IPverse: Create. Claim. Control. (July - September 2025)

INTRODUCTION

We are pleased to share the latest edition of our newsletter, which includes some important developments from the ever-evolving field of Intellectual Property (IP). This quarter has seen notable decisions across trade marks, copyrights, patents, designs, and geographical indications. Courts in India and abroad are beginning to address conflicts that lie at the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence. The Delhi High Court is considering whether scraping data to train large language models amounts to copyright infringement in ANI v. OpenAI, while the Mexican Supreme Court has held that works generated solely through AI are not eligible for copyright protection. Meanwhile, a proposed settlement is underway in the class action suit filed by several authors against Anthropic, alleging copyright infringement. In the realm of trade mark law, Indian courts have actively curbed fraudulent use of marks to deceive consumers. Both Tata and Zepto have obtained interim injunctions restraining the operation of infringing domain names and scams misusing their brands. Courts have also noted a legislative lacuna in patent law due to the absence of a definition of ‘infringement’ under the Patents Act, 1970, and have clarified the scope of pro tem deposit orders. Other key updates include new geographical indication registrations for several products from Meghalaya, Australia’s proposal to permit AI training on copyrighted material, and the Bombay High Court reaffirming that functionality does not preclude design registration where aesthetic appeal exists.

On that note, we hand this edition over to you, packed with developments worth the read. Happy reading!

TRADE MARK IT UP!

The Bombay High Court: determinative factor for jurisdiction is the place of purchase

The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay (“Bombay High Court”), on August 11, 2025, has clarified that for  Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ₁  (“Trade Marks Act”), territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place of purchase of goods, and not the residence of the customer. ₂  M/s Arcee Electronics (“Arcee”) filed a suit for trade mark infringement and passing off against M/s Arceeika (“Arceeika”) in relation to their use of the mark “ARCEEIKA”. Arcee alleged that Arceeika had infringed its registered trade mark “ARCEE” by adopting a deceptively similar mark. It was further contended that Arceeika had copied the font, colour scheme, and business model of Arcee, thereby attempting to pass off their goods as those of Arcee. To establish jurisdiction, Arcee relied on invoices evidencing delivery of its goods to customers located in Mumbai. Arceeika challenged jurisdiction by filing an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. ₃  They argued that all of Arcee’s showrooms and its head office were situated in Navi Mumbai and Raigad District. They alleged that Arcee had no official business in the city of Mumbai. The Bombay High Court saw merit in these arguments and accepted Arceeika's contention. It further held that Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act granted jurisdiction to the court where Arcee resides or carries on business. Since all showrooms and offices of Arcee were not in Mumbai, jurisdiction to this court could not be conferred merely on the basis of delivery to a customer in Mumbai. Along with Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ₄  also iterates the same values. Hence, the Bombay High Court observed that the determinative factor was the place where the purchase was made. Hence, the suit was disposed of.

‘NUTELLA’ now a well-known trade mark

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Delhi High Court”) declared the mark “NUTELLA”/  as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(zg) of the Trade Marks Act ₅  in a suit filed by Ferrero Group (“Ferrero”) against counterfeit use of its product. ₆

Ferrero, the proprietor of the mark “NUTELLA”, instituted proceedings against a local manufacturer engaged in the sale of hazelnut cocoa spread under the impugned mark “NUTELLA FERRERO”. It was alleged that the defendant was counterfeiting Ferrero’s goods in unhygienic conditions, copying its packaging, labels, and trade dress, thereby infringing Ferrero’s statutory rights and causing deception amongst consumers. Ferrero also sought a declaration that “NUTELLA” be recognised as a well-known trade mark.

The defendant failed to appear in the matter, leading to ex-parte proceedings. In analysing Ferrero’s claim, the Delhi High Court emphasised that food products require a higher standard of protection, given the serious public health implications arising from counterfeits. It found that the defendant’s adoption was dishonest, intended to ride on the global goodwill of Ferrero’s brand, and likely to mislead ordinary consumers into believing that the counterfeit products emanated from Ferrero.

Relying on Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, ₇  the Delhi High Court took into account the extensive use, reputation, and recognition of the mark “NUTELLA” worldwide, including registrations across multiple jurisdictions and recognition by the World Intellectual Property Organization. On this basis, it declared “NUTELLA” a well-known trade mark in India.

In addition, the Delhi High Court granted Ferrero a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from use of the impugned mark, awarded damages of INR 30,00,000, (thirty lakh) and imposed costs of INR 2,00,000 (two lakh).

Delhi High Court grants injunction to TATA in trade mark infringement suit

The Delhi High Court ranted an interim injunction in favour of Tata Sons and a subsidiary of Tata Digital Private Limited (collectively, “Tata Companies”), restraining anonymous infringers and their affiliates (collectively, “Anonymous Infringers”) from using the marks “TATA” and “TATA PAYMENTS” (“TATA Marks”) or any deceptively similar variations across any medium. ₈  The order came in a trade mark infringement suit filed by the Tata Companies after discovering a deceptive website misusing its trade marks.

