IPverse: Create. Claim. Control. (April - June 2025)

INTRODUCTION

The second quarter of 2025 witnessed notable judicial developments in trade mark law, particularly in relation to consumer confusion, brand recognition, and legal concerns arising from AI-generated content.

The Delhi High Court passed several notable orders reinforcing trade mark rights and consumer protection. In the matter involving Indian Hotels Company Limited’s ‘GINGER’ brand, the court awarded INR 20 lakh in damages for infringement and unauthorised use of brand elements on a misleading website. Simultaneously, the court recognised the concept of 'initial consumer confusion' to establish trade mark infringement in the matter concerning Under Armour Inc. Further, the court also acknowledged the longstanding use and reputation of the marks, ‘RITZ’ and ‘RITZ CARLTON’ in India, thereby formally recognising them as well-known marks.

Indian courts also dealt with emerging legal issues involving the unauthorised digital use of personality traits. Interim relief was granted to Sadhguru in a matter concerning the misuse of his name, image, and voice through AI-generated content. Separately, the Delhi High Court is hearing proceedings initiated by ANI against OpenAI in relation to the alleged use of news content for AI training. The court is also adjudicating on the case filed by ANI in regard to defamation and copyright infringement cases against YouTuber Mohak Mangal. In another development, a public interest litigation was filed before the Supreme Court following Reliance Industries Limited’s attempted registration of the term 'Operation Sindoor', which was later withdrawn.

This edition of the newsletter summarises these and other key updates from April to June 2025. We hope the below serves as a useful reference for clients and stakeholders engaging with India’s evolving IP framework.

A. SHORT FORMS

1.  INDIAN GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTES EXPERT PANEL TO REVIEW COPYRIGHT LAW IN LIGHT OF LAWSUIT AGAINST OPENAI

The Government of India has constituted an expert panel to assess whether the existing Copyright Act, 1957 (“Copyright Act”), adequately protects copyrighted materials and addresses emerging AI-related challenges.[1] This is in furtherance of the suit filed by various Indian news outlets, including NDTV, Indian Express, and others, alleging ChatGPT’s unauthorised use of copyrighted materials without permission. The copyright law has been at the centre of the OpenAI lawsuit in India.

OpenAI has argued that the usage of public data to train its chatbots does not violate Indian copyright law and claims to provide an opt-out facility for websites that do not want their data to be used. The panel, comprising IP lawyers, government officials, and industry executives, have been tasked with evaluating these concerns and recommending appropriate changes to the government.

2. DELHI HIGH COURT OBSERVES EXCESSIVE MUSIC LICENSE FEE MAY JUSTIFY COMPULSORY LICENSE

A petition^[2] was filed before the Delhi High Court against Phonographic Performance Ltd. (“PPL”) by Al Hamd Tradenation seeking the grant of a compulsory license and determination of license rates. The petitioner was organising a corporate event and had approached PPL for a music license. It was alleged that PPL quoted an unreasonable fee of INR 49,500 for its repertoire of sound recordings, which the court found to be arbitrary and disproportionate for a gathering of 50 attendees. The court observed that the terms of license offered by PPL amounted to a constructive refusal.

The court emphasized that copyright holders engaging in commercial licensing activities are under the ambit of statutory obligations and cannot charge unreasonable fees. It further observed that inflexible tariffs and fees abuse the copyright monopoly and accordingly observed that the request for a compulsory license may be granted, subject to directions from the Hon’ble Supreme Court on PPL’s ability to grant licenses without being a copyright society (being heard in Phonographic Performance Limited v. Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.^[3]). The court directed both parties to file affidavits of evidence to determine fair compensation and terms for the compulsory license.

3. DELHI HIGH COURT ALLOWS NUMERIC MARKS TO BE REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN TRADE MARKS LAW

The appellant, Vineet Kapur,[4] approached the Delhi High Court challenging an order of refusal issued by the Trade Marks Registry, which denied registration of the mark ‘2929’ on the ground that it was not distinctive. The court reaffirmed that the term “mark” under Section (1)(m) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Trade Marks Act”) included numerals and their combinations, and the mere fact that a mark consists of numbers does not make it unregistrable. The mark had been applied under Class 3 (cosmetics and skin care products) on a proposed-to-be-used basis and had no prior use. 

