Kickstarting August with posts on “intent principle” vis a vis Section 3(b) and J. G. S Patel (Retd.)’s letter slamming the GLC administration over its notice to take actions against use of the college’s name in a podcast by former students, last week we saw a flurry of 15 posts on the blog! (Also, don’t forget to check out the report recapping the inaugural SpicyIP Summer School edition. This and a lot more on last week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Event Report of the Inaugural SpicyIP Summer School!
Curious about what made the inaugural edition of the SpicyIP Summer School such a buzz-worthy affair? Held from June 21st to 29th, 2025, at the serene Ecumenical Christian Centre in Bangalore, this eight-day immersive retreat brought together passionate, like-minded individuals from across the country. In this post, Sonisha Srinivasan offers a comprehensive recap, covering daily highlights, thought-provoking sessions by our speakers, participant reflections, and memorable moments captured throughout the week! Dive in for a glimpse into the energy, learning, and camaraderie that defined the first-ever SpicyIP Summer School.
What do you intend? Section 3(b) and the “intent” principle
The Cal HC’s recent reliance on the “intent principle” vis-à-vis Section 3(b) in the ITC and RJ Reynolds cases raises a key question — can the intent behind an invention save it from rejection under Section 3(b)? Seguing through the orders, Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan unpacks how the“intent principle” dilutes the harm-based approach, which excludes patents over assumed risks, and shifts the power balance from Controllers to applicants.
CRI Guidelines 2025 released!: Same Bottle, Same Wine?
Following multiple drafts and stakeholder consultations, the final version is now live. In a welcome move, the Government has also made public the feedback it received from various stakeholders during the process. Check out the full update and the Guidelines—and tell us what you think!
A Quick Look at the Draft Patent Rules 2025: What’s New(and Old)?
The Ministry of Commerce and Industry released another set of draft rules in order to amend the Patent Rules 2003. The draft rules are intended to modify the Patent (Second) Amendment Rules 2024 through which a new Chapter XIVA dealing with penalties and appeals had been added. Amongst others, the draft rules fail to provide the mechanism for the filing of and adjudicating complaints in relation to the offences under these provisions. Kartik Sharma discusses the changes brought about in the 2025 draft rules.
Raanjhanaa on the Big Screen (Again): Analysing the IPR Issues Triggered by An AI-Generated Ending
The hit romantic drama Raanjhanaa is being re-released with an AI-generated alternate ending. The entertainment industry is not new to AI related controversies and Raanjhanaa’s re-release brings the focus back to moral rights of creators. When commercial control trumps creative consent, what remains of the author’s moral stake? Tejaswini Kaushal looks into the controversy and explores what’s truly at stake if this AI-generated ending is allowed to screen.
Other Posts
Xiaomi’s ‘Find Device’ feature was at the centre of an important order recently where the Delhi HC refused to issue an interim injunction against Xiaomi from using its feature on the allegations of patent infringement raised by the plaintiff. Kartik Sharma looks at the order and discusses its different aspects.
From the Archives: India’s (not so) Secret Breakup Letters to the Berne Convention
Indian copyright and Berne Convention had an interesting history. India was at the forefront of resisting a Global North tilting Convention, and two archival documents retrieved from the National Archive of India further describe India’s approach. Lokesh Vyas looks at the history of India’s copyright approach with reference to the archival documents.
What the India–UK Free Trade Agreement Means for GRATK Protection: A Missed Opportunity?
The India-UK CETA is being touted as the most anticipated bilateral agreement between India and a developed economy in over a decade. However, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK) remain a missed opportunity in the CETA, not creating any binding obligations or introducing novel commitments beyond current multilateral norms. Achyuth B Nandan critically examines how far the FTA accommodates the protection of GRATK.
The Knowledge Gap in Action: Newgen v. VCare and the Realities of Modern Contracting
The DHC in Newgen v VCare rejected the VCare’s claim there was an implied approval by Newgen who had known about their branding under the “Newgen” mark for years and never objected. The defendant had earlier signed a software license agreement with the plaintiff, acknowledging its rights to the marks. Yohann Titus Mathew analyzes the order through the lens of Mateusz Grochowski’s paper – Knowledge Gap in Contract Law, to explain why modern contracts must be drafted keeping today’s fast-paced economy in mind.
Holes in Reasoning? How the Judgement in Crocs v Bata Might be Misunderstood
Is the Delhi High Court’s judgment on the overlap between design and trade dress being misinterpreted? Taking the discussion forward on the recent Crocs v. Bata decision, Priyam Mitra explains how the Court might not have conflated the two concepts. The post presents a view that contrasts with earlier perspectives shared on the blog by Shailraj Jhalnia.