The Tata Companies are the proprietors of more than 1,000 (one thousand) registered trade marks and over 2,000 (two thousand) domains, including “tata.com” and “tatapayments.com.” Tata Companies came across the website, “tatapayment.net” and Telegram accounts which promoted digital payment services under Tata Marks. The registrant’s details were concealed, but the site listed contact numbers, email addresses, and Telegram accounts. The Tata Companies argued that the use of its TATA Marks would cause substantial confusion to the public as they would be misled into believing the Anonymous Infringers were associated with them. They also argued that the Anonymous Infringers were attempting to deceive and defraud and individuals and businesses by offering digital payment services under its TATA Marks.

The Delhi High Court held that the Tata Companies had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in their favour. It also found that irreparable harm would result to the Tata Companies without interim protection. It, therefore, restrained the Anonymous Infringers from using the TATA Marks in any manner. The domain name registrar was directed to block the site, suspend infringing domains, and disclose registrant information. Telegram was ordered to block the infringing accounts and share user details. The matter is next listed for November 24, 2025.

Delhi High Court grants injunction to ZEPTO against fake job and franchise scams

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Zepto Private Limited and its wholly-owned subsidiary (collectively, "Zepto"), restraining owners of infringing domain names and unknown entities (“Unauthorised Actors”) from operating domain names, websites, mobile applications, and social media accounts by misusing the trade mark “ZEPTO”. ₉

Zepto, a quick-commerce platform engaged in the business of delivering groceries and other products, is the sole proprietor of the “ZEPTO” trade mark and operates the official Zepto website through registered domains “zeptonow.com” and “zepto.com”. It also operates mobile applications to facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers. Zepto alleged that the Unauthorised Actors were running a widespread scam, misusing its trade mark and goodwill to deceive the public into paying fees for fake franchise applications and job opportunities.

The Unauthorised Actors were operating websites “zeptojob.com” and “zeptojobs.in” and falsely presenting themselves as official platforms for recruiting delivery partners. Zepto also argued that several social media pages and groups on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn were pretending to be Zepto managers and were seeking payments.

The Delhi High Court observed that the Unauthorised Actors were misusing Zepto’s trade mark to mislead members of the public through forged letters, misleading emails and fake job postings. The Delhi High Court found that the balance of convenience was in favour of Zepto and that irreparable harm would be caused to them if no interim relief was granted. Accordingly, it restrained the Unauthorised Actors from using the “ZEPTO” mark to fraudulently solicit jobs, and from impersonating Zepto personnel. The Delhi High Court issued directions to suspend, block, and delete the infringing domain names, websites, bank accounts, and social media pages. The matter is next listed on February 18, 2026.

Ex Populus brings trade mark infringement suit against Elon Musk's xAI

On 21 August 2025, Ex Populus (“Populas”) brought a suit against an artificial intelligence company owned by Elon Musk (“Musk”), xAI Corp (“xAI Corp”). ₁₀  Populas, being the company behind the popular game, Ethereum filed the case for trade mark infringement before the California Federal Court (“California Court") alleging similarity between its mark, “Xai” and Xai Corp’s mark, “xAI”. They sought permanent injunction over the latter’s use of this mark.

It was Populas’ case that the massive userbase and marketplace power wielded by Xai Corp and Musk caused widespread consumer confusion leading to association of Populas’ mark with xAI Corp. They further contended that upon the launch of the ‘xAI' mark by Musk, various online industry and cryptocurrency gurus commented on the substantial market confusion between the existing XAI brand and Musk’s newly announced xAI Corp, so much so that a commenter felt compelled by such substantial market confusion to make the following explanatory graphic:

They premised their argument on the fact that owing to prior rights over the xAI brand, Populas’ is the prior and bonafide adopter of the trade mark. Additionally, given the similarity in the trade channel and potential overlap between the end user, the risk of consumer deception increases further. It is interesting to note that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) also suspended several of Musk’s trade mark applications for “xAI” and “XAI GROK,” citing a likelihood of confusion with Populas’s prior trade mark rights. In an apparent effort to claim prior rights, xAI Corp attempted to acquire an abandoned registration for “X.AI.” However, Populas contended that the previous owner, Bizzabo Ltd., had already discontinued use of the mark and abandoned it as of October 2021. The case is still ongoing, with both sides presenting evidence and arguments. The California Court has not yet made a final decision on the trade mark dispute or the claims of infringement. 

