SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 8 – September 14)
Md Sabeeh Ahmad
Midway to September – a post on the problems of the Indian SEP-Antitrust Gridlock. A two part post on the Pandemic Agreement’s PABS system and another on the Karnataka HC between revocation petition and a patent infringement proceeding. This and a lot more on last week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Here’s a roundup of our blog posts, 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
License to Kill (Innovation): Problems of the Indian SEP-Antitrust Gridlock
In light of the anticlimactic end to the Ericsson v. CCI dispute, SpicyIP Tech Innovation Policy Fellow Ambika Aggarwal writes on how the long battle for sectoral power and the lack of policy guidance from the Patent and Competition Law authorities, especially in matters of SEP and antitrust overlaps, divert focus from markets and affect innovation incentives and domestic competition.
Part I: Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Delving into the Entanglements of the PABS Annex
Explaining Stephanie Switzer, Adam Strobeyko, Mark Eccleston-Turner, Sylvain Aubry, and Michelle Rourke’s suggestions on the Pandemic Agreement’s Annexure on Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (“PABS”) system, in the first part of her two-part post on the Annexure, Srishti Gaur assesses their feasibility and potential implications.
Part II: Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Delving into the Entanglements of the PABS Annex
Continuing the discussion on Stephanie Switzer, Adam Strobeyko, Mark Eccleston-Truner, Sylvain Aubry, and Michelle Rourke’s paper on Pandemic Agreement’s Annex, in Part II of the post, Srishti discusses the considerations put forth in the paper, appreciating the concerns of different Member States.
Other Posts
Caught in Limbo: The Karnataka HC’s Compromise on Staying Patent Infringement Suits
On March 1, the Karnataka High Court addressed the question of whether a patent infringement proceeding must be stayed for the duration of a pending revocation petition. Anushka Kanabar examines the order and assesses how the Court tried to strike the balance by concluding that the infringement proceeding should be stayed at the stage of final hearings, and whether the Patents Act supports this understanding.
Case Summaries
Adidas Ag vs Ashok Kumar Unknown on 20 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Image from here.The Plaintiff filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against a defendant arrayed as a John Doe due to difficulties in identification. The Court held that the counterfeit socks manufactured by the defendant bore exact replicas of the Plaintiff’s registered word mark ‘Adidas’ and its logos, and even falsely stated “Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd.” as the manufacturer. It granted an ex-parte injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner for the identified manufacturing unit and warehouse.
The Plaintiff had registered a mark ‘NAXDOM’ for a migraine treatment drug, and sued the defendants for manufacturing and marketing a drug under the mark ‘NEXADOM’. The Court noted that the defendant’s trademark application for ‘NEXADOM’ had already been refused by the Trademark Registry for being deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s mark. It applied the strict test of “deceptive similarity” for pharmaceutical products and granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants and appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing goods.
Archian Foods Private Limited vs Dhruvi Beverages Pvt Ltd on 29 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, a manufacturer of non-alcoholic beverages under the mark ‘LAHORI ZEERA’, sued the defendant for using the the marks ‘LAHOR’ and ‘LAHOR ZEERA’, along with a similar trade dress and bottle design. The Court stressed on the need for a higher degree of caution in cases involving food and beverage products due to the potential public health concerns. Finding a case of “triple identity” (identical mark, goods, and consumer base), the Court granted an ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant and appointed a Local Commissioner to seize the goods.
Stromag Gmbh vs The Controller General Of Patents on 4 September, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The Appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application for a hydraulically actuatable disk brake. The impugned order merely listed seven prior art documents and concluded that the invention was a mere combination lacking an inventive step. The Court set aside the order for failing to explain how the prior arts rendered the invention obvious, highlighting that a quasi-judicial order must speak for itself through reasoned analysis. It also remanded the matter to a different Hearing Officer for a fresh decision.
Velji Karamshi Vaid And Anr vs V3 Fashion And 6 Ors on 9 September, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The Plaintiffs, engaged in the garment business, filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against the defendants for using the marks ‘V3’ and ‘VOLUME 4′. The Plaintiff’s claim of use since 2016 was undermined by its trademark application filed on a “proposed to be used” basis in 2018. On the other hand, the defendants’ claim of prior use was supported only by fabricated invoices. The Court therefore held that neither party had approached the Court with clean hands and refused to grant any interim relief.
Abhishek Bachchan vs The Bollywood Tee Shop & Ors on 10 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Image from here.The Plaintiff Mr. Bachchan filed a suit against various defendants for misappropriating his personality rights by unauthorizedly selling merchandise (T-shirts, mugs, posters) bearing his name and image and for creating AI-generated content featuring him on YouTube. Finding that this unauthorized commercial exploitation impacted the Plaintiff’s economic interests and individual dignity, the Court granted a broad injunction restraining the defendants from using any attributes of the Plaintiff’s persona, including via AI tools, and directed intermediaries and government departments to take down the infringing URLs.
