SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 6 – October 12)
SpicyIP
Developments from CHC concerning GUIs, and clarification on the tests under Section 3(d) and 3(e), DHC’s clarification on the constitution of confidentiality clubs, and the first couple of podcasts from our latest endeavors– SpicyIPTV This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know. Please note that we have used perplexity to shorten some of the case summaries and present them in a more reader-friendly manner.
Highlights of the Week
Announcing SpicyIP TV! The SS Edition: Episode 1 with Mr Murali Neelakantan
After 20 years of blogging, we’re thrilled to announce the launch of SpicyIP TV — our official YouTube channel featuring our very own podcast! And who better to kickstart this journey than Mr. Murali Neelakantan, our very first guest! The podcast was recorded amidst the lush green environs of the SpicyIP Summer School, where Murali and Sonisha Srinivasan sat down to discuss law and the current state of legal education. Check out the conversation on SpicyIPTV YouTube channel and don’t miss Swaraj Barooah’s post sharing how this new endeavour came to life and the challenges he, Sonisha, and the team overcame to finally make this happen!
The SpicyIP Podcast SS Edn: Ep 02 with Mr. Sandeep Rathod
In the 2nd podcast of SpicyIPTV, longtime friend of the blog Mr. Sandeep Rathod speaks to Sonisha Srinivasan to share his insights on navigating law school, overcoming FOMO, and building a successful legal career, drawing on his experience in the pharma industry. The conversation was recorded during the inaugural SpicyIP Summer School and forms part of the SpicyIP Summer School Edition of podcasts.
Breaking: DHC Dismisses Roche’s Appeal in the Risdiplam Case
Image from hereIn this quick update, Praharsh writes on the pronouncement of judgement in the Risdipalm appeal, where the DB refused to interfere with the Single Judge’s order rejecting Roche’s interim injunction application against Natco.
FRANDship with Comparable Licenses: Confidentiality Club Constituted in Nokia v Asustek & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has recently ordered the constitution of a confidentiality club in Nokia’s ongoing patent infringement suits against multiple companies. In this post, Kartik Sharma breaks down the Court’s latest order, examining how it balanced competing arguments on membership, negotiation restrictions on defendants, redaction of sensitive information, and disclosure of comparable licenses.
GUI and IP: Here, There and Everywhere!
Image from hereGUIs are in the news again. The Calcutta HC in Erbe Elektromedizin v. Controller of Patents, seems poised to decide on the legally thorny issue of GUI registration under the Designs Act. After indicating that GUIs are registrable under the Act in an earlier instance, the CHC has decided to revisit the issue. Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan discusses how GUIs have long occupied an “in-between space” in Indian IP law—reflecting deeper theoretical confusion about the nature of protection, while also potentially allowing for triple protection through copyright, design, and even patent law for various aspects of GUIs.
Other Posts
SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (06.10.2025)
Beating the Monday blues with some exciting IP events and opportunities! Here is this week’s Bells and Whistles. In this edition, Gaurangi Kapoor has something new — a featured listing “Bell of the Week”, where she spotlights a tool, event, or resource in the IP and legal world that caught her attention.
Royalties And Research: A Forgotten Faultline In Indian Copyright Law?
In light of the recent Sci-hub blocking order, Anushka Aggarwal looks at Sections 19(3) and 19A of the Copyright Act in the context of copyright assignment agreements that regulate academic publishing in India.
The 3(E)-3(D) Fumble: When Synergy Gets Lost in Application
The CHC’s recent judgment in Oramed Ltd. v Controller takes another shot at clarifying the line between Sections 3(d) and 3(e). Srishti Gaur unpacks the Court’s reasoning and explains how this isn’t the first time the judiciary has grappled with distinguishing these statutory filters.
Not Every Shiny Idea Travels Well to be an Invention! Lessons from the Saint-Gobain Patent Battle
The Delhi High Court recently said no in its decision rejecting Saint-Gobain’s appeal against a rejection order. Srishti Gaur breaks down the Court’s reasoning on non-obviousness and novelty, and explains why the Court was right to resist the argument seeking a grant in India just because a patent was granted in France.
