Starting this week with some delightful snapshots for our readers from the SpicyIP Summer School which kicked off with intriguing sessions by Murali Neelakantan and Sandeep Rathod!
Is IndiaMART a marketplace or a directory? – Post on Delhi HC’s granting of interim injunction against IndiaMART. Post on Delhi HC’s domestic injunction against Dr Reddy’s weight loss drug. Do payments for cloud computing services to AWS constitute “royalty”? – Post on Delhi HC’s judgment on the issue. This and much more in our weekly roundup of our blog posts, case summaries, and top IP developments in the country and the world. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
SpicyIP Summer School Kicks Off!
The SpicyIP Summer School kicked off on June 21, with sessions by Murali Neelakantan and Sandeep Rathod. Mr. Neelakantan taught the ‘Lifecycle of a Drug’ whereas Mr. Rathod took a session on Patent Opposition amongst others!
In January 2024 in Puma Se vs IndiaMART, Puma was granted an interim injunction against the intermediary IndiaMART from offering sellers the options to categorise their goods with the trademark of ‘PUMA’. Arnav Kaman explains how the decision sets the right tone by allowing IndiaMART to claim safe harbour defence and clarifying that the liabilities of the trademark infringement lie only between the buyer and seller and not such platforms.
Delhi High Court Ruling: No Royalty for AWS Cloud Payments
In a significant judgement, the Delhi HC in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Amazon Web Service held that payments for cloud computing services to AWS do not constitute “royalty” — one of the reasons being the absence of any commercial exploitation of IP rights involved. Rupam Dubey and Kartik Sharma analyse this judgement, explaining how it marks a pivotal moment in India’s approach to taxing cross-border digital transactions.
Walking on ‘Thin’ Ice: DHC Domestically Injuncts Reddy’s from Selling Novo Nordisk’s Weightloss Drug
On 29 May, the Delhi HC restrained Indian companies Dr. Reddy’s and OneSource Specialty Pharma Ltd from selling semaglutide domestically in a patent infringement suit filed by Novo Nordisk. However, the Court has allowed the companies to continue manufacturing and exporting the drug (for now). Tejaswini Kaushal looks into the order and its implications.
Other Posts
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an appeal against the Controller’s order rejecting a patent for an intermediate on the grounds of Section 3(d). Analysing the Court’s decision, Ayush Shetty argues that the Court might have erred in applying the provision by comparing the intermediate with the final product.
Dark Patterns in the Spotlight as CCPA Pushes for Platform Accountability
On the recently released advisory by CCPA directing e-commerce platforms to detect dark patterns, Anureet Kaur explains the mode of operation under the advisory and assesses its effectiveness.
Panel Discussion: The Future of Affordable Biosimilars in India
TWN invites you to a panel discussion on the future of affordable biosimilars in India. The discussion will take place on June 23, 2025 at 3:30 PM – 5:00 PM. For more details check out their concept note.
Not “Well-Known” Enough? What the Bombay HC’s Decision On TikTok Tells Us About Well-Known Marks
Banned in June 2020 on the grounds of national security, popular short-form video-sharing platform TikTok is no stranger to controversy in India. Continuing this saga, last week, the Bombay HC denied recognition of the registered trademark “TikTok” as a “well-known mark” (under Rule 124, Trademark Rules, 2017). Tanishka Goswami looks at the Bombay HC decision and its implications.
Case Summaries
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd vs The Controller Of Patents And Designs on 12 June, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The disputed invention was a method which supports the driving of a driver by controlling the vehicle enabling it to move towards the centre of a lane. The invention was rejected on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court held that even quasi-judicial authorities are required to give reasons in their orders, which was not provided in the order rejecting the application. The impugned order does not discuss technical advancement of the subject matter and the order was set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Controller.
The disputed application was for lamp lightning controlling circuits that separate alternating current outputs into positive and negative sides and control circuits which stabilize supply of power source of lamp. The application was rejected on the ground that features cited in the documents show obviousness to the person skilled in the art. The application was said to be mere aggregation of prior art and was rejected on lack of inventive features. The matter is remanded back to the Controller.
The present appeal is against the order dated 10.01.2025, wherein the Civil Judge had granted an ex-parte interim injunction restraining the opposite parties from infringing the plaintiff’s registered copyright ‘ARHAM’. The trial court after analysing various features of the Respondent’s (original Plaintiff) mark, found that the trade dress of the Respondent had gained significant recognition, also being the owner of copyright associated with ‘ARHAM’. The Respondent had alleged that the appellant’s use of similar design and colour scheme damages the plaintiff’s reputation. The Court held that the trial court was correct in its intervention and passing the interim injunction order given that the petitioner would suffer harm that may not be quantifiable in monetary terms. The Court dismissing the present appeal remanded the matter to the trial court.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
(Thanks to Riddhi for the case summaries.)