The SpicyIP Summer School Application deadline has been extended, and a few slots have been opened to those who may have graduated before 2023 as well, and who are looking to get into (or back into) the field of IP and would like to participate in this cohort! A post on the never-ending PPL and licensing fees saga, India-UK FTA and its consequences, and the Indian concept of derivative works from the ANI vs. OpenAI litigation. We have also announced the SpicyIP Tech Innovation Policy Fellows 2025. Here’s a roundup of our blog posts, 26 case summaries, and top IP developments in the country and the world this week. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
We have already received and accepted some wonderful applications for the Summer School. However, considering the interest shown, we have decided to open a few slots to those who may have graduated earlier as well, and who are looking to get into (or back into) the field of IP and would like to participate in this cohort! To accommodate this, we are also extending the deadline by 1 week, i.e., from 15th May to 22nd May (11:59 PM). With a star-studded line up of faculty and experts, the SpicyIP Summer School is going to be an amazing experience. Apply Soon!
Announcing the SpicyIP Tech Innovation Policy Fellows 2025!
After a terrific response to our call for applications for the SpicyIP Tech Innovation Policy Fellowship we are pleased to announce the selected Fellows – Ambika Aggarwal and Karthika Rajmohan. The fellowship was made possible by a generous grant from the FOSS United Foundation, a non-profit that aims at promoting & strengthening the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) ecosystem in India. Read the post to know more about our fellows and what they will be up to, as part of the fellowship!
Delhi High Court Ruling on Copyright Licensing Fees Explained
The Delhi High Court in Al Hamd vs. PPL, involved a rare compulsory license discussion over sound recordings? Deliberating on the scope of Section 31(1) of the Copyright Act and whether unreasonable licensing fees can be regarded as withholding the work from the public, the Court found the petitioner’s case meritorious. Read Lokesh’s analysis of the judgment.
Based on the limited information available about the agreed FTA, it can be foreseen that the agreement has the potential to bring about significant changes to India’s copyright, patent, and GI laws, while having a limited impact on the corresponding UK legislations. The agreement also mandates substantial tariff cuts, substantially opening up the Indian market for UK industries. Check out Praharsh Gour’s post highlighting what the FTA holds.
The Indian concept of ‘derivative works’: Reframing issues in ANI v OpenAI
Generative AI witnessed its first copyright case in India in ANI v. OpenAI. As submissions by the parties draw towards a conclusion, Aparajita Lath reframes the key issues to better navigate tensions between AI generated content and publishers/creators.
Other Posts
Parody, Trademarks, and the IPL: Analysing Delhi HC’s ruling in RCB v. Uber
A hattrick (not of wickets) of IP issues around the IPL this year! RCB faced off Uber in a clash at an unlikely venue — the Delhi HC. The result? A victory for wit and competitive camaraderie. Aditya Bhargava in this post analyses the Court’s judgment and the issue of disparagement in advertising.
In the Nick of Time: Does Timing Determine Intellectual Property Rights?
Can your patent suddenly have a pre-grant opposition if the patent office’s database had a delay in uploading the patent grant? Should your trademark expire if the IP offices didn’t remind you to renew it? The Delhi High Court recently responded to these two questions in Vertex v. Controller and Davidoff v. UOI respectively. Read Hruthika Addlagatta’s post on the two developments.
NLU, Jodhpur’s Journal of Intellectual Property Studies (JIPS) is inviting original, unpublished manuscripts for publication for its upcoming issue (Volume IX, Issue II). The last date for submissions is June 09, 2025. For further details, please read the post for the journal’s call for papers.
Case Summaries
The Court dismissed the rejection of a patent for a multi-layered sealing web used in construction. It reasoned that the Controller had misinterpreted an important feature: the combination of a glass nonwoven and a glass reinforcement as a unified element. It warranted a remand for reconsideration since the order lacked sufficient reasoning under Section 2(1)(ja).
The Court remanded BlackBerry’s patent application for UMTS network signalling. It found that the Controller rejected its proposed amendments without reason. The refusal under Sections 57 and 59 of the Patents Act was deemed to be cryptic, and the Court ordered that all claim amendments must be examined for conformity with the Act through a reasoned order.
Rainbow Children’s Medicare Ltd. vs Rainbow Health Care on 23 April, 2025 (Karnataka High Court)
The Court refused to grant an interim injunction against the defendant using the ‘Rainbow Health Care’ mark. Despite the plaintiff’s use of the trademark since 1998, the Court noted the defendant’s documented use since 2013 and questioned the delay in enforcement. This ruling emphasised that these delays weigh against injunctive relief in trademark cases.
The Court issued a permanent injunction against the defendants for using “Aquaguard” and related trademarks on counterfeit products. The Local Commissioner’s report also stated that the defendant’s are engaged in the manufacture and sale of counterfeit versions of the plaintiff’s AQUA-branded products. Based on the same, the Court concluded that a clear case of infringement of trademark and copyright is made out, therefore a decree of permanent injunction was passed.
The Court passed a permanent injunction citing CPC Order VIII Rule 10 against the defendants who failed to appear in Court. The impugned trade dress was held to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s packaging. Since there is a high risk of consumer confusion in medicinal products, the Court held it to be copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act.
