SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 27 – November 2)
Md Sabeeh Ahmad
Delhi HC delivers first-ever SEP non-infringement ruling, on a long-forgotten VCD patent and Delhi HC’s Justice Prathiba M. SIngh appointed Chair of WIPO’s Advisory Board of Judges. Don’t forget – SpicyIP TV Podcast episode 8 with Mr. Nikhil Narendran is now out! 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.
Highlights of the Week
The Tech is Dead, Long Live the Tech: Lessons in Indian SEP Litigation from Philips v. Bathla
After 21 years, the Delhi High Court has delivered its first-ever SEP non-infringement ruling, on a long-forgotten VCD patent. The judgment examines patent identification, claim mapping, evidence, and even SEP essentiality (though it wasn’t originally an issue). Ambika Aggarwal writes on this development, explaining how it’s a fascinating case, albeit less for its technology and more for what it reveals about delays, FRAND expectations, and India’s SEP jurisprudence.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh appointed Chair of WIPO’s ABJ!
Justice Prathiba M. Singh has been appointed as the Chair of WIPO’s Advisory Board of Judges (ABJ). Her two-year tenure (2025–27) will see her serve in a personal capacity. For more on this development, read Yogesh Byadwal’s post below. Wishing Justice Singh all the very best for this new role.
The SpicyIP TV Podcast SS Edn: Ep 08 with Mr. Nikhil Narendran
In Episode 08 of the SpicyIP Summer School Podcast, Sonisha Srinivasan speaks with Nikhil Narendran, Partner at Trilegal (Bengaluru), on building a career in TMT law. He also shares insights on using AI responsibly by understanding its strengths and risks, and reflects on how his experience in the film industry has shaped his legal practice.
Other Posts
Novartis’s Heartache over Entresto: An Analysis of the Controller’s Patent Revocation Decision
The Patent Office recently revoked Novartis’ patent over ‘Entresto’ following multiple post-grant oppositions in a detailed 200-page-plus order. In a post unpacking the Controller’s decision, Tejaswini Kaushal and Vikram Raj Nanda highlight how Entresto’s fate was sealed by Novartis’ own prior submissions on the lack of novelty of the subject patent, followed by a rigorous Section 3(d) examination.
Case Summaries
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr vs Saklin Alias Prince on 10 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Image from here.The present suit sought an ex parte interim injunction against the Defendant for using the trademark ‘HERO’. The Plaintiff, involved in the business of motorcycles and related goods, alleged that the Defendant was involved in large-scale manufacture and sale of counterfeit products, bearing the Plaintiff’s marks, and thus, had violated provisions under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Designs Act, 2000. The Court held that a prima facie case was made out as the Defendant’s actions caused deception and confusion in the course of trade, and thus amounted to infringement and passing off. The Court restrained the Defendant from manufacturing or selling any goods or products bearing the mark ‘HERO’, and directed the Local Commissioner to inspect and seize any counterfeit products at the Defendant’s premises.
The present suit sought an ex parte permanent injunction against the Defendant for using its mark ‘KBM’. The Plaintiff has been in the business of manufacturing, distributing, and selling spices and other allied products across India and abroad since 1969 under the marks ‘GAI CHAAP’, ‘COW’, and ‘KBM’. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was involved in large-scale manufacture and sale of spices, bearing the ‘KBM’ mark, thus impinging on Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation. The Court, holding that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the Plaintiff, held that a prima facie case was made out, further held that the Defendant’s actions were deceptive and caused confusion in the course of trade. Thus, the Court restrained the Defendant from manufacturing, selling, or distributing any goods bearing the ‘KBM’ mark, and directed the Local Commissioner to inspect and seize any such products from the Defendant’s premises.