Case Summaries
Ramnish Verma vs The Haddad Apparel Group Ltd on 7 October 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The plaintiffs, registered proprietors of the trademark “ROOKIES” for clothing and retail services since 2008, sued the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off concerning their use of “ROOKIE USA” in India, despite defendants’ prior registration of “ROOKIE” in other classes and international presence. The plaintiffs argued the defendants’ mark is deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion, while defendants relied on bona fide adoption, prior registrations, and alleged acquiescence due to delay in suit filing. The court held that although registrations were in different classes, the goods and services are associated and target the same consumer base, making confusion likely; it noted defendants’ failure to show bona fide use in India before 2019 and found their registration potentially fraudulent, applying prosecution history estoppel based on contradictory oppositions in Hong Kong. The court granted an interim injunction restraining defendants from using “ROOKIE,” “ROOKIE USA,” or similar marks in relation to clothing and allied goods and ordered domain name action.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. vs Amazon Technologies Inc on 7 October 2025 (Supreme Court of India)
Image from hereThe plaintiffs, owners of the “Beverly Hills Polo Club” trademark, sued Amazon Technologies Inc. for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation due to unauthorized use of a similar mark. The Delhi High Court granted damages and an injunction, but the Division Bench stayed execution of the decree without requiring deposit, citing procedural irregularities including non-service of summons and inflated damages claims. The Supreme Court upheld the stay, emphasizing the necessity of security for stay of execution except in exceptional cases like fraud. The Court observed serious procedural flaws undermining the decree but left substantive issues for trial and appeal. This judgment reinforces strict procedural compliance in intellectual property enforcement.
The applicant, Hindustan Unilever Limited, sought to revoke leave granted by the Madras High Court permitting a suit against Reckitt Benckiser India for alleged misleading advertisements involving claims of “12 hours protection/protective shield” in various languages, including Hindi and Tamil. The applicant argued that the cause of action arose solely in Mumbai, where the advertisements were targeted, and contended that the Madras court lacked jurisdiction. The court considered that part of the cause of action had arisen within Madras jurisdiction due to Tamil and English advertisements shown there, thus the forum conveniens was satisfied. It noted that the order of the Advertising Standards Council covered claims across languages, not just Hindi, and upheld the leave granted, dismissing the revocation application. The judgment reaffirmed that territorial jurisdiction and cause of action must be assessed on pleadings and the wider scope of advertisements.
Veena Aggarwal vs Balaji Trading Company And Ors on 6 October, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
Veena Aggarwal, proprietor of Power Electro Controls, sued Balaji Trading Company for infringing her registered trademark ‘POWERMAN’. The Court found ‘POWERMEN DLX/MAXX’ deceptively similar, noting copied packaging and prior distributor ties. Applying the average consumer test, it held infringement proven, restraining Balaji and awarding ₹5 lakh as punitive damages.
Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Sanjeev Gupta Trading As Sk Chemicals on 6 October, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
HUL sued Sanjeev Gupta (SK Chemicals) for selling cleaning products deceptively similar to its ‘VIM’ brand. The Bombay High Court allowed HUL to add a passing off claim under Clause XIV, found a prima facie case of misrepresentation, and granted an ad-interim injunction restraining SK Chemicals from using similar marks or packaging.
Nike Innovate C.V vs Anil Kumar on 6 October, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
Image from hereNike Innovate C.V. sued Anil and Ashok Kumar for selling counterfeit footwear bearing ‘Nike’, ‘Swoosh’, ‘Flyknit’, and ‘Nike Air’ marks. The court, relying on the commissioner’s report, found unauthorized use, held them liable for passing off and infringement under Section 29(4), and awarded ₹3 lakh damages with costs.
