The SpicyIP Podcast Episode 10 with Sheja Ehtesham is now live on our YouTube channel. Deadline for the 1st National Policy Brief Competition by SpicyIP and CIPAM, DPIIT has been extended to 21st December, 2025. Why we should stop using the word ‘technical’ when we talk about Section 3(k)? 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
The SpicyIP TV Podcast SS Edn: Ep 10 with Ms. Sheja Ehtesham
In the 10th episode of the SpicyIP Podcast – Summer School Edition, Sonisha Srinivasan speaks with Ms. Sheja Ehtesham, Managing Partner at ALG India Law Offices LLP and a leading expert in Intellectual Property. In this episode, the discussion covers ALG India’s knowledge sharing initiatives, the importance of networking and other skills outside of law schools for students to develop, as well as her thoughts on leadership. She also reflects on approaches to building a meaningful professional journey.
With requests for extensions coming in, we’ve decided to extend the deadline for the 1st National Policy Brief Competition on Intellectual Property & Innovation 2025 by SpicyIP and CIPAM, DPIIT. The new deadline is 21st December, 2025 (11:59 pm IST). Read on for the extension announcement post.
Why We Should Stop Using The Word ‘Technical’
There has been a flurry of cases in recent times discussing the scope of Section 3(k). All of these cases have, at various instances, come up with different tests/formulations that have one thing in common: the word ‘technical’ appended to the front. In this backdrop, Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan argues that the word ‘technical’ and the associated technicalism should be omitted when we think or write about Section 3(k).
Obvious to Whom? – Analysing Dini’s AI Dilemma
Responding to Roberto Dini’s recent piece suggesting that all AI inventions are ab initio obvious because they are reproducible for an AI-enabled Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA), Krishna Jani and Tanya Aithani explain how this understanding may not work owing to the heterogeneity and data-dependence of modern models.
The division bench of Karnataka HC overturned the Single bench’s ruling in the Yezdi bikes trademark controversy. The case revolved around the dispute between Boman R Irani and the official liquidator of Ideal Jawa Ltd. over ownership of the trademarks pertaining to the legendary bike. Ultimately, the DB resolved it in favour of Irani. Kartik Sharma discusses the DB’s reasoning on the issues of trademark abandonment and destruction of goodwill.
[Sponsored] Vacancy at Ira Law, New Delhi (Apply by December 15, 2025)
Ira Law, New Delhi, is looking to hire a Patent Agent for their firm. The last date to apply is December 15, 2025. For more details, please read their announcement below.
Other Posts
The CBD’s recent creation of a permanent body for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities marks a significant shift in how global biodiversity governance engages with traditional knowledge. But does this body offer real change or just renewed symbolism? ACHYUTH B NANDAN examines this question and looks at the implications of this development.
Garden of God or Garden of Confusion? Analysing the DHC’s Karim Decision
Recently, a DHC Division Bench allowed a Moradabad-based restaurant to continue using Gulshan-e-Karim, subject to a mandatory disclaimer stating that the establishment had no connection with New Delhi’s Karims restaurant chain. Analysing the Court’s findings on what it labelled “innocent infringement,” initial interest confusion, and the anti-dissection rule, Vikram Raj Nanda explains what the judgment has to offer for the Indian trademark regime.
Applications open for Youth for Tech Futures (YTF) Fellowship 2026! [Apply by December 15, 2025]
The Pranava Institute invites applications for its Youth for Tech Futures (YTF) Fellowship 2026! The last date for application is December 15. For more details, read their call for applications below.
Case Summaries
Marico Limited vs Minolta Natural Care on 9 December, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The present interim application was filed seeking an injunction against the Defendants for infringement of trademark, copyright and passing off in respect of its well-known trademarks ‘Parachute Jasmine’/ ‘Parachute Advansed Jasmine’ and ‘Hair & Care’. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants’ use of the mark ‘Sangini Hair Protection’ copied the Plaintiff’s distinctive trade dress, shape of the bottle and logos, and thus was misleading consumers. The Defendants argued that the word “Jasmine” was generic and that they had used it only in a descriptive sense. The Bombay High Court rejected the Defendants’ contention and held that the impugned mark and the trade dress were deceptively similar and thus granted the injunction in favour of the Plaintiff.
Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao vs Ashok Kumar / John Doe And Ors on 8 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit was filed by the Plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction against the misappropriation of Plaintiff’s personality and publicity rights and infringement of copyright. The substantive relief was sought against the infringing Defendants who operate on the e-commerce or social media platforms of the proforma Defendants. The Delhi High Court directed the proforma Defendants to treat the present plaint as a complaint vis-à-vis the infringing Defendants in accordance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and take actions within three days. The matter was listed for further consideration.
Onesto Labs Private Limited vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 4 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit was filed by the Plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘CHEMIST AT PLAY’ and using its website http://www.chemistatplay.com/ to imitate the Plaintiff without any authorisation. The Delhi High Court held that Defendant No.1’s use of the website was prima facie dishonest and an attempt to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Court granted the ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and restrained the Defendant’s use of the website.