SONY INSTITUTES SUIT TO PROTECT INFRINGEMENT OF ITS ‘HORIZON’ SERIES AGAINST TENCENT’S LIGHT OF MOTIRAM 

On July 25, 2025, Sony Interactive (“Sony Interative”) filed a lawsuit in the federal court of the Northern District of California  against Chinese tech giant Tencent Holdings and its subsidiaries (“Tencent & Ors”). ₁₁   Sony Interactive has accused Tencent & Ors of copyright and trade mark infringement over its upcoming video game, Light of Motiram. Sony Interactive claims the game is a clone of its popular Horizon series of video games, particularly Horizon Zero Dawn. It was contended that the storyline of Sony Interactive’s video game involved players fighting off robotic animals in a post-apocalyptic world and included a red-headed protagonist. Tencent & Ors allegedly replicated gameplay, themes, and artistic features. Sony Interactive also claims that Tencent & Ors unlawfully copied protected audiovisual elements and deliberately adopted confusingly similar characters, including a red-headed character. Sony Interactive asserts that it was initially approached by Tencent with a proposal to collaborate on the development of a Horizon game, which Sony Interactive declined. Despite this refusal, Sony Interactive alleges that Tencent proceeded to create a substantially similar game using Sony Interactive’s intellectual property. In response, Tencent & Ors argued that Sony Interactive is attempting to secure a monopoly over common tropes that are widely prevalent in popular culture and thus not protectable. Tencent & Ors further contend that Sony Interactive has failed to specify the trade marks allegedly infringed, thereby rendering their claims vague and unsubstantiated. In addition, Tencent & Ors contend that the game in question has not yet been released to the public. Further, it is argued that Light of Motiram has been both developed and marketed by foreign entities, and not Tencent & Ors. On these grounds, Tencent & Ors have filed a motion seeking dismissal of the suit. Sony Interactive, in its complaint, seeks monetary damages and a permanent injunction restraining Tencent & Ors from infringing Sony Interactive’s copyrights and trade marks. The case is currently ongoing.

OPEN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE INC. IS PERMANENTLY INJUNCTED FROM USING ‘OPENAI’ AS THE OPENAI INC. IS HELD TO HAVE WIDER PUBLIC USAGE

On July 21, 2025, in a trade mark dispute between OpenAI Inc. and Open Artificial Intelligence Inc. (“OAI”), a U.S. federal judge ruled in favor of OpenAI Inc., cancelling OAI’s registration for the mark “Open AI”. ₁₂  This ruling comes despite the fact that OAI has been operational since March 2015, when its Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Guy Ravine, acquired the now-defunct website of the same name. OpenAI was founded several months later. The case was filed on August 4, 2023, and has now reached its conclusion now. ₁₃  The court held that Guy Ravine had also intended to deceive the USPTO by submitting fake product samples when, in actuality, the mark’s use had not been significantly used by OAI. ₁₄  Additionally, while the site was non-operational for a long time, Guy Ravine had even attempted to redesign to show functionality just before the suit was instituted by the plaintiff. The judge had previously granted OpenAI Inc.’s preliminary request for an injunction. It is also to be noted that OpenAI Inc. attempted to purchase the domain from Guy Ravine in the years 2015 and 2022, according to emails disclosed in the lawsuit put forth by the counsel representing OpenAI Inc. Guy Ravine had agreed to this proposition to OpenAI Inc. CEO Sam Altman in 2022 if he received an “academic collaboration, worth millions of dollars”, in exchange. ₁₅  This was with reference to the fact that Elon Musk had paid USD 11,000,000 (eleven million) for the Tesla domain and trade mark in 2017. The court also held that OpenAI had acquired secondary meaning in its name by 2022, owing to its extensive and widespread use in the public domain, including in the media, academic discourse, and commercial contexts. As a result, the court found that the name “OpenAI” had come to be distinctly associated with OpenAI Inc., in the minds of the relevant public. Accordingly, the judgment permanently restrains OAI from using the disputed mark “Open AI”, or any other mark deceptively similar to it, in connection with its goods or services.

