Last week was an exciting one, seeing 10 blogposts on a variety of issues. Ranging from DHC’s decision on Section 3(i) to discussions on regulating deepfakes. We also had a post on the NCLAT’s order ousting the jurisdiction of CCI from hearing complaints alleging anticompetitive practices in patent disputes, and a post on the copyrightability of styles.
Highlights of the Week
In the 9th episode of the SpicyIP Podcast – Summer School Edition, Sonisha Srinivasan speaks with Dr. Kailash Nadh, CTO at Zerodha and a self-described “hobbyist” software developer. Tune in to this engaging episode, where Dr. Nadh shares his insights on reimagining copyright in the age of AI, the true meaning of technology sovereignty and how to achieve it, and software patents and their complex link with innovation.
Dissecting the Delhi HC’s Assessment of Diagnostic Processes Under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act
The Delhi High Court has recently clarified the scope of Section 3(i) through three key rulings: Natera, Sequenom, and Emd Millipore, stating that while diagnostic processes remain unpatentable, tools and devices may be patented. Kartik Sharma unpacks the Court’s reasoning, its selective borrowing from EU law, and the curious silence on the MHC’s Chinese University of Hong Kong decision.
Another One Bites the Dust – NCLAT Ousts CCI’s Jurisdiction in Patent Matters
The NCLAT’s decision in Swapan Dey v. CCI marks the latest turn in the growing reluctance to let the CCI probe allegations of anti-competitive conduct stemming from the enforcement of patent rights. Yet, as Vasundra Koul points out, intellectual property and competition law are explicitly linked. Explaining the interplay between the Competition Act and the Patents Act, she argues that courts should reconcile these regimes through coordinated, domain-expert adjudication rather than an outright ouster.
Mask Off: Copyright, Deepfakes and the Commodification of the Self
As deepfakes become increasingly realistic and accessible, countries are scrambling to find the right legal response. Discussing one such response, Arnav Mathur examines Denmark’s proposal to regulate deepfakes through copyright law, arguing how its approach might be conceptually flawed, risking doctrinal incoherence, overreach, and the commodification of identity. He also reflects on what India could learn from this as it navigates its own debates on deepfakes regulation.
The Many Faces of Personality Rights: How Courts Are Deepening the Confusion
By extending privacy logic to commercial disputes, Indian courts may have turned personality rights into a doctrinal maze. Unpacking the decisions in Phoolan Devi v. Shekhar Kapoor and Puttaswamy, Anushka Aggarwal traces how the understanding of personality rights has evolved to its present form.
ORS Under Pressure: What The FSSAI Order Means from A Trademark Law Perspective
After confusion over “ORS” beverages, the Delhi High Court has upheld FSSAI’s ban on using the term “ORS” for beverages that do not meet WHO regulatory standards. Vikram Raj Nanda traces the twists and turns leading to this decision and examines how trademark law and public interest interact in this case.
SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (10.11.2025)
In this edition of Bells and Whistles, Gaurangi Kapoor spotlights P. H. Kurian, the former Controller General of the Indian IP Office (2009–2011), whose tenure brought unprecedented transparency, accountability, and efficiency to India’s IP administration. Alongside, this week’s newsletter features a major announcement — the launch of the 1st National Policy Brief Competition on IP & Innovation 2025, organized by SpicyIP and CIPAM-DPIIT, plus a packed lineup of events, opportunities, and updates from the world of IP.
Other Posts
As AI-generated art continues to blur the boundaries between imitation and originality, questions around the copyrightability of artistic “style” have come into the spotlight. Shama Mahajan explores whether style can truly be separated from expression in the context of generative AI and examines how courts have approached this question over the years.
Deepfake Regulation: Same Problem, Different Approaches yet none is an Error-free Resolution!
Adding to the discussion on proposed deepfake regulations in India, Denmark, and the Netherlands, Shama Mahajan analyzes the approaches adopted by these countries and examines the challenges of selecting appropriate legal frameworks to govern deepfakes.
