsequently stayed the order, citing lack of proper notice and significant procedural irregularities in the ex parte proceedings.

Affirming that decision, the Supreme Court held that Amazon had not been properly served notice of the proceedings and that the damages were enhanced without any amendment of plaint or service of the written submission containing the increased claim to Amazon. The Supreme Court observed that such procedural lapses render the order fundamentally unsustainable and violated Amazon's constitutional right to a fair hearing.

18.Trade Marks Registry Orders Must Be Reasoned: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Trade Marks Registry ("Registry") passed by an Examiner dismissing an amendment application filed by ABC Mechanicals in ongoing rectification proceedings. [21]  The Delhi High Court noted that the impugned order consisted of only a single sentence and contained no reasoning or analysis whatsoever and was passed without granting the appellant any opportunity of hearing or submission.

The Delhi High Court noted that any decision rendered without affording an effective hearing and without assigning reasons violates the fundamental principles of natural justice as enshrined in the Indian Constitution and established through judicial precedents. The Delhi High Court observed that quasi-judicial authorities, including the Trade Marks Registry, are bound to follow rigorous due process requirements and issue speaking and reasoned orders that clearly reflect the application of judicial mind to the issues presented.

The Delhi High Court emphasized that even procedurally oriented decisions must be accompanied by detailed reasons sufficient to enable affected parties to understand the basis of the decision and exercise their right to seek appellate relief if necessary. The matter was remanded to the Registry for reconsideration and for passing a comprehensive, reasoned order after granting both parties a fair opportunity of being heard and presenting their respective cases. This judgement reinforces critical procedural safeguards in administrative adjudication and prevents arbitrary decision-making.

19. Delhi High Court penalises counterfeit “HERO” goods seller for obstructive conduct

The Delhi High Court has decreed a trade mark infringement suit in favour of Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. ("Hero Investcorp") and imposed costs on Kartar Industries ("KI") for engaging in counterfeiting and contempt. [22]  The Delhi High Court directed KI to donate INR 2.5 lakh to a non-governmental organisation as a consequence of contempt, pay an additional INR 2.5 lakh as damages, and permanently restrained it from engaging in counterfeiting activities involving the “HERO” mark.

Hero Investcorp alleged that during execution of a search by a court-appointed Local Commissioner, large quantities of infringing spare parts and packaging material were discovered at KI’s premises. It was also alleged that the Local Commissioner and accompanying counsel were abused, threatened, and manhandled, and that KI employees attempted to destroy infringing goods by burning them during the search. Although KI tendered an unconditional apology, the Delhi High Court found that such conduct could not be condoned, holding that interference with a Local Commissioner amounted to serious contempt of court.

KI subsequently submitted that it had complied with a previous injunction restraining it from using Hero Investcorp’s marks. It undertook not to engage in infringing activity in the future. On this assurance, Hero Investcorp agreed to disposal of the suit, subject to costs and damages. Applying principles of notional damages in cases where evidence is not completely led (as laid down in Strix Ltd. vs Maharaja Appliances Ltd) [23]  the Delhi High Court directed KI to pay Hero Investcorp damages for engaging in counterfeiting activities, which necessitated Hero Investcorp to conduct an investigation, file the infringement suit, pay the Local Commissioner’s fees, and initiate contempt proceedings due to KI’s conduct during the execution of the search.

20. Delhi High Court Expunges “SWASTIK” Copyright Registration

By an order dated 24 November 2025, the Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Rajani Products (“Rajani”) and directed the cancellation of a copyright registration obtained by Madhukar Varandani (“Vardani”) for an artistic label featuring the “SWASTIK” device. [24]  The Delhi High Court held that the impugned work was a substantial reproduction of Rajani’s prior artistic work and therefore lacked originality under the Copyright Act Rajani has been engaged in the edible oils business since 1975 and has used the mark “SWASTIK” along with a distinctive artistic label for several decades. They hold a valid copyright registration for its label dating back to 1984. During the pendency of a commercial infringement suit against Vardani, Rajani discovered that Vardani, operating in the same trade, had secured a subsequent copyright registration for a visually similar artistic work. Aggrieved, Rajani invoked Section 50 of the Copyright Act, which provides for the rectification of entries from the Register of Copyrights, seeking expungement of Vardani’s registration.