The court clarified that distinctiveness must be assessed in terms of the goods being offered thereunder. Since, in the present case, the number mark had no direct association with cosmetics or personal care products, it was considered inherently distinctive by the court. The court set aside the order passed by the Trade Marks Registry and held that “2929” was coined and arbitrary, bearing no association with the goods. It was further held that the mark was not descriptive of the goods in any manner and hence, there was no requirement for establishing secondary meaning.

4. TRADE MARK FILINGS FOR ‘OPERATION SINDOOR’ SPARK DEBATE OVER NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC INTEREST

A Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) was filed before the Supreme Court to restrain trade mark registration of the term “Operation Sindoor”, as it symbolises national grief and ought not to be monetised.[5] This was in light of the application made by Reliance Industries Ltd. (“Reliance”) (which has withdrawn its application following the public outcry) and other entities to register the trade mark. The plea also specifies that such a registration would violate Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, which bars registration of marks that are against public morality. It was also argued that the commercial use of such terms would undermine the dignity of the martyrs and their families.

5. NOKIA AND AMAZON END GLOBAL PATENT BATTLE

Finnish telecommunications giant, Nokia Corporation (“Nokia”), and the U.S. company Amazon.com Inc. (“Amazon”), have reached a global settlement, resolving all ongoing patent litigation between the two companies.^[6] The dispute originated in October 2023, when Nokia initiated legal proceedings against Amazon in five jurisdictions— the United Kingdom, Germany, India, the United States, and the Unified Patent Court of the European Union.

Nokia alleged that Amazon's Prime Video service and associated devices infringed its patents relating to video compression, content delivery, content recommendation, and hardware components. Nokia secured a preliminary injunction in Germany and obtained a favourable decision from the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Amazon countered by accusing Nokia of abusing its Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs) by seeking injunctive relief rather than offering licenses on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Amazon also filed a countersuit in the United States, alleging infringement of its cloud computing patents by Nokia.

The confidential settlement agreement brings all litigation to a close and includes a multi-year patent licensing arrangement.

6.  DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTS INR 20 LAKH DAMAGES TO IHCL IN 'GINGER' TRADE MARK INFRINGEMENT CASE

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction^[7] to Indian Hotels Co. Ltd (“IHCL”) for infringement of its registered trade marks ‘GINGER’ (“Ginger Marks”). IHCL initiated legal action after discovering a fraudulent website, www.gingerhotelmumbai.info, misrepresenting itself as an official booking portal for GINGER hotels. The impugned site unlawfully used IHCL’s Ginger Marks and featured professional photographs of the IHCL-operated GINGER hotel in Mumbai. The court held that the defendants had acted in bad faith, with the intention to deceive consumers and exploit IHCL’s goodwill. The unauthorised use of the mark was found to constitute clear trade mark infringement and passing off.

Accordingly, the court awarded IHCL INR 20 lakhs in damages and costs, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable, and permanently restraining them from using the Ginger Marks in any manner.

7.  BOMBAY HIGH COURT HALTS AQUAPEYA OVER TRADE MARK INFRINGEMENT WITH BISLERI

Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. (“Bisleri”) filed a suit against Natvits Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (owner of “Aquapeya”) for infringing and passing off its registered trade mark and misappropriating its goodwill and reputation. Bisleri alleged that Aquapeya’s label design, including its colour scheme and visual elements, was deceptively similar to Bisleri’s registered trade dress.^[8] The matter gained prominence after the founders of Aquapeya publicly admitted on Shark Tank India (Season 4) to adopting "popular brand colours" and leveraging the goodwill of established brands to gain visibility.

The Bombay High Court took judicial notice of these on-record admissions and held that the defendants had acted in bad faith, with clear intent to misappropriate Bisleri’s brand identity and consumer goodwill. It found that Aquapeya's packaging created a likelihood of confusion and constituted trade mark infringement and passing off. Consequently, the court restrained Aquapeya from manufacturing, packaging, marketing, or selling any products bearing the infringing branding.

8.  CALCUTTA HIGH COURT SETS ASIDE PATENT REJECTION OVER LACK OF EVIDENCE ON PUBLIC HEALTH GROUNDS

The Calcutta High Court recently adjudicated an appeal to an order by the Patent Office dated August 21, 2024, whereby an application for patent filed by ITC Limited (“ITC”) titled “heater assembly to generate aerosol” was refused by the Patent Office.[9] The patent application was refused on the grounds of public order and morality, noting that the invention promoted the usage of electronic cigarettes, which cause significant harm to public health.

The court held that such refusal must be supported by credible scientific or technical evidence. It clarified that Section 3(b) of the Patent Act relates to the intent behind the invention, not merely its potential effects, and observed that assumptions about harm from aerosol-generating products could not, on their own, justify rejection.

