SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 25 – August 31)
Md Sabeeh Ahmad
5 years of the SciHub saga, multiple orders, and finally a blocked SciHub – a deep dive into the twists and turns of the case. A post discussing Benjamin Sobel’s paper on Copyright Accelerationism and another on the Supreme Court’s order on post-sale confusion. This and a lot more on last week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
The SciHub Saga! Miles to Go While We Sleep
By now, everyone’s heard about the blocking order given to Sci-Hub. How did it land here though? A voluntary undertaking that turned into a multi-year imposed order – and its breach, a harsh email from Alexandra Elbakyan, and the substantive issues have yet to be heard (if at all). All of this (and more!), a full five years after publishing giants Elsevier, Wiley, and the American Chemical Society dragged Sci-Hub founder Alexandra Elbakyan and LibGen to Court for copyright infringement. In this deep-dive, Swaraj Barooah and Yogesh Byadwal trace the twists and turns across 58 separate orders, question the shaky ground of assignment agreements under Section 19(3) of the Copyright Act, and explore what might lie ahead.
Is Copyright Accelerationalism the way to go? Read Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan’s post, where he explores a creative and ‘spicy’ paper written by Benjamin Sobel titled “Copyright Accelerationism”, which makes a radical argument. Copyright maximalism in the age of GenAI is not bad at all, and it should be applied fully and effectively to both machines and humans with equal rigour, thus heightening the contradictions that Copyright law embodies, and possibly paving way for meaningful reform.
Pride & Prejudice: The Supreme Court’s Sobering Take on Post-Sale Confusion
In a recent ruling (Pernod Ricard v Karanveer Singh), the SC refused to grant an interim injunction to Pernod Ricard against the unauthorised use of the mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’ for whiskey. Pernod was alleging that the mark was infringing its rights in ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘SEAGRAM’S’. In addition to the usual analysis of traditional law on trademark infringement and passing off, the SC towards the end also touched upon the developing doctrine of post-sale confusion, albeit in the form of a short obiter. Aditya Bhargava and Kartik Sharma discuss the SC’s observations on post-sale confusion and demonstrate the missed opportunity of carrying out a thorough analysis.
Other Posts
On the Pen Losing Its Might: Contemplating the Digital News Industry’s Fate in Light of ANI v OpenAI
The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) intervened in OpenAI vs ANI on behalf of digital arms of traditional legacy media organisations. The DNPA is advocating fair compensation regime for publishing houses, raising concerns that permitting genAI companies such as OpenAI to continue their practices without restraint would lead to the decline of digital news. Subhalaxmi Mukherjee examines whether these concerns are valid and discusses whether it is time for digital news industries to consider new adaptation strategies.
Figuring Out the Correct CRI Guidelines by Looking at Google LLC v The Controller of Patents
The contentious Section 3(k) is in the news again in Google v Controller of Patents. The Cal HC upheld the rejection of the patent by the Controller without reference to the newer 2025 Guidelines, falling back instead on earlier benchmarks which is rightly held as it is an appeal from an order of 2020. Shailraj Jhalnia writes about the nature of these guidelines and whether the Controller and the Court’s reliance on the older version was justified.
Notes From Doctoral Diary: TACIP, Turku (20 – 21 August 2025)
Ever wondered what makes Technical Assistance (TA) possible in international IP law? Or, in Kantian terms, what are its “conditions of possibility”? In this post, Lokesh Vyas shares preliminary insights from a work-in-progress with Prof. Daniel Acquah, presented at the TACIP 2025 conference at the University of Turku. He also reflects on the event and highlights questions for future research.
A Heavy Dose of Litigation: Novo Nordisk sees Litigation from Natco over Semaglutide
Natco has filed six separate civil suits before the Delhi High Court, arrayed against Novo Nordisk. Natco seeks declarations of non-infringement with respect to Novo’s process and device patents surrounding Semaglutide products under Section 105 of the Patents Act. Tejaswini Kaushal briefly discusses the Natco suit and other litigation involving Novo Nordisk’s Semaglutide.
From Travel to Trouble: The Yatra Online vs. Mach Conferences Tussle
The Delhi HC ruled against Yatra Online, holding that the disputed “Yatra” mark was both generic and descriptive and, more importantly, carried a disclaimer that expressly denied the plaintiff any exclusive rights over the word “Yatra”. Subhalaxmi Mukherjee writes on the development, discussing the arguments on generic marks and the importance of disclaimers.
