What Indian Courts Are Getting Wrong About Personality Rights? – A post analysing the recent Delhi HC order in Sadhguru and Ankur Warikoo. Post on the Delhi HC’s increases coverage via a ‘superlative injunction’. The long awaited Pandemic Treaty is finally here but will it be able to overcome the challenges it originally aimed to resolve? This and much more in our weekly roundup of our blog posts, case summaries, and top IP developments in the country and the world. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
The Summer of the Superlative Injunction
Online piracy in the digital age has taken different forms of dissemination and to tackle this — the Delhi HC in Star India v IPTV has granted a ‘superlative injunction’ which increases coverage of the injunction and reduces judicial oversight. Arnav Kaman dives deep into the order and its implications.
The Delhi HC’s recent orders in Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev and Ankur Warikoo cases reveal a troubling pattern — one that relies on vague doctrine, grants overboard relief and showcases an underdeveloped understanding of personality rights violation. Anureet Kaur highlights the lack of a principled framework for assessing personality rights by Indian Courts.
Other Posts
Ministry of Commerce Proposes Mandatory Online Payment of License Fees
The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has on June 4th, 2025 released a draft notification proposing amendments to the Copyright Rules, 2013. The amendment introduces Rule 83(A) mandating an online payment system for copyright licenses for literary work, musical work, and sound recordings. Riddhi Bhutada writes on the implication of the amendment.
Preparedness Without Power? Analysing IP and Access in the WHO Pandemic Agreement
It’s finally here — After three years of negotiations, the WHO was finally able to come up with a final version of the Pandemic Agreement last month. After 13 meetings held by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), the treaty still falls short of its desired goals. Riddhi Bhutada looks at the key provisions of the Agreement and highlights its shortcomings.
Case Summaries
The plaintiff, owner of the fashion magazine ‘VOGUE’, filed a suit seeking relief for trademark infringement, passing off, and related remedies against the defendants for using the mark ‘LINEN VOGUE La Classe’ and domain name ‘http://www.linenvogue.com’. The plaintiff argued that such use confuses consumers and harms the reputation of its well-known mark. The defendants claimed that ‘VOGUE’ is a common word and their mark was different and used only for fabrics. The Court held that the plaintiff’s mark had a strong reputation and the defendants use was likely to mislead consumers, thus granting a permanent injunction and direction of withdrawal of the impugned trademark and domain name.
The appeals were filed challenging the two orders of the Commercial Court that had granted and then confirmed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the appellant. The respondent, a company using the ‘NEWGEN’ trademark since 1992, alleged that the appellant’s use of the name ‘Newgen IT Technologies Ltd’ infringed its mark. The appellant argued that it had used ‘NEWGEN IT’ internationally since 2017, had entered into a partnership with the respondent, and was using the name with its knowledge. The Court held that the names were confusingly similar and the injunction was justified. The Court dismissed the appeals, finding no arbitrariness in the lower court’s decision.
Rspl Health Pvt. Ltd vs Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited & Anr on 12 June, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
An appeal was filed by the appellant against an order of the Commercial Court rejecting its request for interim injunction against the respondent’s use of the mark “PRUEASE”, claiming it was deceptively similar to its registered mark “PRO-EASE”. The appellant argued the likelihood of confusion and possible expansion into pharmaceuticals. The Court held that the goods- sanitary products and constipation medicines, were not similar as the trade channels were distinct and no confusion was likely. The appeal was dismissed as the court found the respondent’s adoption of the mark bona fide.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking an injunction against the defendants for using the mark “NEUDE” for cosmetic products claiming it was deceptively similar to its own mark “NEUD”. The plaintiff asserted prior adoption and use since 2016 and submitted evidence of continuous sales and promotion. The defendants argued that they held valid trademark registrations and denied any similarity. The Court held that both marks were phonetically and visually similar, targeted the same audience, and operated in the same product category. The Court granted an injunction finding a prima facie case of passing off, while allowing the defendants limited time to exhaust existing stock.
Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private … vs Deepak Kumar Barnwal on 9 June, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
A summary judgment application was filed by the petitioner alleging trademark and copyright infringement over the mark “Swastik Brand” used for selling rice. The Court noted that the petitioner’s trademark registration carried a disclaimer denying exclusive rights over the word “Swastik” and other descriptive matters. Since this disclaimer was not disclosed in the application or pleadings, the Court held it amounted to material suppression. The Court dismissed the application, finding abuse of process.
The Plaintiff filed a suit for an injunction and damages for alleged infringement of trademark “SAFI”, a medicinal product. They alleged that the defendant was selling products with the impugned trademark of “SAIFI” on e-commerce platforms, which was deceptively similar to the registered trademark SAFI and utilised a deceptively similar trade dress. The Defendants argued that they were bona fide users and only used it to sell free samples and did not use it to make illegal profits. The Court found there to be trademark infringement, and a decree of injunction was granted, but since there were no illegal profits, the damages were valued only for loss of reputation and goodwill.
Shiv Balak Goswami vs Pankaj Puri on 6 June, 2025(Delhi District Court)
The Plaintiff had filed a suit for trademark infringement in a Commercial court but during final arguments the issue of valuation was brought up which was not earlier considered. Under Section 2(1)(i) of Commercial Court Act, commercial courts can entertain commercial disputes which are of the valuation not less than 3 lakh Rupees and any plaint valued lower must be heard at the district court (non-commercial). In the present case, the plaintiff had not sought damages but only rendition of accounts which was valued at much below 3 lakhs. Thus, the Court held that it did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present case and the plaint was returned for filing before the appropriate court.
The appellant had filed a patent application titled ‘Novel Forms of CDDO Methyl Ester’ which was rejected on ground of not being patentable under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act 1970. The appellant contended that the therapeutic efficacy was estimated by stand measure. The appellant claimed that there were no reasons provided for rejecting the application. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Controller.
SML Limited vs Mohan & Company & Anr. on 6 June, 2025 (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking injunction to restrain defendants from infringing the patent owned by the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims to be the owner of a patent for agricultural composition. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants’ product “Aladdin” infringes Claims 11 and 12 of the suit patent. The Court confirmed the ex parte ad interim injunction granted on 24.07.2023 in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from infringing the patent rights. The matter is listed for framing of issues and further proceedings on 10.7.2025.
TikTok Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai & Anr. on 10 June, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The petitioner by this petition challenged the order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, refusing an application filed by the petitioner for inclusion of its registered trade mark TikTok in the list of well known marks. The petitioner argued that banning of an application, which is necessarily a transient situation, cannot be the basis for refusing such an application for inclusion in the list of well known marks. The Court noted that the factors included in Section 11(6) are not exhaustive in nature and that the Registrar can take into account “any fact which he considers relevant for determining a trade mark as a well known trade mark”. Dismissing the petition, the Court opined that the banning of the application by the Government of India, while exercising power under the Information Technology Act and Rules, is indeed a relevant fact taken into consideration by the Registrar.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
(Thanks to Anureet, Arnav, and Riddhi for the case summaries.)