It was further noted by the court that patent rights are exclusionary, not positive commercialization rights. This observation was made in response to the Controller’s reliance on Section 83(e) of the Patent Act, which the court found had been misinterpreted. The Patent Office was directed to reconsider the impugned patent application in accordance with the law.

9.  WEST BENGAL SECURES GI TAGS FOR SEVEN TRADITIONAL PRODUCTS, ENHANCING CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC FOOTPRINT

The Geographical Indications Registry, operating under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (“DPIIT”), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, has granted Geographical Indication (GI) tags to seven traditional products from West Bengal. The newly recognised items include the famed Nolen Gurer Sandesh, a winter sweet made from date palm jaggery and chhena, and Baruipur Guavas. The remaining five products are Kamarpukur’s White Bonde, Murshidabad’s Chhanabora, Bishnupur’s Motichur Laddoo, Radhunipagal Rice, and Malda’s Nistari Silk Yarn.^[10]

These recognitions are expected to bolster the local economy by protecting the authenticity of regional products and promoting them in domestic and international markets. The GI applications were supported by documentary evidence compiled by the Patent Information Center of the West Bengal State Council of Science & Technology, which traced the historical origin and traditional production methods of these goods. With this addition, West Bengal now holds a total of 35 GI-tagged products across food, textiles, and handicrafts.

10. DELHI HIGH COURT RULES THAT EVEN INITIAL CONSUMER CONFUSION CAN CONSTITUTE TRADE MARK INFRINGEMENT

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that even momentary confusion in the mind of a consumer is sufficient to establish trade mark infringement under the Trade Marks Act.^[11] The decision was rendered in an appeal filed by Under Armour Inc. against Anish Agarwal and another, involving the marks ‘UNDER ARMOUR’ and ‘AERO ARMOUR’.

The appellant, proprietor of the ‘UNDER ARMOUR’ mark in various jurisdictions, including India, alleged that the impugned mark ‘AERO ARMOUR’ was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among consumers. The Single Judge had previously imposed limited restrictions on the respondents’ use of the mark but declined to restrain them completely.

Setting aside the earlier order, the court found the marks to be deceptively similar when viewed holistically. It observed that if a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection associates the impugned mark with the appellant’s mark, even briefly, it would amount to infringement. In light of the degree of similarity, the identical nature of goods, and the shared trade channels, the court concluded that there was a real likelihood of confusion.

11. DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS NON-ISSUANCE OF FORM O-3 INVALIDATES TRADE MARK REMOVAL

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Mittal, recently challenged the order of removal passed by the Trade Marks Registry vide which the trade mark held by him, i.e., ‘MILTON’ in class 9 (“Impugned Mark”) was removed from the records of the Trade Marks Register.[12] This registration was due for renewal in 2004 but lapsed when renewal fees were not timely paid. The Impugned Mark was officially removed from the register in 2010. Upon filing an RTI, the petitioned discovered that no Form O‑3 notice, which is mandated by Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act and Rule 64(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2005 (“Trade Marks Rules”), had been issued to inform him about the impending expiry or renewal conditions.  The petitioner submitted that there is non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Trade Marks Act and the Trade Marks Rules.

The court ordered restoration of the Impugned Mark, holding that it is mandatory to issue Form O-3 Notice to comply with the Trade Marks Act. The court at the outset noted that the prescribed time and manner for issuance of Form O-3 Notice are set out in Rule 64(1) of the TM Rules. The rules prescribe that when there is no renewal of the application on behalf of the trade mark holder, the Registrar has to issue a written Form O-3 Notice to the proprietors at least one month before the expiration of the registration. It emphasised that the issuance of such a notice is a mandatory precondition before removal can take place. 

12. SADHGURU SEEKS DYNAMIC INJUNCTION OVER AI-BASED MISUSE OF IMAGE, VOICE, AND NAME

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Sadhguru and Isha Foundation, restraining unauthorised use of his personality rights.^[13] In a suit seeking protection against passing off, misappropriation, and violation of publicity rights, it was alleged that rogue websites and social media accounts were using AI tools to morph Sadhguru’s voice, image, and likeness for commercial gain.

It was observed that the systematic and intentional nature of infringement showed real-time violation of rights and highlighted the risk of public misinformation. Noting Sadhguru’s status as a globally recognised spiritual figure, the court held that such misuse would irreparably harm his reputation and public trust.

