SpicyIP Weekly Review (November 24-November 30)
Md Sabeeh Ahmad
India’s first scent trademark has been headline of the week – two posts discussing the development. A critical analysis of the Draft GI Logo Guidelines. And Episode 2 of “Let’s IPsa Loquitur” is up with Sonisha Srinivasan speaking to Dr Zakir Thomas. 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
Let’s IPsa Loquitur: Dr. Zakir Thomas on Copyright, AI, Technology Sovereignty and Open Access
Excited to share Ep02 of Let’s IPsa Loquitur! Sonisha Srinivasan sits down with Dr Zakir Thomas — former Copyright Registrar and Project Director of the Open Source Drug Discovery Project — to delve into the ongoing hot-topics such as Generative AI and Copyright. The discussion explains concepts while also venturing into possible ways forward. The discussion then also goes into questions of technological sovereignty, as well as Open Access considerations in this Gen AI context.
The registration for the 1st National Policy Brief Competition on Intellectual Property & Innovation 2025 by SpicyIP and CIPAM, DPIIT, is in full swing, with multiple teams signing up each day. We’ve received an outstanding response, with 75+ teams having registered so far! For the benefit of those who have already applied, as well as those who are still on the fence about this exciting competition, we are sharing a clean, ready-to-reference template to guide participants through the essential elements required for their written submissions.
The Scent of the Sumitomo Trademark: What is the Celebration About?
India’s first ‘scent’ trademark, (for a rose-like fragrance on tyres!) is being hailed by many as a landmark development in the country’s trademark regime, but it raises key legal and policy concerns. Assessing the order, Tanishka Goswami highlights how the Registry’s reliance on an unexplained 7D graphical model may raise concerns around clarity, objectivity, and intelligibility, and warns that such a broad description could open the door to similar scent-based claims across unrelated goods.
Don’t Look to the United States: They See ‘Smell’ Differently!
Adding to the ongoing discussion on India’s first smell mark (tyres with a floral fragrance), Shama Mahajan offers an important clarification on why the Registry’s reliance on U.S. precedents may be misplaced. She explains that while the Indian TM Registry cited U.S. examples to support the registrability of smell marks, it overlooked a crucial requirement under U.S. law: the need to prove acquired distinctiveness.
Draft GI Logo Guidelines Risk Diluting Producer Rights: A Critical Analysis
The Draft Guidelines on GI and GI Logo Usage promise greater clarity and standardisation, yet they introduce changes that could fundamentally weaken GI protection in India. Dr. Anson C J explains that by broadening who can use GI names and logos, the draft shifts power away from actual producers and towards intermediaries. Noting the issues with the guidelines, he explains the need for a Producer-First Framework and suggests recommendations to re-centre the guidelines around the Actual GI Producer.
SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (01.12.2025)
This week’s shout-out goes to a document that quietly shaped the foundations of India’s patent system — the Ayyangar Committee Report, authored by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar in 1959. Often cited but rarely read in full, the report remains one of the most intellectually rigorous policy documents in Indian IP history. Also inside: a fresh roundup of IP events, opportunities, and updates you won’t want to miss.
Other Posts
DPIIT releases Funding Guidelines for International IP Moot Court Competitions!
In an exciting development for students participating in international IP moot court competitions, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), through its CIPAM Cell, has officially rolled out the International IP Moot Court Funding Guidelines, 2025.
Stuck in the US Trade Standoff: Thinking About Cross-Retaliation?
In light of US tariffs on Indian imports hitting unprecedented levels, how far can India go in responding to these steep measures? Exploring cross-retaliation as a possible response, Srishti Gaur explains the concept and assesses its feasibility.
Clean Hands versus Relevant Facts – The Tale of Injunctions
The Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant an interim injunction in the Quantum trademark dispute underscores a key tension in IP litigation: even a strong prima facie case may falter if a party is found to have approached the court with “unclean hands.” Despite acknowledging infringement on the merits, the Court denied relief based on alleged concealment around the appellant’s trademark registration. In this post, Mohamed Thahir Sulaiman examines whether the Court overreached by invoking the clean hands doctrine on a fact that may not have been material to the grant of interim relief.
Inter-University Centre for IPR Studies (IUCIPRS), Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) is organising a hybrid webinar on “Panel Discussion on the Implications of Data Exclusivity on Access to Medicines and the Pharmaceutical Industry” on December 1, 2025, at IUCIPRS and via Google Meet virtual room.
