Delhi High Court’s decision to set aside an interim injunction against ace composer AR Rahman, posts on recent orders by the High Court on Jolly LLB 3 and Wow Momos, and a regular roundup of free or low-cost IP events, along with fellowships, jobs, and scholarships that we think might be useful. 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
DHC allows AR Rahman’s Appeal- Authorship is Composed not Performed!
In a big breather for music maestro A.R. Rahman, the Delhi High Court has lifted the interim injunction on Veera Raja Veera from Ponniyin Selvan 2. In his piece, Kartik Sharma breaks down the key parts of the 90-page judgment, noting how the Court underscored the role of the guru-shishya parampara in the evolution and transmission of Indian classical music. On the Dagar brothers’ claim of ownership over Shiva Stuti, on which Rahman’s work was allegedly based, the Court clarified that while the junior Dagar brothers could claim performer’s rights, they fell short of proving joint authorship of the composition.
SpicyIP Bells and Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities
Keeping track of IP events and opportunities is hard. So we thought—why not put it all in one place for our readers? Starting this week, we’ll be sharing a regular roundup of free or low-cost IP events, along with fellowships, jobs, and scholarships we think might be useful. While inspired by what others like IPKat have been doing, we’ll keep our focus on what’s most relevant to the Indian IP community. These events and opportunities aren’t run or endorsed by us unless we say otherwise. We’re simply bringing them to your attention so you don’t miss out. We’d love to know what you think of this new series, so please drop your thoughts in the comments! And if you know of an event or opportunity that deserves a spot here, drop us a line at contact[at]spicyip[dot]com.
Other Posts
SpicyIP Tidbit: Before the Box Office: Analyzing the Pre-Release Dynamic Injunction for Jolly LLB 3
DHC grants a dynamic+ injunction to the makers of Jolly LLB 3 blocking access to defendant websites even before any piracy occurred! Based on past patterns, not proof, this move targets “flagrantly infringing online locations” (FIOLs). While it protects producers from potential leaks, it also raises serious questions about due process, overreach, and the risk of wrongly blocking legitimate sites. Is this the new norm for Bollywood releases? Riddhi Bhutada writes on these issues.
SpicyIP Tidbit: Delhi High Court to WOW Momo: No Monopoly Over “WOW”
DHC recently denied Wow Momos from seeking interim relief against Wow Burgers. The Court held that generic terms can’t be monopolized, especially taking into account disclaimers on Wow Momos marks in the past. Writing on the order, Anushka Kanabar notes how it serves as a reminder that composite marks should be compared as a whole, without any cherry picking.
Case Summaries
SML Limited vs Safex Chemicals India Ltd on 22 September, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
SML Limited opposed Safex Chemicals’ application to register mark “TRACKON” in Class 5 which is identical to their trademark “TRACKON”, registered in Class 1. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had been using it since 2020 and applied for its registration in 2023. The Court held that both the marks are identical. Further, Safex Chemical’s use of the mark can confuse farmers because both fertilizers and pesticides are allied goods sold to the same consumers through the same channel. Since plaintiff’s registration preceded that of defendant’s, its rights will prevail, and therefore, the Court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
Colgate Palmolive Co vs John Doe & Ors on 17 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, Colgate-Palmolive, received information that a consignment ‘Doctor Good’, imported from China, uses a similar distinctive red-white and red-blue trade dress which Colgate uses for its products. It argued that inflow of such similar products into the market can mislead consumers and amounts to trademark and copyright infringement. The Court found that the impugned Doctor Good’s packaging is deceptively similar to that of Colgate’s trade dress. Though it acknowledged that the two products share the same market and the consumer base and balance of convenience favours Colgate yet an interim injunction cannot be granted without verifying the similarity in trade dress. Therefore, the Court directed Customs at Mundra Port to seize the shipments and verify the claims made to decide upon the injunction.
The petitioner, Inreco Entertainment Pvt Ltd., claimed that it holds copyright ownership over the 1970s songs of Bhikari Bal. It argued that it entered into agreements with Bhikari Bal in 1977 and 1980 to record these songs, with lyricist Radhanath Das, giving it absolute and exclusive ownership over these songs. To the contrary, the respondent argued that the agreements are forged and were time-bound i.e., for two years. The Court at this stage doubted the genuineness of the petitioner’s arguments since signatures on agreements appeared inconsistent. Additionally, agreements were expressly for two years and only covered physical formats. The CHC held that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for copyright infringement.