The Delhi High Court first addressed the issue of locus standi and held that Rajani qualified as a “person aggrieved,” observing that the existence of a deceptively similar registration on the Register of Copyrights itself constituted sufficient legal prejudice. On merits, the Delhi High Court conducted a visual comparison of the rival works and applied the “broad and essential features” test. While acknowledging that the Swastik symbol is part of the public domain, it was held that the particular artistic expression – comprising the colour scheme, layout, font, and overall trade dress – was original to Rajani.

Finding that Vardani’s work was a slavish imitation and not an independent creation, the Delhi High Court concluded that the originality threshold under Section 13 of the Copyright Act was not met. The registration was accordingly directed to be cancelled and expunged, reiterating that copyright law cannot be used to legitimise dishonest copying. [25]

21. Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief in “MAHALAXMI” Passing Off Dispute

The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Kailash Masala Industries (“KMI”) and upheld the Trial Court’s refusal to grant interim relief in a passing off dispute concerning the mark “MAHALAXMI” used for masala products. [26]

KMI claimed use of the unregistered mark since April 2010 and had applied for registration in May 2021. The application was opposed and ultimately rejected, following which KMI instituted a civil suit against Organic Khandeshi Food Products (“OKF”) seeking injunctive relief. The Trial Court had declined to grant interim protection, leading to the present appeal.

The Bombay High Court found that KMI had failed to establish goodwill, a foundational requirement in a passing off action. Although KMI asserted significant turnover, no documentary evidence such as tax records, sales invoices, bank statements or audited accounts was produced. The Bombay High Court also noted that KMI failed to place on record copies of the rival marks, thereby preventing any meaningful comparison at the interim stage.

The Bombay High Court further took adverse note of KMI’s conduct in the proceedings. Despite the absence of any stay, the suit had remained largely stagnant for several years, with repeated adjournments sought by KMI. The Bombay High Court held that interim relief, being equitable in nature, cannot be granted where the plaintiff has failed to prosecute the suit with diligence.

Finding no infirmity in the Trial Court’s assessment, the Bombay High Court declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal with costs. The Trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

22. Music Giants Forge a Licensed Future with Artificial Intelligence Music Platforms

In the final quarter of 2025, the global music industry witnessed a decisive shift in its confrontation with generative artificial intelligence (“AI”), as major record labels entered into licensing settlements with AI music platforms Suno Inc. (“Suno”) and Udio Inc. (“Udio”).

Warner Music Group Corp. (“WMG”) announced a settlement with Suno following a lawsuit alleging large-scale copyright infringement arising from the unauthorised use of sound recordings for training AI models. Under the settlement, Suno agreed to develop fully licensed AI music models, scheduled for launch in 2026, trained exclusively on authorised WMG content. A notable feature of the agreement is an opt-in framework granting WMG artists control over whether their voice, style, and lyrics may be used by the AI system. [27]  The settlement also imposes monetisation safeguards, restricting downloads to paid users to prevent market saturation with low-quality AI tracks.

Similarly, Universal Music Group (“UMG”) entered into a strategic partnership with Udio, resolving parallel infringement claims. [28]  The collaboration envisages the creation of a closed, licensed ecosystem for AI-generated music, wherein creation, distribution, and monetisation occur within a controlled platform. The agreement includes upfront payments and a structured royalty mechanism, recognising copyrighted training data as a compensable asset.

While these settlements avoid a judicial determination on the applicability of the fair use doctrine to AI training, they establish a commercial precedent that large-scale training requires licensing. The deals significantly raise barriers to entry for smaller AI developers, while simultaneously converting AI from an existential threat into a new revenue stream for rights holders.