Case Summaries
Castrol Limited vs Sanjay Sonavane And Ors on 24 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Image from here.The Delhi High Court, in Castrol Limited vs Sanjay Sonavane, addressed the maintainability of the Plaintiff’s second Plaint seeking relief for commercial disparagement and media take-down. The underlying cause of action, rooted in the search and seizure proceedings and subsequent news articles/videos (August 2025), was known when the Plaintiff filed the First Suit. Finding the Plaintiff omitted these claims despite full awareness, the Court ruled the Plaint dismissed as barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC, granting liberty to amend the First Suit.
The Court granted the Plaintiff’s application for interim injunction. The dispute involved infringement of trademarks (like ‘DERMOMELAN’) and copyright in the layout, ‘ingredients,’ and ‘steps to use’ of three facial kits. The Court restrained the Defendant from copying the copyrighted material and using ‘DERMOMELAN’, finding prima facie substantial copying.
Sunil Niranjan Shah vs Vijay Bahadur on 24 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Court addressed the Plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction restraining infringement of the ‘GAAY CHHAP’ and ‘COW BRAND’ trademarks. The Court established territorial jurisdiction because the Defendant purposefully availed itself of the jurisdiction via the interactive IndiaMart platform. Finding the Plaintiff was the prior user since 1975 and that the Impugned Marks were deceptively similar, the Court granted the interim injunction.
The Court addressed a Section 50 petition seeking cancellation of Copyright registration No. A-128046/2019. The Petitioner, the registered owner of prior SWASTIK Artistic Works, argued the Impugned Artistic Work was a substantial, non-original imitation, reproducing the essential SWASTIK device. Since the Respondent failed to file a reply, the Court found the Impugned Artistic Work lacked originality and ordered its expungement and cancellation from the Register of Copyright.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors vs Nalathoti Ramu & Anr on 21 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit was filed by the Plaintiffs seeking a permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1 for using the Plaintiff’s well-known mark ‘VERIZON’ for salon and spa business. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No. 1 has a domain name registration of http://www.verizonspa.com/ wherein it hosted an active website, promoted its services with the impugned mark on third-party listings, and did not respond to the Plaintiff’s cease and desist notice. The Court held that the impugned marks were identical and intended to mislead an average consumer and thus granted a temporary injunction against Defendant No.1.
Image from here.The present application was filed by the Defendant, who sought the return of the plaint for the lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Defendant contended that all activities occurred outside of Delhi, its website was not interactive, and the Plaintiff had not shown any invoices of purchase or delivery of products in Delhi. The Plaintiff, on the other hand, relied on the website’s ‘Contact Us’ page, downloadable brochures with the infringing marks ‘PEPFIX’ and ‘NEOVITAL’, and a listing of third-party platforms accessible in Delhi, and thus contended that jurisdiction lay with the Delhi High Court as the cause of action arose there. The Court held that the objections to territorial jurisdictions have to be decided based on the demurrer principle, which accepts all averments in the Plaint to be true. Thus, based on the Plaintiff’s pleadings, it was held that the Court had the jurisdiction and the application was accordingly dismissed, with the jurisdiction kept open as a preliminary issue for trial.
Medilabo Rfp Inc vs The Controller Of Patents on 24 November 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present appeal challenged the Respondent’s refusal to grant a patent to Appellant’s drug composition titled ‘PROPHYLACTIC OR THERAPEUTIC DRUG FOR NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES’, which was rejected under Section 3(i) as a method of treatment. The Appellant contended the amended claims were product claims and not method claims, and that the Assistant Controller wrongly relied on earlier claims. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the invention implicitly directed towards a method of treatment and that the claimed invention lacks technical effect in its scope. The Court held that the Controller had failed to examine the amended claims and had also failed to address other objections in the FER. Thus, the Court set aside the order and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
The present appeal challenged the Respondent No. 1’s refusal to grant a patent to the Appellant’s invention titled ‘Stable Herbicidal Composition comprising Pendimethalin and Metribuzin’ on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The Appellant contended that the Respondent No.1 failed to address the objection that the prior document D3 did not qualify as prior art. The Court, noting this, also held that prior documents D1 and D2 did not qualify as prior art as they did not disclose the EC formulation. Thus, the Court set aside the order and remanded it for fresh consideration.