Andreas Gutzeit vs The Controller General Of Patents on 15 May, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Court reversed the rejection of Gutzeit’s patent amendment application, stating that the Controller did not adequately assess whether the proposed changes were within the original disclosure requirements under Section 59. It upheld that applicants have the right to amend claims that clarify or limit scope but do not introduce new matters. The case was remanded for de novo consideration after giving the applicant a fresh hearing.
Elizabeth Adrena vs Jayesh Bhai on 14 May, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Court ruled a permanent injunction in a copyright infringement suit that involved unauthorised use of literary work. It found substantial similarity between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s work, and thereby ruled that it amounts to infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act. It remanded the defendant for further publication of the infringing content.
Mankind Pharma Ltd. vs Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management on 14 May, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Court reversed its dismissal of Mankind’s opposition to the mark FLORASIS and held that the Registrar did not take into account the visual and phonetic similarity to the registered mark FLORA. Citing Sections 11(1)(a) and (b), the Court acknowledged the risk of confusion in Class 5 goods and stressed that stricter scrutiny is applicable to marks involving pharmaceutical and healthcare products.
Romil Gupta vs Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. on 14 May, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Court set aside a suo motu cancellation of the appellant’s trademark under Section 57(4), which found that the alteration from horizontal to vertical display of “SD” was not substantial under Rule 37. It critiqued the Registrar for the procedural lapse and expansion of the scope of the objection without proper justification. It held that minor graphical modifications do not invalidate a registered trademark.
Hero Invest Corp Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Sehgal Auto House on 22 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Court granted a judgment against the defendant for selling counterfeit ‘HERO’ spare parts and packaging. Invoking Sections 29 of the Trade Marks Act and 14 of the Copyright Act, it decided that visual and functional similarities meet the threshold of infringement, especially given the popular interest in product authenticity and safety in the automotive industry.
Khilender Gupta vs Hind Food Product & Ors. on 25 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court struck down the Commercial Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s injunction application and held that the pendency of a third-party intervention could not prolong the interim relief sought under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The case involved trademark and copyright claims over its label and was remanded for proper adjudication, emphasising that procedural distractions must not obstruct urgent IP enforcement.
Goethe-Institut E.V. vs Abhishek Yadav & Anr. on 6 May, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
An interim injunction was granted to restrain the defendants from using ‘MAX MUELLER’ marks in connection with the German language services. It held that ‘MAX MUELLER BHAVAN’ has acquired a prominent name since 1957, and the defendants’ use of “Max Mueller Institute” was likely to mislead consumers.
Sun India Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd. vs Hyeto Herbals Pvt. Ltd. on 7 May, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Court allowed a permanent injunction against the defendant for using the mark ‘Swasth Vardhak’. It held that the defendant’s conduct was mala fide and amounted to trademark infringement under Section 29 and copyright infringement of original packaging under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, and awarded damages of Rs 5 lakhs.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust vs Mr. Gurvinder Singh & Ors on 6 May, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff Calvin Klein Trademark Trust, filed the present suit seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and copyright, passing off along with other ancillary relief. The Court held that a clear case of infringement of trademark and copyright is made out. Further, the defendant’s dishonest adopting of the plaintiff’s registered mark without any plausible explanation has led to their unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s trademark/artistic work, which entitled the plaintiff to relief.
Abhi Traders vs Fashnear Technologies Private Limited on 28 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, Abhi Traders, owner of proprietary rights in various photographs used for advertising and promotion, filed the present suit against the defendant, seeking to restraint them from carrying out infringing activities. The Court held that the plaintiff has been able to prove that due to its long and continuous use, the plaintiff has acquired copyright in photographs for advertising and promotion of the plaintiff’s products and clear case of copyright infringement is made out. The plaintiff also proved passing off due to the defendant taking unfair advantage of the reputation and good will of the plaintiff’s copyrighted work and thus injunction was granted on behalf of the plaintiff.
M/S Ramway Foods Limited vs Rajendra Sharma & Anr on 7 May, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit was filed seeking injunction against the defendant, who were also engaged in an identical business under the mark “DOUBLE TAALA CHAVI”. The Court held that the plaintiff, through its long and continuous use of “DOUBLE TAALA” has been able to establish goodwill and reputation. The plaintiff proved passing off due to the defendant taking unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s mark and deceiving unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff’s mark by dishonest/ unauthorised use of a deceptively similar mark without a plausible explanation. Therefore, the court granted a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, a company manufacturing and selling pesticides, insecticides etc. filed the present suit seeking the relief of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s registered patent. The Court discussed the importance of Complete Specification in determining “essential features” and “inventive concept” of the patent. By holding that “dyeing agent” or “pigment” cannot be termed as non-essential element of suit patent, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction. The balance of convenience being in favour of the defendant, application for grant of interim injunction was dismissed.