23. German Court Rejects the TDM defence in GEMA v. OpenAI

The Munich Regional Court delivered a landmark ruling holding OpenAI liable for copyright infringement arising from the training and output of its large language models, including GPT-4 and GPT-4o. [29]  The judgement marks one of the first European decisions to directly address whether copyrighted works reproduced from an AI model’s “memory” amount to unlawful reproduction under copyright law.

The proceedings were initiated by Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (“GEMA”), the German collective management organisation representing over 90,000 authors, composers, and music publishers. GEMA demonstrated that OpenAI’s chatbot could reproduce near-verbatim lyrics from nine copyrighted German songs when prompted, including well-known works such as Atemlos and Männer.

OpenAI argued that its models do not store or copy training data but merely learn statistical correlations between tokens. It further contended that any infringing output was generated due to user prompts and relied on the Text and Data Mining (“TDM”) exceptions under Sections 44b and 60d of the German Copyright Act, 1965 (Urheberrechtsgesetz) and Articles 3 and 4 of the European Union Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.

Rejecting these submissions, the Munich Regional Court held that memorisation of protected expression during training constituted “reproduction” within the meaning of copyright law. It drew a clear distinction between learning abstract linguistic patterns and the fixation of creative expression that enable verbatim output. The Munich Regional Court further held that the TDM exception does not extend to training processes that allow copyrighted works to be reproduced in a manner competing with the original, failing the three-step test governing copyright exceptions.

The Munich Regional Court ordered OpenAI to cease use of GEMA’s repertoire and awarded damages. The ruling signals a decisive shift towards mandatory licensing for AI training within the EU, sharply constraining reliance on TDM defences.

24. Criminal Copyright Enforcement Curtailed: Bombay High Court Stays FIR Against Flipkart

The Bombay High Court recently stayed an order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri (“Magistrate”), directing the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. (“Flipkart”) for the alleged unauthorised use of copyrighted content belonging to Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. (“Shemaroo”). [30]  The stay order remains in force until the next date of hearing, scheduled for 5 March 2026.

The Magistrate’s direction arose from a complaint filed by Shemaroo alleging that Flipkart had used excerpts of cinematographic works owned by Shemaroo for promotional and commercial purposes without authorisation, thereby constituting offences under the Copyright Act. Acting on the complaint, the Magistrate ordered the registration of an FIR, triggering criminal proceedings against Flipkart. Aggrieved by this direction, Flipkart approached the Bombay High Court, contending that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and did not warrant invocation of the criminal machinery.

Flipkart argued that the allegations pertained to promotional use and licensing arrangements, which at best raised questions of contractual interpretation or civil infringement, rather than criminal intent or mens rea necessary to sustain prosecution under the Copyright Act. It was further submitted that the Magistrate had failed to apply judicial mind before directing registration of an FIR. The Bombay High Court, at the interim stage, found merit in Flipkart’s submissions and stayed the operation of the Magistrate’s order. The Bombay High Court’s intervention reflects a consistent judicial approach cautioning against the routine criminalisation of commercial copyright disputes, particularly where parallel civil remedies are available and disputed questions of fact remain to be adjudicated.

25. No Copyright Over Commonly Used Phrases and Linguistic Expressions, Holds Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court dismissed a plea by Everest Entertainment LLP ("Everest") seeking to restrain the release of the Marathi film "Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale" on 30 October 2025, holding that no prima facie case of copyright infringement was made out. [31]  Everest alleged that the film's dialogues infringed its copyrighted work and sought an interim injunction to prevent the film's release and commercial exploitation. However, the Bombay High Court found several defects in Everest's claim.

First, the Bombay High Court observed that Everest had delayed filing the suit despite being aware of the film since April 2025, thereby significantly weakening its entitlement to urgent interim relief. Second, the Bombay High Court held that the common Marathi expressions and idioms claimed as original dialogues were not entitled to copyright protection under the Copyright Act, as copyright protection extends to original expressions and creative works and not generic or commonly used phrases and linguistic expressions that form part of the common parlance. The Bombay High Court, finding no substantial similarity between the works and no demonstrable infringement, refused interim relief.