The present appeal challenged the Respondent’s refusal to grant a patent to the Appellants’ invention titled ‘SUSTAINED RELEASE FORMULATIONS USING NON-AQUEOUS CARRIERS’, on the grounds of lack of inventive step and falling within the exception of Section 3(d). The Appellants contended that the Respondent did not cite any closest prior art, did not provide counter arguments to the Appellants’ legal submissions and that the Appellants held registrations in foreign countries as well. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the prior documents D1 to D4 made the invention obvious and that the Appellants disclosed no results to the problem in the complete specification. Rejecting the Appellant’s arguments, the Court held that the claimed invention was obvious, lacked inventive step in light of prior documents and thus, dismissed the appeal.
The DHC dismissed a suit filed by Hermes and its Indian subsidiary against Macky Lifestyle for infringing the 3D shape of their famous ‘Birkin’ bag and the Hermes carriage mark. The Court noted that Macky Lifestyles had now shut down, and no infringing products were ever manufactured or sold – the case was filed due to certain images being uploaded on the Internet. Notwithstanding, the Court went on to deal with Hermes’ submission that their marks were well-known marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Noting Hermes’ long global history and worldwide reputation, the Court declared their marks as ‘well-known’ under Section 2(1)(zg) of the TM Act.
In a dispute surrounding the mark ‘ACECLO’, the Bombay High Court refused to grant Aristo Pharmaceuticals an interim injunction against the defendants use of the mark ‘ACECLOHEAL’. The Court noted that ‘ACECLO’ is derived from ‘ACECLOFENAC’ which is an International Non-Proprietary Name (INN). Section 13 of the TM Act, 1999 bars the registration of INNs or deceptively similar names. Both parties were therefore found to be using permissible adaptations of the same generic source. The court further noted clear differences in the rival marks’ overall presentation, packaging, font and pricing, and found no credible likelihood of confusion or misrepresentation, particularly in a market where multiple manufacturers use similar clipped forms of the INN. Concluding that no prima facie case of infringement or passing off was established, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction.
Koninklijke Philips N. V. & Ors vs Karma Mindtech & Ors on 24 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Image from here.Philips sought perjury proceedings against a former employee (D2) on the ground that his affidavit in response to court-ordered interrogatories contained false denials that contradicted his written statement, the Local Commissioner’s report, and his employment documents. The Court held that such inconsistencies, arising in the course of an ongoing civil dispute, do not meet the legal threshold for perjury, which requires a clear, deliberate falsehood established through unimpeachable evidence and shown to have been made with intent to mislead the Court. It noted that the LC report also recorded no infringing software at D2’s premises, and the so-called contradictions relate to matters that must be tested at trial. Finding no deliberate falsehood or expediency justifying criminal action, the Court dismissed the perjury application.
Tesla Inc vs Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors on 24 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In this trademark dispute, Tesla argued that Tesla Power India’s adoption of “Tesla Power” and related marks for batteries, inverters and EV-adjacent products infringed its well-known TESLA mark and attempted to ride on its international reputation and Indian goodwill. The Delhi High Court held that Tesla holds valid, subsisting registrations covering automobiles, structural automobile parts and inverters, and that batteries are allied and cognate goods, making confusion likely. The Court also noted evidence of actual public and media confusion and found Tesla Power India’s adoption dishonest. An interim injunction was therefore granted.
Trident Limited vs Controller Of Patents on 24 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In this case, Trident appealed the refusal of its patent application for “air rich” towel fabric made from yarn with pores evenly spread across the cross-section. The Controller had rejected the application for lack of inventive step, relying on prior art and arguing that similar blending processes would automatically give the same result. The Court notes that none of the prior art indicates this and that the impugned order does not explain how a skilled person would reach Trident’s claimed yarn. The Court held that the order also ignores detailed examples in the specification and confuses fibre distribution with pore distribution. Finding multiple infirmities, the Court sets aside the refusal and remands the case to a different Controller for fresh consideration.
Saurabh Gupta vs Sheopals Pvt Ltd on 26 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court’s refusal to restrain Sheopals from using the mark SHEOPAL’S, while substantially correcting its reasoning. The Court held that the anti-dissection and dominant-part tests had been wrongly invoked, as Saurabh Gupta’s registered mark OPAL is a single-word mark and not a composite mark. Examining the rival marks as wholes, the Bench found OPAL and SHEOPAL’S neither visually nor phonetically similar in a manner likely to confuse a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. It rejected the argument that OPAL was generic, finding it distinctive when used for cosmetics, and clarified that mere delay or the defendant’s promotional expenditure cannot defeat an infringement claim at the interim stage. Nonetheless, because no prima facie deceptive similarity existed, the Court affirmed dismissal of Saurabh’s injunction application.
