SpicyIP Weekly Review (November 17-November 23)
SpicyIP
- Delhi High Court protects the personality rights of content creator Raj Shamani
- Supreme Court refers Officer’s Choice and Original Choice trademark dispute to mediation
- India issues first olfactory mark on “Floral Fragrance / Smell Reminiscent of Roses as Applied to Tyres”
- Indian Govt. plans to float global tenders for procuring dozens of patented drugs.
- Ericsson sues Transsion for infringing its SEPs
- Warner Music Group, Udio settle copyright case, plan new AI song creation platform
Here is a quick recap of the eventful week that we had. Last week, we announced the SpicyIP-jhana Blogpost Writing Competition 2025, an exciting opportunity for young IP enthusiasts to share their thoughts on the Indian IP landscape. We also had discussions on the Kenyan Court of Appeal decision refusing to reject a trademark application containing the term”Basmati” and the Delhi High Court DB’s order to pass an injunction against “Wow Burgers” holding the same to be deceptively similar to “Wow Momos”. These were followed by some interesting posts on the need for SEP policies in India, and whether an expired patent can be revoked by the Court. 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
Announcing the SpicyIP-jhana Blogpost Writing Competition 2025
Organized in collaboration with jhana, the competition will run for six weeks (ending on 30th December), during which shortlisted entries will be published on the blog after review by the SpicyIP team. The top three entries will be announced on the blog in early January 2026. Participants and our readers can make use of a complimentary one-month Pro account on jhana.ai to deepen and streamline their research by using the promo code- SPICYIP. For more info. Read the guidelines and rules in the announcement linked above.
SEPs are Decorative Acronyms in Indian Innovation Policies
Core SEP issues are missing from new and proposed Indian innovation policies that seem overly fixated on generating indigenous 6G SEPs with little concern on how they may be managed, litigated and leveraged for domestic economic growth. In this post, Ambika Aggarwal discusses why it would be well worth the effort to follow a procedure for mapping SEP issues with dedicated impact assessments before further similar policy decisions are made.
Can You Revoke an Expired Patent? Delhi High Court to Answer Soon
Can an expired patent be revoked? The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has set itself up to answer this question. Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan argues in this new post that the answer is quite simple: one just needs to recognise that Section 64 is a corrective mechanism built into the Patents Act to address lacunas in patent examination that can lead to patent grants whose validity is suspect. If one were to accept the purpose of Section 64 as preventing invalid patents from being successfully enforced, then it automatically follows that the right to file a revocation exists until claims of infringement can be made based on a patent (expired or alive).
Lessons from APEDA’s Basmati GI-TM Defeat in Kenya
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Kenya rejecting APEDA’s challenge to several ‘Basmati’ trademarks marks the latest chapter in a long-running cross-border dispute over geographical indications. Vikram Raj Nanda highlights how the ruling brings to the forefront key questions on the territoriality of IP rights and the boundaries between GI and trademark protection.
SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (17.11.2025)
This week, Gaurangi Kapoor turns to Bottle of Lies, Katherine Eban’s powerful exposé on the generic drug industry and Dinesh Thakur’s extraordinary whistleblowing efforts — a story that continues to shape conversations on drug safety and regulation. Also inside: a fresh roundup of IP events, opportunities, and updates you won’t want to miss.
Other Posts
Tying the Knot and Testing the Law: Musical Fair Use or Judicial Constraints?
Highlighting the controversy surrounding demands for royalties for songs played during weddings, despite Section 52(1)(za), Rajesh Kumar and Akanksha Badika examine the legislative intent behind this provision and explain why such demands are not justified under the Copyright Act.
CHC vs DHC: A Split Over Second Appeals in Trademark Cases
A familiar procedural puzzle in trademark law is back, this time before the Calcutta High Court. In Glorious Investment Ltd. v. Dunlop International Ltd., the Court ruled that Letters Patent Appeals do not lie from Single Judge orders under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act. In his analysis, Mohamed Thahir Sulaiman discusses what this means for consistency across High Courts and whether the Supreme Court may need to step in.
The BHC’s attempt to resolve the long-standing dispute between the Indian Express and the New Indian Express has reopened key questions at the intersection of trademark law and contractual agreements. Vasundra Koul examines the judgment, noting the confusion created by the Court’s use of the ‘derivative mark’ concept and its finding that Indian Express Madurai was only a permitted user despite the newspaper house holding a registration.
A Second Helping for Wow Momo: Delhi HC Serves Up a New Recipe for Trademark Protection
The Delhi High Court Division Bench on October 16 set aside the single judge’s order, recognising that while ‘wow’ itself may be generic, the creative branding of “WOW + food-item” is protectable. Hafsah Azhar Ansari writes on the DB ruling, focusing on the Court’s finding on “idea infringement” and the implications of this ruling.
Case Summaries
Mohammed Usman Sait vs Mohammed Saleem Sait on 18 November, 2025 (Madras High Court)
The present appeal concerned a family dispute over the use of the trade name ‘Joonut Sait’. The Appellant in the present case, before the Single Judge, alleged that the Respondent had breached the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entered into between the parties and thus sought an injunction. The Single Judge held that the MoU did not restrict the use of the name, except for its transfer to third parties, and disposed of the application. On appeal, the Division Bench declined to interfere, noting that the suit was ready for trial and that an appeal would delay proceedings. The Court further directed the Respondent to maintain the status quo regarding the use and expansion of the mark.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors vs Amresh Kamat on 18 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
#/media/File:Verizon_2024.svg)
Image from hereThe present suit concerned infringement and passing off of the Plaintiffs’ trademark ‘VERIZON’. An ex parte injunction had already restrained the Defendant from using the Plaintiffs’ marks. Despite service, the Defendant failed to appear before the court or file a Written Statement, due to which bailable warrants were issued. Upon appearance, the Defendant filed an affidavit undertaking to cease all use of the Plaintiffs’ mark. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of prayers (i) to (iii) and (x) and permitted the Plaintiffs to seek the takedown of any remaining online listings on third-party platforms.