Calling out the regulatory silence on GM foods, the Rajasthan High Court has ordered the Centre to frame safety standards within six months. Hari S. Narayanan takes a look at the High Court order in Kritesh Oswal vs Union of India and explains why this judicial intervention was the need of the hour.
SpicyIP Tidbit: Trademarking BROCODE: Piqued Protectionism or Frivolous Claims?
The tussle over “Brocode” has spilled across courts. While the Madras HC shielded the filmmakers of the movie titled “Bro Code” from infringement threats, the Delhi HC later passed an interim injunction, restraining them from using the same title. The case not only pits IP rights against creative expression but also turns on two tricky questions- the scope of cross-class similarity and whether “Brocode” has acquired distinctiveness in the entertainment space. Arshya Wadhwa writes on this development.
Case Summaries
Crocs Inc Usa vs M/S Bata India Ltd And Ors on 7 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present application was filed on behalf of the Applicant/Defendant, seeking an order of costs against the Plaintiff for contesting the design infringement suit. The Defendant contended that despite costs being awarded in its favour by the Delhi High Court, which was later affirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court as well, the Plaintiff had failed to comply. It was further contended that the order of the Delhi High Court, which disposed of the suit, inadvertently omitted a reference to the cost of the suit. The Plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the application was a review in disguise and not maintainable. Considering the joint request of both parties, the Court directed that the application be listed before the same Bench that had passed the order in July 2023.
Mohanlal U.Jain vs M/S.Lkb Engineering Pvt. Ltd on 28 October, 2025 (Madras High Court)
The present appeals were filed challenging the orders of the Trade Marks Registry abandoning the Appellant’s applications for registration of the mark ‘RALLISON APPLIANCES’. The Appellant contended that he was not served a copy of the opposition against his trademark, which is a requirement under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Respondents, on the other hand, argued that the notice was served through email to the Appellant’s agent. Allowing the appeals, the Madras High Court held that since there was no proof of proper service by the Registry, the abandonment of the trademark by the Registry was set aside and directed the Registry to provide the Appellant a fresh opportunity to respond to the opposition.
Vinay Aggarwal vs State & Ors on 10 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present petition challenged the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge who dismissed the Petitioner’s complaint. The Petitioner alleged that Respondents had misappropriated the company’s assets, removed bank and statutory records, and had fraudulently registered the trademarks ‘GOPAL’ and ‘GOPAL GOLD’ in their own name. The Respondents contended that the Petitioner had failed to produce any evidence of prior business ownership and that similar allegations had already been rejected by the Company Law Board. The Delhi High Court held that no prima facie offence was made out in this instance. Further, they held that the dispute was civil in nature concerning company management and trademark ownership rather than a criminal one and thus dismissed the petition.
Saga Music had filed a suit seeking, first, a declaration that its use of the work “Sydney Opera House Live Concert by Satinder Sartaaj” did not amount to infringement, and second, a permanent injunction restraining Sony Music Entertainment from issuing threats of legal proceedings against them. However, as subsequent suits were filed between the same parties, the Court disposed of the case to avoid parallel proceedings, directing that the interim order would continue until the other suits were disposed of.
Bisleri International, producer of the Bisleri brand of water, filed a suit of trademark infringement and passing off. In an earlier order dated 24 October 2024, the Court had found a prima facie case of passing off and granted ad-interim relief but did not grant leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent, leaving the passing off claim unconsidered. However, as the defendant’s failed to appear despite delivery of service, the Court granted leave and found a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the deceptive similarity in the impugned mark, artwork, and bottle was designed to mislead consumers.
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of the Indian Express Pvt. Ltd., restraining Express Publications from organising its event called the ‘New Indian Express – Mumbai Dialogues’. This dispute traces back to a Memorandum of Settlement and a subsequent consent decree executed in 1997 between the parties that granted Express Publications only the limited right to use ‘New Indian Express’ for publication solely in five southern states and specified Union Territories. Noting the existence of the settlement and the fact that the mark ‘New Indian Express’ is merely a non-distinctive derivative mark derived from the settlement, the Court held that a prima facie case lay in favour of Indian Express and consequently restrained the defendants from infringing their mark.