The judgement reaffirms copyright protection is not available for generic dialogues or common linguistic expressions and that delays in seeking interim relief may prejudice a claimant's position in the eyes of the court.

26. Copyright Protection: Pharmaceutical Dossiers as Literary Works

The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad ("Allahabad High Court") has dismissed two appeals filed by Jamp India Pharmaceuticals and VS International ("Appellants") on 28 October 2025, upholding the Commercial Court's interim injunction restraining them from using Jubilant Generics' ("Jubilant") copyrighted product dossiers. [32]  The Allahabad High Court held that pharmaceutical product dossiers, containing highly sensitive, technical and proprietary data pertaining to pharmaceutical formulations and manufacturing processes, constitute original "literary works" under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, and are therefore entitled to protection under copyright law. [33]

The Allahabad High Court found that the Appellants' unauthorized transfer and use of the dossiers beyond the licensed Canadian territory amounted to copyright infringement under the Copyright Act. It also observed that regulatory dossiers and technical documentation prepared for submission to regulatory authorities represent creative and original compilations of data and unauthorized use or transfer of such materials across jurisdictions constitutes actionable infringement.

This decision has significant implications for the pharmaceutical industry, establishing a clear precedent that regulatory dossiers and technical documentation enjoy copyright protection against unauthorized use, transfer, or exploitation. The Allahabad High Court's ruling reinforces the principle that copyright extends beyond traditional literary and artistic works to include technical compilations that demonstrate originality and creative effort in their preparation and compilation.

27.Delhi High Court Grants Dynamic+ Injunction in Favour of Universal City Studios

The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Universal City Studios Productions and other global entertainment companies (“Universal and others”), restraining over 100 rogue websites from hosting, streaming, or otherwise making available copyrighted cinematograph works without authorisation. [34]  The Delhi High Court also issued consequential directions to domain name registrars, internet service providers, and government authorities to ensure effective enforcement.

Universal and others, leading global producers and distributors of motion pictures, instituted the suit against 106 identified rogue websites engaged in large-scale online piracy. It was alleged that the defendant websites were systematically making Universal and others’ copyrighted films and shows available for download and streaming without licence, despite repeated takedown notices. Universal and others placed investigative material on record demonstrating continued unauthorised dissemination of their content.

The Delhi High Court found that Universal and others had established ownership and exclusive rights in the copyrighted works and that the defendant websites were primarily engaged in infringing activities. It accepted that continued availability of such content would cause significant and irreparable harm to the plaintiffs’ legitimate commercial interests.

Recognising the evolving and evasive nature of online piracy, the Delhi High Court restrained the rogue websites from communicating content belonging to Universal and others to the public in any manner. It further directed domain name registrars to block and suspend the infringing domains and disclose registrant details and ordered internet service providers to block access to the identified websites. Government authorities were directed to issue the necessary blocking notifications to facilitate compliance.

Significantly, the Delhi High Court granted a Dynamic+ injunction, permitting Universal and others to extend the injunction to mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variations of the infringing websites as and when they are discovered, without the need for fresh substantive proceedings.

28. DPIIT Unveils Hybrid Copyright Framework for Generative AI

A committee formed by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (“Committee”) has released Part 1 of its Working Paper (“Working Paper”) addressing copyright challenges posed by Generative AI (“GenAI”). The Working Paper examines whether India’s current copyright framework adequately covers AI training on copyrighted works and proposes a hybrid policy model balancing innovation with creator rights.

The Committee proposes a mandatory blanket license under the Copyright Act, allowing AI developers to use all lawfully accessed copyrighted works for training without individual permissions, subject to statutory royalties. To manage royalty collection and distribution, a centralized nonprofit body – Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training (“CRCAT”) – will be established. Royalty rates will be set transparently by a government-appointed Rate Setting Authority, based on a flat percentage of global revenue earned from commercialized AI systems, with retroactive application to past uses. AI developers must comply with disclosure obligations, filing an AI Training Data Disclosure Form detailing categories, sources, and the nature of training data. Annual royalty payments will be made to CRCAT, which will apportion amounts based on usage of different work categories, ensuring fair distribution. Additionally, the burden of proof lies on AI developers to demonstrate compliance if challenged for non-payment.