Accordingly, the court restrained 41 identified entities and others from exploiting Sadhguru’s persona, and directed platforms like YouTube and social media intermediaries to suspend infringing content and accounts. The matter is next listed for further hearing on October 14, 2025.

13. DELHI HIGH COURT DECLARES RITZ AND RITZ CARLTON AS WELL-KNOWN TRADE MARKS

In a recent judgment dated May 29, 2025, a Single Bench of the Delhi High Court declared “RITZ” and “RITZ‑CARLTON” (“Ritz Marks”) as well‑known trade marks under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act.[14] The plaintiffs, The Ritz Hotel Limited, Ritz‑Carlton Hotel Company, and Ritz Paris (“Ritz”) sought a permanent injunction against the defendants, M S Hotel Ritz & Ors., for using confusingly similar marks, i.e., “Hotel Ritz” and “Ritz Plaza” and operating infringing websites, i.e., ‘ritz‑hotels.com’ and ‘thehotelritz.com’. It was the case of Ritz that the defendants were marketing hotel services under the “RITZ” name across online booking platforms like MakeMyTrip and Booking.com, leading to consumer confusion and negative reviews that risked diluting the plaintiffs' global reputation.

The court, while adjudicating the matter, took into consideration the longstanding and continuous use, extensive geographic reach, strong public recognition for the Ritz Marks, and the considerable goodwill and revenue generated by the Ritz’s hotels in India and worldwide. The court, accordingly, concluded that Ritz had satisfied the criteria under Sections 11(6) and 11(7) of the Trade Marks Act to establish well‑known status in its favour. It, thus, passed a decree granting a declaration of “RITZ” and “RITZ‑CARLTON” as well‑known trade marks; a permanent injunction restraining defendants from using those marks or any deceptively similar variants (“RITZ INN”, “RITZ PLAZA”, etc.); and an order to immediately shut down the infringing domains and halt all related use.

14. DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTS SUPERLATIVE INJUNCTION TO STAR INDIA FOR REAL-TIME BLOCKING OF PIRATED CRICKET STREAMS

The Delhi High Court has granted a superlative injunction in favour of Star India Pvt. Ltd, allowing real-time blocking of rogue websites and mobile apps illegally streaming IPL 2025 and India’s tour of England.^[15]

The plaintiff submitted that infringing domains and mobile applications continued to surface online in real time, thereby rendering traditional enforcement mechanisms ineffective and causing repeated violations of its exclusive broadcast and reproduction rights. The court noted the highly organised nature of piracy and held that dynamic protection was necessary, given the scale and speed of infringement.

The court permitted suspension of newly identified infringing platforms without requiring repeated filings. Extending the scope of prior injunctions, it directed domain registrars, internet service providers, and social media platforms to block rogue websites, URLs, and mobile apps in real time, and to ensure compliance. Rogue operators were also ordered to disclose registration and payment details.

15. GETTY IMAGES TAKES STABILITY AI TO COURT OVER ALLEGED COPYRIGHT BREACH IN AI TRAINING

Getty Images’ (“Getty”) copyright infringement lawsuit against Stability AI has commenced before the United Kingdom’s High Court of Justice.[16] Getty, which provides editorial and stock photographs, alleged that Stability AI unlawfully scraped millions of its copyrighted images to develop its generative AI model, Stable Diffusion. The suit was brought to challenge the established practices of training AI systems on troves of writing or images, thereby infringing a multitude of copyrights. The main issue before the court was whether the large-scale use of copyrighted photographs to train an AI system constitutes infringement under the UK copyright law. Getty contended that creators of intellectual property should be asked permission before usage of their works in training AI rather than being given “opt-out regimes”, and submits that the creative and technological industries must work together in synergy to ensure effective licensing of creative works and AI’s success.

Stability AI, based in London, disputes both the substance and the jurisdiction of the claim. It argues that the training of its models was conducted on servers operated by Amazon outside the UK and, therefore, the matter is beyond the scope of UK copyright law. Stability further contends that very few outputs of the AI have any resemblance to Getty’s copyrighted content. The trial has now ended and the written judgment from the court will follow.

16. BOMBAY HIGH COURT UPHOLDS REGISTRAR’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNISE ‘TIKTOK’ AS WELL-KNOWN MARK

The Bombay High Court has upheld an order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting the inclusion of ‘TikTok’ in the list of well-known marks under Rule 124 of the TM Rules.^[17] The petitioner, owner of the registered trade mark ‘TikTok’, had initiated proceedings under Rule 124 seeking enhanced protection.

