Would the Delhi HC’s injunction order against Zydus set a dangerous precedent on stockpiling? A post touching upon this issue. The India-UK CETA carries forward some problematic elements from the 2022 leaked draft version – a post exploring the agreement on key IP sections. Where exactly are we headed in the GM Crops regime? A post holistically analysing the GM regime in India and the impact it may have. This and much more in our weekly roundup of our blog posts, case summaries, and top IP developments in the country and the world. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
E.R. Squibb v. Zydus: Why the Delhi HC’s Take on Biosimilars May Set a Dangerous Precedent
The recent DHC Nivolumab quia timet injunction order against Zydus may set a dangerous (and problematic) precedent in biosimilar infringement cases. Yogesh Byadwal explains, arguing that the Court’s finding re-stockpiling under the Bolar exemption may open a backdoor to patent linkage.
The recently signed India-UK CETA diverges in several respects from the major TRIPS+ provisions proposed in the leaked 2022 draft. However, it still carries forward some problematic elements from that version and reinforces provisions seen in the India-EFTA TEPA. Praharsh explores the Agreement’s stance on key patent levers such as pre-grant oppositions, working statements, compulsory licensing, and more.
Keeping Up with The (GM) Crops: Comments and Caveats on the GEAC’s Punjab GM Crop Trials
From the judicial limbo of GM Mustard to the trials of GM Maize amidst health and environmental concerns, add to that the inconsistency in producing reliable trial studies for GM crops and the trade negotiations between India-US with a push for GM animal feed — where exactly are we headed in the GM Crops regime? Tejaswini Kaushal holistically analyses the GM regime in India and the impact it may have on smallholder farmers as well as India’s agri exports.
Other Posts
Prima Facie, Not Per Se: Rebuilding SEP Interim Jurisprudence after Nokia v Oppo
The Delhi HC directed Lava to deposit ₹20.81 crore as a pro tem security in a pending SEP infringement dispute against Dolby. The dispute centres on Dolby’s Indian patents related to audio compression standards allegedly used in Lava’s smartphones. Shailraj Jhalnia argues for a more balanced approach on how the Courts should calculate such deposits, keeping in mind the interests of both the SEP holders and implementers.
Explaining two recent judgements on amendments – Dong Yang PC Inc. v Controller of Patents and Designs (Delhi HC) and Srinivas Jegannathan v Controller of Patents (Madras HC), Ganesh Prasad, argues how they point towards the need for the patent office to fulfil its quasi-judicial role in patent prosecution with clarity and evidence. Dong Yang addresses whether a patent amendment can be denied solely for a disclosure omission, whereas Srinivas Jegannathan scrutinizes the evidentiary rigor behind a finding of obviousness.
[Sponsored] Crack the Patent Agent Exam – Join India’s Most Trusted Training Program
Edu Literati is now inviting applications for its Patent Agent Exam 2026 Training Programme. The programme fee is ₹25,000 and SpicyIP readers can avail a 20% discount by using the coupon code SPICYIP at checkout. This special offer is valid for a limited number of seats, so early registration is recommended. To learn more about the programme, check out the details in the post.
Case Summaries
Ms Veerji Restaurant Private Limited vs Yash Rai & Ors. on 8 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The suit was filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of trade mark and copyright and passing off of their services as those of the Plaintiff. The Court noted that the plaintiff has been able to prove that it has been continuously and extensively rendering their services under the Plaintiff’s mark since 2016. The Court further undertook a comparison of the alleged infringing marks and found that the defendants have adopted and are using the impugned marks, which are identical with/ similar to the plaintiff’s mark. Passing a summary judgment, the Court found infringement of trade mark and copyright as well as passing off of the impugned services and awarded damages of Rs. 5 lakhs to the Plaintiff.