The Delhi HC recently in Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Ram Kumar ordered for the cancellation of the “UNKIND” mark in Class 35. This becomes particularly relevant when read alongside the Division bench’s cautionary approach towards the concept of ‘Family of Marks Doctrine’ in Modi Mundipharma. Bhavya Gupta writes on the development and discusses the broader implications of the order.
Case Summaries
Image from hereDelhi High Court issued an interim injunction against the defendant, M/s BAA Television Network, restraining it from publishing newspapers under the name “THE PIONEER”. The plaintiff, M/s Cmyk Printech Limited, the publisher of the national newspaper, claimed infringement of their registered and well-known “THE PIONEER” trademark. The dispute arose after the termination of a franchise agreement, which had authorized the defendant to publish a Chhattisgarh edition of the newspaper. Despite the termination, the defendant continued publication, including an unauthorized digital edition, and disputed outstanding dues. The Court therefore granted an interim injunction.
Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd vs Ucon Pt Structural System Private … on 25 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court heard an application for contempt of court against the defendants for violating an interim injunction. The plaintiff, Utracon Corporation, alleged that the defendants were still using the “UTRACON” mark despite a previous restraining order. The defendants argued they had ceased using the mark, claiming their website merely redirects to a new domain and that the continued use of “Ultracon” in one of their company names was due to Ministry of Corporate Affairs rules. The Court found that the continued use of the domain name “www.ultraconindia.com” and the corporate name “Ultracon Structural Systems Private Limited” were in clear violation of the injunction and ordered to cease use of both the domain and corporate name.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd vs Lloyd Health Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 22 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants for trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution. The plaintiff, Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd., is the owner of a series of pharmaceutical trademarks ending with the suffix “CONTIN”, including the well-known product “NITROCONTIN”. The defendants were found to be manufacturing and selling a similar product under the name “LOYCONTIN”, for the same medical use, using identical packaging and a deceptively similar name. The injunction restrains the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or advertising any product under the infringing mark “LOYCONTIN” or any other mark similar to the plaintiff’s “CONTIN” series of marks.
The Madras High Court set aside the rejection of the patent application by the Controller of Patents. It was done so on the procedural grounds that the claims filed later were different from the ones the Controller had initially approved informally over the mail. The Court noted that the applicant combined their two sets of claims into one which were approved initially. Additionally, the same invention had been granted in multiple other countries, including China, USA, South Korea among others. The Court ruled that since no reasoning, apart from procedural fallacy, was provided, the order was unsustainable in law.
The plaintiffs, Shankar Engineering Works, filed a suit of passing off against the defendant on the application to register an identical mark to their registered trademark “ASHU MAYA”. Deciding ex-parte, the Court found the defendant’s mark “ASHU MAYA” similar to that of the plaintiff. Taking in consideration that the plaintiffs were earlier and bona fide adopters of the marks and their continuous use created goodwill in the market, the Court ruled that use of the same mark by the defendant amounts to misrepresentation and decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.
G B Pachaiyappan vs Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam on 18 August, 2025 (Madras High Court)
Image from here.The plaintiff, founder of a newly formed trust, sought an interim injunction against the defendant, a political party, arguing that the latter copied their flag which amounts to trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off. On the issue of copyright infringement, the plaintiff argued that their flag is an “artistic work”, however, the Court, on comparison, found that the defendant’s flag is substantially distinct from that of the plaintiff’s. Further, the Court pointed out that first, the plaintiff registered their composite flag and not the colour scheme and second, there was no likelihood of confusion between the two flags, providing no interim relief for trademark infringement. Lastly, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s plea for passing off as they failed to establish goodwill or reputation since their trust was created in August 2023.
Lotus Bakeries N V v Micks Products Llp & Ors on 20 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, the globally renowned manufacturer of ‘BISCOFF’ biscuits, filed a suit for infringement of its registered trademarks and trade dress. It alleged that the defendants were selling a biscuit spread whose packaging not only featured an identical biscuit shape but also used the phonetically similar mark ‘BISCO’ and mimicked the plaintiff’s overall brand identity, including the colour scheme and referencing its Belgian origin with the word ‘Belgiyumm’. The Court found that a strong prima facie case of infringement and passing off was established, noting that the defendants had copied multiple elements of the plaintiff’s intellectual property. Concluding that the balance of convenience was in the plaintiff’s favour and that it would suffer irreparable harm otherwise, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘BISCO’, the infringing biscuit shape, and the deceptively similar trade dress.
