DHC’s much anticipated judgment in Roche v. Natco and the eternal genus-species conundrum, more episodes from SpicyIPTV, and the DHC’s welcome clarification on the scope of qua timet injunctions. 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
Part I: Genus-Specie Disputes: Thoughts on the Risdiplam Division Bench Judgment
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Roche v. Natco has again kick-started the discussion around the genus-species conundrum, an eternal jurisprudential dilemma. In Part I of a two-part post, Dr. Victor Vaibhav Tandon discusses the genus-species saga, DB’s rather puzzling observations on differing standards of invalidity and infringement and finally a few what-if moments that could have changed the course of the decision.
Part II: Genus-Specie Disputes: Thoughts on the Risdiplam Division Bench Judgment
Continuing his discussion on Risdiplam judgement by the Delhi High Court, Dr. Victor Vaibhav Tandon, in part II, discusses the “person in the know” standard and the unique issues associated with it, aspects of public interest in interim decisions, and finally discusses where the litigation might go from here.
The SpicyIP TV Podcast SS Edn: Ep 03 with Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan
In the third episode of the SpicyIP Podcast Summer School Edition, Sonisha Srinivasan speaks with Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, FCIArb, about the art of being a patent counsel. Drawing from his experience as arguing counsel and amicus curiae, he shares how technical depth drives effective advocacy in patent litigation and offers candid insights on the value of a science background and careers in patent law.
The SpicyIP TV Podcast SS Edn: Ep 04 with Ms. Chetali Rao
In Episode 4 of the SpicyIP Podcast Summer School Edition, Sonisha Srinivasan sits down with Ms. Chetali Rao, Senior Scientific Advisor at TWN, to discuss her journey, the skewed power dynamics between pharma stakeholders, the crucial role of civil society in shaping India’s patent regime, and how advocacy and public opinion continue to drive their work. She also shares her process of breaking down intricate scientific concepts. Check out the conversation below and don’t miss Sonisha’s post on it!
The SpicyIP TV Podcast SS Edition: Ep 05 with Mr. KM Gopakumar
In Episode 5 of the SpicyIP Podcast Summer School Edition, Sonisha Srinivasan speaks with Mr. Gopakumar K M, Senior Researcher and Legal Advisor at TWN, about the organisation’s work as a platform for research and advocacy on development issues and the role of civil society in policymaking. They also discuss the significance of voluntarism and the various ways in which students and young professionals can meaningfully contribute to civil society organisations.
Delhi High Court Risdiplam DB Judgement: A Few More Thoughts
More on the recent rare disease drug Risidiplam dispute that went in favour of the generics a few days ago. (Though to note – Natco’s recent win before the DHC may be short-lived, with reports suggesting that the Supreme Court could soon decide on whether to accept Roche’s appeal or not.) While the Court declined to interfere with the Single Judge’s refusal to grant an interim injunction, offering (temporary) relief to SMA patients, Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan and Praharsh Gour note that in stressing the need for a compound to be specifically disclosed, the Court may have overlooked Section 53(4). Thus, the Court may have inadvertently created ad hoc protection for certain genus–species patent pairs, even though there may be no real gap between coverage and disclosure.
In a recent Delhi High Court decision refusing a quia timet injunction for AKYNZEO to Helsin Healthcase SA, Vikram Raj Nanda closely examines the reasoning and discusses the contrasting jurisprudential developments surrounding ‘offer to sell’ under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Other Posts
SpicyIP Tidbit: EBC V Rupa Publications: Pick ‘Pocketing’ Trade Dress
The DHC recently granted an interim injunction to EBC, restraining Rupa Publications from imitating its ‘Coat-Pocket’ edition of the Constitution. Mayank Yadav examines the order, noting its fair outcome but insufficient reasoning on passing off, and reflects on the tension between goodwill and fair competition.
ONOS’s APC Guidelines: Opening Access or Opening Pockets?
India’s ONOS scheme now covers APCs for “high-quality” open-access journals. Seems like a big win, right? Maybe not. As Hafsah Azhar Ansari notes, the fine print suggests we might be funding “open” access while reinforcing the same costly publishing models. Read on for more.
Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere in the Risdiplam Case, Rejects Roche’s SLP
Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere in the Risdiplam Case, Rejects Roche’s SLP. Read more on this.
Case Summaries
The Plaintiffs, Aditya Birla Group (Birla), claimed exclusive rights over the well-known “BIRLA” trademark based on association with theBirla family and group companies alleging infringement and passing off by the defendants, Saboo Tor using identical or similar marks especially the BIRLA TMT on construction materials and related goods. The defendants failed to counter their own registrations and provided no exclusive rights to the BIRLA name being existed for the plaintiffs. BHC highlighted the plaintiff’s failure to substantive exclusive internal rights to BIRLA marks and noted extensive concurrent use by the defendants since 2008. It was found that the plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case for infringement or passing off and dismissed the interim injunction.
Rolls-Royce Plc vs Union Of India on 8 October, 2025 (Madras High Court)
Rolls-Royce filed a writ petition to quash the Trade Marks Registry’s refusal to accept the delayed evidence in a trademark opposition. The Madras HC dismissed the writ petition and held that the time prescribed under Rule 50 of the 2002 Rules and Rule 45 of the 2017 Rules is mandatory. At maximum, three months (2 months plus a 1 month extension) can be provided for filing evidence after which the opposition is deemed abandoned.
Akshay Hari Om Bhatia vs John Doe S on 15 October, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The BHC heard the plea of Akshay Kumar seeking protection of his personality rights and oral rights under the Copyright Act 1957 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. He alleged the occurrence of a large-scale misuse of his likeness through AI generated deepfakes, false endorsements,sale of merchandise and voice cloning. BHC noted the seriousness of the issue especially AI enabled impersonation causing reputational harm and referenced celebrity protection from cases like Anil Kapoor and Arijit Singh, signaling importance of protecting personality rights.
Bentley Systems Inc And Anr vs Dineshchandra Agrawal And Ors on 13 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The DHC granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using pirated or unlicensed versions of Ventley’s software, STAAD, PLAXIS, ContectCapture (iTwin) and openFlows WATERGEMS. A clear evidence of repeated, wilful infringement was found even during the mediation between parties. DHC held that Bentley had a prima facie case along with balance of convenience and irreparable harm in their favour and parties were referred to mediation.
Allahabad HC dismissed the commercial appeals challenging the interim injunction order. The Commercial Court’s decision was upheld where it found that the plaintiff, Jamp India established a prima facie case of copyright infringement of its Pharma Product Dossiers (literary works). Defendants’ unauthorised use in India despite territorial restrictions in licensing agreements with Canadian entities was unjustified. HC rejected defenses based on arbitral proceedings, jurisdictional challenges and alleged delays. It confirmed the injunction being rightfully granted to prevent irreparable harm.
Super Cassettes Industries Private … vs Music Broadcast Limited on 14 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff sought amendment of plaint in three connected suits under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, citing new letters from defendants violating section 31D of the copyright Act and Rule 29 of the Copyright Rules. Justice Tejas Karia allowed the amendments, and permitted the defendant to file the amended written statements within 30 days and plaintiff to file replication thereafter. The matter is listed next before the joint Registrar on 9 December 2025.
Idam Natural Wellness Private Ltd vs M/S Bella & Ors on 14 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Idam Natural Wellness, the owner of the Bellavita brand and the proprietor of the trademark “BELLAVITA”, sought an ex parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants. It was alleged that the defendants were selling counterfeit products bearing the plaintiff’s mark and trade dress through a deceptively similar website, thereby passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and irreparable harm to the plaintiff. Consequently, it restrained the defendants from using the plaintiff’s name, trademark, or any deceptively similar mark and directed them to remove all reference of the impugned product/marks from their website.