The court observed that while the mark already enjoyed statutory rights under the Trade Marks Act, its recognition as a well-known mark was not warranted in light of the Government of India’s continued ban on the TikTok app due to concerns relating to sovereignty, national security, and public order.

The court held that the Registrar was entitled to consider these factors, including press releases and privacy concerns, while refusing the application. It found no merit in the petitioner's challenge and declined to interfere with the Registrar’s decision.

17. DISNEY AND UNIVERSAL SUE MIDJOURNEY FOR UNAUTHORISED USE OF ICONIC CHARACTERS

The Walt Disney Company and Universal City Studios LLC (“Studios”) sued popular AI firm, Midjourney Inc. (“Midjourney”) over its image generator, claiming that Midjourney’s tool makes innumerable copies of iconic characters.[18] In the lawsuit filed before the United States District Court of Central District Of California, the Studios cited examples of the generated images that included Disney characters such as ‘Yoda’, ‘Spiderman’, ‘Iron Man’, ‘Minions’ among many others. In the lawsuit, the Studios further claimed that Midjourney made USD 300 million in the previous year and is planning for the launch of a video service.

The Studios also claimed that Midjourney refused to comply with their requests to stop infringing on their copyrighted works and to take appropriate measures to halt such image generation. The lawsuit against Midjourney comes as several other AI companies try to enter Hollywood and the video game industry by offering tools that help create videos, generate synthetic voices, and assist with editing.

B. LONG FORMS

1. OPENAI CHALLENGES JURISDICTION IN ANI COPYRIGHT SUIT BEFORE DELHI HIGH COURT

The Delhi High Court continues to hear Asian News International (“ANI”) v. OpenAI,^[19] a significant copyright dispute concerning the use of ANI’s news content in the training of ChatGPT. ANI has alleged unauthorised use of its journalistic material and is seeking an injunction and damages for copyright infringement.

ANI contends that OpenAI scraped and used the exact expression of its news reports without permission, constituting unlicensed derivative use. It argued that such training reduces traffic to its platform and undermines media revenue, regardless of whether the content was publicly available.

OpenAI has denied infringement, maintaining that ChatGPT generates outputs through token-based processing and does not retain or reproduce original content. It also argued that its training practices align with global norms and are non-infringing under Indian law. OpenAI has raised jurisdictional objections, which were countered by amici curiae who supported the court’s jurisdiction.

The matter has drawn participation from multiple industry bodies. The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA)—representing NDTV, Hindustan Times, Times of India, and others—was permitted to intervene. Separately, the Indian Music Industry (IMI), which includes T-Series, Saregama, and Sony Music, also filed to intervene, citing concerns that AI models may be trained on copyrighted songs and lyrics.

Arguments on ANI’s interim relief continue, and no injunction has been granted at this stage. The case is expected to have far-reaching implications for how Indian copyright law applies to AI training, and whether consent or licensing will be required from content owners going forward. The next date of hearing is scheduled on July 23, 2025.

2.  DELHI HIGH COURT HEARS TRADE MARK AND COPYRIGHT DISPUTES BETWEEN ANI AND YOUTUBER MOHAK MANGAL

Asian News International ("ANI") recently filed a defamation suit before the Delhi High Court against YouTuber Mohak Mangal (“Mangal”) alleging that his recent YouTube video against the news agency is disparaging and defamatory. The suit has been filed against Mangal's YouTube video titled “Dear ANI” which has 5.5 million views at present. As per the lawsuit, ANI contends that the statement made by Mangal referring ANI’s licensing practices as “extortion and blackmail” have led to reputational damage and online backlash.

In his video, Mangal criticized ANI for allegedly misusing copyright strikes to target independent content creators. He accused the news agency of "holding people hostage" and engaging in extortion and blackmail under the guise of enforcing copyright laws. ANI had demanded over INR 48 lakhs from Mangal and other YouTubers for unauthorized use of its footage and warned that, failing payment, it would pursue formal copyright infringement proceedings. The said move was criticised, stating that their use of ANI content was minimal and qualified as "fair use". In a letter to the Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Mangal argued that such actions restrict creative expression and set a harmful precedent. Under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, “fair dealing” provisions exempt certain uses of copyrighted content from liability, including personal use, criticism, review, and reporting of current events. Mangal claimed his use was covered under this section.

