Starting 2026 with India’s top IP developments of 2025! 3 new posts for our readers criticising the DPIIT AI-Copyright Working Paper. A post on the SHANTI Act the possibility of getting patents for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. 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
A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2025
What a year it was! 2025 proved to be a landmark for the Indian IP landscape and for SpicyIP. We have put together more than 50 of the top developments of the year for you in our Annual Review below! On the judicial front, courts across the country delivered several novel and consequential decisions – notably the rising prominence of personality rights litigation, and the conclusion of long-running SEP trials that had been pending for 15 and even 21 years. On the policy and regulatory side, the year saw important interventions such as the DPIIT working paper on the intersection of copyright and AI, alongside the release of new Guidelines on Computer-Related Inventions, and much more. It was also a milestone year for SpicyIP, as we kicked off several exciting new initiatives and expanded our engagement with the IP community.
With the recent passing of the SHANTI Act, the Indian nuclear energy legal framework sees a paradigmatic shift, including through the opening up of the sector to private player participation. One significant change is the possibility of getting patents for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Kartik Sharma discusses this legislative development in his post and highlights certain ambiguities and concerns, the most prominent being the central government’s discretionary role in this framework.
One Nation, Forced Licenses, Multiple Payments: (Un)Balancing AI Innovation & Copyright
Adding to the steady stream of critiques on the DPIIT Working Paper on the interface of Copyright and AI, Ambika Aggarwal’s post focuses on the proposed statutory recommendations, specifically, on how the proposal seeks to create new legal rights with no analysis of the corresponding duties and liabilities that will be triggered.
One Nation, One License, One Big Shortcut: Doctrinal Stagnation in the DPIIT AI Working Paper
Building on this missing link of jurisprudential rigour in the DPIIT AI- Copyright Working Paper, Shivam Kaushik looks at Immanuel Kant’s distinction between noumena and phenomena to critique the DPIIT Committee’s approach and the Working Paper’s methodology.
Other Posts
Dead Assets in a Digital Economy: Why Online Gaming Licences Should Be Treated Like IP
Examining how non-transferable online gaming licences function as core digital assets yet lose economic value due to rigid regulatory constraints, Srija Singh highlights a critical gap in the current framework. In her submission for the SpicyIP- jhana blogpost writing competition, she argues that these approvals should be treated as IP-like intangible assets to preserve enterprise value and foster innovation in India’s digital economy.
Copyright Maximalism by Design? Rethinking DPIIT’s Licensing Centric Approach to AI Training
Engaging with Part I of the DPIIT committee’s working paper on the intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Copyright, Vishno Sudheendra’s entry for the SpicyIP- jhana Blogpost Writing Competition critically examines its copyright-maximalist approach and questions whether copyright is the right tool to respond to the diffuse and systemic impact of generative AI. He argues that solutions to these challenges lie beyond copyright law, and explores the viability of a fair-sharing arrangement as a more appropriate response.
Case Summaries
The plaintiff sought an ex parte ad-interim injunction against infringement and passing off of its registered pharmaceutical trademarks including ‘LABORATE’, alleging that the defendants had adopted deceptively similar marks such as ‘LABOCELL’, ‘AMPICELL’ and ‘TETRACELL’ for identical medicinal products. The Court found that the impugned marks were phonetically and structurally similar to the plaintiff’s marks and granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining use of the impugned marks.
The plaintiff sought an injunction against infringement and passing off of its registered trademark ‘PHEXIN’, alleging that the defendants’ marks ‘C-FIXIN’, ‘FEXRIN’ and ‘FEXRIM M’ for pharmaceutical products were deceptively similar. The Court found a clear case of triple identity and held that the defendants’ use was likely to cause consumer confusion, and granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining use of the impugned marks.
The plaintiff sought an injunction against infringement and passing off of their trademark ‘MINDA’, alleging that the defendants’ use of the mark and trade names ‘MINDRA’, ‘Mindra EV Pvt. Ltd.’ and ‘Mindra Green Energy LLP’ for EV products was deceptively similar. The Court found a case of triple identity and granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction, restraining use of the impugned marks and trade names.
Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr v Zydus Lifesciences Limited on 23 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs sought an injunction alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. 262697 covering ‘Semaglutide’. The defendant undertook not to sell the impugned drug in India during the patent term, while reserving the right to manufacture and export it to countries where no corresponding patent exists, subject to maintaining accounts. The Court bound the defendant to its statements till expiry of the patent.
Myokardia Inc. & Anr v Lucius Pharmaceutical & Anr on 23 December, 2025 ( Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs sought an injunction for infringement of Indian Patent No. 392872 covering the compound ‘Mavacamten’, alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and offering for sale a generic version under the brand ‘LuciMava’, including for shipment to India. The Court found a prima facie case of patent infringement and granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining manufacture, sale, import, export or any dealing in the infringing product during the pendency of the suit.
The Delhi High Court considered a trademark infringement suit filed by Volvo against bus manufacturers and operators allegedly using deceptively similar “VOLVO” and grille-slash marks on look-alike buses. The Court deleted one defendant for lack of cause of action, granted exemption from pre-institution mediation, and passed an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the remaining defendants from using the impugned marks, logos, trade dress, or configurations.