The framework aims to enable lawful, permission-free AI training while guaranteeing fair compensation for creators. It provides a transparent, fast-track rate-setting process, reduces litigation risk, and supports participation by both large enterprises and startups. By upholding copyright principles and rewarding human creativity, the model seeks to harmonize innovation with rights protection, ensuring India remains competitive in the global AI ecosystem.

29. Madras High Court Sets Aside Refusal of ‘Anti-Stick Coating’ Patent Opposition for Lack of Reasoning

The Madras High Court, by a judgement dated 18 November 2025, set aside an order rejecting a post-grant opposition filed by M/s Hi Tech Chemicals Limited (“HTCL”) against a patent application (382/CHE/2012) granted to M/s Allied Metallurgical Products Private Limited (“AMPPL”) for an invention titled “Anti-stick Coating for Slag Pots”. [35]

HTCL asserted the patent lacked novelty and an inventive step, citing a JSW Steel (“JSW”) letter stating the product, ‘SLAG KOTE’, was supplied commercially four years prior to the priority date of 2012. It also invoked Section 3(e) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”), [36]  contending that the claimed composition was a mere admixture without evidence of synergy. HTCL also placed additional documents, such as invoices, tax permits, and court pleadings, which were filed to support prior use; however, these were disregarded by the Controller.

AMPPL argued that the JSW letter lacked the specific technical particulars “chemical composition and product specifications” required to prove the product was identical to the patented invention, and the additional documents, such as invoices and court pleadings, could not qualify as “publications” under Rule 62(4) of the Patents Rules, 2003 [37]  because they were private or not readily accessible to the general public.

The Madras High Court found the Controller’s rejection of prior art lacked depth, noting they were brushed aside without technical justification. Holding that the failure to provide findings on prior sale and synergy rendered the order unsustainable, the Madras High Court remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision by a different officer.

30. Madras High Court Sets Aside Refusal of ‘Data Lineage’ Patent in Computer-Related Invention Dispute

On 04 November 2025, the Madras High Court set aside the Controller’s decision refusing a patent application (4693/CHENP/2010) filed by AB Initio Technology LLC (“AB Initio”) [38] . The application, titled “Graphic Representations of Data Relationship”, had been rejected on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step under Section 2(1)(j), [39]  and non-patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. [40]

The claimed invention provides a method and system for generating data lineage diagrams to track data transformations, cleansing, and integration across distributed, heterogeneous sources to address the technical problem of optimally tracing back or forwarding the flawed data item and identifying all computations that were affected by the flawed data during data processing, which traditionally involves a tedious step-by-step manual process. The claimed invention by utilizing a diagram generator and configuration files containing specific selection specifications to identify and retrieve related metadata items to represent the inter-relationships between programmes and data as nodes and edges.

AB Initio contended that the invention offers a technical solution to the technical problem of manual data tracing, resulting in a technical effect of reduced query response time. Conversely, the Controller argued that the invention was a “computer programme per se” implemented on general-purpose hardware and anticipated by prior art documents, which managed entity relationships.

The Madras High Court held that a computer related invention is not excluded under Section 3(k), Patents Act if it demonstrates a technical contribution or technical effect, even without novel hardware. The Madras High Court also found that the invention’s ability to trace upstream and downstream data lineage was distinct from prior art document, that focused on entity relationships. Concluding that AB Initio established technical character and inventive step, the Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the application to proceed to grant.

