Keep up with the ever changing world of IP with SpicyIP’s Weekly Review! A quick glance at last week – the first instance of AI hallucination in a judicial order, Delhi HC’s order in PPL v. Azure that has further muddied already murky waters concerning the interplay between Sections 30 and 33 of the Copyright Act, and the Delhi HC ordering the removal of Zepto mark from the trademark registry. 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
Phantom Precedents: When AI Hallucinations Invade Judicial Reasoning
In what is probably the first instance of AI hallucination in a judicial order, the Bengaluru ITAT bench relied on two fabricated case names and citations. This raises serious questions on the use of genAI in discharge of judicial functions. Anushka Dhankar looks at this development as well as related concerns about the use of AI tools in judicial processes.
Lawful Owners or Private Licensing Cartels? The Latest Development in the S.33 v. S.30 Saga
The Delhi HC granted an interim injunction to PPL against Azure, restraining the latter from playing PPL’s sound recordings in their restaurants. Anushka Dhankar argues that the judgement fails to substantively engage with previous interpretations of different courts on this issue and thus leaves the controversy still unaddressed.
Other Posts
After years of debate, COP16 came up with a multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism (MLS) in the form of the Cali Fund. Achyuth Nandan explains the MLS and points out some inconsistencies between the Indian Biodiversity Rules and the Biodiversity Act which may affect effectively regulating DSI under the evolving multilateral framework.
Defendant’s use Tips the Scales in DHC’s Ruling on Ex-Parte Injunctions
The Delhi HC clarified the evolving jurisprudence on ex-parte interim injunctions in ITC v. Adyar Gate Hotels. The Court noted that the defendants were not heard before despite long and consistent use of the alleged infringed mark. Anushka Dhankar writes on this development.
Delhi High Court Zaps Identical “Zepto” Mark Out of the Register
The Delhi HC allowed a rectification application by Kiranakart Technologies against an identical “Zepto” mark. Failure to rebut the petitioner’s arguments and non-use of the mark contributed to the removal. Suhani Chhaperwal writes on the development and assesses whether the test for rectification imposes an unreasonable burden on the petitioners.
Case Summaries
The respondent alleged that DS Drinks’ use of “CATCH SWING ENERGY INVIGORATES & MIND” was deceptively similar to its registered trademark “SWING,” leading to consumer confusion. The Trial Court granted an interim injunction, restraining DS Drinks from using the mark, reasoning that “SWING” was the dominant part of Hector Beverages’ brand and had acquired significant goodwill. On appeal, the High Court upheld the injunction, emphasizing that the similarities in branding could mislead consumers, especially since both companies operate in the beverages market. The Court rationalized that in trademark law, even a single dominant element within a composite mark can warrant protection if it has strong brand recognition.
Skullcandy Inc vs Galaxy Mobile Plaza Ors on 11 March, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff, Skullcandy Inc., filed a lawsuit against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that they were selling counterfeit Skullcandy products under its well-known brand name. The company argued that the unauthorized use of its trademark not only deceived consumers but also damaged its brand reputation and goodwill. The Court ruled in favour of Skullcandy, granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling counterfeit products and awarded ₹3 crores in damages to the plaintiff. The court held that the unauthorized sale of fake Skullcandy goods created confusion among consumers and violated intellectual property rights.
Both parties sought to submit additional documents at a late stage in an ongoing trademark infringement case. The Delhi High Court dismissed both applications, holding that neither party provided a reasonable cause for failing to submit the documents earlier, as required under Order XI Rule 1 of CPC. The Court emphasized that commercial litigation must be expedited, discouraging procedural delays, and imposed a cost of ₹5,000 each on both parties for wasting judicial time. By rejecting these late submissions, the Court reinforced that litigation should not be burdened by afterthoughts and procedural laxity, ensuring that parties adhere to strict timelines and prevent unnecessary delays in justice.