Raj Shamani & Anr vs John Doe/ Ashok Kumar & Ors on 17 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit was filed by content creator Raj Shamani seeking permanent injunctions for trademark infringement of ‘FIGURING OUT’ and for passing off, copyright infringement, violation of common law rights and misappropriation of publicity/performer’ rights by the unauthorised use of Shamani’s name, voice, image, likeness, etc by multiple online entities. The Plaintiffs further alleged that the Defendants had created deepfakes of Raj Shamani for their content. The Delhi High Court noted the misuse by the Defendants, including fake endorsements, impersonations, morphed content, etc., and thus granted injunctions against the Defendants for violating Raj Shamani’s personality rights.
Image from hereRelaxo Footwears filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Aqualite Industries, alleging piracy of its registered design for Hawai-style footwear, which the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court had upheld. On appeal, Aqualite argued that Relaxo’s design lacked novelty due to identical prior art. The Division Bench rejected these contentions, noting that the prior art lacked verifiable dates and that Relaxo’s design appeared novel to the instructed eye.
Rajeev K P vs Unais.K.K on 18 November, 2025 (Kerala High Court)
The appellants, manufacturers of compost bins sold under the registered trademark “BOKASHI BUCKET,” filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents, who were selling a similar product under the name “MARIA BOKASHI BUCKET.” Although the trial court initially granted an ad-interim injunction, it had later vacated the injunction. On appeal, the Kerala High Court reversed this decision and found that the appellants had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. Importantly, the High Court interpreted Rule 98 of the Trademark Rules to hold that mere non-filing of a counter-statement in a rectification proceeding does not result in automatic annulment or cessation of a trademark registration, and therefore the appellant’s trademark remained valid and enforceable.
The manufacturers of pharmaceutical products sold under the registered trademarks “GLIMET” and “GLIMET DS” filed a suit against the defendants for using the marks “ELGIMET”, “ELGIMET-SR 1/500”, and “ELGIMET-SR 2/500”, alleging trademark infringement and passing off. In applying the Cadila Healthcare standard, which requires restraining use upon even the slightest probability of confusion in medicinal products, the Court confirmed the earlier ad-interim injunction, noting phonetic and visual similarity between the marks and holding that a prima facie case of infringement had been made out.
The plaintiffs, who operate international hospitality services under the registered trademark “ANANTARA,” filed a suit seeking an ad-interim injunction against the defendants for offering identical services under deceptively similar marks. Despite cease-and-desist notices and adverse WIPO decisions, the defendants continued adopting new infringing domain names incorporating the plaintiffs’ mark. The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction, finding a prima facie case of infringement based on visual, structural, and phonetic similarity between the marks. The Court further noted the defendants’ mala fide conduct in repeatedly violating the plaintiffs’ rights and attempting to ride on their goodwill.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd vs Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd on 15 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Image from hereThe plaintiff company, engaged in the manufacture of agrochemicals, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling an impugned product alleged to infringe its patent. Interestingly, the defendant raised no objection to the grant of a permanent injunction, but disputed the plaintiff’s allegation that it had carried out any commercial sales of the alleged infringing product. Accordingly, the Court granted a permanent injunction and issued notice to a third-party e-commerce platform to clarify whether any sales had in fact occurred.
The Delhi High Court addressed the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment concerning the CREED trademark. The dispute arose after the distribution agreement expired on August 9, 2022, but Defendants continued unauthorizedly selling unsold CREED inventory and using the trademark via a store and WhatsApp account. Since Defendant No. 1 agreed to the permanent injunction, and others did not contest, the Court decreed a permanent injunction. The Court awarded the Plaintiff damages of Rs. 37,42,737/- for unauthorized use, plus Rs. 7.97 lakhs in legal costs, applied jointly and severally against the Defendants.
The Delhi High Court reviewed an application seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The court found the Defendant’s use of the polo player device deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ registered BHPC Logo Mark in Class 43. Noting the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case and goodwill, the court granted the injunction, restraining the Defendants from using the device. However, the Defendants were permitted to continue using the word mark “POLO INN & SUITES” without the device.
The Calcutta High Court reviewed the rejection of a patent application for a composition utilizing human embryonic stem cells. The Controller rejected the application primarily under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, citing that the invention required the destructive and unethical use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes. The court affirmed that this commercialization was contrary to public order or morality. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the original reasoned rejection.
Saregama India Limited vs En.Ssyou.Tube & Ors on 10 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Image from hereThe Delhi High Court reviewed the infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted works (sound recordings, musical works) by websites engaged in “Stream Ripping”. The court noted that stream ripping facilitates unauthorized reproduction and distribution, undermining licensed business models. Finding grave prejudice and irreparable harm, the court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The injunction restrains the defendant websites and directs registrars to lock domains and ISPs to block access.
Signatureglobal (India) Limited vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 12 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit for infringement of the ‘SIGNATUREGLOBAL’ Subject Mark and copyright. The Plaintiff alleged the Defendant operated a dupe website mirroring their official site, including the mark, layout, and corporate details. Finding a prima facie case, the court granted urgent interim relief, restraining Defendant No. 1 from using the mark. Defendant No. 3 was directed to lock and suspend the infringing domain name within 72 hours.