The petitioner, M/S New Bharat, owns trademark and copyright over the artistic work “TAJ MAHAL” used in the packaging of its rice business. The petitioner filed a suit against the defendant for obtaining registration over an artistic work “GARIMAA GOLD” which also illustrates the Taj Mahal in their rice packaging. The petitioner argued that the respondent registered the said copyright without serving them a notice. To which the respondent responded that first, the Taj is a public monument and no one can claim exclusivity over it, and second, the petitioner is not an interested party because no notice was served. The Court ruled that the petitioner was an interested party because they had ownership over the trademark and copyright, and also initiated FIRs against the respondent. It was a failure on the part of the respondent to not comply with Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013. Following this, the DHC cancelled the copyright registered in favour of the respondent.
Saint Gobain Glass France vs Assistant Controller of Patents And … on 11 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Saint-Gobain, the Plaintiff, filed an appeal against the decision of the Controller of Patents regarding its patent application, which was for a coated glass substrate. It argued that their application was new and inventive and prior arts did not disclose the exact combination – nickel or chromium layer with dielectric coating. Additionally, since France has granted the patent, India should follow the same. The Court ruled in favour of the Controller’s decision, noting that the prior art has achieved similar or better results. There was no inventive step since only the thickness ranges were optimised which was equivalent to a workshop improvement. Lastly, a foreign grant is irrelevant since a patent application has to pass the test under Indian law.
Mr. Arjan Dugal & Anr vs Mr. Shubham Gandhi & Anr on 29 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, Arjan Dugal and his company, alleged that their ex-employee and his wife, the defendants, misused their confidential information, trade secrets, and client base in constructing a competing business, ‘So.Man’, which builds on the artistic works and construction methods of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff contends that the defendant’s garments are similar to their signature styles, specifically the embroidery, cuts, built-in square pockets, and colour combinations. Further, the defendants have reduced their prices which puts the Plaintiff at a disadvantageous position in the market. This led to the Court deciding that the Plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of infringement and granted an ex-parte injunction in the absence of which the Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm. Lastly, a Local Commissioner has been appointed to inspect the premises of the defendants and is instructed to file a report within 2 weeks.
Habibs Cosmetics Private Limited vs Habib Hair And Care on 4 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The pPlaintiff, Habibs, owns the registered trademark “HABIBS”, which has been in use since 1990 for hair and beauty services. The Plaintiff alleged that the defendant is using the mark “HABIB HAIR & CARE” on signboards and materials without the Plaintiff’s authorization. Despite sending an issued notice, the defendant has continued to use it. The DHC earlier granted an injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using the contested or similar marks. However, the defendant did not appear for any hearings and also violated the injunction. Taking this in cognizance, the Court held that the defendant exhibited a mala fide intent for which a permanent injunction is passed against them along with monetary damages.
Novartis Ag & Anr vs Novarise Pharmachem Private Limited on 9 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Image from here.Novartis filed a suit against the defendant, Novarise Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd., which is supplying pharmaceutical raw materials under the mark “NOVARISE”, which the Plaintiff contends is deceptively similar to their registered trademark “NOVARTIS”. The Plaintiff requested an urgent interim relief for which the Court exempted the Plaintiffs from mandatory mediation under Section 12A. The Court noted that NOVARISE is visually and phonetically similar to NOVARTIS. Since the two operate in the same industry, having the same trade channel, the ‘triple identity’ test is fulfilled. The Court held that a prima facie case of infringement was made out and granted an interim injunction against the defendant.
Ashish Aggarwal vs M/S Racing Promotions Pvt. Ltd on 3 September, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The present suit is based on permanent injunction for infringement of Plaintiff’s trade mark. The Plaintiff is a sports enthusiast and proprietor of the registered trademarks ‘X1’ and ‘X1 WAR OF X-TREME SPEED’. The defendant uses similar trademark ‘X1’ and ‘X1 RACING LEAGUE’ for motorsport events. The Plaintiff, managing trustee of the Jet Sports Academy of India, had used these trademarks since 2016 for water sports events and claimed significant goodwill. The defendant, incorporated in 2018, argued its use of ‘X1’ was inspired by a supersonic rocket and denied infringement, citing no exclusive rights over individual trademark components. The court held that the defendant’s use of the mark was infringing and deceptive and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned trademarks.
