SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 1 – September 7)
Md Sabeeh Ahmad
Beginning September with a post on Rajasthan HC’s invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution in a trademark case. Bollywood’s copyright dance at the Bombay HC – post on the recent orders concerning the movies Disco Dancer and Dream Girl 2. 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
After 12 long years, the Supreme Court’s order in Ericsson v CCI seems to have ended with a bit of an anticlimax. While the order is not yet out, we understand that even while upholding the rest of Delhi HC’s DB order, the SC has specifically left open the question of law regarding jurisdiction of CCI vis-a-vis the Patents Act in Patent Disputes. Ambika Aggarwal writes on what we’ve gathered, even as we await the order.
From Disco Dancer to Dream Girl 2: Bollywood’s Copyright Dance in Court
Bollywood’s tryst with IP came to full display via two recent judgments by the Bombay HC. One concerning legitimate remake vs unauthorised adaptation and the other answering if a film character is a protectable expression. Aali Jaiswal, discussing the judgments, explains how the Copyright Act, 1957, distinguishes between exclusive rights under Section 14 and the limits on protection under Section 13.
Vasundhra vs Vasundhara: Notes on Section 35 and the Goodwill Question
The Delhi HC, in an appeal filed by Vasundhara Jewellers against the single bench order dismissing the interim injunction application, clarified that a proprietor does not need to use their full name to avail of the Section 35 defence against a trademark infringement action. Subhalaxmi Mukherjee, discussing the order, writes why associating the identity of a company with the name of the proprietor might be problematic.
Is the right to a quick trademark examination a fundamental right? The Rajasthan HC in Nirmala Kabra v Registrar of TM says yes. Kartik Sharma writes on the development critiquing the Court’s observation of trade mark application disposal and Article 21.
Other Posts
Justice with Velvet Gloves? A Look at the DHC’s Decision in the iPhone Counterfeit Case
The Delhi HC recently voiced serious concern over the import of counterfeit iPhones in M/s ECG Easy Connect Logistics v Commissioner of Customs. The bench followed this observation by reducing the courier agent’s revocation of registration, citing proportionality. Tejaswini Kaushal analyses the judgment and argues that public interest requires strict and deterrent penalties for all participants in counterfeit operations.
The Delhi HC in Vikrant Chemico v Shri Gopal Engineering set the record straight on the jurisdiction of courts in a trademark infringement dispute. The Court clarified what counts as a cause of action and how it is to be applied with evidentiary rigour in the context of online shopping forums. Srishti Gaur unpacks the ruling and shows how it sharpens the position in light of earlier precedents.
Case Summaries
Jyothy Labs Limited vs Gautam Kumar & Anr on 26 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff’s mosquito repellent product, “MAXO GENIUS MACHINE”, with its registered mark “MAXO”, was allegedly tampered with by the Defendants, who were selling spy cameras embedded inside the mosquito repellent machines. The Court noted that the Defendants deliberately concealed the use of the mark “MAXO” online, but the delivered products still bore the Plaintiff’s mark. This tampering, the Court recognized, fundamentally changed the nature of the product and considering the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation in the market, it can cause confusion among consumers, making a prima facie case of infringement. The Defendant and their affiliates were ordered to refrain from selling or advertising this particular product and remove infringing listings from their website within 72 hours of the order.
Ansys Inc vs Inverted Energy Private Limited & Ors on 28 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Defendants, Inverted Energy Private Limited, was allegedly using an unlicensed version of the Plaintiff’s version of software. Aggrieved by this, the Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction for copyright infringement. The Plaintiff sought permission to file a pen drive for audio recording as evidence – the Court allowed it, but playback will take place later. The Defendant claimed that they did not use Plaintiff’s software and are willing to make a statement that they will not use Plaintiff’s software in the future. Moreover, they even had previously instructed their employees not to install the Plaintiff’s software on the company’s computers without their knowledge. In case an employee has downloaded it unauthorizedly, the Defendant submitted that it shall get it deleted. The Court, for now, ordered a Local Commissioner, Mr. Kapil Kumar, to inspect the Defendants’ office along with the assistance of two representatives from the Plaintiff and to submit the report within two weeks.
Image from here.The GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd, the Plaintiff, filed a suit against the Defendant for trademark infringement of their long-standing registered mark “COBADEX” which the Plaintiff uses for multivitamin tablets and capsules. The Defendant’s mark “COZIDEX”, for which an application for registration was made in 2024, was argued to be similar to that of the Plaintiff’s and is allegedly used by the Defendant for similar pharmaceutical products. Taking in cognizance that “COZIDEX” is deceptively similar to “COBADEX” and in light that the two are involved in drug production wherein confusion could cause public health consequences, the Court granted an interim injunction, restraining the Defendant from manufacturing, selling, marketing or distributing any pharmaceutical product under the mark “COZIDEX”. The Defendant has been given 4 weeks to file its reply.
Novartis Ag & Anr vs Novasis Healthcare Private Limited & … on 26 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiffs owned the well-known trademark “NOVARTIS” which was registered internationally and in India since 1996, earning them goodwill and reputation in the market due to their continuous use in the pharmaceutical sector. The Defendants have adopted marks like “NOVASIS”, “NOVASYS”, “NOVATICS” and their like, which the Plaintiff argued were deceptively similar to their mark. The Court first concluded that Novartis established a prima facie case of infringement, the balance of convenience was found in their favour and if an injunction was not granted, the Plaintiff would face irreparable harm. Further, the Court held that this is a “triple identity” case – the marks were similar, the products and the trade channels and consumer base were identical and this degree of similarity has a high degree of likelihood of confusing an average consumer. Thereby, the Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Novartis.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH vs Femilab Healthcare & Anr on 29 August, 2025 (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
On the Plaintiff’s application of patent infringement against the Defendant concerning a diabetes drug – Empagliflozin, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendant in December 2024. The patent was granted for a term of 20 years and as the case progressed, the patent expired. The Plaintiff argued that even though it expired, the injunction should continue to be imposed to protect against the infringement that occurred before expiry. The Court, in agreement with the view of the Supreme Court in Novartis v Natco, held that an interim injunction cannot survive beyond patent expiry. Once the patent expires, an identical product can be manufactured, however, only if the infringing product was manufactured during the lifetime of the patent, they remain infringing and cannot be legitimized. Finally, the Court lifted the interim injunction from the Defendant.