Info Edge (India) Limited vs Pradeep Namdeo & Anr on 17 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court allowed the Appellant to submit an encrypted electronic record, either on a compact disc or pen drive, with video advertisements related to the Appellant’s trademarks within 4 weeks. An appeal was filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The instant appeal challenged the order from the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, which rejected the opposition against the trademark application. Notices were sent to the Respondents, and the Court put a hold on the enforcement of the disputed order and the trademark registration until the next hearing.
ITC Limited vs Elora Tobacco Company Limited & Ors on 15 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff to submit additional documents in the instant case under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, within 30 days. The Plaintiff, ITC Ltd., alleged that the Defendants had infringed their trademark and copyright, persisting in cigarette brands such as “FLAKE” and “NAVY CUT.” ITC claimed that the Defendants’ marks “FOREVER FLAKE” and “NUT CUT”, were deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s marks, and that there was imitation of the unique trade dress and devices, such as the Boomerang and slug devices. The Court found a preliminary case and balance of convenience in favour of the Plaintiff, highlighting the risk of lasting harm and public confusion if the Defendants continued to use their marks. As a result, the Court prohibited the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing with the infringing products until further notice.
The Appellant submitted a patent application for microspheres containing aripiprazole and an injectable formulation. The Deputy Controller of Patents rejected the application, citing a lack of inventive step and clarity, as stated in Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970, respectively. The Appellant contested the said decision, claiming that it was made bereft of proper reasoning and violated principles of natural justice. The Court found the order to be unreasoned, noting that it failed to discuss the invention or clarify the relevance of the prior art used.
Gravity Bath Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Chauhan Sanitation on 17 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an exemption from pre-institution mediation in an interim relief suit filed by the Plaintiff, Gravity Bath. The Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff, who had been selling bathware products under the mark “GRAVITY” since 2002, claimed that the Defendant’s use of the similar mark “GRAVETY” for the same goods caused a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The Defendant did not appear in court despite being notified, so the court ordered that summons be served. The court restrained the Defendant from using the disputed mark or any similar marks until the next hearing.
The Plaintiff, who claimed copyright over the songs of Jasdev Yamla, a Punjabi folk singer, instituted a suit for infringement against the Defendants for unauthorized online publication since 2016. The Defendants challenged the urgency on the grounds that the Plaintiff overslept its rights and avoided compulsory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court ruled that the urgency was created artificially, held the delay to be inexcusable, and withdrew the dispensation under Section 12A. The suit was ordered to be dismissed along with all interim orders.
The Polo Lauren Company Lp vs Polo India on 22 July, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
Polo Ralph Lauren, filed a suit against Polo India under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking a permanent injunction, and damages, by alleging infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff established that its device marks ‘POLO’ and ‘POLO PLAYER’ have been in continuous use since 1967 and 1971 respectively, are well-known in India and globally. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant, operating in the same market segment, used deceptively similar marks for the similar products. This created a likelihood of confusion and deception among consumers. The Court permanently restrained the Defendant from using any POLO-related mark in relation to apparel.
Faering Capital Private Limited vs Waleed Mitra & Ors on 16 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In a trademark infringement suit filed by Faering Capital Private Limited, the DHC exempted the Plaintiff from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 based on the urgency and public interest in the financial sector involved. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants released mobile applications under marks “FaerPE” and “Faering PE” which are confusingly similar to the Plaintiff’s registered marks “FAERING” and “FAERING CAPITAL”, resulting in likely consumer confusion. The Court established a prima facie case of infringement and issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction inhibiting the defendants from trading under the impugned marks or running the infringing apps on platforms such as Apple App Store.