Nokia Technologies Oy vs Asustek Computer Inc & Anr on 22 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Nokia filed an infringement suit against the defendants, ASUS, for infringing Nokia’s Indian patents declared as Standard Essential Patents. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were using their patented technology without seeking a license. It requested the DHC to create a Confidentiality Club to allow safe disclosure of third-party license agreements and the present order focuses on the modalities of its constitution. On the question of inclusion of in-house representatives of Defendants in the Confidentiality Club, the Court, relying on InterDigital v Xiaomi, held that they are to be included. However, such in-house representatives must disclose to third-party licensees whether they have accessed the agreement in this litigation to allow licensee to decide whether to negotiate a licensing agreement. Lastly, the Court directed Nokia to disclose all comparable licenses as selective disclosures defeats the FRAND inquiry.
The plaintiffs filed suit concerning infringement of the ‘PET SAFFA’ mark against the defendants’ use of the allegedly infringing mark ‘PET FIT’. The Court allowed applications for exemption from advance service, filing of original and Hindi vernacular documents, and pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, citing urgency in seeking interim relief. The Court found a strong prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs, noting substantial goodwill, deceptive similarity between the rival marks, packaging, and bottles, and even an acknowledgment of the plaintiffs’ rights by defendant no. 2. Holding that balance of convenience and irreparable harm favored the plaintiffs, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining defendants from using or marketing under ‘PET FIT’ or any deceptively similar mark.
Sun Tv Network Ltd vs Asianet Digital Network Pvt. Ltd on 23 September, 2025 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court dealt with a copyright infringement suit filed by Sun TV Network Ltd. against Asianet Digital Network Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction, mandatory injunction for surrender of infringing materials, rendition of accounts, damages of ₹1 crore, and costs, alleging unauthorized telecast of its copyrighted films ‘Lelam’, ‘How Old Are You’, and ‘Karinkunnam Sixes’. The Court found that the plaintiff had established its ownership of telecasting rights and that the defendant had broadcast the films without authorization. The defendant’s claim of having rights from a ‘competent person’ was unsupported by any evidence. Since the cease-and-desist notice initially claimed ₹3 crores but was confined to ₹1 crore in the suit, the Court decreed the matter in terms of prayers (a) to (c) and awarded damages of ₹1 crore along with costs. The ex parte decree thus granted permanent and mandatory injunctions against the defendant, confirming infringement of the plaintiff’s copyrights.
The appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the order temporarily restraining the, from using marks similar to the plaintiff’s ‘SARKARIRESULT’ mark and domain name ‘sarkariexam.com’. The defendants, operating sarkariresult.com since 2012, were restrained from using the ‘SARKARI RESULT’ trademark or interfering with the plaintiff’s mark and ordered to remove it from their platforms. The Commercial Court found the plaintiff’s prior use (2009) established via documents, including WHOIS data and Google traffic reports, while the defendants’ evidence was insufficient. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commercial Court’s temporary injunction order. The plaintiff has proved prima facie case exists and irreparable harm will be cause if no action is taken, the criteria for prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm is fulfilled.
Gs1 India vs Mylex Infotech Private Limited on 19 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, affiliated with GS1 AISBL, a global standards organization, holds an exclusive license to allocate barcode numbers starting with ‘890’ in India, signifying the country of origin. The Plaintiff, registered proprietor of trademarks ‘890’ (since 2004) and ‘GS1 INDIA’ provides these barcodes to approximately 58,000 companies, generating Rs. 71 crores annually. The Defendant, operating a firm offering barcode and other registrations, was found selling unauthorized starting with ‘890’ and misrepresenting itself as a ‘Partner’ of the Plaintiff, as evidenced by screenshots and a purchase by M/s Aryadhenu Misthanshala. The Plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement, passing off, and damages, along with applications for exemptions, document production, and an ad-interim injunction under Order. The court granted an ad-interim injunction, restraining the Defendant and its affiliates from using, selling, or issuing starting with ‘890’ or similar marks. The court found a prima facie case, balance of convenience in the Plaintiff’s favor, and irreparable harm due to potential system failure in product identification.
Merryvale Limited vs John Doe And Ors on 22 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
.svg){kind=link}
The Plaintiff seeks an interim injunction against Defendant Nos. 32 to 39 for allegedly infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘BETWAY’ by using it or deceptively similar variations in their domain names, trade names, and online platforms. The Plaintiff alleged that these defendants were misrepresenting and defrauding the public by using the ‘BETWAY’ mark, causing confusion and dilution of the Plaintiff’s trademark. The court issued an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 32 to 39 and John Doe from using the ‘BETWAY’ mark or similar variations in any form (e.g., trade name, domain, social media) to prevent infringement, passing off, and dilution of the Plaintiff’s trademark.