Aishwarya Rai Bachchan vs Aishwaryaworld.Com & Ors on 9 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, granted the Plaintiff exemption from pre-institution mediation, extension of time to file requisite certificates. Summons were issued to the Defendants, including Google, e-commerce platforms, websites, AI chatbots, and YouTube channels allegedly misusing the Plaintiff’s name, image, and persona through unauthorized merchandise, deepfakes, impersonation, and obscene AI-generated content. The Court relied on precedents like Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India and Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, recognizing personality rights as integral to dignity, privacy, and livelihood, holding that unauthorized commercial exploitation causes confusion, harm to reputation, and contractual conflicts. An ex-parte injunction was granted restraining Defendants from exploiting the Plaintiff’s persona including name, image, likeness, or acronym ‘ARB’ through any medium, including AI, deepfakes, and morphing. The Court directed platforms like YouTube and e-commerce sites to take down infringing content, disclose subscriber details, and comply with blocking orders, with the matter listed for further hearing on 15 January 2026.
The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendants for using the mark ‘HTA’ and similar trade dress, alleging passing off, as the Plaintiff has used ‘HTA’ since 1985 and ‘Ars-HTA’ since 1994 in its rubber and aluminium products business, supplying major OEMs. The defendants claim using ‘HTA’ mark since 1977 and holding registrations since 2007. It was found that the submitted documents by the defendant were fabricated and falsely established prior use. The Court held that the Plaintiff’s extensive goodwill and the defendants’ dishonest adoption of identical marks and packaging was mala fide. The Court granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using ‘HTA’ or similar marks and trade dress until the suit’s final adjudication.
Mattel, Inc vs Padum Borah And Ors on 8 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking an ad-interim injunction against the defendant for infringing and passing off its registered trademark ‘BARBIE,’ used since 1959 for toys and other products, claiming that the Defendant has dishonestly adopted similar marks like ‘BARBIE One Stop Solution for HORECA & Foods Processing’ and others for commercial kitchen equipment and catering services. The Plaintiff has extensive global and Indian goodwill, evidenced by USD 14 million. The Court held that the defendant’s marks visually, phonetically, and conceptually were identical to the Plaintiff’s and granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the impugned marks.
Gaurav Singhal vs Jatin Jain on 1 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff seeks urgent relief against the Defendant for selling counterfeit products under the mark ‘SPARK INDIA’ with packaging similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trade dress and labels ‘SPARK INDIA’ and ‘BS SIX SPARK INDIA’. The Plaintiff also seeks exemption from pre-litigation mediation. The Court found prima facie infringement and the use of mark by the Defendant caused irreparable harm to the Plaintiff. The Court passed an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the impugned mark. The matter is next listed on 07.01.2026.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr vs Ashok Kumar (John Doe) on 19 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted the Plaintiff exemption from advance service, pre-litigation mediation, and court fees. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was selling counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts under the registered HERO trademark and the sub-brand HERO GENUINE PARTS. The Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the HERO marks. A Local Commissioner was appointed with wide powers to inspect, seize, and inventory counterfeit goods. The matter is next listed before the Joint Registrar on 25.09.2025 and before Court on 17.02.2026.
Image from here.The Plaintiff, Volvo, argued that the defendant is using the mark “VOLVO PLUS” for lubricants and engine oil. The given case, as per the Court, satisfied the triple identity test – same mark, same product and same trade channel. Considering the emergency and gravity of the case, the Court exempted the parties from the pre-institution mediation process and granted an injunction against the defendant. To enforce the said injunction, two Local Commissioners have been appointed to seize infringing goods at the premises of the defendant.
Caterpillar Inc vs Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. & … on 19 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Defendants for infringing its registered Indian patents designs related to fluid filter systems. The Plaintiff has a significant global and Indian patent portfolio and sales of USD 64.8 billion in 2024. It is alleged that the Defendant manufactures infringing ‘STAL’ branded filters using identical part numbers as the Plaintiff’s products. The Court granted the ex-parte injunction, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing the infringing products, and appointed Local Commissioners to search, seize, and inventory infringing goods at the defendants’ premises. The case is listed for further hearing on 24.09.2025 before the Joint Registrar and 13.02.2026 before the court.
Other IP Developments
- Indian Army secures patent for AI-based Automatic Target Classifying System
- Pharma exporters seek rollback of rule banning export of drugs labelled as “For Sale in India Only”
International IP Development
- Apple faces copyright lawsuit over training Apple Intelligence AI on pirated books
- Philadelphia Appeals court dismisses Novartis’ challenge on the Inflation Reduction Act aimed at medicare price negotiation one week after rejecting bid by BMS, J&J
(Thanks to Anushka, Riddhi, and Srishti for the case summaries).