Bignet Solutions Llp vs Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd on 21 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs, after being asked to obtain a licence and pay a quoted fee for playing music created by the defendants at an event, realised that the works were from the pre-1965 period and therefore in the public domain as of 2025. They then filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages. However, the defendants asserted in court that they had never claimed copyright or demanded any licence fee. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit and rejected the plaintiffs’ claim for damages.
ITC Limited vs Pelican Tobacco Co Ltd & Ors on 24 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Image from here.ITC limited, producer of cigarettes, owned the trademark “GOLD FLAKE” and filed a suit seeking injunction against Pelican Tobacco’s usage of the trademarks “GOLD FLAME” and “GOLD FIGHTER”, claiming them to be deceptively similar, with the difference in single letter between “FLAKE” and “FLAME” indicating mimicry. In response, Pelican argued that they had been in continuous usage since 2015 and the word “GOLD” is generic, and cannot be protected. Agreeing with ITC, the Court granted injunction, holding there to be a case of visual and phonetic similarity between the two trademarks and held that Initial Interest confusion leads to infringement.
Envitech Consultants, a registered MSME consultancy firm subcontracted by Rudrabhishek Enterprises, undertook to conduct a topographical survey and prepare Detailed Project Reports for surface-water supply schemes. However, Envitech submitted the reports at the last minute without conducting the required survey, leading Rudrabhishek to terminate the contract. Envitech then filed a suit alleging copyright infringement over the “Subject Work,” but Rudrabhishek sought rejection of the plaint for lack of cause of action. The court agreed, holding that Envitech lacked copyright as first ownership vested in Rudrabhishek under Section 17 and the work qualified as “Government Work.”
The appellants, who owned registrations for the trademark “HAVELI” in various classes, opposed the registration of the mark “AMRITSAR HAVELI” in Class 43, alleging deceptive similarity. The Registrar rejected the opposition, leading to an appeal before the High Court. The Court upheld the Registrar’s decision, holding that the appellants had failed to show prior use or reputation of “HAVELI” for Class 43 services and that the inclusion of the geographical term “AMRITSAR” was permissible and did not render the mark non-distinctive. Accordingly, the Court rejected the appellant’s claim of deceptive similarity.
The plaintiffs, engaged in processing and marketing rice under the trademark “AL-BUSTAN” in both English and Arabic scripts, filed a suit for trademark infringement against the defendants, who were their former business associates. The defendants were found to be marketing rice under the same trademark in deceptively similar packaging. The court held that a prima facie case of infringement was made out and noted that the defendants had slavishly copied the plaintiffs’ product, interestingly, even reproducing the plaintiffs’ mobile number on their packaging.
The plaintiff, part of the Danone Group of companies engaged in the specialised nutrition market, promotes its products under the registered trademark “PROTINEX.” The defendants supplied protein powder under the mark “PROTOEX” and had filed a trademark application, which the plaintiff opposed as being deceptively similar to “PROTINEX.” Finding a prima facie case of structural, visual, and phonetic similarity between the marks, along with deceptively similar trade dress, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the “PROTOEX” mark.
Boman Irani, the appellant, is the son of Rustom Irani, founder of Ideal Jawa, the company that manufactured motorcycles under the “YEZDI” brand. After Rustom’s death, Ideal Jawa went into liquidation, the Official Liquidator, the respondent, took control, and the trademark “YEZDI” fell into disuse from 1996 onward. Around 2014, when Boman Irani sought to register the “YEZDI” trademark after decades of non-use, the Official Liquidator filed the present suit. The Single Judge held that Ideal Jawa remained the owner of the trademark. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed this finding, holding that the mark had been abandoned and that no goodwill remained decades after Ideal Jawa ceased using it.
Sabar Aroma, producers of pan masala and gutkha products under the trademark “PANZIO,” filed a suit for injunction against Satyapal Shivkumar for manufacturing counterfeit products having the same mark for export to Malaysia. The Court found it evident that the defendant’s products were counterfeit and held that this constituted clear trademark infringement. Accordingly, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Sabar Aroma.
Other IP Developments
- Major Mohit Sharma’s parents move Delhi HC seeking stay on Ranveer Singh’s Dhurandhar
- Delhi High Court Protects Personality Rights Of Actor Ajay Devgn, Orders Take Down Of Obscene Content
International IP Development
- WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents: Deepening Fault Lines between Developed and Developing Countries on Patent Harmonization
- USPTO and DOJ Warn Against Using Public Interest as Barrier to Patent Enforcement at International Trade Commission
(Thanks to Hari, Thahir, Vasundra, and Vikram for the case summaries)