Dilesh Raj Borana F.U.F vs M/S Udhog Mandir on 6 October, 2025 (Rajasthan High Court)
Dilesh Raj Borana, proprietor of K. Chaturbhuj Oil, challenged the Bikaner Court’s jurisdiction over Udhog Mandir’s trademark suit alleging infringement of its ‘NATURAL’ mark by Borana’s ‘NATURAL GOLD’. He argued that no cause of action arose in Bikaner and that Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act cannot override Section 20 CPC. The Rajasthan High Court rejected this, holding that Section 134(2) is an exception permitting suits where the plaintiff carries on business, and upheld Bikaner’s jurisdiction.
Biotech Visioncare Pvt Ltd. vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 3 October, 2025 (Gujarat High Court)
Biotech Visioncare appealed the Registrar’s 2020 rejection of its “BIOVISION” trademark for intraocular lenses as descriptive under Section 9(1)(b). The Gujarat High Court noted the same mark’s later registration in 2023 and quashed the earlier order, directing the Registrar to freshly hear the 2016 application considering the subsequent registration.
Asian Paints Limited vs Jai Kishan Jeshwani Trading As Build on 6 October 2025 (Bombay High Court)
Image from hereAsian Paints sought joinder of infringement and passing off claims under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent against Jai Kishan Jeshwani Trading for misuse of its “ROYALE” mark. The Bombay High Court allowed the joinder, found a prima facie passing off case, and granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant’s use of similar marks.
M/S. Zonex Industries vs Kunal Choudhary on 6 October, 2025 (Rajasthan High Court)
Zonex Industries challenged the Udaipur court’s refusal to vacate an injunction and stay infringement proceedings against Kunal Chaudhary, owner of the registered mark “ZONEX.” The Rajasthan High Court held that under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, infringement suits must be stayed during pending rectification proceedings and upheld the trial court’s order.
Dpac Ventures Llp vs Exotic Mile Private Limited on 3 October, 2025 (Karnataka High Court)
Dpac Ventures, owner of GOBOLD, GOJOLT, and GOVO marks, sued Exotic Mile for infringing its trademarks through GOBOULT. The Karnataka High Court modified the Commercial Court’s ex parte injunction, allowing Exotic Mile to use GOBOULT temporarily with weekly account filings, and directed the lower court to decide the interim injunction by November 10, 2025.
Tapas Chatterjee vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And on 6 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection of Tapas Chatterjee’s patent application on recovering valuable products from distillery waste achieving ZLD. The Patent Office and Single Judge erred on inventive step and Section 3(d) grounds. The DHC found contradictions, flawed obviousness tests, and recognized new products. The matter was remanded for de-novo consideration, directing the Patent Controller to issue a detailed reasoned order within six months.
Basf Se vs Sourabh Agro Industries on 19 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Image from hereBASF SE sued Sourabh Agro for using “CHANGER” with packaging mimicking BASF’s “TYNZER” trade dress. The Delhi High Court found substantial imitation in packaging, logo, and appearance likely to confuse consumers and granted an ex-parte injunction, limiting relief to trade dress infringement, not the word mark “CHANGER.”
Alkem Laboratories Ltd vs Alchem International Pvt. Ltd on 10 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Alkem Laboratories sued Alchem International for trademark infringement and passing off over “ALKEM” vs. “ALCHEM.” The Delhi High Court found phonetic and visual similarity, dismissed the defendant’s acquiescence and honest use claims, and granted a permanent injunction restraining retail sales of ALCHEM-marked pharmaceutical products in India, allowing only API sales abroad.
Kei Industries Limited vs M/S Sanayai Hardware & Ors on 26 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Kei Industries sued defendants for selling counterfeit wires under “HOMECAB-FR,” infringing its registered trademarks “KEI” and “HOMECAB” and copyrighted artwork. The Delhi High Court found a strong prima facie case, noting irreparable harm to brand reputation, and granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining manufacturing, sale, and advertising of the infringing goods.