The Plaintiff claimed patent ownership for a pharmaceutical composition, a synergistic combination of Lactoferrin, Disodium Guanosine 5-Monophosphate and Iron, meant to treat anaemia and copyright of the content of their corporate website, which they alleged had been infringed by the Defendant through the latter’s product “FERROTOK PLUS”. The Plaintiff argued that their patent is valid until 2038 and since the product is aimed at pregnant anaemic women, it risks public health if substandard quality is available. The Court agreed that the Defendant’s composition falls within that of the Plaintiff’s patent claim and the Defendant did not rebut the scientific analysis of their developed formula. Finally, the Court found a prima facie case of patent infringement against the Defendant and restrained them from distributing, marketing, selling or exporting the product until the disposal of the suit.
Image from here.The Plaintiff filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against the defendant, in relation to a set of marks bearing the term ‘A to Z’. The Plaintiff was using this mark with a distinct logo on pharmaceutical products tablets, capsules and drops. The Defendant had been using ‘A-Z’ and ‘AZ’ on similar products and had obtained a design registration for the same. The Court noted that there were no visible differences between the parties’ marks. It restrained the Defendants from using the marks and directed them to delist the tablets bearing the mark A-Z from third-party websites.
Kryolan Gmbh And Anr vs M/S Krelon Cosmetics And Anr on 1 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark ‘KRYOLAN’ by the Defendant, who was using the mark ‘KRELON’ on identical products (cosmetics and makeup products). The Court took the prima facie view that the trademarks were visually and phonetically similar and rejected the defendant’s argument that it was simply a descriptive mark. The Court noted that the defendant had been in the cosmetics industry for 10 years and must be aware of the plaintiff’s trademark because of its large market presence. The Court therefore granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants from using the mark KRELON or KRELON COSMETICS.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd vs Oura Health Oy & Anr on 1 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the Defendants alleging the infringement of its patent over an electronic ring including sensors for monitoring health and fitness parameters. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were selling the patented product in the form of the OURA Ring which was being sold on e-commerce platforms in India. The Court found that the plaintiff had wilfully repressed two orders passed by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) injuncting the plaintiff’s products in the US market and finding that the Defendants’ patent had been infringed by the Plaintiff. The Court noted that these orders were material and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for non-disclosure.
This case involved an appeal against an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting the grant of patent for a medicinal compound to the Appellant, on the basis that a claim in the Appellant’s divisional application was anticipated by a claim in the parent application. The Court held that there is no requirement under Section 16 of the Patents Act for the claims in a divisional application to be based on or limited to the parent application as long as they are supported by the specification originally filed. The Court further found that there was no conflict between the Appellant’s claims in the two applications. It accordingly quashed the deputy controller’s order and ordered him to substantively examine the divisional application as independent from the parent application.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust vs Ashok Kumar (Unknown) on 25 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Image from here.The Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for trademark and copyright infringement in respect of its registered trademarks ‘Calvin Klein’ and ‘cK’. It alleged that the Defendant was selling accessories and products bearing the Calvin Klein logo. The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant and appointed a local commissioner to visit the defendant’s premises, obtain accounts and monetary value of its stock, and seize any materials to prevent the fresh manufacture of the infringing products.
Dabur India Limited vs Real Hindustan Beverages & Ors on 19 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant seeking permanent injunction for trademark infringement with respect to its registered wordmarks ‘REAL FRUIT POWER’ and ‘FRUIT POWER’. The Court, passing a summary judgment, granted permanent injunction against the Defendant, noting that the Defendant’s mark “ULTRA REAL FRUIT ENERGY’ is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered wordmarks.
Vgp Ipco Llc & Anr vs Mr Suresh Kumar Trading As Om Shiv on 22 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants restraining them from infringing Plaintiffs registered wordmark ‘VALVOLINE’. The Court noted that the Defendants have replicated the trade dress and overall representations of Plaintiffs’ goods in respect of identical goods, and the Defendants’ mark ‘VIVOLINE’ is deceptively, visually, and phonetically similar to those of the Plaintiffs’. The Defendant stated that a withdrawal application for its mark has been filed before the TradeMark Registry. The Court granting a permanent injunction to the Plaintiff directed to process the Defendant’s withdrawal application expeditiously and preferably within a period of four (4) weeks
Other IP Developments
- Prime Minister Narendra Modi Urges Indian Firms To Secure Global Chip Patents And Establish A Strong Presence In The Global Semiconductor Value Chain
- ICMR Licenses Nine Breakthrough Health Technologies to Industry Partners at India MedTech Expo 2025
- Cognizant Drops Logo From Social Media After Bombay High Court Reinstates Trademark Injunction
International IP Development
- Kanye West Ordered to Pay $52K in Attorney Fees After Discovery of Deliberate Obstruction in a Copyright Dispute
- Warner Bros. Sues Midjourney For AI-Generated Images Of Superman, Bugs Bunny And Other Characters
- America’s First Solar Alleges Patent Infringement Against Waaree’s TOPCon Solar Cells
(Thanks to Anushka and Srishti for the case summaries.)