The appellant contested the rejection of its patent application for “Additive Compositions and Thermoplastic Polymer Compositions,” arguing that the Controller failed to consider the expert testimony of one Dr. Nathan A. Mehl. The Delhi High Court emphasized that expert opinions should not be disregarded solely because the expert is an employee of the appellant, as technical experts within a company possess relevant subject-matter expertise. The Court also clarified that foreign patent office decisions, such as the European Patent Office’s rejection of Dr. Mehl’s statement, do not automatically bind Indian proceedings. Given that the statement was filed within the permissible post-hearing submission period, the Court found it procedurally improper to exclude it. Stressing the principles of natural justice and due consideration, the Court remanded the matter for a fresh review, directing the Assistant Controller to reassess the expert statement, conduct a new hearing, and issue a reasoned order.
FMC Corporation Authorised vs Hindustan Fertilizers Private Limited on 11 March, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
This case revolves around trademark infringement and passing off, where FMC Corporation sued Hindustan Fertilizers Private Limited for using the mark “CORAGIN” which was deceptively similar to FMC’s registered trademark “CORAGEN” for insecticides. The Delhi High Court found the defendants’ mark merely substituted the letter “E” with “I” and also copied the plaintiffs’ distinctive packaging, color scheme, and device mark. The Court noted that the target consumers were farmers who might be easily deceived by the similar mark. Since the defendants failed to appear in court despite the service of summons, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of FMC Corporation and granted a permanent injunction against the defendants.
The Indian Hotels Company Limited vs Gaurav Roy Bhatt & Anr. on 11 March, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Indian Hotels Company Limited sued Gaurav Roy Bhatt and another defendant over unauthorized use of the TAJ marks. The Delhi High Court noted that the defendants had already consented to a permanent injunction against them, accepting they had infringed on the plaintiff’s registered trademarks. The Court then brought up the plaintiff’s additional request to declare its TAJ marks as “well-known trademarks” under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act. After examining extensive evidence of the TAJ brand’s 120-year legacy, presence across 4 continents and 13 countries, multiple awards, high social media following, and successful prior enforcement actions, the Court declared the TAJ marks as well-known trademarks in the hospitality industry.
Eveready Industries India Limited vs Mahalaxmi Industries & Anr on 17 March, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Eveready Industries India Limited sued Mahalaxmi Industries and its proprietor T.V. Pradeep for unauthorized use of the “JOSH” trademark. The Delhi High Court noted that despite accepting summons, the defendants failed to appear in court or file any written statement or reply to the interim injunction application. Prima facie evidence of trademark infringement was found, noting the defendants’ adoption of an identical mark with similar color schemes, and granted an interim injunction restraining them from using the “JOSH” trademark pending the next hearing.
In an appeal against an interim injunction order by the District Judge (Commercial Court), Tis Hazari Courts Delhi, the Delhi High Court passed an interim stay against the injunction order. A trademark infringement and passing off suit was filed against the appellant alleging that its Cheetal device mark is similar to the respondent’s Double Deer Mark. The High Court held that the appellant enjoys registration over the word work “Cheetal”, has been using the impugned mark since 2003, and the competing marks are prima facie not similar.
Kas Zainulabdin And Co vs Gokul Chand Manoj Kumar And Sons on 13 March, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court passed an interim injunction in the favor of the plaintiff and restrained the defendant from using its “099” label mark. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s impugned mark is deceptively similar to its “999” mark. Comparing the marks the Court held that there was a prima facie case of confusion and passed the present order.
The appeal was filed challenging the order by the Controller rejecting the patent application. The subject invention discloses apparatuses and methods for quantifying an average concentration of a component in a sample fluid. The appellants alleged that the impugned order did not deal with the subject invention nor does it provide reasoning for the rejection including no discussion on alleged prior arts. The Court held that the rejection order was passed without application of mind, therefore remanding it back to the Controller.
The appeal was against the refusal of the subject patent by the Controller under section 3(b). The subject patent was for the manufacture of tobacco flavourant. The appellants alleged that the Controller has proceeded on the premise that all forms of tobacco are injurious to human health and that no technical or expert opinion was sought to arrive at the conclusions. The Court allowed the seeking of instructions on behalf of the respondent and listed the case for March 26.
Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. DXC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on 10 March, 2025 (Madras High Court)
The suit was withdrawn by Novex seeking the Court to quash a previous judgement dt. December 8, 2021. The dispute concerned whether Novex can issue licenses for copyright in sound recordings. Noting the above request, the Court allowed the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and quashed the 2021 order.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
(Thanks to Diya and Suhani for the case summaries)