Rajneet Singh & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 7 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present petition under Section 528 BNSS sought the quashing of FIR No. 460/2024 registered under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The FIR was lodged on behalf of a complaint by Gianni Versace S.R.L. alleging the sale of counterfeit goods bearing the trademark ‘Versace’. However, the Petitioner and the Complainant amicably settled the dispute and moved on application seeking quashing of the FIR. The Delhi High Court held that continuation of proceedings would be futile as the offences, although non-compoundable, were commercial and private in nature. Thus, the FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
Marico Limited vs Prahalad Rai Kedia on 11 November, 2025 (Madras High Court)
The Madras HC dismissed Marico’s petition to suspend and remove the defendant’s copyright registration for its ‘EVEREST’ coconut oil label. Marico argued that the label was a colourable imitation of PARACHUTE’s longstanding copyrighted and trade-marked trade dress, including the flag device, broken-coconut graphic, and blue-green layout. However, the Court held that the two trade dresses were sufficiently distinct and noted that the Everest label had been in continuous use since 2006. Consequently, the Court dismissed Marico’s petition.
Dharampal And Others vs Devraj on 29 October, 2025 (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
The present appeal was filed against the order of the Trial Court’s decree that restrained the Appellants from carrying on their business of sarees under the name ‘Vimal Saree Palace’ or ‘Vimal Wadhwa Saree Palace’, which was held to be deceptively similar to the Respondent’s saree business ‘Bimal Saree Centre’. In appeal, the Appellant contended that ‘Vimal’ was the name of a family member and that, according to the directions of the lower Court, they had changed the design of the shop board. The Respondents, on the other hand, argued that since the shops were located in the same market, it had led to confusion among customers, and their GST returns showed a decrease in sales. The Court, rejecting Appellant’s contention, held that the words ‘Vimal’ and ‘Bimal’ were visually and phonetically similar, and also noted that the Appellants had violated prior undertakings to change the name of their business. Thus, the Court upheld the injunction and dismissed the appeal.
Jiostar India Private Limited vs Cricfy Tv & Ors on 11 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In a matter concerning the broadcast of the upcoming South Africa and New Zealand Tours of India, the Delhi High Court granted a sweeping injunction in favour of JioHotstar to protect its exclusive media and broadcast reproduction rights. Noting the possibility of several platforms illegally broadcasting the matches and a clear risk of irreparable loss to JioHotstar, the Court issued the necessary blocking directions to prevent any unauthorised streaming of the matches.
The present Civil Revision Petition was filed against the order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge that dismissed the Petitioner’s application. The Respondent in this case had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Petitioner from infringing their trademark. On the other hand, the Petitioner had filed Interlocutory applications that sought a stay of proceedings as the applications were pending rectification/cancellation. The Petitioner argued that since the High Court had already stayed further proceedings in the suit for six weeks in a pending transfer petition, the Learned Judge ought to have kept the Interlocutory Application pending rather than dismissing it. The Telangana High Court held that the Principal District and Sessions Judge had acted erroneously despite being aware of the stay. Thus, the Court set aside the order of the Learned Judge and directed that the Interlocutory matters be heard together.
The present appeal challenged the Controller of Patents and Designs’ order rejecting the Appellant’s patent application for ‘Graphic Representation of Data Relationship’. The Controller held that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970, and came under the purview of Section 3(k) of the Act, which rejected computer-related programmes/algorithms from patentability. In appeal, the appellant argued that the invention provided a technical solution for data lineage tracing, which the prior art lacked, and that it also produced a technical effect. The Madras High Court set aside the rejection and held that the invention involved a technical contribution and was not barred by Section 3(k).
Trans Union, LLC vs The Controller General Of Patents on 5 November, 2025 (Madras High Court)
The present appeal challenged the order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which refused the Appellant’s patent application of ‘System and Method for Matching of Database Records Based on Similarities to Search Queries’, which was rejected solely under Section 3(k) as an algorithm or computer programme. The Court held that the invention did not come under the purview of Section 3(k) as it enabled an effective credit appraisal through a technical process involving normalisation, matching, assigning matching strength, etc. Thus, the Court set aside the order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and remanded the matter only to narrow and clarify the scope of the claim before granting the patent.