The present suit sought an ex parte ad interim injunction against the Defendants for manufacturing, advertising, and selling hygiene products bearing marks, bottle shapes/designs and trade dress deceptively similar to Plaintiffs’ registered and well-known trademarks ‘HARPIC’, ‘COLIN’, ‘LIZOL’, and ‘DETTOL’. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants’ products, including those promoted via YouTube, copied the Plaintiffs’ bottle shapes and trade dress and caused confusion among consumers. The Court, holding that the Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the Plaintiffs, found the Defendants’ actions likely to cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs’ goodwill and thus, restrained the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, or advertising products bearing the impugned marks or trade dress. The Court further ordered the removal of infringing online videos and appointed Local Commissioners to inspect and seize infringing products from the Defendants’ premises.
Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd v. Suraj Collection and Anr on 17 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit sought a permanent injunction against the Defendant for using the trademark ‘GET BOLD’. The Plaintiff, involved in the business of manufacturing and selling cosmetics, alleged that the Defendant was involved in large-scale manufacture and sale of counterfeit products, bearing the Plaintiff’s marks, and thus, had violated provisions under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Designs Act, 2000. The Court held that a prima facie case was made out as the Defendant’s actions caused deception and confusion in the course of trade, and thus amounted to infringement and passing off. The Court restrained the Defendant from manufacturing or selling any goods or products bearing the mark ‘GET BOLD’, or in any other way infringing the subject marks ‘BLUE HEAVEN’.
Xx vs Yy on 6 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit sought a permanent injunction against the Defendants for commercially manufacturing and selling the Plaintiff’s patented drug ‘ASCIMINIB’, bearing no. 419280. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants are selling the infringing patented drug through their website and on other e-commerce platforms without any license or authorisation. The Plaintiffs contended that such acts violated their exclusive statutory rights in the patent, causing irreparable harm to their commercial interests. The Court, finding a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the Plaintiffs, held that the Defendants’ actions constituted patent infringement and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing ‘ASCIMINIB’ in India during the pendency of the suit.
The Hero group of companies filed an application seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Kamal Auto parts for using the “HERO-S” branding for their industrial oil and engine oil. Noting that this branding is visually identical and deceptively similar to the Hero group’s “HERO” trademark, with the inconsequential addition of “-S”, the DHC allowed the application. The court recognized that a prima facie case of passing off had been made, with the triple identity test of deceptive similarity, identical product category, and identical trade channel being established.
Crocs Inc & Anr vs Sagar Doijode Trading As Questsole & Ors on 16 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Image from here.The present suit sought a permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing the Plaintiffs’ Patent No. IN 271337, and using the Plaintiffs’ registered trademarks ‘CROCS and ‘JIBBITZ’, along with passing off the trade dress of the Plaintiffs’ distinctive geometric clogs and registered design No. 349374-001. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants were manufacturing, advertising, and selling infringing ‘charms for clog-style footwear’ that used confusingly similar trademarks such as ‘CROCKS’, ‘CROC’, and ‘JIBBIT’. The Court, holding that a prima facie case was made out and the balance of convenience lay with the Plaintiffs, found that the Defendants’ actions were deceptive and likely to cause consumer confusion and irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation. Thus, the Court restrained the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, or advertising infringing products bearing the Plaintiffs’ marks or design, and directed the seizure of such goods from the Defendants’ premises.
RC Plasto filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages for trademark infringement and passing off by the defendants. It was contended that the defendant’s use of the trademark “LAKSHMI PLASTO” for their pipes and fittings infringed RC Plasto’s “PLASTP/PLASTO” trademark, which has been in use since 1981. The Court allowed the application, holding that the defendant’s trademark was deceptively similar due to the prominent use of the word “PLASTO”, which was recognized as a distinctive mark and not part of public juris.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. & Anr vs M/S G/S Traders & Ors on 14 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Samsung Electronics filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against various wholesalers and online marketplaces for alleged trademark infringement. It was contended that the defendants are using the “SAMSUNG” trademark without due authorisation to sell counterfeit mobiles labelled as “SAMSUNG GURU” and “SAMSUNG DUOS”. The Court allowed the suit, holding that the sale of such counterfeit products, purporting to be popular mobile phone models of Samsung Electronics, was likely to cause consumer confusion, erode consumer trust, and result in irreparable injury to Samsung Electronics’ goodwill.