The suit also named comedian Kunal Kamra and Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair, accusing them of amplifying Mangal’s remarks. ANI" has sought INR 2.10 crore in damages and requested the Court to order Mangal to remove the video and stop using its registered trade marks. Additionally, in June 2025, a second suit was filed before the Commercial Court in Delhi by ANI against Mangal for illegally and unauthorisedly reproducing 10 of ANI’s video and misusing its logo. The matters are currently pending for adjudication.

3. DELHI HIGH COURT DENIES INTERIM RELIEF TO CHAMPAK MAGAZINE IN TRADE MARK DISPUTE AGAINST BCCI

Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., publisher of the children’s magazine Champak, approached the Delhi High Court seeking an injunction against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (“BCCI”) for using the name “Champak” for a robotic dog launched during the 2025 Indian Premier League.^[20] The name was selected via an online public poll conducted by BCCI. The plaintiff contended that “Champak” is a registered trade mark with longstanding use since 1968 and that BCCI’s adoption of the name amounted to infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. It was further alleged that such usage diluted the distinctiveness of the mark and enabled BCCI to unfairly benefit from the goodwill associated with the magazine. BCCI argued that the name was chosen by public vote and not adopted independently by the organisation. It further submitted that “Champak” is a common name with multiple public associations, including with fictional characters from popular television shows, and that no commercial use or intent to exploit the mark existed.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of trade mark infringement or commercial exploitation by BCCI. Noting the absence of sufficient pleadings and evidence, the court refused to grant interim relief. The matter is next listed for further hearing on September 19, 2025.

4.  SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS ARBITRABILITY OF TRADE MARK DISPUTES ARISING FROM CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS

The Supreme Court has clarified that disputes involving trade marks are not excluded from arbitration and can be referred to arbitral tribunals if they arise out of a contract or license agreement conferring in personam rights.^[21] The decision was delivered in a dispute involving “Sri Angannan Biriyani Hotel” of Coimbatore, where two factions of a family contested the ownership and use of the trade mark. The appellants had initiated a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages for alleged infringement. In response, the respondent invoked an arbitration clause contained in a Trade Mark Assignment Deed and filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking reference to arbitration. Both the Commercial Court and the High Court of Madras upheld the respondent’s application. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed these decisions, reiterating that not all IP disputes are non-arbitrable. Relying on its earlier rulings in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd.^[22] (2011) and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021)^[23], the Supreme Court observed that disputes arising from contracts involving trade mark assignments or licenses are in personam in nature and hence arbitrable. It also clarified that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, judicial interference is limited to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Once established, the matter must be referred to arbitration, with issues such as fraud or validity of claims to be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the dispute was held to be arbitrable.

5.  SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS VALIDITY OF RULE 29(4) OF COPYRIGHT RULES, 2013

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, dismissing a petition filed by Next Radio Ltd.^[24] In this matter, wherein the petitioners challenged the legality of the said rule, arguing that it imposed disproportionate burdens on broadcasters seeking statutory licences under Section 31D of the Copyright Act.

Rule 29(4) outlines specific details that must be included in the prior notice issued by broadcasters intending to communicate literary and musical works or sound recordings to the public under statutory licence. These include, inter alia, the name of the broadcasting channel, territorial coverage, identification details of the work, name and nationality of copyright owners, time slots and programme duration, royalty payment details, and address for maintaining inspection records.

The petitioners contended that the disclosure requirements under sub-clauses (c), (d), (e), (f), and (j) of the said rule exceeded the scope of Section 31D and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

The Union of India responded that the said rule was necessary to ensure transparency and fairness in royalty calculations and that Section 31D(5) itself required disclosure of author and performer details.

The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge, stating that it found no merit in the constitutional objections raised and held that Rule 29(4) was consistent with the legislative framework of the Copyright Act.

6.      SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES INTERPLAY BETWEEN COPYRIGHT AND DESIGN LAW

The Supreme Court, in an appeal arising from a dispute between Inox India Limited (“Inox”) and Cryogas Equipment Private Limited (“Cryogas”)  and LNG Express India Private Limited (“LNG Express”), clarified the interplay between copyright protection under the Copyright Act and design registration under Designs Act, 2000 (“Designs Act”).[25]  The dispute dates back to 2018 when Inox initiated a lawsuit against Cryogas and LNG Express alleging that the latter infringed (i) the drawings of LNG Semi-trailers developed by Inox (“Proprietary Engineering Drawings”); and (ii) the details, processes, descriptions and narrations written by Inox employees in creating the Proprietary Engineering Drawings (“Literary Works”). Inox asserted ownership of copyright over these Proprietary Engineering Drawings as original 'artistic works' and the accompanying descriptions as 'literary works', highlighting undermining of substantial investment in their research and development. In response, Cryogas and LNG Express sought rejection of Inox's plaint, contending that Inox’s Proprietary Engineering Drawings fell within the definition of a ‘design’ under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act. They further argued that the industrial application of their Proprietary Engineering Drawings had exceeded the fifty (50) reproduction threshold, thereby relinquishing any copyright protection under Section 15 of the Copyright Act.