Suppletek Industries vs Rayvar Tek Associate on 8 October, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff was in the business of trading Basmati rice under the trading name Suppletek Industries, and was the proprietor of the trademark “PUNJAB KINGG”. They sought a permanent injunction against the defendant from infringing their trademark, copyright, and passing off. The defendant was engaged in a similar business, had adopted the trading name “TEK’ as RAVYAR TEK ASSOCIATES (identical to plaintiff’s name), adopted the trademark “PUNJAB KINGG”, and also mimicked the colour scheme used by the goods of plaintiff. The Court, after considering the averments made by the plaintiff, held that the Delhi courts possessed jurisdiction as infringing goods were sold in Delhi. Finding clear evidence of dishonest adoption and deceptive similarity, the Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or marketing products under the impugned mark or packaging, and awarded ₹2,00,000 damages in favour of the plaintiff, along with costs.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd vs Arlak Biotech Private Limited & Anr on 10 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, engaged in the pharmaceutical business was the owner of ‘CONTIN’ series of marks and was registered proprietor of multiple trademarks having ‘CONTIN’ as suffix including ‘NITROCONTIN’. They filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing it’s trademark, copyright, and the trade dress through the use of impugned mark ‘Z-CONTIN’. The defendants (also in the same business), were using the Mark ‘Z-CONTIN’ for selling their tablets. The plaintiff argued that the defendants were selling their tablets ‘Z-CONTIN’ in similar packaging and colour combinations (pink-white and blue-white), thereby causing confusion among consumers. The Court noted that the plaintiff’s ‘CONTIN’ series enjoys significant goodwill, and that the defendants’ adoption was prima facie dishonest, and was a clear attempt to trade upon the plaintiff’s reputation. The Delhi High Court held that the matter was a case of “triple identity” (identical mark, identical goods, and identical trade channels) and accordingly restrained the defendants from using, selling, or advertising pharmaceutical products under ‘Z-CONTIN’ or any deceptively similar mark to ‘NITROCONTIN’ or the ‘CONTIN’ series pending further hearing.
The Indian Hotels Company Limited vs John Doe And Anr on 15 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Indian Hotel Company Limited (a part of the TATA group of companies), the owner of TAJ hotels and proprietor of TAJ trademarks, sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against defendant 1. The defendant 1 was an unidentified John Doe, and defendant 2 was Meta Platforms Inc. Defendant 1 had uploaded a false and AI generated deepfake video on Instagram, which falsely alleged that TAJ Lake Palace, Udaipur, had poisoned and killed guests in 2018, thereby disparaging the plaintiff’s and its trademark reputation. Despite the plaintiff’s takedown requests, defendant No.2 had not removed the video. The Delhi High Court, held that IHCL’s TAJ trademarks are well-known (recognised by this court in earlier instances as well) and that the video was prima facie false, defamatory, causing reputational harm and misleading the public. Finding a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in favour of the plaintiff, the Court restrained defendant 1 from publishing or circulating the impugned or similar content and directed Meta to take down the impugned video.
Paramount Surgimed Limited vs Mr. Ravi Aggarwal & Ors on 14 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, engaged in the pet grooming industry, was the registered proprietor of trademarks and other PUPEE formative marks (“PUPEE MARKS”) in India. They sought ex parte, ad-interim injunction against the defendants for infringing their trademark. The Court passed an order in the Plaintiff’s favour, and consequently it restrained the defendants from using, selling, marketing, or advertising products under ‘PUPPEE’ or any deceptively similar mark, and directed reinstatement of the plaintiff’s listings on e-commerce platforms pending further hearing.
Le Shark Apparel Limited vs Anil Shah And 2 Ors on 14 October, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The petitioner (an international clothing brand) argued that the respondent’s mark was a fraudulent imitation of its trademark “LESHARK” & shark device logo. (both were registered earlier in several European countries). The petitioner filed a rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking removal of the respondent’s mark from the register. The Bombay High Court, after considering the arguments of the parties, found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar (even visually copying the shark logo), and was adopted without bonafide intention to use. The Court reiterated that Section 47 empowers courts to remove marks not used bonafidely and that fraudulent adoption “cannot be purified by subsequent use.” Finding the respondent’s registration to be the “fruit of fraud”, the Court ordered the impugned trademark to be expunged from the Register, restoring purity to the trademark register.
