A patent and litigation update on the anti-diabetic medication Semaglutide, the how’s and why’s of an interview in the context of IP research, and the copyright history of the Indian national anthem. This and a lot more on last week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Gauging the ‘Weight’ of the Matter: Here’s Your Latest Patent and Litigation Update on Semaglutide
Semaglutide continues to make headlines in India, at the intersection of patent litigation, public health, and global trade. In this post, Tejaswini Kaushal covers the ongoing Delhi HC proceedings over patent rights, the public interest litigation seeking stricter regulation of over-the-counter and off-label use, and the rejection of anticipatory bail in an alleged high-profile counterfeit drug export case. The post sheds light on the legal and regulatory developments that will shape the future of semaglutide in India.
Methodological Reflections: The “How” of doing Interviews in IP legal Research
From drafting the right questions to accessing the right people, Niharika Salar, based on her fieldwork experience, shares her reflection on the how’s and why’s of an interview, especially in the context of IP research.
From the Archives: A Telling Tale of Copyright Over the Indian National Anthem, Jana Gana Mana
On the eve of the 79th Independence Day, Lokesh Vyas shares a historical tale of the unsmooth transfer of copyright of Jana Gana Mana from the Tagore family to the Government of India, and how this process delayed certain national plans. This archival story also sheds light on the question of why the national anthem has remained unchanged, despite the shifting political and geographical realities of India since it was penned in 1911.
Case Summaries
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd v John Doe And Ors on 8 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, proprietor of the sports-aggregator platform ‘FanCode’, filed a suit to protect its exclusive broadcast reproduction rights for various live sporting events, which it had acquired through licensing agreements. The plaintiff alleged that Defendants No. 1 to 8 were rogue websites and applications that were illegally streaming the plaintiff’s exclusive content, thereby infringing its rights under the Copyright Act, 1957. It was also argued that some of these websites used the ‘FanCode’ trademark, amounting to passing off. The High Court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm, especially given the live nature of the sporting events. The Court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from broadcasting the content. Critically, the Court also granted a dynamic injunction, permitting the plaintiff to directly notify Internet Service Providers and government bodies (DoT/MeitY) of any new infringing websites that emerge, to ensure their immediate blocking without having to return to court each time, thereby protecting the plaintiff’s rights for the duration of the sporting events.
The Plaintiff, Triveni Household Items, instituted a trademark infringement suit against the Defendants for using deceptively similar marks, including ‘TRIVENI INTERIO’ and ‘TRIVENI INTERIOR ALMIRAH’. These, the Plaintiff contended, are confusingly similar to their trademarks ‘TRIVENI’ and ‘TRIVENI ALMIRAH’, which they claim to have used since 1995. The latter mark is also a registered trademark. The Plaintiff further alleged that one of the Defendants, being a former employee, had misused insider knowledge with the intention of causing deliberate harm to their business. The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and appointed two local commissioners to visit the Defendants’ premises for the seizure of infringing goods and the collection of evidence. The Court also directed that the plaint be registered as a suit and ordered the issuance of summons to the Defendants.
The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark “SOCIAL” or any deceptively similar variants, holding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff, owner of the registered trademark “SOCIAL” for its chain of restaurants, alleged that the defendant’s use of marks like “DVG SOCIALS BAR & KITCHEN” and “SOCIALS DAVANAGERE” infringed its rights. The court noted the plaintiff’s extensive reputation, substantial revenue (₹475 crores in 2023–24), and prior judicial recognition of the distinctiveness of the SOCIAL mark. The court directed the defendant to cease using the impugned marks and recall related materials.
Phonographic Performance Limited v Urban Mayabazar on 8 August, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The Plaintiff, Phonographic Performance Limited, which holds exclusive rights over a catalogue of sound recordings, instituted a copyright infringement suit against the Defendant, a partnership firm operating three popular restaurants and bars. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had been continuously playing their copyrighted music without obtaining the requisite license for “communication to the public” under Section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957. In this case, the Court found that a prima facie case existed against the Defendant and granted an ad interim injunction, observing that the Defendant’s repeated failure to respond to informal or formal communications amounted to implied acceptance of the Plaintiff’s claims. Further, the Defendant did not appear before the Court to contest the proceedings.