THE INVENTOR'S BLOCK 

ULTRAHUMAN’S CASE FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT DISMISSED DUE TO SUPPRESSION OF FACTS

The Delhi High Court dismissed Bengaluru-based health-tech company Ultrahuman Healthcare Private Limited's (“Ultrahuman”) patent infringement suit against Finnish wearable maker Oura Health Oy (“Oura”), ₁₆  for suppression of material facts. In its petition to the court, Ultrahuman had alleged that the Oura’s latest device, ‘Ring 4’, used the former’s architecture and features without authorisation, thereby infringing its patent. The said patent pertained to a layered ring structure (with sensors for heart rate, temperature, and motion) and a microcontroller for processing data related to sleep stages and readiness scores. During the first hearing itself, counsel appearing on behalf of Oura revealed that Ultrahuman had not disclosed in its plaint the order issued by the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in April 2025, confirmed in August 2025, injuncting Ultrahuman’s products in the US market. This order was passed by the ITC in a patent infringement suit filed by Oura against Ultrahuman in the US, for patent infringement. In its defence, Ultrahuman relied on Magotteaux Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. AIA Engineering Ltd. ₁₇  to argue that since patent law is territorial in nature, the proceedings before the ITC in US are irrelevant and have no bearing on the matter at hand. The court did not accept Ultrahuman’s argument on irrelevance and noted that Ultrahuman’s failure to disclose ITC orders was indeed a material lapse. Resultantly, the court has dismissed the suit, granting Ultrahuman the liberty to institute a fresh suit after making full disclosure of suppressed order along with any other information relevant to the issue and parties.

DELHI HIGH COURT HIGHLIGHTS LEGISLATIVE GAP IN DEFINING PATENT INFRINGEMENT

In a recent patent infringement dispute ₁₈  between Generic Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (“Generic Pharma”) and Innovator Corp. (“Innovator Corp”),the Delhi High Court has drawn attention to a significant legislative lacuna within the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”), noting the absence of a clear statutory definition of “infringement”.¹ The court observed that this omission creates legal ambiguity and stands in stark contrast to other major intellectual property statutes in India, such as the Trade Marks Act, and the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Copyright Act”), which explicitly define what constitutes infringing activity. Characterizing this as a legislative gap, the Delhi High Court formally recommended that the Parliament of India consider amending the Patents Act to incorporate a clear and precise definition of infringement. Such an amendment, the Delhi High Court noted, would enhance certainty and clarity for innovators, businesses, and the judiciary in the adjudication of patent disputes. In the absence of any immediate legislative action, the court outlined a structured two-step approach for adjudicating infringement claims. First, to determine whether an act amounts to infringement, a court must conduct a detailed comparison of the defendant’s product or process with the complete specifications and claims of plaintiff’s patent. This analysis must be grounded in the exclusive rights conferred upon a patentee under Sections 48 and 49 of the Patents Act. Second, if this comparison leads to a finding of infringement, the Innovator Corp can still avoid liability. The Delhi High Court clarified that the defendant has the right to raise a “credible challenge” to the validity of the patent itself, as permitted under Section 107 of the Patents Act, which allows for a counterclaim for revocation. This framework ensures a balanced assessment, addressing both the patentee’s rights and the alleged infringer’s available defences.

DELHI HIGH COURT CLARIFIES SCOPE OF PRO TEM DEPOSIT ORDERS IN SEP LITIGATION

In the ongoing patent dispute between Dolby International AB (“Dolby”), which holds several Standard Essential Patents (“SEPs”) and Lava International Ltd. (“Lava”), who implemented them in their devices, the Delhi High Court has provided clarification on the principles governing pro tem security deposit orders. ₁₉  A pro tem deposit order is a form of temporary relief where an alleged infringer is directed to deposit a certain sum with the court during the pendency of litigation.

The Delhi High Court, relying on precedents such as Nokia Technologies v. Guangdong Oppo, ₂₀  clarified that it has the power to pass a pro tem order as a temporary arrangement without examining the merits of the case in detail at the interim stage. The Delhi High Court held that the purpose of a pro tem deposit is to strike a balance between the SEP holder’s right to secure value for the use of its technology and the implementor’s right to contest issues of validity and essentiality of SEPs. This would prevent the implementor from deriving undue benefit during protracted litigation.

It was held that a prima facie finding on essentiality and validity is sufficient to justify a pro tem deposit order, and such a finding may be based on factors like the SEP holder’s existing licensing arrangements for the same technology, enforcement of its SEPs in courts, and instances where courts have already granted them pro tem deposits. The Delhi High Court held that the implementor’s conduct during negotiations is an important consideration in determining whether such relief should be granted. It also held that the financial condition of the defendant is a crucial factor to be considered, as, if the court decides that the defendant is liable, the patent holder must be able to recover damages from them. Thus, the Delhi High Court held that pro tem orders must be granted to secure the interest of the patentee, while balancing the equities between the parties.

In the present case, the Delhi High Court found that during licensing negotiations before the suit was initiated, Lava did not question the validity of Dolby’s SEPs and was delaying negotiations. Based on a prima facie review of evidence, the Delhi High Court found Lava had infringed the SEPs and ordered them to deposit over INR 20,00,00,000 (twenty crores). Lava has appealed this order, and the next date of hearing is on November 6, 2025.  