Mr. Sunil Gavaskar vs Cricket Tak (Crickettak557) And Ors on 23 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court heard a suit by former cricketer Sunil Gavaskar alleging unauthorised use of his name, image, and likeness through sale of merchandise and attribution of false quotes on social media platforms. Granting exemption from pre-institution mediation, the Court deleted certain defendants and passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the infringing defendants from exploiting the plaintiff’s personality rights, directing takedown and delisting of infringing content and merchandise.
Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao vs Ashok Kumar / John Doe on 22 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court heard a suit by actor Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao (Jr. NTR) alleging unauthorised commercial exploitation of his personality and publicity rights through sale of merchandise and online content. Granting exemption from pre-institution mediation, the Court issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining infringing defendants from using the plaintiff’s name, image, likeness, and associated identifiers, and directed takedown and delisting of infringing merchandise and URLs.
The petitioner challenged the inordinate delay in the disposal of its patent application filed in 2012, which had remained pending for over 15 years due to multiple pre-grant oppositions. The Court noted that hearings in several oppositions had already concluded, with orders reserved, while the remaining hearings were scheduled for January 2026. Relying on precedent permitting time-bound directions, the Court found merit in the limited relief sought. Accordingly, the Controller General of Patents was directed to conclude all hearings and pass a consolidated order on all pre-grant oppositions by 30 April 2026.
Government Emarketplace vs Ankit Jain & Ors on 22 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court considered a suit by Government eMarketplace (GeM) alleging misuse of its registered trademarks and logos by private entities falsely claiming official association and issuing fake certificates. Granting exemption from pre-litigation mediation, the Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Defendant Nos. 62-67, restraining use of the GeM marks, and directed suspension of infringing domain names, disclosure of KYC details, and takedown of related online content.
The Delhi High Court considered a trademark infringement suit concerning chewing tobacco sold under the mark “PUSHPA,” alleged to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered “PUSHPARAJ” mark and trade dress. Granting exemption from pre-institution mediation, the Court found a prima facie case of deceptive similarity and passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark or any similar indicia, and from suggesting any association with the plaintiff.
Mankind Pharma Limited v. Motherkind Pharma Private Limited on 23 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, a well-established pharmaceutical company and proprietor of the well-known trademark “MANKIND” and several “KIND” formative marks, sought an interim injunction against the defendant’s use of the mark “MOTHERKIND” for pharmaceutical products. The Court noted the plaintiff’s long, extensive, and exclusive use of the “KIND” formative marks since 1986, multiple prior injunctions in its favour, and the likelihood that the defendant was aware of the plaintiff’s reputation at the time of adoption. Finding prima facie infringement, likelihood of confusion, and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff, the Court restrained the defendant from using “MOTHERKIND” as a trademark or housemark for pharmaceutical products. However, no injunction was granted at this stage against the defendant’s trade name or use of the mark “FERROSTAR,” with those issues left open for consideration after appearance by the defendant.
The plaintiffs, comprising the patentee, licensees, and marketing authorisation holder of Indian Patent No. 291914 covering the drug Belumosudil, alleged that the defendants were unlawfully manufacturing and selling a generic version (“LuciBelu”) in India without regulatory approval. The Court noted that the defendants’ sale of a prescription drug through online platforms and WhatsApp, without CDSCO authorisation, constituted spurious and illegal conduct, establishing a strong prima facie case of patent infringement. Finding the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs and the likelihood of irreparable harm, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in the infringing product. Online intermediary IndiaMart was also directed to delist all infringing listings and prevent further unauthorised advertisements.
The dispute concerned the defendants’ use of the word “SUN” in a visually dominant manner on sunscreen products sold under the mark “VENUSIA,” which the plaintiff argued infringed its well-known “SUN” family of trademarks. The Court found prima facie that “SUN” was not used descriptively but as a trademark, since it appeared in the largest and boldest font and eclipsed the defendants’ own brand, thereby defeating the defence under Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. Relying on precedent, the Court held that such use was likely to cause confusion and amounted to riding on the plaintiff’s goodwill. Consequently, an interim order was passed directing the defendants to maintain status quo and restraining further manufacture under the impugned labels, with directions to disclose existing stock pending further hearing.
The plaintiff, proprietor of the long-standing and registered trademark and trade dress “VASUDHARA” for ghee, alleged that the defendants were selling adulterated ghee under the deceptively similar mark “VASTUDHARA,” including through online platforms. The Court found the impugned mark and trade dress to be deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion, particularly since both parties dealt in identical goods and allegations of adulteration heightened the risk of reputational harm. Owing to the defendants’ continued non-appearance, failure to file a written statement, and acceptance of an earlier ex parte injunction, the Court deemed the plaint averments admitted under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC. Consequently, the suit was decreed, and a permanent injunction was granted restraining Defendant No.1 from using the impugned mark and trade dress.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Arshiya, Dipti, and Pranjali for the case summaries.)