31. Delhi High Court Dismisses Philips’ Patent Infringement Suit Over VCD Transmission System

Delivering its judgement on 13 October 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction and damages filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Philips”) against M. Bathla & Anr (“Bathla”). Philips alleged that Bathla’s manufacture and sale of Video Compact Discs (“VCDs”) infringed its Indian Patent No. 175971, titled “Digital Transmission System”, which covers an efficient audio signal compression and transmission system. [41]

The suit patent, which expired in May 2010, relates to a system comprising a transmitter and receiver for converting digital signals into frames of information packets. Philips asserted that the patent is a Standard Essential Patent (“SEP”) reading on the ISO/IEC 11172-3 standard and argued that any VCD playable on standard players must necessarily implement the patented compression and packaging technique.

Philips contended that technical analysis of data "grabbed" from the Bathla discs showed frame structures identical to the patent's formulaic claims. Conversely, Bathla argued that their replication process merely duplicated information from Master Discs provided by film producers using licensed Singulus machinery, which did not involve the patented transmission or compression functions.

The Delhi High Court held that Philips failed to establish infringement because it did not perform a mandatory “Claim Versus Product” mapping. Observing that system claims are product claims, the Delhi High Court found that Philips failed to prove the physical presence of the patented transmitter-receiver arrangement in Bathla hardware. It further noted that replication technology has nothing to do with audio compression and that Philips admitted this fact. The Delhi High Court also rejected Philips’ argument that the patent was a SEP, holding that essentiality was not proved.

Finding no evidence that the replication machinery itself used the patented system and noting that Philips’ reliance on indirect infringement and similarity of end results was insufficient, the Delhi High Court dismissed the suit.

32. Delhi High Court Upholds Refusal of Injunction for ‘RISDIPLAM’ in Pharmaceutical Patent Dispute

The Delhi High Court, on 09 October 2025, dismissed an appeal filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and others (“Hoffmann-La Roche”) challenging the refusal of an interim injunction in a patent infringement suit against Natco Pharma Limited (“Natco”). [42]  Hoffmann-La Roche alleged that Natco’s manufacture and sale of the drug Risdiplam, marketed as EVRYSDI®, infringed Indian Patent No. IN 334397, which claims compounds used to treat Spinal Muscular Atrophy under a Markush structure.

Natco raised a defence under Section 107, Patents Act [43]  arguing that the patent was vulnerable to revocation for obviousness under Section 64(1)(f), Patents Act [44]  vis-à-vis prior art genus patents WO'916/US'955. It was argued that the structural difference between Risdiplam and the prior art Compound 809 was merely the substitution of a CH radical with a Nitrogen atom.

The Delhi High Court held that Natco had established a credible challenge to the patent's validity. Applying the "person in the know" test, the Delhi High Court noted that four lead inventors were common to both the genus and species patents, suggesting they would be uniquely motivated to identify the appropriate starting point for routine optimization. Furthermore, since Nitrogen and CH are bioisosteres sharing the same number of electrons and biological activity, the Delhi High Court found the substitution would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.

Finding no grounds to interfere with the Single Judge’s discretion, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal. It emphasized that patent protection must balance the rights of inventors against the public interest to prevent evergreening of essential drugs through obvious modifications.

33. Ozempic Patent Ruling: Delhi High Court Clarifies Exclusions Under Sections 3(f) and 3(o)

On 02 December 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgement in Novo Nordisk A/S v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd (“Dr. Reddy’s”), [45]  addressing double patenting and clarifying exclusions under Section 3(f) and Section 3(o) of the Patents Act. [46]  The dispute involved Semaglutide (marketed as Ozempic/Wegovy), claimed under a later species patent despite being disclosed in an earlier genus patent. The suit patent was challenged for evergreening and lack of inventive step.

The Delhi High Court observed that Section 3(f) excludes mere arrangement or duplication of known elements and held that substituting Alanine with Aib at position 8 was a predictable modification taught by prior art and common general knowledge. Similarly, under Section 3(o), the Delhi High Court clarified that claims relying on structural similarities or minor chemical tweaks without unexpected technical effect cannot constitute patentable inventions.

The Delhi High Court emphasized that incremental changes, even if clinically useful, do not meet the threshold of inventive step when they represent routine optimization. The judgement also linked these exclusions to the broader policy against evergreening, reinforcing that patent monopolies cannot be extended through artificial differentiation.