Geetanjali Salon Private Limited vs Akshya Chaudhary on 10 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Geetanjili Salon (a well-known salon chain with multiple outlets and substantial goodwill) sought permanent injunction against the defendant restraining infringement of its Trade Marks. The plaintiff discovered that the defendant had registered an identical domain name deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark while replicating a competitor’s website layout, thereby risking confusion among consumers. The Delhi High Court observed that the defendant’s actions were prima facie dishonest and aimed at riding on the plaintiff’s established reputation. The Court found a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff, and likelihood of irreparable harm. Consequently, it directed domain registrar to suspend access to the infringing website within 72 hours.
Koninklijke Philips N.V vs M. Bathla & Anr on 13 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a patent infringement suit filed by Koninklijke Philips against M. Bathla. Philips had alleged that Bathla’s VCDs infringed its patent for a ‘Digital Transmission System,’ arguing it was a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) for VCD technology. The Court, however, ruled in favour of Bathla, who argued that their process of replicating VCDs from master discs did not use the patented system. The court held that Philips’s infringement analysis was fundamentally flawed. Instead of mapping the components of the patent claims onto the defendants’ actual machinery, Philips only compared the final VCD output with its patented system. The Court rejected that approach, holding that because the suit patent was a system/product patent (involving a transmitter–receiver arrangement), Philips was required to prove that the defendants’ equipment embodied that entire system, and not merely that their end product complied with some standard. Philips’ argument of it being a SEP also collapsed for want of any claim mapping or FRAND declaration.
M/S. Maarg (India) vs King Point Enterprise Co. Ltd on 9 October, 2025 (Madras High Court)
Maarg filed a trademark infringement suit before the Madras High Court against King Point Enterprise, claiming rights over the ‘PTA’ mark used for hardware. King Point countered by seeking the cancellation of Maarg’s registration, asserting its own use of the ‘PTA’ mark since 1990 and its ‘PATTA’ mark since 1987. The court found in favour of King Point, noting that they had established significant prior use, both internationally and through sales in India. Crucially, evidence revealed a prior business relationship where Maarg and its sister concerns had purchased goods from King Point. The court concluded that Maarg’s adoption of the mark was not in good faith, as it was aware of King Point’s established reputation. Consequently, the court dismissed Maarg’s suit, ordered the removal of Maarg’s PTA mark from the trademark register.
Vijay Abrol vs Himanshu Rastogi on 13 October, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
In a trademark dispute, the Court dismissed a suit filed by Vijay Abrol against Himanshu Rastogi, alleging the infringement of his registered trademark ‘UNIVERSE’ used in stationery goods. Abrol alleged that Rastogi was infringing his rights by selling similar products under the deceptively similar mark ‘UNIVERSAL’. However, the Court noted that the Abrol had failed to provide any concrete evidence to support his claims. The Court noted the absence of any invoices, market survey, or witness testimony to connect Rastogi with the manufacturing or selling of the infringing goods. Rastogi consistently denied ever using the mark. Finding a complete lack of proof, the Court ruled that the plaintiff had failed to discharge the onus of proving either infringement or passing off. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit and awarded costs to Himanshu Rastogi.
Meta Intelligence Private Limited vs Madhur Singhal on 10 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Meta Intelligence filed a suit before the Delhi High Court against its director Madhur Singhal who held 40% of its shareholding, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and copyright infringement. The conflict arose when Singhal had installed a ‘bit locker’ on the company server, blocking access to its proprietary AI software. Meta Intelligence alleged that access to the said software was essential to service its existing customers and to establish an agreement with a prospective customer. While the parties were also referred to mediation, the Court recognized the immediate business urgency and appointed a Local Commissioner to oversee the removal of the bit locker by Singhal, thereby restoring the company’s access to the software to enable it to service its existing clients.
Sabu Trade Private Limited vs Rajkumar Sabu & Anr on 13 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In a long-running feud over the ‘SACHAMOTI’ trademark for sabudana, a Delhi High Court Division Bench upheld an interim injunction in favour of Rajkumar Sabu against his brother Gopal Sabu and their company, Sabu Trade Private Limited. Sabu Trade had argued that they were the prior users of the mark since 1993 and that Rajkumar, a former director, had wrongfully registered the company’s brand in his own name. The Division Bench, however, ruled in favour of Rajkumar. It noted that Rajkumar had held valid registrations for the ‘SACHAMOTI’ trademark and its copyright label. Under Section 31(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 registration is prima facie evidence of its validity. This places the onus on the appellants to challenge and unseat that validity. At the interim stage, the Court found the Sabu Trade’s evidence was not clinching enough to unseat this presumption. The Court also observed that while both parties had documents showing use of the ‘SACHAMOTI’ mark, Rajkumar Sabu was able to produce documents that pre-dated the earliest documents filed by Sabu Trade. Rajkumar Sabu showed use from 1983, while the appellants’ earliest document was from 1990.