UK HIGH COURT UPHOLDS REJECTION OF DR. THALER'S PATENT APPLICATION FOR AI-GENERATED INVENTIONS

The High Court of England & Wales (“EWHC”) upheld a decision preventing Dr. Stephen Thaler (“Dr. Thaler”) from naming himself as the inventor on patent applications for inventions he has consistently maintained were generated solely by his artificial intelligence machine (“AI”), ‘DABUS’. ₂₁  This ruling further clarifies the stringent requirement for human inventorship under the UK Patents Act, 1977 ₂₂   even as the legal landscape grapples with the rise of inventive AI. The decision follows a landmark UK Supreme Court judgment which established that an inventor must be a "natural person," thereby precluding ‘DABUS’ from being listed as the inventor on Dr. Thaler's original applications. In response, Dr. Thaler filed a subsequent divisional application, this time naming himself as the inventor in an attempt to meet the statutory requirement. However, the UK Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) rejected this revised application, a stance now affirmed by the EWHC.

The EWHC found Dr. Thaler’s new statement of inventorship to be "obviously defective." It noted the fundamental contradiction wherein Dr. Thaler’s own submissions continued to assert that DABUS was the "actual deviser" of the inventions. They noted that such an amendment stands conflicted with the legal requirement under Section 13(2) of the UK Patents Act, 1977 (“UK Patents Act”), which mandates that an applicant must identify the person or persons they believe to be the inventor. Since Dr. Thaler’s stated belief pointed to DABUS, he could not now validly name himself. EWHC further remarked that while Dr. Thaler may be a "victim of his own honesty," the UKIPO was correct to reject an application that was clearly insufficient on its face.

FIRST SOLAR AND ADANI'S MSPVL CLASH OVER SOLAR PANEL PATENT IN U.S. COURT

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware is hearing a patent infringement case filed by First Solar, Inc. (“First Solar”) against Mundra Solar PV Ltd. (“MSPVL”), a subsidiary of the Adani Group. ₂₃  The dispute concerns two U.S. patents relating to Tunnel Oxide Passivated Contact (“TOPCon”) solar-cell technology.

On April 1, 2025, First Solar issued a demand letter alleging that MSPVL’s solar cells infringed its patents. Thereafter, MSPVL filed a declaratory judgment suit seeking a ruling of non-infringement, arguing that its process omits a key heat-treatment step central to First Solar’s claims. On August 1, 2025, First Solar responded with a counterclaim, seeking damages and a jury trial.

MSPVL maintains that its manufacturing process is materially different and therefore falls outside the scope of the asserted claims. First Solar, however, argues that the similarities are sufficient to establish infringement. The proceedings are ongoing.

CTRL + COPYRIGHT

DELHI HIGH COURT HEARS INTENSE ARGUMENTS IN LANDMARK ANI V. OPENAI COPYRIGHT SUIT

The Delhi High Court  is currently adjudicating a landmark copyright infringement suit filed by Asian News International (“ANI”) against OpenAI OpCo LLC (“OpenAI”), the operator of the generative artificial intelligence (“GAI”) chatbot, “ChatGPT”. ₂₄  At the heart of the matter is the jurisprudential issue, i.e., whether large scale scraping of data, particularly news reports in this case, in order to train Large Language Models (“LLM”) tantamount to copyright infringement or not under the Copyright Act.  Since the inception of the lawsuit, various different parties have stepped in as “intervenors”, giving their respective perspective on the issue at hand. These primarily comprised the Digital News Publishers Association(“DNPA”), Federation of Indian Publishers, Indian Music Industry, think tank like Indian Governance and Policy Project (“IGAPP”) and AI start-ups like Flux Lab. Both the parties extended their respective submissions on the matter followed by the Delhi High Court hearing the arguments by the intervenors.

DNPA, specifically argued that OpenAI’s ChatGPT infringes copyright by using news content without permission. It argued that the moment a media house’s content is downloaded, its exclusive right to use and exploit that content is infringed. DNPA’s petition further noted that while OpenAI entered into licensing agreements with international media houses, it conveniently ignored the need for such licensing arrangement in India.  On the other hand, think tank like IGAP and AI firm like Flux Lab argued in favor of AI training in India, viewing them “research,” “private use,” and “review,” as per Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act. Flux Lab also stressed that requiring AI companies to pay licensing fees for publicly available data from the internet would have economic consequences too. The matter is currently ongoing with the Delhi High Court hearing remaining arguments from the intervenors.

SUPREME COURT GRANTS INTERIM RELIEF TO SUJOY GHOSH IN KAHAANI 2 COPYRIGHT DISPUTE

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) is hearing filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh’s (“Ghosh”) challenge to a Jharkhand High Court ruling that had declined to quash criminal proceedings against him under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, ₂₅  which penalizes copyright infringement with imprisonment and fine, and the Jharkhand High Court’s refusal to interfere left Ghosh facing trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.