Moondust Paper Pvt Ltd v Vinay Shaw and Ors on 8 August, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The Plaintiff, Moondust Paper, manufactures smoker’s articles such as rolling papers and filters, and has used the trademarks ‘CAPTAIN GOGO’ and ‘GOGO’ since 2015. They also hold copyright over the distinctive artistic designs on their labels and packaging. They filed a suit for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off against the Defendants, who were selling similar products under the marks ‘CAPITAL COCO’, ‘GOGA’, ‘GO N GO’, and ‘GO THREE’. The Court granted an injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, holding that the Defendants’ marks were “visually and phonetically similar” and that their products, sold in the same category and channels, could mislead ordinary consumers.
Rahul Mishra & Anr. v Nishchaiy Sajdeh & Ors. on 4 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs, renowned fashion designers, filed a suit for passing off and copyright infringement to protect their ‘Tigress Artistic Work’ from the celebrated ‘Sunderbans’ collection. They alleged that the defendants were selling garments that unlawfully copied the unique embroidery patterns and floral motifs of their original design. The plaintiffs identified a nexus between the defendants, with Defendant No. 2 allegedly manufacturing the infringing fabric and supplying it to the other defendants for retail. Several defendants, upon being served notice, responded via email, admitting to having used the design and agreeing to take it down. The High Court, considering the pleadings and the admissions from several defendants, found a strong prima facie case. The Court observed that the defendants’ products were likely to cause confusion as to their origin. Accordingly, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining all defendants from manufacturing, selling, or advertising any products bearing the infringing artistic work and directed them to remove all related listings from their platforms.
The plaintiffs, part of the well-known Hamdard Group and owners of the ‘HAMDARD’ trademark since 1906, filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the defendant for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs, whose mark is recognized as ‘well-known’ by the Trademarks Registry, argued that the defendant had dishonestly incorporated itself under the name ‘Hamdard IMF Private Limited’, using the entirety of their reputed mark in its corporate name. The defendant failed to appear in court despite service and the matter proceeded ex-parte. The Commercial Court, in its final ex-parte judgment, found that the plaintiffs’ evidence was unchallenged and established their ownership of the well-known ‘HAMDARD’ mark. The Court held that the defendant’s adoption was a clear violation of the plaintiffs’ statutory and common law rights, intended to deceive the public. Consequently, the Court passed a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the ‘HAMDARD’ mark in its name or in any other manner. The Court also awarded damages of ₹2,00,000 and the costs of the suit to the plaintiffs.
Today Tea Limited v Darjeeling Enterprises Private Limited on 8 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, Today Tea Limited, owner of the trademark/house-mark ‘TODAY’ and its formatives like ‘TODAY STAR’ and ‘TODAY PREMIUM’ since 1994, filed a suit for infringement of its trademark, trade-dress, and copyright. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was selling tea under the marks ‘GANGA SUPER STAR’ and ‘GANGA PREMIUM’ in packaging that was a slavish imitation of the plaintiff’s distinctive trade-dress, including an identical colour scheme, font, and layout. The High Court, upon comparing the competing products, found the defendant’s trade-dress to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s, to the extent that a non-discerning consumer could consider them the same. The Court held that the use of a different house mark (‘GANGA’ instead of ‘TODAY’) was insufficient to distinguish the products, given that the other features of the packaging were nearly identical and dominating. Finding a strong prima facie case in the plaintiff’s favour, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing trade-dress and also appointed Local Commissioners to seize the infringing goods from the defendant’s premises.
Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited & Anr. v Hilton Holidays And Resorts Private Limited on 6 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs, owners of the globally renowned ‘HILTON’ trademark used for hotel and tourism services since 1925, filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off. They argued that the defendant, Hilton Holidays and Resorts Private Limited, had adopted the identical mark ‘HILTON’ as part of its corporate name and was providing similar services such as tour and travel bookings through its website and mobile app. The plaintiffs contended that their mark had acquired a trans-border reputation and secondary meaning, and the defendant’s use was intended to mislead consumers into believing there was an association between the two entities. The High Court noted that the plaintiffs had a substantial reputation and numerous registrations for the ‘HILTON’ mark. The Court found clear evidence of customer confusion from testimonials on the defendant’s own website. Concluding that a strong prima facie case was established and that the balance of convenience and irreparable harm favoured the plaintiffs, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the ‘HILTON’ name or any deceptively similar mark for its services.
Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Private Limited v The Registrar of Trademarks on 7 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The appellant, a restaurant company and owner of the ‘IMPRESARIO’ brand, filed an appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks’ order refusing its application for a logo mark in Class 16. The refusal was based on a likelihood of confusion with a prior registered mark. The appellant argued that it had submitted a co-existence agreement with the owner of the cited mark and that its agent was unable to attend the virtual hearing due to technical issues, a fact that was communicated to the Registrar via email. The Registrar, however, passed the refusal order without considering the submitted documents or the request for another hearing. The High Court held that the Registrar’s failure to consider the evidence and to provide an effective opportunity of being heard constituted a grave violation of the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem). The Court observed that administrative convenience cannot override the fundamental requirement of a meaningful hearing. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar for a fresh hearing and decision on merits.
Madhav KRG Limited v Ms. Satinder Kaur & Anr. on 7 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner, Madhav KRG Limited, owner of the registered trademark ‘JYOTI’ since 2002 for goods in Class 6 such as TMT Bars and steel pipes, filed a petition to cancel the registration of the trademark ‘JOTIK’ held by the respondent. The petitioner argued that the respondent’s mark was deceptively similar to its own well-established mark. It was submitted that the respondent was the wife of a former distributor of the petitioner’s ‘JYOTI’ products, who had recently ceased their business relationship, indicating a mala fide intent in adopting the impugned mark. The petitioner further pointed out that the respondent had also applied for a slogan-based mark that was derived from the petitioner’s own promotional slogan. The High Court, at the prima facie stage, found that the petitioner had established a case for rectification and that the mark ‘JOTIK’ was likely to cause confusion and deception. Accordingly, the Court stayed the operation of the respondent’s trademark registration for ‘JOTIK’ and restrained the respondent from creating any third-party rights in the mark pending the final disposal of the petition.
The defendant, Ranjan Kumar Yadav, was allegedly selling counterfeit jeans and products bearing deceptively similar ‘Levi’s marks’. The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Co., filed a suit against the defendant for trademark and copyright infringement. Due to the non-appearance of the defendant, the matter proceeded ex parte. The Court concluded in favour of the plaintiff, noting that Levi’s trademarks were registered and well-known which, if misused, have the potential to mislead the public and cause damage to its goodwill and reputation. Accordingly, the Court granted a permanent injunction against the defendant from dealing in counterfeit products and awarded 3 lakhs in damages to the plaintiff.
Hero Motocorp Limited v Urban Electric Mobility Private… on 13 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, Hero Motocorp Limited, filed a suit alleging that the defendants, Urban Electric Mobility Private, were selling their electric scooters under the marks “DESTINY”, “DESTINY+”, and “DESTINY PRO” which are deceptively similar to their marks of “DESTINY”, “DESTINI”, and “DESTINI PRIME”. Generally, the parties are required to attempt pre-litigation mediation before filing a commercial suit under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, however, due to the urgency of relief and relying on Yamini Manohar v TKD Krithi, the Court exempted the plaintiff from this requirement. The Court first, found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and subsequently, granted an ex parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
Pitambari Products Pvt. Ltd. sought relief from the Bombay High Court against a video allegedly published by the defendant claiming that the Pitambari metal-cleaning powder is harmful to humans and unfit for religious use. The Court noted that a business can praise their products, however, must not attack their competitors and thereby, granted the plaintiff ad-interim relief. Considering the viewership gained by the impugned video and the consequent disparagement faced by Pitambari, the Court restrained the defendant through a temporary injunction from publishing, sharing, or circulating the impugned video.
Force Motors Limited v Houstan Innovations LLP on 11 August, 2025 (High Court of Delhi)
The Plaintiff, a market leader in the automotive industry and owner of the well-known registered trademark ‘FORCE’, filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Houstan Innovations Llp, was manufacturing and marketing electric scooters under the brand ‘GT FORCE’, which was deceptively similar to its registered mark. The plaintiff argued that such use for related goods was likely to cause confusion and dilute its brand’s goodwill. The Court found that a prima facie case was established and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff. The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant, its agents, and others acting on its behalf from using the impugned mark ‘GT FORCE’ in relation to any identical or similar products until the next date of hearing. The parties were also referred to mediation to explore the possibility of a settlement.
The plaintiff filed a suit for passing off and infringement concerning its distinctive ‘Robin’ bird device mark used for laundry products. The defendant was using a virtually identical bird device mark for similar goods. The defendant claimed use since 1976 and produced a 1997 newspaper advertisement as proof. The plaintiff claimed use since at least 2000 and demonstrated that the defendant’s newspaper evidence was fabricated, as it reported on events from 2005 and 2012. The Court, taking a prima facie view, found the defendant’s evidence of prior use to be manufactured and unreliable. It held that the plaintiff had successfully established its prior use and goodwill since 2000. The Court granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendant from using the impugned bird device mark.
