Entering May with posts on the copyright battle between musical maestros AR Rahman and Ustad F W Dagar, USTR 301 Annual Report that keeps India on ‘Priority Watch List’, settlement in the Philips-Vivo SEP showdown, and the Cryogas v. Inox judgment that misses the Section 52(1)(w) mark. Not to forget – we have begun revealing our faculty and experts for the SpicyIP Summer School. More on this here. 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
Dagar v. A R Rahman Controversy: Is the Law Out of Tune with Indian Classical Music?
In a copyright battle between two musical maestros, the DHC held that A R Rahman’s song ‘Veera Raja Veera’ from Ponniyin Selvan 2 prima facie infringed the copyright of Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar’s musical composition ‘Shiva Stuti’. Varsha Jhavar breaks down the Court’s prima facie finding on similarity between the two competing works and infringement, noting several critiques in the Court’s order.
Why Should the U.S. Have All the Fun? India Must Consider Publishing a Biopiracy Watch List
The release of the USTR 301 Annual Report like every year has become a diplomatic flashpoint, with India again on its ‘Priority Watch List.’ Dr. Anson C J writes that India should consider a strategic countermeasure — one rooted not in retaliation, but in accountability and equity: a Biopiracy Watch List.
Other Posts
The Philips-Vivo SEP Showdown: How a High-Stakes SEP Battle Ended in Settlement
In a recent turn of events, Philips and Vivo Mobile decided to settle their 5-year-old SEP dispute over 3G and 4G technologies pending before the Delhi High Court. Reportedly, this ends all the SEP cases against the Chinese smartphone manufacturer. Sushant Jaiswal writes on this development.
Assessing the Cryogas Judgment from the lens of Section 52(1)(w)
The Supreme Court’s decision on interplay between design and copyright in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others, leaves many void unfilled. Following the two part post on the judgement by Aditya Bhargava, Advika Singh Malik writes on the missed opportunity to interpret Section 52(1)(w) of the Copyright Act.
Case Summaries
Uto Nederland V vs Tilaknagar Industries Ltd on 28 April, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The appellant challenged the refusal of a temporary injunction in a trademark infringement suit, arguing that the trial court’s order involved a prima facie adjudication of rights and warranted broader appellate review. The Bombay High Court, addressing conflicting precedents, held that such orders are discretionary and not adjudicatory, reaffirming the principle in Colgate Palmolive. It ruled that appellate courts may interfere only when the trial court’s discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. The judgments in Parksons Cartamundi and Goldmines Telefilms were held to be incorrect for treating interim injunctions as adjudicatory. The matter was directed to be listed before the appropriate Bench for further hearing.
M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited vs Kamran Ghani And Anr. on 25 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner filed a petition seeking cancellation of the trademark ‘MARDEM’ registered by the respondent. The Court held ‘MARDEM’ deceptively and phonetically similar to the petitioner’s earlier used mark ‘MODERN’ for similar goods in Class 30. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had been the senior user since 1990, having established extensive use and goodwill. Considering the identical nature of the goods, the similarity in the marks, and the respondent’s prior knowledge as a vendor, the Court concluded ‘MARDEM’ would likely cause confusion among consumers. As the respondent did not dispute the allegations, they were considered admitted, and the court directed the cancellation of the ‘MARDEM’ trademark.
The plaintiff obtained an ex-parte ad interim order restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff’s registered trademark “NEW LIFE” by using the marks “NEW LIFE” or “NL”. The defendant filed an application praying to vacate the interim order. The present suit is a suit for infringement and passing off by plaintiff against the defendant, who are alleged to be infringing and passing off the trademark of the plaintiff by utilizing the abbreviation name of NEW LIFE. The Court, finding that the plaintiff has obtained the ad interim order by making contradictory statements in different pleadings, including claiming usage of the said mark since 1970 but disclosing invoices since 1999 in the current application, vacated the interim order granted.
ITC Limited vs The Controller Of Patents on 30 April, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The appellant was aggrieved by the respondent’s order rejecting its patent application on several grounds including prohibition of commercial exploitation of the alleged subject patent. It contended procedural lapses in the impugned order, further arguing that Section 83 (e) reinforces that granting a patent is different from commercialization of the invention and does not result in the right to sell the product. The Court held that the appellants were denied an opportunity to be heard. Placing reliance on Article 27.2 of TRIPS Agreement and Article 4 of the Paris Convention, the Court held that grant of patent cannot be refused on the ground that the sale of the patented product is restricted by domestic law. Reading Section 83(d) and (e) of the Patents Act 1970 and the objective of granting patent, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 and remanded the matter back to the Respondent.
UPL Ltd vs The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark on 30 April, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
This case is an appeal to an order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Joint Controller of Patent and Designs under Section 15 of the Patents Act 1970 rejecting a patent application on the grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) and 3(e) of the Act. The Court held that the impugned order lacked the reasons to conclude that the subject invention lacked inventive steps and the Controller was obliged to discuss how the prior art may apply to the subject invention. Regarding Section 3(e), it further held that since most inventions are combinations of old elements, mere existence in prior arts of each element will not ipso facto attract section 3(e). The impugned order was passed without considering all experimental data and tables in arriving at a conclusion that the invention was merely an admixture of known substances. The order was thus set aside and remanded to the respondent.
Luxuttica Group S.P.A vs Fazad Ahmad Syed on 29 April, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The present suit was filed against the defendant who were alleged to have dishonestly and malafidely adopted the trademark “RAY BAN”, which were alleged to be visually/ structurally identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered “Ray Ban” trademark. The Court ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the RAY BAN trademark or any deceptively similar mark for similar goods, as it infringes the plaintiff’s registered trademark, copyright and constitutes passing off. The Court was of the view that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case on the basis of preponderance of probability, thus decreeing in favour of the plaintiff, granting permanent injunction, costs, damages and seizure of infringing articles.
Max Healthcare Institute Limited vs Srk Max Hospital on 1 May, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff, who claim to be registered proprietors of trade mark MAX and MAX family/series of marks, filed the instant suit for permanent injunction seeking restrainment of infringement of trademark and passing off against the defendant who are alleged to be operating a hospital under impugned trademark SRK MAX HOSPITAL and using identical trademark/name as that of the plaintiff with respect to identical services- healthcare and medical services. The Court granted a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants from using impugned trademark MAX or any other mark identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark, including SRK MAX or its domain name, amounting to infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark. Further, the defendants are directed to withdraw trademark applications in class 44 or any other applications deceptively similar to MAX, including SRK MAX Hospital under class 44.
L Oreal vs Anup Jain on 30 April, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff, a French company owning the trademarks “L’Oreal” and “Maybelline,” alleged that unknown parties were selling counterfeit products using these marks. The court found substantial evidence of infringement and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction, ordering the delivery of counterfeit goods for destruction, and awarding legal costs to the plaintiff. On the issue of whether the defendants have infringed the plaintiff’s trademark, the Court held that there is irrefutable material to show that a huge quantity of counterfeit products bearing the plaintiff’s trademark were recovered from the possession of the defendant
Levi Strauss vs Ashok Kumar on 30 April, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff, a California-based company owning the registered “Levi’s” trademark, alleged that unknown parties were using identical or deceptively similar marks on counterfeit clothing to mislead consumers. The Court found the plaintiff to be the rightful trademark owner and held that sufficient counterfeit goods were seized from the defendants, confirming infringement. A permanent injunction was granted, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, storing, or selling such counterfeit products. The Court also ordered the delivery of seized goods to the plaintiff for destruction and awarded the costs of the suit.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
(Thanks to Advika, Sushant and Sonisha for the case summaries.)