The petitioner, part of the Danone Group, filed an application for the rectification and cancellation of the respondent’s trademark “PROTIFIX” for protein supplements, claiming longstanding use of its well-known mark “PROTINEX” since 1957. The Court found that the respondent had provided no credible evidence of actual use of the “PROTIFIX” mark, leading to a finding of non-use under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. Furthermore, the Court held that the marks were deceptively similar, noting that “PROTIFIX” was visually, structurally, and phonetically similar to “PROTINEX”, and that the overall trade dress was likely to cause confusion among consumers. The respondent’s inconsistent statements across different legal proceedings also demonstrated a lack of bona fides. The Court allowed the petition and directed the cancellation of the “PROTIFIX” trademark registration.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited vs Anita Anu on 24 September, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The plaintiff had sued the defendant/respondent for trademark infringement and passing off with respect to its use of the mark “POLY-PUNKAJ”, alleging it was deceptively similar to its own “PANKAJ” marks. The Single Judge had initially dispensed with the pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, but a subsequent Judge revoked this leave and dismissed the suit, finding no genuine urgency. In an appeal against this revocation, the Division Bench upheld this decision, stating that while each act of infringement gives rise to a separate cause of action, a plaintiff must exhibit a “real sense of urgency” and approach the court with due diligence. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit solely for non-compliance with Section 12A because of its 8-month delay after acquiring knowledge of the infringement in January 2024, coupled with a lack of explanation for the delay in the plaint.
Saptarishi Herbals LLP vs Asif Enterprises on 22 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against defendants for selling ayurvedic joint pain relief oil under the ‘DAMDAR’ mark on Flipkart despite multiple takedown requests from the plaintiff. The plaintiff had registered the ‘DAMDAR’ trademark in 2021 and claimed continuous use since June 2023, as well as goodwill through television advertising and online sales platforms. The court found the defendants’ conduct to be dishonest and granted the plaintiff an ex-parte interim injunction restraining use of the ‘DAMDAR’ mark and similar trade dress. It also directed Flipkart to remove over 250 infringing product listings.
Nirmal Kumar Jain vs Ravi Jewellers on 23 September, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their registered trademarks ‘JAIN/जैन’ and ‘JAIN SHREE’ by the defendants, who were using identical or deceptively similar marks ‘जैन/जौन’ on similar jewelry products in artistic logo form. Previously in the case, the court had granted the plaintiff an ex-parte interim injunction and appointed a local commissioner to seize the infringing goods. Two defendants had by now settled the matter while the third defendant failed to appear and was proceeded against ex parte. The court delivered a summary judgment on the ground that the remaining defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the case, and granted a permanent injunction. It also awarded ₹2,00,000 to the plaintiff in damages, noting that the defendant had dishonestly adopted the trademark to exploit the plaintiff’s goodwill.
Purvish Indrakant Shah vs Shyamal Jagdishchandra Sheth on 23 September, 2025 (Gujarat High Court)
The appeal, arises from an order of trademark dispute involving the logo ‘Taste of Vadodara’. The respondent (original plaintiff) is a registered trademark holder, filed infringement suit against the appellants (original defendants) and secured a temporary injunction. The appellants, challenged this injunction, arguing that two MoUs dated February 1, 2023, and April 7, 2023, granted them rights to use the trademark. The court found the Trial Court’s injunction order erroneous, as it overlooked key clauses in the MoUs that permitted defendant No. 1 to use and assign the ‘Taste of Vadodara’ trademark. The court also noted that the plaintiff, having assigned the trademark rights, lacked a prima facie case, and no irreparable loss or balance of convenience favored him. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the injunction was quashed, and the Trial Court’s order was set aside.
Baxter International Inc vs Owner Of Domain Name & Ors on 23 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Baxter Healthcare had filed for trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff is proprietor of the mark ‘BAXTER’ registered since 1949. The Defendant No. 1 had registered and operated the domain name ‘www.baxtenhealthcare.com’ using deceptively similar marks ‘BAXTEN’ and ‘BAXTON’. The website falsely claimed association with the Plaintiff, lacked functional or genuine content, and was not supported by any legal incorporation records. The Court noted the mala fide intent of the Defendants to ride on the Plaintiff’s reputation in the sensitive healthcare sector, creating a strong prima facie case of infringement. Granting interim relief, the Court restrained Defendant No. 1 from using the marks ‘BAXTER’, ‘BAXTEN’, or ‘BAXTON’ in any form, including trade names, domains, or promotional material. It also directed Defendant No. 2 (the domain registrar) to suspend the impugned domain and disclose the registrant’s details within 72 hours. The matter was listed for further hearing on 27 January 2026, with timelines set for replies, rejoinders, and compliance with procedural requirements.