The central question concerned whether Inox’s proprietary engineering drawings that were used in the design and manufacture of tanks were entitled to protection under the Copyright Act or excluded from protection due to their potential classification as “designs” under the Designs Act. In view of the same, the Supreme Court proposed a two-step test to determine whether a work can be protected under the Designs Act, namely:

1. The courts must ascertain whether the work in question is purely an ‘artistic work’ entitled to protection under the Copyright Act, or whether it is a ‘design’ derived from such an original artistic work and subjected to an industrial process as contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. This may involve examining the nature of the drawings and the intention behind their creation;
2. If the work is found not to qualify for copyright protection under the first prong, the courts must then apply the test of 'functional utility' to determine its dominant purpose. This step aims to ascertain whether the primary purpose of the design is aesthetic (potentially qualifying for design protection) or purely functional, which might exclude it from design protection as well.  

The Supreme Court further stated that the courts must consider the facts of each case while considering precedents, statutes, and comparative jurisprudence to ensure there is no overlap in copyright and design protection. The Supreme Court further held that whether Inox’s engineering drawings qualify as artistic works or designs involves mixed questions of law and fact and is to be re-assessed in view of the formulated test. Accordingly, it held that it is unsuitable for rejection of plaint at the preliminary stage where only a prima facie examination has taken place.

7. DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS PASSING OFF CANNOT BE A MECHANISHM TO PREVENT ALL FORMS OF COMPETITIVE ENTRY 

The Delhi High Court addressed a trade mark dispute[26] involving the mark “NEHA” where plaintiff No. 2, a company manufacturing and trading henna and related products, along with its director, claimed infringement and passing off against the Defendant for using the mark “NEHA” for a cold cream. The plaintiffs contended they were prior users of the trade mark, and been continuously using the same since the mid-1990s, in connection with mehndi and herbal hair care products. In support thereof, plaintiffs submitted income tax returns, advertisements, and sales figures, which were accepted by the court as credible evidence of commercial use from 1994 onwards. On the contrary, the court found the defendant’s claimed first use was inconsistent as proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry indicated adoption in 1998, and submissions in court referred to 1990. It held that such contradictory positions undermined the defendant’s claim of prior use and accordingly, their petition seeking removal of the plaintiff’s registration was dismissed.

On the issue of infringement, the court considered whether both parties' products, both falling under class 3, were inter-changeable or competitive. It was held that the plaintiffs’ goods, being traditional plant-based hair dyes associated with cultural use, differed materially from the defendant’s chemical-based creams intended for skin care; these products varied in purpose, composition, and consumer appeal. The court also noted that through the years, the plaintiffs themselves had not expanded to creams or any other products beyond mehndi. Therefore, despite falling in the same class, the rival products were not considered similar or overlapping for the purpose of trade mark protection. It was also held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove secondary meaning of their trade mark across product lines, which could attract the tort of passing off.

The court further noted that “NEHA” is a common Indian name and lacks inherent distinctiveness. For such a mark to be protected, the plaintiffs needed to prove secondary meaning, showing that consumers associate the mark exclusively with their products. The court found that the plaintiffs had not established such association beyond their mehndi products, and their reputation did not extend to creams. The court also highlighted the well settled principle that marks comprising everyday/common names or generic expressions do not, by themselves, command the highest level of legal protection. The claim of infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act was, thus, rejected. 

8. DELHI HIGH COURT UPHOLDS TRADE MARK RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF KRBL LIMITED, CLARIFIES MEANING OF “USE” 

The Delhi High Court clarified key aspects of trade mark use, protection, and abandonment under the Trade Marks Act, in a dispute between KRBL Limited, a company engaged in rice processing and export, and KRB Enterprises, a firm manufacturing rice.^[27] KRBL Limited, known for its India Gate brand, had filed a suit before the Saket District Court alleging that KRB Enterprises was using a deceptively similar mark, “KRB”. The Saket District Court had granted an interim injunction in favour of KRBL Limited, which was subsequently challenged before the Delhi High Court. 