The Delhi High Court refused an absolute injunction but gave conditional relief, allowing Dr. Reddy’s to export Semaglutide until patent expiry in March 2026, but restraining it from selling in India. This decision signals a stricter approach to pharmaceutical patents, ensuring that protection is granted only for genuine, non-obvious innovation.

34. Madras High Court Remands TVS Motor’s ‘Vehicle Frame Assembly’ Patent Application for Robust Obviousness Review

 On 28 November 2025, the Madras High Court set aside an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting TVS Motor Company’s (“TVS Motor”) patent application for a "Vehicle Frame Assembly". [47]  The invention addresses structural fatigue and cracking in scooter frames by positioning gusset plates at the junction of cross members and side tubes to mount a utility box, thereby shifting the load distribution away from the cross members. The application had been rejected for failing the "inventive step" requirement under Section 2(1) (ja) of the Patents Act, [48]  based on prior art documents related to motorcycle frames and scooter storage.

The Madras High Court noted that the original First Examination Report also raised objections under Section 3(f) and formal compliance, though the final order focused only on inventive step.

The Madras High Court observed that the rejection was “non-speaking” and flawed because it failed to employ the mandatory five-step analysis for obviousness laid down in F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla, [49]  which includes identifying the “person skilled in the art” (“PSITA”) and the inventive concept. It defined the PSITA as a design engineer with six to eight years of experience and emphasized that the simplicity of an invention does not necessarily mean it was obvious at the time of filing.

In its technical analysis, the Madras High Court found that one of the prior art documents, focused on motorcycle frame rigidity through gussets, while the other prior art document, was regarding mounting storage boxes above the floorboard. Because the prior art document directed the user toward a different mounting location, it effectively “taught away” from TVS Motor’s specific under-seat configuration. The Madras High Court also stressed that granting a patent without robust obviousness analysis would be against public policy and suggested considering alternative solutions such as lighter materials or doubler plates.

Consequently, the Madras High Court remanded the matter for reconsideration by a different officer, allowing TVS Motor to submit new technical data regarding load distribution and permitting the Controller to cite additional prior art. The Madras High Court directed that speaking order must be issued within four months, and the reconsideration must strictly follow the principles outlined in the judgement while remaining uninfluenced by its observations.

35. Passing Off and Piracy of Registered Designs: Supreme Court Leaves the Issue Open

The Supreme Court has dismissed special leave petitions (“SLP”) filed by Bata India, Liberty Shoes and other footwear manufacturers ("Bata et al.”) challenging the Delhi High Court's ruling that Crocs Inc.'s ("Crocs") passing off suits based on its registered footwear designs are maintainable. [50]  Bata et al. argued that a passing off action is maintainable only when there are additional elements or distinctive features in the trade dress in addition to those claimed in the registered design. Crocs argued that the cause of action of a passing off claim and infringement claim are different and independent of one another and that proprietors should not be confined to a single remedy.

Earlier, the Single Judge had ruled that a passing off action can be maintained only when the action concerns something more than the registered design. On appeal, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court reversed the Single Judge’s ruling and held that there was no requirement for there to be “something more” than the registered design to initiate passing off suit. The Division Bench held that passing off was a distinct common law remedy that was protected under Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act. [51]

The Supreme Court, upon hearing the parties, refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order, thereby keeping this question of law open. It further clarified that the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court adjudicating the suits should not be influenced by the observations of the Division Bench of the same court or the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP. The matter is currently pending.

36. Registered Design Infringement: Interim Injunction Against Imitative Products

The Delhi High Court recently granted an ex parte interim injunction in favour of Crocs Inc. and its subsidiary ("Crocs") restraining Sagar Doijode Trading as Questsole (“Questsole”) from manufacturing, advertising, selling and distributing clog-style footwear and shoe charms imitating Crocs' patents, trade marks and registered designs. [52]

The Delhi High Court held that Crocs had established a strong prima facie case of infringement and that Questsole's products and trade marks such as "CROCKS," "CROC," and "JIBIT" were deceptively similar to Crocs' protected rights, amounting to a deliberate attempt to exploit Crocs' substantial goodwill and reputation. It further ruled in Crocs' favor, holding that irreparable harm would be caused to Crocs without interim protection and that the balance of convenience was clearly in Crocs' favour given the risk of brand dilution and market substitution.

