Starting the month with an analysis of the Delhi HC’s judgment in Novo v. Reddy in the Ozempic dispute. Section 3(k) in the news again in Ab Initio v. Controller, and a trademark battle over the word ‘choice’. 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
Part I- Novo v. Dr. Reddy: Clear the Way or Else Block The Way
In Part I, Yogesh Byadwal discusses the order in Novo v. Dr. Reddy. He highlights the failure of the Court to discuss the application of bolar exception while deciding “clearing the way”. Further, he argues that the Court wrongly disallowed the Defendant from selling in India for failure to clear the way.
Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud! – Analysing Ab Initio Technology LLC v. Controller of Patents
The Madras High Court in Ab initio v. Controller recognises the ‘technical mess’ we are in with respect to Section 3(k). However, the judgment also suggests that there is no easy way out. In a new post, Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan explains the current state of Section 3(k) jurisprudence and argues that while the Court’s effort to clarify Section 3(k) jurisprudence is a welcome step, its formulation/definition of what constitutes “technical” is practically vacuous and functionally empty, and that both the Court and the Controller may have overlooked that the invention could fall foul of Section 3(n) of the Patents Act.
The First Rajiv K. Luthra Memorial Lecture was jointly organized by the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, and the Rajiv K. Luthra Foundation (RKLF) on 29th November 2025. Prof Dev Gangjee from University of Oxford delivered the inaugural lecture on the topic ‘Tools or Partners? Hybrid Human-AI Creativity and the Boundaries of Copyright’, followed by a panel discussion and Q&A with Eashan Ghosh and Prof. Arul George Scaria. In this post, Kartik Sharma discusses the main takeaways from the lecture on the question of human/AI authorship in Copyright Law. He observes that there are broader implications the discourse has on several aspects, including our notions of creativity and the role technology will play towards a promotion of creative production.
Other Posts
Original Sin: Why Inventing Abbreviations Distorts Trademark Law
While the battle over the word ‘choice’ rages, some basic trademark principles are being forgotten. Even though the Supreme Court referred Allied Blenders and John Distillers to mediation, Aryan Agrawal explains why it is not enough. He traces the trajectory of the dispute from the Madras High Court and shows how visual spectacles might have overridden core trademark principles.
Case Summaries
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors vs Greenland Trading Company on 27 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors vs Greenland Trading Company, granted urgent interim relief to the Plaintiffs (Himalaya Wellness). The Court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting triple identity (identical mark, product, trade channel as also consumer base). As the Plaintiff’s Mark had goodwill since 1930 and defendant’s mark is deceptively similar, the Defendant, Greenland Trading Company, was restrained from using the Mark ‘HIMALAYA’ or its variants (and the copyright subsisting therein). The Court also allowed service via WhatsApp and exempted the Plaintiffs from mandatory pre-institution mediation.
Dazn Limited & Anr vs Back.Methstreamer.Com & Ors on 27 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in Dazn Limited & Anr vs Back.Methstreamer.Com & Ors, decreed the suit against 28 rogue websites for infringing DAZN Limited’s exclusive broadcasting rights over the ‘Tyson Fury v Oleksandr Usyk Rematch’. The rogue websites failed to appear or file a written statement despite being served, leading the Court to pronounce judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC. A permanent injunction was granted against the rogue websites, restraining them from unauthorized streaming of content. The Plaintiffs did not press for damages.
Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt Ltd vs Chemco Plast on 3 December, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
In an interim injunction application before the Bombay High Court, the Plaintiff sought to restrain the Defendant from using the mark CHEMCO, alleging infringement and passing off, while on the other hand, the Defendant claimed long, continuous use of the trade name CHEMCO PLAST since the late 1970s. The Court found that the Plaintiff failed to prove a clear flow of title from its alleged predecessor and had not built sufficient goodwill before the Defendant’s own use began in 1999. However, the Defendant had used CHEMCO as a mark, not just a trade name, triggering the Plaintiff’s statutory rights as a registered proprietor. The Court thus, restrained the Defendant from using CHEMCO / CHEMCO PLAST as a trademark, but allowed continued use of CHEMCO PLAST as a trade name or domain name due to long concurrent use, delay, and contested prior user. The passing off was rejected.
The case involved Shalimar Chemical Works suing Edible Products for passing off, alleging that the defendant’s HDPE bottle, color-scheme, and overall packaging deceptively resembled Shalimar’s long-used yellow-green coconut oil trade dress. The trial court had granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned packaging. The Calcutta High Court upheld the temporary injunction. The Court held that Shalimar had established goodwill in its distinctive yellow-green HDPE bottle since 2006, and the defendant’s similar bottle shape, color-scheme, and the overall get-up created a clear likelihood of confusion. The defendant’s claim that the shape was generic was undermined by its own attempt to register that very bottle shape. On the application of the Trinity Test, the Court found goodwill, misrepresentation, and likely damage satisfied, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Novo Nordisk As vs Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr on 2 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from manufacturing Semaglutide until expiry of Suit Patent/ IN 697 on 26 March 2026. The plaintiff argued that export-based manufacture constituted infringement and the defendants failed to ‘clear the way’. The defendants took the Gillette Defence and argued that the drug is covered by expired Genus Patent IN’964. The Court found a credible challenge to Suit Patent on grounds of prior claiming, anticipation by publication and obviousness and dismissed the interim injunction application. The balance of convenience and irreparable injury favoured the defendant and the Court permitted the defendants to manufacture the drug in India for export only to countries where the plaintiff had no patent registration.
Ganraj Enterprises vs Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr on 2 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Landmark Crafts owned two HP trademarks, one was restricted to U.P. (TM 1566805) and a later pan-India registration (TM 2848372), having undisputed use since 2006, including use in Maharashtra as well, from 2010. Ganraj Enterprises, which adopted the trademark HP+ only in 2014, sought rectification of TM 1566805 on grounds of fraud and territorial limitation. The Delhi High Court dismissed Ganraj Enterprises’ appeal seeking rectification of Landmark Crafts’ trademark TM 1566805 for HP. The Court held that challenges relating to alleged fraudulent user claims and territorial limits are issues pending before the Commercial Court and cannot ground rectification here. It found Landmark to be the prior user, including in Maharashtra since 2010, whereas the Appellant failed to prove use of HP+ from 2014. The territorial restriction on TM 1566805 was held not to apply to Landmark’s later pan-India registration TM 2848372 (limitations do not automatically transfer between trademarks). Ultimately, the Registrar of the Trademark Registry Office’s order rejecting rectification was upheld.
The plaintiff filed an appeal against Single Judge’s order returning the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement and passing- off suit against the defendant. The plaintiff accused the defendant of using its marks TADAAKHA, SADANAND and BASANT on cotton hybrid seeds after termination of a marketing agreement. The Single Judge applied the Banyan Tree Test and held that IndiaMart listings of defendant’s products did not establish jurisdiction in Delhi as they were uploaded by third parties. The Division Bench agreed with this reasoning and dismissed the appeal holding that the entire cause of action arose where the plaintiff’s subordinate office was located, and the plaintiff cannot file a suit in Delhi.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Arshiya, Pranjali, and Tharun for the case summaries)