Keep up with the ever changing world of IP with SpicyIP’s Weekly Review! In the second week of April we have a post looking closely at the Draft CRI Guidelines 2025 (deadline today for submitting comments!), a food for thought post asking: in a world where access to knowledge is increasingly sought, the question isn’t just who gets to read but also what gets read, and why? And an analysis of the Madras HC judgment in Kemin v. Controller of Patents. 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
Taking a closer look at the Draft CRI Guidelines 2025
Short on Time, Big on Impact: Draft CRI Guidelines close for comments on 15th April. Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan discusses the guidelines in light of recent court decisions, confusing jurisprudence, and some “technical” issues.
Some Hits and Some Misses: Analysing Kemin Industries vs Controller of Patents
Can an invention that enables animals in a farm to absorb more energy than usual from their feed be patented? Or would it be considered a method of treatment directed at animals and thus be barred under Section 3(i)? The Madras High Court recently delivered a judgment addressing these questions—and more. Check out Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan’s post, which discusses the development in detail
Who Gets to Be Read: Knowledge, Power, and the Ones We (rarely read and) Cite?
Picking from his reading of “How GN Devy Challenges our Concept of Knowledge” by Martand Kaushik, Lokesh Vyas questions – does mere access to research and resources suffice to dismantle the deep-rooted epistemic structures? In a world where access to knowledge is increasingly sought, the question isn’t just who gets to read but also what gets read, and why. Read his post that deals with these questions amongst others.
Other Posts
The World Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO Academy, Korean Intellectual Property Office, Korea Invention Promotion Association, and Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology are now accepting applications for the annual Advanced International Certificate Course (AICC) on Intellectual Property Asset Management for Business Success! The course is fully sponsored for selected candidates. Deadline to apply: April 20 (11:59 p.m. Korea Time). For full details and how to apply, check out the post.
[Sponsored] From Law to Leadership: How the MIPLC LL.M. Transforms Careers in IP and Competition Law
Intrigued by the world of intellectual property, data, and competition law, and the ever-shifting terrain of the digital economy? Then the LLM programme at the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC) might help you in not only sharpening your expertise in these — but transforming your career and your outlook. Admissions for LL.M. in Intellectual Property and Competition Law at MIPLC are now open! For full details, check out the post.
Case Summaries
H-D U. S. A., Llc vs Vijaypal Dhayal Owner/ Proprietor Of on 2 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Harley-Davidson LLC filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing its trademarks and copyrights, particularly the ‘Eagle Logo/Device Mark’ used on footwear. Despite several opportunities, the defendant failed to file a proper written statement or reply to the summary judgment application under Order XIII-A and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC. A local commissioner inventorized 640 infringing shoe pairs from the defendant’s premises. Given the admitted pleadings and lack of defence, the Court proceeded to hear the matter for summary judgment.
The appellant challenged the unauthorized use of the registered trademark “DAV” by DAV Nageshwar Public School, alleging infringement and passing off. The Commercial Court, Delhi upheld jurisdiction and rejected objections on valuation and pre-institution mediation, noting the suit was filed prior to the Patil Automation decision’s effective date. A permanent and mandatory injunction was granted, restraining use of “DAV” and directing surrender of infringing materials. The appellant was also awarded ₹3,00,000 in damages.
Devender Kumar Jain vs Solanki Industries Pvt Ltd on 9 April, 2025 (Rohini, Delhi District Court)
The suit was filed under Section 22 of the Designs Act for permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs against design infringement of two registered switches – ‘Sleek Designed’ and ‘Flyover Designed’. The defendant, Solanki Industries, was found using deceptively similar designs and failed to file a written statement, resulting in an ex parte trial. Based on unrebutted evidence, including the Local Commissioner’s report seizing 5934 infringing switches and four dies, the Court granted a permanent injunction and awarded ₹6 lakhs in damages to the plaintiffs. The defendant was also directed to deliver up all infringing goods and remove the impugned designs from online platforms.
The respondent argued that the service tax demand was unsustainable as the agreement for transfer of technical know-how was executed prior to 10.09.2004, and thus did not attract tax under IPR services. They contended that the continued use of the technology did not constitute a continuous supply of service. The Tribunal relied on precedents like Modi-Mundipharma and Catapro Technologies, holding that a one-time transfer of technical know-how without registered intellectual property rights in India does not fall under taxable IPR services. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Adidas Ag vs Sandeep Vohra on 2 April, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff alleged trademark and copyright infringement involving its registered marks—“Adidas”, “Three Stripe, “Trefoil”, and “Performance Logo”—by the defendant who was found manufacturing and selling counterfeit goods. Despite service of summons, the defendant failed to appear or contest the suit. Key witnesses including a court-appointed commissioner and investigator testified unchallenged. The Court found the plaintiff’s trademarks and copyrights to be well-known and validly registered. Citing precedents, the court quantified damages at ₹25,20,000 based on seized stock and market value and held the infringement proved. It granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further use, sale, advertisement, or solicitation involving infringing marks, and awarded ₹25,000 as counsel’s fee.