The Delhi High Court reviewed a decree that found the Appellant infringed the trademark “Nayan Jyoti” with “Amrit Nayan Jyoti” and awarded over Rs. 48 lakhs in damages. The Court upheld the lower court’s finding on territorial jurisdiction. However, the Court found the substantial damages award lacked a reasoned evidentiary basis and relied on unsubstantiated assumptions. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, and the matter was remanded for a fresh determination limited to the quantum of damages/account of profits.
Castrol Limited & Ors vs Mr Ali Hussain Amir Ali Namdar & Anr on 6 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In the case Castrol Limited & Ors vs Mr Ali Hussain Amir Ali Namdar & Anr, the Plaintiffs sued for infringement of trademarks (CASTROL, ACTIV) and copyright/trade dress against Defendants selling deceptively similar lubricants. The Delhi High Court proceeded ex-parte after the Defendants failed to file a written statement. Finding the Defendants’ conduct dishonest and noting their prior agreement to surrender the impugned marks (CREMESTROL, ACTION), the Court passed a permanent injunction decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC and awarded Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Jaya Bachchan vs Bollywood Bubble Television & Ors on 10 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In the case Jaya Bachchan vs Bollywood Bubble Television & Ors, the Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the misappropriation of her personality and publicity rights, performer’s rights, and copyright. The suit alleged the unauthorized sale of merchandise and the creation and dissemination of inappropriate, vulgar, and pornographic content using AI-generated deepfakes. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case and granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction, ordering various defendants to take down specified infringing URLs, content, and websites.
M/S Changsha Sinocare Inc. & Anr vs Mr Rajesh Kumar & Ors on 7 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In the case M/S Changsha Sinocare Inc. & Anr vs Mr Rajesh Kumar & Ors, the Plaintiffs sought an injunction restraining the Defendants from trademark and copyright infringement by selling medical products under deceptively similar Subject Marks and Subject Trade Dress. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case, noting the Defendants were former distributors who copied the distinctive trade dress. The Court granted an interim injunction restraining sales and ordered e-commerce platforms Moglix and 1MDM to disable specified infringing URLs within 72 hours.
Dassault Systemes Solidworks vs Mr. Shashikant Sharma & Anr on 16 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Dassault Systèmes, owner of the copyright in the SOLIDWORKS computer program, filed a suit seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants for pirated use of the software without obtaining the necessary licences. Although the defendants possessed one perpetual licence, they had illegally installed and used the software on multiple additional devices, amounting to 27 instances of infringement as of 2025. The Delhi High Court held that a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement had been established, noting the consistent and continuing unauthorised use, and accordingly granted the injunction.
Bentley Systems Inc & Anr vs Accencies Technologies Private 31 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Bentley Systems, owner of the “MicroStation” software, alleged that the defendants had used the software without proper licences and obtained an ad-interim injunction in 2023. Although summons were served, the defendants chose neither to appear nor to file their pleadings. Bentley Systems therefore, sought a summary judgment for a decree of permanent injunction. Observing that the defendants had elected not to contest the proceedings and that no factual dispute required trial, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favour of Bentley Systems.
Pepsico vs Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd. And Anr on 10 November, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The present application sought a cancellation of the Respondent’s registered mark ‘JAY’S’ bearing No. 2921580 in Class 30. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent No. 1 was carrying out his manufacturing activities in Nepal and his product was deceptively and phonetically similar to the Petitioner’s registered trademark ‘LAY’S’. The Calcutta High Court, in light of established precedent, held that the products were identical and in the same category of goods, in addition to the Respondent No.1’s product being deceptively similar. Thus, the Court found the Respondent No. 1’s adoption of the mark mala fide, which was violative of Sections 9 and 11(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and ordered a cancellation of the registration.