In Conqueror Innovations v. Xiaomi, the Delhi High Court (“DHC”) recently rejected the application for an interim injunction in a patent dispute. One of the other factors the Court considered was the non-working of the suit patent in India. Kartik Sharma has previously explained the facts of the case and the Court’s findings on infringement. Neha Srikanth looks at working requirement under the Patent Act and how courts have relied on non-working of a patent to deny an interim injunction relief to the plaintiff.
Seeing Red, Silencing Truth: The Theft and Caste-Washing of ‘Sevvarali Poocharam’
The film Seeing Red is being alleged to be plagiarism of the story Sevvarali Poocharam by Tamil writer and journalist Jeyarani. In addition to being plagiarised right down to the period, specific gestures, and emotional arc, the movie has allegedly caste-washed the story. Anjali Tripathi writes on appropriation and whether the Indian copyright and other IP laws are equipped to handle such sensitive cases alleging caste based appropriation.
SpicyIP Tidbit: “GLC Law and Lore” – Justice Gautam Patel’s Powerful Call
On Justice Gautam Patel’s infuriated and impassioned letter slamming GLC’s takedown notice against an alumni-led podcast using the term “GLC”, Tanishka Goswami breaks down why trademark law doesn’t support this crackdown and why this might just backfire for the institute.
Suitcases v Shoes: Who Really Owns Carlton?
The DHC in VIP v. Carlton clarifies that in passing off cases, the goodwill of a mark abroad will be irrelevant unless accompanied by evidence of its goodwill in India. Therefore, making territorial goodwill a priority over global goodwill. Analysing the judgement, Shailraj Jhalnia explains the international jurisprudence on goodwill and some of the issues that may arise due to this judgement.
Call for Submission RSRR – Ahlawat & Associates Blog Series (Submissions by August 20, 2025
RGNUL Student Research Review is inviting submissions for RSRR – Ahlawat & Associates Blog Series. The last day for submission is August 20, 2025 11:59 PM (IST). Read on below for their call for submissions.
Case Summaries
ITC Ltd v Assistant Controller of Patents on 24 July, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The appellant, ITC Limited, challenged the rejection of their patent application in the court. The appellant argued that the Patent Controller did not disclose the documents on which it relied for refusal and even the hearing notice was vague which did not provide any reasons. The Madras High Court held that the process undertaken by the Controller was procedurally flawed and violated natural justice. It did not rule on the merits of the patent application and did not share all the material it relied upon, denying the appellant an opportunity to respond. In recognition of it, the court set aside the rejection and ordered for a fresh adjudication.
Hi Tech Products Limited vs Gopal Radios on 30 July, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
Hi Tech Products, the Plaintiff and the holder of the trademark ‘FALCON’, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Defendant, Gopal Radios, for selling counterfeit electrical products using the FALCON mark and a deceptively similar mark, ‘FELCAN’. Previously, the Court had granted an ex parte ad interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner, who identified bundles of counterfeit products bearing the impugned trademark in the Defendant’s godown. The Court concluded that the Defendant had willfully infringed the Plaintiff’s trademark and upheld the validity of the Local Commissioner’s report as valuable evidence. Accordingly, the Court permanently restrained the Defendants from using the trademark ‘FALCON’, or any other deceptively similar mark, along with the Plaintiff’s trade dress, and ordered them to pay two lakh rupees in damages to the Plaintiff.
Play House Motion Pictures, the Appellant, filed an appeal against an order of the Adjudication Authority challenging the demand for service tax levied under two categories, i.e., ‘copyright service’ and ‘business auxiliary service’, on the Appellant’s activities for the period 2009–2010 and 2012–2013. On the issue of service tax imposed under the category of copyright service, the Court held that a perpetual transfer of copyright is not a taxable category. Additionally, with respect to business auxiliary service, the Court found the demand unsustainable due to the absence of any agreements leasing out the theatre, any evidence that the theatre owner was receiving a fixed rent, and the failure to mention the specific provision within Section 65(19) of the Copyright Act, 1957, in the notice. Therefore, the Court set aside the order of the Adjudication Authority.
Travel Blue Products, the Plaintiffs, sued Miniso Lifestyle, the Defendant, for infringement of their registered design, the ‘Travel Blue Tranquillity Pillow’, and for passing off. Earlier, in September 2024, the Court had granted an ad interim injunction against the Defendant, stating that their product was an obvious imitation of the Plaintiffs’ design. Crucially, the Court affirmed the ‘only option’ test in this case and stated that the prior designs submitted by the Defendant as evidence supported the Plaintiffs’ case that the function of a neck pillow can be achieved using a wide variety of shapes and designs. Additionally, the Court found the Defendant’s products to be an obvious imitation of the Plaintiffs’ design, which amounted to passing off. Hence, they confirmed the initial ad interim injunction and restrained the Defendant from using the infringing design.