The criminal complaint was filed by Umesh Prasad Mehta (“Mehta”), who alleged that Ghosh’s 2016 film “Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh” was substantially copied from his unpublished script “Sabak,” shared with Ghosh in 2015. In response, Ghosh denied the allegations, asserting that the film’s script had been registered with the Screenwriters Association in 2013, well before Mehta’s claim, and therefore the complaint was baseless. He further argued that forcing him to appear before the trial court amounted to harassment and misuse of criminal process in a civil dispute.

On July 2, 2025, the Supreme Court issued notice in Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand, ₂₆  and granted interim relief by dispensing with Ghosh’s personal appearance before the trial court. It also directed the filing of a counter-affidavit within two weeks. At the subsequent hearing held on July 29, 2025, the Supreme Court fixed September 16, 2025, as the next date of hearing and directed that the matter be listed for final disposal on that date.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT GRANTS AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION TO SONU NIGAM

In the case, Sonu Nigam v. Sonu Nigam Singh & Ors, ₂₇  the Bombay High Court restrained Bihar-based lawyer Sonu Nigam Singh (“Singh”) from using the display name “Sonu Nigam” on his account on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), while granting ad-interim relief to Bollywood playback singer Sonu Nigam (“Nigam”).

Earlier, Nigam had approached the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction against Singh, who was operating an account on X under the name “Sonu Nigam” and posting controversial comments on political and cultural issues. This resulted in confusion among the public with several users, mistaking the account for Nigam’s, directed abuse and criticism toward him. Nigam argued that the unauthorized use of his name misled the public, tarnished his reputation, and amounted to passing off. ₂₈

Justice Riyaz Chagla observed that Nigam, being a renowned singer with celebrity status and considerable goodwill, had acquired distinctiveness in his personal name, which qualifies for protection as a trade mark. The Bombay High Court further held that Singh’s conduct was prima facie dishonest and mala fide, since he chose not to clarify that he was different from Nigam and allowed users to remain under the misconception. Accordingly, the Bombay High Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining Singh from using the display name “Sonu Nigam” on X, while permitting him to use his full name “Sonu Nigam Singh” to avoid confusion. The Bombay High Court concluded that Nigam had made out a strong prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay in his favour, and that irreparable harm would be caused if relief was denied.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT RULES THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT IN FILM TITLES

The Bombay High Court dismissed an application for interim injunction filed by a proprietor of Shree Krishna International ("SKI"), holding that copyright does not subsist in the title of a film. ₂₉  The Bombay High Courtclarified that no actionable claim lies due to mere similarity in title. The Bombay High Courtheld that copyright protects a cinematographic film and its underlying literary work. However, a title alone does not constitute a “work” under Sections 2(y) and 13 of the Copyright Act. ₃₀

SKI, engaged in film production, had produced and released the Hindi feature film “LOOTERE” in 1993. SKI also obtained separate registrations for the title with the Western India Film Producers Association (“Producers’ Association”) across feature films, TV serials, web series, and web films. In September 2022, SKI discovered a trailer for a web series entitled “LOOTERE” on the over-the-top platform then known as Disney Hotstar, produced by Star India Pvt. Ltd. ("Star India"), and issued a legal notice seeking to restrain them from using the title. When the web series was released in March 2024, SKI sought to restrain production, release, and exploitation of the title.

SKI argued that it had registered the title with the Producers’ Association, which conferred exclusive rights on them and that no other producer could use the title without permission. The Bombay High Court noted that such registration does not create statutory rights, and violations of the same can only lead to contractual remedies. Moreover, it found that Star India was not a member of the Producers’ Association. The Bombay High Court also found that the title “LOOTERE” was a common term describing robbers and lacks originality. The Bombay High Court held that copyright subsists in the film and the underlying literary work, not the title alone. Since the web series’ story differed from SKI’s film, no copyright infringement occurred. Accordingly, the application for interim injunction was dismissed.

AUSTRALIAN COMMISSION PROPOSES TDM EXCEPTION TO COPYRIGHT LAW FOR AI DEVELOPMENT

The Australian Productivity Commission (“Commission”) has released a contentious interim report proposing the introduction of a broad “fair use” exception for text and data mining (“TDM”) into Australia’s Copyright Act, 1968. ₃₁  The proposed amendment is aimed at accelerating the development and adoption of AI by allowing copyrighted materials to be used for training AI models and for data analysis without the need for a license.

The Commission’s report highlights the potential economic benefits of a TDM exception, arguing it could spur innovation and enhance Australia's competitiveness in the global AI landscape. However, the proposal has been met with significant concern from various stakeholders. Creators and rights holders have voiced strong opposition, fearing that such an exception would devalue their work and create an imbalance in the copyright system.

The Commission has acknowledged specific concerns raised by Indigenous communities regarding the protection of Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property . Critics argue that a broad TDM exception could risk the unauthorized appropriation of culturally sensitive materials and exacerbate issues of digital piracy.