Grasim Industries, part of the Aditya Birla Group, filed suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendant’s use of the “SUPERIOR BIRLA ROCK” trademark, contending that it infringed the Group’s “BIRLA/BIRLA WHITE” trademarks and amounted to passing off and unfair trade practices. In an interesting turn of events, the parties jointly withdrew the suit and agreed to amicably settle the dispute as per the Settlement Terms, whereby the Defendants recognized the Aditya Birla Group’s exclusive ownership of the impugned trademarks and agreed to withdraw and destroy all existing material bearing the infringed marks at its own cost.
Everest Entertainment Llp vs Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar on 24 October, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The Plaintiff filed a case alleging copyright infringement and passing off related to their film, “Mi Shivaji Raje Bhosale Boltoy”, against the Defendants’ film, “Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale”. The Bombay High Court refused to grant ad-interim relief upon finding ‘gross and inordinate’ delay by the Plaintiff in approaching the Court. The Plaintiff knew about the Defendant’s film since April 2025 and yet filed the suit in October 2025, right before the release of the Defendant’s film. Furthermore, the Court held that prima facie there was no copyright infringement, nor was the passing off claim established.
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the infringement of the trademark “CHOTA CHAMACH” and copyright by the Defendants, who used the mark “1 CHAMACH CHAI”. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants’ mark was deceptively similar to theirs and sought damages for the same. The Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction regarding the trademark but that the Court lacked the necessary territorial jurisdiction to proceed. The suit was consequently returned to the Plaintiff to be filed before the appropriate forum.
Image from here.The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction, delivery up, and damages against the infringement of the trademark “ANCHOR” and copyright by the Defendants, who used the identical/deceptively similar mark “ANCHOR/”. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants’ mark was visually, structurally identical to theirs, constituting counterfeiting and passing off, and sought damages. The Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction and delivery up of seized material. The suit was consequently decreed in favor of the plaintiff, awarding exemplary damages of ₹75,000/- each from defendants 1, 2, 3, and 5.
State vs Gaurav Aggarwal on 8 October, 2025 (Commercial Court, Delhi)
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant violated Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trademarks Act by selling counterfeit Kirloskar products. The Court ultimately acquitted the Defendant, as the complainant turned hostile and failed to identify the accused. Notably, the case property was produced with a broken seal, raising concerns of possible tampering.
Indospirit Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs Ravi Mohan Studios on 14th September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The DHC granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Indospirit Beverages, the proprietor of the trademark ‘BROCODE’ used in alcoholic beverages, restraining Ravi Mohan Studios from using the mark in the title of its upcoming film. The Court noted that Indospirit had been using the mark since 2015, which had now gained a strong and exclusive association with it. Consequently, finding a strong prima facie case for Indospirit, the Court noted that the use of their mark in the new film was likely to mislead consumers into assuming an association with the beverage. Accordingly, Ravi Mohan Studios was restrained from using the mark till the next date of hearing, though it could continue with the production of the film itself.
The Rohini District Court granted Ardh Sainik Canteen an injunction against Bhhotpurv Ardh Sanik Kalyan Canteen for infringing its registered trademark ‘ARDH SAINIK CANTEEN’, used for a nationwide chain of FMCG stores catering to ex-servicemen. Noting a phonetic similarity and a common consumer base, the Court held that a defendant’s mark was likely to cause confusion among consumers. It was also found that Bhhotpurv had earlier operated under a franchise agreement with Sanik Kalyan, before breaking away and launching a similar enterprise, making the defendant’s conduct mala fide. Accordingly, a decree of permanent injunction was issued, and damages were awarded to the plaintiffs.
Pathkind Diagnostics Private Limited vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 27 October, 2025 (Delhi HC)
The DHC set aside the Registrar’s rejection of Pathkind’s trademark application for the device mark ‘PATHKIND LABS’. The Registrar had earlier refused registration, citing prior registration in the name of Mr. Arjun Juneja, who was a director of Pathkind. The Court noted an Assignment Deed and a No Objection Certificate had been executed by Mr. Juneja in favour of Pathkind. Consequently, the Registrar’s orders were set aside and the application was ordered to be advertised in the Trademarks Journal.