Manash Lifestyle, the Plaintiff and the owner of the popular beauty and wellness store PURPLLE and several other in-house cosmetic brands, sought a permanent injunction against multiple defendants, including scrap vendors, internal employees, a social media influencer, and a reseller, for illegally re-circulating expired, damaged, or near-expiry cosmetic products into the market. The Court considered an immediate injunction necessary to protect the brand’s reputation and consumer safety. Therefore, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendants and restrained them from manufacturing, selling, marketing, or re-circulating the impugned products. The court has set a date for a further hearing on the matter.
JK India Eagritech, the Plaintiff and the owner of brands like ChiniMandi, BioEnergy Times, and Bio Mandi, sought an urgent injunction against a group of Defendants using similar marks. The Plaintiff claimed this to be a case of ‘triple identity’ infringement, as the trademarks were identical, the products and services were identical, and the target audience was the same. The Court concluded that the Defendants’ use of the marks amounted to both trademark and copyright infringement, placing significant weight on an email sent by the Defendant wherein they clearly acknowledged the Plaintiff’s superior rights. The Court granted an urgent interim injunction, restraining the Defendants from using the infringing marks to operate their websites, promote on social media, or organise any event.
L & T Finance Limited vs Www.Aadharcash.Com & Ors on 28 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
L&T Finance sued the defendants for copying its website design, trademarks, and using false details, including its brand ambassador, to mislead users. The Court granted an ex parte ad‑interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing its L&T Finance’s trademarks, copyright, and passing off by operating deceptive websites identical to the plaintiff’s. The Hon’ble Court also ordered domain suspension of “www[dot]aadharcash[dot]com”, directed disclosure of registrant details, and found that the defendants’ conduct created a prima facie case of infringement and risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s goodwill.
Waterways Leisure Tourism Private v Mr. Mukesh Prasad Thapliyal on 28 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff filed the case against the defendant on the account of using a deceptively similar mark, Hotel Cordelia Inn, to their registered ‘Cordelia Cruises’ mark. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction against the defendant and ordered to take down its online references, including domain names and emails. The Court acknowledged that even though one party runs a cruise line and the other a land-based hotel, both offer hospitality services to the same consumer base via same platforms. In addition, the defendant’s adoption was not bona fide as they were aware of the plaintiff’s brand and attempted to imitate its visual elements which were unrelated to their business.
Ferrero Spa & Ors v M.B. Enterprises on 28 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, Ferrero Group, approached the Court against the defendant on the account of selling counterfeit of their Nutella hazelnut spread using identical trademarks, packaging, and branding. Since the defendant did not appear before the court, the Delhi High Court delivered a summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff. Recognizing the health implications of the circulation of counterfeit products in the market, the Court imposed a permanent injunction against defendants. It further declared the trademark of the plaintiff as a “well-known trademark” under Section 2(zg) of the Act.
Lucas TVS Ltd v FFC Impex on 22 July, 2025 (Madras High Court)
The appellant challenged the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks that allowed the opponent an extension of time to file evidence in their opposition proceeding even though the opponent missed the original deadline, which is within two months of being served the counter statement. The Madras High Court upheld the decision of the Registrar on the grounds that Rule 18(3) of the Trademark Rules, which is regarding of presumption of email service, does not apply automatically when the opponent proves non-receipt of the same. It further noted that the opposition and registration application have been pending for over four years and directed the applications to be decided within three months.
Naga Limited v Mr. Cherukuri Gopi Chand on 16 July, 2025 (Madras High Court)
The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 142 of the Trademarks Act to seek remedies against alleged threats by the defendants on the use of trademark ANAGANAGA. The defendant opposed the plaintiff’s trademark registration on the grounds that it is deceptively similar to theirs (NAGA). The Madras High Court disposed petitioner’s application via a summary judgment, holding that mere filing a notice of opposition to a trademark application does not constitute a “threat” under Section 142(1) of the Act. This is so because oppositions are a part of the statutory process. The proper forum for such cases is the trademark registry – a civil suit based on such opposition will not succeed and only after the opposition succeeds can someone file a suit for malicious prosecution, even if it is conditional.
Indmoney Tech Private Limited & Anr. vs Ashok Kumar & Ors. on 28 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Indmoney Tech Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliate sought an injunction against Ashok Kumars for impersonating their brand and its founder to run a fraudulent investment scam. The defendant used fake websites, mobile apps, and messaging groups mimicking the plaintiffs’ trademarks (INDmoney, INDstocks) and visuals to mislead the public. Victims were promised high returns and lured into transferring money to multiple fake bank accounts using forged documents and identities. The Delhi High Court granted interim relief, restraining the defendant from further infringement, directing tech companies and banks to block access, freeze accounts, and disclose information to help trace the culprits and prevent further harm.