Saregama India Limited v Black Madras Films & Ors on 9 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted ad-interim relief in a copyright infringement action regarding the Kannada song ‘Naguva Nayana’ from the film ‘Pallavi Anu Pallavi’. The Plaintiff argued that it has absolute and perpetual ownership of the sound recording after a 1980 Copyright Assignment Agreement executed by the film’s producer. The Defendants used the song in their film ‘Mask’, relying on a license from the music composer, Ilaiyaraaja. The Court held that under Section 17(b), the film producer, not the composer, is the first owner of copyright and Ilaiyaraaja lacked authority to issue any license for the song. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement and directed the Defendants to either remove the song from ‘Mask’ or deposit the composite licence fee.
The present application was filed by the Defendant under Order VII Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC, 1908, seeking the return of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in a copyright infringement suit filed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleged that even after the licensing agreement between the parties had ended, the Defendant continued to illegally exploit Plaintiff’s copyrighted repertoire on the Defendant’s platforms ‘ShareChat’ and ‘Moj’ and their websites. The Defendant, vide this application, contended that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to try the case as both parties’ offices were not in Delhi and mere website accessibility did not confer jurisdiction. The Delhi High Court held that the present dispute was not contractual in nature and that Defendant’s platforms are accessible all over the country, which makes part of a cause of action arise in Delhi. Thus, the Court held that it had territorial jurisdiction and dismissed the application.
S Chand and Company Ltd v Kaushal Kumar & Ors on 8 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, proprietor of the registered mark ‘S Chand’, argued that the Defendants were reproducing, printing, manufacturing and selling counterfeit versions of its copyrighted textbooks on Flipkart’s platform. The Court found a prima facie case of trademark and copyright infringement and noted that the counterfeit textbooks were likely to mislead customers into believing they were original. The Court ultimately restrained the Defendants from reproducing or selling any pirated or counterfeit copies of the Plaintiff’s works.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to the Plaintiff, proprietor of the marks DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL, DPS. The court noted that the Defendant’s school, Delhi Public School International, Bhiwadi had used identical marks, logos to falsely suggest an association with the Plaintiff’s network of over 200 DPS schools. The Court found triple identity with deceptively similar marks, identical services and identical consumer base. The Court restrained the Defendants from using the impugned marks in any form including name, logo, trade name, domain name etc.
Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd v Jagpin Breweries Ltd on 8 December, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The Plaintiff is the proprietor of the beer trademarks HAYWARDS 5000 and FIVE THOUSAND. The Court held that the Defendant’s use of the mark COX 5001 for beer amounted to infringement and passing off, noting that numeral 5001 was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s numeral 5000. The Court found that the rival goods, consumer base and trade channels were identical and granted a permanent injunction, restraining use of COX 5001 mark.
KRBL Limited v MOI Commodities India Pvt Ltd on 3 December, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The District Court granted permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, the proprietors of the INDIA GATE brand of basmati rice. The Plaintiff had long-standing goodwill and registered rights in both INDIA GATE mark and its classic packaging. The Defendant’s LEGEND basmati rice packaging was held to be deceptively similar with red rectangular brand box, white bold font, depiction of a historical monument and placement of a rice bowl at the bottom, creating a likelihood of confusion for consumers. The Court found trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement and restrained the Defendant from using the impugned packaging, directing destruction of the infringing goods.
Castrol Limited v Vivek Pratap Singh on 4 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in an appeal, granted interim injunction to the appellant against counterfeiting of its well-known engine oil products including its registered trademarks Castrol, Activ. The Court noted that the Defendant had used a deceptively similar container shape, colour scheme and overall packaging, which amounted to prima facie counterfeiting and passing off. The Court adopted a zero-tolerance policy and restrained the respondent from manufacturing, selling or advertising engine oils and lubricants and made the injunction absolute pending disposal of the suit.
Star India Private Limited v Crichd- Live. Top & Ors on 3 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained multiple rogue streaming websites from infringing Star India’s exclusive broadcasting and reproduction rights under Section 37 of the Copyright Act over the India Tour of Australia 2024-25 and the Big Bash League 2024-25. The Plaintiff had exclusive rights and showed that the Defendants had previously streamed major cricket events without authorization. The Court passed a permanent injunction and directed blocking and disabling of access to these rogue websites.
Nike Innovate C.V. v Ashok Kumar & Ors on 5 December, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The District Court granted permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff against multiple sellers dealing in counterfeit NIKE branded footwear and apparel in Delhi markets. The Plaintiff had registered rights in well-known trademarks including NIKE, the Swoosh Logo, AIR JORDAN, DRI-FIT, FLYKNIT. The Court, relying on the Local Commissioner’s seizure report, found that the Defendants had identical logos, colour scheme and were selling counterfeit products in large quantities, and thus restrained the Defendants from manufacturing, selling or dealing in goods with Nike’s marks, ordering destruction of seized counterfeit goods.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Pranjali and Vasundra for the case summaries.)