KRBL Limited owns the registered trade mark “KRBL” with a device of paddy in class 35. KRB Enterprises argued that KRBL Limited was not using the “KRBL” mark as a trade mark on its goods and, hence, was not entitled to protection. The court rejected this narrow interpretation and clarified that, under Section 2(2)(c)(i) of the Trade Marks Act, “use” includes any use in relation to goods, including advertising and promotional material. It was held that KRBL Limited has evidenced long and continuous use of its trade mark as a source identifier and that use of a mark does not necessarily have to be in a physical form in relation to the goods.

On infringement, the court reiterated that while marks are to be compared as a whole, emphasis must also be placed on the dominant feature. It found that KRB Enterprises’ mark was deceptively similar to that of KRBL Limited. 

KRB Enterprises also claimed that KRBL Limited had abandoned its trade mark, relying on the withdrawal of its application filed in class 30. In this regard, the court accepted the arguments placed by KRBL Limited as per which the withdrawal was a mistake and did not indicative of an intent to abandon. This argument was supported by the fact that the mark was reapplied within a day of acceptance of the withdrawal request. It was held that the withdrawal this did not affect the validity of KRBL Limited’s rights in the trade mark.

KRB Enterprises also raised a plea of acquiescence citing past business transactions and delay in filing the suit. Having heard both sides, the court held that for the defence of acquiescence to succeed, the adoption of the mark must first be in good faith. It found that KRBL Limited’s registered mark had been cited in the examination report issued in the application filed by KRB Enterprises, making it implausible that they were unaware of it. Relying on this observation, the court concluded that the adoption of the mark “KRB” by KRB Enterprises was with mala fide intent. Further, it was held that the invoices relied on by KRB Enterprises to show past commercial relationship were not sufficient to prove acquiescence as the same just mentioned ‘loose rice’ and did not feature any trade mark or brand name. 

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 

[1] India Panel To Review Copyright Law Amid Legal Challenges To OpenAI (May 6, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/india-panel-review-copyright-law-amid-legal-challenges-openai-2025-05-06/.

[2] Al Hamd Tradenation v. Phonographic Performance Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3399.

[3] SLP(C) No. 10977/2025.

[4] Vineet Kapur v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2657.

[5] PIL Filed In Supreme Court Against Attempts To Trademark Operation Sindoor (May 10, 2025), https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/pil-filed-supreme-court-against-attempts-trademark-operation-sindoor.

[6] Nokia And Amazon Sign Patent Agreement (March 31, 2025), https://www.nokia.com/newsroom/nokia-and-amazon-sign-patent-agreement/.

[7] The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Ankit Sethi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2097.

[8] Bisleri International Private Limited v. Tushar Rajesh Mundada & Anr., COMIPL/5457/2025.

[9] ITC Limited v. Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 4479.

[10] Nolen Gur Sandesh Among 7 State Items To Get GI Tag (April 03, 2025), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/nolen-gur-sandesh-among-7-state-items-to-get-gi-tag/articleshow/119953751.cms.

[11] Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3784.

[12] Rakesh Kumar Mittal V. The Registrar Of Trade Marks, W.P.(C)-IPD 40/2024 & CM 141/2024.

[13] Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev v. Igor Isakov, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3804.

[14] Ritz Hotel Ltd. v. Hotel Ritz, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3865.

[15] Star India Pvt. Ltd. in Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors., CS(COMM) 108/2025.

[16] Getty Images Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd., 2023 EWHC 3090 (Ch).

[17] TikTok Ltd. v. Registrar, Trade Marks, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2323.

[18] Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Midjourney Inc., 2:25-cv-05275 (C.D. Cal.), accessed at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70513159/disney-enterprises-inc-v-midjourney-inc/.

[19] CS(COMM) 1028/2024.

[20] Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Private Limited vs.  Board Of Control of Cricket in India & Anr., CS(COMM) 395/2025.

[21] K. Mangayarkarasi and Anr. v N.J. Sundaresan and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1104.

[22] (2011) 5 SCC 532.

[23] (2021) 2 SCC 1.

[24] Next Radio Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India SLP (C) No. 14373/2022.

[25] 2025 SCC OnLine SC 780.

 [26] Inder Raj Sahni Proprietor v. Neha Herbals (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3341.

[27] KRB Enterprises and Others. V. KRBL Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4064.