Chemo Healthcare Private Limited vs Examiner Of Trademarks on 18 July, 2025 (Gujarat High Court)
Chemo Healthcare filed an appeal u/s 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. They further challenged the Trademark Registryx rejection of the application to register the mark “VILDAZE”. The rejected it based on the objection under Section 11(1) of the Act and they cited prior trademarks “VILDAZEN”, “VILDAZEN-MET”, and “VILDAZEM” in Class 5. The appellant argues that “VILDAZE” has been operational since 12 December 2019, whilst the cited marks were either proposed to be used or had later user claims. It also relied on Section 20 which allows a mark to be advertised even if objections under Section 11 still exist. The Court held that prior user rights and Section 20 warranted publication of the mark. Therefore, the rejection order was quashed and set aside, and the Trademark Registry was directed to advertise the application within 3 months.
S.Sudhakar vs M/S.Leela Udhyog on 8 July, 2025 (Madras High Court)
The plaintiffs sought a summary judgement in a commercial case where they claimed copyright infringement and passing off. They said they had been using the trademark “TOWER” since 1996 and showed proof of original art made in 2011 and 2020. The plaintiffs said that the defendants used a label that was very similar to theirs i.e “Eiffel TOWER” on dhall products. The defendants argued that the court did not possess jurisdiction and that they had not used the material before. The court held that the plaintiffs were the first people to utilise the work and that they had a valid copyright. Further, they also held that the defendants’ label was a big copy that would probably confuse customers. The court dismissed the argument to jurisdiction Further, It gave the plaintiffs a summary judgement, which included injunctions and an order for an account of earnings. However, it put off the demand for ₹25 lakhs in special damages till trial.
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc & Ors. vs Zydus Lifesciences Limited on 18 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary order prohibiting the Defendant, Zydus, from manufacturing, selling, or dealing with any biosimilar of Nivolumab, marketed as Opdivo. This is a patented cancer drug owned by Squibb, and its patent protection lasts until May 2, 2026. The Court found that Zydus’s biosimilar candidate, ZRC-3276, violated the patent claims because it used the same monoclonal antibody sequences covered by the patent. Even though Zydus relied on the Bolar exemption and claimed prior art, the Court ruled that the patent was likely valid and that infringement was proven. This was based on evidence, including Zydus’s own registration of clinical trials that referenced Opdivo as the reference product. The Court noted that manufacturing, stockpiling, or preparing for sale before the patent expires would be seen as infringement and would harm the patent holder irreparably. The Court also ordered Zydus to report the quantities of any biosimilar produced, preventing its commercial launch until the patent expires or until further notice.
Mongia Steel had sued Saluja Steel for infringement of its trademark MONGIA with device of Sardarji. In a 2015 suit, Mongia had included copyright claims but later withdrew them. The court allowed Mongia to withdraw the suit in 2020 with permission only to refile on the same cause of action and without adding new claims. Mongia brings back the copyright allegations in the new lawsuit. The Commercial Court threw out the plaint because it didn’t follow the rules for withdrawal and added a new cause of action that was too late to file. The High Court agreed with the decision and said that the copyright claim was not part of the original case and that it could not be brought back into the case.
ITC Limited vs Vinay Gupta on 2 July, 2025 (Bangalore District Court)
ITC Ltd had filed suit against Vinay Gupta for posting Instagram videos that falsely claimed their Aashirvaad atta possessed harmful and dangerous ingredients using ITC’s brand. The Court said that Gupta’s assertions were false, deceptive, and also defamatory. Further, it was held that he had infringed ITC’s trademark under Section 29(8) of the Trademarks Act. ITC showed that it was a market leader and that its products met food safety regulations. The Court gave ITC ₹10 lakhs in damages (instead of the ₹10 crore they asked for), told Gupta to take down the content and apologise in public that he would not say such things again. Meta, the company that owns Instagram, was told to take down any defamatory content that is already on the site and any that is posted in the future.
Saregama India Limited vs Sky B Bangla Private Limited on 18 July, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
Saregama India had filed suit against Sky B Bangla Pvt. Ltd. for broadcasting its copyrighted Bengali songs on the “Aakash Aath” TV channel without any form of authorization. Despite injunctions and multiple other opportunities, the defendant failed to appear or file a written statement even after they were found to be infringing. The Court held that the plaintiff had valid and subsisting copyrights and the defendant had no real prospect of defending the claim. Applying the summary judgment under Order XIIIA CPC the Court granted a permanent injunction and awarded ₹4,00,000 in damages along with costs.