Abros Sports International Pvt. Ltd vs Ashish Bansal And Ors on 13 May, 2025( Delhi High Court)
The current appeal by ASIP against the judgement of a Single Bench of the court. The case pertained to the use of the mark NEBROS infringing the appellant’s mark ABROS. The court framed questions and referred them to a larger bench namely, whether a suit infringement can lie against the proprietor of the registered trademark, whether, on assuming such a suit can line, the court can pass any interlocutory order injuncting the use by the defendant and whether an injunction can be granted without first completing the procedural steps related to the invalidity and rectification of the defendant’s registered trademark.
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd vs The Controller Of Patents on 15 May, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The appellant, Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., an entity based in Japan, filed the present appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act against an order dated 18th June 2021 passed by the respondent rejecting a Patent application. The Court held that the Controller’s rejection under Section 3(d) of the Act is not sustainable and the impugned order was set aside with the matter remanded back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.
This case is an appeal challenging the order dated 3 October, 2024, passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting a Patent application. On filing the application, several pre-grant oppositions were filed and hearings concluded. The Court held that the Controller misinterpreted the Calcutta High Court’s order dated 15 July 2024 by excluding all expert evidence, though the exclusion applied only to Natco Pharma Ltd.’s opposition. As the impugned order was passed on merit without considering any expert affidavits, it was found to be unsustainable. The interpretation was considered ex facie perverse, unsustainable and vitiative of the impugned order in its entirety, thus allowing the appeal.
K. Mangayarkarasi vs N.J. Sundaresan on 9 May, 2025 (Supreme Court of India)
A Special Leave Petition was filed against the judgement of the Madras High Court dated 09.01.2025, where an application filed by the respondents under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was allowed to refer the parties to arbitration for the trademark infringement suit filed by the plaintiff. The Court held that once there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, the judicial authority under whom it is brought is under a positive obligation to enforce the contract and refer the parties to arbitration, leaving no room for judicial discretion to obviate the legislative mandate of compelling parties to seek recourse to arbitration. Subsequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed with the Court being of the view that the High Court had not committed any error.
The plaintiff,on the discovery that the defendant was providing tour and service under the impugned mark “PLUTO TOURS” filed the present suit against the defendant restraining them from advertising, promoting, displaying, marketing, and/ or using the mark . The court emphasised that the defendant seeks to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff by making minor modifications to the trademark to carve out a superficial distinction. The Court held that owing to the identity/similarity in the word “PLUTO”, similar nature of service, similar customer bases and previous instances of deception and confusion, there is likelihood that the defendant and his mark may be mistakenly associated with that of the plaintiff, which unless stopped could lead to wider ramifications, and hence allowed the application on the prima facie case made by the plaintiff.
Iconic IP Interests LLC vs M/S Shiv Textiles on 9 May, 2025 (Gujarat High Court)
The petitioner, a subsidiary of a US based firm, who own the trademark “JOLLY RANCHER” and its variations in relation to confectionery and other products filed the writ petition against an order by the Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar dated 22/11/2024. The District Court had earlier rejected its application against the respondents who had allegedly registered the mark “JOLLY RANGER LEGWEAR”. In the original suit, the evidence produced by the respondent was with regard to the website which is registered in the US and selling the goods with a mark registered in the US. The respondent was not able to establish that the use of the website was with an intention to complete or conclude transaction specifically targeting the consumers base where the plaintiff’s goods were stored. Thus, the writ petition was allowed, stating that no cause of action arose for a suit of infringement..
Dr Vinod Bhaskar Rao Joshi Trading As M/S Pushkar Pain Clinic and Physiotherapy Centre Senior House vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2025 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
The petitioner filed a writ under Article 226 seeking action against a person who was allegedly running a physiotherapy centre without having valid qualifications and infringing the petitioner’s registered trademark. The Court held that so far as personal rights of the plaintiff are concerned, the only grievance is infringement of trademark, which is to be remedied through a civil suit since infringement is required to be proved and since this involves disputed questions of fact, writ jurisdiction is not the right way. Thus, there being no sum and substance in the case, the petition was dismissed.
Vishal Gupta And Ors vs Rahul Bansal on 8 May, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The current appeal challenges an order dated 5 March 2025 passed by the District Judge(Commercial Court) wherein the Court had injuncted the appellant from dealing in edible oils/mustard oils under the trademark/label OM AMAR SHAKTI / SARKAR OM AMAR SHAKTI, on the ground that it is deceptively similar to the trademark MATA AMAR SHAKTI of the respondent-plaintiff, thereby resulting in the infringement of the trademark. The Court held that the impugned order doesn’t examine the elements of passing off for the respondent’s unregistered trademark and has relied solely on prior use, which cannot justify granting an injunction. Thus, considering the fundamental error in the impugned, it was set aside and remanded for de novo consideration to the Commercial Court.
Vinay Pictures vs Good Hope & Ors. on 14 May, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from engaging in widespread and unauthorized acts amounting to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright and trademark in relation to the iconic Hindi-language feature film “Andaz Apna Apna”. The plaintiff alleged commercialisation of the elements of the film in the sale of merchandise, amongst others. The plaintiff also produced evidence supporting their claim of commercialisation across several e-commerce platforms. Noting that the plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case for interim injunction, the Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
(Thanks to Sonisha and Hruthika for the case summaries)