Starting off the week with a huge development – Delhi HC orders Sci-Hub to be completely blocked in India! When is ‘Imminent Infringement’ imminent? A post on the question of imminent infringement determination. Are Pre-Digital Era Copyright Assignments Valid for Today’s Modern Tech Platforms? A post discussing the position in the Indian Copyright Act on assignments. This and a lot more on last week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Sci-Hub now Completely Blocked in India!
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court declared the shadow library Sci-Hub, its mirror websites and related website (Sci-net) as rogue and issued a blocking order against them. Check out this post by Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan for more details.
Imminent Infringement: How far can you go?
Imminent infringement is a strange beast; it allows a patentee to seek a preliminary injunction even before the act of infringement takes place. In this new post, Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan unpacks the recent Court of Appeal ruling in Boehringer Ingelheim v. Zentiva, examining what type of factual scenarios can set off an imminent infringement claim. The post also explores India’s own version of imminent infringement, i.e. Quia timet actions and the knotty factual question of determining when infringement is “imminent”.
Domain Name Ring-Fencing: Evaluation of Madras HC’s new pre-emptive twist to dynamic injunctions
Madras HC in Galaxy Health Insurance v Hostinger Operations UAB passed three orders with the second and final order being dynamic injunction directions. The final order restricted the DNR from putting up for sale or registering any domain name comprising the applicant’s business or any name phonetically similar to it, if the concerned applicant has an Indian business address. Kartik Sharma and Aditya Singh discuss the reasoning employed in the three orders and argue for the provision of such a pre-emptive remedy in a restricted set of situations.
#/media/File:Talaash_'69.jpg){kind=link}
The Bombay HC in Rupali Shah v. Adani Wilmer held that if the language of the original agreement between the parties doesn’t contain any express provisions limiting exploitation in modern platforms, then it remains valid for future digital use. Arjun Ishaan discusses the position in the Indian Copyright Act on assignments and suggests policy amendments that may grant creators limited rights to renegotiate legacy contracts.
Can Purely Religious Terms be Trademarked? The Curious Case of ‘Shree Jagannath Dham’
An IP conflict has arisen after the newly inaugurated Digha Jagannath temple was named ‘Jagannath Dham’. The primary dispute is centered on whether the naming of the Digha Temple has ‘infringed’ upon the Puri Temple. Meanwhile, the Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee is attempting to trademark terms like Shree Jagannath Dham, Srimandir, Mahaprasad, Nilachal Dham and Bada Danda,. Subhalaxmi Mukherjee writes on incorrect reporting on the issue and whether these terms can be protected as IPs.
Other Posts
Bodhisattva v. Mayo: The DHC’s take on Trademark Infringement and the Missing Injunction Tests
The DHC DB upheld the Single Judge’s findings in the dispute over the mark “MAYO” in Bodhisattva Charitable Trust v Mayo Foundation. The Court concluded that the MAYO Clinic’s prior registration trumped over the appellant’s claim of prior use. Srishti Gaur breaks down the decision on prior use and registration of a trademark and explains where the order falters with regard to assessing the three factors of interim injunction.
Deja Vu on Section 59? Delhi HC Allows Amendment in Albemarle, But Do the Precedents Hold Up?
In what seems to be a pattern of remanding back to the Patent Office – the Delhi HC in Albemarle Corporation v The Controller of Patents, the Court set aside the Controller’s refusal of a patent for a “solvent system” for dissolving polyurethane foam. The applicant had narrowed its application to cover only the process of using that system. Shailraj Jhalnia writes on the judgment, comparing the judicial interpretation of Section 59 with the statute’s “express mandate” towards claim amendments.
Case Summaries
Glaxo Group Limited vs Aubade Healthcare Private Limited And … on 14 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, GSK, filed a suit against the defendant seeking a permanent injunction for passing off its trademark. GSK sells ZENTEL, an anti-parasitic drug, which has India-wide recognition since 1986. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s hypertension drug, RENTEL, for which registration was sought in 2022, is phonetically similar to ZENTEL. Since both these drugs are sold without prescription it can easily lead to consumer confusion, causing health risks. The Court firstly, allowed GSK an exemption from pre-litigation mediation on the account of urgency of the matter. Then, taking cognizance of safety risks in such pharmaceutical matters, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction as the plaintiff established a prima facie case of trademark infringement, with the balance of convenience in its favour, and that it will face irreparable harm if the defendant continued selling their drug. The Court noted that the defendant will be allowed a chance to reply later.
Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A vs Maschio Crop Protection LLP on 14 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, Maschio Gaspardo SPA, argued that its well-known trademark “MASCHIO”, which has been in use since 1964 and in India since 1988, has been misappropriated by the defendant operating under the name ‘Maschio Crop Protection LLP’. Acting in bad faith, the defendant even employed “ITALIAN” to connote a link to the plaintiff’s company. A cease-and-desist notice was sent to the defendant which was ignored. The similarity in the marks, the plaintiff contended, will cause consumer confusion and thus, resulting in irreparable harm to its business. The Court exempted the pre-litigation mediation in this case and ultimately, upon consideration, held in favour of the plaintiff – granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendant from selling, manufacturing, or advertising any goods under the mark “MASCHIO”. A notice has been issued to the defendant to respond.
The plaintiffs, related to Premji Invest group, own the mark “PREMJI INVEST” and operate a website at premjiinvest.com. The unidentified defendants allegedly registered fake domains, including premjiex.com and pladadgoogle.org, and created fake mobile applications with the name “PREMJIEX”, and subsequently, solicited investments from the public under the guise of being Premji Invest. The Court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, noting that defendants’ act harms the reputation of the plaintiff and also endangers the public. Thereby, the DHC granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favour of Premji Invest to restrain the existing websites, domain names, mobile apps using the mark “PREMJI” or “PREMJI Invest”. It further issued a dynamic injunction against other such infringing platforms created in future – the plaintiff can directly notify the Department of Telecommunications, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Google, ISPs, and domain registrars and they are directed to act within 24 hours of notification.
The Calcutta High Court, in Metravi Instruments Pvt. Ltd. v. K K & Ors., granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from manufacturing or selling counterfeit goods under the registered trademark METRAVI. The Court noted that the petitioner established a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement, with a balance of convenience in its favour and likelihood of irreparable injury. The order, also covering online sales, remains in force until 8 September 2025.
Bikaner Sweets Corner vs Balaji Corner & Ors on 19 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court held that Bikaner Sweets Corner, with established goodwill since 1982 and continuous use in Paharganj since 2006, was the prior user of the mark “BIKANER SWEET CORNER.” The defendants’ adoption of the identical name, signage, and trade dress for a nearby outlet was found malafide and likely to confuse. The Court granted an interim injunction restraining them from using the mark or similar branding, while allowing the defendant’s Kamla Nagar outlet to continue.
The producer of the 1993 film Lootere sought to restrain Star India from releasing a web series of the same title. The Bombay High Court held that film titles are not copyrightable works, association registrations create no enforceable rights, and the web series’ theme was distinct. Finding no prima facie case or irreparable harm, the Court dismissed the injunction application.
Castrol Limited vs Sanjay Sonavane And Anr on 19 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Castrol Limited, against the defendants, restraining them from issuing “groundless threats” of legal proceedings. Castrol, a leading lubricant company, sued the defendants under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 60 of the Copyright Act, alleging that the defendants were falsely claiming trademark and copyright infringement of their “3P Marks” against Castrol’s use of “3X Marks.” The Court found that the defendants’ actions constituted groundless threats, as a preliminary comparison showed the marks were “wholly dissimilar” and the defendants could not claim exclusive rights over the numeral “3.”
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to the plaintiff, Ymi Ghar Soaps Private Limited, against various identified and unidentified defendants for trademark and copyright infringement. The plaintiff, a Direct-to-Consumer business, argued that a number of “John Doe” defendants were selling counterfeit soaps on e-commerce platforms, using deceptively similar names, packaging, and branding that mimicked the plaintiff’s “GHAR SOAPS” brand. The Court found that the plaintiff had established substantial goodwill and reputation, and that the counterfeit products would inevitably cause confusion for consumers. The Court restrained the infringing sellers from using the plaintiff’s trademarks and unique packaging and directed the e-commerce platforms to immediately block or suspend the specified infringing listings.
Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Chacha Cloth House on 19 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court stayed a lower court’s decision that had vacated an interim injunction against the respondent. The appellants, Chacha Saree Bazar, who own several registered trademarks incorporating the word “CHACHA,” are in the business of selling sarees and other clothing. They had obtained an ex-parte interim injunction against the respondent, who was using the name “CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE” for similar goods. The Court questioned whether “CHACHA” could be considered a common word in the context of sarees and cloth material. Given that the appellants had previously enjoyed an injunction, the High Court concluded that the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable harm favored the appellants. As a result, the court stayed the impugned order, reinstated the interim injunction, and scheduled the case for further proceedings.