Kuldeep Singh Bhandari vs Neelam Dhingra on 23 September, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The appeal arises from an ex-parte judgment contending that he was merely a witness to the agreement and not privy to the contract or recipient of the earnest money, but was wrongly proceeded ex-parte on 12.02.2020 without proper service. He further argued that the trial court based its findings on presumptions, without evidence showing that he shared liability with the vendor. The respondent opposed the appeal, asserting that the appellant was duly served. On examining the trial court record, the appellate court noted that the agreement to sell was executed by Devi Dutt Waila, and the payment was received solely by him. The appellant’s role was only that of a witness/property dealer, and there was neither a pleading nor proof that he received any part of the earnest money. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree insofar as it related to the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the decree against the appellant was quashed.
The appeal challenges the Delhi High Court’s order, whereby the appellant was restrained from using the ‘Flying Bird’ mark, holding that the respondent had established prior use of the mark from 1998. The Single Judge found that the appellant failed to produce credible evidence of user since 1976, as claimed. The appellant argued that the Single Judge ignored certain newspaper articles. The Division Bench, however, declined to stay the operation of the injunction at the prima facie stage, noting that the 1999 article strongly supported the respondent’s case. Both parties were directed to file short written submissions. The matter is listed for final disposal on 3 December 2025.
The plaintiffs, Aries Agro Limited and its subsidiary, sought urgent interim relief. Exemption from pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act was granted in light of urgent interim relief sought. The Court also allowed exemption from advance service, permitted filing of additional documents, and issued summons. The plaintiffs demonstrated their longstanding use of registered trademarks since 1976, wide market presence, significant turnover, and heavy expenditure on advertisements. They alleged that defendants were selling counterfeit, sub-standard, and unauthorized products using their trademarks, thereby misleading farmers and consumers. On consideration, the Court found a strong prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, with balance of convenience tilting towards them. It observed that irreparable injury would be caused without interim protection, given the defendants’ dishonest use aimed at riding on plaintiffs’ goodwill. Accordingly, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted restraining defendants 2, 6 to 26 from manufacturing, marketing, or selling infringing goods, while defendants 1 to 5 were directed to disclose in a password protected document / sealed envelope, the complete particulars of Defendants 6 to 26. The matter has been listed on 20.01.2026.
International Business Machines … vs Tivoli Gardens & Anr on 24 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Respondent No. 2 was directed to file an affidavit confirming proof and manner of service of the notice and its agent. In response, an affidavit was filed, stating that the notice bore dispatch number ‘4220361, processed on 03.08.2019 and dispatched on 07.08.2019 through India Post by the Trade Marks Registry. The affidavit claimed that this dispatch entry evidences service upon Respondent No. 1. The Court, however, observed that the affidavit fails to clarify whether dispatch number 4220361 related to Respondent No. 1 directly or to its agent, and whether it concerned the Appellant’s or Respondent No. 1’s trademark agent. To resolve this ambiguity, the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Smt. Rema Srinivasan Iyangar, was directed to appear personally with the dispatch register evidencing the notice’s service. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 31.10.2025.
Jiostar India Private Limited filed a suit for imposing a permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing broadcast reproduction rights. Jiostar holds exclusive broadcast and digital rights over ICC events and it is alleged that rogue websites, including that of the Defendants, are illegally streaming matches online. The Court held that a prima facie case of infringement has been established and considering the harm that will be caused to the Plaintiff, it granted a dynamic injunction against websites unauthorizedly streaming content over which the Plaintiff has exclusive rights.
Ab Skf vs M/S. Paramount Bearing Co. & Ors on 10 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, Aktiebolaget SKF, alleged that entities operating under the common name “Paramount” are selling counterfeit SFK bearings using its mark, which it got registered, and the trade dress. SKF argued that the counterfeits can pose safety risks due to equipment failures and accidents. Further, such products can dilute the goodwill that SKF has built in the market. The Court directed an injunction against the Defendants, refraining them from using the SKF mark, trade dress, or deceptively similar packaging. It ordered that bank accounts linked to the counterfeit trade be frozen. Additionally, Local Commissioners were appointed to inspect the premises and counterfeit goods of the Defendant.