The plaintiff, M/S. Shiv Industries, owner of the registered trademark ‘Lifetime’ for furniture fittings and kitchenware, filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, a company founded by the plaintiff’s ex-employee, were using the deceptively similar trademark ‘Lifetime Care’ and a similar device mark for identical goods. The Court found a prima facie case of “triple identity,” where the marks, product category, trade channels, and consumer base were all identical. Observing that the defendants’ mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s well-known mark and likely to cause confusion, the Court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark ‘Lifetime Care’ or any other mark similar to the plaintiff’s trademark.
M/S. Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd v Al Kareem on 29 July, 2025 (Madras High Court)
The petitioner, M/s. Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the well-known ‘KARIM’S’ trademark for restaurants since 1913, filed a petition to rectify the Register of Trade Marks by expunging the respondent’s registered mark ‘AL Kareem’. The petitioner contended that the respondent’s mark was deceptively similar and its registration was invalid. The respondent defended its registration, claiming honest concurrent use in Hyderabad since 1965 and arguing that the petitioner, whose business was confined to the Delhi-NCR region, was not a ‘person aggrieved’. The Court held that the petitioner was a ‘person aggrieved’ as the respondent’s registration could limit its future pan-India rights. However, the Court found evidence of the respondent’s honest adoption and long-standing, geographically limited use. Invoking principles of honest concurrent use under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court declined to expunge the mark. Instead, it disposed of the petition by directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to impose an express geographical limitation on the respondent’s registration, restricting its use to restaurant services in Hyderabad, Telangana.
New Delhi Television Limited vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 20 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Image from here.The Delhi High Court in New Delhi Television Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining rogue websites, social media channels, and messaging platforms from infringing NDTV’s well-known trademark and copyrights. The Court directed domain registrars, YouTube, Telegram, X (Twitter), and Meta to block over 250 infringing sites, channels, and accounts, and ordered DoT/MeitY to ensure ISP-level blocking. The Court held NDTV had a strong prima facie case and that misuse of its mark posed risks of public deception and irreparable harm.
Yc Electric Vehicle vs Nipun Sanyantra Private Limited on 19 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark “YATRIK” and similar logos, found deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark “YATRI” for e-rickshaws. The Court held that the defendant’s adoption was dishonest, likely to cause confusion, and would result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff, whose turnover crossed ₹563 crores in FY 2023-24. The defendant was also directed to take down infringing product listings from social media and online platforms within one week.
Haveli Restaurant And Resorts Ltd vs Adison Resorts Limited on 19 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court in Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Ltd. v. Adison Resorts Ltd. granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark “Punjabi Haveli”, which was found deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s well-known HAVELI mark. The Court noted that the defendant had copied the plaintiff’s trade dress, ambience, and branding, even using the ® symbol without registration, causing consumer confusion and dilution of goodwill. The defendant was directed to remove all infringing hoardings, displays, and online listings within one week, failing which a Local Commissioner would be appointed to ensure compliance.
M/S.Optix Healthcare vs S.Baskaran on 12 August, 2025 (Madras High Court)
In this trademark rectification case decided by the Madras High Court, M/s. Optix Healthcare and its partners sought to expunge the trademark registration “FLURB” (Registration No. 5475906, Class 5) held by the defendant, who was a partner in the same firm. The court found that Optix Healthcare had prior use of the FLURB mark for ophthalmic products dating back to November 2016 with documentary evidence from September 2016, while Baskaran had only applied for registration in June 2022 on a “proposed to be used” basis without actual prior use. Since the marks were identical and used for identical ophthalmic medicines, and Baskaran (the first respondent) was set ex parte for non-appearance, the Court ordered the Registrar of Trade Marks to expunge Baskaran’s registration within 30 days, concluding that the subsequent registration lacked sufficient cause and would likely cause public confusion or deception.