The judgement demonstrates the courts’ willingness to grant interim relief in complex, multi-faceted IP disputes involving patents, trade marks and designs simultaneously. The Delhi High Court ‘s emphasis on irreparable harm, a key criterion for interim injunctions highlights that design infringement can result in rapid brand dilution and market substitution that monetary damages alone cannot adequately remedy. The next hearing is scheduled for 16 February 2026.

37. Jurisdiction of District Courts in Design Infringement Suits Clarified

The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan (“Rajasthan High Court”) has held that District Courts are competent to adjudicate design infringement suits under the Designs Act, 2000 (“Designs Act”), unless the defendant expressly seeks cancellation of the registered design through a formal plea or counterclaim. [53]  The Rajasthan High Court therefore set aside orders transferring three infringement suits from the District Court, Jaipur (“District Court”) and directed their restoration for adjudication on merits.​

The suits were instituted by S.N. Kapoor Export (“S.N. Kapoor”), a Jaipur-based carpet exporter, against Saraswati Global Ltd. (“Saraswati Global”), alleging copying and commercial exploitation of S.N. Kapoor’s registered carpet and rug designs. In its written statement, Saraswati Global questioned the originality and novelty of the designs but did not file any counterclaim or application for cancellation under Section 19 of the Designs Act. [54]  Despite the absence of a specific cancellation plea, the District Court invoked Section 22(4) of the Designs Act and transferred the suits to the Rajasthan High Court solely on the basis that validity had been put in issue.​ [55]

Allowing S.N. Kapoor’s challenge, the Rajasthan High Court held that an explicit prayer for cancellation under Section 22(4), Designs Act is required, and mere averments on lack of novelty or originality do not oust the District Court’s jurisdiction. It cautioned that automatic transfers whenever validity is disputed would encourage dilatory tactics, multiply proceedings and delay effective relief for registered proprietors. Accordingly, the transfer orders were set aside, and the suits were directed to proceed before the District Court for disposal on merits.

38. Telangana High Court Sets Aside Blanket Injunction in Trade Secret Dispute

The Hon’ble High Court of Telangana (“Telangana High Court”) set aside a temporary injunction granted by a Commercial Court restraining the appellants, Venkateshwarlu Guduru and others (“Guduru”), from commercially exploiting or disseminating Siddhardha De Bathula’s (“De Bathula”) alleged confidential information and trade secrets. [56]  The Telangana High Court held that trade secret protection requires clear identification and specificity of the information sought to be protected and that vague or open-ended injunctions are impermissible.

The appeal arose from an order granting interim relief in favour of De Bathula on the basis that one of the appellants, a former employee, had gained access to confidential information during his employment and had subsequently used such information to compete with De Bathula’s business. The Commercial Court had granted a broad injunction restraining any breach of confidential information or fiduciary obligations.

The Telangana High Court found that the injunction was granted without identifying the precise information claimed as confidential or constituting a trade secret. It noted that the Commercial Court relied primarily on materials seized by a Local Commissioner, including documents, purchase orders, and product-related material, without examining whether such material qualified as protectable trade secrets or whether they were otherwise publicly accessible or independently developed.

The Telangana High Court reiterated that claims of trade secret infringement must be founded on clearly defined and identifiable information possessing independent economic value and protected through reasonable confidentiality measures. It held that such rights cannot be asserted in the abstract or through generalized allegations. The Telangana High Court further observed that the Commercial Court had mechanically granted relief by reproducing the prayers in the plaint, resulting in an absolute and undefined restraint.

In view of the absence of specificity and the overly broad nature of the injunction, the Telangana High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.