Star India Private Limited vs Magicwin.Games & Ors. on 2 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, a leading broadcaster with exclusive rights to stream the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2024, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against rogue websites illegally broadcasting its content. Despite the Court’s directions and service of summons, the defendants failed to file written statements or contest the suit. The Court found the defendants guilty of habitual infringement, causing irreparable harm and loss of revenue to the plaintiff. Consequently, a decree of permanent injunction was granted against defendants 1–9 and 24–68, restraining them from further unauthorized dissemination of the plaintiff’s exclusive content.
The appellant challenged the refusal of Patent Application No. 1574/KOLNP/2012 for a Rotigotine-PVP transdermal system, rejected on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act. The Patent Office cited prior art disclosing rotigotine, PVP, and their use in solid dispersions. The appellant argued that the specific ratio used offered technical advancement, but the Controller found it obvious. The appeal also raised procedural lapses, as new prior art was introduced at the hearing stage without prior notice, contravening principles of natural justice and established case law.
Mars Incorporated vs The Registrar Of Trademarks & Ors. on 2 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The case concerns an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, challenging the Registrar’s order dated 25th October 2024, which upheld the abandonment of its trademark application under Section 21(2) due to non-filing of a counter-statement. The appellant argued that the Notice of Opposition was never received, and thus, the timeline for reply never commenced. The Court found merit in the appellant’s claim, noting ambiguity between the Act and Rule 18 of the Trade Marks Rules regarding the date of “receipt.” Relying on precedents, the Court set aside the abandonment and allowed Mars to file its counter-statement.
Loreal India Private Limited vs Mr. Vikash Jain on 7 April, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The defendants were accused of issuing fake job interview letters using Loreal’s trademark and email, defrauding job seekers. The Court found that the defendants’ use of the identical/deceptively similar trademark “L’OREAL” caused confusion and harmed the plaintiff’s reputation. As the defendants (except for those against whom the suit was withdrawn or deleted) did not appear to contest the claims, the Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction restraining the remaining defendants from using the trademark and awarded exemplary damages of ₹50,000 each. The Court reasoned that the plaintiff had proven its case based on the unchallenged evidence.
The plaintiff sued Defendant 1 and others for copyright infringement, trademark passing off, etc. The plaintiff claimed copyright ownership in medical study material under the mark “TARGET MDS” based on agreements with defendants 2 and 3, who were authors. The Court found that while copyright was initially assigned, the plaintiff’s failure to make monthly payments as per the agreements negated the future assignment. The plaintiff also failed to prove actual copyright infringement, not producing the allegedly infringed work “Target Plus” for comparison and although another work “GOAL MDS” was produced but plaintiff could not demonstrate how this work infringed the plaintiff’s copyright work. Therefore, the Court dismissed the suit.
Shambhu Nath And Brothers And Ors vs Renu Goyal on 4 April, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The petitioners filed a suit for infringement and passing off related to the “TOOFAN” trademark for fans. The petitioners are registered owners of “TOOFAN,” and claimed the respondent’s “SUPERCOOL TOOFAN” mark was deceptively similar. The Court had previously granted an interim order in favor of the petitioners due to the respondent’s non-representation. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur confirmed this order, reasoning that the respondent’s mark was prima facie identical and deceptively similar by merely adding a prefix to the essential feature of the registered mark. This act was seen as diluting the distinctiveness and attempting to use the goodwill of the prior adopter, creating a likelihood of confusion in the same market.
S K Educations Pvt Ltd vs Bachpan Convent School on 4 April, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff) was running “BACHPAN” play schools since 2002 with registered trademarks. The defendant opened a school with the name ‘Bachpan Convent School’ and the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark infringement. The court ruled that the defendant’s use of “BACHPAN” was a clear infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark, likely to cause public confusion, thus warranting a permanent injunction. While the Court denied the rendition of accounts due to a lack of evidence of financial loss, it granted punitive damages of Rs. 2,00,000 to deter such deceptive practices.
Chime Financial, Inc vs The Registrar Of TradeMarks on 2 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The appellant appealed the Trade Marks Registrar’s refusal to register their device mark for financial services, citing phonetic and visual similarity to existing marks in similar classes. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Registrar’s order. The Court reasoned that Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act requires a ‘likelihood of confusion’, which depends not only on the similarity of marks but also on the similarity of goods or services. The Court found the cited marks to be for completely dissimilar goods and services (e.g., aircraft parts, security devices, real estate) compared to Chime’s financial software. The Registrar failed to individually analyse the cited marks and assess the likelihood of confusion. Therefore, the court directed the Registrar to proceed with advertising Chime’s mark.
M/S Krbl Limited vs Dinesh Kumar Lahare And Anr on 4 April, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff, proprietor of registered trademarks KRBL and INDIA GATE, sued the defendant for using the deceptively similar marks KBRL and a device of INDIA GATE. The defendant failed to appear or file a written statement, leading to the plaintiff’s claims being deemed admitted. The Court held that since the defendant did not contest the claim, and the plaintiff provided evidence of their registered trademarks and the deceptive similarity of the defendant’s marks, there was no real prospect of the defendant succeeding. Citing that an injunction normally follows in cases of trademark infringement. The Court permanently restrained the defendant from using the infringing marks and granted a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
(Thanks to Advika and Sushant for the case summaries)