M/S.Anugraha Castings vs Anugraha Valve Castings Limited on 22 August, 2025 (Madras High Court)
In the Madras High Court, the petitioner challenged the Commercial Court’s refusal to frame issues regarding the invalidity of Anugraha Valve Castings Limited’s trademark registration for “ANUGRAHA” (Registration No. 5117934 in Classes 6, 7, and 40). The Court partially allowed the revision petition, holding that while the Commercial Court correctly refused to frame an issue on trademark invalidity—since “Anugraha,” though a common dictionary word in seven languages, was not shown to be common in the specific trade classes of alloys and casting, and the respondent’s explanation that it was coined from founders’ names (Anand Kumar and Grahalakshmi) was prima facie acceptable and the court erred in not framing other relevant issues. The judge ordered additional issues to be framed regarding dishonest adoption, whether “Anugraha” was truly coined by the plaintiff, alleged fraud on the Registrar, defendants’ entitlement to Section 17(2)(b) benefits, and punitive costs, while emphasizing that Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act requires only prima facie tenable invalidity pleas to trigger rectification proceedings, which was absent here.
Dabur India Limited v. Marico Limited & Anr. on 20 August 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Image from here.Delhi High Court allowed Dabur’s applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of its cancellation petitions concerning Marico’s trademark. Dabur sought to correct inadvertent pleadings that mistakenly admitted deceptive similarity between the marks, contrary to its consistent stand in earlier proceedings that the marks were dissimilar. The Court held that the amendments, filed at the earliest stage before respondents’ reply, merely rectified drafting errors, did not alter the cause of action, and caused no prejudice to Marico. Relying on Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar, the Court permitted the amendments subject to costs of ₹25,000 to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, also condoning Marico’s delay of 52 days in filing its reply. The amended petitions were taken on record, with Marico granted six weeks to respond.
Muthukani Thiravidakani Trading vs K.Raja on 7 August, 2025 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court partially allowed the review petition filed by the petitioner against the IPAB’s 2013 order that had directed removal of their “ANIL APPALAM & CHIPS” trademark (Registration No. 687449, Class 30) from the register. The dispute arose from partnership dissolution documents dated July 14, 2000, where the first respondent K. Raja had exited the partnership but retained rights to use the business name in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, while the remaining partners could operate elsewhere. The Court found that the IPAB’s complete removal of the trademark was erroneous, as both parties had legitimate territorial rights under the partnership agreements – the review petitioners could use the mark outside Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, while the first respondent retained rights within those territories. Instead of removal, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to modify the trademark registration by imposing geographical limitations that would restrict the petitioners’ use of the mark to areas outside Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, thereby recognizing the territorial division agreed upon in the original partnership dissolution.
Berkadia Proprietary Holding Llc vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks on 26 August, 2025 (Madras High Court)
Berkadia Proprietary Holding LLC successfully challenged the Registrar’s December 17, 2024 refusal order that had rejected their trademark application for “INVESTOR QUERY” (Application No. 2381187, Class 36) on grounds of lacking distinctive character. The Court allowed the appeal after the appellant’s counsel strategically amended their application during the hearing to change the mark from “INVESTOR QUERY” to “BERKADIA INVESTOR QUERY,” adding the company’s own name as a prefix. The Court found this constituted a material change in the nature of the mark and noted that the Registrar could not be faulted for rejecting the original application since it only considered “INVESTOR QUERY” without the distinctive “BERKADIA” element. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar for fresh consideration within three months, directing that the amendment request be accepted and the appellant be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case for the modified mark.
Lt Foods Limited v. Davat Beverages Private Limited on 20 August 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, owner of the well-known marks DAAWAT and DAWAT used since 1985 for basmati rice, filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, damages, and related reliefs. The Court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in light of urgent interim relief, and permitted the plaintiff to place additional documents on record. Summons were issued, timelines fixed for written statement, replication, and document inspection. On the plaintiff’s claim that DAAWAT is a well-known mark (recognised in prior cases and by the Registrar of Trade Marks), the defendant stated it would not trade or sell goods under Class 30 until the next hearing. The undertaking was recorded, and the matter was listed for 17 November 2025.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
- USPTO limits the types of prior art that may be used to challenge patents in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
- Anthropic Settles AI Copyright Lawsuit Brought by Book Authors
- UN creates Artificial Intelligence advisory expert-panel comprising of scientists
- Japanese media giants Nikkei and Asahi Shimbun filed a lawsuit against Perplexity in Tokyo over alleged copyright infringement
(Thanks to Aali, Bhavya, Himanshu, Shailraj and Srishti)
(Please click here to view the post on SpicyIP and leave a comment)