The Calcutta High Court , granted an injunction to Exide Industries, restraining rival Amara Raja from using a predominantly red trade dress, “EL” mark, and “shattered O device” for its “ELITO” batteries. The court found a strong prima facie case for passing off, citing Exide’s century-long use and reputation, and Amara Raja’s conduct in adopting deceptively similar indicia, specifically Exide’s distinctive red color, “EL” mark, and “shattered O device”—had acquired significant goodwill and reputation through over a century of use.
Capital Foods, owner of the registered trademark SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY, filed a suit against Pitambari Products for infringing its mark and copying its trade dress. The plaintiff claimed long-standing use, significant sales, and extensive brand promotion since 2012. Despite a legal notice, the defendant continued using the identical mark. The Delhi High Court found the plaintiff’s mark had acquired secondary significance and granted an ex-parte interim injunction, restraining the defendant from using the mark SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY or any deceptively similar variant. The matter is listed for further proceedings on 16 December 2025.
Today Tea Limited vs Manoj Garg & Ors. on 29 July, 2025 (Commercial Court, Karkardooma)
The Court granted a permanent injunction in favour of Today Tea Ltd., restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar trademarks and from uploading or publishing defamatory content. Defendant No. 1 had copied the trade dress and artistic elements of the plaintiff’s registered mark “TODAY STAR TEA” and gave an interview falsely accusing the plaintiff of driving him to suicide, which was widely circulated. The Court found the video defamatory and damaging to the plaintiff’s reputation. Although compensatory damages were denied for lack of quantification, punitive damages of ₹3,00,000 were awarded against Defendant No. 1. Costs were also awarded.
M/s ASK Automotive Ltd. vs Neeraj Kumar on 29 July, 2025 (Commercial Court, Tis Hazari)
The Delhi Commercial Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of ASK Automotive, a leading friction product manufacturer, against Neeraj Kumar for infringing its trademark “ASK” and copyright-protected trade dress. The Court found that the defendant had been manufacturing and selling counterfeit brake shoes bearing ASK’s mark, which was confirmed through a local commissioner’s seizure. Despite denying wrongdoing, the defendant failed to provide credible evidence. The Court awarded ₹3,54,700 as compensatory damages based on seized goods and ordered the destruction of infringing material. However, it declined punitive damages, citing lack of egregious conduct. Costs were also awarded to the plaintiff.
The Bombay High Court dismissed Atomberg’s interim injunction plea in a design infringement suit concerning its ‘Renesa Ceiling Fan’. The court found prima facie evidence of prior publication of Atomberg’s design through social media posts and invoices predating its registration, thus weakening its novelty claim as per Sections 4(b) and 19(b) of the Designs Act, 2000. The passing off claim also failed due to insufficient evidence beyond mere design similarity, The court’s finding that Atomberg’s design was in the public domain before its registration directly undermined its claim to novelty, making it difficult to secure interim injunctions. This highlights that even a registered design can be vulnerable if pre-registration public disclosure can be proven.
Louis Vuitton Malletier vs Ajay Aggarwal on 25 July, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The Delhi District Court decreed a trademark and copyright infringement suit in favor of Louis Vuitton against Ajay Aggarwal. The court found the defendant was selling goods with identical ‘LV’ trademarks and logos, infringing Louis Vuitton’s well-known marks and copyrights. Given the defendant’s non-appearance and the plaintiff’s proven rights and reputation, a permanent injunction, delivery-up of goods, and damages of Rs. 5 lakhs were awarded. The court’s finding that the defendant’s actions impaired the distinctiveness of the well-known ‘LOUIS VUITTON’ trademark, in violation of Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, underscores the enhanced protection for such marks against dilution and unauthorised use, even on dissimilar goods if the mark’s reputation is leveraged.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd vs Br Agrotech Limited And Anr on 25 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court decreed a patent infringement suit against BR Agrotech, who was merely a seller/marketing entity for the infringing product “ROXYFIN”. The court based its decision on BR Agrotech’s “clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous admissions” of having sold the product, which had an identical composition to GSP Crop Science’s patented product, SLR 525, emphasising that Section 48 of the Patents Act holds sellers liable, with no exceptions for “honest marketing entities” or reliance on a manufacturer’s license. Damages and costs were awarded.
Other IP Development
International IP Development
(Thanks to Aali, Himanshu, Srishti and Subhalaxmi for the case summaries.)