In an earlier order, the Court had directed the defendant to remove the plaintiff’s copyrighted videos from its YouTube channel. However, subsequently, the plaintiff discovered further videos on the defendant’s channel (uploaded before the order). The plaintiff reached out to YouTube and got the defendant’s channel banned. The defendant in the present case now argued that this act violated the Court’s earlier order. Consequently, Justice Tejas Karia directed YouTube to unblock the defendant’s channel and the plaintiff to share the list of infringing URLs of videos with the defendant, who must remove them within 24 hours of unblocking; failing which, YouTube shall re-block the channel.
Kumar Sanu Bhattacharjee vs Jammable Limited & Ors on 13 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Kumar Sanu sued Jammable Ltd. and several intermediaries, alleging copyright infringement, misappropriation of personality and publicity rights and circulation of morphed and defamatory videos targeting him on various social media platforms. The Court directed the defendants, including Meta and Google, to review the URLs containing the alleged content and take appropriate action in line with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and their own platform policies. The platforms were asked to report back on action taken, and the Court scheduled the next hearing for October 15, 2025.
Mr Sudhir Chaudhary vs Meta Platforms Inc & Ors on 10 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In a significant order against the misuse of AI, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of journalist Sudhir Chaudhary against Meta, Google, and several YouTube and social media account holders. Chaudhary filed a suit seeking to protect his personality and publicity rights, alleging that these accounts were creating and circulating deepfake videos of him to spread false and misleading information. The court found a strong prima facie case in Chaudhary’s favor, observing that the unauthorized use of his name, image, and voice was damaging his reputation and goodwill. In an urgent measure, the court restrained the defendants from creating or sharing any such content. The Court also specific takedown orders to Meta and Google, directing them to remove the identified infringing video links within 48 – 72 hours to prevent irreparable harm to Chaudhary.
Gs1 India vs Tophill Pharma Limited & Ors on 10 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Gs1 India, the organisation responsible for allocation of barcodes, filed a suit before the Delhi High court against Tophill Pharma for continuing to use its GS1-licensed barcodes on products sold on online marketplaces, despite its license having expired and thereafter revoked in 2021. Finding a prima facie case for Gs1, the Court granted an injunction, directing Tophill to make remaining payments. In case of their failure to do so, Gs1 was permitted to seek takedown of Tophill’s products from online marketplaces.
M/S Jay Chemical Works vs M/S Sai Chemicals on 9 October, 2025 (Allahabad High Court)
In this appeal, the Allahabad HC set aside a Commercial Court’s order holding a suit to be not maintainable due to want of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Noting that the parties had attempted mediation and upon its failure the appellant had filed the suit, the Court reiterated that a suit contemplating urgent relied is exempt from the pre-institution mediation requirement and remanded the matter back for trial.
M.Ramesh vs V.Balu on 10 October, 2025 (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court restored a trademark infringement suit for trial that was erroneously rejected by a Commercial Court on grounds of an existing arbitration agreement. The original suit was filed by partners of ‘Sri Valli Vilas M.V.Pavadai Chettiar Sons’ to prevent a newly incorporated entity, ‘Aum Valli Vilas Jewellery Private Limited’, from using a deceptively similar name. The Commercial Court had rejected the plaint, holding that the dispute was covered by an arbitration clause in the original partnership deed. The Court overturned this decision, clarifying that the arbitration clause was only binding on the partners themselves and could not be invoked to prevent a suit against third parties – in this case, the new company and its directors. The court held that the core of the dispute was trademark infringement by an external entity, which falls outside the scope of the internal partnership agreement.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Arshya, Mayank, and Vikram for the case summaries)