A reminder on the SpicyIP Summer School, applications for which are now open! Some anomalies in the Patent Agent exam results, a twist in the PPL-Azure case before the Supreme Court, Kerala’s new IPR and TK Policy draft, and a lot more that has happened in the last week. Add to that – an upcoming post on the big Ustad FW Dagar vs. AR Rahman judgment from the Delhi High Court. Here’s a roundup of our blog posts, case summaries and top IP developments in the country and the world this week. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Announcing the SpicyIP Summer School!
Thrilled to announce the SpicyIP Summer School is now accepting applications! This 8-day residential summer school will be held in Bengaluru this June and will aim to give students a unique and immersive learning experience. Utilising a specially crafted pedagogical approach and led by fantastic faculty, the program is designed with the specific intent to cultivate critical pluralism on IP Law & Policy. Check out further details in the post!
A new twist in the PPL-Azure copyright dispute as the Supreme Court stays the Delhi High Court’s direction to Azure to pay RMPL rates to PPL for using its sound recordings. The apex court further clarified that the previous interim injunction against Azure will not be reinstated. Does this mean that Azure can use the sound recordings without making any payments to PPL? Check out Kartik Sharma’s quick post on this development.
Analysing the Results of Patent Agent Exam 2025
Discussing an anomaly in the results of the Indian Patent Agent Exams, Rajiv Kumar Choudhary explains how viva voce played a determinative role in this year’s Patent Agent Exam results for some of the candidates, despite them securing the qualifying marks in Paper I and II.
Other Posts
Beyond Abstract Ideas: Understanding Process Patentability for a Progressive Innovation Ecosystem
The Madras HC in Robert Bosch Ltd. v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs corrected the patent office’s assertion that an end product is necessary for the process to get a patent, even if the subject process has industrial applicability. Setting aside the Controller’s order, the Court sent the case back for reconsideration on the grounds of inventive steps and other objections raised previously by the office. Advika Singh Malik discusses the issues dealt with in the judgment, including Section 3(m) of the Patents Act.
Strengthening Innovation: Kerala’s Vision for IPR and TK
17 years after the 2008 policy, Kerala is set to revise its IP and TK policy. From creation of statutory IPR Academy to introduction of Traditional Knowledge Docketing System, the draft 2025 has a lot to offer. Advika Singh Malik looks into the key recommendations of the draft policy and compares it with the 2008 policy.
Case Summaries
Ustad F.W. Dagar vs A.R. Rahman on 25 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff filed this suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction for recognition of the copyright in the musical composition “Shiva Stuti”. The plaintiff also sought to restrain defendants from utilizing the suit composition as part of sound recording of the song “Veera Raja Veera” in the movie Ponniyin Selvan 2 without obtaining authorisation from Plaintiff and without attribution of moral rights of the original authors / composers of the suit composition. The Court held that compositions created from elements of raags and taals are entitled to copyright protection. Passing an interim order, the Court directed the defendant to depict due credits in the film to the plaintiffs on OTT platform, deposit Rs. 2 crores with the Registrar General of the Court, and awarded a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs to the plaintiff.
This Calcutta High Court ruling considers an appeal against the rejection of a writ petition that challenged the constitutionality of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. Appellants contended Section 53 (patent term from date of application) was in conflict with Section 11A(7) (provisional rights from publication, but no infringement actions until grant). The court clarified that Section 53 and Section 11A(7) move in different fields. Section 11A(7) provides interim protection from publication during the grant, which secures the interest of the applicant, and Section 53 governs the patent term and cessation of rights after grant. Rights of infringement arise fully on grant only. Not finding conflict, the court rejected the appeal, affirming the single judge’s conclusion that Section 53 is intra vires.