Ms S. K. Educations Pvt. Ltd vs Chintels School And Anr on 16 July, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
M/s S.K. Educations filed a suit against Chintels School for unauthorized use of its registered trademark and copyrighted material under the brand “BACHPAN” after termination of their franchise agreement. The court held that the defendants in spite of being duly served had failed to appear and were proceeded ex parte. Further, the evidence had shown a continued use of the mark, logo, and uniforms. This was held to mislead an association with the plaintiff. The court held this was infringement and passing off which harmed the plaintiff’s goodwill. A decree of permanent and mandatory injunction was granted, along with ₹43,123 in dues and 6% interest. However, no damages were awarded due to a lack of quantified evidence.
The Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a permanent injunction against multiple Defendants for infringing their well-established trademarks “REVITAL”, “DAZOLIC”, and “DUOZ” by adopting and marketing pharmaceutical products under deceptively similar marks “BERIVITAL”, “BEZOLIC”, and “DOZE-30”. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants’ marks were deceptively similar to those of the Plaintiffs’ marks, thereby causing a likelihood of confusion among both the consumers as well as the members of trade, especially given the overlap in products, channels, and customer base. The Court found a prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in goods under the impugned marks until the next hearing.
Twenty-Four Frames Factory Private vs John Doe & Ors on 21 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff filed a suit before the Delhi High Court (“DHC”) seeking relief against copyright infringement of its film “Kannappa” by various Defendants. The Plaintiff contended that despite its ownership under the Copyright Act, 1957, unauthorised copying and online dissemination of the film had caused substantial commercial and reputational harm. To prevent further damage, the Court exempted the Plaintiff from pre-institution mediation and granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, directing Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corp to expeditiously disable specified infringing URLs in compliance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Ashiana Housing Limited vs Ashok Kumar (Unknown Persons) on 21 July, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The Plaintiff, Ashiana Housing Limited, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing its well-known trademarks “ASHIANA” and “ONE44”. The Plaintiff substantiated long-standing and widespread use of its marks, goodwill and reputation, as well as ownership of its statutory copyright, alleging that the Defendants registered deceptively similar domain names closely imitating Ashiana’s projects. The Court granted an injunction prohibiting the use, transfer, and public display of the Plaintiff’s marks and domain names. The Defendants were also directed to transfer the infringing domains to the Plaintiff.
Astha Jain & Anr vs Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors on 18 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiffs sought an injunction against multiple Defendants for infringement of their registered trademarks and copyrights in relation to the marks “AYUVYA”, “BOOBEAUTIFUL”, “i-GAIN+”, and “IMFRESH”, contending that various counterfeit goods bearing the aforesaid marks were being sold on leading e-commerce platforms. The Court held that the Plaintiffs had established prima facie rights over the impugned marks and granted an exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation. The Defendants were directed to take down listings of products bearing the said marks from major e-commerce platforms.
M/S Vini Cosmetics Pvt Ltd vs Manjit Kumar on 21 July, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
M/s Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. filed suit seeking a permanent injunction against Manjeet Kumar (trading as Shree Ram Cosmetics) for infringing its registered trademarks in the packaging for its “WHITE TONE” cosmetic products, alleging that the Defendant was manufacturing, selling, and passing off goods with identical or deceptively similar trade dress, thereby misleading consumers and causing irreparable harm to its reputation and goodwill. In holding that the Plaintiffs had established statutory trademark rights, the court permanently restrained the Defendant from using, selling, advertising, or dealing in products bearing the Plaintiff’s trademarks and copyrights, and also awarded costs in favour of the Plaintiff.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
(Thanks to Neha and Yohann for the case summaries)