The CESTAT Chennai set aside a service tax demand on payments made by Real Media Image to a US based company, DTS Inc. for the use of its sound technology and trademarks. The adjudicating authority had treated this arrangement as an import of ‘intellectual property services’ taxable on a reverse charge basis under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The CESTAT, however, held that only intellectual property rights registered or recognised under Indian law can attract service tax. Since DTS’s technology and trademarks were not registered in India, they could not be made subject to tax.
Image from here.The Plaintiffs sought an injunction for infringement and passing off of marks (MOXCLAV, OLEANZ, SUN) and Trade Dress (REVITAL). The Defendants used deceptively similar Impugned Marks (MIMOXCLAV, ORENZ, SUNDAY) and packaging (REESTART). The Court, finding a prima facie case, granted an ad-interim injunction restraining their use and appointed Local Commissioners to seize materials and obtain accounts.
M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd vs Rama Biswas on 25 October, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
Shubham Goldie Masale, owner of the trademark ‘GOLDIEE’ used in spices, tea and other allied goods, sought and successfully obtained an ex-parte permanent injunction against the defendant’s attempt to use the mark ‘GOLDEY’ for identical goods by filing a trademark application (tea, popcorn and spices). Noting Goldie Masale’s extensive goodwill and the phonetic similarity between the marks, the District Court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendant from using the mark ‘GOLDEY’.
Loreal Sa vs Yetish Kantibhai Shekhada on 29 October, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The Saket Commerical Court permanently restrained Vedant Bright Complete, the defendant, from using deceptively similar trade dress and packaging for its Vitamin C Booster Serum, finding clear imitation of L’Oréal’s distinctive white, orange, gold, and green colour scheme, bottle shape, and layout. The Court noted that the Garnier Bright Complete range enjoys transnational goodwill and qualifies as a well-known mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act. Since the defendant, though served, failed to appear or file a written statement, the Court made an earlier ex parte injunction absolute, holding that the defendant’s conduct amounted to trademark and copyright infringement and passing off.
Pas Agro Foods vs Krbl Limited on 27 October, 2025 (Ker HC)
The Kerala High Court dismissed a Special Jurisdiction Case filed under Sections 57, 124, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking cancellation of the registered mark ‘INDIA GATE’ owned by the respondent company. The Court firstly held it lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the mark was registered at the Delhi Trade Marks Registry, making the Delhi High Court the only competent forum for rectification under Section 57. Further, the Court held that the petition was premature, as the petitioner had not yet obtained a prima facie finding on invalidity under Section 124(1)(ii) of the TM Act from the Delhi District Court in a pending infringement suit. The Court reiterated that rectification during the pendency of an infringement suit can only be initiated after the trial court frames an issue on invalidity. Consequently, the Kerala High Court dismissed the rectification petition as not maintainable.
The Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “urgent interim relief” under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act in IP infringement cases. Novenco, a Danish manufacturer, accused its Indian distributor of misusing its patented fan designs and selling identical products through another entity. The Delhi High Court had dismissed the suit for lack of pre-institution mediation, citing delay in filing. The Supreme Court, however, held that in cases of continuing infringement, urgency must be viewed from the angle of ongoing harm and public interest. Mere delay, it said, does not negate urgency. The suit was accordingly restored.
Other IP Developments
- NCLAT clarifies that CCI cannot probe allegations of anti-competitive conduct involving patented drugs.
- Delhi High Court refuses to interfere with FSSAI’s directive banning the sale of beverages with misleading ‘ORS’ labels.
- Bombay High Court updates its roster of judges. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Justice Arif S. Doctor to hear IP disputes.
International IP Development
- Trump administration seeks the Supreme Court’s approval to file the director of the US Copyright Office.
- U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein allows George R R Martin’s lawsuit against OpenAI to proceed.
- Hexaware dismisses the allegations against it in Natsoft’s US patent lawsuit, calling the allegations baseless.
(Thanks to Hafsah, Hari, Thahir, Vasundra, and Vikram for the case summaries)