Marelli Europe S.P.A. vs The Deputy Controller Of Patents on 16 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Marelli Europe S.P.A. appealed against the rejection of their application for a patent for ‘HYDRAULIC SERVO-CONTROL OF A SERVOCONTROLLED GEARBOX’ on the grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patent Act. They argued that the respondent’s decision was mechanical, devoid of reasoning, and simply copied extracts from prior art without describing how it encompassed the invention. The Delhi High Court concurred, holding that the refusal of an invention on the grounds of not being an inventive step involves scrutiny of the prior art, invention, and that it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art. The Court felt that the order under challenge omitted such scrutiny and was mechanically made without application of mind or proper reasoning.
The Calcutta High Court heard Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.’s appeal against the rejection of its patent application, which related to communication technologies. The application was rejected solely because the applicant allegedly failed to meet formal statutory requirements concerning the Power of Attorney (GPA), with no discussion of the technical merits. The Court found this rejection untenable. Its reasoning was that the rejection was mechanically passed using a formal, pedantic approach. The relevant statutes (Sections 127, 132) and Rules (126, 135) do not mandate refusal solely on this procedural ground but allow for suspension pending correction. Filing GPA copies when the original is filed elsewhere is a common practice permitted by a departmental circular. Consequently, the Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing, explicitly not adjudicating technical merits.
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland filed an appeal against rejection of their Indian Patent Application, on microvesicles originating from adult stem cells for treating tumor disease. The Controller General of Patents had rejected the application based on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, sufficient disclosure, clarity, and non-patenability under Sections 3(e) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. While on appeal, the Appellant also put forth a fresh new set of amended claims. The Court held that patent application amendments are admissible even at the appellate level, if they are within the terms of ‘disclaimer’, ‘correction’, or ‘explanation’ and do not increase the scope of the initial claims as mandated by Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. Accordingly, the Court cancelled the Controller’s rejection order and remitted the case to the Patent Office for reconsideration on the basis of the amended claim. The Patent Office was instructed to dispose of the matter within three months.
Trdp Happy World Pvt. Ltd vs Shri Balaji Chemfood Industries on 16 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, M/S TRDP Happy World Pvt. Ltd., owner of registered ‘MARIO’/ ‘TRDP MARIO’ trademarks and copyrights for food products, filed suit against the defendant, Shri Balaji Chemfood Industries, for using an identical mark and deceptively similar label/packaging for salts. The Court reasoned that the defendant’s failure to file a written statement meant the plaintiff’s averments were admitted. A comparison showed the defendant copied the mark, device, colour scheme, and layout, establishing infringement and passing off due to likelihood of consumer confusion. The defendant’s malafide conduct further justified relief. The Court granted a permanent injunction and awarded ₹5,00,000 in damages and costs.
Sudeep Garg vs Radhe Shyam Agarwal on 22 April, 2025 (Patiala House, Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of “Shree Ji DEEP GOLD” infringed its trademark and copyright in its “DEEP” trademark. The Court granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark emphasized that confusion is presumed in cases of identical marks and goods. The Court also ordered the return and destruction of infringing goods, and awarded ₹1,00,000 in exemplary damages to the plaintiff to be recovered from defendant number 2.
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, a partnership firm producing toughened glass, by rejecting the Department’s claims on excise duty, penalties, and clubbing of clearances from separate units. It determined that the Appellant’s process of producing toughened glass constituted “manufacture” under the Excise Act and that the glass should be classified under CETH 7007.11. The Tribunal also dismissed the brand name dispute, affirmed the Appellant’s entitlement to Cenvat credit, and ruled that the extended limitation period and penalties were unjustified. The appeal was partly allowed, with duty adjustments for the normal period and the release of seized goods.
The plaintiff, Calvin Klein, filed a suit against the defendants for trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off, seeking a permanent injunction, damages, and delivery of infringing goods. The defendants, despite filing written statements, did not participate in the proceedings and were proceeded ex parte. The local commissioners’ reports confirmed the sale of counterfeit goods, and physical threats from the defendants hindered their investigation. The court granted the plaintiff a permanent injunction, awarded Rs. 3,00,000 damages per defendant, and ordered costs and interest.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
(Thanks to Advika and Sushant for the case summaries).