Sushil Kumar T/A Da Polo & Anr vs The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P on 22 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging a lower court’s refusal to reject a trademark infringement suit for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that the petitioners’ use of an interactive website and their presence on e-commerce platforms constituted “purposeful availment” of the court’s jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that a virtual presence, through which commercial transactions can be conducted, is equivalent to a physical presence, thereby establishing a valid cause of action. The court found no legal infirmity in the lower court’s order.
Archian Foods Private Limited vs M/S Balaji Foods And Beverages & Anr on 8 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction and awarded damages to the plaintiff, a beverage company with trademarks including ‘LAHORI ZEERA’. The plaintiff, Archian Foods, sued the defendants for selling products with a deceptively similar mark, ‘LAHOR ZEERA’, and an imitative trade dress. The defendants failed to appear despite being served summons, leading the court to proceed ex-parte and close their right to file a written statement. Citing a prior injunction and a local commissioner’s report that confirmed infringing activity, the court concluded that the defendants had no valid defense. The court issued a permanent injunction, preventing the defendants from using the infringing mark, and awarded the plaintiff nominal damages of ₹50,000 to deter future illegal activity.
Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Paciencia Consumer Goods Pvt Ltd on 12 August, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court confirmed its previous ad-interim injunction and granted a temporary injunction against the defendant for trademark passing off. The plaintiff, Hindustan Unilever Limited, is the owner of the well-known “SURF EXCEL” brand of detergent. The court had previously found that the defendant’s packaging and trade dress were a substantial reproduction of the plaintiff’s artistic work, infringing on its copyright. Despite being served with the court proceedings, the defendant failed to appear. The Court concluded that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given its long-standing use, significant sales, and the clear similarity between the two product designs.
Puma Se vs Ashok Kumar on 23 July, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
A Delhi District Court in Puma SE v. Adamsha & Anr., granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using counterfeit PUMA trademarks, logos, and trade dress. Proceeding ex parte, the Court relied on the Local Commissioner’s report to hold that the defendants were passing off and infringing PUMA’s well-known brand. The defendants were restrained from further infringement, and delivery up of infringing goods was ordered.
Lenskart Solutions Limited vs Mr. Chetan Govind Vhand on 8 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark “Lenscut” and copying Lenskart’s store layout, signage, and trade dress. The Court held that a strong prima facie case, a balance of convenience, and irreparable harm were established. A Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect and seize infringing goods at the defendant’s outlets in Pune.
Star India Pvt Ltd & Anr vs Serialghar.Me & Ors on 6 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit for permanent injunction against over a thousand rogue websites illegally streaming Star and Disney+ Hotstar content. The Court held that the defendants’ conduct amounted to deliberate infringement of copyright and broadcast rights, causing irreparable harm and revenue loss. Since the defendants failed to contest, the Hon’ble Court invoked Order VIII Rule 10 CPC and permanently restrained them, with the interim blocking orders merging into the final decree.
Wellversed Health Private Limited vs Ashok Kumar (John Doe) on 25 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court in Wellversed Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar (John Doe) granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing and selling counterfeit nutritional supplements under WELLVERSED and WELLCORE. The Court found a strong prima facie case of trademark and copyright infringement, held that the trade dress was deceptively similar, and appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing goods and preserve evidence.
New Balance Athletics Inc vs Madhu Gopal Goel And Ors on 23 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court in New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Madhu Gopal Goel & Ors., granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing and selling footwear bearing the marks “N” and “NB”, deceptively similar to New Balance’s registered and well-known trademarks. The Court found a strong prima facie case of infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. A Local Commissioner was appointed to search, seize, and inventory infringing goods at the defendants’ premises in Narela, Delhi.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v. Aaeris Lifecare Pvt Ltd & Ors., on 30 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court dealt with a trademark infringement suit filed by the Plaintiff under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking injunction against the Defendants for using the deceptively similar marks “AAERIS” and “REMYFIT-D” to its registered trademarks “ERIS” and “REMYLIN-D.” The Court allowed the Plaintiff’s applications for filing additional documents, extension of time for court fees, and exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service of summons. After considering the Plaintiff’s prior adoption and statutory rights over the trademarks since 2007 and the striking similarity in the Defendants’ marks, trade-dress, and pharmaceutical composition, the Court found a strong prima facie case of infringement and passing off. Observing that such imitation in pharmaceuticals could jeopardize public health, it granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, or advertising products under the impugned marks, and appointed Local Commissioners to inspect the Defendants’ premises to secure evidence of infringement. The matter is listed before the Joint Registrar on 01.09.2025 and before the Court on 15.12.2025.