Sanjay Goyal Trading As Apni Rasoi vs Ashok Kumar 1 on 23 September, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
Sanjay Goyal, the Plaintiff, owns the brand “APNI RASOI”, which has 15 franchise outlets in Delhi. The plaintiff alleged that the Defendants are using the “APNI RASOI” mark and under the name, are selling food items via platforms like Swiggy and Zomato. Earlier, the Court granted an interim injunction against the Defendants. After conducting a full trial, the Court concluded that Defendants were using the mark to sell identical products, which could result in confusion among consumers. Since the Plaintiff’s rights are registered, the DHC granted a permanent injunction against the Defendants and directed them to pay damages.
The present application is filed by the plaintiff to seek exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation. The exemption is granted to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff can file additional documents within 30 days of the order. The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trade mark ‘MET-PCO’. The defendants’ mark ‘Met-Pco tablets’ was visually, structurally, and phonetically identical. The Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or advertising infringing goods, directed removal of listings from e-commerce platforms, and appointed Local Commissioners to seize infringing stock, preserve evidence, and inspect accounts with police assistance if needed.
The plaintiff, Kei Industries Ltd., claims infringement and passing off of its registered and well-known trademark ‘KEI’, trade dress, and copyright in its ‘HOMECAB’ wires. Exemptions were granted to the plaintiff regarding filing of original/certified and typed copies of certain documents, as well as service on the defendants at this stage, considering the urgency of the relief sought. The Court found that the defendants’ use of the impugned mark ‘KE1’ with the identical sub-brand ‘HOMECAB’ and similar packaging was visually, structurally, and deceptively similar to ‘KEI’, amounting to infringement and passing off. An ex parte ad-interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks, sub-brand, trade dress, or copyrighted artwork. The Commissioners’ fees were fixed at ₹2,50,000 each.
The Plaintiff (The Derma Co.) sought injunction against the Defendants (Dermatouch) alleging copyright infringement and passing off of its two-tone colour trade dress. The Court reiterated the three factors for interim injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Since the Defendants’ products bore their distinct brand name ‘DERMATOUCH’ prominently, confusion was unlikely. The Court emphasized that colour schemes or get-ups, absent striking originality or secondary meaning, cannot by themselves warrant exclusivity. Relying on precedents like Colgate, Campbell Soup, and Kellogg, it held that mere similarity in trade dress does not establish deceptive similarity, particularly when brand names differ and ingredients are clearly specified. Hence, the Plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement or passing off. The interim injunction was declined.
Asian Paints Limited vs Ashok Garg on 20 September, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off against the defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit paint products. The suit was initially filed against one counterfeit product, for which an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in August 2023. During the execution of that order, the plaintiff discovered the defendants were manufacturing 14 additional counterfeit products mimicking its well-known brands like ‘TRACTOR’, ‘APCOLITE’, ‘ROYALE’, ‘APEX’, ‘ACE’, and ‘TRUCARE’. The plaintiff amended the plaint to include these products. The court, noting that no one appeared or filed pleadings on behalf of the defendants, also granted an ad interim injunction in respect of the 14 additional products.
Loreal S.A vs Earthy Biome on 4 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff filed a suit for copyright infringement, infringement of trade dress, and passing off, in respect of the purple-tinted glass bottle and white-and-blue label of its ‘SKINCEUTICALS HA Intensifier’ serum, which was allegedly copied by the defendants’ product, ‘Be Clinical PLUMPX SERUM.’ The court found a case of “triple identity” (identical trade dress, product category and trade channels- online platforms). Noting that the defendants were also engaged in disparaging comparative advertising, the court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the impugned trade dress, and appointed local commissioners to conduct raids at the defendants’ premises.
The appellant, Princeton University, filed an appeal against an order dismissing its application for an interim injunction against the respondents from using the mark ‘PRINCETON’ for their educational institutions in Telangana. The single judge had dismissed the injunction on the ground that the appellant had not shown use of its mark in India prior to the respondents’ use since 1991, and that confusion was unlikely. The Division Bench reversed this finding, holding that articles in Indian newspapers dating back to 1911 mentioning Princeton University, despite being statements by third parties, constituted “use” of the mark in India under under Section 2(2)(c)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act. The Bench further clarified that the plaintiffs having customers for its services in India was sufficient to bring an action based on its reputation in India. Nonetheless, since the respondents had used the mark for a long time, the court did not grant a full injunction, only restraining them from opening any new institutions using the name ‘PRINCETON’.