Pataka Industries sued defendants for selling “S02 PATAKHA” biris, infringing its “502 PATAKA” trademark and trade dress. The Delhi High Court found phonetic, visual, and packaging similarities likely to mislead consumers and granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark or any similar marks.
Esme, owner of trademarks BLUE HEAVEN and BH, sued defendants for selling “BH COSMETICS” products online. The Delhi High Court found a strong prima facie case of trademark and copyright infringement due to deceptive similarity and goodwill, granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining defendants from using, manufacturing, or selling the impugned marks.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr vs Ashok Kumar (John Doe) on 15 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Hero Investcorp filed a suit before the DHC against an unidentified defendant for allegedly manufacturing and selling counterfeit products under their well-known mark ‘HERO’. Hero Investcorp and Hero MotorCorp alleged that their mark ‘HERO’ for two-wheelers and ‘HERO GENUINE PARTS’ for the two-wheeler spare parts had acquired immense goodwill and reputation and the defendant had been clandestinely selling products with their mark without raising invoices to avoid detection. Finding a strong prima facie case, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the ‘HERO’ mark or any deceptively similar variant. The court also appointed a Local Commissioner with a detailed mandate to ensure effective enforcement of their interim order. The matter is next listed for 19 January 2026, with the interim order to remain in effect until then.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr vs Ashok Kumar (John Doe) on 22 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In a continuation of the Hero Investcorp matter (dated 15th Sept, 2025), Justice Manmeet Arora issued another order granting an ex-parte injunction in favour Hero and issued instructions for the inspection of the another site of the unidentified defendants. The Court also issued instructions to not publish the said order for two weeks to ensure another Local Commissioner appointed by the Court could proceed with their investigation without any incumbrances.
Image from hereAbbvie’s patent application for Apoptosis-inducing agents for the treatment of Cancer and Immune and Autoimmune Diseases had been subject to several pre-grant oppositions from multiple opponents under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act. Abbvie sought to challenge the mechanical issuance of notices by the Patent Office without often verifying the identity, qualifications or relevance of the oppositions or in some cases, having concluded hearings but keeping the orders reserved for an undue amount of time. The Court noted such delays but allowed the pending opposition hearings to take place expeditiously. The Court also ordered the Patent Office to pass a consolidated order on all the pre-grant oppositions by December 31, 2025.
Sequenom Inc & Anr vs The Controller Of Patents on 9 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Sequenom had filed an appeal before the DHC against the Controller of Patents order that refused the grant of a patent under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. Sequenom’s application related to a non-invasive prenatal method for detecting fetal chromosomal abnormalities, like aneuploidy, from a material blood sample. Sequenom argued their invention was a ‘screening test’, not a definitive diagnostic tool, as it only identified high-risk pregnancies that would require further confirmatory testing through other procedures like amniocentesis. The Court dismissed Sequenom’s appeal, upholding the non-patentability of the impugned method under Section 3(i). The Court held that a diagnostic process includes processes that result in both positive and negative findings. A diagnostic process that rules out a particular medical condition is also included within the ambit of Section 3(i). Sequinom’s test provides a highly accurate result that could eliminate the need for further invasive procedures in women and this act of elimination itself was held to be within the ambit of Section 3(i). However, the court issued an important clarification that product and tools for diagnosis can indeed be patented, it is only the method itself that is excluded. The court also noted that Sequinom’s method also allowed for fetal sex determination which was also proscribed its patentability under Section 3(b) (an invention contrary to public morality).
Dassault Systemes Solidworks vs Mr. Vinay Kumar Jain & Anr on 23 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Dassault Systems filed a suit for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Vinay Jain and his company, alleging repeated unauthorised/pirated use of their copyrighted ‘SolidWorks’ software across multiple computer systems after their license to use the software had expired in 2023. Dassault had received information of such infringement back in 2023, but it decided to settle the dispute amicably and monitor the defendants’ activities. However, their unauthorised usage kept on increasing – from 9 unauthorised installations in 2023 to 18 in 2025. Having failed to settle the dispute amicably, Dassault filed the present suit. The Court agreed to grant the said injunction, noting that a prima facie case had been made out. Accordingly, the defendants were restrained from making such unauthorised usage and a Local Commissioner was also adopted to ensure compliance with the said order.