The Commission’s report also explores alternative pathways to manage the use of copyrighted content in AI, including enhanced licensing frameworks and stronger post-use enforcement mechanisms. The Commission is now seeking public feedback on the fairness criteria and scope of the proposed exception to assess its potential impact on AI innovation in Australia.

MEXICAN SUPREME COURT RULES AI-GENERATED WORKS ARE INELIGIBLE FOR COPYRIGHT PROTECTION

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in Mexico, held that works generated exclusively by AI cannot be protected under Mexico’s Federal Copyright Law ₃₂  (“LFDA”), as authorship is reserved for humans. ₃₃

The court observed that copyright is a human right deriving from creativity, intellect, feelings and experiences, and that originality requires a human author. Automated systems, lacking qualities of creativity, individuality and moral rights, cannot be considered authors under the LFDA. The ruling clarifies that protections granted to human creators cannot be extended to AI, given their inherently different characteristics.

The case arose from an application filed with the Copyright National Institute (“INDAUTOR”) for registration of an AI-generated avatar, “Virtual Avatar: Gerald García Báez,” created using the software “Leonardo”. INDAUTOR denied registration on the ground that originality must flow from human creation. The applicant contested the refusal, arguing that limiting copyright to humans violated principles of equality, human rights, and international obligations under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no obligation under international treaties to extend authorship to AI. It upheld that the LFDA’s originality requirement, tied to human creativity, was objective, reasonable, and compatible with constitutional and treaty provisions. Importantly, the court clarified that works created in collaboration with AI may still be eligible for registration, provided there is demonstrable human contribution in directing, editing, or transforming the AI-generated material to imbue it with originality.

This decision establishes a clear precedent in Mexico, distinguishing between human-led creativity and autonomous AI outputs, and provides guidance for future copyright registrations involving AI-assisted works.

ANTHROPIC BECOMES FIRST AI COMPANY TO SETTLE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT

AI company Anthropic PBC (“Anthropic”) has reached a settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed by a group of authors (“Authors”) in the United States, marking the first such resolution in the ongoing wave of copyright litigation against AI developers. ₃₄  Anthropic has filed a motion for preliminary approval of settlement, which is yet to be accepted by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (“District Court”). Anthropic proposes to pay at least USD 1.5 billion, along with interest. This would result in authors receiving around USD 3000 (three thousand) per infringed work.

The dispute arose when the Authors alleged that Anthropic had engaged in large-scale copyright infringement by using several published works of the Authors to train its LLM including its well-known AI assistant, Claude, without obtaining permission or providing compensation. It was further alleged that Anthropic had incorporated pirated copies of the Authors’ books into its training library. The District Court held that Anthropic training its LLM on lawfully purchased books was transformative and amounted to fair use, whereas the use of pirated copies constituted infringement. It further held that that digitizing books that were legitimately purchased was permissible, but doing so with pirated works was not.

Earlier, the District Court had some reservations about the settlement, expressing doubts about potentially pressuring authors into agreement. The District Court had directed the parties to prepare a claim form enabling the plaintiffs to opt into the settlement, and clarified that those who choose not to opt in would not be bound by its terms. However, the Authors have supported Anthropic’s motion for preliminary approval of settlement, which is currently pending before the District Court.

GI - LOCALLY SOURCED, GLOBALLY FOUGHT!

BOMBAY HIGH COURT DISMISSES PIL AGAINST PRADA OVER ALLEGED IMITATION OF KOLHAPURI CHAPPALS

The Bombay High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (“PIL”) filed against fashion brand PRADA S.p.A. (“PRADA”) for alleged unauthorised use of the registered Geographical Indication (“GI”) in “Kolhapuri Chappals”. ₃₅

The petitioners, a group of advocates, argued that PRADA’s “toe ring sandals” showcased at its spring/summer collection in Milan closely resembled Kolhapuri Chappals, and that the company was exploiting the 800 (eight hundred) year old traditional craft without authorisation. They contended that the misuse violated Section 22 of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (“GI Act”), ₃₆  and would cause significant harm to artisans and producers in the Kolhapur region.

The court held that statutory rights under the GI Act must be enforced by the registered proprietors themselves and not through PILs under Article 226 of the Constitution ₃₇ . The court noted that the Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd. (a Maharashtra government undertaking) and the Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (a Karnataka government undertaking) are the registered proprietors of the Kolhapuri Chappal GI. Both organisations, being state-backed corporations established for the welfare of leather artisans, were well-equipped to bring civil infringement actions if they believed PRADA was using the GI without authorisation.

The court further observed that disputed questions of fact, such as similarity between PRADA’s sandals and the Kolhapuri GI product, required evidence and could not be decided in writ proceedings. The court therefore dismissed the petition, while clarifying that the registered proprietors remain free to take action against PRADA under the GI Act.