The media conglomerate JioStar, which holds exclusive broadcasting rights over several cricket tournaments, filed a suit seeking an ad-interim injunction against various websites that were allegedly live-streaming the matches without authorisation. Finding that JioStar had established a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant websites from continuing to broadcast the infringing content. The Court further directed the issuance of a dynamic injunction to enable prompt blocking of any mirror or redirect websites that might subsequently emerge.
Innovations Garment Pvt. Ltd. vs Bhavesh Ramjibhai Gada on 6 November, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
Following an ex-parte ad-interim injunction passed by the Bombay High Court in May 2024, the defendants sought to have the order set aside, alleging that the plaintiff, Innovations Garment, had suppressed material facts by not disclosing a prior suit between the parties. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the earlier suit was not material to the present proceedings since the current defendants were not parties to that suit and accordingly upheld the injunction.
M/S Krbl Limited vs Becher Raghvji Patel & Anr on 31 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, owner of the well-known trademark “INDIA GATE”, filed a suit seeking to restrain the defendants from using the proposed mark “MUMBAI GATE” for identical goods. The DHC had granted an ad-interim injunction in November 2006, which was never vacated. Although the defendants participated in the proceedings until 2024, they stopped appearing from October 2024, resulting in the suit proceeding ex parte. Finding phonetic, visual and structural similarity between the marks, and noting the defendants’ non-appearance, the Court granted a permanent injunction and awarded damages in favour of the plaintiff.
Silvermaple Healthcare Services, which owned the “DHI” trademark and related copyrights, sued the defendants after termination of their Master Franchise Agreement for substantial under-reporting of revenues. Despite termination, the defendants continued using the “DHI” marks, prompting Silvermaple to seek an ad-interim injunction. The Delhi High Court held that Silvermaple had established a strong prima facie case of infringement and that the balance of convenience favoured it. Accordingly, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Desai Hospitals from using the “DHI” trademarks until the next hearing.
The present suit sought an ex parte ad-interim injunction against Defendant No. 1 for manufacturing and selling footwear and bearing the Plaintiff’s registered marks ‘WOODLAND’ and its distinctive Tree Mark Logo. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1 had been appointed as its contract manufacturer and packer and was permitted to use the marks only for limited orders until 2018. However, later the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant No.1 was advertising, promoting and offering for sale infringing goods via e-commerce platforms. The Delhi High Court held that Defendant No. 1 had affixed the Plaintiff’s marks in an attempt to pass off its goods as the goods of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Court granted an ex parte injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to seize the infringing goods.
The present suit sought a permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing the Plaintiff’s registered design for its water purifier cabinet body, ‘PUROSIS PUROAQUA’. The plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were selling design-infringing cabinets under the mark ‘ICONIC’. The Delhi High Court, noting that the Defendants had failed to file a written statement or appear before the Court despite being served with summons, held that the comparison of the water purifier cabinets established that the Defendants were infringing the design of the Plaintiff and thus, passed the permanent injunction against the Defendants.
Lt Foods Limited vs Limra Enterprises on 4 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the word ‘SHAHIDAWAT’. The Plaintiff alleged that the infringing word is deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s well-known trademarks ‘DAAWAT’ and ‘DAWAT’, used in the business of processing, marketing and exporting basmati rice. The Defendant, on the other hand, argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain this suit and the Defendant is engaged in the business of spices. The Delhi High Court held that the Court had the requisite jurisdiction under Section 134 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court further held that since ‘DAAWAT’ is a well-known trademark, the Defendant’s adoption of ‘SHAHIDAAWAT’ prima facie infringes the Plaintiff’s trademark and thus granted the ad-interim injunction.
The present application sought an interim relief restraining the Defendant from using the mark ‘UNITED PETROFER’. The Plaintiffs alleged that the infringing mark of the Defendant was deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s registered trade mark ‘PETROFER’ and that their adoption was dishonest. The Defendant, on the other hand, inter alia argued that their goods were distinct from the Plaintiff’s goods, and thus there constituted no infringement under Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court held that since both parties manufactured lubricants and that the marks were deceptively similar, a prima facie case of infringement and passing off was made out, and thus, the Court granted interim relief against the Defendants.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Hari, Thahir, Vasundra, and Vikram for the case summaries)