Tommy Hilfiger Europe Bv & Anr vs Mr Lalit Kumar Goel & Ors on 25 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Image from hereTommy Hilfiger sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit garments bearing their registered trademarks “TOMMY HILFIGER,” “TOMMY,” and “CALVIN KLEIN.” The same was discovered after an independent investigation done in Chandigarh by the Plaintiffs. After going through the material on record the Court found a prima facie case of infringement, noting the risk of consumer deception and damage to the plaintiffs’ goodwill, the Court found that irreparable harm would be caused to the plaintiffs and the balance of convenience lies in their favour. Consequently, the Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks and directed online platforms like Indiamart, Justdial, and Sulekha to delist the defendant’s products.
M/S Globus Spirits Ltd vs Suraj Industries Ltd & Anr on 26 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, engaged in manufacturing and selling of alcoholic beverages, sought permanent injunction against the defendant for trade mark, copyright, design infringement and passing off. The plaintiff was proprietor of trademarks like “GLOBUS GREEN ”etc. and alleged that the defendant was selling liquor under deceptively similar marks “HILL TOP GREEN” ,“HILL TOP ORANGE VODKA”. The defendant was also alleged to be reusing the plaintiffs’ bottles, refilling them with their own liquor, and applying deceptively similar labels. Justice Tejas Karia found prima facie similarity and dishonest intent. Also, balance of convenience lied in defendant’s favour and irreparable harm would have been cause to the plaintiff if the said order was not granted. Consequently, an ad-interim injunction was granted restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks and bottles. Local Commissioners were appointed to seize infringing material.
Xx vs Yy And Ors on 25 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, a sexual health and wellness company, has sought permanent injunction against infringement of their trade mark, copyright, and passing off action. The plaintiff was the proprietor was trademark “BRAMPIUM”, alleged that the defendants were marketing sexual wellness products under the deceptively similar mark “BRAMVEDA”, with nearly identical packaging and misleading product details. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, also the balance of convenience lied in plaintiff’s favour, and irreparable harm would have been cause to the plaintiff if the said order was not granted. It also noted that the defendant’s products lacked essential manufacturing information and could endanger public health. Consequently, The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for sale, or advertising any products deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark “BRAMPIUM” or it’s trade dress.
Beiersdorf Ag vs Lord Of Cosmetics And Anr on 25 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff and its Indian subsidiary were registered proprietor of trademark “NIVEA”, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for trademark and copyright infringement. The plaintiff after it’s market survey, discovered that defendants were selling counterfeit products using the logo “NIVEA” with a similar trade dress through retail shops and warehouses in Delhi. The Delhi High court held that the defendants products had Plaintiff’s registered mark and logo, amounting to clear counterfeiting and misrepresentation. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement, with the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs, and granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing counterfeit “NIVEA” products.
Bignet Solutions Llp vs Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd on 10 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present plaint has been filed by the plaintiff seeking declaratory and permanent injunctive reliefs against the defendant. The plaintiff, alleging misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and unlawful interference with works in the public domain, seeks a declaration that its use of such works does not infringe any subsisting rights and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demanding any license fees in respect thereof.
Other IP Developments
- 2018 Maggie trademark battle comes to an end with as the defendant agrees to stop using “Maggisun” and cancel its registration.
- Ravi Mohan’s movie “Bro Code” gets into a copyright tussle with a liquor company selling products under “Bro Code” mark.
- Kumar Sanu moves Delhi High Court, seeking protection of his personality rights.
- Bombay High Court grants protection to actor Suneil Shetty’s personality rights.
- Hollywood and Bollywood film producers request Indian government to strengthen copyright protection and restrict AI companies from using their work.
Thanks to Vikram, Hafsah, Arshya, Mayank for the case summaries.