MEGHALAYA’S RYNDIA & KHASI HANDLOOM AWARDED GI TAGS

The Geographical Indications Registry under the Indian Intellectual Property Office has granted GI registrations for two Meghalaya textile traditions. ₃₈  Meghalaya Ryndia Textile and Meghalaya Khasi Handloom Products have been granted statutory protection under the GI Act.

The Meghalaya Ryndia Producers Association, with the help of the Department of Textiles and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, secured the GI recognitions. Ryndia is an organically produced handwoven silk that made of natural dyes derived from plants. Meghalaya Ryndia Textile has been granted registrations for products like yarns, textiles, lace and clothing in Classes 23, 24, 25 & 26. The Khasi region in Meghalaya is known for hand spun silk yarn called ‘Eri’, which is produced in traditional colours. ₃₉  Meghalaya Khasi Handloom Products have been granted registrations for products like textile, clothing, and embroidery in Classes 24, 25 & 26.

As per Section 18 of the GI Act, once registered, the GI is valid for ten years from the date of registration and can be renewed thereafter. The GI recognitions are expected to enhance market visibility and price realisation for local weavers, strengthen enforcement against misappropriation, and support sustainable livelihoods for Meghalaya’s artisan communities.

DELHI HIGH COURT MODIFIES GI PISCO REGISTRATION TO INCLUDE GEOGRAPHICAL IDENTIFIER

The Delhi High Court, in Asociación de Productores de Pisco v. Union of India, ₄₀  has modified the GI registration for pisco to require the prefix “Peruvian” so that the term “Peruvian Pisco” is used in place of an unqualified “Pisco”.

An association of producers of the alcoholic beverage “Chilean Pisco” (“Chile Producers”) challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s (“IPAB”) earlier decision granting GI “Peruvian PISCO” exclusively to the Embassy of Peru (“Peru”), for Peru’s PISCO, under the GI Act. The Delhi High Court observed that Chile has long and continuous historical use of “Pisco” for its own beverage, recognized internationally through Free Trade Agreements and other documents, which indicate that “Pisco” is used by both countries. ₄₁

The Delhi High Court held that the IPAB erred in granting exclusive rights to the term “Pisco” in favour of Peru without any geographic identifiers. It was observed that Section 9 of the GI Act prohibits the registration of a GI that, while literally true as to origin, falsely suggests that a product originates from a different place. It found that permitting the use of “Pisco” in isolation would likely mislead consumers and cause confusion regarding the product’s true origin. The Delhi High Court further noted that “Pisco” qualifies as a homonymous GI, thereby necessitating the use of geographic qualifiers to distinguish between the products of Peru and Chile. This interpretation aligns with prior decisions of the GI Registry to grant registrations with geographical qualifiers such as Banglar Rasogolla ₄₂  and Odisha Rasagola, ₄₃  which emphasized the need for differentiation in cases involving overlapping geographical indications. Accordingly, the Delhi High Court directed that the GI registration for Peru be modified to “Peruvian PISCO”, thereby allowing both Chile and Peru to retain rights over their respective “PISCO” products, subject to clear geographic prefixes to avoid consumer deception.

DESIGNS THAT DEFINE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT GRANTS INTERIM INJUNCTION TO TRAVEL BLUE IN DESIGN PIRACY DISPUTE

The Bombay High Court  granted interim relief to Travel Blue Products India Private Limited (“Travel Blue”) and its parent company, Travel Blue Limited (“Travel Blue UK”), in a design infringement and passing off suit filed against Miniso Lifestyle Private Limited and Miniso Hong Kong Limited (together, “Miniso”). ₄₄  The Travel Bluealleged piracy of their registered design for the “Tranquility Neck Pillow”, which has been sold in India since 2001 and was registered under the Designs Act, 2000 ₄₅  (“Designs Act”) in 2016, with copyright extended until 2030.

Travel Blue argued that Miniso’s neck pillows were visually identical to its registered design, replicating the shape, configuration, and even the color palette of blue, grey, purple, and pink. It was contended that this imitation amounted to design piracy and misrepresentation, causing injury to their goodwill and reputation. Miniso countered the allegations by arguing that the design was functional and incapable of registration, while also citing prior art.

The Bombay High Court rejected Miniso’s defense observing that functionality did not preclude protection under the Designs Act if the design also had aesthetic appeal. It relied on the jurisprudence in Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd., ₄₆  to emphasize that the test for design protection is whether the product’s visual elements go beyond mere utility. The Bombay High Courtnoted the substantial similarity between the rival products, finding Miniso’s adoption dishonest and likely to confuse consumers. Accordingly, the Bombay High Courtrestrained Miniso from manufacturing, selling, or listing the infringing products in retail stores and on e-commerce platforms.