Yatra Online Limited vs Mach Conferences And Events Limited on 22 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, dismissed the application by Yatra Online Limited (the Plaintiff) for a permanent injunction against Mach Conferences and Events Limited (the Defendant). The Plaintiff had sought to restrain the Defendant from using the marks ‘BOOKMYYATRA’ and ‘BOOKMYYATRA.COM’ for its travel-related services, alleging trademark infringement and passing off of its well-known ‘YATRA’ and ‘YATRA.COM’ marks. The Court held that the word ‘YATRA’ is a generic and descriptive Hindi term for ‘travel’ and could not be monopolized by the Plaintiff, a fact underscored by the disclaimer (“No exclusive right for the word YATRA”) on the Plaintiff’s own device mark registrations. The Court found that the Defendant’s composite marks, viewed as a whole with the prefix ‘BookMy’, were distinct and not deceptively similar, and that the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that ‘YATRA’ had acquired a secondary meaning exclusively associated with its business. Consequently, the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in December 2024 was vacated.
Mohd Nasir vs M/S Tldl Manufacturing Company on 20 August, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
In a judgment delivered by Commercial Court in Rohini, Delhi, the Court granted a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Mohd. Nasir (trading as Unique Trading Company), and against the defendant, M/s TLDL Manufacturing Co. The plaintiff successfully alleged that the defendant had infringed upon its registered trademarks and copyrights for cleaning products by using deceptively similar marks such as ‘KITTY’ (vs. plaintiff’s ‘KITY’) and labels that copied the distinctive style, design, and color schemes of the plaintiff’s ‘UNIQUE-2000’ and other proprietary labels. The Court held that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, particularly as it had failed to file an affidavit admitting or denying the plaintiff’s documents, which were therefore deemed admitted. Relying on the report of a court-appointed Local Commissioner who found infringing goods at the defendant’s premises, the Court passed a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks. It also awarded the plaintiff ₹3,00,000 in damages for loss of sales and reputation and ₹50,000 in costs.
The Delhi High Court, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Mankind Pharma Limited, and against the defendants, Nectar Biopharma Private Limited and DM Pharma Private Limited. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were infringing its registered trademark and copyright for the distinctive pink-and-white trade dress of its emergency contraceptive pill, “UNWANTED-72,” by selling an identical product under the deceptively similar mark “MISTAKE-72.” The Court found the defendant’s packaging to be nearly indistinguishable, noting identical elements such as the shape, color scheme (pink and white), the numeral “72” on a blue background, a female figurine, and the placement of the corporate name. Holding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or advertising the infringing product. Furthermore, the court appointed two Local Commissioners to seize the infringing goods from the defendants’ premises in Mumbai and Himachal Pradesh to preserve evidence and ensure compliance with the injunction.
Itc Limited vs Interstellar Testing Centre Pvt. Ltd on 21 August, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court addressed an application for the revocation of a dispensation from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The suit, filed by ITC for trademark infringement and passing off, claimed that the company became aware of the defendant’s use of the mark “ITC LABS” only in 2022. The defendant, however, presented evidence of their use of the mark for over 30 years and pointed to previous business dealings with the plaintiff dating back to 2011. The court found that the plaintiff’s claim of recent knowledge was a “camouflaged, misleading and distorted” statement, and that the company had suppressed material facts about its prior dealings with the defendant.
Champion Project Enterprises & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. on 22 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing compensation of ₹4,28,53,58,300/- for alleged infringement of their copyright in the “SPAN (Student Permanent Account Number)” project, which they claimed had been unlawfully adopted by the Government in the form of the “APAAR ID Project (Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry)”. The Petitioners argued that they had conceived SPAN in 1993, shared its details with the Government in 2017, and had filed for copyright registration in 2023. They alleged that APAAR ID, launched in 2024, was identical to their project and constituted copyright infringement. The Court, however, held that there was no evidence proving that details of SPAN were ever shared with the Government in 2017 or that APAAR ID was based on the Petitioners’ work. It also noted that when APAAR ID was launched, the Petitioners’ copyright application was still under objection before the Registrar. Concluding that no infringement or copying of SPAN by the Government was established, the Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit and disposed of the pending applications.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Aali, Bhavya, Himanshu, and Srishti for the case summaries)