The appellants, owners of the registered trademarks ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ and ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’ for whisky, appealed against the High Court’s refusal to grant an interim injunction against the respondent. The respondent was marketing a whisky under the trademark ‘LONDON PRIDE’. The appellants claimed that the respondent’s mark was deceptively similar to ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ and that its trade dress and colour scheme were a colourable imitation of ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’. The Supreme Court, upholding the concurrent findings of the Commercial Court and the High Court, dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the appellants had failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement or passing off. It reasoned that the term ‘PRIDE’ is a common, laudatory expression and is publici juris in the liquor industry, meaning the appellants could not claim a monopoly over it. Comparing the marks as a whole, the Court found the dominant and distinguishing components, ‘BLENDERS’ and ‘LONDON’, to be entirely dissimilar. It also observed that consumers of premium whisky are discerning and less likely to be confused.
Largan Precision Co., Ltd vs Honor Device Co., Ltd & Anr on 5 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Court issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Honor Device Co., Ltd. and its Indian licensee, restraining them from manufacturing, selling, or importing their Honor 200 series smartphones. The plaintiff, Largan Precision Co., Ltd., a designer and manufacturer of optical lenses, filed a suit alleging that the defendants’ Honor 200 series products infringe on its three patents related to camera lens assemblies (IN 395754, IN395095, and IN363203). The Court, noting the plaintiff’s prima facie case of infringement based on technical analysis, and considering the potential for irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s business, granted the injunction. The Court also cited the defendants’ questionable financial health and the history of one of the defendants with Indian government investigations as factors supporting the need for interim relief.
Jawed Habib Hair And Beauty Limited vs Mehta Star Hotel Pvt. Ltd. on 12 August, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The Court issued an interim injunction in favor of Jawed Habib Hair And Beauty Limited against Mehta Star Hotel Pvt. Ltd. in a case concerning trademark and copyright infringement and passing off. The plaintiff, who owns the registered trademarks for the “Jawed Habib” name and “JH Logo” and the copyright for its artistic caricature, had previously entered into a franchise agreement with the defendant. The Court was informed that this agreement was terminated in February 2023 due to a breach of contract. Despite the termination and a subsequent cease and desist notice, the defendant allegedly continued to use the plaintiff’s trademarks and artistic work. The Court found that the plaintiff had a prima facie case, as its proprietary rights were evidenced by registration certificates and the defendant’s previous use under the terminated franchise agreement constituted an acknowledgment of these rights. The court also noted that the defendant’s continued use of the marks was unauthorized and likely to cause confusion and misrepresentation among the public, potentially injuring the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation.
Dazn Limited & Anr vs Fbstreams.Pm & Ors on 13 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Court granted a dynamic+ injunction to Dazn Limited and another plaintiff against a large number of “rogue websites” and other defendants, including Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The suit was filed to prevent the unauthorized streaming of the upcoming ‘Moses Itauma vs. Dillian Whyte’ boxing event and other live sports content. The plaintiffs, who hold exclusive global media rights to the event, argued that the defendant websites were illegally streaming their content, causing significant financial harm. They also expressed concern that more infringing websites would appear in real time during the live broadcast. The court found that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case and that delaying action would cause irreparable harm. Citing the precedent set in Universal City Studios LLC v. Dotmovies.baby, the court granted a “Dynamic+ injunction,” which not only blocked the currently identified websites but also allowed the plaintiffs to get new, infringing mirror or redirect websites blocked in real time, without needing to return to court. The court directed the DNRs and ISPs to immediately block the specified websites and ordered the DNRs to provide contact details of the website owners.
Mankind Pharma Limited v. Gudwin Herbal Healthcare & Anr. on 1 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff filed the suit to restrain the Defendants from using the Trade Mark ‘GAS-O-FAST’ and passing off the Defendants’ products as those of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sought urgent relief via an ex-parte injunction to prevent irreparable harm due to potential quality risks from Defendants’ products. The Court applying the triple identity (Mark, Product, Trade Channel) test found that the Defendants’ mark is prima facie identical to Plaintiff’s registered trademark. The Court also held that the Plaintiff’s long-standing goodwill outweighs Defendants’ interests and granted an Ex-parte injunction. The Court appointed Local Commissioners to inspect and seize infringing goods at Defendants’ premises.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Himanshu, Shailraj, Srishti and Subhalaxmi for the case summaries)